Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
58 lines (39 loc) · 2.89 KB

OAICAppeal.md

File metadata and controls

58 lines (39 loc) · 2.89 KB
Raw

OAIC Appeal over ABC Data sharing arrangements

I sent the following to the OAIC on 21st Oct 2021.

The request

Dear OAIC,

Details of my request and the ABC's response are visible at Right To Know

I requested

"Documents containing:

All data sharing agreements signed with all third parties who will be given

access to iView data, including

  • Google

  • Facebook

  • Tealium

and any others to whom the ABC has granted access to iView viewing data."

The review decision is not logically consistent, because it simultaneously claims that the requested documents are exempt because they were produced with a "necessary quality of confidentiality" and also that they do not exist.

The claim that they are exempt occurs on the first page of the refusal document: "On 16 July 2021, Ms Longstaff determined that the documents within the scope of your request (Identified Documents) were subject to an exemption (under section 45 of the FOI Act – material obtained in confidence)."

The same document states on p. 4 "I note that there is no contract between the ABC and Facebook, Google or YouTube that covers sharing of personal data." It is odd that a document could be both confidential and nonexistent.

I am concerned that the ABC might be quite genuinely confused about whether the sharing of weakly de-identified iView data may constitute "personal information" or not. As you know, details about a person's habits, browsing history, IP address and other internet-acquired data may make the person very easily identifiable even when they are not explicitly identified. Such data could be reasonably identifiable, particularly to large tech companies with substantial datasets of auxiliary information, and therefore constitute "personal information" under the Privacy Act.

I am concerned that the ABC may have entered into an arrangement to sell or share "de-identified" data, believing that it is not personal information, but that they are mistaken. An open expert review of the exact nature of the shared data could confirm or eliminate this possibility.

I therefore do not believe that either of my reasons for requesting internal review from the ABC have been adequately answered. There is a substantial public benefit in releasing the requested documents, because they could inform ABC viewers (which includes almost every Australian) about what data is being shared or sold, allowing for an independent assessment of how easily identifiable it is. This concern has not been answered in review.

I also do not believe that the documents have a "necessary quality of confidentiality" merely because they have been marked confidential. Any private company acquiring data from the citizens of a democratic country would reasonably expect that the terms of that agreement would be made known to its subjects.

Yours Sincerely, Vanessa Teague.