Muppets.

100 comments on “Muppets. ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Tracey 1

   16 December 2013 at 11:58 am

   What about the privacy act which says you can only use people’s data for the purpose you stated to them. i don’t recall ticking any boxes stating anyone could use my details for anything other than the petition?

   Limits on use of personal information (principle ten)

   An agency that holds personal information that was obtained in connection with one purpose shall not use the information for any other purpose unless that agency believes, on reasonable grounds, –

   (a) that the source of the information is a publicly available publication; or

   (b) that the use of the information for that other purpose is authorised by the individual concerned; or

   (c) that non-compliance is necessary –

   (i) to avoid prejudice to the maintenance of the law by any public sector agency, including the prevention, detection, investigation, prosecution, and punishment of offences; or

   (ii) for the enforcement of a law imposing a pecuniary penalty; or

   (iii) for the protection of the public revenue; or

   (iv) for the conduct of proceedings before any court or tribunal (being proceedings that have been commenced or are reasonably in contemplation); or

   (d) that the use of the information for that other purpose is necessary to prevent or lessen a serious threat (as defined in section 2(1)) to –

   (i) p
   • Bill 1.1

     16 December 2013 at 12:02 pm

     I don’t know about the details of the Privacy Act. All I know about is the common sense and decency angle. Best way to piss people off and make sure they never sign a petition again is to pester them.
     • Paul 1.1.1

       16 December 2013 at 12:03 pm

       Where did you hear this?
       • Bill 1.1.1.1

         16 December 2013 at 12:04 pm

         Mike Williams on 9 to noon with Hooton.
         • Paul 1.1.1.1.1

           16 December 2013 at 12:06 pm

           Get him off the radio

           [Bill:- updated the post with relevant links]
2. Idiot/Savant 2

   16 December 2013 at 12:04 pm

   When I was petitioning for the referendum, I discouraged people from providing email addresses because I did not trust Labour (and specifically Labour) to obey the Privacy Act and use them solely for the purpose for which they were collected. I am not glad to have those suspicions confirmed.
   • Anne 2.1

     16 December 2013 at 1:32 pm

     I told signers of the petition that if they would like to be contacted by interested parties, then provide your email address. If not, then don’t provide it. Some were happy about that… others not so they left it out. All of them were grateful to have the choice, and no-one complained.

     As an LP member, that was meant to be the basis of the email address being provided.
     • Bill 2.1.1

       16 December 2013 at 1:49 pm

       And you’ve highlighted an obvious glitch right there. That you were explicit is one thing. But how many signature gatherers you reckon elevated the gathering of contact info above the simple collection of signatures resulting in them saying to people something along the lines of “We need your email address here.”?

       All petitions or forms that have a space for details and that may follow up on those details has to have an obvious ‘tick box’ or some such that clearly indicates permissions given.

       This isn’t in response to your comment Anne, but it astounds me how I – an amateur activist – understands this and has understood it from the get go (years back) and yet to so-called professionals it’s all seemingly so much ‘whoosh’ over the head stuff.
       • Idiot/Savant 2.1.1.1

         16 December 2013 at 1:58 pm

         Respect for privacy may be a generational thing. Mike Williams predates the Privacy Act – and it shows.
         • Murray Olsen 2.1.1.1.1

           17 December 2013 at 1:28 am

           I predate the Privacy Act. I think that pestering people using email addresses they’ve put on a petition would be stupid and counterproductive. I agree with Bill.
       • Anne 2.1.1.2

         16 December 2013 at 3:15 pm

         Agree with you Bill.
         That’s why I phrased my response the way I did. Instinct tells one to be clear about what will happen if you provide your email address. Even so, my local Labour organisers ensured we gave petition signers the choice, but how many other gatherers were given no instructions at all. I imagine plenty…
         • Anon 2.1.1.2.1

           16 December 2013 at 8:52 pm

           The labour party was quite happy to give out copies of the petition for members of the public to collect signatures and send in, no way for the collecter to even know the intended purpose of the email field. As stated by others, the purpose of the email field needs to be explained at least on the form itself.
       • Matthew Whitehead 2.1.1.3

