Category: MIL-OSI

Source: NZ Music Month takes to the streets

Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Winston Peters will travel to New Caledonia later this week.

“This visit comes at an important moment in New Caledonia’s history and reinforces New Zealand’s commitment to being a constructive partner in the region for both New Caledonia and France,” Mr Peters says. 

Mr Peters will meet the French Minister for Overseas Territories, Manuel Valls, and the President of the Government of New Caledonia, Alcide Ponga. 

“We are looking forward to meeting the new leadership of the Government of New Caledonia and continuing New Zealand’s warm and long-standing relationship with France.

“New Zealand wants to listen, learn and support New Caledonia’s pathway forward as a neighbour and fellow member of the Pacific Islands Forum.” 

Mr Peters will also visit the Pacific Community (SPC), a leading science and technical agency in the Pacific, and meet with Director-General Dr Stuart Minchin. 

This will be Mr Peters’ third visit to New Caledonia, following previous visits in 2018 and 2024. 

Mr Peters departs New Zealand on Thursday 1 May and returns on Friday 2 May. 

Source: Argument for Lifting NZ Super Age

New Zealand Transport Agency Waka Kotahi (NZTA) will begin construction of a new pair of average speed safety cameras to improve safety on Pine Valley Road, in Dairy Flat Auckland, from next week.

NZTA Auckland and Northland Director of Regional Relationships, Steve Mutton, says the safety cameras aim to significantly reduce the number of people traveling over the speed limit on this road and lessen the likelihood of a serious or fatal crash.

“The types of crashes that happen and are likely to happen on this stretch of road, the volume of traffic, and driver behaviour all tell us that there is a serious risk of people being killed or seriously injured in crashes on Pine Valley Road. We also know that risk can be significantly reduced if more people drive to the speed limit. By installing safety cameras here we can encourage just that.

“In June 2024 we ran a speed survey on this stretch of road that showed around 74 percent of drivers were speeding. Despite the 80 km/h speed limit, the average speed vehicles were travelling was almost 90 km/h. 

“There were three crashes between 2018 and 2023 that resulted in people receiving serious, and potentially life changing, injuries.”

One camera will be installed near the Kahikatea Flat Road intersection and the other near the Pine Valley Road roundabout. 

When installed, the two cameras will work together, measuring the average speed drivers travel between them. Drivers will only be ticketed if their average travel speed over the entire distance between the two cameras is over the limit – they aren’t ‘pinged’ by a single camera or at a single point where they are over the speed limit.

“We know that average speed safety cameras are more effective at reducing deaths and serious injuries than the traditional speed cameras we’ve had in New Zealand. We expect they will reduce deaths and serious injuries by around 48 percent,” says Mr Mutton.

“Safety cameras will reduce speeding, ensuring that if crashes do happen, the people involved are far more likely to walk away unharmed.” 

Initial construction works will include installing an underground power supply, completing foundation works and installing a metal barrier that will protect maintenance workers and any vehicle that leaves the road in a crash.  

The poles and cameras will not be installed until later this year. Before the cameras begin operating ‘Average speed camera area’ signs will be installed, giving drivers a reminder to check their speed and slow down if needed.

NZTA is expecting to begin operating its first average speed safety cameras at Matakana Road, Warkworth, later this year, and will progressively bring other average speed safety cameras online in the following months. 

Find out more about NZTA’s safety camera work.

Source: Secondary teachers question rationale for changes to relationship education guidelines

Update 30 April 2025 | Staff consultation presents new opportunity 

Auckland Council’s Chief Executive Phil Wilson has today opened an additional staff consultation to explore a consolidated approach to the council’s acquisition, leasing and disposal of property. 

The subsequent proposal includes options to create a property function within Auckland Council through a new property department, reporting to a new general manager role. This is a direct result of staff feedback on the 20 March CCO Reform change proposal (detailed in the story below).  

Mr Wilson says the additional consultation is a tangible example of why staff feedback through a consultation process is important. 

“We received 340 submissions across the group, 65 of which were team submissions, during our initial consultation period.   

“This is a very real example that our staff are committed to finding the best way to meet the evolving needs of Aucklanders, as well as the big challenges of the future,” he said.   

Property is recognised by the council as a critical enabler in providing council services. The Auckland Council Group has a significant and diverse portfolio which includes nearly $70 billion of property. 

