在新西兰
ACC给那些因敏感隐私被泄密而求偿的客户（他们的名字被误发给Bronwyn Pullar）只提供250元赔付金，完全不合情理。 那些因为名字被泄而至隐私受侵的客户的案子涉及身体受侵害及因此造成的精神损害，其中一些案
 |
那些因为名字被泄而至隐私受侵的客户的案子涉及身体受侵害及因此造成的精神损害，其中一些案子涉及性侵。
很多人跟我联系，说意识到他们的名字及案子的情况被外泄造成他们精神上极大的焦虑，单凭这一条ACC理应给他们更多的赔偿。
ACC提出的这个偿额多重加剧了已有的不公。
ACC告诉人们说，涉及敏感的案例资料只由一小部分ACC员工管理，可是显然很多其他员工都能接触到这些敏感资讯，更过份的是这些资料竟留在Bronwyn Pullar手中超过6个月之久。
无论怎么看，这都是对极为弱势的人群的隐私权的严重侵犯，他们应得到更好的补偿。
ACC一直坚持用保密条款作挡箭牌，这太讽刺了――因为ACC正是唯一一个表现出无法恪守保密协议的一方。
我们建议隐私受侵的客户拒绝ACC的这一偿额提议，如果ACC没有提出更合理的赔偿额，那么请大家向隐私权委员会反映情况。（霍建强议员办公室供稿）
27 June 2012 MEDIA STATEMENT
Pitiful offer for ACC privacy breach unjust
The offer by ACC of $250 to sensitive claims clients who had their privacy breached when their names were sent to Bronwyn Pullar is woefully inadequate, says Labour’s ACC spokesperson Andrew Little.
“Claimants affected by the breach of privacy had their names --- and the fact they had a sensitive claim --- disclosed,” Andrew Little said. “Claimants registered with the sensitive claims unit have claims that relate to physical and mental injuries resulting from abuse, including sexual abuse.
“Many of the people who are contacting me are saying the mere fact that their names and nature of their claim went to someone else caused them considerable anxiety and this alone warrants a better offer than the one they’ve received.
“This offer heaps injustice upon injustice,” Andrew Little said.
“ACC tells people making sensitive claims that their information will be handled by a small number of ACC staff, but it’s clear that many other staff have had access to this information, and then it has also been in Bronwyn Pullar’s possession for more than six months.
“Any way you look at it, this was a serious breach of privacy of people who are unusually vulnerable and who deserve better.
“The insistence by ACC of a confidentiality clause is remarkable given ACC is the only one that has shown it cannot abide by such an undertaking,” Andrew Little said.
“We are advising people receiving this offer to tell ACC they reject it, and if a better offer is not made to refer their case to the Privacy Commissioner.”