Many overestimate computer’s scope

Press, 12 June 1978, Page 5

Many overestimate computer’s scope

PA Wellington. Very few people are aware of the limited categories of information held in the Wanganui centre, according to the former Privacy Commissioner, Mr G. P. taking, in his report to Parliament. “Many of the letters I receive give the impression that the writer believes it may contain details of his income tax liability, his citizenship and welfare status, whether he has had a gall bladder removed, and whether a.iy of his neighbours may have observed him entering an RlB movie on a wet afternoon,” he said. Mr taking said he hoped that now it was possible to satisfy 7 requests for print-outs with reasonable speed, such misunderstandings and apprehensions should progressively be dissipated. In his report to March 31, Mr taking, who gave up office on April 1, said that during the year 1481 formal applications for copies of personal information recorded in the computer system had been received. Information had been sent to applicants in 1466 cases.

Mr Laking said a notable feature of the applications had been the small percentage of cases (14.65 per cent) where information had been recorded by either the Justice Department or the Police Department.

‘‘ln all but a few cases, either there was no information recorded (19.57 per cent) or the only information recorded was a Ministry of Transport record of a driver’s licence or motor vehicle registration (65.75 per cent),” he said. During the year he had received 31 complaints alleging that information in the system had been wrongly recorded. “Although a great many of these, especially those concerning the Ministry of Transport records, relate to comparatively minor matters, some complaints have indicated important general issues connected with the working of the computer system,” he said.

Three complainants questioned the accuracy of recording by the Police Department of firearms prohibition orders made under the Arms Act. In two of the cases complainants alleged they had no knowledge of he order made against them.

The third complaintant questioned a text which was intended to describe a reason for the order. Although the information was factually correct, Mr Laking said,' he took up with the Police Department the question of whether the text was authorised to be in the system.

In each of two other complaints, a person asserted that the recording by the Police Department oif the term “alias” against his legal name created a misleading impression.

The Police Department had satisfied him that it had no intention of creating such an impression, he said.

“On these ocasions i when a complaint about wrongly recorded information could be supported, each department concerned in placing the information in the system had co-operated fully in amending the record,” said Mr Laking. Of the 31 complaints, 12 had been supported and the information amended, six partly supported and the part of the information complained of amended, nine had not been supported, and four were still under investigation.'