Rocksolid Light

Welcome to novaBBS (click a section below)

mail  files  register  newsreader  groups  login

Message-ID:  

The Kennedy Constant: Don't get mad -- get even.


aus+uk / aus.legal / Re: Else v Service NSW

SubjectAuthor
* Else v Service NSWSylvia Else
+* Re: Else v Service NSWRod Speed
|`* Re: Else v Service NSWMax
| `* Re: Else v Service NSWRod Speed
|  `- Re: Else v Service NSWPeter Jason
+* Re: Else v Service NSWMax
|`* Re: Else v Service NSWSylvia Else
| `* Re: Else v Service NSWMax
|  `* Re: Else v Service NSWSylvia Else
|   `* Re: Else v Service NSWMax
|    `- Re: Else v Service NSWSylvia Else
+* Re: Karen v Service NSWDechucka
|`* Re: Karen v Service NSWSylvia Else
| `* Re: Karen v Service NSWMax
|  `- Re: Karen v Service NSWSylvia Else
`* Re: Else v Service NSWSylvia Else
 `* Re: Else v Service NSWMax
  `* Re: Else v Service NSWSylvia Else
   `* Re: Else v Service NSWNoodle
    `* Re: Else v Service NSWSylvia Else
     `* Re: Else v Service NSWMax
      `- Re: Else v Service NSWRod Speed

1
Else v Service NSW

<ijcpp0Fj59lU1@mid.individual.net>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=2146&group=aus.legal#2146

 copy link   Newsgroups: aus.legal
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.uzoreto.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: syl...@email.invalid (Sylvia Else)
Newsgroups: aus.legal
Subject: Else v Service NSW
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2021 10:38:54 +1000
Lines: 35
Message-ID: <ijcpp0Fj59lU1@mid.individual.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: individual.net JFomlQ4Q6ZcLIk31DrH/XwlRYAnF65M8Oh6kGY6/b6Hiq/R4XQ
Cancel-Lock: sha1:eNm9Sd4R/mqk7avfgFcIGbmQ5i4=
X-Mozilla-News-Host: news://news.individual.net:119
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.11.0
Content-Language: en-GB
 by: Sylvia Else - Tue, 22 Jun 2021 00:38 UTC

https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/17a17b35549bc4005a528adf

The Tribunal sides with the government again.

Like everyone else with a Service NSW account, in April last year I
received some material about protecting against Covid 19. This was sent
to the email address I'd provided to Service NSW.

The core question was whether the use of that email address was
permitted by subsection 17(c) of the Privacy and Personal Information
Protection Act 1998

(c) the use of the information for that other purpose is necessary to
prevent or lessen a serious and imminent threat to the life or health of
the individual to whom the information relates or of another person.”

This comes down mainly to the meanings of "necessary" and "serious and
imminent".

One might have thought subsection 17(c) set quite a high bar to the use
of information. Apparently not.

There's a lesson here. If you've provided information to the government
for some purpose, and they want to use it in some other way, they'll
find a means to do it. The protection provided by the PPIP Act is
largely illusory.

I may not have achieved entirely nothing. Service NSW have said that
they're no longer sending out information like that to people's Service
NSW addresses. Apparently, they've realised it causes trouble, even if
it is not actually unlawful.

Sylvia.

Re: Else v Service NSW

<ijd7oqFljisU1@mid.individual.net>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=2147&group=aus.legal#2147

 copy link   Newsgroups: aus.legal
Path: i2pn2.org!rocksolid2!news.neodome.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: rod.spee...@gmail.com (Rod Speed)
Newsgroups: aus.legal
Subject: Re: Else v Service NSW
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2021 14:37:42 +1000
Lines: 39
Message-ID: <ijd7oqFljisU1@mid.individual.net>
References: <ijcpp0Fj59lU1@mid.individual.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
format=flowed;
charset="UTF-8";
reply-type=response
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: individual.net 9fzpR/t7myBHMNWTW2ryvgrhQXPR3UNigFWy8iyePuxCnVnaw=
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Io2omuK0nip+WfxhKWTZle/URhg=
In-Reply-To: <ijcpp0Fj59lU1@mid.individual.net>
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
Importance: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 14.0.8117.416
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V14.0.8117.416
 by: Rod Speed - Tue, 22 Jun 2021 04:37 UTC

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote in message
news:ijcpp0Fj59lU1@mid.individual.net...
> https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/17a17b35549bc4005a528adf
>
> The Tribunal sides with the government again.
>
> Like everyone else with a Service NSW account, in April last year I
> received some material about protecting against Covid 19. This was sent to
> the email address I'd provided to Service NSW.
>
> The core question was whether the use of that email address was permitted
> by subsection 17(c) of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act
> 1998
>
> (c) the use of the information for that other purpose is necessary to
> prevent or lessen a serious and imminent threat to the life or health of
> the individual to whom the information relates or of another person.”
>
> This comes down mainly to the meanings of "necessary" and "serious and
> imminent".
>
> One might have thought subsection 17(c) set quite a high bar to the use of
> information. Apparently not.
>
> There's a lesson here. If you've provided information to the government
> for some purpose, and they want to use it in some other way, they'll find
> a means to do it. The protection provided by the PPIP Act is largely
> illusory.

Wota terminal fuckwit.

> I may not have achieved entirely nothing. Service NSW have said that
> they're no longer sending out information like that to people's Service
> NSW addresses. Apparently, they've realised it causes trouble, even if it
> is not actually unlawful.

Re: Else v Service NSW

<sas2o0$1qun$1@gioia.aioe.org>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=2148&group=aus.legal#2148

 copy link   Newsgroups: aus.legal
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!uACYHZift/FlxWtrD1Tocw.user.gioia.aioe.org.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: max...@val.morgan (Max)
Newsgroups: aus.legal
Subject: Re: Else v Service NSW
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2021 17:16:15 +1000
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Lines: 38
Message-ID: <sas2o0$1qun$1@gioia.aioe.org>
References: <ijcpp0Fj59lU1@mid.individual.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: uACYHZift/FlxWtrD1Tocw.user.gioia.aioe.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.11.0
Content-Language: en-GB
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2
 by: Max - Tue, 22 Jun 2021 07:16 UTC

On 22/06/2021 10:38 am, Sylvia Else wrote:
> https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/17a17b35549bc4005a528adf
>
> The Tribunal sides with the government again.
>
> Like everyone else with a Service NSW account, in April last year I
> received some material about protecting against Covid 19. This was sent
> to the email address I'd provided to Service NSW.
>
> The core question was whether the use of that email address was
> permitted by subsection 17(c) of the Privacy and Personal Information
> Protection Act 1998
>
> (c) the use of the information for that other purpose is necessary to
> prevent or lessen a serious and imminent threat to the life or health of
> the individual to whom the information relates or of another person.”
>
> This comes down mainly to the meanings of "necessary" and "serious and
> imminent".
>
> One might have thought subsection 17(c) set quite a high bar to the use
> of information. Apparently not.
>
> There's a lesson here. If you've provided information to the government
> for some purpose, and they want to use it in some other way, they'll
> find a means to do it. The protection provided by the PPIP Act is
> largely illusory.
>
> I may not have achieved entirely nothing. Service NSW have said that
> they're no longer sending out information like that to people's Service
> NSW addresses. Apparently, they've realised it causes trouble, even if
> it is not actually unlawful.
>

What happened with the issue of not being able to serve summons on
potential witnesses because you don't know their home address ? How
dit the tribunal deal with that issue ?

