info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Else v Service NSW
47 views
Skip to first unread message
Sylvia Else
Jun 21, 2021, 8:38:58 PM6/21/21
to
https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/17a17b35549bc4005a528adf
The Tribunal sides with the government again.
Like everyone else with a Service NSW account, in April last year I
received some material about protecting against Covid 19. This was sent
to the email address I'd provided to Service NSW.
The core question was whether the use of that email address was
permitted by subsection 17(c) of the Privacy and Personal Information
Protection Act 1998
(c) the use of the information for that other purpose is necessary to
prevent or lessen a serious and imminent threat to the life or health of
the individual to whom the information relates or of another person.”
This comes down mainly to the meanings of "necessary" and "serious and
imminent".
One might have thought subsection 17(c) set quite a high bar to the use
of information. Apparently not.
There's a lesson here. If you've provided information to the government
for some purpose, and they want to use it in some other way, they'll
find a means to do it. The protection provided by the PPIP Act is
largely illusory.
I may not have achieved entirely nothing. Service NSW have said that
they're no longer sending out information like that to people's Service
NSW addresses. Apparently, they've realised it causes trouble, even if
it is not actually unlawful.
Sylvia.
The Tribunal sides with the government again.
Like everyone else with a Service NSW account, in April last year I
received some material about protecting against Covid 19. This was sent
to the email address I'd provided to Service NSW.
The core question was whether the use of that email address was
permitted by subsection 17(c) of the Privacy and Personal Information
Protection Act 1998
(c) the use of the information for that other purpose is necessary to
prevent or lessen a serious and imminent threat to the life or health of
the individual to whom the information relates or of another person.”
This comes down mainly to the meanings of "necessary" and "serious and
imminent".
One might have thought subsection 17(c) set quite a high bar to the use
of information. Apparently not.
There's a lesson here. If you've provided information to the government
for some purpose, and they want to use it in some other way, they'll
find a means to do it. The protection provided by the PPIP Act is
largely illusory.
I may not have achieved entirely nothing. Service NSW have said that
they're no longer sending out information like that to people's Service
NSW addresses. Apparently, they've realised it causes trouble, even if
it is not actually unlawful.
Sylvia.
Rod Speed
Jun 22, 2021, 12:37:49 AM6/22/21
to
"Sylvia Else" <syl...@email.invalid> wrote in message
news:ijcpp0...@mid.individual.net...
> https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/17a17b35549bc4005a528adf
>
> The Tribunal sides with the government again.
>
> Like everyone else with a Service NSW account, in April last year I
> received some material about protecting against Covid 19. This was sent to
> the email address I'd provided to Service NSW.
>
> The core question was whether the use of that email address was permitted
> by subsection 17(c) of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act
> 1998
>
> (c) the use of the information for that other purpose is necessary to
> prevent or lessen a serious and imminent threat to the life or health of
> the individual to whom the information relates or of another person.”
>
> This comes down mainly to the meanings of "necessary" and "serious and
> imminent".
>
> One might have thought subsection 17(c) set quite a high bar to the use of
> information. Apparently not.
>
> There's a lesson here. If you've provided information to the government
> for some purpose, and they want to use it in some other way, they'll find
> a means to do it. The protection provided by the PPIP Act is largely
> illusory.
Wota terminal fuckwit.
>
> The Tribunal sides with the government again.
>
> Like everyone else with a Service NSW account, in April last year I
> received some material about protecting against Covid 19. This was sent to
> the email address I'd provided to Service NSW.
>
> The core question was whether the use of that email address was permitted
> by subsection 17(c) of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act
> 1998
>
> (c) the use of the information for that other purpose is necessary to
> prevent or lessen a serious and imminent threat to the life or health of
> the individual to whom the information relates or of another person.”
>
> This comes down mainly to the meanings of "necessary" and "serious and
> imminent".
>
> One might have thought subsection 17(c) set quite a high bar to the use of
> information. Apparently not.
>
> There's a lesson here. If you've provided information to the government
> for some purpose, and they want to use it in some other way, they'll find
> a means to do it. The protection provided by the PPIP Act is largely
> illusory.
Max
Jun 22, 2021, 3:16:19 AM6/22/21
to
potential witnesses because you don't know their home address ? How
dit the tribunal deal with that issue ?
Dechucka
Jun 22, 2021, 3:25:18 AM6/22/21
to
snip
How many cases have you now run over the years?
How many cases have you now run over the years?