         16 December 2013 at 5:53 pm

         Yep. And if they only intend to use your email address for other purposes, they need to state those purposes outright when collecting your information, preferably in writing as well as out loud.
3. BM 3

   16 December 2013 at 12:10 pm

   According to a post on whale oil this is going to be a major component of the greens election strategy.
   Can’t say I really agree with the methods.

   http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2013/12/green-party-data-scammers-look-guidelines/
   • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 3.1

     16 December 2013 at 12:20 pm

     I believe the Greens had a campaign asking if you want to sign up and be involved – that is completely different.
     • Bill 3.1.1

       16 December 2013 at 12:35 pm

       That would be fine. It’s a simple and no-brainer option to offer people. I just can’t remember what the story was when I signed. Anyway….
   • bad12 3.2

     16 December 2013 at 2:11 pm

     According to Blubber Boy’s ‘wail oil’, you scrape the bottom of the barrell inviting derision BM…
   • Naturesong 3.3

     16 December 2013 at 3:04 pm

     Not going to give Cam any clicks.

     The greens are pretty strict on informed consent for emailing people. You won’t get unsolicited mail.
     There was a campaign earlier in the year to generate an email list by the greens, they were pretty explicit at the time that it would be used to provide updates and raise funds.
     Been trying to find it but cant remember the name, I remember at the time thinking it was pretty naff (the name of the campaign).

     If you could provide evidence of the greens misuse of email lists I’d appreciate it.

     I know other members, like myself, will not tolerate that sort of behaviour by the party.

     In the mean time, and until you provide evidence, I’m going to call bullshit.
     • you_fool 3.3.1

       16 December 2013 at 3:28 pm

       I was bad and did give him a click… the post seems to be taking plenty out of context and gives no real evidence that the greens are using peoples contact details inappropriately. i was trying to find the post in question on the standard but couldn’t find it, until I realised that it was made on 25th Sept..

       Also I am pretty sure my IQ level has dropped by a few points just by reading the linked article and the comments
       • Paul 3.3.1.1

         16 December 2013 at 7:07 pm

         You read the comments. That was brave.
     • BM 3.3.2

       16 December 2013 at 3:32 pm

       There was this comment

       http://thestandard.org.nz/labour-up-6-8-herald-digipoll/#comment-701162

       How that ties in with the emails, I’m not sure but the timing is certainly interesting.
       • McFlock 3.3.2.1

         16 December 2013 at 3:36 pm

         🙄
       • you_fool 3.3.2.2

         16 December 2013 at 3:38 pm

         Appears to me to be nothing about emails from petitions, but a social media campaign, which is easy to do without peoples emails from other sources. Nothing seems to connect the two dots other than a desire to do so, or am i missing something major?
       • Naturesong 3.3.2.3

         16 December 2013 at 3:42 pm

         So, “A” party plotting a very hip social media strategy to get non voters out in numbers for the 2014 election.

         Hip social media strategy does sound to me like the Greens.
         Also sounds above board. I can’t see any issues there.

         But you can imagine how much of a black eye it would be for them if they were using peoples emails inappropriately, right before election time.
         I wonder if Cam will try and manufacture something?
         • BM 3.3.2.3.1

           16 December 2013 at 3:48 pm

           He certainly could do, especially with his “tip line”.
         • Murray Olsen 3.3.2.3.2

           17 December 2013 at 1:31 am

           “Hip” could be Pete George planning something on behalf of United Dunnies. Or maybe even Colon Craig. I can’t see anyone else using a term like that, unless it were NAct. In that case, Blubber Boy would find it inspired.
       • Bill 3.3.2.4

         16 December 2013 at 3:48 pm

         The comment refers to an a-political group. That rules out the Greens and Labour and the Asset petition right there…unless, of course, they passed the fcking info on to a third party.
         • Naturesong 3.3.2.4.1

           16 December 2013 at 4:01 pm

           Ahh, cheers. I mis read
         • you_fool 3.3.2.4.2

           16 December 2013 at 4:20 pm

           Whilst this may be your point, the “A” I think is in regard to an A grade, i.e. excellent.

