Sarah Thompson
Investigating officer
Privacy Commissioner
Re privacy act complaint: Paul Evans-McLeod and Telecom New Zealand Limited REF C/22243
Dear Sarah
Thank you for correspondence received 06 0510
Please read attached letter received from Hannah Sullivan Employment Relations Manager Telecom. Hannah comments "I can inform you that Bridgette Dalzell advised that she believed Nigel Dick was your lawyer, as you told her directly"
I have requested from Hannah in what manner she was informed by Bridgette, that Nigel was my lawyer, this has not been responded to, could ask for this on my behalf ?
The salient point to note here that this is an out and out lie (the third one I have caught this senior manager out with) why is it a lie?
Bridgette perceives that Nigel is my lawyer . The only way she could ascertain that was by reading the contents of my emails
Nigel is a close friend whom I requested to act and behave as if he was my lawyer within e-mail correspondence to myself. It was a ploy to determine whom was accessing my e-mails. Therefore for me to tell Bridgette Dalzell directly would negate the efficacy of that approach.
To further make my point you will note in previous correspondence sent to your office she emails Nigel Dick directly, what would give me cause to give her Nigel’s email address, this then could only have been obtained by her accessing the private e-mail
Sarah also points out that under Telecoms Email Guidelines it only undertakes to notify that email account has been accessed where it does so to conduct business during a business crisis
To quote their own rules specifically
"to conduct business during a business crisis if an employee is absent (I am rarely absent )when information is thought to be in the employee mailbox is required .please note – a business crisis is defined as a need requiring the business critical information thought to be contained with the employees mailbox
The employee will be notified by EDS administration staff whom will notify the employee if and when it occurred .and by whom it was authorized.
I was never notified of its occurrence, or by whom it was authorised
Could your office please ask why?.
What business crisis justified the need and subsequent acts.
Telecom may monitor and inspect individual staff email activity under the direction of a body that has the necessary legal authority
Whom is that body, and what legal authority Is Bridgette Dalzell that body or the legal authority. How is the legal authority granted, was required process procedures adhered to
I would like to know who else has been accessing my email without authority, so I request the Privacy office to ask Telecom to provide same, via their IT staff at EDS with a forensic search across my email account.
The other persons THAT WOULD FIND MY EMAILS OF interest would be Michelle Young, Shaun Hoult, and Iain Galloway
My primary concern through all of this is, I was in a dispute with Telecom, in which I was being micro-managed out of my job after 39 years
In previous correspondence Bridgette Dalzell gained the perception from accessing my emails that Nigel Dick may have been my lawyer she then in her open email for to Nigel , sort to confirm that he is in fact my lawyer
It is my belief that she and Telecom, if they have formed that belief that I’m writing to my lawyer ,have thus accessed these emails illegally, surely correspondence between a person and his lawyer is sacrosanct and private it is a severe breach of my privacy
As per below, in red, I raise specific concerns , that require appropriate redress.
PRIVACY ACT 1993 I
Principle I
Purpose of collection of personal information
Personal information shall not be collected by any agency unless —
(a) the information is collected for a lawful purpose connected with a function or activity of the agency; and
(b) the collection of the information is necessary for that purpose.
What was that lawful purpose ? and why was the collection necessary?
Principle 2
Source of personal information
Where an agency collects personal information, the agency shall collect the information directly from the individual concerned.
They did not collect the information directly from me, why not?
(2) It is not necessary for an agency to comply with subclause (1) if the agency believes, on reasonable ground,-
(a) That the information is publicly available information; or
It was not publicly available
(b) That the individual concerned authorizes collection of the information from Someone else; or
I did not authorize any one
(c) That non-compliance would not prejudice the interests of the individual concerned; or
it did prejudice me they were aware of my every move and/or thought .
(d) That non-compliance is necessary -
(i) To avoid prejudice to the maintenance of the law by any public sector agency, including the prevention, detection, investigation, prosecution, and punishment of offences; or
what offense was I committing
(ii) For the enforcement of a law imposing a pecuniary penalty; or
-(iii) For the protection of the public revenue; or
what offense was I committing ?
(iv) For the conduct of proceedings before any court or tribunal (being proceedings that have been commenced or are reasonably in contemplation); or
what offense was I committing ?
(e) That compliance would prejudice the purposes of the collection; or
(1) That compliance is not reasonably practicable in the circumstances of the particular case; or
(g) That the information -
(i) will not be used in a form in which the individual concerned is identified; or
(ii) will be used for statistical or research purposes and will not be published in a form that could reasonably be expected to identify the individual concerned; or
(h) that the collection of the information is in accordance with an authority granted under section 54. C 22243/A2241 59
DID they act with the authority under section 54?
4
Principle 3
Collection of information from subject
(1) Where an agency collects personal information directly from the individual concerned, the agency shall take such steps (if any) as are, in the circumstances, reasonable to ensure that the individual concerned is aware of -
(a) the fact that the information is being collected; and
they didn’t tell me ! why not ? please explain
(b) the purpose for which the information is being collected; and
they didn’t tell me why not ? please explain
(c) the intended recipients of the information; and
they didn’t tell me why not ? please explain
(d) the name and address of -
(I) the agency that is collecting the information; and
they didn’t tell me why not? please explain
(ii) the agency that will hold the information; and
they didn’t tell me why not ?please explain
(e) if the collection of the information is authorised or required by or under law -(i) the particular law by or under which the collection of the information is so authorised or required; and
what law did they act under ?
