Showing posts with label safety. Show all posts
Showing posts with label safety. Show all posts
Wednesday 1 May 2019
Facebook spends more than a decade expressing contrition for its actions and avowing its commitment to people’s privacy – but refuses constructive action
“It is
untenable that organizations are allowed to reject my office’s legal findings
as mere opinions. Facebook should not get to decide what Canadian privacy law
does or does not require.” [Canandian Privacy Commissioner Daniel
Therrien, 25 April 2019]
Facbook Inc. professes that it has taken steps to ensure the intregrity of political discourse on its platform, but rather tellingly will not roll out transparency features in Australia that it has already rolled out in the US, UK, Eu, India, Israel and Ukraine.
The only measure it commits to taking during this federal election campaign is to temporarily ban people outside Australiabuying ads that Facebook determines are “political”.
So it should come as no surprise that Canada issued this three page news release…….
Office of the Privacy Commission of
Canada, news
release, 25 April 2019:
Facebook refuses to
address serious privacy deficiencies despite public apologies for “breach of
trust”
Joint investigation
finds major shortcomings in the social media giant’s privacy practices,
highlighting pressing need for legislative reform to adequately protect the
rights of Canadians
OTTAWA, April 25,
2019 – Facebook committed serious contraventions of Canadian privacy laws
and failed to take responsibility for protecting the personal information of
Canadians, an investigation has found.
Despite its public
acknowledgement of a “major breach of trust” in the Cambridge Analytica
scandal, Facebook disputes the investigation findings of the Privacy
Commissioner of Canada and the Information and Privacy Commissioner for British
Columbia. The company also refuses to implement recommendations to address
deficiencies.
“Facebook’s refusal to
act responsibly is deeply troubling given the vast amount of sensitive personal
information users have entrusted to this company,” says Privacy Commissioner of
Canada Daniel Therrien. “Their privacy framework was empty, and their vague
terms were so elastic that they were not meaningful for privacy protection.
“The stark contradiction
between Facebook’s public promises to mend its ways on privacy and its refusal
to address the serious problems we’ve identified – or even acknowledge that it
broke the law – is extremely concerning.”
“Facebook has spent more
than a decade expressing contrition for its actions and avowing its commitment
to people’s privacy,” B.C. Information and Privacy Commissioner Michael McEvoy
says, “but when it comes to taking concrete actions needed to fix transgressions
they demonstrate disregard.”
Commissioner McEvoy says
Facebook’s actions point to the need for giving provincial and federal privacy
regulators stronger sanctioning power in order to protect the public’s
interests. “The ability to levy meaningful fines would be an important starting
point,” he says.
The findings and
Facebook’s rejection of the report’s recommendations highlight critical
weaknesses within the current Canadian privacy protection framework and
underscore an urgent need for stronger privacy laws, according to both
Commissioners.
“It is untenable that
organizations are allowed to reject my office’s legal findings as mere
opinions,” says Commissioner Therrien.
In addition to the power
to levy financial penalties on companies, both Commissioners say they should
also be given broader authority to inspect the practices of organizations to
independently confirm privacy laws are being respected. This measure would be
in alignment with the powers that exist in the U.K. and several other countries.
Giving the federal
Commissioner order-making powers would also ensure that his findings and
remedial measures are binding on organizations that refuse to comply with the
law.
The complaint that
initiated the investigation followed media reports that Facebook had allowed an
organization to use an app to access users’ personal information and that some
of the data was then shared with other organizations, including Cambridge
Analytica, which was involved in U.S. political campaigns.
The app, at one point
called “This is Your Digital Life,” encouraged users to complete a personality
quiz. It collected information about users who installed the app as well as
their Facebook “friends.” Some 300,000 Facebook users worldwide added the app,
leading to the potential disclosure of the personal information of
approximately 87 million others, including more than 600,000 Canadians.
The investigation
revealed Facebook violated federal and B.C. privacy laws in a number of
respects. The specific deficiencies include:
Unauthorized access
Facebook’s superficial
and ineffective safeguards and consent mechanisms resulted in a third-party
app’s unauthorized access to the information of millions of Facebook users.
