It quickly follows that the media will be informed of these slip-ups. There's been ACC, MSD, Immigration New Zealand and last month EQC in Christchurch. Even if the details aren't earth-shattering or overly personal the fact that someone has received information not intended for them is no excuse to pass this on or share it with a third party.
Worse still is when some benefit or payment for its return is demanded. With so much personal information being collected these days and shared between government agencies, it's understandable that large amounts of data are being shifted electronically. Therein lies the potential for private information to get mislaid or waylaid.
And this doesn't just apply to government agencies; everyone seems to be sharing information.
But why can't the unintended recipients email straight back "received in error, all data deleted". What are they hoping to achieve by making an issue of it and going to the media? Are they, the "appalled recipients" doing us a favour?
With just a little delving and some rudimentary research skills anyone with an ounce of initiative can find out most of our personal details. But when it comes to information about the state of our health this is where we should expect complete privacy. There should be no unauthorised hospital personnel accessing patient medical information if it's not their area of work.
We go to hospital to be treated for all manner of illnesses. We have to be completely honest in what we share with the clinicians and other hospital staff if we are to benefit from their medical expertise. They can't help us unless they have the full picture. It must have been extremely embarrassing for the man with the eel.
What he didn't need nor should he have experienced was the breach of his privacy. This is no laughing matter.
Jesse Ryder was assaulted in Christchurch last month. He had his medical information viewed by four unauthorised hospital staff too. What if his records showed details of another illness or medical history that he didn't want the public to know about? Why were his records viewed?
Would those unauthorised staff have kept their mouths shut had they seen something unexpected? And would the media, certain to have been alerted, have shared any new information with us or left alone.
Everyone is entitled to information privacy. You don't have to be high profile. Any person whether a politician, musician, sports person or member of the general public should be able to seek hospital treatment knowing their health problem and the treatment they receive will be a private matter between them and the hospital. They shouldn't have to even imagine their medical information might be leaked.
That something might get into the public domain and possibly jeopardise their standing in the community, current job or career prospects.
We know that mental health issues, HIV, STD and even brain injury can cause some employers to suddenly get an attack of "we're reviewing our current organisational structure and existing positions". This can be an outcome when private details fall into the wrong hands and becomes known.
We share our personal details on a need to know basis. Those who work in trusted positions, and hospital staff are very much in this category, should always act professionally and with integrity.
There is no need for them to access patient information if it doesn't directly concern them. They should know better.
Those who want to snoop around hoping to uncover something shocking and scandalous need to butt out. How would they feel if the tables were turned?
