ACCforum: Official Information request-IT Sweep - ACCforum

Jump to content

  • 9 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Official Information request-IT Sweep the secret emails in your file

#1 User is offline   not their victim 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10829
  • Joined: 04-August 08

Posted 22 October 2011 - 10:03 AM

Your name
Your addy
Your phone number
Your acc number



Request for Information – Official Information and Privacy Acts
PART A

• Request for Updated ‘IT’ Sweep.

1. Under the provisions of the Official Information and Privacy Acts, I request that ACC undertake and complete an 'IT' Sweep of all communications between ACC and all parties whether internal or external, that ACC stores on all of my claims, or names, injury related, non-injury related or otherwise.

a) To reiterate, this request is irrespective of the type of injury, or non-injury or otherwise, whether the communication is injury related, non-injury related or otherwise, or the type/nature of the communication.

B) Please ensure that the ‘IT’ Sweep is conducted and completed with every possible variation/s of my name and the names that I have previously been known by, which ACC is aware of and is documented on my claim files.

c) There are no formal previous requests for an ‘IT’ Sweep. There have been other requests under the Privacy Act and Official information act for Claim File Download

d) Through this further and new request made today, please provide any additional information that was not included in my previous requests. I would ask that any additional information not previously supplied to me, be in the same manner as outlined in this letter – without exception.

2. In requesting that an 'IT' Sweep be completed, I specifically require the following information also be provided to me through the 'IT' Sweep:-
3.
e) That the 'IT' Sweep be undertaken and completed for the period from approximately ????? insert date here and as above, to a date that is within the time frame for ACC to action requests for information under the IOA and Privacy Acts. I would estimate that this ‘IT’ Sweep request be conducted/completed up to, or approximate to, the date of ???? insert date here

f) Please confirm with me the formal ‘end date’ of this ‘IT’ Sweep request as soon as possible and prior to completion/delivery to me.






4. In addition, I also request that ACC undertakes and completes the 'IT' Sweep (as above), whether internal or external (as above) that ACC stores in the following areas also:-

i. All physical claims.
ii. ACC Complaints Office.
iii. Office of the ACC Complaints Investigation Unit and ACC Complaints Line/Office/Call Centre.
iv. ACC Head Office, Office of the ACC CEO, ACC Corporate Services, ACC Clinical Directorate, and any other such section/unit/branch of ACC as identified in the opening paragraph of this letter.
v. ACC Debt Management Unit.
vi. ACC Intelligence and Support Services.
vii. ACC Contracted Third Party Providers/Assessors and Treatment Providers.
viii. Non-ACC (Contracted) Providers/Assessors and Treatment Providers.
ix. Sensitive Claim requests-whatever your issue is

g) I request that ACC informs me if any information has been withheld, deleted, or blacked out in any way and if so, for what lawful reason that this has been done, and;

PART B

• ACC Employee and External Access to Claimant files, information etc.

5. In addition to PART A above, under the provisions of the Official Information and Privacy Acts, I request that ACC also provides me with full details of the following from march 2002 up to an inclusive of this request being completed – estimated to be approximate to the date of ???? insert date here

h) Information as to who has specifically accessed my file/s for any reason/s, injury related, non-injury related or otherwise. Name, date and title details required of each person who has accessed my files, whether this be (ACC) internally or externally.

i) Please specify exactly for what purpose inclusive of any legislative requirements, any aspect of any part of my claim files (ACC) internally or externally – injury related, or non-injury related or otherwise, has been accessed. Names, date and title details required of each person who has accessed any aspect of my files, with the purpose/s being specified precisely for each and every occasion that this has occurred and why this has occurred.

j) Please provide information, reasons, and purposes as specified, detailed, outlined and in the same manner as discussed in PART A, No.3 (i–x) of this letter and PART B.




k) Please provide me with information, and copies of, the authority that exists or existed for any aspect of any part of my claim files, injury related, or non-injury related or otherwise, that were forwarded onto any other persons – (ACC) internally or externally, for what reason/s, purpose and under which legislative edict or otherwise, this was done. Names, date/s and title details required also.

l) I request that ACC informs me if any information has been withheld, deleted, or blacked out in any way and if so, for what lawful and legal reason that this has been done, and why.

Please advise me by Email only when all information/documentation is available to me, at which time I will provide ACC with a physical address to courier the documents to me.

Please take this letter by Email/Attachment – PDF file, forwarded to you as the Case Manager of ACC, dated ????? as my formal written request to receive this information under the provisions of the Official Information and Privacy Acts.

If you wish to clarify any matters with me, please contact me by Email only and finally, I request that you acknowledge by return Email also, receipt of my formal written requests as outlined in this letter to you.


Thank you.


Your name here…………
0

#2 User is offline   hukildaspida 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Member
  • Posts: 3353
  • Joined: 24-August 07

Posted 22 October 2011 - 11:00 AM

Make sure you also send an IT Sweep directly to all those third parties whom http://acc.co.nz has referred you to i.e Treatment Providers, Specialists, physios, Functional Capacity Assessors etc.

This will help reveal where documents have been knowingly & intentionally removed from your file to make you look like you are non-compliant or a member of society that is not valued for whom you are.

It is where the true colours of those within & associated with http://www.acc.co.nz show through.

It will also reveal whom needs help for using their Positions of Power to ABUSE the vulnerable & assume they can get away with it.

It is against the Law to act Unlawfully and/ or to Discriminate based on assumptions &/or acting outside one's Legal Qualifications & Knowledge.

