[LINK] Can Big Brother be stopped?

Bernard Robertson-Dunn brd at iimetro.com.au
Tue Oct 29 18:07:25 AEDT 2019


On 29/10/2019 4:59 pm, Andy Farkas wrote:
>
> I really think they're trying to take this a bit too far:
>
>  https://www.zdnet.com/article/home-affairs-pushes-its-face-matching-service-for-porn-age-verification/
>
>
> "Whilst they are primarily designed to prevent identity crime, Home
> Affairs
> would support the increased use of the Document and Face Verification
> Services
> across the Australian economy to strengthen age verification processes." 

I recently appeared before a Senate committee looking at Senator
Hanson's proposal to put a photo on the Medicare Card. This is from my
opening statement:

"Simple ideas are not necessarily what they seem.

The proposal to put a photo on the Medicare Card sounds simple, but as
all the submissions have indicated, there are two issues that do not
seem to have been fully examined and analysed:

1. Will it achieve its intended outcome and how?

2. What are the costs and risks and how are the risks mitigated?

Too many times, government initiatives and proposals are almost
exclusively about claimed benefits.

For people to make an informed decision about the soundness of an
initiative, it is necessary for the government to be open and
transparent about how they will achieve the outcome and the associated
costs and risks.

In many cases, either the proposals have not been thought through or if
they have, the full case has not been disclosed.

Simplistic ideas such as including a photo on the Medicare Card,
removing the need for full and explicit consent before registering
people for a My Health Record, before Sharing and Releasing Data, the
mandatory requirement to report certain events, the proposed Australian
Institute for Health and Welfare Data Asset can and do have unintended
consequences.

The position of the Australian Privacy Foundation is that full
disclosure of the thinking behind any proposal is essential. Full
disclosure means the objectives and explanation of the mechanisms that
will deliver the objectives, the value of achieving the objective, the
development, implementation and ongoing costs and the risks of the proposal.

We note that we are not alone in raising these issues, the other three
submissions have similar concerns.

The fact that none of these appear to have been developed for the
proposed legislation means that we recommend that the amendment not be
pursued. "

Exactly the same could be said about the proposed face matching service.

For the record, the committee recommended it not be pursed.

-- 

Regards
brd

Bernard Robertson-Dunn
Canberra Australia
email: brd at iimetro.com.au




More information about the Link mailing list