Some of that information was subsequently used for political purposes.
Lack of meaningful
consent from “friends of friends”
Facebook failed to
obtain meaningful consent from both the users who installed the app as well as
those users’ “friends,” whose personal information Facebook also disclosed.
No proper oversight over
privacy practices of apps
Facebook did not
exercise proper oversight with respect to the privacy practices of apps on its
platform. It relied on contractual terms with apps to protect against
unauthorized access to user information; however, its approach to monitoring
compliance with those terms was wholly inadequate.
Overall lack of
responsibility for personal information
A basic principle of
privacy laws is that organizations are responsible for the personal information
under their control. Instead, Facebook attempted to shift responsibility for
protecting personal information to the apps on its platform, as well as to
users themselves.
The failures identified
in the investigation are particularly concerning given that a 2009
investigation of Facebook by the federal Commissioner’s office also found
contraventions with respect to seeking overly broad, uninformed consent for
disclosures of personal information to third-party apps, as well as inadequate
monitoring to protect against unauthorized access by those apps.
If Facebook had
implemented the 2009 investigation’s recommendations meaningfully, the risk of
unauthorized access and use of Canadians’ personal information by third party
apps could have been avoided or significantly mitigated.
Facebook’s refusal to
accept the Commissioners’ recommendations means there is a high risk that the
personal information of Canadians could be used in ways that they do not know
or suspect, exposing them to potential harms.
Given the extent and
severity of the issues identified, the Commissioners sought to implement
measures to ensure the company respects its accountability and other privacy
obligations in the future. However, Facebook refused to voluntarily submit to
audits of its privacy policies and practices over the next five years.
The Office of the
Privacy Commissioner of Canada plans to take the matter to Federal Court to
seek an order to force the company to correct its privacy practices.
The Office of the
Information and Privacy Commissioner for B.C. reserves its right under
the Personal Information Protection Act to consider future actions
against Facebook.
Related documents:
* Note: my yellow highlighting
Nor should this alleged 'mistake' made by Facebook cause surprise.......
The
New York Times,
25 April 2019:
SAN FRANCISCO — The New
York State attorney general’s office plans to open an investigation into
Facebook’s unauthorized collection of more than 1.5 million users’ email
address books, according to two people briefed on the matter.
The inquiry concerns a practice
unearthed in April in which Facebook harvested the email contact lists of a
portion of new users who signed up for the network after 2016, according to the
two people, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the inquiry had not
been officially announced.
Those lists were then
used to improve Facebook’s ad-targeting algorithms and other friend connections
across the network.
The investigation was
confirmed late Thursday afternoon by the attorney general’s office.
“Facebook has repeatedly
demonstrated a lack of respect for consumers’ information while at the same
time profiting from mining that data,” said Letitia James, the attorney general
of New York, in a statement. “It is time Facebook is held accountable for how
it handles consumers’ personal information.”…
Users were not notified
that their contact lists were being harvested at the time. Facebook shuttered
the contact list collection mechanism shortly after the issue was discovered by
the press…..
Facebook Inc's rapacious business practices has been the death of online privacy and now threatens the democratic process.
Labels:
data breach,
data mining,
Facebook,
information technology,
Internet,
law,
privacy,
safety
Thursday 31 January 2019
The relentless drive by Australian federal and state governments to create unsafe data collection and retention systems continues unabated
The Sydney Morning Herald, 26 January 2019:
More than 1 million
Australians have had their name and address added to the electoral roll and
then automatically passed to global marketing giants without their knowledge.
Direct enrolment laws
passed by Parliament in 2012 meant Australians no longer had to register on the
electoral roll to have their details entered, with information of workers and
school students scanned from drivers licences, Centrelink and records from the
Board of Studies in each state.
The electoral roll has
since been handed over to credit-check operators for identification purposes
designed to help financial services firms such as banks, Afterpay and Zip, to
run fraud, anti-money laundering and anti-terrorism checks, but four of those
identity firms are now running global marketing operations using data
analytics.
