Latest news with #OfficeofthePrivacyCommissioner
NZ Herald
5 days ago
- Business
- NZ Herald
Qantas cyber attack: Kiwis cannot join Aussie legal complaint but can complain in NZ, expert says
Shaw added: 'In New Zealand if people were impacted by the breach by Qantas they would make a complaint to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner.' He said the office would consider the complaint and ask: 'Is this an actionable privacy breach in New Zealand?' Shaw said a privacy breach in this context meant a person had access to or misused personal information without consent. 'Then the question from there is, if it's a privacy breach, what has somebody suffered effectively?' The Office of the Privacy Commissioner would try to resolve that issue and ask if mediation was possible. 'Ultimately the Human Rights Review Tribunal considers it.' The New Zealand process for data breaches has generated some criticism. Consumer NZ chief executive Jon Duffy earlier this month said Qantas would face much stiffer penalties under Australian privacy regulations than it would if it were a New Zealand company. However, Shaw said the system in New Zealand could punish people or entities for data breaches. 'The system in New Zealand is good. The Privacy Commissioner and the act have real teeth. The criticism I would have is the delay, the delay in having the matter heard by the Human Rights Review Tribunal.' He said the tribunal could award substantial damages. Shaw said Lane Neave was not suing Qantas but New Zealand had some litigation funders and some no-win no-fee practitioners who might consider the case. The Office of the Privacy Commissioner has been approached for comment. Qantas said it was aware Maurice Blackburn in Australia had lodged a complaint on behalf of some affected customers in relation to the cyber incident. 'Our focus continues to be on supporting our customers and providing ongoing access to specialist identity protection advice and resources,' a Qantas spokesman said. 'In an effort to further protect our customers, Qantas has obtained an injunction in the New South Wales Supreme Court which prevents the stolen data from being accessed, viewed, released, used, transmitted or published by anyone, including by any third parties.' Maurice Blackburn said the complaint was made to the Australian privacy commissioner, who did not have jurisdiction over New Zealanders' personal information. Some 1.3 million residential or business addresses were among the affected Qantas data, including hotels for misplaced baggage delivery. Four million customer records stolen in the attack contained names, email addresses and Qantas Frequent Flyer numbers. John Weekes is a business journalist mostly covering aviation and courts. He has reported on Catholic Church abuse and the Abuse in Care Royal Commission of Inquiry since 2019 and on Dilworth survivors since 2021.
Scoop
11-06-2025
- Business
- Scoop
Joint Statement On Use Of Facial Recognition Technology (FRT) In Retail Settings
Press Release – Joint Media Statement We are firmly of the opinion that FRT, when used fairly and accurately, can be a valuable intervention to help keep customers and employees safe. The undersigned major New Zealand retailers strongly support the use of fair and accurate technology to protect our workers and customers. We support the option for retailers to use Facial Recognition Technology (FRT) to reduce harm and proactively combat retail crime. Our teams face high rates of verbal and physical abuse from repeat offenders who pose a risk to our employees, customers and other visitors to our stores. They are often responsible for significant violence, stock loss or damage. We are firmly of the opinion that FRT, when used fairly and accurately, can be a valuable intervention to help keep customers and employees safe. It is a powerful and effective tool alongside other crime prevention resources such as security guards, fog cannons, staff training, body cameras, panic alarms, CCTV and other technology solutions. We acknowledge Foodstuffs North Island for their leadership in trialling this new technology, and also the oversight provided by the Office of the Privacy Commissioner in assessing FRT's suitability for use in New Zealand. The trial clearly showed that the technology made a measurable impact in reducing crime, and improving safety in stores. A survey of 1000 New Zealanders found 89% support the use of FRT if it reduces harm by 10%. Keeping our people safe at work and keeping our customers safe is of paramount importance. A significant proportion of retail crime is committed by repeat offenders. It is these recidivist offenders that we are able to target with FRT. FRT offers the opportunity for us to quickly identify individuals of interest as they enter the store. Staff and/or security personnel are then able to respond quickly and decide how to manage each situation. Intervention is not required for every situation but FRT helps our teams to prevent or de-escalate incidents and offences. We recognise that technology must be used in a fair and accurate way. Guardrails are needed to support customers' privacy, and to guard against potential bias and discrimination. We collectively make a commitment to work with Retail NZ to develop best practice to ensure FRT is used only to keep our people safe, and in line with our obligations under the Privacy Act. The use of FRT in the right settings with the right controls will provide positive benefits and outcomes for customers, retailers and workers, while not impeding on the privacy of New Zealanders. The vast majority of customers will be able to go about their business as usual and will in fact be safer in those stores where FRT is used.