           Or is could be “A” as in “x” or unidentified, it is not very clear
   • Anne 3.4

     16 December 2013 at 3:27 pm

     Pffff. What does Blubber Boy know about the Greens’ strategy. No, I haven’t opened the link. I have standards.
   • Macro 3.5

     16 December 2013 at 7:09 pm

     Another Bowel Motion…..
4. blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 4

   16 December 2013 at 12:14 pm

   Yep good post it would be a bad move.

   I personally have learned to expect that I will be on an email list after signing a petition for activist sites, [I didn’t like that at first yet it is easy to get off those lists and have decided not to because I like knowing what is going on in certain areas] however it is a different thing completely for a political party to do this. That would be a very bad idea.
5. weka 5

   16 December 2013 at 12:16 pm

   I have a feeling that the GP considers the information to be theirs to use. Certainly for petitions in general they want to use the contact details if provided.

   “We want to stay in touch with supporters about the campaign and other Green Party activities. That’s why we ask for email, address and phone. Contact info is optional, email is best.”

   https://www.greens.org.nz/petitions/volunteerinstructions
   • Bill 5.1

     16 December 2013 at 12:32 pm

     Hmm. Your link refers to Parliamentary petitions (eg, asset sales) rather than general petitions. I searched for a link to download the petition form to see if there was a ‘buy in’ option. Couldn’t find any such link though. (Would I be correct in thinking the petition came in some official format that would preclude the inclusion of a ‘buy in’?)

     Anyway, would be planking my head on the table repeatedly about now because of the potential for Stupid, but I kinda don’t like pain.
     • Idiot/Savant 5.1.1

       16 December 2013 at 12:46 pm

       The petition form’s only nod to the Privacy Act was a note saying “To keep up to date with the campaign please provide your email and phone number”. Which suggests strongly that use of the information collected should be limited to the actual referendum campaign, not the wider political campaigning of the petitioner or political parties doing the collection.
   • toad 5.2

     16 December 2013 at 12:57 pm

     What’s more, all emails a person receives from the Greens in response to signing a petition have the following options:

     Unsubscribe from this email list

     Change subscriptions and update your details – subscribe to email newsletters and more

     Unsubscribe from all emails

     So at any time a person who opts to go onto the Green database through signing a petition can unsubscribe from receiving all emails, or particular types of emails from the Greens (or can add particular additional types of emails they want to receive if they wish).
     • framu 5.2.1

       16 December 2013 at 1:09 pm

       “So at any time a person who opts to go onto the Green database through signing a petition”

       but unless that situation was stated up front all they did was sign a petition – thats the problem

       Im a solid green voter but i detest ANYTHING turning up in my email that i didnt ask for. Even from those i support

       like others have said – all it needs is an opt in check box – “do you want to receive further communications from the green party”.

       It shouldnt be an opt out later situation
       • Naturesong 5.2.1.1

         16 December 2013 at 3:17 pm

         It’s one of my pet peeves.
         After looking for a house it took me months to get off all the real estate email spam lists
     • Bill 5.2.2

       16 December 2013 at 1:12 pm

       Toad. If I sign a petition, it means that I’m signing a petition. And that’s it. The signing is not a license for the holder of the petition to contact me on either that or other matters unless they have explicitly sought and received my permission to do so.

       As I said in the post, I’ve collected signatures and details on a number of occasions. Usually the petition was simply to give people the feeling they were doing something in support of whatever the cause was…ie, it wasn’t really of any consequence or help. Anyway, I can say with absolute confidence that most people who sign a petition want the signing to be the beginning and end of their involvement. (This from the %age of ‘buy in’ when a ‘buy in’ option was put on forms and pointed out to people)

       But sure, feel entitled to pester people as you seem to indicate is your ‘right’ having gained contact details. It’ll blow up in your face.
       • Te Reo Putake 5.2.2.1

         16 December 2013 at 1:18 pm

         “The signing is not a license for the holder of the petition to contact me on either that or other matters unless they have explicitly sought and received my permission to do so.”

         And seeking that permission is exactly what the petition form does. If you provide the contact info, expect a call or an email.
         • Bill 5.2.2.1.1

           16 December 2013 at 1:23 pm

           Simply referring you to Idiot/Savant’s comment (5.1.1) above. Says all that needs to be said on the asset petition.

