RAAus to disclose member details

[Jim McDowall]

how will the airport owner invoice the operator? 

Is it a requirement of a private body to breach the Privacy Act to deliver an invoice for a few dollars to a party who may or may not have used the facility? Privacy is a higher order issue. I agree that people using false rego's in radio call is unforgiveable but is the problem so big that our privacy can be given away without consent? Facebook has demonstrated how people lose their privacy too easily without consent.

 

 

[KRviator]

Found this today from the Australian Airport Association:

 

AAA and RAAus joint project – online portal

 

A new joint initiative with Recreational Aviation Australia (RAAus) was launched in March to resolve a long-standing issue regarding the use of recreational aircraft at public aerodromes across the country. The AAA and RAAus joined forces to offer members a secure online portal to allow aerodrome operators to quickly and easily obtain contact details for recreational aircraft operators using their facilities.

 

The portal – managed by RAAus with resourcing support from the AAA – removes the need for aerodrome operators to liaise with RAAus on a case-by-case basis to confirm details of recreational aircraft using their facilities. This makes contacting recreational aircraft owners for emergency management, safety, security and billing purposes much easier.

 

This new initiative demonstrates a genuine commitment to growth, professionalism and improved engagement between the aerodrome and recreational aircraft sectors. The AAA and RAAus are committed to continuing to work collaboratively, ensuring recreational aviation and aerodrome operations remain safe, secure and sustainable.

 

To register for access to the portal, go to https://airports.asn.au/raaus-application or email [email protected].

 

MY bolding - See the scope creep already? So it is no longer about 'just' landing fees. It never was...

 

I'm in discussions with the OAIC at the moment about the privacy breaches, so will see what they ultimately have to say about the matter, but from what I can see, arbitrarily changing the Privacy Policy for a new secondary purpose which is unrelated to RAAus' operations isn't legit...Hopefully they agree...

 

I asked the AAA who their members were that would be accessing my data. The response? "We can't tell you, it's private!". ?

 

RAAus has also put out this FAQ about going's on too...

 

aaa-agreement-faqs.pdf

 

 

[Guest Bristell]

I don’t really see this as particularly sinister. You have to view it in the context that it’s included in a newsletter for consumption of the members of AAA. They would have been under significant pressure to come up with a solution to the egregious problem of RAAus pilots ripping off the airports by not paying over several years and unfortunately the Avdata parasite is also going to be a significant beneficiary . I certainly agree that we should closely monitor where things go from here though.

 

 

[Thruster88]

[No message]

[Guest Bristell]

I can’t see the analogy between boat ramps and airports Thruster. If you’ve ever been to an event like the Sydney Boat Show you’d have realised what a massive industry boating is with tremendous political clout. Your average user of a boat ramp is a tradie with a ute and a little tinny while our demographic is seen as a bunch of privileged money grabbing silvertails trying to use public facilities for free which are very expensive to maintain . You might as well advocate for mothers paying to use baby health centres or pensioners paying to use libraries. It’s just not going to happen. 

 

 

[facthunter]

You need a cost benefit analysis. Using avdata the airport owner gets much less of the $$$'s the "user" pays. Unless the information that  determines the plane as actually there , there is a nuisance factor and the money often doesn't cover the cost of keeping the aerodrome in good condition and many have to rely on volunteer labour. The local community often benefit from the airport being available although many seem to want them gone.  It's a problem of long duration. Nev

 

 

[Guest Bristell]

I agree they are very expensive to maintain and the problem is only going to get worse. Fortunately the two airports here on the South Coast being Moruya and Merimbula are in very marginal electorates and have benefited from a fair bit of Federal Govt largesse in the past couple of elections. However when I travel away I notice a number of airports which have been let go a bit and they will require significant investment going forward. Heaven help those that don’t have RPT/Air Ambulance/ rescue chopper etc.

 

 

[Keith Page]

Found this today from the Australian Airport Association:

 

MY bolding - See the scope creep already? So it is no longer about 'just' landing fees. It never was...

 

I'm in discussions with the OAIC at the moment about the privacy breaches, so will see what they ultimately have to say about the matter, but from what I can see, arbitrarily changing the Privacy Policy for a new secondary purpose which is unrelated to RAAus' operations isn't legit...Hopefully they agree...

 

I asked the AAA who their members were that would be accessing my data. The response? "We can't tell you, it's private!". ?

 

RAAus has also put out this FAQ about going's on too...

 

[ATTACH]41783[/ATTACH]

 

"Safety":- It is used to hide a multitude of excuses for the authorities.

 

If an issue is being pushed it is because of "safety". To me when "safety" is used the scallywags can get away with anything.

