Computer inquiry

Press, 20 February 1986, Page 12

Computer inquiry

The decision of the Privacy Commissioner, Mr Paul Molineaux, to conduct his own inquiry into allegations of widespread misuse of the Wanganui computer is welcome. Mr Molineaux’s inquiry will be in private, as required by the Wanganui Computer Centre Act; but his findings will be reported to Parliament. For people concerned about the “big brother” intrusion of the computer on privacy, and about possible misuses of the information stored in it, this must be a more satisfactory outcome than an internal police inquiry into the allegations. ’ When a retired police sergeant told “The Press” last week that unofficial use of the computer was “fairly common,” he created widespread disquiet in the community and any reassurance that Mr Molineaux’s investigation can provide as to the ;integrity of the system will help to allay the public’s fears. It was claimed that misuse i .of the computer system ranged from the names of Attractive women Seen in cars to supplying information to : vehicle repossession agents. These activities are quite outside the intended uses for the computer and the public is entitled to be concerned if security governing the use of the system has become so lax.

Assurances from senior police officers would not be sufficient to dispel the present concern; but the investigation, promised by Mr Molineaux should reassure the vast majority of people either that misuse of the system is not general, or that it has been discovered and can be stopped. A handful of people will remain suspicious of the technology, no matter what guarantees are offered or who offers them. In his annual reports to Parliament in recent years, Mr Molineaux has noted isolated instances of misuse of the computer. There have been fewer than a score of such complaints since the system began in 1977; half of them have been found to be unsubstantiated, and the other irregularities have been considered petty rather than

sinister. The point of any irregular use of the computer and its information is that, although a particular instance might be petty in itself, it confirms the potential for a sinister breach of the system. It is not comforting to recall, for instance, that more than seven years ago special efforts were recommended to prevent precisely the type of breach that is now alleged to have occurred. In 1978, the then Privacy Commissioner, Mr Andrew McGechan, recommended that the identity of every person using the computer should be recorded so that any unauthorised retrieval of information could be tracked down. Mr Molineaux a will investigate, ; among other things, the claim that access to the..system/is possible by the? Usd of false idefttiOdatidnrbF,/"aS police sergeant put it, by punching in “a couple of X’s or a false name and number.” & Another forime?' Privacy Commissioner; Sir James Wicks, in?;i979; said that any person making an inquiry into the computer could be pinpointed. ;The controls appear to have broken down and.Mr Molineaux will have to satisfy himself, then Parliament, and then the public that the whole thing will not continue to leak like a sieve. The main problem, however, is human not technical. The allegations of misuse apply to authorised users of the system, for all that they might have concealed their identity with false names. No matter how secure the system is, there can be no guarantee that some authorised person at some time will not use the information improperly for personal ends. This failing has nothing to do with the computer, for the same risk applied in the days of manila folders and card-index files. In this respect, nothing has changed since the introduction of computers except that the files are more widely available in more places. This is a difference of consequence because it widens the opportunities for misuse by more people.