Staff at Auckland Council and Eke Panuku Development Auckland have been asked to provide their feedback on this additional proposal, which follows decisions made by the council’s Governing Body on 12 December 2024 on the Mayor’s proposed CCO reform. 

*********************

The following story was published on 20 March 2025

Source: Secondary teachers question rationale for changes to relationship education guidelines

Aucklanders have had their say on the 2025/2026 Annual Plan, with more than 13,000 pieces of feedback received during the recent consultation, and council hearing from individual Aucklanders, groups and organisations.

This continues a trend of increased engagement with Auckland Council plans in recent years, with the latest feedback coming from a wide range of Aucklanders by age, ethnic group and parts of the region.

The consultation, held in March, invited all Aucklanders to share their views on Auckland Council’s proposed Annual Plan 2025/2026.

The draft plan focuses on delivering the second year of the Long-term Plan 2024-2034 and included an opportunity to consider the funding of events and destination marketing, and the priorities of local boards.

The feedback shows support for the overall plan, including the bed night visitor levy concept and extending the refuse targeted rate to Franklin and Rodney areas. Feedback on each local board’s priorities will also be shared with those boards.

Mayor Wayne Brown said submissions showed a majority support for the overall direction of the council’s annual plan.

“This tells me that we’re on track with delivering what we said we would in the LTP. We are investing in every area we said we would while keeping rates as low as possible. In fact, the lowest for any metropolitan city in New Zealand.”

Overall, the Annual Plan 2025-2026 consultation showed – of those individuals who addressed the plan overall – that 27 per cent support all of the proposed plan; 45 per cent support most of the plan; 15 per cent did not support most of it; 7 per cent do not support any of the plan and 6 per cent don’t know.

A possible bed night visitor levy to help fund destination marketing and events was supported by 60 per cent of individuals who responded on the issue; 27 per cent did not support it; and 13 per cent submitted ‘other’ or ‘don’t know’.

The majority of organisations and Māori which responded on the bed night visitor levy also supported it.

Budget Committee chair Greg Sayers says it is great to see such a wide range of Aucklanders getting involved in giving feedback.

“It’s positive to see Aucklanders taking the time to read our plans and give feedback on the aspects that are important to them. That can now be included in the decision-making process,” said Mr Sayers.

“The feedback is a good representation of our communities – participation was spread across our local board areas and demographics, such as age and ethnicity.

“While the Annual Plan 2025/2026 is all about delivering on the second year of our long-term plan, with no significant changes to investment or services, we wanted to check in with all Aucklanders to ensure the plan and priorities are on the right track.

“We had 13,000 pieces of feedback, which is our second highest for an annual plan and the highest ever for the first year after a long-term plan. It’s the equivalent population of Oamaru or Te Awamutu having their say.”

General feedback provided

Many Aucklanders also took the opportunity to provide general feedback on other issues on their minds.

Extending the refuse targeted rate to Franklin and Rodney saw 57 per cent of individuals who responded on this issue supporting it, 21 per cent not in support and 22 per cent submitting ‘other’ or don’t know.  The rate funds waste collection in most local boards.

Many individual submitters in support of the overall plan offered additional feedback. Of those, 24 per cent of those individuals who submitted in favour of the overall plan and provided a comment cited the need for improved public transport and its funding; 19 per cent shared concerns on rates increases; and another 19 per cent highlighted the need to invest in core infrastructure.

Organisations emphasised fairer community funding (including support for the fairer funding model for local boards and concerns about its redistributive effects), investment in infrastructure, and suggested greater community involvement in planning for the annual plan.

So what’s in the proposed annual plan?

The plan sets out the council’s proposed services and investments for the 2025/2026 year and how Auckland Council intends to pay for these, including a 5.8 per cent rates increase for the average value residential property, which is in line with the long-term plan.

Feedback was also sought on major events and destination marketing for the region. To help cover a shortfall in funding that was outlined in the long-term plan, the council has been seeking a bed night visitor levy.  The levy would meet the shortfall and fund even more destination management, marketing and major events activities in Auckland.

A fairer funding approach will begin to be phased in for the Annual Plan 2025/2026 to enable local boards to better respond to their communities, by addressing funding imbalances between the 21 local boards. Each local board’s priorities for the year were included in the Consultation Document.

Proposed changes to targeted rates, fees and charges were set out in the consultation. This included extending the targeted rate for refuse to Franklin and Rodney. There are also some changes for fees relating to additional council services, such as dog adoption, cemetery and cremation, and bach fees.

