Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.


View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 
acetone
204 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 57


  #3305919 6-Nov-2024 15:46
Send private message

I recieved this letter today also.
They have all my correct contact information and I have no tax bills, not sure why I would have been on the list.




geek3001
223 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 331

ID Verified
Subscriber

  #3306565 7-Nov-2024 11:46
Send private message

Received this gem from the Office of the Privacy Commissioner (OPC) this morning:

 

"Thank you for your email. I understand you are concerned about the incidents at Inland Revenue (IR). Our public statement is on our website. It is unlikely based on the information available to us that the breaches are notifiable under the Privacy Act.

 

If you have not received a notification from IR that your information was part of the data breach, then you are likely not involved. If you remain concerned, and want to make a complaint about this, in the first instance, you will need to complain directly to IR. Tell them why you are concerned and set out what you are seeking to resolve the matter. 

 

If you cannot sort out your concerns with IR you can make a complaint to us. I note, you will have to show how you  have been harmed as a result of these incidents." 

 

Well, there's not much point in raising the matter with the OPC, as they seemingly won't do anything unless you can prove you've been harmed.

 

The OPC is as weak as water, I mean really, what is their raison d'etre.


SirHumphreyAppleby
2942 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1863


  #3306569 7-Nov-2024 11:54
Send private message

geek3001:

 

The OPC is as weak as water, I mean really, what is their raison d'etre.

 

 

Precisely. I filed a complaint once. I consider a company forcing you to hand over personal information to receive money they owe you to be a 'harm' and their own (former?) commissioner even expressed views in support of anonymity online being a right. This was prior to the Privacy Act 2020, so it's particularly disappointing to see that not be included.

 

Went nowhere. Completely pointless their even existing.




cokemaster
Exited
4937 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1089

Retired Mod
Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  #3306607 7-Nov-2024 14:08
Send private message

Years ago, I had a similar experience with the chief censor regarding gambling mechanics being put in E for Everyone rated games (think: NBA, FIFA etc).

That attitude of ‘we will only get involved if someone can prove that they got harmed’ is arguably worse than a wet bus ticket that we see elsewhere.




webhosting

Loose lips may sink ships - Be smart - Don't post internal/commercially sensitive or confidential information!


1 | 2 | 3 | 4 
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic








Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.