No government body has
been able to advise if anyone is monitoring the companies for breaches of the
electoral act, which carries fines for using the data in commercial operations,
or if they are monitoring the separation of data between the companies'
identification and marketing arms.
The Sydney Morning
Herald and The Age revealed this week that AXCIOM, Experian,
Global Data and illion (formerly known as debt collectors Dun & Bradstreet)
all have access to the electoral roll as "prescribed authorities". In
their secondary businesses, each boasts of their ability to provide marketing
data analytics on millions of Australians to their clients but maintain they
are in full compliance with the privacy act and do not use the data for
marketing purposes.
AXCIOM and Global Data
have not responded to multiple requests for comment. An auto-reply email from
AXCIOM said "data monetisation awaits!"
The only non-marketing
firm among the group, US credit check giant Equifax, had the records of 145.5
million hacked in a breach in 2017 was fined $3.5 million by the Federal Court
last year for misleading, deceptive and unconscionable conduct…..
….database that contains
information on 16 million Australians. More than 1.5 million Australians who
were eligible to vote - but not on the electoral roll - are likely to have been
added since the laws passed.
School students as young
as 16 have been caught up in the data transfer, with more than 18,846 people
aged 16 and 17 provisionally on the electoral roll as of December 31.
Wednesday 30 January 2019
Prime Minister Scott Morrion's bullying of single mothers increases
The
Guardian, 28
January 2019:
Single mothers placed on
a compulsory welfare program for disadvantaged parents allege they were
pressured into allowing private job service providers to collect their
“sensitive information”.
ParentsNext participants
are asked to sign a privacy notification and consent form, which is similar to
documentation provided to those on other welfare programs such as the
employment scheme Jobactive.
The program is
compulsory for those who want to receive parenting payments and are considered
“disadvantaged”, but departmental guidelines state that participants may
decline to sign the form and still take part.
Instead, some case
workers have told participants that they would have their payments cut if they
refused to sign the form.
The situation has meant
women who did not want to give their consent have done so anyway. One of the
five participants who spoke to Guardian Australia about their experience said
they felt the situation represented “coercion”.
“She [my case worker]
just said, flat out, ‘If you don’t sign it, you won’t get your parenting
payment’,” one mother, who did not want to be named, told Guardian Australia.
“It was simple as that.”
The women were concerned
by the fact the privacy form states that providers “may collect sensitive
information … [which] may include … medical information”. It is understood the
form would allow providers to handle participants’ mental health information.
Parenting payment is the
sole income for many women on the ParentsNext program, which
is currently the subject of a Senate inquiry.
While is standard
practice for welfare recipients to be asked to sign privacy consent and
notification forms, the chairman of the Australian Privacy Foundation, David
Vaile, noted that, in this case, the women felt they needed to sign the form in
order to keep receiving their payments.
“It has all the
characteristics of bad consent,” Vaile said.
Ella Buckland, who has
been campaigning against ParentsNext since she was placed on the program, has
asked her provider to destroy the consent form she signed last year. She was
told she needed to sign the form to take part in the program – and therefore
keep her payments.
“I felt humiliated and
disempowered that I didn’t have a choice,” Buckland, a former Greens staffer,
told Guardian Australia. “[I thought] if I didn’t sign it, I wouldn’t be able
to feed my kids.”
The department has told
Buckland in writing she may withdraw her consent at any time. Her provider, who
did not reply to a request for comment, has been asked by the Department of
Jobs and Small Business to respond to her claims.
Terese Edwards, the
chief executive of the National Council of Single Mothers and their Children,
said many women had legitimate reasons for refusing to sign the form, such as
having left a violent relationship.
“Providing this information reduces their
sense of security,” she said. “It could be where the child is getting schooled,
which then has the address of the parent. It could also have the name of the
child.”
Among the women Guardian
Australia has spoken is a mother of a transgender child who did not want to
sign the form because she was concerned about the privacy of her daughter.
