Wednesday, October 05, 2022

The Optus Breach Has Revealed A Comatose Government Stewardship Of Ordinary Citizen’s Personal Data Privacy!

There is going to have to be a major rethink of all our laws surrounding personal data privacy….

Out of the Optus breach we have learnt there is little or no control on the amount and scope of data that can be held on each of us and for how long it can be kept – let alone how we can get to see what is held.

That all needs to be clarified, codified, consulted, agreed and legislated.

As a typical piece of nonsense who knew all this regarding politicians who I would not trust to hold my bus ticket?

Big parties are watching you – and your data

PETER VAN ONSELEN

12:00AM October 1, 2022

Both major parties are pouring scorn on Optus for its customer-data breach, rightly so. If reports are accurate that the company’s defences weren’t up to scratch, that’s simply not good enough.

We are also hearing calls for Privacy Act reforms to better protect citizens whose personal information is retained by businesses. There’s a growing clamour as politicians share their anger and concern over what has happened.

But are these politicians hypocrites? Yes, they absolutely are.

Major political parties operate sophisticated voter-tracking software without the consent of voters and their databases contain enormous amounts of personal information about all of us. Every major-party member of parliament has voter-tracking software operating in their office and they won’t let you see it even if you ask.

Labor’s database is named Campaign Central (previously Electrac), the Coalition’s database is named Feedback. Political parties get automatic electronic access to the electoral roll, with monthly updates also freely provided by the Australian Electoral Commission.

Basic information these party databases have includes our name, date of birth, address and, for many of us, a lot more. Parties seek to harvest as much information about us as they can, with the aim of using such details to better target campaigning to win our votes.

So when you write to your MP, get doorknocked, give details at a street stall or answer questionnaires or party polling, expect the information you provide to make its way into one of these databases. If they represent you in official correspondence to a department, whereby you might include all manner of sensitive personal information, expect those details to be uploaded into the database.

How good are the protections on such personal information, I wonder. The databases have been in operation for decades, and the worst part is that you have no right to access information on yourself or even check if it is accurate.

That’s because the major parties have excluded themselves from Privacy Act rules other private organisations must abide by that require them to disclose any information they retain about their customers when it’s requested. You can’t even use Freedom of Information laws to try to access what information the parties have stored about you because political parties are private organisations, even though taxpayer-funded political staff upload information in the databases. FOI applications can be used only to access public sector information.

In other words, political parties neatly fall between accountability checks. They write the legislation, they control the rules.

More here:

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/inquirer/big-parties-are-watching-you-and-your-data/news-story/6594373959e94f44f79d39ecd71ab674

Surely that all needs to just stop!!!

Another issue is just why you need to hand over any data, rather than just display it at a sight of purchase for example? There are lots of situations where this is totally unnecessary.

Also what is the duration data can be held and what are the reasons why? All needs to be reviewed and sanity checked!

While on the topic we need to sort out the level and reasons for penalty to focus all the minds those data custodians who don’t take their responsibilities seriously.

I reckon this all needs a new specific Personal Data Handling Act = at a Federal Level. Anything less would be an insult!

There is very little doubt we need a major effort to catch up on the regulation and protection of your / our digital ecosystem,  We are a decade behind where we should - Lib/Lab are both guilty - and rapid change and improvement is needed - and the bleating lobbies just need to be ignored for all our sakes!!!!

What annoys you most about the status quo and what needs to change most? And I have not even got onto marketing and Social Media problems and issues!

Bloody huge but vital job is ahead!

David.

 

No comments:

Post a Comment