ACCforum: Official Information request-IT Sweep - ACCforum

Jump to content

  • 9 Pages +
  • « First
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

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

#121 User is offline   not their victim 

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

Posted 28 September 2014 - 01:38 PM

Beverly Wakem is the person in charge of investigation offences and has asked for further references of improper behaviour

In light of the fact Minister Collins was relieved of the portfolio of Justice Minister, (allegations of tampering with an SFO inquiry)

then it stands to reason that 6900 should have our cases re-examined based on the emails between Slater and Collins, within the ACC PRIVACY DEBACLE...in relation to DIRTY POLITICS




send grievance re Privacy Issues to the office of the Ombudsman, and perhaps a copy to the DPMC (Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet)

http://www.ombudsman.../investigations
0

#122 User is offline   not their victim 

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

Posted 28 September 2014 - 01:42 PM

http://dunedinstadiu...ection-inquiry/


http://thestandard.o...ocracy-goodbye/
0

#123 User is offline   Campy 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1386
  • Joined: 15-May 10
  • LocationAuckland Regional super city

Posted 10 October 2014 - 04:48 AM

Yes MINI we all watched the videos of Butler divulging private details and false info to the ever crooked Nottingham.

 MINI, on 09 September 2014 - 08:40 AM, said:

David Butler and Lauda Finem of course.

That is certainly provable from LF and this forum.

Mini

1

#124 User is offline   Campy 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1386
  • Joined: 15-May 10
  • LocationAuckland Regional super city

Posted 10 October 2014 - 04:50 AM

There's an idea

 not their victim, on 27 September 2014 - 10:58 AM, said:

Name

Address

Postcode

Contact phone

Contact email



Acc Claimant Number

Party Status Number

Any other relevant Government Service Number







The Chief Ombudsman

Dame Beverley Wakem



Investigation of Former Minister Judith Collins





It is my belief, following the release of Party Status Filesand Issue Management Files, that the investigation of former Minister ofJustice and Accident Compensation Commission, (ACC) The Honourable JudithCollins, should not be limited to the Serious Fraud Office



It is my belief, that Minister Collins may have been politicallyinvolved High Cost Claimants ACC files, especially those claimants whose highprofile cases have been taken up by Main Stream Media.



This is also in light of the fact that the former Ministerof ACC Nick Smith was sacked from his ACC Portfolio, and the ACC Board andExecutives were also sacked.



Following the ACC Privacy Debacle, (2012) and the book “DirtyPolitics”,(2014) given the impropriety of the email exchange between theMinister and blogger Cameron Slater, it stands to reason that any investigationof this Minister should include the ACC Portfolio



The blogger Cameron Slater had no right to any claimants’information, none have had a formal apology, and Sensitive Claimants wereoffered $250 to sign away all future Privacy Rights.

To date Cameron Slater has failed to declare who handed himthe Privacy Spreadsheet.





For the approximate 6900 claimants whose files werebreached, and published on the Whaloilbeefhooked Blog, it stands to reason thatSlater must have had access to the private information pertaining to allclaimants on ACC’s database before the redacted version was published on theinternet.









The Investigation of Minister Collins should include and notbe limited to:



Improper Purpose of the Social Contract

ACC Administration-Wednesbury Unreasonableness

ACC Executive-In the Public Interest, DiscoveryDocumentation

Interference in Operational Matters

Dictation, State Sector Act 1998

Error of Law- Judgements from the Bench instead of rule oflaw

Error of Facts- encrypted and irretrievable within FINEOS(2006-2014)

Claims Manipulation, the Exit Strategy

Fraud-financial interest over and above subject matter ofdecisions

Unwillingness to release funds awarded in DRSL, Fairway,District Court, High Court

Increased litigation against claimants lawful entitlements

Legal Bias against claimants’ knowledge, escalation to PartyStatus and Issue management team

Illegal surveillance, including denied video surveillance

Unsolicited emails including defamation of character

Abuse of process, deliberate withholding of Relevant Legal,and Medico legal Documents

Files filled with irrelevant matters, and private medicaldetails

Intercepting communications

Intimidation, threat of compensation being stopped

Abuse of Court Process-Pre determined exit by DRSL, Fairways.(Invalid Delegation)

Illegal search and seizure

Substantiative unfairness-duty to act fairly

UN Declaration of Persons with Disability

NZBORA, rights 8, 13,14,15,16,17,18, 19 20, 21, 22 and 27

Human Rights Act 1993, certain cases blocked from HumanRights Tribunal

Misuse of the OIA





Yours faithfully





Your name and date here!