0

#3 User is offline   greg 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1159
  • Joined: 15-September 03

Posted 22 October 2011 - 11:15 AM

Does this also include specialist making reports outside of their 'acknowleged' expertise?

""It is against the Law to act Unlawfully and/ or to Discriminate based on assumptions &/or acting outside one's Legal Qualifications & Knowledge.""
0

#4 User is offline   not their victim 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10829
  • Joined: 04-August 08

Posted 22 October 2011 - 11:52 AM

""Does this also include specialist making reports outside of their 'acknowleged' expertise?""

those go to the Health and Disability Commission, and I would CC it to the medical Council....

check the threat about 3rd party assessments, then you will understand the "lack of power" that assessors have and the abuse of acc....

dont forget, for every claimant they wipe, 6% bonus on top of their huge salaries!
0

#5 User is offline   jaffa 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1792
  • Joined: 14-August 11
  • LocationWellington City

Posted 23 October 2011 - 12:18 AM

Have used forms off forum previously to no avail. How is this going to be any different?

View Postnot their victim, on 22 October 2011 - 10:03 AM, said:

Your name
Your addy
Your phone number
Your acc number



Request for Information – Official Information and Privacy Acts
PART A

• Request for Updated ‘IT’ Sweep.

1. Under the provisions of the Official Information and Privacy Acts, I request that ACC undertake and complete an 'IT' Sweep of all communications between ACC and all parties whether internal or external, that ACC stores on all of my claims, or names, injury related, non-injury related or otherwise.

a) To reiterate, this request is irrespective of the type of injury, or non-injury or otherwise, whether the communication is injury related, non-injury related or otherwise, or the type/nature of the communication.

B) Please ensure that the ‘IT’ Sweep is conducted and completed with every possible variation/s of my name and the names that I have previously been known by, which ACC is aware of and is documented on my claim files.

c) There are no formal previous requests for an ‘IT’ Sweep. There have been other requests under the Privacy Act and Official information act for Claim File Download

d) Through this further and new request made today, please provide any additional information that was not included in my previous requests. I would ask that any additional information not previously supplied to me, be in the same manner as outlined in this letter – without exception.

2. In requesting that an 'IT' Sweep be completed, I specifically require the following information also be provided to me through the 'IT' Sweep:-
3.
e) That the 'IT' Sweep be undertaken and completed for the period from approximately ????? insert date here and as above, to a date that is within the time frame for ACC to action requests for information under the IOA and Privacy Acts. I would estimate that this ‘IT’ Sweep request be conducted/completed up to, or approximate to, the date of ???? insert date here

f) Please confirm with me the formal ‘end date’ of this ‘IT’ Sweep request as soon as possible and prior to completion/delivery to me.






4. In addition, I also request that ACC undertakes and completes the 'IT' Sweep (as above), whether internal or external (as above) that ACC stores in the following areas also:-

i. All physical claims.
ii. ACC Complaints Office.
iii. Office of the ACC Complaints Investigation Unit and ACC Complaints Line/Office/Call Centre.
iv. ACC Head Office, Office of the ACC CEO, ACC Corporate Services, ACC Clinical Directorate, and any other such section/unit/branch of ACC as identified in the opening paragraph of this letter.
v. ACC Debt Management Unit.
vi. ACC Intelligence and Support Services.
vii. ACC Contracted Third Party Providers/Assessors and Treatment Providers.
viii. Non-ACC (Contracted) Providers/Assessors and Treatment Providers.
ix. Sensitive Claim requests-whatever your issue is

g) I request that ACC informs me if any information has been withheld, deleted, or blacked out in any way and if so, for what lawful reason that this has been done, and;

PART B

• ACC Employee and External Access to Claimant files, information etc.

5. In addition to PART A above, under the provisions of the Official Information and Privacy Acts, I request that ACC also provides me with full details of the following from march 2002 up to an inclusive of this request being completed – estimated to be approximate to the date of ???? insert date here

h) Information as to who has specifically accessed my file/s for any reason/s, injury related, non-injury related or otherwise. Name, date and title details required of each person who has accessed my files, whether this be (ACC) internally or externally.

i) Please specify exactly for what purpose inclusive of any legislative requirements, any aspect of any part of my claim files (ACC) internally or externally – injury related, or non-injury related or otherwise, has been accessed. Names, date and title details required of each person who has accessed any aspect of my files, with the purpose/s being specified precisely for each and every occasion that this has occurred and why this has occurred.

j) Please provide information, reasons, and purposes as specified, detailed, outlined and in the same manner as discussed in PART A, No.3 (i–x) of this letter and PART B.




k) Please provide me with information, and copies of, the authority that exists or existed for any aspect of any part of my claim files, injury related, or non-injury related or otherwise, that were forwarded onto any other persons – (ACC) internally or externally, for what reason/s, purpose and under which legislative edict or otherwise, this was done. Names, date/s and title details required also.

l) I request that ACC informs me if any information has been withheld, deleted, or blacked out in any way and if so, for what lawful and legal reason that this has been done, and why.

Please advise me by Email only when all information/documentation is available to me, at which time I will provide ACC with a physical address to courier the documents to me.

Please take this letter by Email/Attachment – PDF file, forwarded to you as the Case Manager of ACC, dated ????? as my formal written request to receive this information under the provisions of the Official Information and Privacy Acts.

If you wish to clarify any matters with me, please contact me by Email only and finally, I request that you acknowledge by return Email also, receipt of my formal written requests as outlined in this letter to you.


Thank you.


