Comments on: Big brother is yarning to your boss

By: corkscrew

corkscrew — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 01:53:30 +0000

Under s.114 Land Transport Act it’s just name, dob, address and the owner of the vehicle if it is not you.
The the LSA advises that in relation to circumstances not governed by special legislation like the LTA or the Sale of Liquor Act, police have no power to require any information from citizens (prior to arrest).

By: Phil Lyth

Phil Lyth — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 23:52:51 +0000

@Rex. The Privacy Commissioner privacy.org.nz is very clear on the definition:

“Personal information”
Information about a living human being.
The information needs to identify that person, or be capable of identifying that person.

Although NZ Police have never been big fans of Privacy or Official Information Acts.

Captha: suspecting

By: Tiger Mountain

Tiger Mountain — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 18:15:03 +0000

This does have a creepy edge to it given the â€˜Air NewZealander’ culture Mr Rob Fyfe has tried to create at the company. I wonder if the cops have a corporate list or provide this type of snooping for any employer?

According to the media the woman had a residual reading from the night before rather than having consumed drink immediately prior to driving. Anyway it was an intrusive act and what we can expect more of as the authorities become able to monitor “everyone, everywhere’ as they desire in the 3 surveillance bills before parliament.

By: Rex Widerstrom

Rex Widerstrom — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 09:20:20 +0000

WTF indeed. When I tried getting my Police file for free under freedom of information provisions I was told that I couldn’t as it wasn’t “personal information” and I’d have to pay $500 or more.

That was on the basis that an email from Officer A to Officer B, solely about me, wasn’t considered by the Police to be personal information of mine, but rather of the two officers!

Aside from discouraging my curiosity by imposing a significant financial cost, I also suspected that a lot of what I wanted to see would in fact be found to compromise the right to privacy of the officers concerned, or some other spurious nonsense, and I’d be shelling out $500 just to read the cover page.

Nice to see they’re volunteering the information for free now. Since I employ myself, perhaps I should have another go and explain that I want to see if I’m a suitable employee.

By: infused

infused — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 07:30:37 +0000

Rule of thumb. Tell them as little as possible.

By: rocky

rocky — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 04:53:59 +0000

Name, Address, Date of Birth, and Occupation (but not place of employment) are generally considered the only things you are required to tell the police. Even those things aren’t always required, but they definitely are when you’re driving a vehicle.

By: Draco T Bastard

Draco T Bastard — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 04:02:54 +0000

The police shouldn’t have been contacting her employer.

By: ghostwhowalksnz

ghostwhowalksnz — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 03:38:38 +0000

There is no obligation on anybody to provide the name of their employer to the Police , when arrested.
If you have ID cards on you they may discover them during a search of your possesions, however never answer any questions apart from name and address , when you are a driver of a vehicle

By: prism

prism — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 02:09:46 +0000

Merely being stopped by the police could have had such an appalling effect on that person that she was rendered incapable of carrying out a day’s work! The fact that she was inebriated only added to the trauma. This is a bit of over-zealousness on the part of police, isn’t it. What then do people think about having a combined effort with Oz police on December 12? when all police are going to have a co-ordinated practice thrust at offenders.

Personally I have been stopped and checked in one of those police dragnets though I was not over the limit or driving at all erratically and found it shocking. Particularly the fact that I couldn’t just breathe into the test meter and go on my way, but that I was under surveillance and had to speak my name into it which was then checked on their computer, which I considered was an invasion of my privacy. I drove away and then was anxious that I had moved before being told to, it all smacked of police-controlled state. The reason being that it is to control drunkenness and the consequent criminal behaviours. Drunkenness could be limited by hours being limited so that ordinary citizens don’t have to have sort of pass laws to contend with.

I don’t like this random testing. I quite understand Alan Duff getting annoyed similarly as reported in the news some time ago.

By: Draco T Bastard

Draco T Bastard — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 01:13:23 +0000

That’s bad, very bad. Especially considering that she had a valid reason to call in sick (Being drunk is a valid reason to call in sick).

By: BLiP

BLiP — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 00:38:11 +0000

National

By: felix

felix — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 00:35:44 +0000

What’s that word again?

You know, the one that means a collusion between big business and big government?

By: Hot Celebrities Talk

Hot Celebrities Talk — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 15:48:34 +0000

Big brother is yarning to your boss at The Standard: The New Zealand labour movement used to have its own newsp.. http://bit.ly/5QB3dg