Re: Karen v Service NSW

<S7-dnaZ6M93FDUz9nZ2dnUU7-S1g4p2d@westnet.com.au>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=2149&group=aus.legal#2149

 copy link   Newsgroups: aus.legal
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.snarked.org!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.westnet.com.au!news.westnet.com.au.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2021 02:25:12 -0500
Subject: Re: Karen v Service NSW
Newsgroups: aus.legal
References: <ijcpp0Fj59lU1@mid.individual.net>
From: Dechuc...@hotmail.com (Dechucka)
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2021 17:25:13 +1000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <ijcpp0Fj59lU1@mid.individual.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-AU
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <S7-dnaZ6M93FDUz9nZ2dnUU7-S1g4p2d@westnet.com.au>
Lines: 3
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: 124.150.76.209
X-Trace: sv3-D0yH/akRyas+PHNjE/lVQKyJcOhJtQn3ukvGWrwRV+HFxbxCxI3M5bF6BS8zRJEM1bkKabIVXIlfEgA!iD7xRDz8C/6MG6iOSt7o9AiyJkIi2iKIYw7dTN2WJ/6vysrysTyCwUBEtxzDKUqe5Fb6PIXCUf2x!mLTtuM0YZf7qSpxud31QUQ==
X-Complaints-To: abuse@westnet.com.au
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 1242
 by: Dechucka - Tue, 22 Jun 2021 07:25 UTC

snip

How many cases have you now run over the years?

Re: Else v Service NSW

<ijdp5bFop1sU1@mid.individual.net>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=2150&group=aus.legal#2150

 copy link   Newsgroups: aus.legal
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.uzoreto.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: syl...@email.invalid (Sylvia Else)
Newsgroups: aus.legal
Subject: Re: Else v Service NSW
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2021 19:34:35 +1000
Lines: 49
Message-ID: <ijdp5bFop1sU1@mid.individual.net>
References: <ijcpp0Fj59lU1@mid.individual.net> <sas2o0$1qun$1@gioia.aioe.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: individual.net amZynkNt/y7EcVLMmwNnjQFGdjN79O1ZXvcasGVbAqs7kPVsKT
Cancel-Lock: sha1:veLUwEpgu3r2eHbzWBQlEsJ/b7g=
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.11.0
In-Reply-To: <sas2o0$1qun$1@gioia.aioe.org>
Content-Language: en-GB
 by: Sylvia Else - Tue, 22 Jun 2021 09:34 UTC

On 22-Jun-21 5:16 pm, Max wrote:
> On 22/06/2021 10:38 am, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/17a17b35549bc4005a528adf
>>
>> The Tribunal sides with the government again.
>>
>> Like everyone else with a Service NSW account, in April last year I
>> received some material about protecting against Covid 19. This was
>> sent to the email address I'd provided to Service NSW.
>>
>> The core question was whether the use of that email address was
>> permitted by subsection 17(c) of the Privacy and Personal Information
>> Protection Act 1998
>>
>> (c) the use of the information for that other purpose is necessary to
>> prevent or lessen a serious and imminent threat to the life or health
>> of the individual to whom the information relates or of another person.”
>>
>> This comes down mainly to the meanings of "necessary" and "serious and
>> imminent".
>>
>> One might have thought subsection 17(c) set quite a high bar to the
>> use of information. Apparently not.
>>
>> There's a lesson here. If you've provided information to the
>> government for some purpose, and they want to use it in some other
>> way, they'll find a means to do it. The protection provided by the
>> PPIP Act is largely illusory.
>>
>> I may not have achieved entirely nothing. Service NSW have said that
>> they're no longer sending out information like that to people's
>> Service NSW addresses. Apparently, they've realised it causes trouble,
>> even if it is not actually unlawful.
>>
>
> What happened with the issue of not being able to serve summons on
> potential witnesses because you don't know their home address ?   How
> dit the tribunal deal with that issue ?
>

It didn't. But the Tribunal can order a different mode of service is
required. This was a rather peripheral issue anyway, I only raised it
because I was annoyed at the way hearsay evidence had been used in my
Transport for NSW GIPA case.

This case was always about statutory construction, and whether the
government could use my information this way, Covid-19 or not.

Sylvia.

Re: Karen v Service NSW

<ijdpmlFot52U1@mid.individual.net>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=2151&group=aus.legal#2151

 copy link   Newsgroups: aus.legal
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!feeder1.feed.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: syl...@email.invalid (Sylvia Else)
Newsgroups: aus.legal
Subject: Re: Karen v Service NSW
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2021 19:43:48 +1000
Lines: 17
Message-ID: <ijdpmlFot52U1@mid.individual.net>
References: <ijcpp0Fj59lU1@mid.individual.net>
<S7-dnaZ6M93FDUz9nZ2dnUU7-S1g4p2d@westnet.com.au>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net iWAmoSAYZNK6vSwVYFLrHwgJ27fH5EEuC140vPn8TrnHayA+Wf
Cancel-Lock: sha1:WmTh+/XhWWjuVuCMeVqr4gIjAyk=
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.11.0
In-Reply-To: <S7-dnaZ6M93FDUz9nZ2dnUU7-S1g4p2d@westnet.com.au>
Content-Language: en-GB
 by: Sylvia Else - Tue, 22 Jun 2021 09:43 UTC

On 22-Jun-21 5:25 pm, Dechucka wrote:
> snip
>
> How many cases have you now run over the years?

This was only the second to go to a hearing.

I note the change in the subject line. If this had just been about me, I
wouldn't have bothered.

More than four and half million people had their Service NSW email
addresses used for a purpose that had nothing to do with Service NSW.
The question was whether this was a lawful use of those email addresses.
The Government is not meant to use the information it has just because
it seems to someone like a good idea.

Sylvia.

Re: Else v Service NSW

<sasbtt$8q1$1@gioia.aioe.org>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=2152&group=aus.legal#2152

 copy link   Newsgroups: aus.legal
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!uACYHZift/FlxWtrD1Tocw.user.gioia.aioe.org.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: max...@val.morgan (Max)
Newsgroups: aus.legal
Subject: Re: Else v Service NSW
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2021 19:52:58 +1000
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Lines: 62
Message-ID: <sasbtt$8q1$1@gioia.aioe.org>
References: <ijcpp0Fj59lU1@mid.individual.net> <sas2o0$1qun$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<ijdp5bFop1sU1@mid.individual.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: uACYHZift/FlxWtrD1Tocw.user.gioia.aioe.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.11.0
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2
Content-Language: en-GB
 by: Max - Tue, 22 Jun 2021 09:52 UTC