Your name here…………

3

#6 User is offline   Huggy 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1219
  • Joined: 18-October 05

Posted 23 October 2011 - 08:28 AM

If they dont give you the information within 28 days then you need to lodge complaints with the privacy commissioner and/or ombudsman.

ACC are obligated under law to release personal information that forms part of your file.
0

#7 User is offline   so ovr sensitiveclaimsunit 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 489
  • Joined: 23-April 10

Posted 23 October 2011 - 10:06 AM

View PostHuggy, on 23 October 2011 - 08:28 AM, said:

If they dont give you the information within 28 days then you need to lodge complaints with the privacy commissioner and/or ombudsman.

ACC are obligated under law to release personal information that forms part of your file.



Yes true, but ACC are also entitled to request for extensions - which I note that they now do so on a very 'liberal' and frequent basis - like 90 days using very dubious excuses like "the information is not easily accessible and will take time". It's not hard to guess why they request extra time now is it????
0

#8 User is offline   not their victim 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10829
  • Joined: 04-August 08

Posted 27 October 2011 - 01:47 PM

UPDATE FOLKS......there is a now a generic letter, passed to me it seems the IT sweep is being declined!!!

its in PDF format and i do not want to identify the claimant



Re Letter to me dated ????? 2011 - Information Requests

I am in receipt of your letter, as above. I now ask that you respond to the following questions that I have, without delay. I consider that there is significant importance and urgency to the questions that I have, therefore please respond accordingly as opposed to waiting for next claim update day or for another two weeks following that.

Re IT Sweep.
Can you please advise me why it has taken the ACC/SCU some 6 months to inform me of of its 'new processes' that have been introduced on 1 January 2011?

This is of some significance as in June you requested an extension of time (90 days) "due to difficulty in accessing the information...".

You then on the ????? 2011, when I requested an update as to how this information request was progressing forwards, advised me that:-

"As your request of ???? 2011 pertains to a large volume of information, we continue to work on this request and will respond to you as soon as possible within the required timeframe's".

How is it then, that this information is 'suddenly' not available because of 'new processes' (of ACC's), and why have you not previously informed me of this fact?

Your letter of ???? 2011, is in stark contrast to that which you have previously advised of. How do you explain that please?? In more blunt terms, it is plainly dishonest and how do you explain that level of dishonesty please??

Can you please advise me why you need yet another three weeks to process this information including copies of my claims files, when you have had this request for six months and should be way past this point.

Can you please provide a copy of the new processes that ACC has introduced that ensures that "all information relevant to me..." and which ACC has then used to with hold information from me.

Re Access Log Request.
Can you please advise me what policies ACC is using to determine whether information that I have requested is 'trivial and have therefore declined my requests for information on the basis of my information being 'trivial?

Please provide me with copies of any and all of ACC's policies that shows how this final determination is arrived at by ACC and, who in ACC determines that.
If required, I request this information under the provisions of the Official Information and Privacy Acts and if required also, please take this Email as my formal written requests to receive same.
0

#9 User is offline   not their victim 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10829
  • Joined: 04-August 08

Posted 27 October 2011 - 01:58 PM

it seems like the system is now swamped, and acc are determining that asking for our information is trivial.

acc are quoting.....see below, section 29, 1 (j)



Privacy Act 1993 No 28 (as at 01 July 2011), Public Act
•See related information and/or uncompiled amendments
See other versions
View PDF copy
View whole Act (546KB)
Add to web feed
Contents
« Previous
Next »
Search within this Act


Act by section
Contents
› Part 4 Good reasons for refusing access to personal information






29 Other reasons for refusal of requests


(1) An agency may refuse to disclose any information requested pursuant to principle 6 if—

(a) the disclosure of the information would involve the unwarranted disclosure of the affairs of another individual or of a deceased individual; or


(B) the disclosure of the information or of information identifying the person who supplied it, being evaluative material, would breach an express or implied promise—

(i) which was made to the person who supplied the information; and


(ii) which was to the effect that the information or the identity of the person who supplied it or both would be held in confidence; or



© after consultation undertaken (where practicable) by or on behalf of the agency with an individual's medical practitioner, the agency is satisfied that—

(i) the information relates to that individual; and


(ii) the disclosure of the information (being information that relates to the physical or mental health of the individual who requested it) would be likely to prejudice the physical or mental health of that individual; or



(d) in the case of an individual under the age of 16, the disclosure of that information would be contrary to that individual's interests; or


(e) the disclosure of that information (being information in respect of an individual who has been convicted of an offence or is or has been detained in custody) would be likely to prejudice the safe custody or the rehabilitation of that individual; or


(f) the disclosure of the information would breach legal professional privilege; or


(g) in the case of a request made to Radio New Zealand Limited or Television New Zealand Limited, the disclosure of the information would be likely to reveal the source of information of a bona fide news media journalist and either—

(i) the information is subject to an obligation of confidence; or


(ii) the disclosure of the information would be likely to prejudice the supply of similar information, or information from the same source; or



(h) the disclosure of the information, being information contained in material placed in any library or museum or archive, would breach a condition subject to which that material was so placed; or


(i) the disclosure of the information would constitute contempt of court or of the House of Representatives; or


(ia) the request is made by a defendant or a defendant's agent and is—

(i) for information that could be sought by the defendant under the Criminal Disclosure Act 2008; or


(ii) for information that could be sought by the defendant under that Act and that has been disclosed to, or withheld from, the defendant under that Act; or



(j) the request is frivolous or vexatious, or the information requested is trivial.
0

#10 User is offline   hukildaspida 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Member
  • Posts: 3353
  • Joined: 24-August 07

