[Hatikva]

Is it time for a complaint to Privacy Commissioner?
(OOPS - the happy faces weren't intentional - forgot about the copy/paste of special characters. OH well - TBI after all ...)

Quote

PRINCIPLE 3

Collection of information from subject
(1) Where an agency collects personal information directly from the individual concerned, the agency shall take such steps (if any) as are, in the circumstances, reasonable to ensure that the individual concerned is aware of -

(a) The fact that the information is being collected; and
(b) The purpose for which the information is being collected; and
© The intended recipients of the information; and
(d) The name and address of -

(i) The agency that is collecting the information; and
(ii) The agency that will hold the information; and
(e) If the collection of the information is authorised or required by or under law -


(i) The particular law by or under which the collection of the information is so authorised or required; and
(ii) Whether or not the supply of the information by that individual is voluntary or mandatory; and
(f) The consequences (if any) for that individual if all or any part of the requested information is not provided; and
(g) The rights of access to, and correction of, personal information provided by these principles.

(2) The steps referred to in subclause (1) of this principle shall be taken before the information is collected or, if that is not practicable, as soon as practicable after the information is collected.
(3) An agency is not required to take the steps referred to in subclause (1) of this principle in relation to the collection of information from an individual if that agency has taken those steps in relation to the collection, from that individual, of the same information or information of the same kind, on a recent previous occasion.
(4) It is not necessary for an agency to comply with subclause (1) of this principle if the agency believes, on reasonable grounds -
(a) That non-compliance is authorised by the individual concerned; or
(b) That non-compliance would not prejudice the interests of the individual concerned; or
© That non-compliance is necessary -

(i) To avoid prejudice to the maintenance of the law by any public sector agency, including the prevention, detection, investigation, prosecution, and punishment -of offences; or
(ii) For the enforcement of a law imposing a pecuniary penalty; or
(iii) For the protection of the public revenue; or
(iv) For the conduct of proceedings before any court or Tribunal being proceedings that have been commenced or are reasonably in contemplation); or
(d) That compliance would prejudice the purposes of the collection; or
(e) That compliance is not reasonably practicable in the circumstances of the particular case; or
(f) That the information -


(i) Will not be used in a form in which the individual concerned is identified; or
(ii) Will be used for statistical or research purposes and will not be published in a form that could reasonably be expected to identify the individual concerned.

And, while on the topic ...

Quote

PRINCIPLE 4

Manner of collection of personal information
Personal information shall not be collected by an agency-

(a) By unlawful means; or
(b) By means that, in the circumstances of the case, -
(i) Are unfair; or
(ii) Intrude to an unreasonable extent upon the personal affairs of the individual concerned.

And, they're supposed to get it right ...

Quote

PRINCIPLE 7

Correction of personal information
(1) Where an agency holds personal information, the individual concerned shall be entitled

(a) To request correction of the information; and
(b) To request that there be attached to the information a statement of the correction sought but not made.
(2) An agency that holds personal information shall, if so requested by the individual concerned or on its own initiative, take such steps (if any) to correct that information as are, in the circumstances, reasonable to ensure that, having regard to the purposes for which the information may lawfully be used, the information is accurate, up to date, complete, and not misleading.
(3) Where an agency that holds personal information is not willing to correct that information in accordance with a request by the individual concerned, the agency shall, if so requested by the individual concerned, take such steps (if any) as are reasonable in the circumstances to attach to the information, in such a manner that it will always be read with the information, any statement provided by that individual of the correction sought.
(4) Where the agency has taken steps under subclause (2) or subclause (3) of this principle, the agency shall, if reasonably practicable, inform each person or body or agency to whom the personal information has been disclosed of these steps.
(5) Where an agency receives a request made pursuant to subclause (1) of this principle, the agency shall inform the individual concerned of the action taken as a result of the request.
PRINCIPLE 8

Accuracy, etc., of personal information to be checked before use
An agency that holds information shall not use that information without taking such steps (if any) as are, in the circumstances, reasonable to ensure that, having regard to the purpose for which the information is proposed to be used, the information is accurate, up to date, complete, relevant, and not misleading.

