Why the MSD privacy breach matters

It's pretty easy when you see politics as a game to forget that the scandal now known as #WTFMSD is not just about Paula Bennett's competence (or not) as a Minister,  continuing to tarnish a Government that has been just a wee bit beleaguered of late. 

What a massive privacy breach, of really quite gargantuan proportions, means in practical terms is actually fear.

Fear of people finding out your private stuff.  Fear of people who Don't Need to Know finding out your private stuff.  Fear of people who You Don't Want To Know finding out your private stuff.  Fear of people who are Dangerous to You and Your Loved Ones finding out your private stuff. 

Private stuff like your new name, your current address, your beneficiary or CYFS arrangements.  Private stuff which could make it easy to find you.

Emma explains it succintly, clearly, and powerfully, on PAS today:

[quote from someone else, upthread] Mind you, you know exactly who could (would) do what Keith did? Bored, inquisitive, mildly anti-social young men...

[Emma's comment].... who have children hidden from them in CYFS care, and have just been given enough information to find them.

I read this column last night, and had to go to bed and have a wee cry. And it wasn't just because my daughter's had dealings with Youth Specialty Service that involved funded counselling and drugs.

I was one of those kids. For two years in the 70s, my family was in hiding from my father. He had access rights: on one of those visits he managed to trick me into telling him where we were living (I was six, okay), and we had to move. I had to change schools. The very information Keith has detailed here, which would have been on Social Welfare's files about us, would have been sufficient for my dad to at least find my school and wait for me. He could have used me to find my home, and my mother. She could have died.

If we were in that situation now, all he'd need is some unsupervised time on a kiosk, and the technical knowledge to open a file in Word.

The political management of this issue has become the main topic of conversation now.  When did MSD know they had a problem?  A year ago; several months back; last week; on Sunday night; or, like the PM, today?  If they found out earlier than yesterday why didn't they act sooner? 

But please let us not forget just why this breach matters so much; because MSD were not reliable and secure stewards of the information they hold, and have thus made many of the most vulnerable in our society, those MSD is supposed to assist confidentially and with respect, even more at risk.  And even more afraid.

justice on display

i've been watching/reading about the murder trial of scott guy.  it's a bit difficult to avoid it, given that it's regularly one of the leading items of the tv & radio news, and covered on the first 3 pages of the newspapers.

i don't have much to say about the case itself - the court will deal with that.  but the thing that strikes me is how difficult it must be for that family to have all their personal histories displayed to the public, in such excrutiating detail and with so much prominence.  i feel especially for the immediate family of mr guy - his wife, parents, children, siblings.  they have had to suffer losing him from their lives in a most brutal way - something that no-one would choose to happen.  then they have to suffer again as their family is closely and publicly put under the spotlight.  it feels to me like another form of victimisation.

yes, i understand the need for having a public justice system.  i understand that the process of the courts needs to be closely scrutinised, and that justice has to be done & be seen to be done.  i agree these are important issues, and that closed justice systems are just rife for authoritarian abuse.

and yet.  it doesn't seem right that when some terrible thing is done to a much-loved member of your family, that becomes a reason for you to lose your right to privacy.  for the dead person to lose their right to privacy.  for people across the country - in their lounges and in their work places, amongst their own friends, families and colleagues - to be passing judgement on you and your affairs just because the media is giving them constant access to the details of your life, as if it was some kind of soap opera.

i keep thinking there must be a better way to do this, though i can't seem to think of one that both protects the integrity of the justice system while also protecting the integrity of victims and their families.  all i can do is watch the process and feel extremely uncomfortable about it.

the cost of privacy

there's been a lot of news lately about the use of twitter to disclose information suppressed by the courts, brought to our attention because of a british football player. in all the discussion about loss of privacy, and the inability of law to keep up with technology, the focus tends to be on defendants, and very little on their victims.

one of the things we know about twitter is that it is a power tool for harassment of women who dare to file complaints of sexual assault. we've had the very famous case of julian assange, and the use of twitter to disclose the identity of the swedish women, who were then subject to threats and harassment.

even for less high-profile cases, victims of crime are equally at risk if their own name or the name of the accused/perpetrator is released. given the culture into which the names are released, one which blames and attacks victims & makes their lives extremely difficult (to the extent of being unable to work, in the case of the dominic strauss-kahn victim), it's yet another massive barrier that prevents reporting of rape and sexual violation.

there are those who think privacy is a waste of time, and not a realistic objective. i doubt those people realise the extent to which victims of crimes can and do suffer when privacy is breached. while the law in this area is being reviewed, ultimately i suspect that it will be the economics of the situation that will determine outcomes. it is costly and time-consuming to go after thousands of people on twitter or facebook, and unlikely to be practical.

this is not good news and will do nothing for the reporting rates of sexual abuse and rape which are already spectacularly low.