Change to policy – Privacy Consent

26 comments on “Change to policy – Privacy Consent ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Maynard J 1

   29 July 2009 at 3:50 pm

   Watch out, Tim is about to come along and call you hysterical.
   • lprent 1.1

     29 July 2009 at 4:25 pm

     I prefer to keep everyone protected from such morons. I think Tim would applaud it.

     Paula Bennett’s attitude seems to mirror intrusive stalkers like WhaleOil differing in that he bludges off insurance (thereby raising my premiums) while she does it from my taxes (thereby raising my taxes).

     I’d prefer giving money to training people on the DPB so they have a life after raising kids. It is a more productive use of my work.
2. r0b 2

   29 July 2009 at 3:50 pm

   Good move, and what a disturbing trend that it is necessary under this government. Thanks to Anita at Kiwipolitico for drafting the statement.

   I assert that that this policy on “Implied or explicit consent about privacy” applies to the individual posting and commenting here or in any other public forum under the pseudonym “r0b”.

   — r0b
3. BLiP 3

   29 July 2009 at 4:03 pm

   Excellent. Thanks.
4. exbrethren 4

   29 July 2009 at 4:41 pm

   The only thing I give Paula Bennett consent for is to piss off back under the rock from where she crawled.
5. bobo 5

   29 July 2009 at 4:51 pm

   The scary thing is not so much what Bennett has done by releasing the details as that’s no surprise from a National Gov but the apparent support she is getting judging by the herald readers feedback, whether that’s representational or not I don’t know. Forget the dated “Tall Poppy” syndrome, that went out with Fred Dag era, NZ has a “Small Poppy” mentality to blame those on the benefit for their own failures in life , it last reared its ugly head in the 90s.
6. Maynard J 6

   29 July 2009 at 5:07 pm

   While we are here, any thoughts to adding Tracy Watkins to the Media blogroll? hidden away on Dompost.co.nz instead of Stuff it is oft overlooked, and is frequently good (I can see that biting me in the arse when there is one I disagree with).

   e.g.
   • lprent 6.1

     29 July 2009 at 5:33 pm

     Will do…
     • Maynard J 6.1.1

       29 July 2009 at 8:55 pm

       You are too good to us Mr lprent! Journo blogs – makes sense 🙂
7. Murray 7

   29 July 2009 at 5:22 pm

   One thing about The Standard, its always good for a laugh

   IrishBill: I’ve gone back through your comments. You do nothing but troll and I’m pretty certain I’ve banned you before. Take a month off.
8. Rex Widerstrom 8

   29 July 2009 at 5:33 pm

   While I completely and without equivocation support the right to privacy of those who want it, the alternative course is to be totally open about what you’ve done (and has been done to you) and what you’re doing.

   For instance there’s no shame in being in receipt of a benefit for 90+% of those who are (there are a few bludgers who ought to join Paula under her rock), yet we’re embarrassed if life throws us a curve ball and we have to line up at WINZ.

   Well I’ve received the unemployment benefit several times in my life. As someone who thinks we’re overtaxed, I took the view that I was claiming a partial refund 😀 I genuinely needed it at the time and I couldn’t care less whether people knew how much I was getting (actually my partner got most of it, given that we were honest and thus were paid at the “married” rate. I got by on about $120 a week).

   I’m arguing with the IRD over the fact that they decided to go back the full seven years and decide the tax they’d unquestioningly accepted all that time wasn’t enough (an event coinciding with, but I’m sure having nothing whatsoever to do with, my expressing my opinions on the character of the Minister of Revenue).

   And my “criminal” history is pretty well known.

   I think that’s it. If I’ve left anything out, government lickspittles, feel free to comment.

   Now then, Paula et al… bring it.
   • QoT 8.1

     29 July 2009 at 9:58 pm

     Thing is, Rex, while you’re absolutely correct, there are plenty of people who do think there’s something wrong with receiving a benefit, and those people are exactly the ones Bennett was stirring up. And now the actual issue – of the TIA getting spiked – is being ignored (admittedly, also by me!).
     • IrishBill 8.1.1

       29 July 2009 at 10:04 pm

       One of the things that has disturbed me about all this is the number of people who are complaining about how much beneficiaries are getting and blaming them for it. It strikes me that there are a lot of low-paid people who are focusing their anger in the completely wrong direction.