Information on the Annual Plan 2025/2026 is available at akhaveyoursay.nz/ourplan.

The council’s Budget Committee and Governing Body will consider the Annual Plan in May and June, with the plan to be implemented for the financial year beginning July 1.

Consultation feedback

Summary of statistics:

• 13,016 pieces of feedback:

  • 3001 at in-person events
  • 222 organisations
  • 13 mana whenua
  • 9 other Maori entities.

• 9006 individual responses on the overall plan:

  • 27% support all of the proposed plan
  • 45% support most of the plan
  • 15% do not support most of the plan
  • 7% don’t support any of the plan
  • 6% don’t know.

• 131 organisation responses on the overall plan:

  • 15% support all of the proposed plan
  • 66% support most of the plan
  • 12% do not support most of the plan
  • 2% don’t support any of the plan
  • 5% don’t know.

• 13 mana whenua responses on the overall plan:

  • 2 support all of the proposed plan
  • 3 support most of the plan
  • 2 did not support most of the plan
  • 6 did not provide a clear stance on the plan overall.

• 9 Maori organisations’ responses on the overall plan:

• 6 support all of the proposed plan
• 3 support most of the plan
• 3 did not provide a clear stance on the plan overall.

Source:

This guest post was contributed by Richard Menzies, General Manager, Uber NZ, to mark Privacy Week. It is the first in our Working with Industry series of guest posts. The Working with Industry series do not necessarily reflect the views of our office and are published to inform and stimulate debate on topical privacy issues and developments.

As the adoption and integration of new technologies continues to grow, so does the importance of data protection, security and privacy. Globally as a company, Uber facilitates around 15 million trips every day and operates Uber Eats in more than 200 cities. More and more people look to ridesharing as a safe, affordable and reliable way to get around their cities and have great, tasty food delivered to their door. This year, like every year, Privacy Week is a great chance for all of us to take stock of our digital footprint.

Every one of these trips and deliveries creates a digital footprint – data which can be used to further improve Uber’s services, but that might also include personal information. We have a duty to protect that data and the privacy of our users, and we take that seriously.

Learning from past mistakes

Last year, our new CEO, Dara Khosrowshahi, publicised a security incident that took place in 2016. The incident involved two individuals from outside the company that inappropriately accessed old copies of user data stored on a third-party cloud-based service that we used at the time. The user data included names, email addresses and mobile phone numbers of 57 million Uber users, including approximately 100,000 Kiwis.

Our security engineering team was able to respond quickly and contain the risk for our users and the incident did not breach our corporate systems or infrastructure. We took steps to confirm that the two individuals did not further use or disseminate the information.

In addition to technical improvements made to prevent similar attacks in the future, we recommitted the company to more transparent disclosure practices in the future. Our CEO said at the time: “While I can’t erase the past, I can commit on behalf of every Uber employee that we will learn from our mistakes. We are changing the way we do business, putting integrity at the core of every decision we make and working hard to earn the trust of our customers.”

Uber’s approach to privacy

As Dara emphasised, we are committed to being open and upfront with our users and regulators. Under the direction of Tony West, Uber’s new general counsel, former general counsel for PepsiCo, and former US Associate Attorney General in the Department of Justice, our security and privacy teams are working toward a global standard for data protection and privacy beyond legal requirements. This includes improvements in the way we design and build our products, as well as how we manage all the user data we hold.

New features and products at Uber are developed with a review process to evaluate potential security and privacy risks, even down to the code level. Uber’s security engineering team works with our privacy team to ensure our data practices are not only compliant with applicable law, but also supported by the required engineering capabilities to enforce adoption across the company. Based on the level of sensitivity, we are able to leverage privacy protecting technologies such as differential privacy, which enables data scientists to analyse large data sets without exposing the identity of individual users. As well, we open-sourced these tools to make them available for use by privacy professionals at other organisations.

We’re also bringing privacy to the forefront of our products with user controls inside our mobile apps and websites. For example, users who choose not to share their device’s location information with Uber can choose to turn this off in their privacy settings and manually input their pick-up location. We also built a self-service tool for riders in the app if they choose to delete their Uber account. We are investing more resources in giving users more control over the data they share with us and there will be more features coming later this year.