Posted 27 October 2011 - 02:17 PM

View Postnot their victim, on 27 October 2011 - 01:58 PM, said:

it seems like the system is now swamped, and acc are determining that asking for our information is trivial.

acc are quoting.....see below, section 29, 1 (j)



Privacy Act 1993 No 28 (as at 01 July 2011), Public Act
•See related information and/or uncompiled amendments
See other versions
View PDF copy
View whole Act (546KB)
Add to web feed
Contents
« Previous
Next »
Search within this Act


Act by section
Contents
› Part 4 Good reasons for refusing access to personal information






29 Other reasons for refusal of requests


(1) An agency may refuse to disclose any information requested pursuant to principle 6 if—

(a) the disclosure of the information would involve the unwarranted disclosure of the affairs of another individual or of a deceased individual; or


(B) the disclosure of the information or of information identifying the person who supplied it, being evaluative material, would breach an express or implied promise—

(i) which was made to the person who supplied the information; and


(ii) which was to the effect that the information or the identity of the person who supplied it or both would be held in confidence; or



© after consultation undertaken (where practicable) by or on behalf of the agency with an individual's medical practitioner, the agency is satisfied that—

(i) the information relates to that individual; and


(ii) the disclosure of the information (being information that relates to the physical or mental health of the individual who requested it) would be likely to prejudice the physical or mental health of that individual; or



(d) in the case of an individual under the age of 16, the disclosure of that information would be contrary to that individual's interests; or


(e) the disclosure of that information (being information in respect of an individual who has been convicted of an offence or is or has been detained in custody) would be likely to prejudice the safe custody or the rehabilitation of that individual; or


(f) the disclosure of the information would breach legal professional privilege; or


(g) in the case of a request made to Radio New Zealand Limited or Television New Zealand Limited, the disclosure of the information would be likely to reveal the source of information of a bona fide news media journalist and either—

(i) the information is subject to an obligation of confidence; or


(ii) the disclosure of the information would be likely to prejudice the supply of similar information, or information from the same source; or



(h) the disclosure of the information, being information contained in material placed in any library or museum or archive, would breach a condition subject to which that material was so placed; or


(i) the disclosure of the information would constitute contempt of court or of the House of Representatives; or


(ia) the request is made by a defendant or a defendant's agent and is—

(i) for information that could be sought by the defendant under the Criminal Disclosure Act 2008; or


(ii) for information that could be sought by the defendant under that Act and that has been disclosed to, or withheld from, the defendant under that Act; or



(j) the request is frivolous or vexatious, or the information requested is trivial.


Throw the same back at those associated with http://www.acc.co.nz when they ask you for information and see what there response is when they are told the same as what is written above. :)

Did they specify only
"(j)frivolous or vexatious, or the information requested is trivial" or all of the above numbers?

Request copy of who wrote the Legal Opinion as to why they http://www.acc.co.nz have responded that way.

Or was it written by one of there in-house lawyers?

Remember Content, Chronological Order & Context are taken into account when determining matters, including that of what constitutes frivolous & vexatious under Law.

0

#11 User is offline   so ovr sensitiveclaimsunit 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 489
  • Joined: 23-April 10

Posted 27 October 2011 - 03:17 PM

View Postnot their victim, on 27 October 2011 - 01:47 PM, said:

UPDATE FOLKS......there is a now a generic letter, passed to me it seems the IT sweep is being declined!!!

its in PDF format and i do not want to identify the claimant



Re Letter to me dated ????? 2011 - Information Requests

I am in receipt of your letter, as above. I now ask that you respond to the following questions that I have, without delay. I consider that there is significant importance and urgency to the questions that I have, therefore please respond accordingly as opposed to waiting for next claim update day or for another two weeks following that.

Re IT Sweep.
Can you please advise me why it has taken the ACC/SCU some 6 months to inform me of of its 'new processes' that have been introduced on 1 January 2011?

This is of some significance as in June you requested an extension of time (90 days) "due to difficulty in accessing the information...".

You then on the ????? 2011, when I requested an update as to how this information request was progressing forwards, advised me that:-

"As your request of ???? 2011 pertains to a large volume of information, we continue to work on this request and will respond to you as soon as possible within the required timeframe's".

How is it then, that this information is 'suddenly' not available because of 'new processes' (of ACC's), and why have you not previously informed me of this fact?

Your letter of ???? 2011, is in stark contrast to that which you have previously advised of. How do you explain that please?? In more blunt terms, it is plainly dishonest and how do you explain that level of dishonesty please??

Can you please advise me why you need yet another three weeks to process this information including copies of my claims files, when you have had this request for six months and should be way past this point.

Can you please provide a copy of the new processes that ACC has introduced that ensures that "all information relevant to me..." and which ACC has then used to with hold information from me.

Re Access Log Request.
Can you please advise me what policies ACC is using to determine whether information that I have requested is 'trivial and have therefore declined my requests for information on the basis of my information being 'trivial?

Please provide me with copies of any and all of ACC's policies that shows how this final determination is arrived at by ACC and, who in ACC determines that.
If required, I request this information under the provisions of the Official Information and Privacy Acts and if required also, please take this Email as my formal written requests to receive same.


Here is a copy of a letter that I have received and have asked questions on as above. However what is important is that the ACC think they have found new ways of declining to provide information to claimants requesting IT Sweeps and Log Access Information.Who are they to decide what is trivial and who in ACC determines what is trivial or not???? Furthermore, ACC have 'apparently' been aware of or introduced 'new processes' on the 1st January 2011 but until now, ACC have not informed anyone. How devious of them and the question should be asked - "What are you all afraid of"????