Sylvia Else
Jun 22, 2021, 5:34:37 AM6/22/21
to
required. This was a rather peripheral issue anyway, I only raised it
because I was annoyed at the way hearsay evidence had been used in my
Transport for NSW GIPA case.
This case was always about statutory construction, and whether the
government could use my information this way, Covid-19 or not.
Sylvia.
Sylvia Else
Jun 22, 2021, 5:43:51 AM6/22/21
to
On 22-Jun-21 5:25 pm, Dechucka wrote:
> snip
>
> How many cases have you now run over the years?
This was only the second to go to a hearing.
> snip
>
> How many cases have you now run over the years?
I note the change in the subject line. If this had just been about me, I
wouldn't have bothered.
More than four and half million people had their Service NSW email
addresses used for a purpose that had nothing to do with Service NSW.
The question was whether this was a lawful use of those email addresses.
The Government is not meant to use the information it has just because
it seems to someone like a good idea.
Sylvia.
Max
Jun 22, 2021, 5:53:04 AM6/22/21
to
"Ms Else acknowledged that the Tribunal is not bound by the rules of
evidence and can accept hearsay evidence."
Are you annoyed that the tribunal can accept hearsay evidence?
Hasn't a democratically elected government legislated to make the rules
of the tribunal the way they are?
Max
Jun 22, 2021, 5:57:59 AM6/22/21
to
be interested if it has made it to a tribunal hearing.
Max
Jun 22, 2021, 7:52:53 AM6/22/21
to
On 22/06/2021 2:37 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
>
>
> "Sylvia Else" <syl...@email.invalid> wrote in message
> news:ijcpp0...@mid.individual.net...
>> https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/17a17b35549bc4005a528adf
>>
>> The Tribunal sides with the government again.
>>
>> Like everyone else with a Service NSW account, in April last year I
>> received some material about protecting against Covid 19. This was
>> sent to the email address I'd provided to Service NSW.
>>
>> The core question was whether the use of that email address was
>> permitted by subsection 17(c) of the Privacy and Personal Information
>> Protection Act 1998
>>
>> (c) the use of the information for that other purpose is necessary to
>> prevent or lessen a serious and imminent threat to the life or health
>> of the individual to whom the information relates or of another person.”
>>
>> This comes down mainly to the meanings of "necessary" and "serious and
>> imminent".
>>
>> One might have thought subsection 17(c) set quite a high bar to the
>> use of information. Apparently not.
>>
>> There's a lesson here. If you've provided information to the
>> government for some purpose, and they want to use it in some other
>> way, they'll find a means to do it. The protection provided by the
>> PPIP Act is largely illusory.
>
> Wota terminal fuckwit.
>
What do you mean? Doesn't she have a legitimate complaint?
>
>
> "Sylvia Else" <syl...@email.invalid> wrote in message
> news:ijcpp0...@mid.individual.net...
>> https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/17a17b35549bc4005a528adf
>>
>> The Tribunal sides with the government again.
>>
>> Like everyone else with a Service NSW account, in April last year I
>> received some material about protecting against Covid 19. This was
>> sent to the email address I'd provided to Service NSW.
>>
>> The core question was whether the use of that email address was
>> permitted by subsection 17(c) of the Privacy and Personal Information
>> Protection Act 1998
>>
>> (c) the use of the information for that other purpose is necessary to
>> prevent or lessen a serious and imminent threat to the life or health
>> of the individual to whom the information relates or of another person.”
>>
>> This comes down mainly to the meanings of "necessary" and "serious and
>> imminent".
>>
>> One might have thought subsection 17(c) set quite a high bar to the
>> use of information. Apparently not.
>>
>> There's a lesson here. If you've provided information to the
>> government for some purpose, and they want to use it in some other
>> way, they'll find a means to do it. The protection provided by the
>> PPIP Act is largely illusory.
>
> Wota terminal fuckwit.
>
Sylvia Else
Jun 22, 2021, 8:39:40 AM6/22/21
to
to, and indeed it is clear from the case law that it shouldn't always do
so. The purpose behind allowing hearsay evidence appears to me to be to
avoid having to obtain statements from multiple witnesses where their
evidence would be uncontroversial. It is not meant to be a way of shield
evidence from proper examination.
The problem where hearsay evidence is accepted about technical matters
from people who are not technical experts is that such evidence is
almost immune to cross-examination because the person giving the
evidence has little understanding of the meaning of the questions asked,
and is not able to give sensible answers.
The Transport for NSW case is before the Appeal Panel so I should
probably not comment on it further here.