           That I was referring to ‘informal’ petitions should have been obvious and no, simple signing of such petitions confers no permissions.
           • Te Reo Putake 5.2.2.1.1.1

             16 December 2013 at 1:27 pm

             Referring to I/S’s narrow understanding of what the word campaign means doesn’t help. The anti asset sales campaign continues unabated and the use of the contact details for the purpose for which they were provided is not only sensible, it’s vital.
     • Anne 5.2.3

       16 December 2013 at 1:39 pm

       Similar policy to Labour toad.

       ALL recipients of Labour info. can simply click on “unsubscribe” if they don’t want to receive anything.

       That’s a whole lot different to National. Last I heard you only had to buy a Nat. Party- run raffle ticked at a Fair or some such place and bingo… you were a paid up member of the National Party.
       • felix 5.2.3.1

         16 December 2013 at 6:14 pm

         “Last I heard you only had to buy a Nat. Party- run raffle ticked at a Fair or some such place and bingo… you were a paid up member of the National Party.”

         That’s terrible. And not far from what some here are suggesting would be ok for Labour and Greens to do.
         • Blue 5.2.3.1.1

           21 December 2013 at 10:29 am

           I agree it would be “terrible” were it true. It’s a lie unless Anne can provide evidence that buying a raffle ticket makes you a member of the party.
           • Anne 5.2.3.1.1.1

             21 December 2013 at 5:06 pm

             @ Blue

             It was a National Party member who told me. Admit it was years ago and may well no longer be occurring but it was the norm once. I can’t produce the evidence so that means I’m lying? What you’re saying is: anyone who knows anything – either by way of information passed on to them or having witnessed something – is lying if they can’t of themselves produce the evidence.

             X rings police. “I’ve just seen a submarine surface in the Gulf. It’s gone back down now but it was on the surface for about five to ten minutes.”

             Officer: “where’s the evidence?”

             X : “I didn’t have a camera on me so don’t have any evidence.”

             Officer: “oh well in that case you’re lying.”

             That actually happened in 1985 around the time of the Rainbow Warrior bombing. It happened in the middle of the night so camera bit didn’t apply. Witness wasn’t believed. Turned out it was almost certainly a French submarine and linked to the bombing.
     • JustLikeTigerWoods 5.2.4

       16 December 2013 at 8:24 pm

       Send an email to me, Toad, and I’ll be lodging a complaint with the Privacy Commission.

       Do you feel lucky?
6. Rogue Trooper 6

   16 December 2013 at 12:25 pm

   Poor Form.
7. Idiot/Savant 7

   16 December 2013 at 12:34 pm

   I encourage everyone who believes their information has been misused in this way to lodge a complaint with the Privacy Commissioner.

   Also remember to tell the world you’ve done so. Bad publicity is an effective weapon against politicians; make sure you use it.
   • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 7.1

     16 December 2013 at 1:06 pm

     … before you do that – if it is regarding a political party consider what approach will give National the ammo required in order to fool New Zealanders into voting them in again…perhaps a quick email to your local representative first and gauge whether their response is apologetic, acknowledging the problem and resolving to correct the fault and learn from their mistakes?
     • Idiot/Savant 7.1.1

       16 December 2013 at 2:01 pm

       Fuck ’em. If Labour didn’t want bad PR hobbling its chances, they should have thought about that before pulling this scam. And if you don’t want Labour’s chances hobbled by such self-inflicted wounds, you should talk to them about it.

       https://www.labourparty.org.nz/contact
       • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 7.1.1.1

         16 December 2013 at 2:13 pm

         Yes…I did think such things prior to responding to your comment (!).

         I concluded another National government would be utterly devastating and worse than having to unsubscribe to a misguided electioneering approach by Labour.

         However we shouldn’t have to choose between a respect for our privacy and a government lacking interest in pursuing policies in New Zealanders’ best interests

         And so I hope Labour members are keeping an eye on the blogs and getting their shit together – get their priorities clear – and I hope left wing people do too – because National do the divide and rule a whole lot better than they do ‘governing in New Zealanders’ best interests’. We must not let them take power next year.
         • Matthew Whitehead 7.1.1.1.1

           16 December 2013 at 6:15 pm

           We don’t have to choose between those things.