On 22/06/2021 7:34 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 22-Jun-21 5:16 pm, Max wrote:
>> On 22/06/2021 10:38 am, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>> https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/17a17b35549bc4005a528adf
>>>
>>> The Tribunal sides with the government again.
>>>
>>> Like everyone else with a Service NSW account, in April last year I
>>> received some material about protecting against Covid 19. This was
>>> sent to the email address I'd provided to Service NSW.
>>>
>>> The core question was whether the use of that email address was
>>> permitted by subsection 17(c) of the Privacy and Personal Information
>>> Protection Act 1998
>>>
>>> (c) the use of the information for that other purpose is necessary to
>>> prevent or lessen a serious and imminent threat to the life or health
>>> of the individual to whom the information relates or of another person.”
>>>
>>> This comes down mainly to the meanings of "necessary" and "serious
>>> and imminent".
>>>
>>> One might have thought subsection 17(c) set quite a high bar to the
>>> use of information. Apparently not.
>>>
>>> There's a lesson here. If you've provided information to the
>>> government for some purpose, and they want to use it in some other
>>> way, they'll find a means to do it. The protection provided by the
>>> PPIP Act is largely illusory.
>>>
>>> I may not have achieved entirely nothing. Service NSW have said that
>>> they're no longer sending out information like that to people's
>>> Service NSW addresses. Apparently, they've realised it causes
>>> trouble, even if it is not actually unlawful.
>>>
>>
>> What happened with the issue of not being able to serve summons on
>> potential witnesses because you don't know their home address ?   How
>> dit the tribunal deal with that issue ?
>>
>
> It didn't. But the Tribunal can order a different mode of service is
> required. This was a rather peripheral issue anyway, I only raised it
> because I was annoyed at the way hearsay evidence had been used in my
> Transport for NSW GIPA case.
>

Do you have a reason to be annoyed? It says in the decision:

"Ms Else acknowledged that the Tribunal is not bound by the rules of
evidence and can accept hearsay evidence."

Are you annoyed that the tribunal can accept hearsay evidence?

Hasn't a democratically elected government legislated to make the rules
of the tribunal the way they are?

> This case was always about statutory construction, and whether the
> government could use my information this way, Covid-19 or not.
>

Re: Karen v Service NSW

<sasc74$8q1$2@gioia.aioe.org>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=2153&group=aus.legal#2153

 copy link   Newsgroups: aus.legal
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!uACYHZift/FlxWtrD1Tocw.user.gioia.aioe.org.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: max...@val.morgan (Max)
Newsgroups: aus.legal
Subject: Re: Karen v Service NSW
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2021 19:57:56 +1000
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Lines: 21
Message-ID: <sasc74$8q1$2@gioia.aioe.org>
References: <ijcpp0Fj59lU1@mid.individual.net>
<S7-dnaZ6M93FDUz9nZ2dnUU7-S1g4p2d@westnet.com.au>
<ijdpmlFot52U1@mid.individual.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: uACYHZift/FlxWtrD1Tocw.user.gioia.aioe.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.11.0
Content-Language: en-GB
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2
 by: Max - Tue, 22 Jun 2021 09:57 UTC

On 22/06/2021 7:43 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 22-Jun-21 5:25 pm, Dechucka wrote:
>> snip
>>
>> How many cases have you now run over the years?
>
> This was only the second to go to a hearing.
>
> I note the change in the subject line. If this had just been about me, I
> wouldn't have bothered.
>
> More than four and half million people had their Service NSW email
> addresses used for a purpose that had nothing to do with Service NSW.
> The question was whether this was a lawful use of those email addresses.
> The Government is not meant to use the information it has just because
> it seems to someone like a good idea.
>

Have you thought of contacting journalists about this case ? They might
be interested if it has made it to a tribunal hearing.

Re: Else v Service NSW

<sasiui$1lp4$1@gioia.aioe.org>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=2154&group=aus.legal#2154

 copy link   Newsgroups: aus.legal
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!uACYHZift/FlxWtrD1Tocw.user.gioia.aioe.org.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: max...@val.morgan (Max)
Newsgroups: aus.legal
Subject: Re: Else v Service NSW
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2021 21:52:50 +1000
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Lines: 46
Message-ID: <sasiui$1lp4$1@gioia.aioe.org>
References: <ijcpp0Fj59lU1@mid.individual.net>
<ijd7oqFljisU1@mid.individual.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: uACYHZift/FlxWtrD1Tocw.user.gioia.aioe.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.11.0
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2
Content-Language: en-GB
 by: Max - Tue, 22 Jun 2021 11:52 UTC

On 22/06/2021 2:37 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
>
>
> "Sylvia Else" <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote in message
> news:ijcpp0Fj59lU1@mid.individual.net...
>> https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/17a17b35549bc4005a528adf
>>
>> The Tribunal sides with the government again.
>>
>> Like everyone else with a Service NSW account, in April last year I
>> received some material about protecting against Covid 19. This was
>> sent to the email address I'd provided to Service NSW.
>>
>> The core question was whether the use of that email address was
>> permitted by subsection 17(c) of the Privacy and Personal Information
>> Protection Act 1998
>>
>> (c) the use of the information for that other purpose is necessary to
>> prevent or lessen a serious and imminent threat to the life or health
>> of the individual to whom the information relates or of another person.”
>>
>> This comes down mainly to the meanings of "necessary" and "serious and
>> imminent".
>>
>> One might have thought subsection 17(c) set quite a high bar to the
>> use of information. Apparently not.
>>
>> There's a lesson here. If you've provided information to the
>> government for some purpose, and they want to use it in some other
>> way, they'll find a means to do it. The protection provided by the
>> PPIP Act is largely illusory.
>
> Wota terminal fuckwit.
>

What do you mean? Doesn't she have a legitimate complaint?

>> I may not have achieved entirely nothing. Service NSW have said that
>> they're no longer sending out information like that to people's
>> Service NSW addresses. Apparently, they've realised it causes trouble,
>> even if it is not actually unlawful.
>
>

Re: Else v Service NSW

<ije40aFqrj8U1@mid.individual.net>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=2155&group=aus.legal#2155

 copy link   Newsgroups: aus.legal
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.uzoreto.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: syl...@email.invalid (Sylvia Else)
Newsgroups: aus.legal
Subject: Re: Else v Service NSW
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2021 22:39:36 +1000
Lines: 76
Message-ID: <ije40aFqrj8U1@mid.individual.net>
References: <ijcpp0Fj59lU1@mid.individual.net> <sas2o0$1qun$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<ijdp5bFop1sU1@mid.individual.net> <sasbtt$8q1$1@gioia.aioe.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: individual.net dSS2szYEjDkfuEcnLY0f9AhBD1EEzmBjp2Nj3zeL18IZNN93qi
Cancel-Lock: sha1:RcU1UZzqmhM+w0ug9zk5L3dh0ug=
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.11.0
In-Reply-To: <sasbtt$8q1$1@gioia.aioe.org>
Content-Language: en-GB
 by: Sylvia Else - Tue, 22 Jun 2021 12:39 UTC

