Access: Privacy and the right to consent are all some people have left. But not for long.
81 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 Newer→ Last
-
Safely sharing information about sensitive matters like a person's health with other agencies relies not just on secure technology but on human ethics.
Ethics are reinforced as part of health sector training and ongoing development and governance, but not necessarily in all public sector disciplines which may have conflicting drivers. Imagine the police accessing your health records, for instance.
I have seen no sign of current government policy or practice on data-sharing addressing this.
-
If you’ve nothing to hide, you’ve got nothing to fear;
Now bend while we check nothing’s hidden up there,
And spread your cheeks wide, so that our probe can clear –
If you’ve nothing to hide, you’ve got nothing to fear.All the records we have we will happily share
With police, or just with our mates over a beer.
You want privacy? Where’d you get that idea?
If you’ve nothing to hide, you’ve got nothing to fear. -
Angela Hart, in reply to
First, government departments are already legally capable of sharing date about you.
Some of them. But there has not previously been a significant centralised data gathering, crunching and analysis capability. There is now as part of the function of Statistics NZ. And alongside that there is an expectation that data will be fed to the monster machine. Technology is always Jekyll and Hyde, depending on how we choose to use or abuse it. There's absolutely nothing to prevent abuse by the authorities. Will they be able to resist temptation?
-
Joe Wylie, in reply to
There is the Privacy act. And that's not nothing.
Despite Paula Bennett being found to have breached the Privacy Act, any consequences were easily deflected by her minders.
-
Joe Wylie, in reply to
Yes, the Privacy act isn't that much of a deterrent.
-
Sacha, in reply to
We don’t have to collect personal data at the small not for profit organisation that I’m a part of, for a year becouse it’s all trauma related. Women’s refuge should get the same waiver.
The government wants to quieten unrest until after the election, that's all - and yes they've backed off on Refuge for the same time.
Fundamentally, this govt's interest in trauma is how much it costs the state and how the private sector can benefit from it financially. Nothing humane or ethical about it.
-
Sacha, in reply to
I don’t know if there has ever been a lot of public trauma treatment.
Never enough. One of the best things any government could invest in to improve the wellbeing of our citizens, communities and economy is free counselling and other treatment services - and I mean billions, not millions. The cost of trauma is so damn high in so many ways.
-
I went to a talk on this new policy at the Fabians in Wellington by Brenda Pilott, formerly of MSD and the PSA. She now works in the community sector. She has OIA'd the official papers.
I learnt many things: that there is no clear line between collecting this data and how it will lead to measurable better outcomes for anyone; that the Minister and the PM are personally pushing the implementation of this policy, and it has already appeared in contracts such as the Social Workers in Schools contract (which work with some of the most complex families in NZ, so who would be signing over consent for whom?). Apparently those using the services and thus handing over data will have to do it via the horrifically complicated RealMe system, and then someone (who is not clear) in MSD will check the veracity of the identity and data and send it back if there are any problems. If people agree to releasing some of their data but not the rest it is not clear what will happen.
So there are a lot on unanswered questions. It is clear this is an ideological answer to an unclear problem by politicians in a hurry and without concerns for ethics. But we know it is likely a trap for those who are poorer as the private details of those who can afford to pay for such services will not be collected.
The good news is that all political parties apart from National are opposed to this policy so there is a solution via voting on 23 September.
-
Sacha, in reply to
there is no clear line between collecting this data and how it will lead to measurable better outcomes for anyone
Because the intent is to reduce government spending over time, not necessarily to otherwise measurably help any real people.
She said the same in a recent RNZ interview and I couldn't tell whether Ms Pilott is overlooking their motivations or if she's keeping her powder dry in some Thorndon-ish fashion.
-
Hilary Stace, in reply to
Yes she mentioned that too. She has an understated style in that public service way but she expressed quiet rage in her slides.
-
Moz, in reply to
the intent is to reduce government spending over time
per capita. Remember that they also want to be able to announce increases in the total spend on a regular basis. Pedants talking about "real increases" and "per capita" are unpatriotic nitpickers who should shut up and let those who can, do. Unless they want to be done to, understand me?
-
Another privacy breach does not inspire any confidence in MSD data security http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/328235/msd-'shut-down'-it-portal-over-privacy-breach
-
Sacha, in reply to
I don't know who has been building their software but I'd be demanding a refund for incompetence - and if internal staff are responsible, some firings might be instructive.
-
linger, in reply to
If it's internal staff, firings at that level probably would not help, because the basic institutional problem in that case would be that those staff were asked to do things they're not trained for, on a ridiculous timeframe, with insufficient budget and insufficient direction in terms of project specifications -- because management were and are clueless about what they were asking for. And if you squint at it the right way, it's possible to see that kind of clusterfuck arising as a result of a genuine intention to preserve data confidentiality by keeping development in-house. (Oh, and of course to do it as cheaply as possible.)
Even if it's an external contractor, the managerial incompetence is such that I'd bet that the specifications given were insufficient to actually hold the contractor to a performance clause.
-
Sacha, in reply to
because management were and are clueless about what they were asking for
that's the level I was thinking of
-
Privacy Commissioner says govt's social sector data-sharing compulsion is excessive and disproportionate.
-
Hilary Stace, in reply to
Thanks for posting that so speedily, Sacha. Minister Tolley's response on RNZ shows she still doesn't get it.
-
Apparently 10 agencies already handing over data. Wonder who they are?
Interview on Kathryn Ryan RNZ at the moment with MSD man who heads their current work on individual client data. Apparently this policy is driven by the Minister against much of the officials’ advice. This current interview is very interesting in that it is a public servant (who probably privately doesn’t support this policy) having to defend it and also the Minister and Government, and being grilled by the interviewer with leading questions like, “Do you truly believe… ?”. No wonder there is so much misery and stress across much of the public service at the moment. They are supposed to be the servants of the public, not the mouthpieces of the Minister.
-
-
Not content with just collecting individual named client data the Government is now setting up a new government agency to facilitate and extend surveillance. It will be called the Social Investment Agency, with its own board. A sort of Five eyes for the vulnerable, poor and marginalised.
https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/changing-lives-through-social-investment#.WPlXyYohleU.facebook
-
Breaking News! Apparently Ministers Tolley and Adams have decided this policy requiring personal information from poor people is not a good look in election year and have ditched it. The new Social Investment Agency to be set up by 1 July will develop a Plan B.
-
Sacha, in reply to
That's a major change. Where did you hear?
-
We really have nothing on Italy's govt when it comes to flouting consent.
-
Ah, it's just not kicking in on 1 July while they do more planning about it.
- Govt media release.
- Privacy Commissioner's response. -
Hilary Stace, in reply to
I suspect those Cabinet Ministers are working on some way around it for a time when an election is not 4 months away.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.