John Edwards, the Privacy Commissioner has ruled that Facebook is subject to our Privacy Act. Isn’t it a shame National Party politicians don’t seem to be.
With all the gnashing of teeth over Facebook we have our own example of absolute disdain for personal information. Privacy is actually a tenet of basic human freedom… but for 9 years it was both eroded and scoffed at by Crown ministers
Arguing that you don’t care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don’t care about free speech because you have nothing to say.
– Edward Snowden
Three of the main perpetrators remain in parliament today and 2 sit in the hierarchy of the National Party. Two are trained lawyers. Without doubt the less experienced are learning from these 3 and those who went before them, Key, Joyce and English. To assume that new faces have different values or news ways of getting business done is flawed.
” a bit of a lesson for what happens if you go out there and put your story.”
As an aside given Collins has misunderstood both conflict of interest and a privacy ruling (that or she was lying and knew just what she was doing) , the media, amongst others need to stop giving her views any credence (looking at you national voters).
Former Attorney General
This man was Minister Responsible for the Government Communications Security Bureau and the Minister in Charge of the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service, New Zealand’s two main intelligence agencies. It would be nice to think he had a good handle on privacy and personal information… but sadly
As Mickey ably covered yesterday, Finlayson was an abject failure in the Dotcom case. A failure in terms of honouring and upholding the law of privacy and the importance of personal information. Not a failure if your goal is to ensure a man is extradicted according to the wishes of an ally. Remember Warner Bros got a multi million dollar payout under the illusion of the Hobbitt leaving NZ? I bet they wanted Megaupload to stop and never start again. It couldn’t have helped their business model.
Spam emailed people who signed their petition who had NOT authorised their personal information being used for other purposes
The Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, Cheryl Gwyn, found ex-adviser Jason Ede and deputy chief of staff Phil de Joux were involved in passing intelligence information to Slater, who later used it to write an attack on then-Labour leader Phil Goff.
The Security Intelligence Service (SIS) has apologised to Goff over the release of briefing notes to Slater.
This is a clear and worrying pattern of behaviour.
Even if deemed legal it does not satisfy the Cabinet Manual which governs the personal and professional conduct of Cabinet Ministers.
2.53 To protect the integrity of the decision-making process of executive government and to maintain public trust in the Executive, Ministers and Parliamentary Under-Secretaries must conduct themselves in a manner appropriate to their office. Accordingly, the guidance in paragraphs 2.55 – 2.106:
- explains the standards of personal conduct expected of Ministers;
- helps Ministers to identify personal interests that might be seen to influence their decision-making; and
- sets out options for managing conflicts of interest where necessary.
2.54 The guidance on conduct, public duty, and personal interests applies to all Ministers (inside and outside Cabinet) and Parliamentary Under-Secretaries. References to Ministers in this guidance include Parliamentary Under-Secretaries.
2.55 A Minister of the Crown, while holding a ministerial warrant, acts in a number of different capacities:
- in a ministerial capacity, making decisions and determining and promoting policy within particular portfolios;
- in a political capacity as a member of Parliament, representing a constituency or particular community of interest; and
- in a personal capacity.
2.56 In all these roles and at all times, Ministers are expected to act lawfully and to behave in a way that upholds, and is seen to uphold, the highest ethical standards. This includes exercising a professional approach and good judgement in their interactions with the public and officials, and in all their communications, personal and professional. Ultimately, Ministers are accountable to the Prime Minister for their behaviour.
What has been authorised without our knowledge, given we know that senior Politicians in that Government had very similar ideas about personal information. Namely theirs is sacred (Bennett sought an injunction and Sabin sought name suppression) but ours is for their political use as they see fit.
Andrew Little is looking to make some law changes but until these and those politicians who follow are held personally liable for their mishandling of personal information nothing will change. According to Kirk Hope
a $1m fine was “out of whack”. The reputational cost a company would incur if it misused customers’ information was enough of an incentive to do the right thing, he said.
“That will far outweigh any fine that a privacy commissioner can impose on a business. What are you trying to solve with a penalty?”
The National Party and its politicians are serial offenders and there is no sign they are stopping. maybe they need a penalty?