On 22-Jun-21 7:52 pm, Max wrote:
> On 22/06/2021 7:34 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 22-Jun-21 5:16 pm, Max wrote:
>>> On 22/06/2021 10:38 am, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>> https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/17a17b35549bc4005a528adf
>>>>
>>>> The Tribunal sides with the government again.
>>>>
>>>> Like everyone else with a Service NSW account, in April last year I
>>>> received some material about protecting against Covid 19. This was
>>>> sent to the email address I'd provided to Service NSW.
>>>>
>>>> The core question was whether the use of that email address was
>>>> permitted by subsection 17(c) of the Privacy and Personal
>>>> Information Protection Act 1998
>>>>
>>>> (c) the use of the information for that other purpose is necessary
>>>> to prevent or lessen a serious and imminent threat to the life or
>>>> health of the individual to whom the information relates or of
>>>> another person.”
>>>>
>>>> This comes down mainly to the meanings of "necessary" and "serious
>>>> and imminent".
>>>>
>>>> One might have thought subsection 17(c) set quite a high bar to the
>>>> use of information. Apparently not.
>>>>
>>>> There's a lesson here. If you've provided information to the
>>>> government for some purpose, and they want to use it in some other
>>>> way, they'll find a means to do it. The protection provided by the
>>>> PPIP Act is largely illusory.
>>>>
>>>> I may not have achieved entirely nothing. Service NSW have said that
>>>> they're no longer sending out information like that to people's
>>>> Service NSW addresses. Apparently, they've realised it causes
>>>> trouble, even if it is not actually unlawful.
>>>>
>>>
>>> What happened with the issue of not being able to serve summons on
>>> potential witnesses because you don't know their home address ?   How
>>> dit the tribunal deal with that issue ?
>>>
>>
>> It didn't. But the Tribunal can order a different mode of service is
>> required. This was a rather peripheral issue anyway, I only raised it
>> because I was annoyed at the way hearsay evidence had been used in my
>> Transport for NSW GIPA case.
>>
>
> Do you have a reason to be annoyed?  It says in the decision:
>
> "Ms Else acknowledged that the Tribunal is not bound by the rules of
> evidence and can accept hearsay evidence."
>
> Are you annoyed that the tribunal can accept hearsay evidence?
>
> Hasn't a democratically elected government legislated to make the rules
> of the tribunal the way they are?
>
The Tribunal can accept hearsay evidence. That doesn't mean that it has
to, and indeed it is clear from the case law that it shouldn't always do
so. The purpose behind allowing hearsay evidence appears to me to be to
avoid having to obtain statements from multiple witnesses where their
evidence would be uncontroversial. It is not meant to be a way of shield
evidence from proper examination.

The problem where hearsay evidence is accepted about technical matters
from people who are not technical experts is that such evidence is
almost immune to cross-examination because the person giving the
evidence has little understanding of the meaning of the questions asked,
and is not able to give sensible answers.

The Transport for NSW case is before the Appeal Panel so I should
probably not comment on it further here.

Sylvia.

Re: Karen v Service NSW

<ije42tFqrj8U2@mid.individual.net>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=2156&group=aus.legal#2156

 copy link   Newsgroups: aus.legal
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!4.us.feeder.erje.net!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: syl...@email.invalid (Sylvia Else)
Newsgroups: aus.legal
Subject: Re: Karen v Service NSW
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2021 22:41:01 +1000
Lines: 27
Message-ID: <ije42tFqrj8U2@mid.individual.net>
References: <ijcpp0Fj59lU1@mid.individual.net>
<S7-dnaZ6M93FDUz9nZ2dnUU7-S1g4p2d@westnet.com.au>
<ijdpmlFot52U1@mid.individual.net> <sasc74$8q1$2@gioia.aioe.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: individual.net uBUZ8UG5g48XtdC2gt/KsA6nPOOfaW/e7UMAl3tnZk0N4x976t
Cancel-Lock: sha1:CXBDPQoEFBZ7h1ZpHNnZpnj2z50=
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.11.0
In-Reply-To: <sasc74$8q1$2@gioia.aioe.org>
Content-Language: en-GB
 by: Sylvia Else - Tue, 22 Jun 2021 12:41 UTC

On 22-Jun-21 7:57 pm, Max wrote:
> On 22/06/2021 7:43 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 22-Jun-21 5:25 pm, Dechucka wrote:
>>> snip
>>>
>>> How many cases have you now run over the years?
>>
>> This was only the second to go to a hearing.
>>
>> I note the change in the subject line. If this had just been about me,
>> I wouldn't have bothered.
>>
>> More than four and half million people had their Service NSW email
>> addresses used for a purpose that had nothing to do with Service NSW.
>> The question was whether this was a lawful use of those email
>> addresses. The Government is not meant to use the information it has
>> just because it seems to someone like a good idea.
>>
>
> Have you thought of contacting journalists about this case ?  They might
> be interested if it has made it to a tribunal hearing.
>

I doubt it would interest them. Most people, for example, Dechuka here,
wouldn't even understand why it was important.

Sylvia.

Re: Else v Service NSW

<ijek8rFttriU1@mid.individual.net>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=2157&group=aus.legal#2157

 copy link   Newsgroups: aus.legal
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.uzoreto.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: rod.spee...@gmail.com (Rod Speed)
Newsgroups: aus.legal
Subject: Re: Else v Service NSW
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2021 03:17:13 +1000
Lines: 45
Message-ID: <ijek8rFttriU1@mid.individual.net>
References: <ijcpp0Fj59lU1@mid.individual.net> <ijd7oqFljisU1@mid.individual.net> <sasiui$1lp4$1@gioia.aioe.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
format=flowed;
charset="UTF-8";
reply-type=response
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: individual.net jmiA62p7gx0c9gwVgKA7Iwk9vcOrMH/3n5OldlxYvLWQalvuA=
Cancel-Lock: sha1:wdgf3N4+1f4WQGoC9oBvNg+PHjI=
In-Reply-To: <sasiui$1lp4$1@gioia.aioe.org>
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
Importance: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 14.0.8117.416
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V14.0.8117.416
 by: Rod Speed - Tue, 22 Jun 2021 17:17 UTC

"Max" <max@val.morgan> wrote in message news:sasiui$1lp4$1@gioia.aioe.org...
> On 22/06/2021 2:37 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Sylvia Else" <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:ijcpp0Fj59lU1@mid.individual.net...
>>> https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/17a17b35549bc4005a528adf
>>>
>>> The Tribunal sides with the government again.
>>>
>>> Like everyone else with a Service NSW account, in April last year I
>>> received some material about protecting against Covid 19. This was sent
>>> to the email address I'd provided to Service NSW.
>>>
>>> The core question was whether the use of that email address was
>>> permitted by subsection 17(c) of the Privacy and Personal Information
>>> Protection Act 1998
>>>
>>> (c) the use of the information for that other purpose is necessary to
>>> prevent or lessen a serious and imminent threat to the life or health of
>>> the individual to whom the information relates or of another person.”
>>>
>>> This comes down mainly to the meanings of "necessary" and "serious and
>>> imminent".
>>>
>>> One might have thought subsection 17(c) set quite a high bar to the use
>>> of information. Apparently not.
>>>
>>> There's a lesson here. If you've provided information to the government
>>> for some purpose, and they want to use it in some other way, they'll
>>> find a means to do it. The protection provided by the PPIP Act is
>>> largely illusory.
>>
>> Wota terminal fuckwit.
>>
>
> What do you mean? Doesn't she have a legitimate complaint?

Nope, the stupid cow keeps wasting everyone's time.

God knows what the total cost of all her stupid claims has been to us.