 

KP.

 

 

[Keith Page]

I agree they are very expensive to maintain and the problem is only going to get worse. Fortunately the two airports here on the South Coast being Moruya and Merimbula are in very marginal electorates and have benefited from a fair bit of Federal Govt largesse in the past couple of elections. However when I travel away I notice a number of airports which have been let go a bit and they will require significant investment going forward. Heaven help those that don’t have RPT/Air Ambulance/ rescue chopper etc.

 

That is why we pay taxes, rates and the clandestine tax levies for these services, we do not need to pay twice/three times or what ever.

 

The other goodie we can get fined for speed violations on toll ways, I thought toll ways were private concerns because the money for a toll way goes to some finance organisation. There we go again toll ways and vehicle registration. (Twice).

 

KP

 

 

[Guest Bristell]

Jeez Keith I agree with you but you’re swimming against the tide. This whole privatisation thing came from Margaret Thatcher God bless her , and robbed us all big time by making us pay over and over again for things we already owned and were previously deriving an income stream from . Almost impossible to unscramble that egg I’m afraid!

 

 

[circuitsun]

Found this today from the Australian Airport Association:

 

MY bolding - See the scope creep already? So it is no longer about 'just' landing fees. It never was...

 

I'm in discussions with the OAIC at the moment about the privacy breaches, so will see what they ultimately have to say about the matter, but from what I can see, arbitrarily changing the Privacy Policy for a new secondary purpose which is unrelated to RAAus' operations isn't legit...Hopefully they agree...

 

I asked the AAA who their members were that would be accessing my data. The response? "We can't tell you, it's private!". ?

 

RAAus has also put out this FAQ about going's on too...

 

[ATTACH]41783[/ATTACH]

 

I have just received the following email from OAIC, seem they have their own way of reading a

 

 

Privacy complaint about Recreational Aviation Australia

 

 

Dear Mr Norwood

 

Thank you for your complaint to the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) of 5 August 2019 about Recreational Aviation Australia (RAA), made under s 36 of the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) (the Privacy Act).

 

The OAIC has considered your complaint about RAA and formed the view that there has not been an interference with your privacy. The reasons for this view are explained below. You now have an opportunity to comment before I make a final decision.

 

 

Your allegations

 

 

You allege RAA has interfered with your privacy by altering its privacy policy. You say that in April 2018 RAA added a provision in its privacy policy that allowed the disclosure of personal information to a third party.

 

You say that you were not notified of this and that a disclosure was made to the third party without your consent. In our call on 22 October 2019 you stated that RAA had updated its privacy policy to disclose your personal information to the Airport Owners Association for the purpose of the Airport Owners Association billing individuals for using their runway.

 

 

The law

 

 

The Australian Privacy Principles (APPs) in the Privacy Act regulate the collection, use, disclosure and security of personal information held by Australian government agencies and certain private sector organisations.

 

APP 1.3 requires an APP entity to have a clearly expressed and up-to-date APP Privacy Policy about how it manages personal information.

 

Under APP 6, an organisation is able to use personal information it holds if it is for the same purpose for which it was collected, or for a secondary purpose if the individual has consented, or an exception under APP 6 applies. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Our view

 

 

Based on the available information, it is my view that RAA has not interfered with your privacy as defined by the Privacy Act.

 

APP 1 does not prevent RAA from amending its privacy policy from time to time. APP 1.3 requires that RAA keep its privacy policy up to date.

 

Further, under APP 6, RAA is able to disclose personal information to third parties if the disclosure directly relates to RAA’s functions and activities and is a disclosure that you would be reasonably aware could occur.

 

The disclosure of personal information for the purpose of collecting fees associated with airport use and access would generally be considered to be related to the primary purpose of collection.

 

If RAA has updated its privacy policy to reflect which organisations it discloses to, you can be considered reasonably aware that this is a disclosure that could occur. I note that RAA also notified you by placing a notice in its monthly magazine, further making you aware of the circumstances of its disclosures. Where you are reasonably aware of that a disclosure may take place and the disclosure is directly related to purpose for which the information was collected, RAA would not need to gain your consent for this disclosure.

 

As such it appears that RAA has met the requirements of the Privacy Act.

 

I'm no law expert , but this line flies in the face of reality,

 

" Where you are reasonably aware of that a disclosure may take place and the disclosure is directly related to purpose for which the information was collected, RAA would not need to gain your consent for this disclosure." it appears this is the basis for their rejection of my appeal.

 

Could any of you more law literate folks out there enlighten me on this ??

 

I have about 14 days to appeal this.

