Posts by merc
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
OnPoint: The Source, in reply to ScottY,
Agreed. Yes but you have to prosecute it in order to get any redress. The main thing I am going to watch for is how the Govt. gets away with total negligence, once again.
-
OnPoint: The Source, in reply to Sacha,
I thought answered that. I'm talking about before not after the fact. If Govt. has no legal ramifications for not providing duty of care (notified in law), then why should they bother, and it appears, they don't.
Hence why Bennett can out a person's file with impunity...needless to say there appears to be a problem with Police deciding prosecutions, ref Key teapot tapes and so on.
It's not a sophisticated argument, it's really about what we are actually voting for. -
OnPoint: The Source, in reply to Chris Waugh,
Sadly I think, way too far down the chain. If the Dept. has a legal requirement to perform to described duty of care practices there would be no need for further down the chain buck passing that frankly you and I could not afford.
Interesting that BORA is not enshrined in law no? All this is heading in one direction for me. -
OnPoint: MSD's Leaky Servers, in reply to Matthew Poole,
This Govt. has proven time and time again that they feel no need to assess costs. This time it is so glaringly obvious that no one is thinking about the very people they are supposed to be helping that no review of costs is going to change the simple fact that the problem is demonstrably Govt. unbounded, unchecked and un-checkable.
-
OnPoint: MSD's Leaky Servers, in reply to Ian Dalziel,
I think they think that the 'duty' bit means a tax of some sort...
Heh. I think it is timely we ask the real simple questions of our Govt. as to what they consider adequate duty of care for our most vulnerable, don't you?
-
OnPoint: The Source, in reply to Sacha,
I started with trying to find what the legal situation in NZ is with Govt. Dept's legal duty of care. As far as I can find, there is none. There are statements of care, mission statements, not legally binding ones. Case law exists but that is to contend if there was duty of care, nominal position. I can find no actual legal requirement for in this instance WINZ or DSW having to protect your private information if you have been required to provide it. Prisons and Police hopefully have it.
All this is essential because if you are going to have inquiries it behoves you to define just what law the inquiry is against and most law is contractual in these cases.
Otherwise it's just experts arguing with each other over he said, she said. If there is no legal requirement for Govt. to adequately protect citizens private information, then why bother? -
OnPoint: The Source, in reply to Ian Dalziel,
Yes but no legal duty of care, at all.
-
OnPoint: MSD's Leaky Servers, in reply to John Holley,
The mind boggles on the potential level of exposure we face.
As with leaky buildings Council failure, the physical cost to the taxpayer will be huge, far outweighing any gains made in kiosks (Air NZ model right?).
We need to know how much Govt. has exposed us to liabilities for non-transparent spending decisions. -
OnPoint: MSD's Leaky Servers, in reply to Kumara Republic,
Hehe, I doubt it, but I note that the legal responsibilities of Govt. are never discussed in context with systemic failures.
It would appear we have no legal right of redress in such instances. Pretty glaring hole in our democracy wouldn't you say? -
OnPoint: MSD's Leaky Servers, in reply to Matthew Poole,
Their basic duty of care...
aha. haha. hahahahahahahahaha.
I am fairly sure they have a legal one. Otherwise we are screwed.