And finally (for this post, at least) - is the following something that could be used to raise a complaint???

Quote

Limits on use of personal information
An agency that holds personal information that was obtained in connection with one purpose shall not use the information for any other purpose unless the agency believes, on reasonable grounds:-

(a) That the source of the information is a publicly available publication; or
(B) That the use of the information for that other purpose is authorised by the individual concerned; or
© That non-compliance is necessary -

(i) To avoid prejudice to the maintenance of the law by any public sector agency, including the prevention, detection, investigation, prosecution, and punishment of offences; or
(ii) For the enforcement of a law imposing a pecuniary penalty; or
(iii) For the protection of the public revenue; or
(iv) For the conduct of proceedings before any Court or Tribunal (being proceedings that have been commenced or are reasonably in contemplation); or
(d) That the use of the information for that other purpose is necessary to prevent or lessen a serious and imminent threat to-


(i) Public health or public safety; or
(ii) The life or health of the individual concerned or another individual; or
(e) That the purpose for which the information is used directly related to the purpose in connection with which the information was obtained; or
(f) That the information-

(i) Is used in a form in which the individual concerned is not identified; or
(ii) Is used for statistical or research purposes and will not be published in a form that could reasonably be expected to identify the individual concerned or;

(g) That the use of the information is in accordance with an authority granted under section 54 of this Act.

Site reference: http://www.privacy.o...ple/peotop.html

[Hatikva]

ACC Lost this round - with Privacy Commissoner - apologise if this was posted elsewhere, however it does have application in this thread... Worth a read at least .. as it does cast some doubt on ACC's reliance of the ability to do as it pleases with information once obtained. This I would suspect support the need to qualify what is permitted on the consent form, and further justifies a claimant's reluctance to go along with the new blanket ACC form. ...

Quote

CASE NOTE 51345 [2003] NZPrivCmr 20

ACC client objects to ACC copying solicitor’s letters to his doctor

An ACC case manager sent a letter to a client initiating the development of a rehabilitation plan, and attaching a document for the client to sign.

The client referred ACC’s letter and document to his solicitor, who replied to the case manager questioning the legality of the document ACC wished the client to sign.

The case manager wrote back to the solicitor clarifying what the letter meant and requesting a meeting to discuss the matter. The case manager copied this letter to the client and also copied it to the client’s general practitioner.

Correspondence between the client’s solicitor and the case manager followed and every time the case manager replied she copied the letter to the client and to his GP.

The client complained to me that the correspondence between his solicitor and the case manager had nothing to do with his rehabilitation and should not have been copied to his GP. He said it involved a legal matter that the GP was unqualified to comment on and had no need to be aware of.

His complaint raised issues under rules 3 and 11 of the Health Information Privacy Code 1994. Although I found ACC had breached rules 3 and 11, in my view, its actions had not interfered with the client’s privacy.

Rule 3

Rule 3 of the Code provides that a health agency that collects health information directly from the individual concerned must take such steps that are reasonable in the circumstances to ensure that the individual is aware of, among other matters, the purpose for which the information is being collected and the intended recipients of the information.

ACC stated that general practitioners had, for years, been involved with the rehabilitation of ACC clients, and that it was important to keep parties involved in a client’s rehabilitation aware of matters surrounding rehabilitation so that they could help in the process. In this case, ACC considered that the client’s GP needed to know the contents of the letter and wanted to draw the GP’s attention to the difficulty ACC was having in getting the client to accept a rehabilitation plan.

Authorisation clause
ACC also believed that it had adequately notified the client that it would disclose information to third parties, including the client’s GP. ACC sent me a copy of an authorisation form the client had signed which authorised ACC to collect information from third parties and those parties to release the requested information to ACC.


