Case Note 202975 [2010] NZ Priv Cmr 19: Man seeks information from Police
The complainant made a request to Police for the personal information they held about him in relation to an incident in which Police had been involved.
Our website uses cookies so we can analyse our site usage and give you the best experience. Click "Accept" if you’re happy with this, or click "More" for information about cookies on our site, how to opt out, and how to disable cookies altogether.
We respect your Do Not Track preference.
On this section of the site, you'll find our publications and guidance materials. You can find different categories of information using the links on the left hand side of this page.
Displaying 691 - 700 of 1079
The complainant made a request to Police for the personal information they held about him in relation to an incident in which Police had been involved.
The Family Court ordered that a woman's visits with her children should be supervised through an approved supervised access service.
A number of lawyers complained to us about local councils charging a fee upon a request for rates information on behalf of clients.
A person applied to see information held about them by a real estate agency after their rental application was declined. The agency denied their request.
A woman complained that her landlord had disclosed health information about her to her flatmates.
A man who was involved in legal proceedings with his former partner was a patient of a medical centre who provided healthcare when they were a family.
A man made a request to the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service under principle 6 of the Privacy Act for information it held about him.
Annual Report of the Privacy Commissioner for the year ended June 2009.
The Border (Customs, Excise and Tariff) Bill provides for the use of automated electronic systems at the border to make decisions, exercise powers, comply with obligations, and take related actions'. Any automated decision making can affect an individual's privacy.
View the full submission.
30 October 2009
Introductory comment
Search and surveillance is a complex area with an immense impact on citizens' rights in relation to the State. Up to now, it has suffered from a lack of consistency and coherence, but the work of the Law Commission and the resulting Search and Surveillance Bill have significantly improved this situation.
Of course, any discussion of search and surveillance gives rise to major privacy issues. By its nature the Bill covers activities that are intrinsically invasive. The Committee is faced with the hard job of balancing genuine law enforcement needs with the public interest in privacy.
In addition, the electronic age we are living in provides far more scope for search and surveillance activities than ever before. It is important that this major piece of legislation is enacted with appropriate safeguards in place to protect all New Zealanders.
Generally, the Bill successfully manages the competing concerns. However, I have recommended several changes to the Bill, to address what appear to be oversights in the drafting. I recognise that search and surveillance is a vital part of law enforcement and enforcement officers should have the tools they need to carry out this role effectively. However, New Zealanders have the right to expect that the intrusions into their private lives created by the Bill will be justifiable and also operated with appropriate safeguards in place.
Recommendations