Eva* is eligible for an
exemption from the program because she homeschools her daughter, but was told
in a text message she would have to sign the consent form for this to be
processed. She was also told she would have to attend a meeting with her
provider, about two hours’ drive away, and to provide evidence that her
daughter was homeschooled......
ParentsNext privacy notific... by on Scribd
Sunday 16 December 2018
Baby power appears to be a ticking time bomb for consumers
Reuters
Investigates,
14 December 2018:
Facing thousands of
lawsuits alleging that its talc caused cancer, J&J insists on the safety
and purity of its iconic product. But internal documents examined by Reuters
show that the company's powder was sometimes tainted with carcinogenic asbestos
and that J&J kept that information from regulators and the public….
J&J didn’t tell the
FDA that at least three tests by three different labs from 1972 to 1975 had
found asbestos in its talc – in one case at levels reported as “rather high.”……
…J&J has been
compelled to share thousands of pages of company memos, internal reports and
other confidential documents with lawyers for some of the 11,700 plaintiffs now
claiming that the company’s talc caused their cancers — including thousands of
women with ovarian cancer.
A Reuters examination of
many of those documents, as well as deposition and trial testimony, shows
that from at least 1971 to the early 2000s, the company’s raw talc
and finished powders sometimes tested positive for small amounts of asbestos,
and that company executives, mine managers, scientists, doctors and lawyers
fretted over the problem and how to address it while failing to disclose
it to regulators or the public.
The documents also
depict successful efforts to influence U.S. regulators’ plans to
limit asbestos in cosmetic talc products and scientific
research on the health effects of talc.
A small portion of the
documents have been produced at trial and cited in media reports. Many were
shielded from public view by court orders that allowed J&J to turn over
thousands of documents it designated as confidential. Much of their
contents is reported here for the first time……
The World Health
Organization and other authorities recognize no safe level of exposure to
asbestos. While most people exposed never develop cancer, for some, even small
amounts of asbestos are enough to trigger the disease years later…..
What J&J produced in
response to those demands has allowed plaintiffs’ lawyers to refine their
argument: The culprit wasn’t necessarily talc itself, but also asbestos in the
talc. That assertion, backed by decades of solid science showing that asbestos
causes mesothelioma and is associated with ovarian and other cancers, has had
mixed success in court.
In two cases earlier
this year – in New Jersey and California – juries awarded big sums to
plaintiffs who, like Coker, blamed asbestos-tainted J&J talc products for
their mesothelioma.
A third verdict, in St.
Louis, was a watershed, broadening J&J’s potential liability: The 22
plaintiffs were the first to succeed with a claim that asbestos-tainted Baby
Powder and Shower to Shower talc, a longtime brand the company sold in 2012,
caused ovarian cancer, which is much more common than mesothelioma. The jury
awarded them $4.69 billion in damages. Most of the talc cases have been brought
by women with ovarian cancer who say they regularly used J&J talc products
as a perineal antiperspirant and deodorant.
At the same time, at
least three juries have rejected claims that Baby Powder was tainted with
asbestos or caused plaintiffs’ mesothelioma. Others have failed to reach
verdicts, resulting in mistrials.
J&J has said it will
appeal the recent verdicts against it. It has maintained in public statements
that its talc is safe, as shown for years by the best tests available, and that
the information it has been required to divulge in recent litigation shows the
care the company takes to ensure its products are asbestos-free. It has blamed
its losses on juror confusion, “junk” science, unfair court rules and
overzealous lawyers looking for a fresh pool of asbestos plaintiffs…..
Read the full
article here.
Wednesday 24 October 2018
Morrison Liberal-Nationals Coalition Government begins to position itself for forthcoming federal election
No, the Morrison Coalition Government has not suddenly developed empathy for others, a genuine understanding of its obligations under international law or a measure of respect for Australian courts.
Sensing the
growing threat to its chance of holding onto government Messrs. Scott Morrison
and Peter Dutton are finally allowing very ill children detained in offshore
detention on Nauru to enter Australia for medical treatment.