Sylvia.
Sylvia Else
Jun 22, 2021, 8:41:04 AM6/22/21
to
wouldn't even understand why it was important.
Sylvia.
Rod Speed
Jun 22, 2021, 1:17:18 PM6/22/21
to
"Max" <m...@val.morgan> wrote in message news:sasiui$1lp4$1...@gioia.aioe.org...
> On 22/06/2021 2:37 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Sylvia Else" <syl...@email.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:ijcpp0...@mid.individual.net...
>>> https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/17a17b35549bc4005a528adf
>>>
>>> The Tribunal sides with the government again.
>>>
>>> Like everyone else with a Service NSW account, in April last year I
>>> received some material about protecting against Covid 19. This was sent
>>> to the email address I'd provided to Service NSW.
>>>
>>> The core question was whether the use of that email address was
>>> permitted by subsection 17(c) of the Privacy and Personal Information
>>> Protection Act 1998
>>>
>>> (c) the use of the information for that other purpose is necessary to
>>> prevent or lessen a serious and imminent threat to the life or health of
>>> the individual to whom the information relates or of another person.”
>>>
>>> This comes down mainly to the meanings of "necessary" and "serious and
>>> imminent".
>>>
>>> One might have thought subsection 17(c) set quite a high bar to the use
>>> of information. Apparently not.
>>>
>>> There's a lesson here. If you've provided information to the government
>>> for some purpose, and they want to use it in some other way, they'll
>>> find a means to do it. The protection provided by the PPIP Act is
>>> largely illusory.
>>
>> Wota terminal fuckwit.
>>
>
> What do you mean? Doesn't she have a legitimate complaint?
Nope, the stupid cow keeps wasting everyone's time.
>>
>>
>> "Sylvia Else" <syl...@email.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:ijcpp0...@mid.individual.net...
>>> https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/17a17b35549bc4005a528adf
>>>
>>> The Tribunal sides with the government again.
>>>
>>> Like everyone else with a Service NSW account, in April last year I
>>> received some material about protecting against Covid 19. This was sent
>>> to the email address I'd provided to Service NSW.
>>>
>>> The core question was whether the use of that email address was
>>> permitted by subsection 17(c) of the Privacy and Personal Information
>>> Protection Act 1998
>>>
>>> (c) the use of the information for that other purpose is necessary to
>>> prevent or lessen a serious and imminent threat to the life or health of
>>> the individual to whom the information relates or of another person.”
>>>
>>> This comes down mainly to the meanings of "necessary" and "serious and
>>> imminent".
>>>
>>> One might have thought subsection 17(c) set quite a high bar to the use
>>> of information. Apparently not.
>>>
>>> There's a lesson here. If you've provided information to the government
>>> for some purpose, and they want to use it in some other way, they'll
>>> find a means to do it. The protection provided by the PPIP Act is
>>> largely illusory.
>>
>> Wota terminal fuckwit.
>>
>
> What do you mean? Doesn't she have a legitimate complaint?
God knows what the total cost of all her stupid claims has been to us.
Peter Jason
Jun 22, 2021, 7:27:27 PM6/22/21
to
Max
Jun 23, 2021, 7:14:20 PM6/23/21
to
need to solve if you are going to continue with these types of matters.
How are you going to present the best case if you can't call witnesses
you need? How would a lawyer do it if you engaged one?
Sylvia Else
Jun 23, 2021, 8:05:49 PM6/23/21
to
On 24-Jun-21 9:14 am, Max wrote:
>
> I would think the ability to call witnesses is an important issue you
> need to solve if you are going to continue with these types of matters.
> How are you going to present the best case if you can't call witnesses
> you need? How would a lawyer do it if you engaged one?
>
In the privacy case, it may well have been that I could have got the
>
> I would think the ability to call witnesses is an important issue you
> need to solve if you are going to continue with these types of matters.
> How are you going to present the best case if you can't call witnesses
> you need? How would a lawyer do it if you engaged one?
>
Tribunal to call the originators of the hearsay evidence.
The Transport for NSW case was rather unusual, in that the evidence
given by the respondent's witness was not merely hearsay, but was not
revealed in advance to be hearsay, and this is one aspect of the appeal.
Sylvia.
Sylvia Else
Nov 30, 2021, 8:49:54 PM11/30/21
to
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/nsw/NSWCA/2016/334.html
"(2) The word “necessary” in s 99(3) carries its ordinary meaning of
“needed to be done” or “required” in the sense of “requisite” or
something “that cannot be dispensed with” and does not import any
qualification to this ordinary meaning."