           The Labour Party has to choose between giving the National Party ammo, and respecting our privacy. We have to choose between taking such treatment quietly, or not at all, and I don’t think our choice is really a choice, to be honest. If Labour’s already crossed the lines of acceptable behaviour, they need to be held accountable regardless of how it effects the election- because if they can hold our complaints hostage based on the election result, then we’ll never have an opportunity to complain, ever.
           • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 7.1.1.1.1.1

             16 December 2013 at 7:56 pm

             Well we ain’t getting our privacy rights respected by this lot…& I’ve a feeling Labour would be prepared to rectify at least some of the damage done by this govt…so you can argue over junk mail details but I’d say you had lost perspective.
       • Vagabundo 7.1.1.2

         16 December 2013 at 4:13 pm

         You’re acting like they’re actually listening to what Williams has said.
         • Bill 7.1.1.2.1

           16 December 2013 at 4:19 pm

           I wrote the post, fearful that what Williams was saying was what Labour were already thinking. Hence the “I sincerely hope he wasn’t channeling an idea that has any traction within the Labour Party…”
           • Matthew Hooton 7.1.1.2.1.1

             16 December 2013 at 6:18 pm

             Of course gathering email, postal and physical addresses was the point of the petition for the CIR. What possible other purpose could it have had? Have you never talked to a serious political organiser like Mike, or Bunny, or Matt, and worked out how they think?
             • QoT …

               16 December 2013 at 7:03 pm

               Certainly no one was actually, you know, trying to get enough signatures for a CIR. 🙄
             • KJT …

               16 December 2013 at 7:26 pm

               Well. I was just getting signatures for a CIR.
             • Paul …

               16 December 2013 at 7:29 pm

               Spinning and now stirring.
             • SHG (not Colonial Viper) …

               17 December 2013 at 1:35 pm

               Of course gathering email, postal and physical addresses was the point of the petition for the CIR. What possible other purpose could it have had?

               This x10000.
   • Tracey 7.2

     16 December 2013 at 3:28 pm

     this is the form I downloaded and got signatures for

     https://www.greens.org.nz/sites/default/files/KOA-CIR-Petition-Form.pdf

     note: the form says if you want to be kept up-to-date with the campaign to provide more details. An ordinary reading might suggest that once the CIR ended, so did the purpose for the details.
     • Bill 7.2.1

       16 December 2013 at 3:38 pm

       This is somewhat beside the point of whether the contact details should be used.

       But the bloc for the voluntary info is not separated from the bloc for necessary info….they are joined and continuous. And there is only one clearly labelled optional box – date of birth. If each ‘phone number/email’ box had a similar (optional) label as the date of birth box instead of a wholly detached ‘up in the right hand corner’ black explanatory box that flies in the face of the reasonable assumption that all the info boxes belong to the same discrete whole that asks for all necessary info to be supplied (Date of Birth being the only info clearly labelled as optional…)

       Anyway. Not the clearest of layouts/designs is my point. (Possibly deliberately so?)
       • Naturesong 7.2.1.1

         16 December 2013 at 3:50 pm

         Seems reasonably clear to me.

         Only the fields that are required actually have headings at the top of the column;
         Signature and DoB, Full Name and Residential Address.

         The big highlighted “Stay Connected” in the top right hand corner is also a bit of a givaway.

         If email addresses from this KOA campaign ended up being used for fundraising for next years election by any political party, I would consider that an abuse.
         Reading the form, I would expect that any emails collected would be used by the Keep Our Assets group for the purposes of that specific campaign.
         Also remember, that this was not initiated by the Greens, but by Grey Power who signaled their intention to push for a CIR before the 2011 election.
         • Bill 7.2.1.1.1

           16 December 2013 at 3:54 pm

           A detached black box above and to the right is a trick of highlighting!? Whatever. I mean, people give this sort of form a quick scan – not a read. And they make fast and easy assumptions based on their initial scan.
           • Naturesong 7.2.1.1.1.1

             16 December 2013 at 3:56 pm

             I think you are being deliberately obtuse

             … people give this sort of form a quick scan – not a read

             Really? The John Banks excuse 😎
8. Te Reo Putake 8

   16 December 2013 at 12:57 pm

   Hate to inject some reality into this discussion, but the petition form asks signers to provide their phone and email address if they want to “keep up to date with the campaign”. A phone call from Labour, the Greens or Grey Power during election year for that purpose would obviously be lawful.

