A note to Paula Bennett, her cabinet colleagues, and their staff

On this blog it is likely that, from time to time, the authors and commenters will criticise government policy, speeches, and political tactics.

We would like to reassert that this is neither explicit nor implicit consent to release any private information about the authors or commenters that is held by any government agency, minister’s office, local government organisation, political party, or any other person, organisation or agency.

For the purposes of clarification this non-consent includes, but is not limited to, the following information:

benefit status or history;
family status or history;
ACC status or history;
health status or history â€“ including information held by DHBs, PHOs, central government agencies and private providers whether directly or indirectly contracted by the state;
interactions with justice or law enforcement â€“ including complaints, interviews, interactions, documents supplied;
employment status or history;
any grants applied for or received; and
tax payments, status or history.

In addition we would like to restate that posting or commenting here does not give implicit or explicit consent for any private information held about any author or commenter to be used for a purpose other than the purpose for which is was supplied. This non-consent includes, but is not limited to, the reuse of personal information for political purposes.

[Update after r0b’s comment â€“ any other blogger or author of any internet or other commentary or correspondence critical of the government is welcome to reproduce this with or without alteration]

22 thoughts on “A note to Paula Bennett, her cabinet colleagues, and their staff”

Very sensible. Could you state here if you mind other blogs picking this up and running it verbatim on their sites (hat tip in order of course!)?

r0b,

Thanks, I’ve updated the post. Anyone is welcome to copy, borrow, crib, echo, reproduce, mirror or knock off. It may, of course, not be folded, spindled or mutilated :)

That’s great Anita!

And (rhetorically reminiscing here for a moment if I may) what is “spindled” anyway? I never did get the whole “spindled” thing.

Ok, I admit it, I LOLed.

Nice post.

absolutely brilliant!

Excellent post Anita. My vote for post of the month.

And (rhetorically reminiscing here for a moment if I may) what is â€œspindledâ€ anyway? I never did get the whole â€œspindledâ€ thing.

Isn’t it sticking a document on a spike?

Since when was a spike a spindle? My theory was that it meant rolling the document into a tube. But either way it’s a very odd word. (One of my childhood mysteries, when I used to order paperback books by post from England, and they would arrive with this strange message prominently displayed).

Spindle (stationery)

A spindle (or colloquially, a spike) is an upright spike used to hold papers waiting for processing. “Spindling” or “spiking” was the act of spearing a paper document onto the spike.

And the reason you don’t do it is because holes play havoc with punched cards.

Well there ya go! Thanks for clearing that up for me I/S.

Pingback: Change to policy – Privacy Consent at The Standard

It always baffled me that anyone thought that it was likely that someone would punch a ragged hole in a punch card and think it wouldn’t matter :)

Back on topic-ish for a moment, my main disappointment about this post is that I didn’t manage to use the phrase “including any natural, or non-natural, person” :)