 

 

[turboplanner]

I have just received the following email from OAIC, seem they have their own way of reading a

 

 

Privacy complaint about Recreational Aviation Australia

 

 

Dear Mr Norwood

 

Thank you for your complaint to the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) of 5 August 2019 about Recreational Aviation Australia (RAA), made under s 36 of the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) (the Privacy Act).

 

The OAIC has considered your complaint about RAA and formed the view that there has not been an interference with your privacy. The reasons for this view are explained below. You now have an opportunity to comment before I make a final decision.

 

 

Your allegations

 

 

You allege RAA has interfered with your privacy by altering its privacy policy. You say that in April 2018 RAA added a provision in its privacy policy that allowed the disclosure of personal information to a third party.

 

You say that you were not notified of this and that a disclosure was made to the third party without your consent. In our call on 22 October 2019 you stated that RAA had updated its privacy policy to disclose your personal information to the Airport Owners Association for the purpose of the Airport Owners Association billing individuals for using their runway.

 

 

The law

 

 

 

 

The Australian Privacy Principles (APPs) in the Privacy Act regulate the collection, use, disclosure and security of personal information held by Australian government agencies and certain private sector organisations.

 

APP 1.3 requires an APP entity to have a clearly expressed and up-to-date APP Privacy Policy about how it manages personal information.

 

Under APP 6, an organisation is able to use personal information it holds if it is for the same purpose for which it was collected, or for a secondary purpose if the individual has consented, or an exception under APP 6 applies. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Our view

 

 

Based on the available information, it is my view that RAA has not interfered with your privacy as defined by the Privacy Act.

 

APP 1 does not prevent RAA from amending its privacy policy from time to time. APP 1.3 requires that RAA keep its privacy policy up to date.

 

Further, under APP 6, RAA is able to disclose personal information to third parties if the disclosure directly relates to RAA’s functions and activities and is a disclosure that you would be reasonably aware could occur.

 

The disclosure of personal information for the purpose of collecting fees associated with airport use and access would generally be considered to be related to the primary purpose of collection.

 

If RAA has updated its privacy policy to reflect which organisations it discloses to, you can be considered reasonably aware that this is a disclosure that could occur. I note that RAA also notified you by placing a notice in its monthly magazine, further making you aware of the circumstances of its disclosures. Where you are reasonably aware of that a disclosure may take place and the disclosure is directly related to purpose for which the information was collected, RAA would not need to gain your consent for this disclosure.

 

As such it appears that RAA has met the requirements of the Privacy Act.

 

I'm no law expert , but this line flies in the face of reality,

 

" Where you are reasonably aware of that a disclosure may take place and the disclosure is directly related to purpose for which the information was collected, RAA would not need to gain your consent for this disclosure." it appears this is the basis for their rejection of my appeal.

 

Could any of you more law literate folks out there enlighten me on this ??

 

I have about 14 days to appeal this.

 

Hire a lawyer.

 

 

[KRviator]

I have just received the following email from OAIC, seem they have their own way of reading a

 

 

Privacy complaint about Recreational Aviation Australia

 

 

Dear Mr Norwood

 

Thank you for your complaint to the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) of 5 August 2019 about Recreational Aviation Australia (RAA), made under s 36 of the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) (the Privacy Act).

 

The OAIC has considered your complaint about RAA and formed the view that there has not been an interference with your privacy. The reasons for this view are explained below. You now have an opportunity to comment before I make a final decision.

 

 

Your allegations

 

 

You allege RAA has interfered with your privacy by altering its privacy policy. You say that in April 2018 RAA added a provision in its privacy policy that allowed the disclosure of personal information to a third party.

 

You say that you were not notified of this and that a disclosure was made to the third party without your consent. In our call on 22 October 2019 you stated that RAA had updated its privacy policy to disclose your personal information to the Airport Owners Association for the purpose of the Airport Owners Association billing individuals for using their runway.

 

 

The law

 

 

 

 

The Australian Privacy Principles (APPs) in the Privacy Act regulate the collection, use, disclosure and security of personal information held by Australian government agencies and certain private sector organisations.

 

APP 1.3 requires an APP entity to have a clearly expressed and up-to-date APP Privacy Policy about how it manages personal information.

 

Except RAAus currently has two privacy policies displayed on their website. The PDF Privacy Policy "Version 2.0" that contains the AAA clause, and THIS ONE, which I believe is "Version 2.1", or the one they changed by adding the clause. So it is not clearly expressed or up to date. Now lets see how long it is before RAAus remove that policy in another cover-up attempt (note, that policy is current and displayed on their website as at 1611 23/10/2019, so over a year since the other policy was changed,)

 

Note the line right at the bottom? "We may update our Privacy Policy from time to time. Amendments will be published on our web page www.raa.asn.au/shop" So if you were visiting that site to check on updates to the Privacy Policy, you would not be aware they have changed it, as their website is out of date, and/or their webmaster has not got an 'effin clue what he's doing.