Scoop
11-06-2025
- Business
- Scoop
Joint Statement On Use Of Facial Recognition Technology (FRT) In Retail Settings
The undersigned major New Zealand retailers strongly support the use of fair and accurate technology to protect our workers and customers. We support the option for retailers to use Facial Recognition Technology (FRT) to reduce harm and proactively combat retail crime. Our teams face high rates of verbal and physical abuse from repeat offenders who pose a risk to our employees, customers and other visitors to our stores. They are often responsible for significant violence, stock loss or damage. We are firmly of the opinion that FRT, when used fairly and accurately, can be a valuable intervention to help keep customers and employees safe. It is a powerful and effective tool alongside other crime prevention resources such as security guards, fog cannons, staff training, body cameras, panic alarms, CCTV and other technology solutions. We acknowledge Foodstuffs North Island for their leadership in trialling this new technology, and also the oversight provided by the Office of the Privacy Commissioner in assessing FRT's suitability for use in New Zealand. The trial clearly showed that the technology made a measurable impact in reducing crime, and improving safety in stores. A survey of 1000 New Zealanders found 89% support the use of FRT if it reduces harm by 10%. Keeping our people safe at work and keeping our customers safe is of paramount importance. A significant proportion of retail crime is committed by repeat offenders. It is these recidivist offenders that we are able to target with FRT. FRT offers the opportunity for us to quickly identify individuals of interest as they enter the store. Staff and/or security personnel are then able to respond quickly and decide how to manage each situation. Intervention is not required for every situation but FRT helps our teams to prevent or de-escalate incidents and offences. We recognise that technology must be used in a fair and accurate way. Guardrails are needed to support customers' privacy, and to guard against potential bias and discrimination. We collectively make a commitment to work with Retail NZ to develop best practice to ensure FRT is used only to keep our people safe, and in line with our obligations under the Privacy Act. The use of FRT in the right settings with the right controls will provide positive benefits and outcomes for customers, retailers and workers, while not impeding on the privacy of New Zealanders. The vast majority of customers will be able to go about their business as usual and will in fact be safer in those stores where FRT is used.
Scoop
04-06-2025
- Politics
- Scoop
Police Commissioner Welcomes Report From The Office Of The Privacy Commissioner
Press Release – New Zealand Police Facial recognition technology is valuable for deterring, detecting and resolving crime. While there are many benefits to using technology it is crucial to have appropriate guidance in place. Police Commissioner Richard Chambers has welcomed an Office of the Privacy Commissioner report into the trial of facial recognition technology by a major supermarket chain, saying such technology is a valuable tool for fighting crime. 'I welcome the OPC's comments about the potential benefits of facial recognition technology and the finding that, in the case of the Foodstuffs trial, it was effective at reducing incidences of serious repeat offending.' 'The value of technology such as facial recognition is that it is fair and accurate. It has an important role to play in policing. Facial recognition technology is valuable for deterring, detecting and resolving crime. While there are many benefits to using technology it is crucial to have appropriate guidance in place.' 'I welcome the clear guidelines from the OPC on how retailers can use it effectively and the safeguards that are required. It offers useful guidance on whether its use is appropriate, what the privacy risks are and how those can be minimised.' Commissioner Chambers said the use of facial recognition technology as a crime prevention tool was a decision for retailers to make for themselves and their businesses. 'Police is supportive of retailers using tools like this to enhance safety for their staff and communities, as long as it is done lawfully and ethically. I am very enthusiastic about the opportunity to better use technology to help achieve positive outcomes. One of the biggest opportunities we have as a country is to embrace technology when it comes to fighting crime.'