   An obvious update would be either party announcing they intended to buy back the assets or some similar measure.

   So, no privacy breach as long as it’s relevant to the campaign.

   http://www.labour.org.nz/sites/default/files/KOA_CIR_PETITION_FORM_L_27_04_2012.pdf
   • Bill 8.1

     16 December 2013 at 1:17 pm

     The campaign was to gather signatures and submit them to parliament in order to halt asset sales. When the petitions were submitted, that campaign ended – or has there been another string to the anti-asset campaign bow that I’ve been unaware of and that is on-going? I think not. Meaning that any campaign to buy assets or whatever is, well…a different campaign.
     • Te Reo Putake 8.1.1

       16 December 2013 at 1:23 pm

       Nope, it’s all part of the same campaign, Bill. One of the ‘other strings’ you have forgotten is the just completed referendum. The next string is the election campaign. If you signed the petition and gave your details, you have consented to be contacted about asset sales. That’s the fact of the matter.
       • Bill 8.1.1.1

         16 December 2013 at 1:29 pm

         Your opinions are not facts TRP. Anyway, sadly expecting the Labour Party and ( if Toad’s comments are anything to go by) the Greens to blunder ahead and piss people off regardless.
         • Te Reo Putake 8.1.1.1.1

           16 December 2013 at 1:44 pm

           No offence, Bill, but I’m not putting up opinion, I’m pointing on the simple fact that people who gave their details agreed to be contacted. It only took me a moment to check the actual petition and I did that before I posted.

           However, I am prepared to put up one opinion, which is that hardly anyone who gets contacted by Labour or the Greens about the asset sales is going to be upset about the call or email. The majority are going to be chuffed that their voice counts and they will be keen to hear what the two parties are going to do about it.

           Anyhoo, at least you haven’t unwittingly signed up to Apple, because we all know how that works out.

           http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdR7hCjQNwA
           • Bill 8.1.1.1.1.1

             16 December 2013 at 1:58 pm

             And if they are contacted on election campaign matters? Oh, that’s right…that was the other string to the anti asset sale campaign bow according to yourself….the election campaign. So everything is A-OK. It’s all a part and parcel of the same thing.
             • Te Reo Putake …

               16 December 2013 at 2:11 pm

               Yep, you’re starting to get it! As long as they are contacted about the asset sales, then its not an issue at all. And given how big a deal asset sales is to most kiwis, just about every phone call and email from the left is going to mention it.
       • McFlock 8.1.1.2

         16 December 2013 at 1:51 pm

         I’m on the green email list somehow (drilling petition?). Not a big inconvenience, but it certainly doesn’t encourage me to vote for them.

         Regardless as to whether “the campaign” means the long term campaign against neoliberalism, or simply the campaign to get 350k signatures, putting me on a mail list when I didn’t expect it smacks of someone playing silly buggers. What, tricking me into receiving ongoing emails is supposed to end up with my vote? I’m prone to digging my heels in out of bloody-mindedness (not sure anybody’s noticed 🙂 )

         As it is, I walked past a greenpeace clipboard-holder in the street for that exact reason (email lists). Normally a 30% chance I’ll stop and look, now it’s zero. Be a shame if lab or the grns got a similar response from 5% of folks.
       • One Anonymous Knucklehead 8.1.1.3

         16 December 2013 at 2:02 pm

         You may have consented to being contacted but all that means is it’s legal to contact you, not that it’s wise.
       • Tracey 8.1.1.4

         16 December 2013 at 3:30 pm

         I think you will find under the Privacy Act that any vagueness is NOT construed in favour of the collector of Data. The onus on them is to be crystal clear about the purpose.
   • Colonial Viper 8.2

     16 December 2013 at 2:47 pm

     A phone call from Labour, the Greens or Grey Power during election year for that purpose would obviously be lawful.