Long term global vision

Last year, Uber updated its privacy policy to provide more, simplified information about how we collect user information and what it’s used for. As stewards of public trust, and across the industry as a whole, we need to understand the expectations of our users. Privacy is more than just a compliance checkbox or consent taking exercise – we want to make sure that we are only using our customers’ data in ways that are consistent with their expectations. As an industry, we’re increasingly seeing users react negatively when their data is used in ways that don’t meet their expectations.

We’re learning that we can no longer only build seamless protections behind the scenes in an effort to spare users the technical details. In fact, users are telling us they want to be more engaged in the process, so we are working on products improvements that will better assure our users that we have their back. Our CEO has made it very clear that moving forward, we will stand for safety, and that includes safeguarding the security and privacy of user information. Privacy and security are key business goals for us.

Building for New Zealand

We are particularly pleased to work closer with the Office of the Privacy Commissioner in New Zealand in its pursuit of mandatory breach notifications via the new Privacy Bill. We believe in working with government bodies which can hold all businesses to high standards, and will continue to support local representatives.

In a day and age when data has become an increasingly important cornerstone of modern commercial business, people need to know companies have their best interests at heart when it comes to protecting the privacy of their personal information.

All companies can learn from each other as we develop new technologies that offer better protection for consumers.

Companies owe it to their customers to treat their information with respect and to take every action and precaution possible to protect their privacy. Uber is committed to leading the way both locally and globally.

Image credit: Photo by Elliott Brown via Flickr

Privacy Week, International, technology

Back

Source:

A recent data breach incident provided an example of how your responsibility to protect personal information does not end when you put the rubbish out for collection.

A member of the public noticed some rubbish strewn along a street. The litter included prescription labels with a person’s name and address. The nature of the prescription clearly indicated the condition of the patient who was being treated with the medication.

The person who discovered the prescription labels informed our office and we contacted the agency most likely responsible and discussed the situation with them.

The health agency’s rubbish was supposed to have been double-bagged, which would usually prevent spillages. However, the agency also had access to a secure shredding service and is now looking at using the service to dispose of prescription labels which are on cardboard packaging.

Each agency is responsible for working out a practical solution that works for their circumstances. Because of the range of possible circumstances, our published guidance on handling health information does not specify particular methods of disposal. That’s up to an individual agency to work out for itself. A useful check, when deciding on a solution, can be to ask what steps you would expect to be taken if the personal information belonged to you.

At home, you might want to rip labels off cardboard packaging and recycle the cardboard while disposing of the prescription label in some other way.

We regularly get data breach notifications and we will continue to share the lessons learned from these more regularly. If you want to know more about data breaches, please check out our Data Safety Toolkit.

For more information on handling health information:

Image credit: Rubbish – free image via Pixabay

health, data, breach

Back

Source:

This blog post was reviewed and updated in March 2025. 

The Intersex Trust Aotearoa New Zealand (ITANZ) has previously approached our Office for guidance on an issue faced by many intersex/ira tangata people in Aotearoa New Zealand. ITANZ is part of an intersex advocacy movement and works to improve awareness, information, education and training about intersex people.

ITANZ raised the issue that some intersex people struggle to access their medical records. In some cases, this might be because the records had been destroyed or were no longer available. Retention of and access to medical records is a legal requirement – not just for intersex individuals but for everyone, no matter their medical history.

Intersex people are defined as people with variations in sex characteristics, who are born with one of many conditions where their sexual anatomy or their chromosomes or hormones do not fit within typical binary conceptions of male or female.

The recommended medical approach in the latter half of the twentieth century was to treat intersex patients with ‘normalisation’ procedures, including surgery in infancy or early childhood, and to raise the individual according to their normalised sex, often without providing full information to the patient as they grew up. Many intersex people in Aotearoa speak of experiences in which they, and sometimes their families, grew up entirely unaware that they were intersex.

Over the past 20+ years, leading health professionals internationally have advocated for talking with children and young people in age-appropriate ways about their diagnosis and any treatment they might have had. The extent to which this more open practice has been taken up in Aotearoa seems to be variable, so some people will have grown up knowing about their diagnosis and treatment, while others will not.

Access to health information

In general, patients have a right to access their own personal information. This is no different for intersex people. Rule 6 of the Health Information Privacy Code (HIPC) requires that where a health agency holds health information in such a way that it can readily be retrieved, the individual concerned is entitled to have access to that information. Information can be withheld for a limited number of reasons, such as when disclosure would likely prejudice that person’s physical or mental wellbeing.

