Secrecy, privacy, security, intrusion

Digital Rights Digital Privacy
,
43

It is government related through the laws and regulations that apply to employment conditions.

The ABC quoted example is a step too far. That it has taken a trade union to speak out does tend to colour the discussion. It is an issue with a very broad concern for everyone irrespective of views on unions in politics.

There may be good reasons for specific health assessments relating to employment. Pre or post hiring. These have in industries such as coal in Australia been independent of employers. Medical assessments have been provided as reports concerning relevant outcomes. EG Chest x-rays for lung conditions (subject of a recent concern in the Qld industry) were not considered employer property.
Why change the system.

Personal health assessments and records should remain the confidential property of the individual. Reports to employers should be specific and target reasonable requirements and needs that an employer can demonstrate are necessary and relevant to the occupation.

Without full transparency of health assessments, how do prospective employees determine if employment practices are discriminatory. All decisions on hiring in the private sector are made in private. Any supporting records will relate only to the successful candidate/s.

P.S.
What is it that the employer is concerned about in the ABC quoted example? Are there potentially hazardous health conditions employees may be exposed to once in employment? Is there a need for a base line and future monitoring?

Or is it more worrisome. At one extreme the option of a company CEO with a control fetish, and an interest in collecting and analysing off shore the DNA of all employees from their blood samples, intent unknown?

If there is a genuine industry need for enhanced health screening and monitoring, it should be industry generic. Not employer specific.

4 Likes
44

Sometimes there is a reason, although your example is sus as a reasonable reason.

4 Likes
45

My brother served in Antarctica and had to have his appendix removed as he was the base Dr. A Dr serving there needs to have their’s removed as a precaution as they are generally the only serving Dr in the area and it can be very difficult to operate on oneself to remove an appendix.

http://www.antarctica.gov.au/about-antarctica/people-in-antarctica/health

The removal of privacy rights concerns me more than a company having a complete health record of an employee to whom they owe a duty of care to ensure they have a safe work life. As long as the records are kept confidential and private and only used for the care of the employee I don’t have issues. I do have issues that the company noted above gets a person to waive all rights to their medical data and that the data has no limits imposed on what it can be used for or who may access it. Where is the Privacy Commissioner’s oversight and input here to ensure our Privacy Laws are upheld/observed. Is this an abrogation of their duties and responsibilities.

6 Likes
46

Thou shalt not embarrass the government (or its mates):


But we’ll be good:

and you will support the government & its mates:

5 Likes
47

I’m guessing this rule was set after 1961.

This reminds me of Gattaca.

3 Likes
48

You may say whatever you like - provided it’s what our government likes:


The quiet Australians should stay quiet:

3 Likes
49

It is noteworthy this government seems to want to protect the rights of some to infringe on the rights of others, as I see it. Perhaps this might get the media to do its job with investigative journalism rather than to be a rah rah government support business?

3 Likes
50

The latest from our fearless leader seem strange. Speaking of secondary boycotts against companies that support mining and other primary industries he said:

"{we will} … identify serious mechanisms that can successfully outlaw these indulgent and selfish practices "

“Let me assure you, this is not something my Government intends to allow to go unchecked,”

“… we must protect our economy from this great threat”

Once upon a time secondary boycott rules were applied to unions but they were a few specific targets who could be easily monitored and controlled through the courts In this connected age the number of ways of encouraging people not to buy a certain brand are huge and diverse. I don’t see any practical way to stop them and I do see a backlash against any such attempt as people get their backs up about being improperly controlled. I can see some groups on both extremes of this issue salivating at the thought of a such a campaign, dreaming that Morrison will actually bring it on.

Which circles us right back to consumer issues. The whole basis of Choice and this community is that organisations representing its members and the members collectively pass on advice about which products and services are appropriate to buy. We don’t need to go into all the criteria that might apply as they vary with the case and are fairly well known - at least here.

One subgroup of criteria are to do with corporate behaviour and ethics. We caution each other not to buy from companies who are dishonest or deceitful, or who break our ethical rules. For example there are campaigns against products that are derived from unacceptable treatment of animals or that use sweatshop labour. Not everybody acts on these campaigns and you do get complaints that such campaigns go too far where the methods used by radicals become unacceptable. What you don’t see is anybody saying ethical campaigns should not exist at all.

There is a thriving industry that provides investment advice reports which do include ethical issues and often mentions things like ecologically sustainable development. These reports include such categories of advice, as well as the financial and risk analysis, because people want to read them and will pay. Are we really saying major banks and investment houses will have to submit their pay-for-use reports for censorship?