(ii) whether or not the supply of the information by that individual is voluntary or mandatory; and
so which was it
(f) the consequences (if any) for that individual if all or any part of the requested
I was not aware it was happening therefore I couldn’t be aware of the consequences until my little ruse confirmed it
information is not provided; and
(g) the rights of access to, and correction of, personal information provided by these principles.
They did not advise me of my rights why not ? please explain
(2) The steps referred to in subclause (1) of this principle shall be taken before the
information is collected or, if that is not practicable, as soon as practicable after the information is collected.
Never happened why not ?
the collection of information from an individual if that agency has taken those steps in relation to the collection from that individual, of the same information or information of the same kind, on a recent previous occasion
. Had they please ask ?
(a) that non-compliance is authorised by the individual concerned; or
(b) that non-compliance would not prejudice the interests of the individual
concerned; or
(c) the non-compliance is necessary -
(I) to avoid prejudice to the maintenance of the law by any public sector
agency, including the prevention, detection, investigation, prosecution, and punishment of offences; or
what offense was I committing ?
(iii) for the protection of the public revenue; or
(iv) for the conduct of proceedings before any court or tribunal (being
proceedings that have been Commenced or are reasonably in
contemplation); or
(d) that compliance would prejudice the purposes of the collection; or
(e) that compliance is not reasonably practicable in the circumstances of the
particular case; or
(f) that the information -
(I) will not be used in a form in which the individual concerned is identified; or
(ii) will be used for statistical or research purposes and will not be published in a form that could reasonably be expected to identify the individual Concerned
Principle 4
Manner of collection of personal information
Personal information shall not be collected by an agency -
(a) by unlawful means; or
did they break the law ? why ? what offence was I committing ?
(i) are unfair; or
it was definitely unfair they had me at a disadvantage by knowing all I was doing
. I consider it a massive intrusion it was correspondence between myself and my consul/lawyer
Access to personal information
(1) Where an agency holds personal information in such a way that it can readily be retrieved, the individual concerned shall be entitled —
(a) to obtain from the agency confirmation of whether or not the agency holds such personal information; and
(b) to have access to that information.
(2) Where, in accordance with subclause (1 )(b), an individual is given access to personal information, the individual shall be advised that, under principle 7, the individual may request the correction of that information.
I would like you to request it on my behalf
Section 66(1)(b) of the Privacy Act
Summary
This section states that an action is an interference with the privacy of an individual if the action breaches an information privacy principle and that action:
• Has caused loss, detriment, damage, or injury to that individual, or may do so; or
• Has adversely affected the rights, benefits, privileges, obligations, or interests of that individual, or may do so; or
• Has resulted in significant humiliation, significant loss of dignity or significant injury to the feelings of that individual, or may do
It would assist me if you would let me know:
• What adverse consequences you have suffered as a result of the actions of Telecom, particularly in relation to the personal information which Telecom collected from your emails; and
• Further detail as to what you think would be a suitable resolution of your complaint.
The adverse consequences suffered are the direct infringement of my rights, benefits, privileges and obligations and interests , these have been ignored and dismissed, in a brutal uncaring illegal manner, at a time when I was under severe stress with the employment dispute with Telecom. It provided Telecom with an unfair advantage, and thus served to achieve their desired outcome. It was an action that I had neither recourse or an ability to mitigate.
BECAUSE THEY WHERE AWARE OF MY EVERY MOVE AND MORE ESPECAILLY MY EVERY THOUGHT AS I WAS USING MY CORRESSPONDANCE WITH NIGEL TO VENT MY ANGER AND FRUSTRATIONS WITH THE INDIVIDUALS INVOLVED
I HAVE NO WAY TO ASCERTIAN WEATHER MY PRIVATE THOUGHTS HAD ANY BEARING ON MY SUBSEQUNT DISMMISAL, AS I WAS MOST CERTAINLY NOT VERY COMLIMENTARY IN MY ASSESSMENT OF THE CHARACATER OF THE THREE INDIDIVDUALS I WAS DEALING WITH .(THIS IS ANOTHER REASON I REQUIRE KNOWLEDGE OF WHO HAD ACCESS TO ,EMAILS )
if illegal acts have occurred
, these should be addressed by the appropriate authorities, (Justice should not only be done, it must be seen to be done)
a personal apology both verbal and written.
an adherence to their own stated guidelines, would demonstrate the integrity of both their process and policy, and would restore the confidence of those staff that remain within Telecom faced with any similar disputes..
Current telecom participants
Bridgette Dalzell current head of outsourced customer care at telecom New Zealand whom is Michelle Young's direct report at time of incident
Michelle Young call center manager Hamilton call center, whom is Shaun Hoults direct report at time of incidents
Shaun Hoult team manager weekend team Sat-Tues Hamilton
Iain Galloway HR representative spends a lot of time in Hamilton
No comments:
Post a Comment