     Would be LAWFUL???

     How low a bar are we setting here???
9. ghostwhowalksnz 9

   16 December 2013 at 2:02 pm

   Whats all the fuss.
   Oh yes your email address !!

   Who cares, its like a letter box, all sorts of stuff turns up

   Remember too, that ‘somehow’ the Government go hold of the fact a ‘David Shearer’ had applied for Mighty River information pack.

   Of course it was someone with a malicious sense of humour- yes Im thinking of you David Farrar.

   But this ‘private’ information was passed onto the government, ( so much for Chinese Walls)

   Wheres the outrage over National party dealing in confidential information for political purposes.?

   Thats right because it doesnt make a big play in Farragoblog or the Oily Orca it isnt a big deal, so move on.
10. weka 10

    16 December 2013 at 2:45 pm

    I don’t have time to do this today, but anyone can phone the Privacy Commissioner’s office and ask for an opinion on this. Generally they do a call back.

    Ph: 0800 803 909

    Email: enquiries@privacy.org.nz

    http://www.privacy.org.nz/contact-us/

    Bill, I appreciate what you are saying in terms of what should be (both legally and in terms of good practice). But the privacy act is written in ways to both protect people’s information AND enable free transfer of information where that is appropriate. It happens alot. Ever signed a form for health reasons? Did you know you are not just sharing that information with your GP but every other person in the clinic the GP works in? Likewise much gets shared interagency as a matter of course without patients necessarily knowing ahead of time.

    (and don’t get me started on the shit that WINZ are now doing with this).

    I don’t know what the legalities are re the petition, but I suspect that TRP is right – contact details can be used for the Asset sales campaign. There may even be a case for wider use.

    There was an interesting bit on Kim Hill with the next incoming Privacy Commissioner for anyone that wants a general overview.
    • weka 10.1

      16 December 2013 at 3:20 pm

      So, where the act says this (assuming Tracey was quoting the Act above),

      
      An agency that holds personal information that was obtained in connection with one purpose shall not use the information for any other purpose unless that agency believes, on reasonable grounds, –

      (a) that the source of the information is a publicly available publication; or

      (b) that the use of the information for that other purpose is authorised by the individual concerned;

      The reason that health care agencies can share information routinely without getting express permission each time is because they believe, on reasonable grounds, that the patient has authorised this. Authorised doesn’t not mean given explicit consent. It’s assumed that the patient is ok with information being shared. For the most part this works well, but there are very obvious cases where it doesn’t (where patients wouldn’t want information shared without them knowing). At the moment the law/system errs on the side of health agencies unless a complaint is made.

      Likewise, it might be reasonable for the GP to use contact details on one of their petitions about banning whale oil for instance, for other purposes related to the GP. Myself, I don’t think this applies to the Asset sales petition because it was a petition run by many different groups, but I haven’t looked at the form yet.
      • Anon 10.1.1

        16 December 2013 at 9:13 pm

        [deleted]

        [lprent: Pick another pseudonym. We don’t allow anonymous comments here. ]
11. Morrissey 11

    16 December 2013 at 2:48 pm

    Mike Williams is nearly always the patsy for Matthew Hooton every Monday morning on National Radio. Surely they can get someone better than him. What happened to Laila Harre? Or Sue Bradford? Or Andrew Campbell?
    • Paul 11.1

      16 December 2013 at 7:12 pm

      Morrissey you know the answer to that.
      RNZ don’t invite the left anymore. Libertarians only please.
12. Colonial Viper 12

    16 December 2013 at 2:54 pm

    Gee let’s think about this, it’s not about whether it’s ‘lawful’ or ‘allowable’, it’s what your customer expectations are and whether or not you are meeting those expectations or failing them.

