Australian Federal Government Adopts 'Nuanced' Position On Data-Sharing Consent (zdnet.com) 29
BoogieChile writes: "Nuanced" in this case meaning: they don't need it. A discussion paper on Australia's Data Sharing and Release Legislative Reforms "tweaks" proposed new Data Sharing and Release legislation by removing the requirement for people to consent to the sharing of personal information. "Instead, we are placing the responsibility on Data Custodians and Accredited Users to safely and respectfully share personal information where reasonably required for a legitimate objective," it says.
The paper says that following feedback, the government has "nuanced" its position on consent. "While consent is important in certain situations, the societal outcomes of fair and unbiased government policy, research, and programs can outweigh the benefits of consent, provided privacy is protected," it says. "The Office of the National Data Commissioner will encourage the use of consent where appropriate when applying the Data Sharing Principles, although the legislation will not require it in all circumstances." According to the government, requiring consent for all data sharing will lead to biased data that delivers the wrong outcomes.
"The Data Sharing and Release legislation is about improving government policy and research by helping government and researchers use a better evidence base. If we required consent, then data would only be shared where consent was given," the paper says. "This will skew the data which is shared, leaving it unfit for many important purposes in the public benefit; it also runs the risk of leading to flawed policy and research which impacts negatively on society."
The paper says that following feedback, the government has "nuanced" its position on consent. "While consent is important in certain situations, the societal outcomes of fair and unbiased government policy, research, and programs can outweigh the benefits of consent, provided privacy is protected," it says. "The Office of the National Data Commissioner will encourage the use of consent where appropriate when applying the Data Sharing Principles, although the legislation will not require it in all circumstances." According to the government, requiring consent for all data sharing will lead to biased data that delivers the wrong outcomes.
"The Data Sharing and Release legislation is about improving government policy and research by helping government and researchers use a better evidence base. If we required consent, then data would only be shared where consent was given," the paper says. "This will skew the data which is shared, leaving it unfit for many important purposes in the public benefit; it also runs the risk of leading to flawed policy and research which impacts negatively on society."
Argh (Score:4, Funny)
According to the government, requiring consent for all data sharing will lead to biased data that delivers the wrong outcomes.
Fine, let's share all the ministers' and senators' private address and phone number info with the internet and see how they feel about dem outcomes.
Re: (Score:3)
"The paper says that following feedback,"
... from whom?
Re: (Score:3)
"Wrong outcomes" could be anything from misallocation of tax monies and inadequate disaster planning, to ineffective advertisements/junk mail.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Well almost all such hearings are in response to a political initiative, so they consider themselves the representatives of the general public. What they're really gouging is the level of buy-in they have among experts and special interest groups and whether the legislation is poorly written and has unintended interpretations or side effects. Like if it's about civil rights they might care what the ACLU, EFF and bar association thinks but not every wannabe supreme court justice. It's very unlikely they'll r
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Whoever had money to pay the government.
Re: (Score:3)
Doxxing everyone responsible for this decision is in fact the responsible and moral way to combat it. They have sent a clear signal that it is acceptable behavior.
National Data Commissioner (Score:1)
I mentioned this in various submissions to government on various acts for several years. It's kind of spooky to see them taking my advice. As this is government mandating specific standards for handling data I gisted that there is also an accreditation scheme for data handlers.
Here is the mailing list for making submissions about the function of the commission:
www.datacommissioner.gov.au/contact
This could be really good or really bad. Thanks editor for making it easy to get to details on the prop
Re: (Score:2)
www.datacommissioner.gov.au/contact [datacommissioner.gov.au]
Re:National Data Commissioner (Score:4, Informative)
If you were an Aussie, you would know this is really bad.
This government is full of dangerous, fascist fuckups.
Re: (Score:3)
If you were an Aussie, you would know this is really bad.
Probably - I haven't read the whole thing.
This government is full of dangerous, fascist fuckups.
No argument here.
Re: National Data Commissioner (Score:2)
Would prefer just plain nut jobs or is your bent something like Communist or mayhaps Isis?
Re: (Score:2)
Self-described "Communist" states are more easily described as fascist. It ceased being a useful label in the 20th century.
Re:National Data Commissioner (Score:4, Insightful)
Lol taking your advice
News flash, this is what the corporate interests that own your politicians want. It has absolutely nothing to do with your comments, or any other comments submitted without an accompanying bag of money. Are you new?
Re: (Score:2)
Lol taking your advice
It's on the public record in submissions to the last standing committee however you're right maybe other people made the same suggestion. I receive replies from quite a few politicians who don't have time to analyze an act before they read it, so I know they read them. If you want to gain insights to the political processes - write to politicians and make them accountable. If you're respectful and polite they usually consider what you have to say - even if they disagree or are constrained by party po
Admitting incompetence (Score:3)
Meanwhile others normalize the consent effect out. Clearly 'straya is making its laws with an eye toward selling this data to commercial interests.
Re: (Score:2)
Nuanced meaning (Score:3)
We don't give a flying fuck!
Nuanced in this case is an expletive. (Score:4, Interesting)
In linguistics, an expletive is a word whose semantic function is to convey the attitude toward something rather than any definite meaning.
Used as an adjective, "nuanced" means "subtle, complex". There's nothing subtle or complex here, they're taking a quite straightforward stance toward mandatory user consent: no. Used as an explective, "nuanced" here means that their decision involves things too complicated for the public to understand and the public should just trust that they've done a good job.
Safely and Respectfully (Score:2)
Instead, we are placing the responsibility on Data Custodians and Accredited Users to safely and respectfully share personal information where reasonably required for a legitimate objective
Where "safely and respectfully" means "makes us a metric crap-ton of money".
Here's an idea (Score:1)
I mean holy shit, if you don't realize that the internet is the #1 tool for data sharing that currently exists, that it was invented explicitly for sharing data, then what in all hell do you think the internet is?
STOP PUTTING PERSONAL INFO ONLINE, YOU DUMB ZOOMERS