Same old, same old

Labour are making a great deal of fuss over the ACC privacy breach. It isn’t good that such breaches occur at all, but the reality is you are dealing with inept civil servants and technology.

Labour should know this they had their own massive privacy breach back in 2004:

National Party Social Services spokeswoman Katherine Rich is questioning how safe the public’s personal details are following the release of more than 1300 children’s names in an answer about CYF foster placements.

“This is a gross breach of privacy. I have never seen a worse instance of it from a Minister of the Crown,” Mrs Rich says.

The names were attached to an electronic spreadsheet which listed the number of foster placements per child on a region-by-region basis. As well as naming the children, it also identified their caregiver and the local CYF office.

“I don’t know why the Minister’s office should have that information at all. It was certainly not relevant to the question I asked, which was how many CYF children had been in three or more foster homes in the past year.

“The answer – 1354 – was bad enough, but I was stunned when I saw the Minister’s office had given me all their names.

“Ruth Dyson should issue an immediate apology to the children and their caregivers. I appreciate that her office has been under a lot of stress given her recent ‘technically correct’ answers, but this is inexcusable.

“This is a Government that forced former prison boss Celia Lashlie to resign at the first hint that she might have broken the confidence of one child. What happens with such a blatant breach of the privacy of 1354 children?”

Mrs Rich has contacted the office of the Clerk of the House and Ms Dyson’s office to alert them to the privacy breach.

“If we had not caught this information, it would have been published on the Internet within a few days,” says Mrs Rich.

That is a terrible breach of privacy. I called Katherine Rich to ask if she did what Bronwyn Pullar did. She confirmed to me that she deleted the file off all parliamentary machines immediately and notified both the Minister and the Department of what they had done.

Ruth Dyson of course didn’t resign over this.

Some things never change…cock-up over conspiracy wins every time when looking into how things like this happen.

 


THANK YOU for being a subscriber. Because of you Whaleoil is going from strength to strength. It is a little known fact that Whaleoil subscribers are better in bed, good looking and highly intelligent. Sometimes all at once! Please Click Here Now to subscribe to an ad-free Whaleoil.

  • Peter Wilson

    Probably not relevant to compare a former high ranking cabinet minister to someone with a disability.

  • johnbronkhorst

    Ruth was probably drunk at the time.

  • Whafe

    Are we surprised? NO, the Pinkos are a dam scary, silly group within the population….

    Sill focks

  • Troy

    Ruth who?  Oh that drunk driving bitch who hardly says a word these days, nor really since the last election – she’s spent far too much time in Bellamy’s, of late which is obvious.

  • thor42

    Yeah, it’s the Labour pot calling the kettle black. 

    • jay cee

      yep and this post is a red herring (pardon the pun) to try and lessen nick smiths culpability in that whole affair. seems rather desperate to me.

  • Aaron

    Umm this is fairly desperate stuff. Nick Smith resigned because he abused his Ministerial power not because of a breach of privacy. So its not really comparable.

    • Peter Wilson

      You’ve got the wrong end of the stick Aaron. The point being made is that Nick Smith should have resigned because of the breach of privacy, the same as Ruth Dyson should have.

      The abuse of Ministerial power just added to Smith’s downfall.

32%