But that is the road the PM is starting down. He seems to be saying that the government will determine what advice can be given in deciding which company to buy from or invest in. If your ethics don’t align with what is permitted you will be stopped.

The PM also said “we will take our time and get this right”. My bet is this will blow over and come to very little. I doubt we will have the debate about the meaning and consequences of a bill for the parliament that has the grand scope that he is promising the miners. But it makes you wonder why this kite should ever be taken out of the bag and assembled much less launched to see if it will fly.

5 Likes
51

The comment on the ABC’s “Insiders” this morning that it was red meat, thrown to the base without any real thought as to how it might be viewed outside than meeting.

Since the 1980s, I’ve boycotted Nestlé as a consumer. Outlawing “secondary boycotts” probably wouldn’t affect that - in the beginning. How long would it be before our increasingly authoritarian government decided to broaden the scope?

US police developed a tactic of yelling “stop resisting” while making arrests, even when there was no resistance. It seems the locals have taken it up:
Seth%20Rothery
From Facebook:

2 Likes
52

Well yes, he was speaking to the QLD Resources Council.

I can add another story of police acting with prejudice against peaceful protesters. I want to anonymise this as some of the players who are quite innocent could be identified if I don’t.

The scene is a gas field under exploration in a country valley. There was an organised group of activists who set up regular protests against the development on the floodplain of a dairy and beef valley. The protests were by design peaceful, the participants went to classes to learn how to keep their cool in the face of provocation. The main aim was to involve people and to get publicity, to have as many as possible stand there and be photographed. This happened. In the interest of accuracy there were some cases of nominal trespass and some locked on to gates etc to impede the gas workers. The great majority just stood there. There were quite a few charges laid against people who had never been in trouble in their life. Some were quite elderly. I can’t recall if all the charges were dismissed or all but a few.

The well site is down a gravel country road that ultimately becomes a dead end. Usually the only vehicles there are owned by landholders but at the time some gas workers and their trucks were there too. There is no kerb and guttering and no road signs, essential there is no traffic. It is a long walk to the site from the main road so the protest started carpooling to get people there. The police said the cars parked there (on the grass verge between the road and the fence) were a danger to the public and started to move them on. So the protesters arranged a ferry service, cars would meet the group nearer town and take a load down to the site and repeat as often as necessary without parking. So at the direction of the police the Council had to install No Stopping signs along both sides of the road anywhere near the site. No reason was given but the Council had no choice. After it was all over the Council took all the signs down again and bore the cost.

In country towns the only sensible way for the local police to act is to gain and keep the trust of law abiding citizens. The local copper was asked straight out what was going on. He said the officers involved were all bussed in from elsewhere, the order about the signs came from well above his pay grade and he was instructed to stay out of the whole thing. He was clearly between a rock and a hard place.

You could say the police were acting to protect the property of the gas company and their right to take actions they were legally entitled to do.

You could also say the police were used as an arm of the State to shut down lawful protest against an industry that the State government was assisting in every way possible by way of laws, regulations, favourable treatment, policy, publicity and propaganda.

5 Likes
53

Thanks for that. It somewhat indirectly affirms the credibility of stories I hear from a local animal rights activist, front and centre in the Melbourne protests. The ‘industry’ bleats the activists are bringing in all sorts of nasties so must be stopped, but the realities reported are many of the ‘farms’ could not be nastier so it is political to protect businesses regardless of what they do, fully supported by our cooperative press.

2 Likes
54

A risk of outlawed “Secondary Boycott” for those who decide to boycott is that even even to take action against a business by boycotting it may amount to illegal behaviour. Let’s say we don’t like a farm practice so decide to boycott them. Ok this may seem like a primary action but a business or businesses upstream of that farm practice may be affected so we have inadvertently created a secondary boycott. Where will the burden of proof lie to show the cascading action was not the intent.

Will the action of seeking to boycott also be an offence? eg someone decides they don’t like a radio presenter so they ask people on social media to stop supporting the advertisers who use the show of that presenter to help sell their products. Would that amount to illegal action. Also by boycotting those advertisers you could be seen to be affecting not only those businesses, but also the radio station, the businesses who use the advertisers goods, the people and companies who have shares in any of the affected businesses…the list of those who could seek relief would be somewhat exponential. In other words any boycotting even if we see it as a primary boycott could be held to be secondary and we would have no right to withhold our business or money from any business.

