Privacy concerns understandable
Two-thirds of New Zealanders are concerned about their privacy, and people are becoming more conscious of data-sharing and the effect of technology on their lives, according to the Privacy Commissioner’s latest annual report. Nearly half of us have become more concerned about this in the past few years.
The commissioner’s opinion polling also found 62 per cent of people felt data should not be shared between organisations, as the risks outweighed the benefits. Worries about data-sharing, however, could be eased if there were strict controls on who had access to the data, or if individuals could not be identified.
The Ministry of Social Development’s plan to collect what it calls ‘‘individual client-level data’’ from nongovernment agencies it funds has to be seen against this background of public concern. The ministry wants those organsiations to hand over client information including an individual’s name, date of birth, address, gender, iwi, country of birth, number of dependants, the date of birth of the youngest child, the start and end dates of the help given, and the source of referral.
The ministry is already collecting the data from some organisations, and it will become a requirement on July 1 this year. An exemption of at least 12 months has been granted, however, to groups which provide specialist help to the victims of sexual violence.
The exemption was granted after Rape Crisis said it would not accept any more funding from MSD if it had to provide that level of information. It said feedback from clients suggested people would stop asking for help if they thought their private information would be given to the Government.
Other organisations shared similar concerns, but said they could not afford to turn down MSD funding. TOAHNNEST, a national network of sexual violence agencies, condemned the move as ‘‘a breach of personal privacy, a breach of professional codes of conduct and a breach of the Privacy Act’’.
When it granted the exemption, the ministry said the delay would give it more time ‘‘to look at what needs to be in place to collect and securely store what we know is sensitive information’’. It acknowledged that sexual violence services, as a sector, deserved more consideration.
But the exemption can also be seen as an admission by MSD that it does not yet have fully secure systems in place to keep personal information private. Its track record of privacy breaches in recent years does not inspire confidence and, frankly, nor does Social Development Minster Anne Tolley’s assertion in Parliament last week that ‘‘there is no system in the world that can be guaranteed 100 per cent’’.
MSD says it needs the information to better understand the needs of clients and the types of intervention that are likely to work. In a nutshell, it wants more information to make sure that its money is being well spent, and that is fair enough, up to a point.
But it is still unclear why MSD wants counsellors and social service workers to give up the names and addresses of the people they are working with. And it certainly needs to convince service providers and the public alike that it can be trusted to hold that information securely.