Further, the requirement is to take steps to make the individual aware of the matters set out in rule 3 before collecting the health information or, if that is not practicable, as soon as practicable after it is collected. ACC said that part of the purpose for collecting the information was to assist with rehabilitation, and to disclose that information to health providers who could assist in that process. There did not appear to be any indication that ACC attempted to ensure that the client was aware of the intended disclosure before it collected information from him, although it could easily have done so.

Note of other recipients at end of letter
ACC also said that noting at the end of the letters that it was also being copied to the client’s GP was adequate notification of the purposes for which it collected health information and of the intended recipients of that information.

I did not think that informing the client by noting at the foot of letters that had already been copied to the GP was adequate notification under rule 3. There was no reason this notification could not have been given before disclosing the information. I formed the opinion that ACC had breached rule 3.

Rule 11

Rule 11 of the Code provides that a health agency must not disclose health information that it holds unless an exception applies.

ACC sought to rely on the exception in rule 11(1)© which provides that a health agency may disclose health information if it believes, on reasonable grounds, that disclosure is one of the purposes in connection with which the information was obtained.

The copies of correspondence provided to me did not explain why ACC had chosen to disclose the information at issue to the GP. ACC explained in response to the complaint that the GP was a key player in the client’s rehabilitation and it was important that he be kept up to date with rehabilitation matters.

I could accept that in most cases where an individual was commencing or undergoing rehabilitation, a GP might need to be informed of certain matters. The difficulty in this case was the nature of information copied to the GP, which did not bear upon rehabilitation. Rather, it was a discussion between ACC and the client’s lawyer about the legal nature of ACC’s request.

A further difficulty was that ACC did not copy its original letter to the GP. That letter set out ACC’s intention to implement a rehabilitation plan. If the GP was to have been any use in rehabilitating the client, it was most likely to have been at that stage. Instead, the GP was copied various legal arguments between ACC and the client’s lawyer without having any real knowledge of how the debate had started. Unless the GP had been provided with a covering letter explaining the situation (which did not appear to be the case) he may have wondered why he had been copied the letters at all.

ACC also said that it wished to show the GP that it was having difficulty implementing a rehabilitation plan for the client. I did not see that the GP needed to know this.

I was of the opinion that ACC could not rely on the exception in rule 11(1)© and had acted in breach of rule 11.

Adverse effect or harm – section 66

To form the opinion that ACC’s actions had interfered with the client’s privacy, I had to be satisfied that ACC’s actions had had an adverse effect upon the client (section 66).

The man felt ACC’s actions caused him considerable embarrassment. He did not want his doctor to be involved in his dealings with ACC over what he felt to be ACC’s attempts to remove him from the compensation scheme. He said that he felt marginalised and powerless as a result of ACC’s actions.

In my view, while ACC’s actions may have caused the client some embarrassment, and perhaps annoyance, I did not consider that this embarrassment was of the significance required by section 66. In my opinion, ACC’s actions did not amount to an interference with the client’s privacy.

In response to my opinion, ACC conceded that its intentions for copying the information to the client’s GP were unclear, and offered to apologise to the client. My office wrote to the client setting out ACC’s offer of an apology. However, the client failed to respond. I then decided to close my file.

Indexing terms: Collecting personal information – ACC – Letters about legal question copied to GP – Notification of intended recipient after disclosure – Authorisation to collect information – Breach – Insufficient harm – Privacy Act 1993, s 66(1) – Health Information Privacy Code 1994, rule 3(1) and 3(2)

Disclosure of personal information – ACC – Letters about legal question copied to GP – Whether disclosure a purpose in connection with which information was obtained – Breach – Insufficient harm – Privacy Act 1993, s 66(1) – Health Information Privacy Code 1994, rule 11(1)©

[sv5000]

My problem is/was that ACC knew my financial position and knew I had not been paid for the past 4 weeks so they basically dug their toes in on that and used it against me. In hindsight I stupidly assumed what I had been told was true from my cm that there was a law change effective of November 1st.

[sv5000]

I dont want to say at present why this has happened to me but I am also going for a voa and moa soon and the Dr for the IMOA appears to be well featured on here so that doesn't look great either. Question, does the IMOA have to be done by an independant as I am being sent to an ACC employed assessor.

