Notes from the iappANZ, August 5, 2016

Dear readers,

Trending topics this week revolve around the scope of data collection and retention by government, surveillance and transparency. Searching for the dynamic line in the sand between fair and reasonably necessary data collection and privacy safeguards is the ever expanding caption. Headline stories on “Pokemon Go” and your privacy rights have this week been substituted with privacy questions on the upcoming census collection in Australia. In case you missed it, the Australian Bureau of Statistics announced last year that for the first time it would retain all the names and addresses it has collected i.e., the retention of this data is mandatory with a default opt-in. At that time (incidentally just before Christmas), the announcement went largely under the radar, including the Privacy Impact Assessment.

With the household receipt of forms in letterboxes this week, privacy and data security alarm bells have been raised with increasingly loud calls across social media platforms to boycott next week’s census. The media has highlighted fears that the government is overstepping its watch on citizens and eroding privacy rights previously safeguarded by anonymity. Certainly part of the debate has been driven by civil rights and privacy advocacy groups; however, there is also a discernible consumer appreciation of the implications flowing from the retention of personal information for census purposes which may not have existed five years ago, the last time the census was taken. It demonstrates a growing awareness in the community of the privacy creep that is magnified in a digital era of big data and surveillance capabilities. It’s the underlying pervasive threat of George Orwell’s Big Brother is Watching You mantra that jolts people’s sensitivities and alarms their civil consciousness. Yet this time the protective armour of national security is not the miracle antidote to help alleviate the concerns. Interestingly, the debate on national governance and privacy safeguards takes on a different tone when national security threats are off the table. The debate refocusses on the fundamental question of privacy as a basic human right without the trade-off between civil liberties and national security threats taking centre stage. Either way, rightly or wrongly the negative PR that has erupted this week signifies that the agency and broader government may not have effectively managed the changes to the data collection and storage processes and underestimated the elevation of privacy awareness in the community in 2016.

Anna Kuperman

Vice President (Joint), iappANZ