Welcome to PrivacyInfo.ca, a site maintained by Professor Michael Geist of the University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law. The site features summaries of all of the Canadian Privacy Commissioner's decisions under the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) . While those decisions are available in full-text on the Commissioner's site, this site provides additional search functionality, including full-text searches as well as searching by individual provisions, sector, and outcome.
The site also contains links to Canadian privacy legislation, privacy law news, and other resources. For regular updates of new decisions and additions to the site, click here.
This site is not affiliated in any way with the Canadian Privacy Commissioner's office. It is provided for informational purposes only and should not be treated or relied upon as legal advice.
The Privacy Commissioner of Canada has released a letter she wrote in response in concerns about Bill C-61. Commissioner Stoddart expresses clear concern about the anti-circumvention provisions, noting that:
the amendments would allow companies to use digital rights management (DRM) software on media sold to Canadian consumers. These tools have been used in the past to collect personal information without users' knowledge or consent. DRM software has also been shown to create other security problems. These practices largely ignore the principles found in Canada’s private-sector privacy legislation, the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act. As a result, I have asked the Ministers who oversee the copyright file to consider the privacy implications of any new law.
The National Post reports on the glitches (or overwhelming demand) on day one of Canada's do-not-call registry. iOptOut.ca experienced a huge traffic spike as well, sending out roughly one million opt-out requests over the past two days.
My weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) discusses the implications of an Internet that never forgets. I note that the most significant Internet effect during the current campaign has not been any particular online video, website or Facebook group. Instead, it has been the resignation of eight local candidates based on embarrassing or controversial information unearthed online. Many observers have blamed the revelations on inadequate vetting processes, yet the reality is that these incidents shine the spotlight on an important but rarely discussed aspect of the Internet. Old blog postings, chat room discussions, or difficult-to-explain videos are captured by search engine databases and lie dormant until an intrepid searcher comes across it. In other words, the Internet never forgets. The effect of a technology that never forgets marks a dramatic change in the way that we deal with the past. Most people have older embarrassing stories or incidents that they would prefer to forget. Before the emergence of the Internet and cheap data storage, they had little reason to fear that these might come to light. Today's digital generation will have a much different relationship with their past. In an always-on environment, videos, photographs, blog postings, and discussion room comments live forever online. There are certainly great advantages to creating large, personal archives that are immediately accessible with sophisticated search technologies. However, as the now former election candidates recently learned, there is also great potential for negative consequences.
Candidates for public office may be fair game given the right of voters to fully vet their elected representatives. But the Internet that never forgets does not stop with politicians. The born digital generation enthusiastically posts everything from party photos to their thoughts on the issues of the day. This content has a "Hotel California" quality to it - you can post it anytime you like, but it never leaves. The postings may have seemed like a good idea at the time, but there is a concern that future employers or academic admissions officers will adopt a different perspective.
Search engines such as Google are frequently the first place people turn to when they want to learn more about a potential applicant or interviewee. More sophisticated tools for uncovering blog postings or Facebook entries are now readily available, providing the potential to develop detailed online profiles that may or may not reflect the real person.
Given that people will likely post more rather than less in the coming years, there is a need to reconsider how this online story is interpreted. The conventional approach might be to take everything at face value, viewing the embarrassing content as reflecting a character fault in the person (for that reason, new services that seek to scrub online postings have begun to emerge).
Companies, schools, and other organizations should resist the temptation to judge based on a years-old blog posting or video, however. If the cameras are always on, they are bound to catch something that people would prefer be kept private. Similarly, if social interaction means posting content online, some regrettable comments are sure to follow. The Internet may never forget, but sometimes we should be willing to.
There is considerable media attention today on tomorrow's launch of the National Do-Not-Call List. Starting tomorrow, Canadians will be able to register up to three phone numbers on the DNCL. Organizations will have 31 days to abide by the request. Failure to do so can result in penalties of up to $15,000. Bell Canada is running the list, while the CRTC will enforce it.
As regular readers know, I have dubbed the list the do-not-hesitate-to-call list given the large number of exceptions. Indeed, some estimates indicate that 85 percent of telemarketing calls will be exempt under the DNCL. These include exemptions for political parties, charities, survey companies, newspapers, and business with a prior business relationship (which is very broadly defined). Moreover, there are jurisdictional problems with the DNCL since it only applies to (or can only be enforced against) Canadian telemarketing practices.
