Feeds

back to article NSW privacy exemption shares personal data with private sector

The New South Wales (NSW) Information and Privacy Commission (IPC) has issued a direction to privacy officers across the state that they are to share some personal data with the private sector. The data will come from the Department of Attorney General & Justice's files on young people who have committed an offence, which is …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
Bronze badge
Big Brother

DROOGS...

...As i was reading this piece ' A Clockwork Orange ' sprang to mind...

1
2
Silver badge

Sigh.

While I'm against personal data sharing, this is actually not a bad idea. It's a hell of a lot better to stop it early.

Then we have the United States doing the exact opposite by having 10yo children arrested for pointing a finger at someone and saying "bang" - I hate this country.

3
2
Silver badge

Re: Sigh.

But then you also have an argument going on about healthcare - another 'spend money now to save more money later' affair.

1
2
Bronze badge

Re: Sigh.

Agreed, a good idea.

Some people live their lives religiously, following beliefs, even when those beliefs make no rational sense.

Like a blind belief in privacy for adult criminals.

Or a blind belief that charities and aid agencies should not be told which youth are at risk of lives of crime and need help.

0
1
Silver badge

Privacy officers charged with sharing of personal data? This is another one of those "Ministry of Truth" things again, isn't it?

2
1
Bronze badge

Privacy officers interpret the rules for other civil servants and make determinations of what can be released.

For example, how big a group needs to be before statistics on the group are no longer 'personally identifiable information', or who has a valid reason for knowing private information.

What is anonymous in a particular situation, and who has a valid need to know information -- that is what their jobs are about.

1
0
Gold badge

It's easy to make an "investment" involving privacy...

...when the privacy you're investing is someone else's.

3
0
Silver badge
Paris Hilton

Am I the only one...

who read that title as "NSFW privacy exemption..."?

3
0
Bronze badge

Canada was first

Here in Manitoba we have a system called DPIN, Drug Programs Information Network.

It allows hospitals, pharmacies and medical doctors to see what drugs people have been prescribed.

So private information being shared with private organizations.

Big deal, it saves lives. You go to a doctor, you go to an ER, you go to a pharmacy, and they can see what drugs you are on so they can avoid dangerous drug interactions. Also it prevents double prescribing of narcotics.

How is what New South Wales doing any different? It also saves lives, lives that might have been wasted in lives of crime, and the lives of innocent victims of criminals.

0
1
Silver badge

Re: Canada was first

The police decide what behaviour means a future criminal - viewing gangsta videos on youtube, listening to that sinful rock and roll music or not accessing their local church web site enough.

They pass that information onto the private sector who share it with anyone that seems profitable.

Suppose the Manitoba drug network data was shared with your bank, with employment agencies, with travel insurance companies, with car insurance etc - what would be wrong with that?

1
0
Gold badge

Re: Canada was first

Canada isn't quite so cavalier with privacy as the commenter above makes us out to be. There is a difference between "a targets and specific breach of individual privacy in order to save that selfsame individual's life" (medical records at an ER or with explicit permission to private medical facilities) and giving wide ranging access to the kinds of information that can ruin a person's life.

The insurance company is a great example. So, for that matter, is allowing an employer (or a jury) to review a record of accusations/juvenile misdemeanors, etc. This is why many items (especially for minors) "fall off"* a person's record after a given amount of time. (At least here in Canada.)

*All items on your police record are, in fact, permanent. That said, many are considered "inaccessible" after expiry for the purposes of background checks, etc. Police can still view your juvie record when investigating, and it will probably be taken into account if you go for a serious security clearance, but the insurance company or bank isn't going to get to see that you had a red light ticket 7 years ago or were accused/arrested for (but never convicted) of any number of things. Which, frankly, is as it should be.

0
0
Happy

Re: Canada was first

We already have similar in OZ for drugs. When you take a prescription to a chemist the computer tells him if h\you've filled a similar one elsewhere recently. This stops people doctor-shopping to get multiple scripts (usually for something they don't need and they can sell for $30 a tablet on the street). No invasion of privacy in your medical people knowing what you take. You just don't want all the neighbours being told you're on something for "being mental" or having an STD.

0
0
Silver badge

" timely interventions that keep young people who look like they're headed for jail into education or work."

So to get help into education or work you should first commit a crime?

How about helping all young people into education or work?

(Rather than the current UK policy of helping out-of-work young people into starvation and suicide.)

1
0
This topic is closed for new posts.