On 29/10/2019 4:59 pm, Andy Farkas wrote: > > I really think they're trying to take this a bit too far: > > > https://www.zdnet.com/article/home-affairs-pushes-its-face-matching-service-for-porn-age-verification/ > > > "Whilst they are primarily designed to prevent identity crime, Home > Affairs > would support the increased use of the Document and Face Verification > Services > across the Australian economy to strengthen age verification processes."
I recently appeared before a Senate committee looking at Senator Hanson's proposal to put a photo on the Medicare Card. This is from my opening statement: "Simple ideas are not necessarily what they seem. The proposal to put a photo on the Medicare Card sounds simple, but as all the submissions have indicated, there are two issues that do not seem to have been fully examined and analysed: 1. Will it achieve its intended outcome and how? 2. What are the costs and risks and how are the risks mitigated? Too many times, government initiatives and proposals are almost exclusively about claimed benefits. For people to make an informed decision about the soundness of an initiative, it is necessary for the government to be open and transparent about how they will achieve the outcome and the associated costs and risks. In many cases, either the proposals have not been thought through or if they have, the full case has not been disclosed. Simplistic ideas such as including a photo on the Medicare Card, removing the need for full and explicit consent before registering people for a My Health Record, before Sharing and Releasing Data, the mandatory requirement to report certain events, the proposed Australian Institute for Health and Welfare Data Asset can and do have unintended consequences. The position of the Australian Privacy Foundation is that full disclosure of the thinking behind any proposal is essential. Full disclosure means the objectives and explanation of the mechanisms that will deliver the objectives, the value of achieving the objective, the development, implementation and ongoing costs and the risks of the proposal. We note that we are not alone in raising these issues, the other three submissions have similar concerns. The fact that none of these appear to have been developed for the proposed legislation means that we recommend that the amendment not be pursued. " Exactly the same could be said about the proposed face matching service. For the record, the committee recommended it not be pursed. -- Regards brd Bernard Robertson-Dunn Canberra Australia email: b...@iimetro.com.au _______________________________________________ Link mailing list Link@mailman.anu.edu.au http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link