The conventional ethical requirements of truth telling and legal requirements of informed consent to treatment apply equally to intersex people as to anyone else. Open communication with patients and families is therefore essential. However, a significant hurdle some intersex people have experienced is that the health professions have not retained the medical records of those early procedures.

Retention of health information

The HIPC governs storage and security, access, and retention of health information. Rule 9 says that a health agency must not keep that information for longer than is required for the purposes for which the information is used. However, it also specifies that an agency can retain information if it is necessary or desirable for the purposes of providing health services to the individual concerned.

The HIPC must be read together with other legislation governing health records and medical ethical recommendations:

• The Health (Retention of Health Information) Regulations require all health records to be kept for at least ten years from the last date of treatment or care.
• The General Disposal Authority established by Archives New Zealand under the Public Records Act 2005 applies to public health records and requires DHBs to retain paediatric health care records for a minimum of 20 years from the date of care, or until the child has reached 25 years old.
• The Medical Council of New Zealand also recommends that “retention of records for longer than the minimum of 10 years is recommended for children with significant problems or patients with conditions in paediatrics, psychiatry, obstetrics, and gynaecology, orthopaedics or other problems likely to persist in the long-term”. (Document opens to PDF, 569KB).

Any retention policy should take into account the importance of not disposing of information before the individual has had the opportunity to understand their situation and seek their medical records. We would also suggest that other treatment records, including any non-surgical interventions, should as best practice be kept for an extended period of time at least until the patient is able to request access to their records as an adult. Any health issues intersex people face throughout their lives can only be understood and properly treated with access to and understanding of their full health information.

Difficulties in access

If intersex people face difficulties accessing their medical information or health records, they can complain to the agency’s privacy officer or, if they are unable to resolve their concerns directly with the agency, can bring their complaint to our Office for resolution.

Health Information Privacy Code, health

Back

Source:

If you work in a small practice or medical centre, there’s every chance you may not have received many requests for personal information from patients. The starting point is to know that the Privacy Act gives people the right to make a request for information that is about them.

Under the Privacy Act, your practice is legally obligated to respond to that request within 20 working days and to provide the information requested, although the law does allow reasons for withholding the information.

Giving access to information can take several forms. It can mean giving a copy of a document; giving a reasonable opportunity to look at a document, or listen to or view a recording; giving a summary of the information; providing a transcript; or giving the information orally – depending on the requester’s preference.

Pointers for responding to a complaint

But here’s the thing. Failing to respond to a request for personal information can result in a complaint from the requester to the Privacy Commissioner. We hope this never happens to you but in case it does, here are some pointers on how best to engage with us.

1. The first thing to do is talk to us and to tell us what you know about the complaint and the information that’s requested. Our aim is to try and resolve the matter to the satisfaction of both parties – the complainant and the respondent (your practice). Be nice to us because we’re only doing our jobs. We are not advocates for the complainant.
2. The second thing to observe is timeliness. Respond as promptly as you can to our requests for information. No one wins in a protracted complaints dispute. If a complaint drags on, it can become stressful, tiring and expensive for your practice and the complainant. There are many benefits in resolving a complaint to prevent it becoming a case before the Human Rights Review Tribunal. This can be an even longer and more costly process and, in the end, the Tribunal could well decide in favour of the complainant and against your practice.
3. The third point is to remember that our goal is to resolve, not to punish. We’re here to mediate and we do this in a number of ways. One of the techniques we use is to call conferences between both parties, but we’d rather keep things less formal  and resolve them quickly, without a situation escalating.

Tell us in confidence

1. In order for us to review your decision to withhold information from a requester, we will almost always need to see the information.
2. When you send us the information, what we are doing is reviewing it to see if we agree with your reasons for not handing it over to the requester.
3. We are not allowed to disclose the information that is being reviewed and we do not disclose the information.

However, when you give us information to review, it will help us if you can tell us clearly what information is being withheld and the reasons why your practice wants to withhold it.

One example is whether to disclose information about a child to a non-custodial parent. While section 22 of the Health Act permits parents and guardians to request their child’s health information, a health agency, such as a GP, can withhold health information where:

• the child does not want the information to be disclosed;
• it would not be in the child’s best interests to disclose the information; or
• one of the other withholding grounds in the Privacy Act applies.

