It doesn’t get much more humiliating: a major backdown slipped out at 8.16pm, in effect acknowledging that what your critics have been saying, and what you fought so hard against, is entirely correct: “The Government will strengthen privacy provisions under the My Health Record Act, removing any doubt regarding Labor’s 2012 legislation,” Greg Hunt admitted last night, after days of insisting, absurdly, that black (or at least black letter law) was white and that the absence of any warrant requirement in the health records legislation meant there was no warrant requirement for police, the ATO and other regulators to access your data.
Presumably Hunt will apologise to the parliamentary library staff who made that exact point before his minions bullied the library into retracting and censoring the article.
Hunt finally took everyone’s, including Crikey’s, advice, and tried to blame the whole thing on Labor, referring repeatedly to “Labor’s 2012 legislation” in just 200 words in his media release. Too little, too late, Greg — you made this disaster your own days ago when you tried to bully critics who raised the issue.
But Hunt’s mishandling of it has served to shine a light on the whole issue of how police and regulators should be able to access private information. The government has in effect admitted that the high standard of judicial oversight is required for access to private health information of the kind that is available in health records. But if it is required for health records, why isn’t it required for access to metadata of the kind the government insists telcos retain about citizens as part of of its mass surveillance scheme?
Metadata isn’t different to your health records in terms of its privacy impact. Health records may provide great detail about a particular medical condition you have, but your phone call data to medical professionals, and your location data from your phone about where you are, will provide a good guide to which professionals you are seeing and for how long. Going to a mental health professional? An oncologist? A reproductive health clinic? When you go and how long for and how often is all available under the government’s data retention scheme.
No warrant is required for that. Why would someone bother going to the trouble of getting a warrant for medical records when they can get very similar information without one?
Metadata isn’t limited to health, of course; it provides that same rich detail about all areas of your life. Where did you sleep last night? Who was there? Whom are you calling and texting, and when? That’s the beauty of metadata. Your health records are only ever about you. Metadata can be about everyone you interact with. No warrant for that. Nothing. Just a one-page pro forma from the police. But for whatever reason, we fetishise health as different. Perhaps this will make more people understand just how much threat governments and corporations pose to their privacy.
As for Greg Hunt, all he’s managed to do is demonstrate what a pack of thin-skinned whingers the Turnbull government is. They react furiously against any perceived slight or objection, no matter how well-founded, and go hunting for those who perpetrated the outrage of criticising them. Why on earth anyone would trust any of their personal information to these bullies is a mystery for the ages.
29 thoughts on “Hunt health record humiliation raises the question: why no warrant for metadata?”
Robert Garnett
August 1, 2018 at 3:14 pmCan someone explain to me why the police or any other government agency should be able to see my health data with or without a warrant. They have been able to survive without mine for my entire 63 years.
How many criminals have got away because police couldn’t look at their health data?
When one considers that the US Government spies on every bit of data that goes through the internet. I know the US supposedly doesn’t spy spy on their “special friends” (Aus, UK and Canada), but they said that about their own citizens and we all know what a lie that was.
I’ll be opting out until they make it illegal for anyone other than my doctor to look at my data under any circumstances.
We all know what Politicians think of the average voter. The Punters, The Great Unwashed, The Bewildered Herd etc etc.
Until we make them scared of us we can never trust them.
John Zuill
August 1, 2018 at 4:13 pmWe need a secure id platform, protected by the government, and monitored by independent agency. We need this for everything. Blockchained and whatever. This is getting ridiculous. And the public are the worst. They are absolutely indifferent. Sloth. Political sloth.
AR
August 1, 2018 at 8:07 pmGovernment should fear citizens, otherwise it is dictatorship.
Rais
August 1, 2018 at 8:35 pmDictatorships fear citizens too AR. That’s why they arrest dissenters, prosecute whistleblowers and seize their passports — oh, wait a minute…
klewso
August 1, 2018 at 3:53 pm“Porkies” Hunt – “And it was Labor what sent me to university too”.
Pamela
August 1, 2018 at 5:36 pmStill not happy. Why no mention of Home Affairs access and their unlimited powers?
Would anyone of us want Dutton to know anything about us at all?
Desmond Graham
August 1, 2018 at 6:34 pmwarrants ,etc are really a distraction – the basic system doesn’t change that all health professionals can look at your record – imagine a podiatrist or chiropractor looking at record and finding their client had their sexually transmitted disease treated 10 years ago , someones wife has vaginal thrush etc.
The court orders only apply to the 0.1% who come to the attention authorities – whereas the system abuses the 99.9% to whom the changes that have been agreed to do not apply. The approval by the good doctors of the RACGP is irrelevant since it is a Government funded organisation – so is the supervisory committee.
In essence the present ,secure and efficient distributed medical data is easily accessible electronically between the data holders [just like the internet] and by centralising the data in Government hands – becomes insecure, corruptible [ with minimal chance of editing the mistaken data] and also now makes health data economically tradable entity – – note todays finding that health is the most insecure data. Also Singapore more secure than Canberra – health data was hacked last week 25% population information stolen- including the Singapore’s Prime Ministers.
John Zuill
August 1, 2018 at 6:55 pmFascinating isn’t it. The one occasion in which political leadership might have given one of these ego maniac politicians a place in history and no one wants to tackle it. Whats going to happen when the public figures out whats happening 10-20 years from now, bless their pointed little heads. I imagine they might get angry. The public has been known to stir. Too late by then of course.
bjb
August 1, 2018 at 6:53 pmAnother policy fuckup from this hopeless government. From the census debacle, Malcolm’s five minute thought bubbles on GST, ETS etc, and now this. Here’s a tip: keep an eye out for a Single Touch Payroll clusterfuck if the legislation gets passed for businesses with less than 20 employees.
bjb
August 1, 2018 at 6:54 pmforgot to mention NBN in there too – they just keep coming !
thelorikeet
August 1, 2018 at 6:55 pmWell it all started with Sir George Brandis who mucked up the meta whatsis then stacked the courts and the AAT so why would we need judicial oversight anyway. Fix up the health records. Fix up the meta data and bring back judicial independence in the form of less partisan appointments. And sack Hunt AND Brandis
klewso
August 1, 2018 at 7:09 pm“Geez. This government? My health records? How much are they worth? How long before they sell/privatise them?”
MAC TEZ
August 1, 2018 at 7:38 pmCertainly not before the next Fed election but if they were to win that election … within 18 months sounds about right.
AR
August 1, 2018 at 8:14 pmThis B/S – to warrant or not to warrant, aye, there’s the rubbadubdub – is a joke.
The authorities, spooks or wallopers will & do obtain data to which they are not legally entitled 25 hours a day, 8 days a week.
End. Of.