KEY POINTS:
If you value your privacy here in New Zealand, privacy from your fellow citizens and from the Government, the latest report from privacy watchdog, Privacy International http://www.privacyinternational.org/article.shtml?cmd[347]=x-347-559597, may send a chill through you.
On a colour-coded map of the world, New Zealand along with countries like Australia,
Ireland, Japan, Brazil and Spain are bathed in red which indicates "systematic failure to uphold safeguards" to privacy. It could be worse - Russia, the USA, China and Great Britain with its bristling network of CCTV cameras, are coloured black - they are in the eyes of Privacy International, "endemic surveillance societies". The question is whether New Zealand is set to slip into this dark category as well.
On the face of it, we seem to be losing more of our privacy every year as Governments use new technology and legislation to keep closer tabs on us. From biometric passports to greater sharing of information among Government departments to greater use of surveillance technology, we would certainly seem to be following the lead of countries in the black category. But privacy is a touchy issue for Kiwis and rightly so. Just listen to talkback radio whenever talk of a national ID card emerges in the media.
Privacy International's summary for us and most other nations is grim:
"The 2007 rankings indicate an overall worsening of privacy protection across the world, reflecting an increase in surveillance and a declining performance of privacy safeguards," it's report reads.
"The 2007 rankings show an increasing trend amongst governments to archive data on the geographic, communications and financial records of all their citizens and residents. This trend leads to the conclusion that all citizens, regardless of legal status, are under suspicion," it goes on to say.
"The privacy trends have been fuelled by the emergence of a profitable surveillance industry dominated by global IT companies and the creation of numerous international treaties that frequently operate outside judicial or democratic processes," it adds rather ominously.
In summing up the state of New Zealand's privacy , Privacy International makes note of the following:
NEW ZEALAND
* Article 21 of the Bill of Rights refers to searches and seizures; court of appeal has interpreted this as a right to privacy
* Privacy Act and sector-specific legislation; also a law against intimate covert filming
* OPC oversees compliance but is not a central data registration or notification authority; deals with complaints and reviews public sector information matching programs; power to investigate
* Data-sharing between law enforcement agencies is enabled by statute
* Employment court allowed random drug tests on workers in safety sensitive areas, pre-employment, and on suspicion, or near accidents
* Court of appeal has had some problematic decisions regarding privacy complaints
* DNA database based on order from high court judge, violent crimes, and convicted burglars; though voluntary samples can be included and increasingly this is being pushed by the police, resulting in more than 80 per cent of samples on database being given 'voluntarily'
* Newborn blood spot samples and related information is collected, and this data may be used by the police but only as a last resort or with parental consent
* Interception requires judicial warrants but only upon 'reasonable grounds' test; though this does not apply to security services
Over all, we rank 5th best out of 20 countries that exclude EU countries when it comes to protecting privacy. Of the non EU countries, Canada has the best privacy safeguards. Australia ranks 8th, while China and Malaysia come in last. In the EU, Greece and Romania have the best privacy protection, with the UK trailing the group.
The notes on Australia, which according to Privacy International has a worse privacy protection than ours, are worth considering:
AUSTRALIA
* No right to privacy in federal constitution, though one territory now includes the right to privacy within its bill of rights
* Comprehensive privacy laws at federal level and others within some states and territories, but there are broad exemptions that have precluded action by the privacy commissioner against small businesses and political parties; and does not meet international standards
* Power of commissioner diminished because determinations are not legally binding
* Numerous reports of data breaches, including at the taxation office, child support agency, and even amongst the police
* High level of interception activity; no notification requirement to innocent participants to communications
* Expanded surveillance powers in 2004
* Movement towards electronic medical records but no opt-in protections as yet
* De-identified medical data has been approved by the privacy commissioner for sale to pharmaceutical companies, despite protests
* Expanded financial surveillance and secret reporting
* DNA collection only for serious crimes at the moment
* Made preliminary steps to secure passports in 2006
* New government promised to abandon ID card plans; the office of access card has been closed but senior staff have moved to other department hinting at possible proposals to emerge
* Document verification service for use by public and private sector is being implemented despite lack of privacy considerations
* Abusive case of visa revocation of individual related to suspects in UK anti-terrorism case
So we enjoy better privacy provisions than our friends across the Tasman.
But is that really anything to take much comfort in considering we're ranked in the same underperforming category as Australia when it comes to privacy protection?
Do you feel uncomfortable about the level of information the Government has on you?
What do you think about CCTV in public places to aid in crime control or DNA profiling of criminals? How far should the Government be allowed to go in gathering information on New Zealanders in the interests of national security? Or is the threat to privacy overstated?
Do you