ABC
News, 22
October 2018:
Australian Border Force
officials have revealed 11 children were transferred off Nauru today for
medical attention, with another 52 minors remaining on the Pacific island.
Officials have amended
the figure to 11 after initially saying it was 16.
The update comes as the
federal Greens float a compromise agreement that could allow families to
resettle in New Zealand with their families.
The Federal Government
has indicated it may accept New Zealand's offer to take up to 150
refugees, but only if legislation passes Parliament ensuring people sent to
offshore detention can never travel to Australia.
Home Affairs secretary
Michael Pezzullo said that legislation, which has been sitting in Federal
Parliament since 2016, would close a "back door" to dissuade further
boat arrivals.
According to the latest
figures, there are 652 people on Nauru, with 541 classed as refugees and 23 as
failed asylum seekers. The status of another 88 is yet to be determined.
The United States has
accepted 276 people as part of a resettlement deal and rejected an additional
148.
There is growing
pressure from crossbench MPs for the Government to accept New Zealand's offer,
with incoming independent Kerryn Phelps describing the issue as a first
priority.
The Greens are now open
to considering a travel ban for the group, but only if all children are first
brought to Australia for medical treatment, and restrictions only applied to
the cohort sent to New Zealand.
"We need to put the
politics aside and look after these children, who are being traumatised and
brutalised right now," leader Richard Di Natale told the ABC.
"If resettlement
after that means resettlement in New Zealand with limited restrictions, just on
that group, that's something we will consider.
"What we won't
consider is putting bans or restrictions [on] those people who have been left
behind.".....
Wednesday 22 August 2018
And the warnings continue about My Health Record.....
Financial
Review, 13 August 2018:
One of the world's
leading experts in cyber security policy has warned the manipulation of health
data is one of his biggest concerns facing society, as debate continues to
rage about the long-term viability of the government's controversial opt-out My
Health Record.
Former Pentagon chief
strategy officer for cyber policy and newly appointed head of cyber security
strategy for data centre security company Illumio, Jonathan Reiber,
told The Australian Financial Review the health data of MPs and
business leaders would be of particular interest to cyber criminals.
"If I'm a malicious
actor wanting to cause discontent, I would be interested in that," he
said.
"If you get access
to the health information of key leaders, you can understand what they like,
who they are and what their problems are. [Cyber criminals] would want to look
at a segment of 50 to 100 key leaders in the country, figure out data for
intelligence purposes and then manipulate the data for the negative."
Earlier this month
Health Minister Greg Hunt announced that the government would redraft the
legislation surrounding My Health Record to restrict police access and allow
records to be deleted permanently.
He had previously
copped criticism for saying the digital health database had "military-grade security",
despite not having two-factor authentication protocols.
The
Sydney Morning Herald,
14 August 2018:
Labor's health
spokeswoman Catherine King said the government's decision to switch to an
opt-out model, which Labor originally supported, gave rise to "a whole
range of significant privacy and security issues that we don't think were
thought of in the original enabling legislation".
"Are they then able
to opt-out when they become adults? What's happening in terms of survivors of
domestic violence and the capacity through the creation of a record by an
abusing partner, of a record for their children or agreement to a record for
their children, what security is in place to ensure that they are not
traced?"
Legal experts have
warned that the system provides a loophole for a violent person to create
a record for their child without their ex-partner's consent, potentially
allowing them to track down their estranged family's location, as revealed by
Fairfax Media last month.
Ms King also highlighted
concerns raised about access to medical records by health insurers, including
in relation to worker’s compensation claims, which the government has said will
not occur.
"We want to make
sure that's not the case and we want to make sure that's not the case under the
law," she said.
Some people may find
their My Health Record places them at risk of stigma and discrimination or may
cause safety issues.