Re: Else v Service NSW

<sds4dg901su9ia79dk1a6o3sk83cre0187@4ax.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=2158&group=aus.legal#2158

 copy link   Newsgroups: aus.legal
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: pj...@jostle.com (Peter Jason)
Newsgroups: aus.legal
Subject: Re: Else v Service NSW
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2021 09:27:24 +1000
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 48
Message-ID: <sds4dg901su9ia79dk1a6o3sk83cre0187@4ax.com>
References: <ijcpp0Fj59lU1@mid.individual.net> <ijd7oqFljisU1@mid.individual.net> <sasiui$1lp4$1@gioia.aioe.org> <ijek8rFttriU1@mid.individual.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="297c18d499d820b5874eb9199b8593c8";
logging-data="2662"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18dxssNy+OEOHjNipiyxxe5"
User-Agent: ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272
Cancel-Lock: sha1:gsbdcYlzSFglWuWUOzeQxYbltzA=
 by: Peter Jason - Tue, 22 Jun 2021 23:27 UTC

On Wed, 23 Jun 2021 03:17:13 +1000, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
>"Max" <max@val.morgan> wrote in message news:sasiui$1lp4$1@gioia.aioe.org...
>> On 22/06/2021 2:37 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Sylvia Else" <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote in message
>>> news:ijcpp0Fj59lU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>> https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/17a17b35549bc4005a528adf
>>>>
>>>> The Tribunal sides with the government again.
>>>>
>>>> Like everyone else with a Service NSW account, in April last year I
>>>> received some material about protecting against Covid 19. This was sent
>>>> to the email address I'd provided to Service NSW.
>>>>
>>>> The core question was whether the use of that email address was
>>>> permitted by subsection 17(c) of the Privacy and Personal Information
>>>> Protection Act 1998
>>>>
>>>> (c) the use of the information for that other purpose is necessary to
>>>> prevent or lessen a serious and imminent threat to the life or health of
>>>> the individual to whom the information relates or of another person.”
>>>>
>>>> This comes down mainly to the meanings of "necessary" and "serious and
>>>> imminent".
>>>>
>>>> One might have thought subsection 17(c) set quite a high bar to the use
>>>> of information. Apparently not.
>>>>
>>>> There's a lesson here. If you've provided information to the government
>>>> for some purpose, and they want to use it in some other way, they'll
>>>> find a means to do it. The protection provided by the PPIP Act is
>>>> largely illusory.
>>>
>>> Wota terminal fuckwit.
>>>
>>
>> What do you mean? Doesn't she have a legitimate complaint?
>
>Nope, the stupid cow keeps wasting everyone's time.
>
>God knows what the total cost of all her stupid claims has been to us.
>
Heavens! Clearly you were thrown out of the diplomatic corps!

Re: Else v Service NSW

<sb0f87$j87$1@gioia.aioe.org>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=2159&group=aus.legal#2159

 copy link   Newsgroups: aus.legal
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!uACYHZift/FlxWtrD1Tocw.user.gioia.aioe.org.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: max...@val.morgan (Max)
Newsgroups: aus.legal
Subject: Re: Else v Service NSW
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2021 09:14:15 +1000
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Lines: 82
Message-ID: <sb0f87$j87$1@gioia.aioe.org>
References: <ijcpp0Fj59lU1@mid.individual.net> <sas2o0$1qun$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<ijdp5bFop1sU1@mid.individual.net> <sasbtt$8q1$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<ije40aFqrj8U1@mid.individual.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: uACYHZift/FlxWtrD1Tocw.user.gioia.aioe.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.11.0
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2
Content-Language: en-GB
 by: Max - Wed, 23 Jun 2021 23:14 UTC

On 22/06/2021 10:39 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 22-Jun-21 7:52 pm, Max wrote:
>> On 22/06/2021 7:34 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>> On 22-Jun-21 5:16 pm, Max wrote:
>>>> On 22/06/2021 10:38 am, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>>> https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/17a17b35549bc4005a528adf
>>>>>
>>>>> The Tribunal sides with the government again.
>>>>>
>>>>> Like everyone else with a Service NSW account, in April last year I
>>>>> received some material about protecting against Covid 19. This was
>>>>> sent to the email address I'd provided to Service NSW.
>>>>>
>>>>> The core question was whether the use of that email address was
>>>>> permitted by subsection 17(c) of the Privacy and Personal
>>>>> Information Protection Act 1998
>>>>>
>>>>> (c) the use of the information for that other purpose is necessary
>>>>> to prevent or lessen a serious and imminent threat to the life or
>>>>> health of the individual to whom the information relates or of
>>>>> another person.”
>>>>>
>>>>> This comes down mainly to the meanings of "necessary" and "serious
>>>>> and imminent".
>>>>>
>>>>> One might have thought subsection 17(c) set quite a high bar to the
>>>>> use of information. Apparently not.
>>>>>
>>>>> There's a lesson here. If you've provided information to the
>>>>> government for some purpose, and they want to use it in some other
>>>>> way, they'll find a means to do it. The protection provided by the
>>>>> PPIP Act is largely illusory.
>>>>>
>>>>> I may not have achieved entirely nothing. Service NSW have said
>>>>> that they're no longer sending out information like that to
>>>>> people's Service NSW addresses. Apparently, they've realised it
>>>>> causes trouble, even if it is not actually unlawful.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What happened with the issue of not being able to serve summons on
>>>> potential witnesses because you don't know their home address ?
>>>> How dit the tribunal deal with that issue ?
>>>>
>>>
>>> It didn't. But the Tribunal can order a different mode of service is
>>> required. This was a rather peripheral issue anyway, I only raised it
>>> because I was annoyed at the way hearsay evidence had been used in my
>>> Transport for NSW GIPA case.
>>>
>>
>> Do you have a reason to be annoyed?  It says in the decision:
>>
>> "Ms Else acknowledged that the Tribunal is not bound by the rules of
>> evidence and can accept hearsay evidence."
>>
>> Are you annoyed that the tribunal can accept hearsay evidence?
>>
>> Hasn't a democratically elected government legislated to make the
>> rules of the tribunal the way they are?
>>
> The Tribunal can accept hearsay evidence. That doesn't mean that it has
> to, and indeed it is clear from the case law that it shouldn't always do
> so. The purpose behind allowing hearsay evidence appears to me to be to
> avoid having to obtain statements from multiple witnesses where their
> evidence would be uncontroversial. It is not meant to be a way of shield
> evidence from proper examination.
>
> The problem where hearsay evidence is accepted about technical matters
> from people who are not technical experts is that such evidence is
> almost immune to cross-examination because the person giving the
> evidence has little understanding of the meaning of the questions asked,
> and is not able to give sensible answers.
>
> The Transport for NSW case is before the Appeal Panel so I should
> probably not comment on it further here.
>

I would think the ability to call witnesses is an important issue you
need to solve if you are going to continue with these types of matters.
How are you going to present the best case if you can't call witnesses
you need? How would a lawyer do it if you engaged one?