Looking ahead

We have many resources to help medical practices comply with the Privacy Act. Our website has tools such as AskUs – our online privacy FAQs, the Priv-o-matic privacy statement generator, as well as our free online privacy training modules. We have a range of health brochures (in English and Te Reo). All of these are designed to be used to help make privacy easy.

A starting point is to familiarise yourself with our Quick Tour of the Privacy Principles. It may also be a good idea to display it in the administrative area of your practice to help colleagues and employees understand the obligations and responsibilities that come with holding personal information. This way, when you have an encounter with a privacy issue, you’ll know where to start. And if you need to know more, ask us.

Originally published in NZ Doctor (31 January 2018)

Image credit: Blue and silver stethoscope via Pexels

health, Health Information Privacy Code, complaints

Back

Source:

Can passengers take photos and videos on a plane? An airline approached us seeking guidance because the increasing likelihood of passenger recordings made on board a flight has clear privacy implications for the air crew and the other passengers.

The airline says it has noticed an increase in the use of social media on flights, particularly as in-flight Wi-Fi becomes something that airlines are increasingly offering passengers.

The airline’s enquiry is similar to those we have received from DHBs about the recording of patients and staff in hospitals. And it’s a subject that has come up in many discussions we’ve had with other agencies, such as local authorities. An important consideration is whether the recording is taking place in a public or private space. Read our AskUs answer to the question, ‘Can I record someone without telling them?‘

Generally, the Privacy Act says taking photos or recordings in public places is allowed. It also depends on who is taking the photo or making the recording, and whether the photos could be categorised as highly offensive.

Businesses

If you are a business or agency (or if you are taking the photo or making the recording on behalf of a business or agency), you need to consider the general obligations around collection of personal information (see principles 1-4 of the Privacy Act).

Individuals

However, if you are an individual and you’re taking the photo or making the recording in a personal capacity, it won’t usually be an issue under the Privacy Act. The vast majority of passengers will fall into this category, and if they were to make a recording on a flight, it will be in their personal capacity. But there are two things that a passenger should keep in mind.

Firstly, it is always good practice to seek permission when an individual is the subject of your photo or recording. This is also an important courtesy, and respectful of the privacy of others.

Secondly, the use of some public facilities, for instance, parks or swimming pools, will be subject to conditions that may impose limits on what you can film or record. For example, many swimming pools have clearly stated policies that photos and recordings are not permitted. Similar restrictions could apply to a passenger plane.

And it is this second point that is most germane to an airline seeking advice on this issue. While a commercial space like a passenger plane is essentially a public space, the airline may impose rules around whether a passenger can film or record. It can set this out in its passenger terms and conditions and in its passenger education.

However, the personal capacity exemption does not apply where the collection, use or disclose could be considered to be “highly offensive”. This means there are circumstances where it generally isn’t appropriate for individuals to take photos or make recordings, even where they are in a public space.

Emergencies

A recent much discussed example in the news media is the filming or photographing of car crashes. Most people would agree that this would be highly offensive, especially if the images were published online or disclosed to others.

An airline example might be a case of a medical emergency on board a flight. Is it acceptable for other passengers to film and publish online a mid-air medical emergency involving another passenger? We don’t think so. A medical situation would likely involve sensitive information about an individual who is vulnerable, and so this could be considered highly offensive.

There are other types of situations where filming on a flight might or might not be highly offensive. We were also asked about air traffic incidents and we are less convinced that a no-filming rule should apply in a blanket way. What situations would this apply to? Is an air traffic incident one that involves an on-board fire, a near miss or severe turbulence? Would such a rule apply if crew members were trying to control an unruly passenger? This is an area that airlines may wish to consider carefully and to give clear guidance to its air crews.

In our view, an incident that may be embarrassing to an airline does not mean it is highly offensive. The case involving United Airlines and David Dao on a US domestic flight is a famous recent example. Key evidence in this case was video taken by other passengers of Mr Dao being forcibly removed from the flight after he refused to give up his seat.

Individual passengers and air crew may disagree over whether photos or recordings are acceptable. We support informing the parties of their rights under the Privacy Act 1993 to raise a complaint with our office and of efforts by airlines to educate passengers about what is not acceptable. Ultimately, all parties should exercise restraint, consideration and common sense on a flight, as they should in other walks of life. If you wouldn’t want someone to do it to you, don’t do it to others.

Image credit: People on a plane via Pexels

Harmful Digital Communications

Back