[Paradigm Shift]

I would like to have a copy of any document the Corporation produces issuing an ultimatum to sign the ACC 167 form or have entitlements suspended. Clearly we will need a pattern of conduct where ultimatums are used so as to gain an unlawful advantage.

The effect of the ACC 167 form is to bypass the need of a search warrant. The Act does not permit the Corporation to have such power. Obtaining such power while producing a document for a pecuniary advantage (suspension) is a crime in this country. The individual employee of the Corporation signing the unlawful document is the one to be prosecuted. The Corporation will not be permitted to fund a defence for that individual as that would be a misuse of public funds. If I have the evidence made available to me I will prosecute on my own initiative. Please contact me on the private e-mail if you want to retain your privacy.

My interest in this matter is that the ACC act creating an assemblage of information to support their own hypotheses for the purposes of cancelling entitlements in preference to the mandatory requirement to rely upon medical evidence as described in act.

[Huggy]

Well arent i lucky. ACC has rung the supplier and will be faxing some paperwork to them to allow the release of information held by the supplier. All this without my signed consent. These pricks have their own laws and looks like nothing can be done to stop them. If only they had come to me directly they would have had the information weeks ago along with testimonials that back me up.

[Paradigm Shift]

huggy1, on Nov 24 2005, 03:58 PM, said:

These pricks have their own laws and looks like nothing can be done to stop them.

They do not have their own laws. They are breaking the laws. When someone breaks the law the way to stop them is to prosecute them. If you do not prosecute them you might cause them to believe that they do have their own laws. The answer is in your hands. We should make sure that we understand law ourselves so as we can properly address these matters. The moment that we start conceding to any belief like "they have their own law" we are doomed.

It is for this reason in America there is the right to bear arms.

[sv5000]

Paradigm Shift I can email you a copy of the letter from the complaints division about the "New Law" if you wish. Also a letter from my cm stating the same.

[sv5000]

Percy, thanks for the advice, I am in lower north island.

[Kiwee]

SV - would it be worth you appealing their decision to not backpay your 4 weeks worth of money now you have sent their form to them. Its not as if they have a legal right to take the money away ie they fibbed about law change and stopped your money...worth a crack?
kiwee

[Paradigm Shift]

Both my CULTURAL and RELIGIOUS background treat CONSENT as critical to the the very ESSENCE of one's being. The PERSONAL DIGNITY and GIFT OF LIFE are directly dependent upon the concept of CONSENT. This is the principal reason why we do not accept COMMUNISM and went to war against COMMUNISM as COMMUNISM takes the view that the individual belongs to the STATE and that the STATE is all-powerful over the individual.

The ACC publicly takes the viewpoint the interests of the many outweigh the interests of the few. This is fundamentalist COMMUNISM propaganda.

Many people state that we are living in a bicultural society. I do not accept the other culture in as much as I do not accept the CHIEFLY domination over the individual. Neither do I accept concepts of COMMUNISM. Both of these concepts are primitive, has been open to abuse, have been abused and as such have out used their usefulness. Such concepts are only useful when there is a clear and present danger from our fellow man. That circumstance no longer exists in this country. We now have the RULE OF LAW. Our individual FREEDOMS DEPEND upon everybody's OBEDIENCE to this RULE OF LAW, including the STATE SERVANTS understanding that they are our SERVANTS.

I passionately believe in FREEDOM and in particular the FREEDOM of SELF-DETERMINATION. If we had a constitution I would hope that it included THE RIGHT TO PURSUE HAPPINESS and that such a right to be enforceable by law. Such freedoms prevent the State from legislating other rights away then further diminishing freedoms by continual erosion of State mismanagement of entitlement. This is why in America there is a RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS so as to prevent the State from OVEREXTENDING its AUTHORITY.

My concept of FREEDOM of CONSENT is not something I can compromise.