       It’s an unpleasant world when people are sticking the knife into each other over a few crumbs that have fallen from the table.
       • QoT 8.1.1.1

         29 July 2009 at 10:45 pm

         I just cannot wrap my head around underprivileged people who vote Tory, IB.

         ‘Course it’s a lot easier to say “I’m struggling day-to-day because of That Bludger There” than “I’m struggling day-to-day because of systematic oppression and socio-economic mechanisms specifically designed to keep me down”.
         • gingercrush 8.1.1.1.1

           29 July 2009 at 11:06 pm

           Why? Should all New Zealanders share the same views.Also there is huge differences between urban city people with low incomes and country/provincial people with low incomes. Perhaps those in the country and provinces don’t appreciate a political spectrum that allows dependency. A fundamental reason why outside Palmerston North and the big four cities there wasn’t huge support for Labour or the left. That is why Labour hold no electorates outside the cities.
         • felix 8.1.1.1.2

           29 July 2009 at 11:07 pm

           Oh look QoT, you got your head around it after all.

           I knew you would.
         • Rex Widerstrom 8.1.1.1.3

           29 July 2009 at 11:25 pm

           I think a lot of people are aware that there are faults in the system and want to see the rules tightened, and voted for that nice Mr Key thinking he’d bring a firm but fair, patriarchal approach to things. Instead he’s unleashed Paula Bennett and Simon Power.

           The partner of a family member, for instance, a healthy and fit young man, spends his days on various “courses” arranged for him by WINZ and his evenings prostrate on the couch playing with his PS3 while his partner struggles to keep house, raise two children and juggle a part time job. How the system can allow him to coast from one non-job to another I simply can’t understand.

           I’d love a crackdown which saw his ample ass tossed off the couch and into a job – yes, even one at McDonalds if necessary. And if the money that previously went to him and people like him were distributed amongst the deserving recipients, I’d be ecstatic.

           The difference between me and the people to whom you refer is that I’ve been round politics long enough to know that no one is willing to do the hard work necessary to improve things on a micro level and will just make sweeping macro changes which will redistribute inequality.

           In Paula Bennett’s case, after reading recommendations written in stick figures and speech bubbles, by all accounts.
       • Bill 8.1.1.2

         29 July 2009 at 10:59 pm

         When times are economically tough the disadvantaged do tend to turn on minority groupings. Its got nothing to do with being Tory or whatever.

         Foreign workers and foreign small business owners, beneficiaries, immigrants…anyone slightly ‘other’ presents a convenient and thoughtless ‘explanation’ for the majority and becomes a target for all that is going ‘wrong’.

         And all you can expect from the media if or as it hits an ugly spiral is reporting without explanations. They are a part of the real problem as outlined by QoT
9. illuminatedtiger 9

   29 July 2009 at 5:43 pm

   Good move lprent although it is sad that this is even needed.

   All hail the John Key Dictatorship.
10. Scott Yorke 10

    29 July 2009 at 7:25 pm

    The consent wording isn’t actually legally required, but it makes a nice point. I put , something similar on my own site, but only because it seemed cute to do so.
    • lprent 10.1

      29 July 2009 at 7:55 pm

      Yep. But an explicit statement makes it easier to make sure that there are no problems.
11. forgetaboutthelastone 11

    29 July 2009 at 7:28 pm

    Is it possible to figure out what Paula was getting on the DPB? In the interests of transparent debate and all. When was she on it? How many kids?
12. Madeleine 12

    29 July 2009 at 7:52 pm

    It is not necessary to add privacy statements to a blog’s policy because privacy is an issue controlled by legislation; it applies whether people state it does or not (unless, apparently, you are a government minister).
    • lprent 12.1

      29 July 2009 at 7:57 pm

      Yes well it is the Paula Bennett statement..
13. gingercrush 13

    22 August 2009 at 4:36 pm

    You need a permanent tech thread. Sorry but this site isn’t loading properly. I can’t get either side of the site with recent posts or recent comments to load. I can’t even get the paypal thing to load and donate so the site runs better. Also my experience is that this site loads very slowly until late evening/early morning and its been that way for days.

Links to post

1. Change to policy – Privacy Consent at The Standard: posted on 29 July 2009 at 5:51 pm

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS