ACC Privacy Breach Overview – What Was Sent To Bronwyn Pullar
Forget about the tripe the mainstream media are feeding you, I have had a review commissioned of my own of the KPMG Independent Review & Auditor-General’s report and as time will allow will summarise some important points the media have missed out because they suck every word up a recidivist exploiter of insurance companies has told them via her new best friend Phil Kitchin.
For background read Jock Anderson’s excellent work on uncovering the scam pulled on Sovereign Insurance in an attempt to
extort encourage $14 million from them by using the media, in particularly this letter and read alongside.
The mainstream media need to put in a bit of time now their busy Thursday is over and actually read both these reports after they’ve taken off their rose-tinted glasses because a critical analysis says a very different thing to what they are publishing and repeating. Yes ACC are tits (and should be privatised) but in this case the “client” is a manipulative schemer and the reports are not as damning and conclusive as you read in the papers Thursday churnalising the summaries and reporting on the boring processes. What about the detail?
This post outlines (just how little) “sensitive” data was sent to Bronwyn Pullar. This is what kicked it all off. All the data showed was that you were a client of ACC’s. And this is New Zealand’s most serious breach of privacy? Hardly. The redacted columns are showed here at Appendix 5 of the Independent Review.
Yes that is right – NO real details of the claim. No gory personal age, weight, height or bra size. THIS is what all the fuss has been about. A persons name and claim number and the outcome of the case. NO further information. Repeated over and over. The only remotely damaging detail is “Sensitive Claims” written at Table 4 for the few people who are sexual abuse or assault victims. No details of their cases appears to be in the data however. This was severely overplayed.
The Independent Review team explain the data themselves in the Appendix 5
The Independent Review actually concludes Pullar made out that she had more information than there actually was as she was gloating to the ACC Managers.
“conditions” and “details” – ughm where? The redacted information above? Hello?
The report even states the damage was for “limited personal information”. Very limited by the looks.
Mainstream media need to first look precisely at what data was sent to Bronwyn Pullar and how bad this breach actually was? In effect it is a client list without any explanation or information as to what the client is with you for. The report itself said “limited personal information”.
A client who is very often hobbling or off work so very easily detected by friends and neighbours if say, oh I don’t know, hanging out on a roof doing some painting at night?
Or in Pullar’s case – she had no privacy expectation as she already had told the world her problems with ACC and Sovereign.