Notwithstanding the exceptions, the law includes a crucially important requirement on exempt organizations. With the exception of survey companies, all other exempt organizations must maintain their own internal DNCL. That means that Canadians can specifically opt-out of exempt organization telemarketing calls and the organization will be required to abide by the request (failure to do so brings the same potential penalties). If you don't want further calls, register on the National DNCL and take the opportunity to ask that your number be placed on the internal DNCL for exempt organizations. Alternatively, iOptOut.ca, which I launched earlier this year and which the CRTC has ruled is enforceable, makes it easy to opt-out of many exempt organizations with a few clicks. In the coming days, iOptOut, which has been used by more than 50,000 people, will be expanding the database of included organizations and will be launching a French language version.
With a federal election now set for October 14th, the coming weeks will be dominated by political debate as each party seeks to make their case to voters across the country. My weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) notes that the election mode marks an important role reversal - after months of Canadians working to gain the attention of their elected officials, those same politicians will be knocking on doors, making phone calls, and participating in all-candidates meetings in an effort to seek them out.
The 2008 election therefore presents an exceptional opportunity to raise the profile of digital issues. Not only do these policies touch on so-called core concerns such as the economy, the environment, education, and health care, but they also resonate with younger Canadians, who could help swing the balance of power in many ridings. In the United States election, both Barack Obama and John McCain have unveiled detailed digital policy positions. Canadian leaders have yet to promote their policies, but there are at least five worth watching and asking about.
1. Spectrum surplus - The recent wireless spectrum auction generated over $4 billion for the federal government, nearly triple initial estimates. The Conservatives committed in the 2008 budget to allocate the funds to debt reduction. The Liberals, meanwhile, focused on the opportunity to use the surplus revenues to kick-start long delayed plans to provide high-speed Internet access to all Canadians. Where do the parties stand on the use of the spectrum proceeds and on universal broadband access from coast to coast to coast?
2. Wireless competition - The sorry state of the Canadian wireless marketplace has been well documented in recent months with high profile incidents involving text message charges and high data pricing. New competitors are slated to debut in late 2009, yet Canadians continue to face high prices and limited choice. Are the political parties content with the status quo? If not, would they consider additional measures such as the removal of foreign ownership restrictions or new openness requirements in the next spectrum auction?
3. Net neutrality - Network neutrality emerged as a major issue this year with a political rally on Parliament Hill, the introduction of a Private Member's bill, and a heated regulatory battle between Bell and independent Internet service providers at the CRTC. The same is true in the U.S., where the Federal Communications Commission (the CRTC's counterpart) ordered cable giant Comcast to abide by net neutrality principles. Where do Canada's political parties stand on net neutrality? If the CRTC concludes that it does not possess the regulatory power to address the issue, would they be prepared to introduce legislative reforms?
4. Copyright - Few issues generated as much attention this summer as copyright with some Members of Parliament acknowledging that the controversial Bill C-61 was one of the most discussed constituent concerns. With the bill now dead, each party should be asked to articulate its plan for the future. Would the Conservatives reintroduce the bill unchanged? Would the Liberals scrap the bill and hold public consultations as several of their MPs have suggested? Would the NDP continue its strong opposition to the C-61 approach?
5. Privacy reform - Over the past year, the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy, and Ethics held hearings on potential reforms to both PIPEDA (the private sector privacy law) and the Privacy Act (the public sector privacy law). These reform initiatives - including a recommendation to implement long-awaited mandatory security breach disclosure legislation - have now stalled with the election call. None of the political parties have staked out a clear position on privacy legislation. This election campaign provides an opportunity to put the issue, along with other digital concerns, squarely on the policy agenda.
Assistant Privacy Commissioner has ruled that the privacy risks posed by the USA Patriot Act are similar to those found in Canada and therefore not grounds to rule that the privacy protection afforded by a U.S. email provider is not comparable to Canadian-based providers. The finding arises from a complaint launched by CIPPIC against Canada.com over the use of a U.S.-based provider. In assessing the USA Patriot Act issue, the Assistant Privacy Commissioner found that:
The risk of a U.S.-based service provider being ordered to disclose personal information to U.S. authorities is not a risk unique to U.S. organizations. In the national security and anti-terrorism context, Canadian organizations are subject to (and may be just as likely to receive) similar types of orders to disclose personal information of Canadians to Canadian authorities. There are also several former bilateral agreements in place between analogous Canadian and U.S. organizations that provide for the cooperation and exchange of relevant information. In light of such arrangements, there are many alternatives to a Section 215 Order to obtain information about Canadians.
I focused on these issues several years ago in a submission to the B.C. Information and Privacy Commissioner co-authored with Milana Homsi.
posted
on Tue. Aug. 19/08
Site Last Updated: 2008-10-29 Copyright (c) 2003 Michael Geist
First (12/06/2007)
Previous
#12 of 27
Next 
Last (12/01/2009) 
