privacy awareness week 2012 notes from the coalface presentation by mike flahive and dawn swan
Download
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
Privacy Awareness Week 2012 Notes from the coalface Presentation by Mike Flahive and Dawn Swan

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 22

Privacy Awareness Week 2012 Notes from the coalface Presentation by Mike Flahive and Dawn Swan - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 121 Views
  • Uploaded on

Privacy Awareness Week 2012 Notes from the coalface Presentation by Mike Flahive and Dawn Swan. In March : The News. Australian Cricket Association ACC data breach Ports of Auckland Law Commission / Code amendments CCTV in Pukekohe Police to pay damages Coronor’s comments.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' Privacy Awareness Week 2012 Notes from the coalface Presentation by Mike Flahive and Dawn Swan' - ravi


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
privacy awareness week 2012 notes from the coalface presentation by mike flahive and dawn swan
Privacy Awareness Week 2012

Notes from the coalface

Presentation by

Mike Flahive and Dawn Swan

in march the news
In March : The News
  • Australian Cricket Association
  • ACC data breach
  • Ports of Auckland
  • Law Commission / Code amendments
  • CCTV in Pukekohe
  • Police to pay damages
  • Coronor’s comments
the reality
The Reality
  • Complaints

> 968 last year, 915 currently

  • Enquiries

> 7006 last year, 6475 currently

  • Eight team members hold files
  • On average, each investigator will

receive 125 files and close 120 each

year

work in progress
Work in progress
  • An average of 50 files
  • Half access, 25% disclosure
  • Even split public and private sector
  • Age of files: 88% under 6 months
  • Dominant focus settlement
  • 30% settled
outcomes on closed files 2010 11
Outcomes on closed files 2010/11

Closed999

No interference withprivacy686

Complaint hassubstance313

Settled /mediated281

Referred to Director of Human

RightsProceeding19

settlement record 2010 11
Settlement record (2010/11)

Access

  • 534 access complaints
  • 208 settled
  • 185 involved release or partial release

of information

  • 21 involved payment of money averaging

$650 for slow release or refusal

  • 2 payments in excess of $2,000
settlement record 2010 111
Settlement record (2010/11)

continued

Disclosure

  • 267 closed
  • 52 settled
  • 19 involved payment of money averaging

$8000

  • 3 payments in excess of $10,000
  • 1 payment more than $40,000
  • Average without large payment $5,000
examples of settlement
Examples of settlement

Health agency

  • Gave information to person about

patient

  • Person not a relative or holding EPOA
  • No checking by health agency
  • Apology, assurances, training and

$5,000

examples of settlement1
Examples of settlement

continued

  • Agency repeatedly sent

correspondent to complainant’s

residential address contrary to

arrangements to use PO Box

  • Spouse found out about secret

arrangement

  • $1,000 new terms of contract
examples of settlement2
Examples of settlement

continued

Agency employee browsing

  • Information used outside agency to

significantly embarrass complainant

  • Loss of confidentiality
  • Loss of employment
  • Agency paid more than $40,000
lochead macmillan vs ami insurance ltd 2012 nzhrrt 5
Lochead-MacMillan vs AMI Insurance Ltd[2012] NZHRRT 5
  • Fire damaged property, home and

contents insurance claim

  • $10,000 damages
  • “Multiple, sustained and systemic

failures” to comply with Privacy Act

multiple information requests
Multiple information requests
  • 4 February – request for audio files

and transcripts

  • 2 March – request for audio repeated
  • 13 April – Feb and March requests

repeated

  • 6 May – request for fire report
  • 19 May – first three requests repeated
  • 8 July – request for AMI file
breaches by ami
Breaches by AMI
  • Failure to comply with statutory time

limit = deemed refusal

  • Failure to advise of right to seek an

investigation by Privacy Commissioner

  • Refusal to release fire report –

unjustifiably withheld twice

damages awarded
Damages Awarded
  • $10,000 for injury to feelings
  • Repeatedly ignored requests
  • Plaintiffs kept in dark
  • Impression Privacy Act obligations

not important

  • Unequal relationship
  • Plaintiffs made to feel insignificant,

ineffectual and unimportant

hrrt comments
HRRT Comments
  • Privacy principles are fundamental

to good process

  • Requests for information cannot

be ignored or dismissed

  • Good administration demands full

compliance with Privacy Act

sharoodi v director of civil aviation
Sharoodi v Director of Civil Aviation

[2011] NZHRRT 5 (25/2/11)

  • Withholding grounds

[2011] NZHRRT 6 (9/3/11)

  • Non compliance with Part 5

procedural provisions of the Act

general advice from tribunal
General Advice from Tribunal
  • Full index of documents
  • Pagination of documents
  • Identification of released, withheld

or redacted information

managing access requests
Managing Access Requests
  • Anticipate having to explain what

you have done

  • A discovery process of indexing all

documents is very handy

  • Create separate record of total

information

  • Create separate record of withheld/

redacted information

tribunal discussion
Tribunal discussion
  • Series of misunderstandings around

request for personal information which

became “personnel” information

  • Request not answered until 21/2 months

after reasonably expected to comply

Therefore

  • Deemed refusal and undue delay
damages
Damages

Loss of benefit - $5,000

  • A reluctant and piecemeal release
  • Revoked pilot’s licence before release
  • Not able to use/check information

before revocation

  • Not given a “fair crack of the whip”
damages1
Damages

continued

Humiliation, loss of dignity, injury to

feelings - $5,000

  • Interpreted request in a limited way
  • Revoked pilot’s licence knowing that

information yet to be released

  • Late decisions to mitigate only after

involvement of Privacy Commissioner

ad