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 – 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 – 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 – 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

  1. r0b

    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!)?

  2. Anita Post author

    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 :)

  3. r0b

    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.

  4. Idiot/savant

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

    Isn’t it sticking a document on a spike?

  5. r0b

    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).

  6. Pingback: Change to policy – Privacy Consent at The Standard

  7. Anita Post author

    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” :)

  8. SeaJay

    I believe a stack of cds are stored on a spindle.
    Thankyou for the privacy policy.

  9. Pingback: A disclaimer about this blog: note to Paula Bennett etc | I See Red

  10. Pingback: Dear Paula | Imperator Fish

  11. Pingback: Is truth beauty? Is beauty truth? Does knowing a person’s income tell you a damned thing about them? « Ideologically Impure

  12. Pingback: Disclaimer « Ideologically Impure

  13. Pingback: A disclaimer | No Right Turn

  14. Pingback: Office Notice | Dave's Ramblings

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.