It may not have changed the outcome, but at least then the Tribunal
would have had to address the fact that "necessary" can have a meaning
other than "reasonably appropriate and adapted." I have to wonder why
the Tribunal did not find that case for itself, and whether Service
NSW's lawyers knew about the case.
Mind you, I might still have lost based on the argument that I had
consented to Service NSW's terms and conditions which included consent
to their privacy policy.
Interestingly, they seem to have stopped requiring consent to the
privacy policy, since that is no longer present in their terms and
conditions. Perhaps they have quietly conceded my point that they're
meant to abide by the rules established by the legislation, and not make
up their own.
There is a current review of the Commonwealth Privacy Act, which also
uses the word "necessary" in an almost identical context.
https://www.ag.gov.au/integrity/consultations/review-privacy-act-1988
I'll be making a submission about the need to define the word
"necessary" to make it clearer what level of protection the legislation
provides. That legislation also binds Service NSW.
Sylvia.
[*] BTW, Mr Robinson had two separate cases regarding false arrest on
different occasions. He's won one, and lost one.
Max
Dec 1, 2021, 5:29:52 AM12/1/21
to
without remembering the context.
Sylvia Else
Dec 1, 2021, 6:09:43 AM12/1/21
to
The primary issue was whether it was necessary for Service NSW to use my
email address to send me[*] Covid-19 health advice material "to prevent
or lessen a serious and imminent threat to the life or health of [me or
someone else]" back in April 2020.
My contention was that it was not necessary, because "necessary" has the
sense of unavoidable because there are no reasonable alternatives.
The Tribunal found that "necessary" means "reasonably appropriate and
adapted", and accordingly that the use of my email that way was
permitted, and not a breach of privacy.
A secondary issue was whether I had consented to the use of my email
address that way because I had agreed to a privacy policy that allowed
its use in an emergency. There was discussion around that question, but
my main position is that an agency should not be allowed to do that anyway.
Of course, in the scheme of things, misuse of an email address is not
the biggest breach of privacy. But the whole point of the legislation
was to put an end to misuse of personal information, and there has to be
a line drawn somewhere.
Sylvia.
[*] They used the email addresses of about 4.6 million people to send
the material, but I only had standing as regards my own.
Noodle
Dec 12, 2021, 4:49:52 AM12/12/21
to
Sylvia Else
Dec 12, 2021, 5:44:12 AM12/12/21
to
On 12-Dec-21 8:49 pm, Noodle wrote:
> Latest news & update:
>
> http://groups.google.com/g/aus.legal/c/D1DHpn1URgo/m/EvE9t3N8CQAJ
>
One thing that's changed since I signed up to MyServiceNSW (I no longer
> Latest news & update:
>
> http://groups.google.com/g/aus.legal/c/D1DHpn1URgo/m/EvE9t3N8CQAJ
>
have an account) is that the terms and conditions no longer require that
the person agree to the Policy Statement, merely that they read it
"By creating a MyServiceNSW Account, you agree to be bound by these
terms and conditions and have read the MyServiceNSW Account privacy
collection notice."
Which is not grammatical, and arguably does not mean what they probably
intended.
Whether I had agreed to it was something that was raised as an issue by
Service NSW in my privacy case, though in the event it did not decide
the matter.
Also, that paragraph only applies when you create an account. If you
already have one, it doesn't apply.
I wonder how much we pay the people who write this stuff?
Sylvia.
Max
Dec 12, 2021, 10:32:20 PM12/12/21
to
On 12/12/2021 9:44 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 12-Dec-21 8:49 pm, Noodle wrote:
>> Latest news & update:
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/g/aus.legal/c/D1DHpn1URgo/m/EvE9t3N8CQAJ
>>
>
> One thing that's changed since I signed up to MyServiceNSW (I no longer
> have an account)
How do you do various things like Covid QR-code sign in if you don't
> On 12-Dec-21 8:49 pm, Noodle wrote:
>> Latest news & update:
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/g/aus.legal/c/D1DHpn1URgo/m/EvE9t3N8CQAJ
>>
>
> One thing that's changed since I signed up to MyServiceNSW (I no longer
> have an account)
have an account?
Rod Speed
Dec 12, 2021, 10:43:39 PM12/12/21
to
Max <m...@val.morgan> wrote
> Sylvia Else wrote
She stupidly signs in on the paper form and howls about her details being
visible to others.
> Sylvia Else wrote
visible to others.
0 new messages