From an article in The New Daily (https://thenewdaily.com.au/money/consumer/2019/11/01/boycott-ban-consumers-business/):

" ‘Consumers should always have the right to know’

The more pressing concern with a ban on secondary boycotts, according to Market Forces executive director Julien Vincent, is that consumers would have less access information on the organisations they do business with.

Mr Vincent, whose organisation tracks and publicises the ways businesses spend and invest their money, said having access to that information is vital to consumers’ decision-making.

“It gets very disturbing when you see a supposedly free-market government try to clamp down on what is basically the right for people to choose where they do or don’t put their money,” he said.

“Consumers should always have the right to know what the impacts of doing a business with a particular company or engaging with a particular financial institution are.”"

&

"Andrew Davies, CEO of B Lab Australia and New Zealand (a non-profit organisation that advocates “using business as a force for good”) however questioned the business case for outlawing secondary boycotts.

“The power of capitalism is its ability to drive high-performing business models through people exercising choice. Businesses and consumers must be able to decide who they buy, sell and engage with,” he said.

Banning boycotts would restrict that choice, Mr Davies said, and that would likely stifle growth and innovation while supporting “older industries as they go through a gradual decline”."

4 Likes
55

This decade may be a watershed in political evolution where there seems a reset toward the hard right after decades of liberalisation. 2020 in the US and our own next federal election should be bellwethers of where it is going.

5 Likes
56

Comment in a news report on the Hong Kong protests:
when peaceful protest is met with violence, some protesters are likely to decide that “peaceful” is not the way to be.
Which might play into the hands of our authoritarian government.

2 Likes
57

With a Queensland state election due in Oct 2920,(edit, oops :smile: actually Oct 2020, but no rush), and the local LNP having outwitted themselves twice in the two prior elections, there might be another test to hand soon enough.

Which might also go part way to explain the speech by ScoMo presented to his select audience in Queensland. There is a risk many die hard liberals will go to Katter or one Nation who represent arguably a purer form of the local values.

It was worth the extra hour of staying inside this morning just for that one succinct assessment. The much talked about legislation is so far removed from traditional liberal enterprise values.

I wonder? No, no, “don’t you worry about that”!
I thought I saw a ghost of government past. He’s a bit early if it’s going to be a Christmas present?:rofl:

P.S.
For the younger ones reading this the Qld National Party acted in 1977 to ban protest marches effectively preventing protests in any public or unauthorised place. Anzac Day marches were of course exempt!

3 Likes
58

The bottom line for companies in Australia (not governments, and not for companies where explicitly legislated otherwise) is that there has to be a business-related reason for collecting the information. Effectively that should mean that the business must always give that reason. They shouldn’t be able to demand a mass of intrusive information without giving a reason even if in fact the reason exists and could be justified.

I don’t have to tell you that “kept confidential” is easier said than done, that substantial data breaches are so frequent that it is more or less “not if but when”.

Alarm bells in that particular story:

  • being done at faux arms length through a “recruitment contractor”
  • information being transferred outside Australia with the effect of avoiding scrutiny if not legal action under Australia’s limited privacy protections
2 Likes
59

Back to the good old days of Joh, government elected for 900 years. :rofl:

People may be using the term in different ways. For one opinion (/definition) Solidarity action - Wikipedia

As the idea of outlawing boycotts, in some form, is clearly a trampling on political rights, we would want to look very closely at what is being proposed, if any legislation ever sees the light of day.

One could go further … without any real thought as to whether it would get through the Senate?

Or maybe: The best “red meat” is that which will not get through the Senate because it allows a government to confirm to its base that it is still pursuing goals that will be popular with the base, while blaming a recalcitrant Senate for the fact that these measures never actually make it into law.

For the specific issue being raised here - protecting the coal industry - it doesn’t feel as if it would be very popular in the Senate, but you never know. Politics is the art of the possible.

3 Likes
60

Except that the current government would love to have such a law. It is illiberal enough to have passed laws making decent encryption a crime, and to continue to seek to put the boot into unions while they’re down and a shadow of what once protected a large proportion of Australia’s workers. Unfortunately it is hard to see an opposition poking its head above the parapet for most of these issues.

2 Likes
61

Too late. Forms of boycott are already legislated against in the Competition and Consumer Act and in s45D of the Trade Practices Act. Naturally enough, unions are the target.

3 Likes
62

Yes, sorry, I knew that. I meant new legislation in connection with personal and/or political activity.

I have come to the conclusion that I support boycotts if and only if I happen to agree with the issue at hand. :joy:

1 Like