Do you think the Privacy Act strikes the right balance between privacy and other competing interests?
Does it protect privacy too much or not enough?
Privacy is not an absolute value; it must always be balanced against other important human and social values, such as openness, transparency and freedom of information. At the heart of the Privacy Act, 12 broadly stated information privacy principles govern the way in which people’s personal information can be collected and used by the agencies to which it is entrusted. Exceptions to the principles allow privacy interests to be balanced against other public interests. We want to find out whether people think that the current approach is about right, or whether adjustments to the Privacy Act’s principles are considered necessary to get the balance right.
This online discussion forum has concluded. You can still browse the site but the discussion area will no longer accept new comments or votes.
sanjeet Comment 1 9 May 2010, 4:24 PM
The balance between ones rights to privacy and the right to natural justice and fair procedures draws a very thin line When dealing with government agencies who openly act outside of empowering enactments and use electronic transmissions to search and seize documents.When in 1688 Lords Spirituall and
more…
The balance between ones rights to privacy and the right to natural justice and fair procedures draws a very thin line When dealing with government agencies who openly act outside of empowering enactments and use electronic transmissions to search and seize documents.
When in 1688 Lords Spirituall and Temporall declared before parliament "our ancient rights protected" they were of course referring to long held principles of natural justice (Bill of Right 1688)
I think four basics tenets must be included in all enactments to ensure fair procedures and they are.
[1] The right to be notified first
[2] The right to dispute search and seizure and have that placed before a fair and impartial referee
[3] The right to expect that the government agency complies with the rules for search and seizure and debated by parliament (again Bill of Right 1688).
[4] The rights of children to be protected from attacks by the state.
The absolute worst example of abuses to empowering legislation can be found under section 11 of the Social Security Act 1964 and the Code of Conduct for Obtaining information under Section 11 Social Security Act 1964, because the "Codes" are administered in part by the Privacy Commission who has no authority to critique the law, the "code" in this case does not guarantee the right to be notified first, section 11C(1)(a)(i)and conflicts with the statute.
No one seems to understand the principles of part 3 of the Electronic Transactions Act, this enactment declaring it is illegal to search and seize by electronic connection, this falls short of our most basic rights under The NZ Bill of Rights Act.
What needs to happen is that government agencies need to get it right and follow the rules, for example The Residential tenancies Act permits Facsimile, The Social Security Act 1964 section 86J does not.