Re: Else v Service NSW

<iji0irFj816U1@mid.individual.net>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=2160&group=aus.legal#2160

 copy link   Newsgroups: aus.legal
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.goja.nl.eu.org!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: syl...@email.invalid (Sylvia Else)
Newsgroups: aus.legal
Subject: Re: Else v Service NSW
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2021 10:05:45 +1000
Lines: 17
Message-ID: <iji0irFj816U1@mid.individual.net>
References: <ijcpp0Fj59lU1@mid.individual.net> <sas2o0$1qun$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<ijdp5bFop1sU1@mid.individual.net> <sasbtt$8q1$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<ije40aFqrj8U1@mid.individual.net> <sb0f87$j87$1@gioia.aioe.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: individual.net LmWZPWCZhw8BkjuDEI1gtgqkxjV3kwnzgPHlb/9MwhnHlyX9Wg
Cancel-Lock: sha1:1hr3raTLMArh0i9RloHTsuMCmpw=
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.11.0
In-Reply-To: <sb0f87$j87$1@gioia.aioe.org>
Content-Language: en-GB
 by: Sylvia Else - Thu, 24 Jun 2021 00:05 UTC

On 24-Jun-21 9:14 am, Max wrote:

>
> I would think the ability to call witnesses is an important issue you
> need to solve if you are going to continue with these types of matters.
>  How are you going to present the best case if you can't call witnesses
> you need?  How would a lawyer do it if you engaged one?
>

In the privacy case, it may well have been that I could have got the
Tribunal to call the originators of the hearsay evidence.

The Transport for NSW case was rather unusual, in that the evidence
given by the respondent's witness was not merely hearsay, but was not
revealed in advance to be hearsay, and this is one aspect of the appeal.

Sylvia.

Re: Else v Service NSW

<j0o2m0Fd2t2U1@mid.individual.net>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=4707&group=aus.legal#4707

 copy link   Newsgroups: aus.legal
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: syl...@email.invalid (Sylvia Else)
Newsgroups: aus.legal
Subject: Re: Else v Service NSW
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2021 12:49:50 +1100
Lines: 76
Message-ID: <j0o2m0Fd2t2U1@mid.individual.net>
References: <ijcpp0Fj59lU1@mid.individual.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: individual.net ALeP7p3+3yJay/XnDwSIzA9grk1jJh+fkzdsC7oKcm0G1GVGRo
Cancel-Lock: sha1:egqXr48HlN4ffqvN9vi2tPtURSs=
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.3.2
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <ijcpp0Fj59lU1@mid.individual.net>
 by: Sylvia Else - Wed, 1 Dec 2021 01:49 UTC

On 22-June-21 10:38 am, Sylvia Else wrote:
> https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/17a17b35549bc4005a528adf
>
> The Tribunal sides with the government again.
>
> Like everyone else with a Service NSW account, in April last year I
> received some material about protecting against Covid 19. This was sent
> to the email address I'd provided to Service NSW.
>
> The core question was whether the use of that email address was
> permitted by subsection 17(c) of the Privacy and Personal Information
> Protection Act 1998
>
> (c) the use of the information for that other purpose is necessary to
> prevent or lessen a serious and imminent threat to the life or health of
> the individual to whom the information relates or of another person.”
>
> This comes down mainly to the meanings of "necessary" and "serious and
> imminent".
>
> One might have thought subsection 17(c) set quite a high bar to the use
> of information. Apparently not.
>
> There's a lesson here. If you've provided information to the government
> for some purpose, and they want to use it in some other way, they'll
> find a means to do it. The protection provided by the PPIP Act is
> largely illusory.
>
> I may not have achieved entirely nothing. Service NSW have said that
> they're no longer sending out information like that to people's Service
> NSW addresses. Apparently, they've realised it causes trouble, even if
> it is not actually unlawful.
>
> Sylvia.
>
>

I wish I had found this case[*] before the hearing:

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/nsw/NSWCA/2016/334.html

"(2) The word “necessary” in s 99(3) carries its ordinary meaning of
“needed to be done” or “required” in the sense of “requisite” or
something “that cannot be dispensed with” and does not import any
qualification to this ordinary meaning."

It may not have changed the outcome, but at least then the Tribunal
would have had to address the fact that "necessary" can have a meaning
other than "reasonably appropriate and adapted." I have to wonder why
the Tribunal did not find that case for itself, and whether Service
NSW's lawyers knew about the case.

Mind you, I might still have lost based on the argument that I had
consented to Service NSW's terms and conditions which included consent
to their privacy policy.

Interestingly, they seem to have stopped requiring consent to the
privacy policy, since that is no longer present in their terms and
conditions. Perhaps they have quietly conceded my point that they're
meant to abide by the rules established by the legislation, and not make
up their own.

There is a current review of the Commonwealth Privacy Act, which also
uses the word "necessary" in an almost identical context.

https://www.ag.gov.au/integrity/consultations/review-privacy-act-1988

I'll be making a submission about the need to define the word
"necessary" to make it clearer what level of protection the legislation
provides. That legislation also binds Service NSW.

Sylvia.

[*] BTW, Mr Robinson had two separate cases regarding false arrest on
different occasions. He's won one, and lost one.

Re: Else v Service NSW

<so7iqu$698$1@gioia.aioe.org>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=4709&group=aus.legal#4709

 copy link   Newsgroups: aus.legal
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!JlFCL6lVhZ5rf6QIXhIVHQ.user.46.165.242.91.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: max...@val.morgan (Max)
Newsgroups: aus.legal
Subject: Re: Else v Service NSW
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2021 21:29:49 +1100
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID: <so7iqu$698$1@gioia.aioe.org>
References: <ijcpp0Fj59lU1@mid.individual.net>
<j0o2m0Fd2t2U1@mid.individual.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: gioia.aioe.org; logging-data="6440"; posting-host="JlFCL6lVhZ5rf6QIXhIVHQ.user.gioia.aioe.org"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@aioe.org";
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.3.2
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2
 by: Max - Wed, 1 Dec 2021 10:29 UTC

On 1/12/2021 12:49 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 22-June-21 10:38 am, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/17a17b35549bc4005a528adf
>>
>> The Tribunal sides with the government again.
>>
>> Like everyone else with a Service NSW account, in April last year I
>> received some material about protecting against Covid 19. This was
>> sent to the email address I'd provided to Service NSW.
>>
>> The core question was whether the use of that email address was
>> permitted by subsection 17(c) of the Privacy and Personal Information
>> Protection Act 1998
>>
>> (c) the use of the information for that other purpose is necessary to
>> prevent or lessen a serious and imminent threat to the life or health
>> of the individual to whom the information relates or of another person.”
>>
>> This comes down mainly to the meanings of "necessary" and "serious and
>> imminent".
>>
>> One might have thought subsection 17(c) set quite a high bar to the
>> use of information. Apparently not.
>>
>> There's a lesson here. If you've provided information to the
>> government for some purpose, and they want to use it in some other
>> way, they'll find a means to do it. The protection provided by the
>> PPIP Act is largely illusory.
>>
>> I may not have achieved entirely nothing. Service NSW have said that
>> they're no longer sending out information like that to people's
>> Service NSW addresses. Apparently, they've realised it causes trouble,
>> even if it is not actually unlawful.
>>
>> Sylvia.
>>
>>
>
> I wish I had found this case[*] before the hearing:
>
> http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/nsw/NSWCA/2016/334.html
>
> "(2) The word “necessary” in s 99(3) carries its ordinary meaning of
> “needed to be done” or “required” in the sense of “requisite” or
> something “that cannot be dispensed with” and does not import any
> qualification to this ordinary meaning."
>
> It may not have changed the outcome, but at least then the Tribunal
> would have had to address the fact that "necessary" can have a meaning
> other than "reasonably appropriate and adapted." I have to wonder why
> the Tribunal did not find that case for itself, and whether Service
> NSW's lawyers knew about the case.
>
> Mind you, I might still have lost based on the argument that I had
> consented to Service NSW's terms and conditions which included consent
> to their privacy policy.
>
> Interestingly, they seem to have stopped requiring consent to the
> privacy policy, since that is no longer present in their terms and
> conditions. Perhaps they have quietly conceded my point that they're
> meant to abide by the rules established by the legislation, and not make
> up their own.
>
> There is a current review of the Commonwealth Privacy Act, which also
> uses the word "necessary" in an almost identical context.
>
> https://www.ag.gov.au/integrity/consultations/review-privacy-act-1988
>
> I'll be making a submission about the need to define the word
> "necessary" to make it clearer what level of protection the legislation
> provides. That legislation also binds Service NSW.
>
> Sylvia.
>
> [*] BTW, Mr Robinson had two separate cases regarding false arrest on
> different occasions. He's won one, and lost one.
>