LETTER FROM ACC SENSITIVE CLAIMS UNIT TO CLAIMANT

25th October 2011

Dear Claimant xxxxxxx

We’re sorry, we’re not able to provide the information you requested

On 23 May 2011 we received your request for an IT sweep and a staff access log. We appreciate your patience while we considered your request. This request has been considered under the Privacy Act 1993.

We are not able to provide this information because:

Access Log

ACC provided you with full copies of all your claim files on 4 October 2010. The information in these files includes actions and contacts in relation to your claims which have been undertaken by ACC staff members. Information contained in an 'Access log' is limited to names of staff who accessed a file, their role, their department, and when the file was accessed. ACC has determined that the information you have requested is trivial. Therefore, ACC respectfully declines to release this information pursuant to section 29(l)(j) of the Act.

If you have any specific concerns regarding ACC staff accessing your claim file, you are welcome to raise this with the Sensitive Claims Unit, by writing to: Jeanie Robinson, Branch Manager PO Box 1426,Wellington.

IT Sweep

In January 2011 ACC introduced processes that ensure that all information relevant to you and your claims, including emails, is now stored in your electronic claims records on EOS. This means that there is no need to search for individual emails after 31 December 2010.

The process is not retrospective and we have just become aware that we are required to comply with your request for an IT sweep from the date of the last IT sweep undertaken. The process came into force on 1 January 2011.
We have now requested an IT sweep for the period of 24/09/2010 to 31/12/10 and we will release this to you within the next 21 working days.

We sincerely apologise for any inconvenience this oversight may have caused you. (Yeah right)

Here is the information we can provide:

Full copies of your files were provided to you on 4 October 2010. This disclosure included all documents up to 26 August 2010. In addition a full copy of your sensitive claim file was provided to you on 23 March 2011 this included information up to 17 February 2011. We can now provide you with the remaining documents.

Please note that we have excluded all claim files where there has been no new information received since 27 August 2010. I have included a list of the claims that we have excluded for your information.
In addition, we will be providing you with a full copy of all information on claims that were lodged after 4 October 2010.

We will also provide a copy of the IT sweep for the period 24/09/2010 to 31/12/2010 when this becomes available but within 21 working days.

We look forward to hearing from you with regards ……………………………………………

Yours sincerely

(signature)

Caroline Loudon
Senior Support Co-ordinator
Telephone: 04 816 7558
0

#12 User is offline   Huggy 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1219
  • Joined: 18-October 05

Posted 27 October 2011 - 03:21 PM

Unfortunately the Office of the Privacy Commissioner is agreeing with ACC's desperate section of the PA to deny releasing the information.

Well perhaps full discovery might be a good option on the High Court proceedings that are in motion :-)

Something that may be relevant is, ACC and the Office of the privacy commissioner create a question of law when deciding the denial of release, a question of law can indeed include if the PC has construed or determined legislation correctly when forming their opinion, so another avenue to pursue perhaps.

Its rather funny that ACC desperately used the OIA to initially deny the access, their supposedly legal advisors also were adament the information falls within the scope of the OIA, the OCI agrees and upholds that the information is to do with the OIA then here I go, lodge a complaint with the PC and low and behold ACC have now had to change their view that the information indeed is private to our claim, and falls within the privacy act.

I am no lawyer but I knew I was right on this yet their so called legal advisors appear to be not only incompetant but totally unaware of the Privacy Act.

Well now ACC acknowledges the information belongs to our private file but then come up with their bullshit excuse that the information is trivial, frivolous, and vexatious. ACC open your eyes, I do not consider people who have full and unfettered access to my file including highly sensitive and confidential medical records to be trivial, frivolous and vexacious.

I will get this file either by way of direction from the PC and if that fails I will take this matter to the High Court in my proceedings because clearly this file forms evidence of ACC innapropriate actions towards my claim.
0

#13 User is offline   so ovr sensitiveclaimsunit 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 489
  • Joined: 23-April 10

Posted 27 October 2011 - 03:28 PM

View PostHuggy, on 27 October 2011 - 03:21 PM, said:



I am no lawyer but I knew I was right on this yet their so called legal advisors appear to be not only incompetant but totally unaware of the Privacy Act.


I will get this file either by way of direction from the PC and if that fails I will take this matter to the High Court in my proceedings because clearly this file forms evidence of ACC innapropriate actions towards my claim.


I fully agree with you. And Huggy me too, I will be and am following suit and I can't wait to see these total incompetent idiots shown up for what they truly are...and my thoughts on the ACC Sensitive Claims Unit are well known - completely incompetent pricks (CIP's) and completely incompetent liars (CIL's).
0

#14 User is offline   Huggy 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1219
  • Joined: 18-October 05

Posted 27 October 2011 - 03:50 PM

This file can be computer generated within minutes, again within minutes the column that contains surnames can be removed in order to protect the individuals privacy and once more within minutes can be attached to an email and sent to the claimant.

Now taking the above times into consideration, taking into consideration ACC's incompetance when dealing with anything even slightly technical, I believe allowing 30 minutes from start to finish would be more than ample time to process this request, so in a nutshell, very minimal time and costs involved to release the file, yet ACC are spending thousands of dollars relying on their legal advisors man hours to defend this, wasting thousands of dollars in man hours having the matter being reviewed by government services, and again, costing thousands of dollars of the man hours for the privacy commissioner to investigate numerous complaints, all in order to decline to release a file that could be done at the cost of probably around $10 - $20

hmmmmmm i smell a rat here...............ACC what are you scared of, are you finally realising this could expose innapropriate acces to claimants files, excessive access to claimants files, or perhaps, an evidence trail of where evidence could potentially be getting tampered with.

ACC it doesnt look good when a person at Government Services makes comment (located in released documentation), and I quote word for word, "Plus I have some queries as to why certain people would need access to his file".

That quote in itself implies innappropriate acces to my file, so go on ACC, release it while you can, before I seek the assistance of a High Court directive to get full discovery.
0

#15 User is offline   not their victim 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10829
  • Joined: 04-August 08

Posted 27 October 2011 - 05:44 PM

it will be interesting to see, how long acc hold on to my file considering i have been told it is there...and that it was incoming from another branch...

I have already stated, that holding onto, or opening the files for checking, will result in a complaint to the Privacy Commissioner.

How does an office worker, know what is trivial, frivolous or vexatious???

I want to know what questions were put to other departments in the background emails, that we are never supposed to see...

i found out the acc lawyer was harrassing drsl....to get the reviewer to wind up the case, instead of waiting for the relevant supporting medical documents!

so what other trivial frivoulous and vexation gobbledook goes on behind the scenes???

acc are now making an issue that this is a huge task, and some poor whipping girl gets paid to photocopy the file off...

interesting scenario really, are they making up policy as they go??? to deny our rights once again???

im in 2 minds as to whether to accept a contaminated file!and will also use this at district court level!
0

#16 User is offline   hukildaspida 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Member
  • Posts: 3353
  • Joined: 24-August 07

Posted 27 October 2011 - 09:56 PM

You have all hit the nail on the head.

What do they have to hide??

And why??

Conflicts of Interest??

Where is the Transparency and Integrity within http://www.acc.co.nz??

Is there a common link between your three cases, which are the tip of the iceberg, who is forming these Legal opinions at http://www.acc.co.nz?

Someone is responsible for having allowed http://www.acc.co.nz own in house Legal Team to not be accountable for incompetence & cover-ups.

We too have seen files where the cover ups are clearly from long term Senior Management & not those whom are Case Managers as some on here have assumed are responsible.

It was the Case Managers memos & some of the honest staff (yes there are some very good ones within http://www.acc.co.nz) that helped unearth the lies and dishonesty relating to documents been removed & denied ever existed in the aforementioned files to outside sources.

They were in there files, but not the one's that had been in the hands of http://www.acc.co.nz Legal Team & there close "associates" whom are supposed to be squeaky clean. Shame, shame, we know who you are.

We say it's time these Senior staff were completely cleaned out from working in any shape or form with ACC matters.

That is, they were sacked - Don't Come Monday, no Golden Handshakes.

It is something that Dr Jan WHITE should do prior to her departure as CEO, or the new CEO should do in his first week.


Judges & Crown Law Office Staff
need to do something about those whom are removing documents with intent to mislead as it must be embarrasing when these issues hit the Court System.

How about contacting the Office of the Ombudsmen.


This article may be of interest in regards to International Privacy matters in regards to your information with Facebook, which is in some ways similar to the above situation involving http://www.acc.co.nz, it is your personal information.

Click on the link to read reader's comments at the end of the article.


http://www.smh.com.a...1027-1mksg.html

Max's privacy war brings Facebook to heel

October 27, 2011 - 10:05AM

Comments 126

Austrian student Max Schrems sits with 1222 pages worth of his personal data that Facebook provided to him.

Austrian student Max Schrems sits with 1222 pages worth of his personal data that Facebook provided to him. Photo: AP

Max Schrems wasn't sure what he would get when he asked Facebook to send him a record of his personal data from three years of using the site.

What is your experience? Click here to have your say.

What the 24-year-old Austrian law student didn't expect, though, was 1222 pages of data on a CD. It included chats he had deleted more than a year ago, "pokes" dating back to 2008, invitations to which he had never responded, let alone attended, and hundreds of other details.

Time for an "aha" moment.

In response, Schrems has launched an online campaign aimed at forcing the social media behemoth that has 800 million users to abide by European data privacy laws - something the Palo Alto, California-based company insists it already does.

Yet, since Schrems launched his Europe vs. Facebook website in August, Facebook has increasingly been making overtures not only to Schrems, but to other Europeans concerned about data privacy, including Germany's data security watchdogs.


"Have we done enough in the past to deal with you? No," Facebook's director of European public policy, Richard Allan, testified before a German parliamentary committee on new media. "Will we do more now? Yes."

The lawmakers were holding a hearing on privacy rights.

Europeans - Germans in particular - have long been more concerned about data privacy than their US peers. Still, the European campaign comes amid increased agitation in the US over what many view as invasive internet marketing practices that allow consumers to be observed, analysed and harvested for profit, with no regard for their right to privacy.

Last month, several US privacy interest groups asked the US Federal Trade Commission in Washington to look into recent changes made by Facebook that give the company greater ability to disclose users' personal information to businesses than it used to have.

The German lawmakers brought up a raft of complaints, from allegations that Facebook's "Like" button allows the company to track non-members' internet activity, to concerns over the company's use of facial recognition software on personal photos.

One of Schrems's main complaints with Facebook, he says, is that the company retains information far longer than allowed under European law, which in most cases is limited to a few months.

"I wondered, what are they doing with my data?" Schrems said, sitting with his laptop in a Viennese coffee house. "I thought through everything that one can do with that amount of information; all the marketing that is possible."

Under European law, consumers have the right to request a record of the personal information held by a company. The law further stipulates that to retain data beyond the limit of several months, a company must have a reason to do so.

In Australia it is not clear whether Facebook users can get as much of their data from the company as Schrems received. However, Facebook has several pages on its site explaining how people can pull down their profile data and other posts they've made to the site since being a member.

That issue has been the basis for several of the 22 formal complaints that Schrems and his group have lodged with the Irish Data Protection Commissioner - responsible for Facebook's Ireland-based European subsidiary, which serves all users outside of the US and Canada.

Schrems also disputes that Facebook has given him all of the information it holds about him, arguing that he has only received information from 23 out of a possible 57 data categories.

Facebook insists it has given Schrems and others in his group all of the information that is legally required. Still, Facebook insists it is allowed to hold back data that includes "a range of other things that are not personal information, including Facebook's proprietary fraud protection measures, and 'any other analytical procedure that Facebook runs,'" a Facebook spokesman said.

"This is clearly not personal data, and Irish data protection law rightly places some valuable and reasonable limits on the data that has to be provided," said the spokesman, who did not give a name in keeping with company policy.

Ciara O'Sullivan,
a spokeswoman for the Irish commissioner, said a formal investigation has been launched into Schrems's complaints. In addition, a routine audit of Facebook's Irish operation will be conducted sooner than planned, to give authorities a complete picture in weighing the requests.

"We look at the law, and whether something is in breach of that law or not, whether we need to bring an organisation into compliance or not,"
O'Sullivan said in a telephone interview.

Allan repeatedly stressed that Facebook's view is that the way its service operates is completely compatible with European data protection law.

If an organisation is found not to be in compliance, they receive a warning and are asked to mend their ways. If they fail to do so, they could face a fine of about euro 100,000 ($133,500) - a drop in the bucket for a company valued by Goldman Sachs at $US50 billion ($48 billion).

Schrems, who has spent hours poring over his data and the European laws, points out that although the laws on data privacy are tough, there is little incentive for companies to follow them.

"I am not interested in money. What interests me is that the company follows the law," Schrems said. He argued that the only way that can happen is if Facebook users take matters into their own hands.

"It only takes a click to do something about it," he said.

AP

Read more: http://www.smh.com.a...l#ixzz1byR2Qc9S
0

#17 User is offline   hukildaspida 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Member
  • Posts: 3353
  • Joined: 24-August 07

Posted 27 October 2011 - 10:06 PM

Hope this link also is of assistance.

http://www.informati...rivacylaws.html


Regulatory Compliance » International Data Privacy Laws

International Privacy Laws


The following list contains a number of international privacy related laws by country and region. Wherever possible, these hyperlinks reference an English translation of the law. See also our list of U.S. Privacy Laws and other information security policy resources.

Argentina: Personal Data Protection Act of 2000 (aka Habeas Data)
Austria: Data Protection Act 2000, Austrian Federal Law Gazette part I No. 165/1999
(Datenschutzgesetz 2000 or DSG 2000).
Australia: Privacy Act of 1988
Belgium: Belgium Data Protection Law and Belgian Data Privacy Commission Privacy Blog
Brazil: Privacy currently governed by Article 5 of the 1988 Constitution.
Bulgaria: The Bulgarian Personal Data Protection Act, was adopted on December 21, 2001 and entered into force on January 1, 2002. More information at the Bugarian Data Protection Authority
Canada: The Privacy Act - July 1983
Personal Information Protection and Electronic Data Act (PIPEDA) of 2000 (Bill C-6)
Chile: Act on the Protection of Personal Data, August 1998
Colombia: Two laws affecting data privacy - Law 1266 of 2008: (in Spanish) and Law 1273 of 2009 (in Spanish) Also, the constitution provides any person the right to update their personal information
Czech Republic: Act on Protection of Personal Data (April 2000) No. 101
Denmark: Act on Processing of Personal Data, Act No. 429, May 2000.
Estonia: Personal Data Protection Act of 2003. June 1996, Consolidated July 2002.
European Union: European Union Data Protection Directive of 1998
EU Internet Privacy Law of 2002 (DIRECTIVE 2002/58/EC) With a discussion here.
Finland: Act on the Amendment of the Personal Data Act (986) 2000.
France: Data Protection Act of 1978 (revised in 2004)
Germany: Federal Data Protection Act of 2001
Greece: Law No.2472 on the Protection of Individuals with Regard to the Processing of Personal Data, April 1997.
Guernsey: Data Protection (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law of 2001
Hong Kong: Personal Data Ordinance (The "Ordinance")
Hungary: Act LXIII of 1992 on the Protection of Personal Data and the Publicity of Data of Public Interests (excerpts in English).
Iceland: Act of Protection of Individual; Processing Personal Data (Jan 2000)
Ireland: Data Protection (Amendment) Act, Number 6 of 2003
India: Information Technology Act of 2000
Italy: Data Protection Code of 2003
Italy: Processing of Personal Data Act, January 1997
Japan: Personal Information Protection Law (Act) (Official English Translation)
Law Summary from Jonesday Publishing
Japan: Law for the Protection of Computer Processed Data Held by Administrative Organs, December 1988.
Korea - Act on Personal Information Protection of Public Agencies Act on Information and Communication Network Usage
Latvia: Personal Data Protection Law, March 23, 2000.
Lithuania: Law on Legal Protection of Personal Data (June 1996)
Luxembourg: Law of 2 August 2002 on the Protection of Persons with Regard to the Processing of Personal Data.
Malaysia - Common Law principle of confidentiality Personal data Protection Bill (Not finalized) Banking and Financial Institutions Act of 1989 privacy provisions.
Malta: Data Protection Act (Act XXVI of 2001), Amended March 22, 2002, November 15, 2002 and July 15, 2003
Morocco: Data Protection Act
Netherlands: Dutch Personal Data Protection Act 2000 as amended by Acts dated 5 April 2001, Bulletin of Acts, Orders and Decrees 180, 6 December 2001
New Zealand: Privacy Act, May 1993; Privacy Amendment Act, 1993; Privacy Amendment Act, 1994
Norway: Personal Data Act (April 2000) - Act of 14 April 2000 No. 31 Relating to the Processing of Personal Data (Personal Data Act)
Philippines: No general data protection law, but there is a recognized right of privacy in civil law and a model data protection code.
Romania: Law No. 677/2001 for the Protection of Persons concerning the Processing of Personal Data and the Free Circulation of Such Data
Poland: Act of the Protection of Personal Data (August 1997)
Portugal: Act on the Protection of Personal Data (Law 67/98 of 26 October)
Singapore - The E-commerce Code for the Protection of Personal Information and Communications of Consumers of Internet Commerce. Other related Singapore Laws and E-commerce Laws .
Slovak Republic: Act No. 428 of 3 July 2002 on Personal Data Protection.
Slovenia: Personal Data Protection Act , RS No. 55/99.
South Africa: Electronic Communications and Transactions Act, 2002
South Korea: The Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Data Protection of 2000
http://www.internet....za/ect_act.html
Spain: ORGANIC LAW 15/1999 of 13 December on the Protection of Personal Data
Switzerland: The Federal Law on Data Protection of 1992
Sweden: Personal Data Protection Act (1998:204), October 24, 1998
Taiwan: Computer Processed Personal data Protection Law - applies only to public institutions. (English Translation)
Thailand: Official Information Act, B.E. 2540 (1997) for state agencies. ( Personal data Protection bill under consideration.)
United Kingdom: UK Data Protection Act 1998
Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003 official text, and a consumer oriented site at the Information Commissioner's Office.
Vietnam: The Law on Electronic Transactions 2008