1

#125 User is offline   Campy 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1386
  • Joined: 15-May 10
  • LocationAuckland Regional super city

Posted 10 October 2014 - 04:51 AM

Thanks for the suggestions!

 not their victim, on 27 September 2014 - 11:09 AM, said:

it is a suggestion......

that all who have serious outstanding issues with acc, forward a copy of this letter to the Ombudsman....


Copy this to your document programme (word, office, etc) and insert your own details into the letter of complaint....


there are approximately 400 of us, who may NEVER experience Natural Justice, is its entirety....

due to Issue Management files, and Party Status files...(plus a fantastic fishing expedition by acc, who failed to sign a mediation agreement, and demanded that the whole proceedings were "without prejudice"..).just goes to show the depths of what acc will do to ensure you do not ever obtain a clean run at exposing what has happened to you at the hands of acc....

and the tribunal process is very restricted within its jurisdiction, plus the delays for court proceedings is just getting wider (IMHO)


the template is set...up to you to chose to use this, while Minister Collins is under "alleged interference" with the SFO....



it is my belief its NOT JUST THE SFO....but ACC shoud be included, due to the Dirty Politics Scandal, and the relationship with Slater, Ede and Graham

be pro active or not, your choice..

do not risk getting your weekly comp cut off tho....

(IMHO >ALWAYS< OF COURSE).


3

#126 User is offline   Campy 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1386
  • Joined: 15-May 10
  • LocationAuckland Regional super city

Posted 10 October 2014 - 04:54 AM

LF can't even get my name right. He says I'm a dark chocolate coloured Aussie Aboriginal and clearly believes he's immune to prosecution for defamation. He's maliciously maligned you publicly and cannot be permitted to continue without sanctions.

 MINI, on 27 September 2014 - 11:14 AM, said:

Anyone can get the names from Lauda finem and other posts up on google. Mine is in all those places and here repeatedly.

Mini

2

#127 User is offline   not their victim 

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

Posted 12 October 2014 - 02:46 PM

bump post 119
0

#128 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7810
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 15 October 2014 - 01:16 PM

Bump cause it needs to be in the present.

Collins back at work next week.

Mini
0

#129 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7810
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 15 October 2014 - 02:46 PM

 Campy, on 05 September 2014 - 06:51 PM, said:

Who are the traitors that report our private names and reveal our identities to ACC?


Campy

You are named on Lauda Finem, so thank David Butler for alerting ACC to all of us.

Cheers
Mini
0

#130 User is offline   jaffa 

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

Posted 15 October 2014 - 04:07 PM

LOL their Facebook page is still down.


 MINI, on 15 October 2014 - 02:46 PM, said:

Campy

You are named on Lauda Finem, so thank David Butler for alerting ACC to all of us.

Cheers
Mini


Moe is meant to be Percy too? And Campy is now also Deus ex machina?

BTW: HOW did Campy get so brown?


hukildaspida | We are the best researcher in NZ
hukildaspida.wordpress.com/ 2 May 2013 ... ... a website war going on now with Lauda finem as as well as accfocus, .... and Redfox), Claire Hollis (aka Mini), Mara Mehmet (akaCampy), ...

3

#131 User is offline   Campy 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1386
  • Joined: 15-May 10
  • LocationAuckland Regional super city

Posted 16 October 2014 - 02:40 PM

WRONG name. And I'm not responsible for LF. If they're silly enough to believe I'm Mara Mehmet, then that's their problem. Mind you somebody did say Dermot or Antony have mental health issues as well as violence, strings of criminal convictions, terrorist, fraudulence and dishonesties etc...

 MINI, on 15 October 2014 - 02:46 PM, said:

Campy

You are named on Lauda Finem, so thank David Butler for alerting ACC to all of us.

Cheers
Mini


http://www.nzlii.org...C/2014/211.html

...

IN THE DISTRICT COURT
AT AUCKLAND
UNDER
Decision No. [2014] NZACC 211
The Accident Compensation Act 2001
(the Act)
IN THE MATTER OF an appeal under Section 151 of the Act
BETWEEN
AND
PBONNER
(ACR 711111 & 712/11)
Appellant
ACCIDENT COMPENSATION
CORPORATION
Respondent
Heard: At Wellington, 4 September 2014
Court: Judge J A Smith
Appearances: D G Nottingham for P Bonner
I McLachlan for the Corporation
Date: 11 September 2014
DECISION OF JUDGE J A SMITH
A. The Court has no jurisdiction in respect of the Corporation's letter of 23
May 2011.
B. The letter dated 18 August 2011 is not before this Court. Mr Nottingham
accepts that this should be proceeded with by a complaint under the
Code of Claimant's Rights (the Code) or potential review proceedings in
the High Court.
C. The Court notes its concerns about the issue of representation, but these
matters are intended to be addressed in the first instance through Code
complaints, and if necessary in superior courts.
D. In the circumstances the Court can make no orders for costs or require
the reviewer to do so (ACR712/11).
REASONS FOR DECISION
Introduction
[1] This is an appeal to a decision of the Review Authority dated 24 October
2011 refusing jurisdiction in respect of a decision letter dated 23 May 2011, which
reads:
On 18th May 2011 ACC received your consent for Advantage Advocacy
Limited, its agents, assigns, and employees to act on your behalf.
This consent will be added to your file, however this letter is to advise you
that ACC will not be bound by this consent. If you would like an advocate to
act on your behalf you will need to confirm the advocate by name. The
consent received on 18th May 2011 is too broad.
[2] The question is whether one can review a letter under the Act. The appeal
alleges a breach of the Code and it is therefore justiciable by way of a complaint
under the Code procedure and then review to a review officer. Section 149(3)
explicitly provides that such decisions are not justiciable in the District Court.
The real issue
[3] The real issue that Mr Nottingham has is that the Corporation has refused to
allow him to represent Mr Bonner. When I look through the Corporation file I see
that a letter dated 18 August 2011 states inter alia, after listing all of the members of
Mr Nottingham's business:
As you are aware ACC do not recognise Mr Dermot Nottingham in the role
of advocate for ACC clients. This means that ACC will not be bound to this
consent for Mr Dermot Nottingham.
[4] Mr Nottingham tells me that that is his real complaint and that he considers
that the Corporation has restricted Mr Bonner's proper choice of advocate and that
this is a breach of the Code.
2
[5] The Court has no jurisdiction in respect of the letter of 23 May 2011. That
letter merely required the identification of the individual people acting. The letter of
18 August 2011 may be another matter, but it is not the subject of any application for
review. The proper course of action is for a complaint to be made under the Code
and then, if dissatisfied with the outcome of that complaint, a review can be made.
Commentary
[6] I do note the apparent attempt to restrict the public's choice of advocate in
this case. Mr Nottingham referred to the case of Jackson v ACe as to
circumstances where the Court might intervene. He acknowledges for current
purposes, this matter has not been raised in this review and the proper course is to
make a complaint under the Code and if necessary take the matter to review.
[7] One would have thought there is a right for a person to choose any advocate
they wish, unless constrained by the statutory provisions themselves. That matter
would probably only be remedial in a superior Court. Nevertheless, it appears that
the Corporation have provided the mechanism for resolution of such disputes through
the Code and complaints procedure.
OUTCOME
[8] Accordingly the Court finds it has no jurisdiction to detennine this appeal,
nor does it have the jurisdiction as to costs or to order the reviewer to make an order
for costs. That being the case, the proper course is to allow the real complaint, being
the letter of 26 August 2011, to proceed through the correct complaints procedure, if
Mr Nottingham wishes to do so.
Costs
[9] There can be no order for costs (ACR712/11).
SIGNED at AUCKLAND this day of September 2014
I AI 483/2
3

2

#132 User is offline   Campy 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1386
  • Joined: 15-May 10
  • LocationAuckland Regional super city

Posted 16 October 2014 - 06:28 PM

Convicted criminal and fraudster with history of dishonesty and violence.



 Campy, on 10 October 2014 - 04:54 AM, said:

LF can't even get my name right. He says I'm a dark chocolate coloured Aussie Aboriginal and clearly believes he's immune to prosecution for defamation. He's maliciously maligned you publicly and cannot be permitted to continue without sanctions.


1

#133 User is offline   Rosey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1808
  • Joined: 25-December 09
  • LocationHamilton

Posted 16 October 2014 - 10:31 PM

BUMP for those seeking their IT-Sweep, Official Information,

 not their victim, on 27 September 2014 - 12:29 PM, said:

Name

Address

Postcode

Contact phone

Contact email



Acc Claimant Number

Party Status Number

Any other relevant Government Service Number







The Chief Ombudsman

Dame Beverley Wakem



Investigation of Former Minister Judith Collins





It is my belief, following the release of Party Status Filesand Issue Management Files, that the investigation of former Minister ofJustice and Accident Compensation Commission, (ACC) The Honourable JudithCollins, should not be limited to the Serious Fraud Office



It is my belief, that Minister Collins may have been politicallyinvolved High Cost Claimants ACC files, especially those claimants whose highprofile cases have been taken up by Main Stream Media.



This is also in light of the fact that the former Ministerof ACC Nick Smith was sacked from his ACC Portfolio, and the ACC Board andExecutives were also sacked.



Following the ACC Privacy Debacle, (2012) and the book “DirtyPolitics”,(2014) given the impropriety of the email exchange between theMinister and blogger Cameron Slater, it stands to reason that any investigationof this Minister should include the ACC Portfolio



The blogger Cameron Slater had no right to any claimants’information, none have had a formal apology, and Sensitive Claimants wereoffered $250 to sign away all future Privacy Rights.

To date Cameron Slater has failed to declare who handed himthe Privacy Spreadsheet.





For the approximate 6900 claimants whose files werebreached, and published on the Whaloilbeefhooked Blog, it stands to reason thatSlater must have had access to the private information pertaining to allclaimants on ACC’s database before the redacted version was published on theinternet.









The Investigation of Minister Collins should include and notbe limited to:



Improper Purpose of the Social Contract

ACC Administration-Wednesbury Unreasonableness

ACC Executive-In the Public Interest, DiscoveryDocumentation

Interference in Operational Matters

Dictation, State Sector Act 1998

Error of Law- Judgements from the Bench instead of rule oflaw

Error of Facts- encrypted and irretrievable within FINEOS(2006-2014)

Claims Manipulation, the Exit Strategy

Fraud-financial interest over and above subject matter ofdecisions

Unwillingness to release funds awarded in DRSL, Fairway,District Court, High Court

Increased litigation against claimants lawful entitlements

Legal Bias against claimants’ knowledge, escalation to PartyStatus and Issue management team

Illegal surveillance, including denied video surveillance

Unsolicited emails including defamation of character

Abuse of process, deliberate withholding of Relevant Legal,and Medico legal Documents

Files filled with irrelevant matters, and private medicaldetails

Intercepting communications

Intimidation, threat of compensation being stopped

Abuse of Court Process-Pre determined exit by DRSL, Fairways.(Invalid Delegation)

Illegal search and seizure

Substantiative unfairness-duty to act fairly

UN Declaration of Persons with Disability

NZBORA, rights 8, 13,14,15,16,17,18, 19 20, 21, 22 and 27

Human Rights Act 1993, certain cases blocked from HumanRights Tribunal

Misuse of the OIA





Yours faithfully





Your name and date here!
















Cam Slater had no right to any claimants’ private information. And as far as we know, none have had a formal apology. I hear Sensitive Claimants were in fact offered a palty $250 to sign away all future Privacy Rights. So why has Cameron Slater failed to declare who handed himthe Privacy Spreadsheet?


2

#134 User is offline   not their victim 

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

Posted 18 October 2014 - 04:03 PM


Complaint turns up heat on Collins

</h2>PHIL KITCHINLast updated 05:00 30/08/2014 Share89
Posted Image


JUDITH COLLINS:Politics




An ACC whistleblower has complained to the privacy commissioner alleging Cabinet minister Judith Collins leaked confidential but false details to WhaleOil blogger Cameron Slater.

Bronwyn Pullar filed her complaint after reading in Nicky Hager's Dirty Politics claims of Slater giving a friend - a former sex worker - false details about Pullar that the blogger said he got after speaking to Collins.

Privacy Commissioner John Edwards, whose office is overseen by Collins as the justice minister, said yesterday that he was assessing the complaint.

The complaint heaps more pressure on the embattled Collins, who is on a "final final warning" from Prime Minister John Key after admitting she passed details about public servant Simon Pleasants to Slater, who then published material on his blog, prompting death threats against the bureaucrat.

Pullar caused severe embarrassment for Collins, who is also ACC minister, when she blew the whistle in 2012 on a massive ACC privacy breach involving her being sent confidential details on 6500 claimants, including sexual abuse victims.

Dirty Politics claims the day the story broke, Slater told the former prostitute - who was concerned her details were part of the ACC breach - that he would talk to Collins for "the real story".

In two sets of messages between Slater and the ex-prostitute, Slater said he had spoken to Collins, and he provided his friend with then-unknown information about the whistleblower, the book claims.

Particularly damaging for Collins are the book's claims that Slater's statements show that he knew who Pullar was, that she had tried to extort ACC and that she was likely to be prosecuted.

At the time Dirty Politics claims he was stating this to the ex-sex worker, ACC had not laid any extortion complaint to police and Pullar's request for anonymity had been respected by ACC.

If Slater's statements to the former prostitute as detailed in the book are correct, Collins could face serious trouble for leaking Pullar's name and false allegations of extortion against her before the minister had received any final written reports from her ministry.

However, Slater now insists the key details were not leaked by Collins.

Slater yesterday confirmed he spoke to Collins but said she only provided him with details about the privacy breach to allay his ex-sex worker friend's fears.

He said Collins gave him no information about Pullar and allegations of extortion, and that he got that information from other sources.
Collins side-stepped questions about what she told Slater and said she was unaware of any complaint to the privacy commissioner against her by Pullar.

"If there is one, I would be unable to comment," Collins said.

"There are complaints about the Hager book and stolen emails before the police and the privacy commissioner and it would be inappropriate to comment further."

When Pullar first blew the whistle on ACC she was not identified, and the corporation was told she wished to remain anonymous so she was not deluged with calls from ACC clients asking if they were part of the privacy breach.

The scandal forced ACC into making thousands of apologies and Collins faced snap debates in Parliament.

Three days after the story broke and after crisis meetings involving Collins, then chairman John Judge and then chief executive Ralph Stewart, ACC hit back at Pullar.

ACC published a report claiming Pullar tried to extort the corporation at a December 2011 meeting held between Pullar, her support person and former National Party president Michelle Boag, and two senior ACC managers. ACC did not ask Pullar for her side of the story before making the allegations public and then repeating them to police, who launched an inquiry.

Slater was then fed a memo from Boag to Collins which he gave to a Sunday newspaper reporter and Pullar's name became public knowledge.

Slater went on the attack on his blog, falsely accusing Pullar and Boag of blackmail.

But ACC and Slater did not know Pullar had a tape recording of the meeting that showed the allegations were false.

Correspondence with the privacy commissioner's office obtained by The Dominion Post shows the commissioner admitting his office initially "overlooked" Pullar's complaint made on August 15.

The commissioner last week ruled out investigating a Green Party complaint that Collins leaked Pleasants' name to Slater.

He said he would need a complaint from Pleasants, who has declined to lodge one.

Edwards' assistant commissioner of investigations, Mike Flahive, told Pullar on Wednesday he was "assessing" her complaint to consider what action to take.

"Your patience would be appreciated," Flahive said.

NEW COMPLAINT

The latest complaint that ACC and Justice Minister Judith Collins breached ACC whistleblower Bronwyn Pullar's privacy is different to one that dragged Collins into an earlier investigation by the privacy commissioner.

That investigation was launched when a memo from former National Party president Michelle Boag to Collins clarifying Puller's reasons for blowing the whistle was leaked to a reporter. The leak led to Pullar - who has a brain injury - coming under siege from media as ACC simultaneously falsely claimed she'd tried to extort the corporation.

Investigators trawled through Collins' office and computer and questioned ACC chairman John Judge and then chief executive Ralph Stewart to try to find the source of the leak. Collins was accused of being the leaker, which she correctly denied.

The investigation failed to find the leak but informed sources have confirmed to The Dominion Post that the leak was from one senior board member to another, who gave it to a blogger, who passed it to Slater, who gave it to the reporter.

HOW IT UNFOLDED

March 13, 2012 - The Dominion Post reveals ACC breached the privacy of 6500 ACC clients, including rape victims, by sending their details to an unnamed ACC client.

March 13 - According to Dirty Politics, WhaleOil blogger Cameron Slater tells an ex-prostitute friend he would ring ACC Minister Judith Collins to "get the real story".

March 14 - Slater tells the ex-prostitute the whistleblower was a woman who tried to blackmail ACC and was likely to be prosecuted for extortion, Dirty Politics claims. That afternoon, minister Collins attends a meeting with ACC chief executive Ralph Stewart and chairman John Judge. In an affidavit later, Judge said Collins "very strongly" pushed for police to be told about threats allegedly made by Pullar at a meeting with ACC on December 2011.

March 15 - The word "blackmail" is first publicly discussed. Collins tells Radio Live she had oral reports on the December meeting but wanted written reports.

March 15 - Two ACC managers from the December meeting provide their official account, which contains no allegations of blackmail or extortion.

March 16 - A "situation report" is published on ACC's website accusing the whistleblower of extortion.

March 17 - The book claims Slater tells the ex-prostitute he knows who the whistleblower is and that she will get "rat f...ed hard."

March 18 - A Sunday newspaper names the whistleblower, Bronwyn Pullar, after Slater provides a leaked email from ACC.

March 19 - ACC makes a written complaint to police about alleged extortion.

April 30 - The Dominion Post reveals Pullar recorded the critical meeting at which ACC claimed she'd tried to extort the corporation. The recording showed ACC had made false allegations. Police swiftly shut down their investigation.

- The Dominion Post


0

#135 User is offline   not their victim 

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

Posted 18 October 2014 - 04:07 PM

all sensitive claimants

all claimants who have had files with the SFO

and all involved with acc and winz privacy breaches,

should fill out the template at 112 IMMEDIATELY, AND SEND TO THE OMBUDSMAN
0

#136 User is offline   jaffa 

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

Posted 18 October 2014 - 08:52 PM

Bumping for our friends step daughter who had to disconnect her confidential phone after the files were released.

 not their victim, on 18 October 2014 - 04:07 PM, said:

all sensitive claimants

all claimants who have had files with the SFO

and all involved with acc and winz privacy breaches,

should fill out the template at 112 IMMEDIATELY, AND SEND TO THE OMBUDSMAN

2

#137 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7810
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 19 October 2014 - 09:17 AM

 jaffa, on 18 October 2014 - 08:52 PM, said:

Bumping for our friends step daughter who had to disconnect her confidential phone after the files were released.


Jaffa

The phone numbers were not released according to my three contributions to the leaked doco.

I would be the first to yell, as my phone is confidential as well.

So there is a discrepancy here,the papers I have released to me when I had mine released to me to do and examination of what risk there was to me and what you are saying here about your friends step daughter.

Mine wouldn't be different to anyone elses.

Cheers Mini
0

#138 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7810
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 19 October 2014 - 09:21 AM

 not their victim, on 18 October 2014 - 04:07 PM, said:

all sensitive claimants

all claimants who have had files with the SFO

and all involved with acc and winz privacy breaches,

should fill out the template at 112 IMMEDIATELY, AND SEND TO THE OMBUDSMAN


It has to be over 1 million dollar discrepancy before the SFO will look at it, who here would be in that position. Just as a matter of interest, of course.

I wish :-) But will still look at the putting forward of the template.

Cheers
Mini
0

#139 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7810
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 19 October 2014 - 09:30 AM

 Rosey, on 16 October 2014 - 10:31 PM, said:

BUMP for those seeking their IT-Sweep, Official Information,







Cam Slater had no right to any claimants’ private information. And as far as we know, none have had a formal apology. I hear Sensitive Claimants were in fact offered a palty $250 to sign away all future Privacy Rights. So why has Cameron Slater failed to declare who handed himthe Privacy Spreadsheet?


How do we know he actually had the spread sheet?? Then we can ask who gave it too him. Is it in the book of dirty politics that he actually had it with the e-mails to say so??

Mini
0

#140 User is offline   Campy 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1386
  • Joined: 15-May 10
  • LocationAuckland Regional super city

Posted 19 October 2014 - 10:08 AM


Wanting more money from ACC for privacy breach
September 30th, 2012 at 3:30 pm by David FarrarThe SST reports:

Sex abuse survivors are planning to sue ACC to force a significantly boosted payout for breaching their privacy in the ongoing Bronwyn Pullar whistleblower saga.

ACC sent apology letters in June to sensitive-claims clients and offered to pay them $250 if they agreed to stay silent, after one of New Zealand’s biggest privacy breaches in August last year.

The “insulting” offer came after ACC mistakenly released the names and details of 6500 claimants, including 250 sensitive-claims clients who are victims of sexual abuse and violent crimes, to claimant Pullar.

Wellington lawyer John Miller, a specialist in taking on ACC, said more than 100 claimants affected by the massive Pullar breach had approached him to take the case. He said those wanting to pursue ACC were sensitive claimants who generally had long simmering feelings of being poorly treated by the ACC system.

Although a claimant with a normal injury could shrug off the privacy breach, for sensitive claimants “this is the last straw”.

“It’s a corrosive environment they are in with ACC, frankly. The people I have spoken to, they are insulted by $250, it is a derisory amount for the torment they have gone through.”

Worse was ACC’s requirement that claimants sign a confidentially agreement if they took the payment. “They feel they are being told ‘now go away and shut up and sign a document to say you are going to shut up forever more’.”

He said that although technically class action claims were not possible in New Zealand, the process worked with one claim taken and if it won it set a precedent. ACC would be asked to settle with everyone, or face losing case after case with legal costs compounding the settlement payouts.

He said the process had worked before and usually ACC saw sense.

Miller would not be drawn on what level of compensation would satisfy claimants, but said past privacy breaches had won payouts of anything from $2000 to $40,000. It depended on the severity of the consequences.

In 2003 he said ACC paid $8000 for sending a man’s earnings details to his wife, resulting in divorce because he had kept his income secret from her.

A large amount is appropriate when there has been significant harm from the privacy breach.

But bearing in mind it is employees, employers and motorists who will effectively pay for any compensation, let us look at the harm done in this breach.

One person in Auckland, a stranger to all these people, was sent a spreadsheet with some details about them. The report into the breach details what this info was:

  • Client Name
  • Claim Number
  • Branch handling claim
  • Review number
No information beyond that was disclosed. So yes it did breach privacy by revealing they were a client of ACC, they they were having their claim reviewed, and which branch was handling their claim – which can reveal it was a sensitive claim.

This is not inconsequential, but neither it is in any way detailed. And this was a breach not on a website, but to one person.

I’m not convinced the offers of $250 is inappropriate.

    Posted Image David Farrar
    Related Posts:

     MINI, on 19 October 2014 - 09:17 AM, said:

    Jaffa

    The phone numbers were not released according to my three contributions to the leaked doco.

    I would be the first to yell, as my phone is confidential as well.

    So there is a discrepancy here,the papers I have released to me when I had mine released to me to do and examination of what risk there was to me and what you are saying here about your friends step daughter.

    Mine wouldn't be different to anyone elses.

    Cheers Mini

    0

    Share this topic:


    • 9 Pages +
    • « First
    • 5
    • 6
    • 7
    • 8
    • 9
    • 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