    A lot of people who do not vote Labour or Green signed that petition and getting an email or anything in the post from either Labour or Greens is not always going to be at all welcome, particularly if their partner is not sympathetic and a million other real world reasons.
    • Te Reo Putake 12.1

      16 December 2013 at 3:17 pm

      Actually, CV, that’s the argument in a nutshell. Can the details be used? Yes. Should they? Opinions differ.
      • weka 12.1.1

        16 December 2013 at 3:22 pm

        Can they be used? Maybe, depends on what for. Should they be used? Opinions differ.
      • BM 12.1.2

        16 December 2013 at 3:23 pm

        But will it do more harm than good?

        No one likes being spammed, but I think what the real risk for the left is that people may feel they’ve being tricked and the asset sales petition was more about the harvesting of emails for electioneering rather than trying to stop the assets being sold.

        Here be dragons.
        • Tracey 12.1.2.1

          16 December 2013 at 3:31 pm

          agree @ impact of being tricked.

          the right’s trickery is too subtle for their supporters to work out they are be duped.
13. Chris 13

    16 December 2013 at 3:31 pm

    I user a simple method to protect my email inbox. I have 2 email addresses, 1 I use for organisations I don’t mind hearing from and a an email dump address that I use for things such as petitions that want more info than you really want to give.

    Plenty to choose from, blahoo, google, mail.com etc.
14. Vagabundo 14

    16 December 2013 at 3:58 pm

    Have I missed something, or is everyone freaking out over something that someone who hasn’t really been relevant to the party for a while suggested? Has this become actual official policy for either Labour or the Greens? Have they actually suggested they would do anything of the sort?
    • Naturesong 14.1

      16 December 2013 at 4:04 pm

      No, you have it right.

      Mike Williams said something dumb on radio.

      Bill’s post is essentially; “Dude, you’re really not helping!”
15. weka 15

    16 December 2013 at 7:20 pm

    Another thought. Is the CIR petition a public document? In which case, anyone can use the email addresses.
    • Colonial Viper 15.1

      16 December 2013 at 7:39 pm

      even if technically correct, you don’t really want to irritate potential voters and supporters.
      • weka 15.1.1

        16 December 2013 at 9:19 pm

        True. Most of my comments in this thread have been about the legalities. I have this nagging thought that this came up earlier on and taht the GP was intending to use contact details. Can’t remember what the deal was exactly, but it strikes me as yet another shift on the GP’s part where pragmatics trumps ethics.
        • Colonial Viper 15.1.1.1

          16 December 2013 at 9:28 pm

          I reckon you could get away with a one off email saying something like:

          We really appreciate your help getting the no asset sales petition across the line. You made a big difference. Next year is a General Election year. May we contact you during the election campaign with regards to other [Green/Labour] Party activities and policies? YES / NO (If we don’t get a response within 7 days we will send you a single reminder email, and leave it at that)

          The classic Labour Party approach when a person says YES to having their email address used is to then bombard them with 5 requests for donations over the next 3 months. PLEASE don’t do that.
16. weka 16

    16 December 2013 at 7:37 pm

    Oh come on, this post has been up most of the day and no-one has linked to this?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DbCI68eSNsA
17. rhinocrates 17

    16 December 2013 at 10:01 pm

    Fucking Mike “I agree with Matthew” Williams. Jesus Aitch Fucking Christ in a Tutu, can’t they find anyone other than this tired old joke? How the Hell do those idiots at RNZ think that he represents “the left”?

    All the “serious commentators” like Williams and Brian Edwards and Karl Du Fresne (yes, I know, some are nominally “right” and others “liberal”, but they’re all fossils) are privileged tired old men who don’t understand technology, who have no idea what’s going on, who have no idea how people truly think and behave now and can only blither about how they should have behaved in the 70s – or they’re wannabe hipsters like Russell Brown.

    The Nats are outmanoeuvring them because it’s just too damned easy with these has-beens still pushing themselves into the spotlight.
18. Rich 18

    23 December 2013 at 5:39 pm

    Greenpeace – that’s the chugging corporate that sponsors a bit of political campaigning, right?
    • Pascal's bookie 18.1

      23 December 2013 at 6:11 pm

      Well done Rich! You managed to read a post, and work out how to comment, and it only took you a week.

      Gold star for your chart young fella, and Santa might bring you a biscuit.

Links to post

1. Will petitioners be spammed? | Kiwiblog: posted on 17 December 2013 at 11:00 am

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS