ACCforum: Official Information request-IT Sweep - ACCforum

Jump to content

  • 9 Pages +
  • « First
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

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

#81 User is offline   Determined 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 48
  • Joined: 15-October 12
  • LocationAuckland, New Zealand

Posted 12 June 2013 - 04:49 PM

Senior staff of the Privacy Commissioner's office have provided advice for bureaucrats to create "separate records" - one including all the files and another containing redacted and withheld files. Logically, there will be a third file from this process - the one left over when the secrets are separated from the total file - that's the censored file that gets sent to claimants. (Links related to this are at the bottom).

Obviously what everyone is after is their TOTAL file - including the "separate record" file with all the secrets that have been redacted and withheld from the censored files.

The "separate record" or file or whatever you want to call it is the file or place ACC stores the data ACC wants to keep secret (ie the redacted and withheld data) which contains things like - communication amongst other ACC staff such as Team Managers, Technical Claims Managers, Branch Managers, Regional Managers, Office of ACC Code of Complaints, Medical Advisors, Fraud department, Contractors, various people from the misinformation departments, government services, senior managers etc.

This is what the Privacy Commissioner recently told me when I inquired about the Party file (which NTV had thought contained the secret redacted and withheld records):

"we are aware of the Party Record and this is not a secret file. The record is simply a portal in Eos (ACCs electronic database) which allows ACC employees to access a claimant’s information using different screens. There are no separate files or information contained at this level which are not linked to a claim file or complaint file.

You will note that the statement in no way shape or form acknowledges that ACC keeps separate records (though the Privacy Commissioner's office advised bureaucrats to do this.)

This statement may reflect the Privacy Commissioner's notion of the truth influenced by what they have been told by ACC, or it could be pure weasel words hiding that they know about the secret "separate files"; but want to avoid giving away the correct magic incantation that might result in their fellow bureaucrats at ACC having to produce the information.

Why I think these are weasel words (besides the fact that Privacy Commissioner staff instructed bureaucrats to create separate files) is this:
1. A portal that allows access using different screens means that there is filtering of the type of data to go on each screen. There may be different levels of authorization required to access some of the screens making the data effectively hidden. Printing of selected screens or even parts of selected screens may occur and the censored data sent to the claimant creating an illusion of supplying all data.
In other words the fact that it is a portal does not mean that one or more screens are kept secret.

2. More importantly, you note the use of the words "contained at this level". This is part and parcel of ACC's little trick of "Guess what cup the pea is under." If you don't say the right word, in the right tone at the right time to the right person wearing the right underwear with the right hand grip - then ACC will deny it - and far be it for the Privacy Commissioner to come out and talk about the existence of "separate records" and where they are likely to be kept - seeing as they recommended keeping 'separate records' in the first place.

I'm afraid that hard-working though the people of the Privacy Commissioner's office may be, due to sloppy handling of personal data by bureaucrats - I don't think that this is justification for the office of the Privacy Commissioner to add to the diabolical stone-walling experiences complainants are already subjected to when dealing with ACC.

The office of the Privacy Commissioner should be genuinely helping members of the public obtaining copies of ALL of their data - not facilitating fellow bureaucrats hiding information that presumably shows evidence of wrong-doing or else there would be no need to hide it.

This link contains data related to the Privacy Commissioner's advice to bureaucrats on creating "separate files"
http://www.truthlies...of-privacy.html



This is a link regarding the Ombudsman's manual to bureaucrats on how to stonewall complainants
http://www.truthlies...p-guide-on.html



Don't give up the fight for justice. Together we are strong.

Determined




View Postnot their victim, on 12 June 2013 - 01:08 PM, said:

Kevin Hague was sent masses of information during the privacy breach...EVIDENCE

Kevin Hague has all the information he requires to hold the Government to account


I met Kevin Hague, at Parliament late last year, to reiterate / validate the vast amount of information he was sent (this was when the Dotcom Fiasco was being aired in Parliament)


In view of the fact we should be having a snap election, due to impropriety by John Banks and Peter Dunne....this government with carry on regardless until a Royal Commission of Enquiry is enforced upon them


It appears the Privacy Commission is denying Party Status Records exist....???



remember, even politicians/ state servants are NZ Citizens, and as such, are not above the LAWS OF THE LAND, and there is no statute of limitations against fraud

IMHO of course


ps the access file you are talking about, is called the footprint file...and most are being denied access to this, after acc realised they were being tracked by the Read Tracking System....or any other email tracking system...also brought to light during the acc privacy breach.





0

#82 User is offline   Determined 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 48
  • Joined: 15-October 12
  • LocationAuckland, New Zealand

Posted 12 June 2013 - 05:23 PM

Thanks again NTV.

ACC refused to provide the Access file saying that it was a trivial request.
I asked the Privacy Commissioner to intervene - but, as usual the Privacy Commissioner supports ACC's efforts to hide data.
I was told they considered it a trivial request too.

I was given a copy of a decision they made on a case last year (which I have attached though marked out the identifying data). That person must have been pretty annoyed. The complainant was effectively told by the Privacy Commissioner that they had to prove that ACC had breeched access to their files first - and then maybe ACC would investigate. Talk about covering up for each other.

Now we are talking about the Privacy Commissioner. The Privacy Commissioner knows that knowledge of how many people (let alone the details) of who has been accessing your file is one objective indicator of a privacy breech. WHY is the Privacy Commissioner allowing ACC to hide this vital information?

Now, maybe I'm cynical - but as I see it - the Privacy Commissioner does not want to be the one let the cat out of the bag about just how extensive and how nefarious the Privacy breeches have been in New Zealand - especially by ACC. I'm pretty sure that the information would be shocking PLUS - it is likely it would confirm that they are keeping a "separate record" system.

I've attached a case response "access log request r" that the Privacy Commissioner attached to their reply to my request for a copy of the Access file.

Cheers,
D

View Postnot their victim, on 12 June 2013 - 01:08 PM, said:

Kevin Hague was sent masses of information during the privacy breach...EVIDENCE

Kevin Hague has all the information he requires to hold the Government to account


I met Kevin Hague, at Parliament late last year, to reiterate / validate the vast amount of information he was sent (this was when the Dotcom Fiasco was being aired in Parliament)


In view of the fact we should be having a snap election, due to impropriety by John Banks and Peter Dunne....this government with carry on regardless until a Royal Commission of Enquiry is enforced upon them


It appears the Privacy Commission is denying Party Status Records exist....???



remember, even politicians/ state servants are NZ Citizens, and as such, are not above the LAWS OF THE LAND, and there is no statute of limitations against fraud

IMHO of course


ps the access file you are talking about, is called the footprint file...and most are being denied access to this, after acc realised they were being tracked by the Read Tracking System....or any other email tracking system...also brought to light during the acc privacy breach.

Attached File(s)


0

#83 User is offline   jaffa 

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

Posted 12 June 2013 - 08:26 PM

You aren't the only one. Why does ACC make life so unbearable for claimants?

View PostDetermined, on 12 June 2013 - 05:23 PM, said:

Thanks again NTV.

ACC refused to provide the Access file saying that it was a trivial request.
I asked the Privacy Commissioner to intervene - but, as usual the Privacy Commissioner supports ACC's efforts to hide data.
I was told they considered it a trivial request too.

I was given a copy of a decision they made on a case last year (which I have attached though marked out the identifying data). That person must have been pretty annoyed. The complainant was effectively told by the Privacy Commissioner that they had to prove that ACC had breeched access to their files first - and then maybe ACC would investigate. Talk about covering up for each other.

Now we are talking about the Privacy Commissioner. The Privacy Commissioner knows that knowledge of how many people (let alone the details) of who has been accessing your file is one objective indicator of a privacy breech. WHY is the Privacy Commissioner allowing ACC to hide this vital information?

Now, maybe I'm cynical - but as I see it - the Privacy Commissioner does not want to be the one let the cat out of the bag about just how extensive and how nefarious the Privacy breeches have been in New Zealand - especially by ACC. I'm pretty sure that the information would be shocking PLUS - it is likely it would confirm that they are keeping a "separate record" system.

I've attached a case response "access log request r" that the Privacy Commissioner attached to their reply to my request for a copy of the Access file.

Cheers,
D



2

#84 User is offline   jaffa 

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

Posted 13 July 2013 - 02:04 AM

BUMP

View Postnot their victim, on 28 October 2011 - 09:17 AM, said:





1

#85 User is offline   Rosey 

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

Posted 23 July 2013 - 05:55 PM

Thanks NTV

View Postnot their victim, on 06 November 2012 - 03:12 PM, said:

do not allow acc to use the word "historical""

these issues are OUTSTANDING...as they have not been resolved in an appropriate, fair or legal manner




4

#86 User is offline   not their victim 

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

Posted 22 September 2013 - 03:13 PM

please utilize the words

"DISCOVERY....and DISCLOSURE under NZ LAW..."

to obtain all withheld pieces of your file

the more severe the injury, the higher cost of the claim, the harder acc will fight to exit you...and they use dubious means to do this!

it is most important that everyone who is having troubles with acc, persist with obtaining their files..

go through them with a fine tooth comb....and give all evidence to your lawyer, so that your rightful entitlements are all accounted for

all the best
1

#87 User is offline   not their victim 

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

Posted 21 November 2013 - 09:13 AM

http://accforum.org/...y-status-files/
1

#88 User is offline   jaffa 

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

Posted 21 November 2013 - 01:11 PM

Valuable. Thanks.

not their victim said:

1379819625[/url]' post='168093']
please utilize the words

"DISCOVERY....and DISCLOSURE under NZ LAW..."

to obtain all withheld pieces of your file

the more severe the injury, the higher cost of the claim, the harder acc will fight to exit you...and they use dubious means to do this!

it is most important that everyone who is having troubles with acc, persist with obtaining their files..

go through them with a fine tooth comb....and give all evidence to your lawyer, so that your rightful entitlements are all accounted for

all the best

1

#89 User is offline   not their victim 

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

Posted 21 November 2013 - 01:28 PM

Posted Image
0

#90 User is offline   Rosey 

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

Posted 23 November 2013 - 09:25 PM

BUMP

View Postnot their victim, on 21 November 2013 - 09:13 AM, said:


1

#91 User is offline   not their victim 

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

Posted 06 December 2013 - 10:36 AM

member Jocko, has just confirmed what was in his "party Status Files....


  • Group:Members
  • Posts:909
  • Joined:15-September 03
Posted Yesterday, 07:39 PM

I received my Electronic files and IT sweep results. Thanks NTV. What I have received is appalling. They have had the fraud squad on to me. Spending up to 3 days in a row on surveillance. Personalised victimisation from the bottom to the top. Phil Riley down to the case manager. ACC legal. I am sickened folks.
But the Judge is going to be sicker. The number of staff involved is in double figures. Their individual behaviour is beyond belief. How they could have possibly ALL been drawn in to this prolonged and vicious program of what can only be described as Psychotic behaviour is mind blowing.
They have compromised themselves totally. In a blind, pig ignorant drive to get me. Well, well. You missed faggots. Now it is my turn.
What was it the reviewer said? Oh that's right. "It seem's to me that ACC has closed its eyes to the reality of his situation."
http://accforum.org/...r-independence/
2

0

#92 User is offline   not their victim 

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

Posted 06 December 2013 - 11:01 AM

http://accforum.org/...y-status-files/
0

#93 User is offline   not their victim 

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

Posted 09 December 2013 - 08:36 AM

Posted Today, 08:14 AM

Found it!!!


from the Modern Prosecutorial process IN NZ at 10.11.2



Personal Information ie that particular category of OFFICIAL INFORMATION HELD ABOUT AN IDENTIFIABLE PERSON, is the explicit right to access of access, upon request, given to that person, unless it comes with limited exception.



RELEVANCE IS NOT THE TEST UNDER THE OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACT....


therefore, if acc say we cant give you those files because they are "frivolous", then they are succinctly breaking the LAW under the Official Information act...




if you have used the law and lost, then i suggest you apply for these files....you may be surprised to find, how many times the law has been broken...and how they have managed to get away with it...


HOWEVER, IT STILL DOESNT MAKE IT RIGHT! AND YOU NOW HAVE REDRESS...UNDER A DIFFERENT JURISDICTION.!


0

#94 User is offline   not their victim 

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

Posted 09 December 2013 - 08:44 AM

FINEOS...(or Eos) has around 10 levels....for insurance management.....

It has virtual claim, pathway, log access, informe, tasks, debt accounting, health and living...and some others...



case managers at local level can only access levels 1-3,


fraud squad and National Security have yet another level

then regional and board get to have their say


there is also a link to outside parties such as Privacy Commissioner, Police etc....


I have it on their authority, that anything entered into EOS, 2007 and prior, cannot be retrieved / corrected....again, I have evidence of this, but will NOT PUBLISH due to the highly sensitive nature of my documents.

so it stands to reason any incorrect information is locked into the system, become a permanent breach of privacy, and should be escalated to human rights immediately for permanent breach....? ? ?





0

#95 User is offline   Campy 

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

Posted 09 December 2013 - 09:01 AM

All the poor taxpayers money wasted on such costly unnecessary and time consuming investigations. Disgusting.


not their victim said:

1386283001[/url]' post='173532']
member Jocko, has just confirmed what was in his "party Status Files....


  • Group:Members
  • Posts:909
  • Joined:15-September 03
Posted Yesterday, 07:39 PM

I received my Electronic files and IT sweep results. Thanks NTV. What I have received is appalling. They have had the fraud squad on to me. Spending up to 3 days in a row on surveillance. Personalised victimisation from the bottom to the top. Phil Riley down to the case manager. ACC legal. I am sickened folks.
But the Judge is going to be sicker. The number of staff involved is in double figures. Their individual behaviour is beyond belief. How they could have possibly ALL been drawn in to this prolonged and vicious program of what can only be described as Psychotic behaviour is mind blowing.
They have compromised themselves totally. In a blind, pig ignorant drive to get me. Well, well. You missed faggots. Now it is my turn.
What was it the reviewer said? Oh that's right. "It seem's to me that ACC has closed its eyes to the reality of his situation."
http://accforum.org/...r-independence/
2


1

#96 User is offline   not their victim 

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

Posted 09 December 2013 - 09:19 AM

To my knowledge...

there are 4 of us who fought for these files and received them...

as Jocko stated..."what I have received is appalling""-




you don't get that from entry level file management at local case level!!!!



so the shouters and doubters can keep it up....keep trying to twist words, explain away what was said etc....

THE EVIDENCE IS REAL....


AND i AM ENTITLED TO WHAT IS LEFT OF MY PRIVACY AND DIGNITY AGAINST THOSE WHO CLAIM I AM SPEAKING ANYTHING OTHER THAN THE TRUTH

after the dealings Ive had with acc...ive learnt to have a thick skin...and keep my dignity when dealing with them...no raised voice...pure professionalism


the reality being, that when i posted up this information, i became a target of even closer scrutiny than before....
0

#97 User is offline   practioner123 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 20
  • Joined: 10-January 13

Posted 31 January 2014 - 02:26 PM

http://www.nzlawyerm...58/Default.aspx
0

#98 User is offline   practioner123 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 20
  • Joined: 10-January 13

Posted 31 January 2014 - 02:37 PM

View Postnot their victim, on 09 December 2013 - 08:36 AM, said:

Posted Today, 08:14 AM

Found it!!!


from the Modern Prosecutorial process IN NZ at 10.11.2



Personal Information ie that particular category of OFFICIAL INFORMATION HELD ABOUT AN IDENTIFIABLE PERSON, is the explicit right to access of access, upon request, given to that person, unless it comes with limited exception.



RELEVANCE IS NOT THE TEST UNDER THE OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACT....


therefore, if acc say we cant give you those files because they are "frivolous", then they are succinctly breaking the LAW under the Official Information act...




if you have used the law and lost, then i suggest you apply for these files....you may be surprised to find, how many times the law has been broken...and how they have managed to get away with it...


HOWEVER, IT STILL DOESNT MAKE IT RIGHT! AND YOU NOW HAVE REDRESS...UNDER A DIFFERENT JURISDICTION.!





You simply forward their response, or lack thereof, to the ombudsman's office. It's not very hard. All of you should be doing it. While the Ombudsman may not get back to you right away, they are very helpful and professional. They have won some good cases for information. It costs nothing, but if you have something that might be of value to others, they will fight for you. If your case ever goes to court, the judge can order your questions to be answered, if deemed relevant. That's where the line is, are you asking out of spite, because you are angry? or do you have a genuine need, and cannot find the answer? Sometimes it is both, and sometimes, the line between the two is quite thin, so as you said in a previous post "keep it professional" which may mean "bite your tongue," which can be quite difficult, if you have any bit of intellect. This is law we are dealing with. They have a better understanding of it, but in the eyes of the law, nothing matters except that which can be proven in court. Theories do not count, because the court cannot verify it as fact, or you have nobody who can swear that what you say is true. So when asking ACCorporation to swear to something, it may come down to how you ask your question, and keeping a cool head about it. Also, what you really may have is really 2 questions, and must break them apart, not jumble them into one question that is really 2 separate issues. Better to ask 2 questions, separately. If the answer to one of them is dependent on the answer to the 1st, then ask that, wait for your answer, then ask your next question. A common trap is to get ahead of yourself, thinking that "they know what I am talking about" with a conspiratorial sneer. They really may NOT know that you are talking about, so I recommend wording the question in such a way that a 10 year old could understand it, and reference documents, if possible. For example, "can you tell me what is ACC's internal policy on XYZ legislation, and if such a policy exists? If such a policy were to exist, where would it be written? Is there a training manual that explains such a policy? If so, can you please forward it to me?" These are all questions of "public interest." In other words, is this something that the public would be interested in? How and why? Like a 10 year old can understand it.
0

#99 User is offline   practioner123 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 20
  • Joined: 10-January 13

Posted 31 January 2014 - 03:04 PM

View Postpractioner123, on 31 January 2014 - 02:37 PM, said:

You simply forward their response, or lack thereof, to the ombudsman's office. It's not very hard. All of you should be doing it. While the Ombudsman may not get back to you right away, they are very helpful and professional. They have won some good cases for information. It costs nothing, but if you have something that might be of value to others, they will fight for you. If your case ever goes to court, the judge can order your questions to be answered, if deemed relevant. That's where the line is, are you asking out of spite, because you are angry? or do you have a genuine need, and cannot find the answer? Sometimes it is both, and sometimes, the line between the two is quite thin, so as you said in a previous post "keep it professional" which may mean "bite your tongue," which can be quite difficult, if you have any bit of intellect. This is law we are dealing with. They have a better understanding of it, but in the eyes of the law, nothing matters except that which can be proven in court. Theories do not count, because the court cannot verify it as fact, or you have nobody who can swear that what you say is true. So when asking ACCorporation to swear to something, it may come down to how you ask your question, and keeping a cool head about it. Also, what you really may have is really 2 questions, and must break them apart, not jumble them into one question that is really 2 separate issues. Better to ask 2 questions, separately. If the answer to one of them is dependent on the answer to the 1st, then ask that, wait for your answer, then ask your next question. A common trap is to get ahead of yourself, thinking that "they know what I am talking about" with a conspiratorial sneer. They really may NOT know that you are talking about, so I recommend wording the question in such a way that a 10 year old could understand it, and reference documents, if possible. For example, "can you tell me what is ACC's internal policy on XYZ legislation, and if such a policy exists? If such a policy were to exist, where would it be written? Is there a training manual that explains such a policy? If so, can you please forward it to me?" These are all questions of "public interest." In other words, is this something that the public would be interested in? How and why? Like a 10 year old can understand it.



Also worth noting- was the information collected in an unfair manner? This counts if you take your case goes to Human Rights Tribunal - most cases there are about PRIVACY violations- See Nicholl vs Work and Income and Lehmann vs Radio NZ I think- human rights tribunal case http://www.privacy.o...principle-four/
0

#100 User is offline   practioner123 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 20
  • Joined: 10-January 13

Posted 31 January 2014 - 03:20 PM

View Postpractioner123, on 31 January 2014 - 03:04 PM, said:

Also worth noting- was the information collected in an unfair manner? This counts if you take your case goes to Human Rights Tribunal - most cases there are about PRIVACY violations- See Nicholl vs Work and Income and Lehmann vs Radio NZ I think- human rights tribunal case http://www.privacy.o...principle-four/



Huggy may want to pursue action against his private investigator for violations of the privacy act. Worth considering http://www.nzlii.org...RRT/2012/8.html
0

Share this topic:


  • 9 Pages +
  • « First
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 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