I shall be in full control of my REHABILITATION and will only CONSENT to any INFORMATION about me to go from one person to another only if it is in my interests. I say this with LAWFUL ENTITLEMENT in mind. I will remain in CONTROL of my SELF DESTINY. I will not give over CONTROL to another human being whether it be a COMMUNIST regime or any other regime ( that is like-minded with COMMUNIST ideals whereby one human being controls another.

My anticipation is that my INSURER is my servant. I pay the bills so they will serve me so therefore under no circumstances will I serve them. I have LEGITIMATE EXPECTATION of ENTITLEMENT under LEGISLATION.

MY PRIVATE INFORMATION REMAINS PRIVATE.

No STATE SERVANT will obtain what effectively is an open SEARCH WARRANT under the guise that they are serving me. I am referring to the omnibus ACC167 consent form. CIVILISED countries claiming FREEDOM just do not function that way.

ANY STATE SERVANT who seeks to take FREEDOMS away is part of an EVIL EMPIRE.

[Hatikva]

Quote

Both my CULTURAL and RELIGIOUS background treat CONSENT as critical to the the very ESSENCE of one's being. The PERSONAL DIGNITY and GIFT OF LIFE are directly dependent upon the concept of CONSENT. This is the principal reason why we do not accept COMMUNISM and went to war against COMMUNISM as COMMUNISM takes the view that the individual belongs to the STATE and that the STATE is all-powerful over the individual.
...

The ACC publicly takes the viewpoint the interests of the many outweigh the interests of the few. This is fundamentalist COMMUNISM propaganda.

No STATE SERVANT will obtain what effectively is an open SEARCH WARRANT under the guise that they are serving me. I am referring to the omnibus ACC167 consent form. CIVILISED countries claiming FREEDOM just do not function that way.

ANY STATE SERVANT who seeks to take FREEDOMS away is part of an EVIL EMPIRE.

Well said -

How soon we forget what thousands died for in the second world war.

How long before we march and salute - Sieg Heil?

How long before we castrate the infirm, or half caste, or brown, or Maori, or Pacific Islander, or Asian, or whatever is not what is perceived to be the "Right" racial mix/origin- because they don't meet the ideal seen by our "minders"- they "deserve" what they receive ...

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

==============================================


Some of us still stand for what is right.

Shifty Paradigm - you have said it so eloquently in this post.

[AJNZ]

What we have to do is STOP ACC's customary and accepted practices (including internal "policy" rulings) becoming the norm.

Some of us (including me) have won reviews on this very issue. The legislation is what counts - and the spirit behind that legislation.

It is NOT about claimants being too scared to object, question rulings.

Take heed, take care and take a stand!!

Peace and Shalom

[Limoges]

sv5000, and in fact to all claimants who are being given the runaround regarding the Supplementary Sheet and Consent.
This change in policy (and as MG and fairgo state - that is all it is - don't be misled by ACC) regarding consent is due to The Ombudsman going back to ACC in October regarding ACC's 167 consent form. I took the matter to The Ombudsman earlier in the year hoping that he would understand the law and tell ACC that the Supplementary Sheet and restricted Consent were quite lawful. He in fact told them (and me) that it was "reasonable" for ACC to "contemporaneously" advise me what documents they were sending out to an Assessor, as opposed to asking me and then ACC and me agreeing on what was to be sent- that is therefore in effect signing a restricted form of consent which is what I did. The Ombudsman was saying that I should be signing the 167 form unamended which ACC ask all to sign. They took this as TRYING TO FORCE ME TO SIGN IT and threatened me with not only dis-entitling me if I was not to sign it by a certain date, but also having to forfeit my ERC whilst I was 'non-compliant'!!

I then contacted Peter Sara a Senior Practitioner in Law in Dundein who knows his stuff. He has written to ACC stating that what I have been requesting from them in the matter of Consent is quite lawful. He has in the past discussed this very situation with Professor Roth, a Privacy Law 'wizz-kid' of Otago University. Peter Sara has further asked ACC just what they are wanting the Consent for. I have a reprieve for the time being until 2 Dec. and ACC have state that they will come back with Peter Sara's "queries".
In the meantime it is to be hoped that The Ombusman, ACC and perhaps Prof. Roth will get together and sort this fiasco out.

