Michael Webster: We can protect privacy and still get to the bottom of a traffic prang

Nobody wants their personal information shared without their consent. Just like nobody wants their bumper dinged in the supermarket carpark. Photo / Getty Images

OPINION

I read with interest a recent story about a woman whose car was dinged in a supermarket carpark. I share her frustration at these incidents and understand why she’d have liked to access the supermarket CCTV footage to track down the culprit.

But I disagree with the assertion made later, in a Herald opinion piece, that the Privacy Act might be getting in the way of speedy investigations of petty crime. Things aren’t as black and white as that.

All New Zealanders have privacy rights, regardless of their age or circumstance, as guaranteed by our Privacy Act.

Much of my job as New Zealand’s Privacy Commissioner involves defending those rights to privacy, especially when there’s been a privacy breach and personal information has been accidentally or maliciously shared. I do so while balancing the different interests of society, such as solving crime or supporting a productive economy.

Nobody wants their personal information shared without their consent. Just like nobody wants their bumper dinged in the supermarket carpark. They’re avoidable mistakes where people don’t always do the right thing, which is why the law is our safety net here; to act impartially and safeguard the rights of everyone.

In the supermarket prang example, it might seem simple for the owners to hand over the CCTV footage. But we also need to take account of any unknowing members of the public who are captured on that footage.

If the police or insurers wanted to follow up that incident then the Privacy Act permits them to access the footage, and for me that is appropriate balance because it ensures the footage is used for the right reasons.

Let me give another CCTV example, where footage was handed over.

In this case a person approached a hotel saying they’d lost their dog Kuri, and could they please check the hotel’s CCTV system for any sign of their beloved pet? The manager allowed access in what might seem like a friendly gesture of a good-natured citizen.

But in this case, poor Kuri was a fabricated reason to check up on a partner who was suspected of cheating. The dog’s owner found their proof in the footage, saw who their partner was with, and went on to stalk the other person in the affair. This was a dangerous consequence from not taking privacy seriously.

The Privacy Act is clear on what personal information is; it is any information that tells us something about a specific individual. It is your name, your address, your image, and your email address but it could also be your voice, your fingerprints, or the way you walk. In a digital age we leave a trail of personally identifiable data points everywhere. Which is why it’s so important to have the protections of the Privacy Act.

The Privacy Act also allows for the sharing of personal information for law enforcement and to address crime and does not necessarily demand a formal court order. It’s a long bow to draw to say the Privacy Act is an obstacle to solving petty crime when we know that addressing the causes and consequences of crime is a much bigger and complicated issue.

Our laws, such as the Privacy Act, exist to be impartial and to create the kind of society that we value as New Zealanders; one where we self-determine which personal information we share with people, how, and when.

That can seem frustrating in the rare times you feel you’re owed someone else’s information to protect your own interests.

However, protecting privacy is a core foundation of our freedom, and one I work hard to protect, for all New Zealanders.

· Michael Webster is the Privacy Commissioner