 

Under APP 6, an organisation is able to use personal information it holds if it is for the same purpose for which it was collected, or for a secondary purpose if the individual has consented, or an exception under APP 6 applies. 

 

But you did not consent for the secondary purpose, as the "AAA Clause" was inserted after you joined RAAus, and there has been no notification to the membership or you directly about the change in the Privacy Policy before they did so, in August 2018, and started disclosing your details.

 

 

Our view

 

 

Based on the available information, it is my view that RAA has not interfered with your privacy as defined by the Privacy Act.

 

APP 1 does not prevent RAA from amending its privacy policy from time to time. APP 1.3 requires that RAA keep its privacy policy up to date.

 

Further, under APP 6, RAA is able to disclose personal information to third parties if the disclosure directly relates to RAA’s functions and activities and is a disclosure that you would be reasonably aware could occur.

 

No, you were not aware it could reasonably occur, as in the March 2017 edition of Sport Pilot, RAAus made a declaration in writing that they would not disclose your details to a third party. As such, you would expect RAAus to abide by that declaration, not perform a 180* backflip and enter into a commercial arrangement with a third party less than 18 months later.

 

Furthermore you "are concerned" that once your personal information has been disclosed to various third parties, it is no longer controlled by the RAAus Privacy Policy, and may be on-sold, used for direct marketing or more illicit activities such as identity theft, as you have no control, nor have you agreed to supply, your personal details to those third parties, nor are you able to find out who those third parties are, nor what their privacy policies contain, as the AAA refuses to disclose what members of their organisation will be able to access your personal details, as it "is private"! 

 

There is also no control over who may access the RAAus database in terms of accuracy of registration provided. Ie, Jabiru ixty-five, nineteen sounds exactly like Jabiru ifty-five, nineteen over any number of radios, except the owner of Jabiru -5519 now has their personal details provided to an airport owner they have never visited.

 

The disclosure of personal information for the purpose of collecting fees associated with airport use and access would generally be considered to be related to the primary purpose of collection.

 

How so? RAAus is not an airport operator, airport owner, and does not currently, nor have they ever, collected landing fees, or acted as an agent for collection of landing fees on behalf of an airport operator The Primary Purpose of collection of your personal details is to administer your RPC and Aircraft registration on behalf of CASA as the delegated ASAO for light aircraft. There is no remit there to collect or participate in, the collection of landing fees, either on behalf of, or directed by, CASA, or as part of our Ops Manual.

 

If RAA has updated its privacy policy to reflect which organisations it discloses to, you can be considered reasonably aware that this is a disclosure that could occur. I note that RAA also notified you by placing a notice in its monthly magazine, further making you aware of the circumstances of its disclosures. Where you are reasonably aware of that a disclosure may take place and the disclosure is directly related to purpose for which the information was collected, RAA would not need to gain your consent for this disclosure.

 

Presumably your consent for collection of personal information was before the AAA Clause was inserted, and as RAAus is the only entity which administers ultralight aircraft, there is no alternative to opt out. You agreed to the collection of Personal Information for the administration of your RPC and aircraft registration, the mailing of the monthly magazine and email correspondence relating to safety notices, etc, these may be considered to require your personal information and you consented to disclose it to receive such services.

 

 

[KRviator]

Looks like I can't edit the above to add the privacy policy as well, but here it is from RAAus website: https://shop.raa.asn.au/privacy-policy/ 1626 AEDT on the 23rd October 2019. Click HERE for a JPG if the embedded version doesn't work. 

 

 

 

 

[Keith Page]

OK?? Regarding the privacy issues with the matter of theses organisation *AAA *OAIC *RAAus.

 

Here is another clear case of "Right to Know" over the last week and a bit the issue of you have the "Right to Know" has been broadcast loud and clear. To me this is just another case of telling people when it is on the road to be well planned. The instigators should be held to account, they are keeping secrets from us.

 

To me there has been a lot of secret planning happening behind closed doors. Why have not we been told in the planning phase. 

 

The members/public get to know what the shenanigans are, only when the shenanigan perpetrators have all plans active. 

 

KP.

