Submission to the Inquiry into the Privacy Amendment (Enhancing Privacy Protection) Bill 2012

The Privacy Amendment Bill 2012 is written within the constraints of the existing practices for collection and use of personal data.  The writers of the legislation have tried to be technology neutral.  Unfortunately it is difficult to devise policy rules without making assumptions on the technology used to operate the system. This is evident in the explanatory memorandum and in the volume of legislation to protect privacy in the reporting of credit history.  Most of the changes to legislation are required because of the technology currently used to implement the reporting of credit history.

Privacy issues arise when personal data is stored and shared between organisations and persons. In particular two technologies influence how the system operates and hence the legislation is not technology neutral.  These technologies are:

  1. For some purposes it is assumed that the most efficient way to share data is to collect copies of data from disparate groups and store them in large databases. Examples are files kept by credit bureaus, and files kept by the Tax Office.
  2. Often it is impractical to create a single data base of data but the data still needs to be shared.  It is assumed that the most efficient method of sharing is to give each individual a unique identifier to be used across the different databases.  An example is the current ehealth initiative and attempts by the government to introduce a common govID.

In today’s connected world with rapid communications and powerful computers there is a more efficient technology to share and combine data. This can thought of as “just in time sharing”.  Data is not shared or collated until there is a need to do so.  This can be achieved by providing a means for an individual’s data to be shared at the time it is needed – and not before.  The two technologies described in 1 and 2 above combine ALL data even though it may never need to be combined.

A “just in time” technology can be implemented easily and simply by providing a mechanism for an individual to access their own data at the time it is stored and informing the individual when  personal data is accessed by a third party.

To make it possible for a “just in time” technology to operate effectively the legislation can include two extra ideas.

  1. Whenever personal data is stored by an organisation that follows the National Privacy Principles (NPP) the individual must be informed and given access to the data stored.
  2. Whenever stored personal data is accessed by a party other than the NPP the individual must be informed that the access has occurred, by whom,  and what data has been accessed.

Informed means that the person has the right to know and can access the information if they so desire.  It does not mean they are notified immediately.

These additions do not conflict with the proposed amendments.  Those cases where a person is not permitted to be told what information is stored are already covered by the legislation and those sections can override 1 and 2.

These additions reinforce existing privacy principles on right of access and make it more likely that errors in data storage will be detected.

There is no need to change existing systems and the rules need only apply to new systems and to changes to existing systems.

Implementation is inexpensive and can be made “automatic” and implemented for a very low cost. Implementation is inexpensive because the NPP has obtained permission from the person before the data is stored and so is in contact with them.  The NPP uses the same communications channel to tell the person how to access the stored data.  When a third party accesses the data the NPP uses the same communications channel to tell the person that their data has been accessed.

The additions will be shown to dramatically reduce the cost of compliance. It will dramatically reduce the cost of operating information systems holding personal data whether data is collected in databases, or data is federated using common identifiers, or whether “just in time” collation of data occurs or whether some unthought of innovation occurs.

It is likely that there will be a wholesale conversion of existing systems to use the new technology because it results in very efficient, very private systems.  This happens because compliance of most of the privacy principles are automatically achieved if “just in time” technology is used.

3 thoughts on “Proposed Submission to Privacy Amendment Bill 2012

  1. Hi Kevin.
    I haven’t read the amendment, but I hope the amendment covers name matching technology, where even if there isn’t a common identifier, a record can be matched by using personally identifiable data fields (ala https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/09/what-information-personally-identifiable ) with reasonable precision.

    Does the act give a user the chance to ‘opt-out’, or keep multiple persona’s (id’s) with the ability to merge/separate them.

    Like

    1. Ian, the proposed addition makes no assumptions about the identifiers a person uses for different databases. The issue is that if someone stores data about you, you are entitled to know what it is. The amendment gives you a way checking that the organisation has only stored what you agreed to. If you have agreed to your data to be stored then you have already “opted in”. If you get notified of data being stored and you haven’t agreed to it then you will know that it has happened and you have a chance of being able to be removed from the database.

      The amendment gives you information so that you can protect yourself and not solely rely on others.

      Like

  2. Kevin also posted this to the Kantara UMA list. User Managed Access would be a fabulous addition to the Australian law.

    Australia is also doing a great thing by introducing a Patient Controlled EHR http://www.nehta.gov.au/ehealth-implementation/what-is-a-pcher for every citizen.

    Also, as the previous comment / reply point out, the proposed addition does not preclude the use of voluntary identities by users. Voluntary identity, like choosing which email address or credit card to show to a particular merchant is a easily understood privacy preserving tactic that people already use. The voluntary email address as ID can also be used to contact the user for consent to data sharing.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s