KEY POINTS:
Not a moment too soon, New Zealand Post did the right thing by sacking the man who hounded Auckland woman Amy Connell. But in its refusal to disclose his identity, the organisation has stopped well short of offering her the redress she deserved.
Amy went to a Manukau
City Postshop on Monday to send a parcel.
Within a few hours she was receiving text messages from a young man, who was to identify himself only as James. In 22 messages "James", whose powers of expression are about as sophisticated as his concept of ethics, unburdened himself of the opinion that Amy was "hot" and admitted that he had copied down her contact details from the back of her parcel. "U dnt mind i gt ur number?" he asked.
Well, as it happened, she did. As any reasonable person would, she resented being approached by somebody who had obtained her contact details by deceit. She objected even more when he kept bombarding her with unsolicited text messages after she had asked him to stop.
By the time, later that evening, that a carful of young men drove up and down her quiet suburban street and stopped outside her house, Amy had good reason to feel alarmed. There is no proof, of course, that the car contained her persistent admirer, although anybody prepared to bet that it did not would probably have more money than sense.
So far, so sleazy. But what happened next must have made Amy feel like Lewis Carroll's Alice on the wrong side of the looking-glass.
Naturally anxious to ensure that James' unwelcome attentions have ceased forever, she wants to consider laying a complaint with police and getting a restraining order against him. But she needs to know his surname and NZ Post won't disclose it for "privacy reasons".
The statement would be comical if it did not betray such a wrong-headed notion of what the Privacy Act 1993 is about. That act's 12 principles govern the way in which information is collected, stored, used and disclosed, and protects individuals' rights to access information about themselves and correct it if it is wrong.
Plainly it is about protecting individuals from abuse by organisations, and in particular by agencies of the state. It was not intended to allow sleazy young men to shelter from the consequences of their actions, nor to provide their employers with an excuse not to take action against employees who abuse their positions.
For NZ Post to chant the privacy mantra to a woman whose privacy had been so egregiously invaded is beyond preposterous. There were not competing rights to privacy here; a young woman was going about her business and a young man was acting like a creep - and, not incidentally, breaking the law.
Separate reports in 2002 by the State Services Commission and the Mental Health Commission found that the act was too often being used "to block the sharing of information that could or should be shared".
Organisations were blaming the law instead of owning their decisions and "the privacy excuse was alive and well". As recently as February, schools were citing the act to withhold students' reports from parents for whose benefit they are written.
The Privacy Commissioner, Marie Shroff, criticised NZ Post for apparently prizing James' privacy above Amy's but that seems to have cut no ice with the company. James is no longer on its payroll, but the case signals a wider need for a clear statement of how privacy laws are to be applied. It is intended to protect citizens from having their information misused. It was not designed - and should not be used - to shield rogues from the consequences of their actions.
