You’d have thought a Labour MP or two would have said something, but they must be apprehensive about getting the same treatment that Gaurav Sharma got from Dear Leader.
from the BFD
A couple of days ago the Independent Police Complaints Authority released a report that criticised Police for taking a large number of photographs “with no clear and lawful purpose”. There is also a claim of racial bias, as 53 per cent of those photographed were Maori.
The response from the Police Commissioner [Obergruppenführer Coster] has been along the lines of Yes we did the wrong thing – but never mind, eh?; the sort of response you’d expect from someone who knows they’re well and truly above the law and protected from up on high. After all, who are you going to complain to?
The response from the Police Association has been undignified and quite extraordinary. Chris Cahill’s infantile behaviour when interviewed by Sean Plunket – throwing a tantrum and hanging up – was just pathetic. Another one who is above the law and ‘protected’.
This is timely. I read the article https://www.1news.co.nz/2022/09/08/police-took-and-stored-thousands-of-unlawful-photos-inquiry/ and phoned the Privacy Commissioner’s office around noon last Friday. I basically asked 2 questions of the lady who answered the phone (1)If it’s illegal for Coster’s goons to take pictures of YOUNG Maori without their consent, is it also illegal to take pictures of ELDERLY Pakeha, without THEIR consent? She chuckled a bit and said that she couldn’t answer the question and that she would have to get “a consultant” to call me back. My second question was if it was illegal to take pictures without consent, where does that leave my least favourite supermarket, New World Kerikeri, as far as them photoing/videoing every customer that walks in without the customer’s consent? She couldn’t answer that one and said she would get a consultant to phone me. Well, no call back on Friday s I decided to chase them up this morning, as I did with the Commerce Commission in relation to another issue with my least favourite supermarket. I spoke to a very helpful he/him? who found the record of my call. I got a chuckle when he read what the lady had written, she had changed “elderly Pakeha,” to “elderly European.” Anyway, he said he would send an e mail to somebody and I guess I will have to wait and hear what happens. Watch this space! I went and had a look at The Privacy Act and will do another comment on what I found and I will be interested in feedback from the Watchers of Waekenae
A few thoughts on Privacy Act 2020
7Interpretation
(1)In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,—
agency means a person described in section 4 to whom this Act applies
4Application of this Act
(1)This Act (except section 212) applies to—
(a)a New Zealand agency (A), in relation to any action taken by A (whether or not while A is, or was, present in New Zealand) in respect of personal information collected or held by A:
8Meaning of New Zealand agency
In this Act, New Zealand agency—
(a)means—
(i)an individual who is ordinarily resident in New Zealand; or
(ii)a public sector agency; or
(iii)a New Zealand private sector agency; or
(iv)a court or tribunal, except in relation to its judicial functions;
I will be very interested to find out if “Foodstuffs/New World” fit the definition of “(iii)a New Zealand private sector agency.” It they DO, it could be very interesting in view of the various Part 3
Information privacy principles and codes of practice
Subpart 1—Information privacy principles
22Information privacy principles
The information privacy principles are as follows:
There are quite a few and some are very interesting