[Huggy]

Limoges thats some good info. I look forward to reading any more info as you receive it.

I have talked with peter sarah as well and he certainly does know his stuff.

They refused my consent and supplementary forms, however i have sent in different ones as per my earlier posting. It will be interesting to see if these ones are accepted.

I know with mine they are using them to gain info from one of my suppliers and it looks they are trying to get me on fraud. Little do they know i can verify all purchases from the supplier and that none of them have ever made me any income.

I have heard from my supplier and they are sending him forms on that he has to release the info but that the forms dont need to have my consent in any way. Apparently if they are using the fraud way they do not need to notify you or get any consent from you.

If only they had come to me directly and i would have provided the info for them. I guess thats too hard for them and the thought they they would save money wouldnt be there choice either.

[Paradigm Shift]

I do not think we should be asking ACC what the policy is or what they think the law is. We are the owners of our private information it is we who will decide who will have or what information. It is up to the ACC to particularise what information they need and for what purpose.

Nowhere in the Western world can any commercial entity, state-owned or private, demand an open search warrant to our lives. The concept is just too dangerous. Whenever there is money involved, including bonuses, the power will take the least line of resistance. This is a natural Law. This is why communism fails. It is not the tendency for mankind to do the right thing, the tendency is to do the easy thing.

Historically the ACC has simply proposed a belief then sought to find evidence for that belief. In other words they will only look for the information that will provide the most profit.

If there was to be complete access to all information then at the ACC would have to consider all information. This job would be huge. The proper thing to do is to stick with the criteria of required information. In cases of an end of incapacity then needs to be a comparison with the pre injury capacity, the current incapacity, whether or not there is a possibility of medical rehabilitation before even beginning to consider whether or not there is potential for an earnings capacity utilising residual capacity and if so what rehabilitation is needed by way of additions to schools and education to achieve such rehabilitation. Rehabilitation does not mean Relabelation. Relabel-ation)

In regards to initial occupational assessments the only information available to the Corporation is information about the former occupation earnings capacity related education, experience and skill. No other information.

The initial medical assessment can only examine the safety in regards to each of the work tasks listed by the initial occupational assessor. If the initial occupational assessment does not contain work task activities then the report cannot possibly have consent to go to either the ACC for any other agency. This is the time to utilise the Privacy Act.

It is absolutely crazy to allow incomplete or even wrong information to passed from one entity to another. This is why we have the Privacy Act.

USE IT OR LOSE IT.

[Limoges]

Read Me,
My ultimatum letter came from no less than the Branch Manager of the Wellington Office - Sally Bramley. I had not involved any Lawyer at this stage.
ACC then came back saying that because I had changed my legal representative, (I hadn't, I had just added the Dunedin one - I am also using a Lawyer in Auckland for another matter - one whom they obviously believe is not au fait with the Privacy Law), they would not be dis-entitling me on the 18th November and that I could now have until 2 December whereupon they will write back answering my Dunedin Lawyer's queries! How's that for supposition?!

[doppelganger]

My source says that if the corporation requires information that is not related to the supply of Compensation, Treatment and rehabilitation that they need a search warrent even if one of there consent forms is filled in.

Those Consent forms are filled in to supply Compensation, Treatment and rehabilitation and not for th ecollecting of any information.

think it is in the privacy Act that forms and information must only be used for the purpose that that information was gathered for.

[roamy]

Is it possible to get a copy of this letter with the ""new law"" posted.I wonder if it refers to the backpay aspect only (in light of ammendment 3).If it really is talking about the consent forms, then this is a real opportunity to show conclusively that lies are being told, especially if 2 (or more) staff are telling the same line to claimants.Whether the supplementary forms are ultimately accepted or not, the systematic telling of lies to gain an advantage is a line they have crossed for years, but this time we may have proof in writing!Can a copy of this/these letters be posted please.roamy