 

 

[Guest Bristell]

I see where you’re coming from Keith. RAaus policy has always been that we should pay our landing fees but of course most people would have been guilty of taking advantage of the free intermezzo which lasted for about three years. If they had advised the membership that Raaus were in negotiations with AAA over this there would have been a riot and we would probably be more annoyed than we are now. I’m not an apologist for the Board but I can understand the pressure they must have been under to find a solution given their Control Zone aspirations etc. It just doesn’t pass the pub test to on the one hand claim we are a respectable organisation and on the other hand have all these members flying around and avoiding paying landing fees. Of all the costs associated with my flying about 150 hours a year, I find the Avdata bill the most irritating. One wonders though what else might be going on behind the scenes we don’t know about?

 

 

[turboplanner]

I see where you’re coming from Keith. RAaus policy has always been that we should pay our landing fees but of course most people would have been guilty of taking advantage of the free intermezzo which lasted for about three years. If they had advised the membership that Raaus were in negotiations with AAA over this there would have been a riot and we would probably be more annoyed than we are now. I’m not an apologist for the Board but I can understand the pressure they must have been under to find a solution given their Control Zone aspirations etc. It just doesn’t pass the pub test to on the one hand claim we are a respectable organisation and on the other hand have all these members flying around and avoiding paying landing fees. Of all the costs associated with my flying about 150 hours a year, I find the Avdata bill the most irritating. One wonders though what else might be going on behind the scenes we don’t know about?

 

Well, what has been going on is theft.

 

 

[Thruster88]

As a dual citizen I can't understand what all the fuss is about, it is just a levelling of the playing field. Cowra is a nice place to stop with fuel, maintenance and no fee.

 

 

[Downunder]

GA have no membership fees or rego but their details are public and they are billed.

 

RAA PAY membership fees and rego but no public address.

 

That was the status quo.

 

Pilots made their choice as to which aviation avenue they prefered.

 

 

[Thruster88]

GA have no membership fees or rego but their details are public and they are billed.

 

RAA PAY membership fees and rego but no public address.

 

That was the status quo.

 

Pilots made their choice as to which aviation avenue they prefered.

 

Not all aircraft will fit into both camps, neither of mine do, no choice for me.

 

 

[turboplanner]

GA have no membership fees or rego but their details are public and they are billed.

 

RAA PAY membership fees and rego but no public address.

 

That was the status quo.

 

Pilots made their choice as to which aviation avenue they prefered.

 

This is a good example of the root of the problem.

 

In neither case were these organisations responsible, and nor did they establish any policies for airfield owners to recover their operating costs.

 

The service provided by the airfield, which then asked for a fee for its use, was and is a direct relationship between the airfield and the pilot.

 

If an airfield charges a fee for a landing and you land, you are required to pay them.

 

The fact that one group of pilots hasn't been paying them led to a more direct way of identifying them.

 

It's a pity that the management of RAA over the years hasn't motivated the pilots to pay, and it doesn't say much for them that all of a sudden they are providing the hammer to nail them, but you cannot forget that at the root of it is people who have been landing and avoiding payment.

 

Push it harder and it will come back on you harder.

 

 

[Guest Bristell]

Absolutely correct Turboplanner!

 

 

[Jim McDowall]

disclosure is directly related to purpose for which the information was collected, RAA would not need to gain your consent for this disclosure

 

It would appear that this is the key phrase. For what purpose does RAAus collect information and how does this information related to assisting others in their commercial operations (if my belief that the local government legislation would regard this revenue as a "commercial" activity is correct.)

 

 

[facthunter]

Try getting information of a car  that you have taken the number of.  With RAAus, asking of whether you want your information divulged would infer that you have a choice, which in fact , you don't apparently. Avdata take a fair % of the transaction fee which will therefore require to be increased to compensate at some future time .  Why is not the option to pay directly available? Debt collectors are not usually brought in until your account is in arrears. Anyone can look up details of AIRCRAFT OWNERS That appears to be questionable situation compared with what applies to car ownership What is so precious about car owners? Or perhaps, why aren't planes treated the same? Cars are more likely to adversely  affect  ordinary citizens than  small non commercial planes are. Nev

 

 

[KRviator]

Try getting information of a car  that you have taken the number of.  <SNIP> What is so precious about car owners? Or perhaps, why aren't planes treated the same? Cars are more likely to adversely  affect  ordinary citizens than  small non commercial planes are. Nev

 

I noted this in my reply to the OIAC last week, along the lines of "To get access to the Motor Registry requires legal action or a court order, the RTA can't "simply change their privacy policy" to allow a shopping center to issue invoices. Begs the question why the Civil Aircraft Register is public domain at all. Boats aren't. Cars aren't. Motorcycles aren't. Planes? Well, they're owned by toffee-nosed rich people, so what if their details are in the public domain?!?