You may wish to
carefully consider whether you want your health records held or shared if you:
*
have a criminal record or are affected by the criminal justice system
*
use or have used drugs
*
live with a lifelong transmissible condition such as HIV or hepatitis B
*
have or had hepatitis C
*
are not on treatment after it was recommended
*
are sexually active and test regularly for STIs
*
are or have been a sex worker
*
are transgender or intersex
*
are bisexual, lesbian or gay
*
have lived with mental health issues
*
have been pregnant or terminated a pregnancy
*
are a health care worker.
Thursday 9 August 2018
YouTube begins to face the Internet's darker realities in 2018
The
Hill, 6
August 2018:
YouTube on Monday said
it had banned Alex Jones’s Infowars channel, following similar
actions taken against the controversial right-wing conspiracy theorist by other
major U.S. technology companies.
After the channel
violated YouTube's policies against child endangerment and hate speech,
Jones was banned for trying to circumvent the site's enforcement measures,
according to a source familiar with the company’s decision. The source
said Jones received a 90-day moratorium on livestreaming for violating its policies and that
he then tried to promote his flagship radio show on other YouTube pages,
prompting a permanent ban.
Tuesday 7 August 2018
Australian Digital Health Agency is considering adding DNA data to My Health Record
Crikey.com.au, 6 April 2018:
DNA DEBATE
The federal government’s
controversial My Health Record program is capable of storing genomic data, such
as cancer risks, using technology that both has huge research applications and
highlights privacy and security concerns.
The Sydney Morning Herald reports that
genome-sequencing company Genome.One, which can track genetic variations and
therefore disease risks, has built “necessary infrastructure” for uploading
sensitive genomic data into the opt-out system.
University of Canberra privacy expert Bruce
Arnold has criticised the inherent risks of DNA-tracking technology and,
just a week after the government backdown on police access to My Health Records, today’s news as
again demonstrating a lack public consultation.
The Australian Digital Health Agency (ADHA) which is responsibe for My Health Record gave Genome.One, a wholly-owned subsidiary of The Garvan Institute, $40,000 in September 2017 to support the development of this software.
Its GoExplore™ software provides sequencing and analyses of patients’ DNA samples to assesses their risk of developing 52 hereditary conditions, including 31 cancers, 13 heart conditions, as well several other conditions where monitoring or intervention can be of benefit.
In a change of focus, Genome.One and The Garvan Institute are reportedly no longer offering clinical reporting for genetic disease diagnosis or personal health genomics in Australia. This service was priced at $6,400 plus GST, with no Medicare rebate.
Staffing numbers in Genome.One have been severely cut, new capital is being sought and, Gavan has
stated that it intends to spin off Genome.One
software into a new company in which it will be a minority shareholder.
However, Genome.One still intends to pilot its genomics technology integrated into GP practice software and on !8 April 2018 its CEO stated; “We're working with some electronic medical record providers and we're hoping that we can get a trial underway at some point this year”.
Labels:
Big Brother,
big data,
data retention,
genetics,
health,
information technology,
privacy,
safety
Sunday 5 August 2018
Tell me again why the Turnbull Government is insisting My Health Record will become mandatory by the end of October 2018?
It is not just ordinary health care consumers who have concerns about the My Health Record database, system design, privacy issues and ethical considerations.
It is not just the Turnbull Government which has not sufficiently prepared public and private health care organisations for the nationwide rollout of mass personal and health information collection - the organisations themselves are not ready.
Lewis Ryan (Academic GP Registrar) |
* 65% of GP Registrars have never discussed My Health Record with a patient
* 78% of GP Registrars have never received training in how to use My Health Record
* 73% of GP Registrars say lack of training is a barrier to using My Health Record
* 71% of GP Registrars who have used the My Health Record system say that the user interface is a barrier
* Only 21% of GP Registrars believe privacy is well protected in the My Health Record system
In fact Australia-wide only 6,510 general practice organisations to date have registered to use My Health Record and these would only represent a fraction of the 35,982 GPs practicing across the country in 2016-17.
UPDATE
Healthcare
IT News, 3
August 2018:
The Federal Government’s Health Care Homes is
forcing patients to have a My Health Record to receive chronic care management
through the program, raising ethical questions and concerns about
discrimination.