Can you some up your post in 3 or 4 lines? It's hard to understand
without remembering the context.

Re: Else v Service NSW

<j0p3flFittiU1@mid.individual.net>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=4710&group=aus.legal#4710

 copy link   Newsgroups: aus.legal
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.goja.nl.eu.org!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: syl...@email.invalid (Sylvia Else)
Newsgroups: aus.legal
Subject: Re: Else v Service NSW
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2021 22:09:39 +1100
Lines: 112
Message-ID: <j0p3flFittiU1@mid.individual.net>
References: <ijcpp0Fj59lU1@mid.individual.net>
<j0o2m0Fd2t2U1@mid.individual.net> <so7iqu$698$1@gioia.aioe.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: individual.net S5gZs1xYPo38XgFPXkQ8BA/7enhLMmjc8h8I10u1gWlfti5+Zf
Cancel-Lock: sha1:4HnmVVDpn0Bv0dCpvgQb+j3y0RM=
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.3.2
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <so7iqu$698$1@gioia.aioe.org>
 by: Sylvia Else - Wed, 1 Dec 2021 11:09 UTC

On 01-Dec-21 9:29 pm, Max wrote:
> On 1/12/2021 12:49 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 22-June-21 10:38 am, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>> https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/17a17b35549bc4005a528adf
>>>
>>> The Tribunal sides with the government again.
>>>
>>> Like everyone else with a Service NSW account, in April last year I
>>> received some material about protecting against Covid 19. This was
>>> sent to the email address I'd provided to Service NSW.
>>>
>>> The core question was whether the use of that email address was
>>> permitted by subsection 17(c) of the Privacy and Personal Information
>>> Protection Act 1998
>>>
>>> (c) the use of the information for that other purpose is necessary to
>>> prevent or lessen a serious and imminent threat to the life or health
>>> of the individual to whom the information relates or of another person.”
>>>
>>> This comes down mainly to the meanings of "necessary" and "serious
>>> and imminent".
>>>
>>> One might have thought subsection 17(c) set quite a high bar to the
>>> use of information. Apparently not.
>>>
>>> There's a lesson here. If you've provided information to the
>>> government for some purpose, and they want to use it in some other
>>> way, they'll find a means to do it. The protection provided by the
>>> PPIP Act is largely illusory.
>>>
>>> I may not have achieved entirely nothing. Service NSW have said that
>>> they're no longer sending out information like that to people's
>>> Service NSW addresses. Apparently, they've realised it causes
>>> trouble, even if it is not actually unlawful.
>>>
>>> Sylvia.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I wish I had found this case[*] before the hearing:
>>
>> http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/nsw/NSWCA/2016/334.html
>>
>>
>> "(2) The word “necessary” in s 99(3) carries its ordinary meaning of
>> “needed to be done” or “required” in the sense of “requisite” or
>> something “that cannot be dispensed with” and does not import any
>> qualification to this ordinary meaning."
>>
>> It may not have changed the outcome, but at least then the Tribunal
>> would have had to address the fact that "necessary" can have a meaning
>> other than "reasonably appropriate and adapted." I have to wonder why
>> the Tribunal did not find that case for itself, and whether Service
>> NSW's lawyers knew about the case.
>>
>> Mind you, I might still have lost based on the argument that I had
>> consented to Service NSW's terms and conditions which included consent
>> to their privacy policy.
>>
>> Interestingly, they seem to have stopped requiring consent to the
>> privacy policy, since that is no longer present in their terms and
>> conditions. Perhaps they have quietly conceded my point that they're
>> meant to abide by the rules established by the legislation, and not
>> make up their own.
>>
>> There is a current review of the Commonwealth Privacy Act, which also
>> uses the word "necessary" in an almost identical context.
>>
>> https://www.ag.gov.au/integrity/consultations/review-privacy-act-1988
>>
>> I'll be making a submission about the need to define the word
>> "necessary" to make it clearer what level of protection the
>> legislation provides. That legislation also binds Service NSW.
>>
>> Sylvia.
>>
>> [*] BTW, Mr Robinson had two separate cases regarding false arrest on
>> different occasions. He's won one, and lost one.
>>
>
> Can you some up your post in 3 or 4 lines?  It's hard to understand
> without remembering the context.

Not in a few lines, not, but I can perhaps give a better understanding.

The primary issue was whether it was necessary for Service NSW to use my
email address to send me[*] Covid-19 health advice material "to prevent
or lessen a serious and imminent threat to the life or health of [me or
someone else]" back in April 2020.

My contention was that it was not necessary, because "necessary" has the
sense of unavoidable because there are no reasonable alternatives.

The Tribunal found that "necessary" means "reasonably appropriate and
adapted", and accordingly that the use of my email that way was
permitted, and not a breach of privacy.

A secondary issue was whether I had consented to the use of my email
address that way because I had agreed to a privacy policy that allowed
its use in an emergency. There was discussion around that question, but
my main position is that an agency should not be allowed to do that anyway.

Of course, in the scheme of things, misuse of an email address is not
the biggest breach of privacy. But the whole point of the legislation
was to put an end to misuse of personal information, and there has to be
a line drawn somewhere.

Sylvia.

[*] They used the email addresses of about 4.6 million people to send
the material, but I only had standing as regards my own.