Regulatory Compliance » United States Data Privacy Laws

Request a Sample Policy
Privacy Law Compliance
The Privacy Management Toolkit The Privacy Management Toolkit provides time-saving tools, templates and policies to help create a data privacy program based on OECD Fair Information Principles.

» Request a Sample
» Product Details
» PMTK Data Sheet
» Privacy Whitepapers
» Privacy 10-Point Checkup

» FREE! Estimate the cost of a privacy breach
Other Regulations
» PCI-DSS Solutions
» ISO 17799/27001
» COBIT/Sarbanes-Oxley
» HIPAA Security and Privacy
» More regulatory solutions
Other Products
» Privacy Management Toolkit
» Information Security Roles & Responsibilities Made Easy
» Security Awareness Newsletter
Security Policy Tools
» Regulatory Requirements
» Security Policy News
» Security Policy Whitepapers
» More Policy Tools
Free Consultation
Talk to Us
Free 30 Minute Expert Consultation: (888) 641-0500
Purchase Online
Purchase Online
We Accept VISA, MC and AMEX
Free Policy Solutions Newsletter
Free Newsletter
Sign up for our free &
Policy Solutions Newsletter

Products
|
Services
|
Regulatory Solutions
|
Policy Tools
|
Company
|
Contact
|
Privacy Policy

Copyright 2004-2011, Information Shield, Inc.
0

#18 User is offline   not their victim 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10829
  • Joined: 04-August 08

Posted 28 October 2011 - 08:55 AM

it seems that since the actual template was launched, only a short while ago, quite a few claimant here have asked for their IT sweep???


in my honest opinion, it because we have created manual labour, in assembling the files....as the assembler wil realise that if the file isnt in the order as quoted below, that the file has been breached! (or gone through with a fine tooth comb to remove incriminating evidence)

""Remember Content, Chronological Order & Context are taken into account when determining matters, including that of what constitutes frivolous & vexatious under Law""



acc are using section 29 to discourage us form obtaining the it sweep

however, we could use section 28 TRADE SECRETS!!!.....

what are these nasty little emails in the background, and do they contain a whole pile of IRRELEVANT matter, which they are not allowed to do, under the terms of legality, as obtained from the law Commissinoers report!

acc cant keep using irrelevant material to deny disempower and decline! that the law!

they have probably just made up a new policy, to block our access to legal info

do acc follow regulatory compliance within the Common Law principles of confidentiality???

maybe not, and maybe this is why we have just opened up a huge can of worms???

please keep us posted about your experiences with any blocks to your personal files.
0

#19 User is offline   not their victim 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10829
  • Joined: 04-August 08

Posted 28 October 2011 - 09:15 AM

Privacy Act 1993 No 28 (as at 01 July 2011), Public Act



Act by section
Contents
› Part 4 Good reasons for refusing access to personal information


28 Trade secrets


(1) Subject to subsection (2), an agency may refuse to disclose any information requested pursuant to principle 6 if the withholding of the information is necessary to protect information where the making available of the information—

(a) would disclose a trade secret; or


(B) would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information.



(2) Information may not be withheld under subsection (1) if, in the circumstances of the particular case, the withholding of that information is outweighed by other considerations which render it desirable, in the public interest, to make the information available.

Compare: 1982 No 156 s 27(1)(a); 1987 No 8 s 4(2); 1987 No 174 s 26(1)(a)
0

#20 User is offline   not their victim 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10829
  • Joined: 04-August 08

Posted 28 October 2011 - 09:17 AM

http://www.cfoi.org....filesintro.html
0

Share this topic:


  • 9 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users