The government’s Health Care Homes trial provides
coordinated care for those with chronic and complex diseases through more than
200 GP practices and Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Services
nationally, and enrolment in the program requires patients to have a My
Health Record or be willing to get one.
But GP and former AMA president Dr Kerryn
Phelps claimed the demand for patients to sign up to the national health
database to access Health Care Homes support is unethical.
“I have massive ethical concerns about that,
particularly given the concerns around privacy and security of My Health
Record. It is discriminatory and it should be removed,” Phelps told Healthcare IT News Australia.
Under a two-year trial beginning in late 2017, up
to 65,000 people are eligible to become Health Care Homes patients as part of a
government-funded initiative to improve care for those with long-term
conditions including diabetes, arthritis, and heart and lung diseases.
Patients in the program receive coordinated care
from a team including their GP, specialists and allied health professionals and
according to the Department of Health: “All Health Care Homes’ patients need to
have a My Health Record. If you don’t have a My Health Record, your care
team will sign you up.”
Phelps said as such patients who don’t want a My
Health Record have been unable to access a health service they would otherwise
be entitled to.
“When you speak to doctors who are in involved in
the Heath Care Homes trial, their experience is that some patients are refusing
to sign up because they don’t want a My Health Record. So it is a
discriminatory requirement.”
It has also raised concerns about possible future
government efforts to compel Australians to have My Health Records.
“The general feedback I’m getting is that the
Health Care Homes trial is very disappointing to say the least but,
nonetheless, what this shows is that signing up to My Health Record could just
be made a prerequisite to sign up for other things like Centrelink payments or
workers compensation.”
Human rights lawyer and Digital Rights Watch board
member Lizzie O’Shea claims patients should have a right to choose whether they
are signed up to the government’s online medical record without it affecting
their healthcare.
“It is deeply concerning to see health services
force their patients to use what has clearly been shown to be a flawed and
invasive system. My Health Record has had sustained criticism from privacy
advocates, academics and health professionals, and questions still remain to be
answered on the privacy and security of how individual's data will be stored,
accessed and protected,” O’Shea said. [my yellow highlighting]
Thursday 2 August 2018
NSW Roads & Maritime Services finally come clean: We don't give a damn about any of the concerns Woombah & Iluka residents have about our asphalt plant, it's only Pacific Complete's bottom line that matters
ROADS and Martime
Services has revealed it will build at least two asphalt batching plants near
the Pacific Highway, most likely between Tyndale and the Iluka turnoff, next
year.
Pacific Highway general
manager Bob Higgins said the RMS has pressed the pause button on construction
of one plant at Woombah, but the need to supply the Glenugie to Iluka Rd
turnoff section with 170,000 tonnes of asphalt would require two plants.
He said the RMS would
review the supply strategy for the manufacture and delivery of asphalt on the
stretch of highway upgrade after protests from the Woombah community.
But Mr Higgins said if push came to shove when the RMS
review decided on locations, residents’ objections would take second place to
the technical needs of the project. [my yellow highlighting]
What a travesty Pacific Highway Upgrade community consultations are cannot get much clearer than this.
I'm sure local residents will not be pleased to have their fears confirmed.
I'm sure local residents will not be pleased to have their fears confirmed.
Whether he meant to or not, Bob Higgins
has probably just cemented the proposed Woombah asphalt batching site as a March 2019 NSW
state election issue in the Clarence electorate for both the NSW National
Party and the Berejiklian Coalition Government.
No-one likes to be told their valid concerns - about environmental impact, road safety, air quality and potential reduction in tourism numbers which underpin the local economy - don't matter to the state government down in Sydney.
BACKGROUND
No-one likes to be told their valid concerns - about environmental impact, road safety, air quality and potential reduction in tourism numbers which underpin the local economy - don't matter to the state government down in Sydney.
BACKGROUND
Labels:
#BerejiklianGovernmentFAIL,
environment,
health,
Iluka,
NSW Nationals,
Pacific Highway,
roads,
safety,
Woombah
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)