Re: Else v Service NSW

<989535b9-5d85-4a3b-a141-9b1620ed7b20n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=4839&group=aus.legal#4839

 copy link   Newsgroups: aus.legal
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:2522:: with SMTP id gg2mr36261957qvb.127.1639302592475;
Sun, 12 Dec 2021 01:49:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:18e2:: with SMTP id ep2mr34593843qvb.45.1639302592197;
Sun, 12 Dec 2021 01:49:52 -0800 (PST)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: aus.legal
Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2021 01:49:51 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <j0p3flFittiU1@mid.individual.net>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=220.236.104.95; posting-account=gE3TLQoAAACAwrTkelYC5j2LDmfhPIxD
NNTP-Posting-Host: 220.236.104.95
References: <ijcpp0Fj59lU1@mid.individual.net> <j0o2m0Fd2t2U1@mid.individual.net>
<so7iqu$698$1@gioia.aioe.org> <j0p3flFittiU1@mid.individual.net>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <989535b9-5d85-4a3b-a141-9b1620ed7b20n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Else v Service NSW
From: oznoo...@gmail.com (Noodle)
Injection-Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2021 09:49:52 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Lines: 3
 by: Noodle - Sun, 12 Dec 2021 09:49 UTC

Latest news & update:

http://groups.google.com/g/aus.legal/c/D1DHpn1URgo/m/EvE9t3N8CQAJ

Re: Else v Service NSW

<j1m23qF5gu2U1@mid.individual.net>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=4840&group=aus.legal#4840

 copy link   Newsgroups: aus.legal
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.goja.nl.eu.org!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: syl...@email.invalid (Sylvia Else)
Newsgroups: aus.legal
Subject: Re: Else v Service NSW
Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2021 21:44:08 +1100
Lines: 27
Message-ID: <j1m23qF5gu2U1@mid.individual.net>
References: <ijcpp0Fj59lU1@mid.individual.net>
<j0o2m0Fd2t2U1@mid.individual.net> <so7iqu$698$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<j0p3flFittiU1@mid.individual.net>
<989535b9-5d85-4a3b-a141-9b1620ed7b20n@googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net 94SmVXilVUBPOCUS1cbmlgs0mlkqRkTC83JxujasAdGCgh3b6u
Cancel-Lock: sha1:GffVnbfOHtCO7CFoEiZ7eUCDmKk=
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.3.2
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <989535b9-5d85-4a3b-a141-9b1620ed7b20n@googlegroups.com>
 by: Sylvia Else - Sun, 12 Dec 2021 10:44 UTC

On 12-Dec-21 8:49 pm, Noodle wrote:
> Latest news & update:
>
> http://groups.google.com/g/aus.legal/c/D1DHpn1URgo/m/EvE9t3N8CQAJ
>

One thing that's changed since I signed up to MyServiceNSW (I no longer
have an account) is that the terms and conditions no longer require that
the person agree to the Policy Statement, merely that they read it

"By creating a MyServiceNSW Account, you agree to be bound by these
terms and conditions and have read the MyServiceNSW Account privacy
collection notice."

Which is not grammatical, and arguably does not mean what they probably
intended.

Whether I had agreed to it was something that was raised as an issue by
Service NSW in my privacy case, though in the event it did not decide
the matter.

Also, that paragraph only applies when you create an account. If you
already have one, it doesn't apply.

I wonder how much we pay the people who write this stuff?

Sylvia.

Re: Else v Service NSW

<sp6es0$oi8$1@gioia.aioe.org>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=4841&group=aus.legal#4841

 copy link   Newsgroups: aus.legal
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!JlFCL6lVhZ5rf6QIXhIVHQ.user.46.165.242.91.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: max...@val.morgan (Max)
Newsgroups: aus.legal
Subject: Re: Else v Service NSW
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2021 14:32:13 +1100
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID: <sp6es0$oi8$1@gioia.aioe.org>
References: <ijcpp0Fj59lU1@mid.individual.net>
<j0o2m0Fd2t2U1@mid.individual.net> <so7iqu$698$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<j0p3flFittiU1@mid.individual.net>
<989535b9-5d85-4a3b-a141-9b1620ed7b20n@googlegroups.com>
<j1m23qF5gu2U1@mid.individual.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Info: gioia.aioe.org; logging-data="25160"; posting-host="JlFCL6lVhZ5rf6QIXhIVHQ.user.gioia.aioe.org"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@aioe.org";
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.4.0
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2
 by: Max - Mon, 13 Dec 2021 03:32 UTC

On 12/12/2021 9:44 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 12-Dec-21 8:49 pm, Noodle wrote:
>> Latest news & update:
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/g/aus.legal/c/D1DHpn1URgo/m/EvE9t3N8CQAJ
>>
>
> One thing that's changed since I signed up to MyServiceNSW (I no longer
> have an account)

How do you do various things like Covid QR-code sign in if you don't
have an account?

is that the terms and conditions no longer require that
> the person agree to the Policy Statement, merely that they read it
>
> "By creating a MyServiceNSW Account, you agree to be bound by these
> terms and conditions and have read the MyServiceNSW Account privacy
> collection notice."
>
> Which is not grammatical, and arguably does not mean what they probably
> intended.
>
> Whether I had agreed to it was something that was raised as an issue by
> Service NSW in my privacy case, though in the event it did not decide
> the matter.
>
> Also, that paragraph only applies when you create an account. If you
> already have one, it doesn't apply.
>
> I wonder how much we pay the people who write this stuff?
>
> Sylvia.

Re: Else v Service NSW

<j1ntr8Fget1U1@mid.individual.net>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=4842&group=aus.legal#4842

 copy link   Newsgroups: aus.legal
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.goja.nl.eu.org!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: rod.spee...@gmail.com (Rod Speed)
Newsgroups: aus.legal
Subject: Re: Else v Service NSW
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2021 14:43:32 +1100
Lines: 45
Message-ID: <j1ntr8Fget1U1@mid.individual.net>
References: <ijcpp0Fj59lU1@mid.individual.net> <j0o2m0Fd2t2U1@mid.individual.net> <so7iqu$698$1@gioia.aioe.org> <j0p3flFittiU1@mid.individual.net> <989535b9-5d85-4a3b-a141-9b1620ed7b20n@googlegroups.com> <j1m23qF5gu2U1@mid.individual.net> <sp6es0$oi8$1@gioia.aioe.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
format=flowed;
charset="UTF-8";
reply-type=response
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net mjV/2ixjBa9tMG/lZ+XDqAcivhTydFah1Wpv6dPAF02LpordQ=
Cancel-Lock: sha1:5rETUP2Jmh2zjwVqRbFQSXCGlrU=
In-Reply-To: <sp6es0$oi8$1@gioia.aioe.org>
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
Importance: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 14.0.8117.416
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V14.0.8117.416
 by: Rod Speed - Mon, 13 Dec 2021 03:43 UTC

Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
> Sylvia Else wrote
>> Noodle wrote

>>> Latest news & update:
>>>
>>> http://groups.google.com/g/aus.legal/c/D1DHpn1URgo/m/EvE9t3N8CQAJ
>>>
>>
>> One thing that's changed since I signed up to MyServiceNSW (I no longer
>> have an account)
>
> How do you do various things like Covid QR-code sign in if you don't have
> an account?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> is that the terms and conditions no longer require that
>> the person agree to the Policy Statement, merely that they read it
>>
>> "By creating a MyServiceNSW Account, you agree to be bound by these terms
>> and conditions and have read the MyServiceNSW Account privacy collection
>> notice."
>>
>> Which is not grammatical, and arguably does not mean what they probably
>> intended.
>>
>> Whether I had agreed to it was something that was raised as an issue by
>> Service NSW in my privacy case, though in the event it did not decide the
>> matter.
>>
>> Also, that paragraph only applies when you create an account. If you
>> already have one, it doesn't apply.
>>
>> I wonder how much we pay the people who write this stuff?

She stupidly signs in on the paper form and howls about her details being
visible to others.

1
server_pubkey.txt

rocksolid light 0.9.7
clearnet tor