"I have AB blood," he said by way of example. "I don't particularly care that people know that. But if somehow that information was changed, well then I could end up dead."
I am all for tech-savvy leaders - certainly might have helped prevent some of the crap passed in Australia.
BUT, the bald statement that data integrity is more important and confidentiality is ridiculous because it is utterly dependent on the data and the situation.
Take Internet browsing history, for example - that data that we Australians have been assured will not be captured but almost certainly will be. For most people, confidentiality of this data is far more important than integrity.
Of course, if the data is being collected by law enforcement and you really have absolutely nothing to hide or that you might be embarrassed about then integrity is important too because you want to make sure the record doesn't have spurious entries claiming you've been researching bomb-making.
But in that instance, integrity is therefore only important where confidentiality has already been breached.
What about my credit cards details? If an organisation has that information then I am FAR more concerned that it stays secure than that it is accurate. If the details on file are incorrect the worst that happens is that I have to update them - perhaps something gets delayed or a payment doesn't go through and I get charged and have to call someone to clear it up. That's an annoyance for sure, but a minor one compared to having the details get out and be used for fraud.
The simple truth is that both integrity and confidentiality is important. Confidential data should be kept confidential and critical data must be kept accurate. Data that is critical and confidential should be both accurate and, surprise, surprise, confidential.