,
10 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
I'm looking a bit more into Stats NZ getting phone location data, and honestly it feels like the line from a Douglas Adams Novel where the plans were on display in a locked filing cabinet with a sign saying "Beware of the Leopard".
To the point where if I hadn't tweeted about this, I wouldn't have known that buried deep in the terms and conditions you sign with a telco, they provide "anonymised network data" to third parties, who I only know the name of because they tweeted at me.
(This is the part where we all swear we read over every term in every terms and conditions we "sign" and also monitor for updates that may happen without notifying us ever, for everything we ever do and not just the important ones like tenancy or employment contracts)
Seriously, look at this marketing copy qrious.co.nz and ponder what they do, then read the "Anonymised Location Data" section of qrious.co.nz/privacy-policy ... which talks about _Spark_ having appropriate consent to aggregated location data.
I'm not saying it's sketchy or anything, it's just not at the front of my mind that I need to read privacy policies of companies I've never heard of when Radio New Zealand has an article that opens with "Stats NZ is [...] tracking people's movement every hour"
I feel my snarky point still stands, that the analogy of "where people are once every five years" and "where people are every hour" are different orders of magnitude.
There is a Privacy Impact Assessment on the Stats NZ website, but I'm not sure how you'd find that since it appears that stats.govt.nz/privacy-impact… isn't actually linked from the Stats NZ homepage or privacy page.
And if you find the Impact Assessment (stats.govt.nz/privacy-impact…), there's analysis like this of the 1st privacy principle, that information is collected for a necessary purpose; that the purpose of Data Ventures is to collect information, so they're tautologically compliant. 
And, of course by the time I've done all this reading, the quote I pulled out of the RNZ article in is no longer in the article. In fact, it's a different article about the same thing, which speaks more to aggregration and trust of data.
In conclusion, considering privacy in the modern world is a game of tweeting a hot take so you can actually learn who are the relevant parties and be linked to their policies & by the time you've read them the original point you were responding to will have been clarified further
