Friday, May 05, 2017

This Is Yet Another Reason To Be Wary Giving The Government Any More Information Than Is Actually Required.

This appeared a few days ago

Police illegally obtained journalist's phone records under new metadata retention regime

Michael Koziol
Published: April 28 2017 - 5:06PM
The Australian Federal Police illegally obtained a journalist's phone records under the Turnbull government's new metadata retention regime, the agency announced on Friday.
The breach took place as part of an investigation into a leak of confidential police material - and the incident will now be investigated by the Commonwealth Ombudsman.
AFP commissioner Andrew Colvin said the police officers investigating the leak did not realise they were required to obtain a warrant to access the journalist's metadata.
"This was human error. It should not have occurred. The AFP takes it very seriously and we take full responsibility for breaching the Act," Mr Colvin said.
"There was no ill will or malice or bad intent by the officers involved who breached the Act. But simply it was a mistake."
The journalist in question had not been informed their data had been accessed, Mr Colvin said, due to sensitivities around the ongoing investigation into the leak.
The breach occurred "earlier this year" and was reported to the Ombudsman on Wednesday.
Under the revised data retention regime, police are required to obtain a warrant from a judge to seek metadata from a journalist.
"The vulnerability is the investigator needs to understand that that's their requirement," Mr Colvin said on Friday. "On this occasion, the investigator didn't."
The phone records in question were relevant to the investigation, Mr Colvin said, but "what was improper was that the right steps weren't taken to gain access to it".
The breach is the first such incident that has come to light under the government's new metadata retention regime, which requires service providers to store their customers' data for two years.
Lots more found here:
The bottom line here is that information in Government hands can potentially be access by all sorts of people for all sorts of reasons.
Realizing this it is up to each individual to make their own decisions about what they disclose voluntarily and to think through the potential consequences.
Especially when it comes to the myHR a conscious decision needs to be made – especially in the era of opt-out.
David.

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

David you might be interested to know the review of the opt out trials has been released. It will take time to digest but you can assume full opt out is now a given.

Anonymous said...

#censusfail, #metadataretention, #robodebt, Centrelink revenge attacks on #andiefox, data linkage, big data, ABS persecuting people who rant about the census.

Next, #MyHR opt-out?

What could possibly go wrong? ADHA needs to tread very, very carefully. It doesn't matter how useful the government claims MyHR is, trust has been eroded. Governments have lost elections for less.

Anonymous said...

I don't see evidence that it was explained if you opt-put that you still have an active record that the Government can see and use.

Anonymous said...

No, I don't think that the full operation/management/concomitant risks were explained to people. They just got the powerpoint-lite version

Anonymous said...

Your poll this week introduces an interesting element. To achieve this would require significant legislation, I am not convinced it would be constitutionally achievable, at best it would create a less than amicable environment. Is this a cunning placement of narrative to test the water? Is it simply a case of such a volatile statement being overlooked? Or is it to distract from other Moore supple but none the less draconian intention?

I would like the Minister to at least have the My Health Record technically assessed by an organisation like the ACS to determine if it current designs can actually satisfy the intended secondary and primary uses. If it can't then perhaps now is a pivotal time to do something to increase it's clinical, monetary and political value.

Anonymous said...

The intent to make it compulsory for practitioners is naive and reflects the command and control mindset, which is the biggest culture change we are facing, until the machinery of Government takes up the Mantra of changing too, then this will be a long and rocky road.

I do also question who reviewed this before it was published?

'Ensure dedicated content rich expertise in healthcare and the role of the My Health Record is available to support the next stages of system wide change management and social marketing.'

What on earth does this mean?

All such undertakings can be pulled apart, I am in no terms questioning the quality of the contracted consultancy.

Bernard Robertson-Dunn said...

What does "use" mean?

1. The government's definition i.e. registrations and data is uploaded? or

2. Real use - records are downloaded, read and used as a valuable part of health care?

The first is easy but meaningless, the second is impossible to monitor and enforce.

Rather a naive and stupid suggestion really.

Anonymous said...

I really think we need Rob Sitch to run the ADHA, he has the experience or running white elephants and certainly knows about consultants like these.

"Utopia. The multi award-winning satirical comedy about a group of people charged with building this nation – one white elephant at a time."

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/programs/utopia/

Life imitates art?