Scoop
03-06-2025
- Scoop
Supermarket Trial Of FRT: Inquiry Results Announced
Press Release – Office of the Privacy Commissioner 'FRT systems have potential safety benefits, but they do raise significant privacy concerns, including the unnecessary or unfair collection of peoples information, misidentification, technical bias which can reinforce existing inequities and human … Privacy Commissioner Michael Webster has found that the live facial recognition technology model trialled by Foodstuffs North Island is compliant with the Privacy Act. However, his Inquiry report released today, shows that any business considering or using FRT needs to make sure it sets things up right to stay within the law. 'While the use of FRT during the trial was effective at reducing harmful behaviour (especially reducing serious violent incidents) it has also shown that there are many things that need to be taken into account. 'FRT systems have potential safety benefits, but they do raise significant privacy concerns, including the unnecessary or unfair collection of people's information, misidentification, technical bias which can reinforce existing inequities and human bias, or the ability to be used for surveillance'. 'These issues become particularly critical when people need to access essential services such as supermarkets. FRT will only be acceptable if the use is necessary and the privacy risks are successfully managed'. The purpose of the Privacy Commissioner's Inquiry into Foodstuffs North Island's trial use of live FRT was to understand its privacy impacts, its compliance with the Privacy Act, and to evaluate if it was an effective tool in reducing serious retail crime compared with other less privacy intrusive options. The Inquiry found while the level of privacy intrusion was high because every visitor's face is collected, the privacy safeguards used in the trial reduced it to an acceptable level. 'Foodstuffs North Island designed the privacy safeguards used in the trial with feedback from my Office. This has provided some useful lessons for other businesses which may be considering using FRT.' The main privacy safeguards in place during the trial were: – Images that did not result in a positive match were deleted immediately, as recommended by OPC – this meant there was very little privacy impact on most people who entered the trial stores – The system was set up to only identify people who had engaged in seriously harmful behaviour, particularly violent offending – Staff were not permitted to add images of children or young people under 18, or people thought to be vulnerable, to the watchlist – There was no sharing of watchlist information between stores – During the trial, the operational threshold that triggered an FRT alert was raised from 90% to 92.5% likelihood of the images matching, reducing the chances that people would be misidentified while managing down the 'computer says yes' risk – Match alerts were verified by two trained staff, ensuring that human decision making was a key part of the process – Access to the FRT system and information was restricted to trained authorised staff only – Images collected were not permitted to be used for training data purposes – Systems were reviewed and improved during the trial where misidentifications or errors occurred. 'There is still some work to do to increase the safety and effectiveness of FRT software use in the New Zealand context, as FRT technology has been developed overseas and has not been trained on the New Zealand population. 'As a result, we can't be completely confident it has fully addressed technical bias issues, including the potential negative impact on Māori and Pacific people. This means the technology must only be used with the right processes in place, including human checks that an alert is accurate before acting on it.' 'Some improvements will also need to be made by FSNI before the use of FRT is made permanent or expanded to more stores. These focus on ensuring the documented processes and system settings are updated to match what happens in practice, including ongoing review of the use of FRT to make sure its use is justified as an effective tool for reducing serious harm offending. 'I also expect that Foodstuffs North Island will put in place monitoring and review to allow it to evaluate the impact of skin tone on identification accuracy and store response, and to provide confidence to the regulator and customers that key privacy safeguards remain in place. 'The trial findings will help other businesses to ask the right questions about whether FRT is necessary and appropriate for them and to understand what they would need to do to set FRT up and run it in a privacy protective way.' The report sets out my expectations for the use of FRT across nine key areas, says the Privacy Commissioner. The FRT trial started on 8 February and ended on 7 September 2024 and ran in 25 supermarkets. During the trial, 225,972,004 faces were scanned (includes multiple scans of the same person), with 99.999% of these deleted within one minute, and there were 1742 alerts of which 1208 were confirmed matches. OPC is currently developing a Biometric Processing Privacy Code, which applies to biometric information, including a photo of someone's face used in a Facial Recognition System. The new Code is expected to be published in mid-2025. The Biometrics Code is designed to provide guardrails for the safe use of biometrics generally, including FRT, in New Zealand.
