Court says University sanction over Facebook postings violated Charter

October 15, 2010

An Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench has issued a precedent setting ruling that relates to Facebook comments and, specifically, whether the Charter of Rights and Freedoms can apply to universities.  In the case of Pridgen v. University of Calgary, the court ruled that the post-secondary institution violated two students’ Charter rights when it sanctioned them for posting critical comments about a professor on Facebook.  The students were found by the University to have committed non-academic misconduct and were placed on probation as a result of their Facebook comments.  They applied for judicial review to set aside that decision on various grounds, including that their right to free expression under the Charter.  The University argued before the court that the students had committed acts of defamation on Facebook. 

One of the big issues in the case related to whether or not the Charter applies to universities.  The University argued that the Charter only applies to government institutions and did not apply in this particular case because the University is not part of the government and was engaged in regulating its own internal affairs when disciplining the students.  Earlier court decisions have left open the possibility that the Charter might apply to subordinate bodies created and supported by the government, including “many forms of delegated legislation, regulations, orders in council, possibly municipal by-laws, and by-laws and regulations of other creatures of Parliament and the legislatures”.  In this particular case, the court declared that “the University is not a Charter free zone”.  As a result, and considering the particular facts of this case, the court ruled that the students’ Charter rights were infringed by the manner in which they were sanctioned for their online behavior.  A University spokesman has indicated that its legal staff will review the decision to determine whether there will be an appeal.


A Conversation with Elizabeth Denham, British Columbia’s Information and Privacy Commissioner

October 12, 2010

Continuing a series of blog posts that I’m calling “A Conversation with…”, I’m delighted to post the following conversation with British Columbia’s new Information and Privacy Commissioner, Elizabeth Denham

Canada’s privacy community will know that Commissioner Denham brings to her new role a wealth of experience and accomplishment. Her resume includes Assistant Privacy Commissioner of Canada and Director, Private Sector, for the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Alberta. I’ve had the pleasure of knowing Commissioner Denham for some time and have always appreciated her practicality and great sense of humour. B.C. will undoubtedly be well-served.

Of course, I’d like to thank Commissioner Denham for agreeing to engage in this online conversation.  If you’d like to learn more about Elizabeth Denhem or B.C.’s Information and Privacy Commissioner’s Office (“OIPC”), I’d encourage you to visit the OIPC’s website (www.oipc.bc.ca).

Q – You served as Assistant Privacy Commissioner of Canada until being appointed BC’s Information and Privacy Commissioner in July 2010. How are things going in your new role?

A – It is a good thing that I am a recreational runner, because I have certainly hit the ground running! This is an extremely busy office, due to the scope and nature of the work and to the fact that I have inherited one of the leanest oversight agencies in the country. I am very lucky to have a team of hardworking, enthusiastic and seasoned professionals to support me.

While I do have “in the trenches” FOI experience, that was more than 10 years ago, forcing a quick re-immersion into the duties of ensuring accountable and transparent government. Since my appointment I have issued a report on the timeliness of government responses to access requests, worked on a strategy for government-wide proactive disclosure and executed our annual tribute to open government, Right to Know Week.

However, in my view the biggest challenge facing me in this term is public sector privacy issues. The government has ambitious plans for data sharing across ministries, to create linked electronic databases. It is my immediate priority to ensure that privacy is baked into BC’s e-government programs, including e-health.

Q – I’ve long considered BC one of the most progressive privacy jurisdictions in Canada. How has this happened and what can other provinces/territories learn from BC’s privacy community?

A – I think there are a number of factors that has put BC out in front with respect to privacy. My two predecessors, David Flaherty and David Loukidelis, are without a doubt two of the top privacy experts, and their ability to break trail has benefited all of BC. The former Commissioners were very skilled at making privacy a common topic of discussion and spreading the word about privacy rights and obligations. BC also has active and engaged civil society pushing hard for access and privacy rights, and I am referring to the BC Freedom of Information and Privacy Association as well as the BC Civil Liberties Association as key thought leaders. Finally, the citizens of BC have a reputation for being politically aware and engaged, and unafraid to bring burning issues to the forefront. I think the key learning outcome for other jurisdictions is work hard at capacity building and public outreach, and encourage other groups to actively enter the policy debates around access and privacy. We need other voices. Regulators cannot do it alone.

Q – Given that BC has a provincial privacy law (PIPA) that is “substantially similar” to PIPEDA, and considering that many readers of this blog are from outside BC (and Canada), can you briefly highlight the most important things that businesses should know about BC’s private sector regime?

I think the three most important points are these:

First, make sure you have a legitimate operational need to collect any personal information. This requires ongoing monitoring to ensure the operational requirement still exists, and routinely and safely purging personal information no longer required. Personal information is both an asset and a liability, and collecting and retaining personal information when no reason exists is a huge business risk.

Second, be transparent about what you are doing with the personal information you collect in the course of your operations, and ensure that anyone that you hire on your behalf behaves in the same manner.

Finally, data safeguards, or rather the lack thereof, remain the primary source of privacy breaches and a threat to your business brand. Safeguards are much more than passwords and locked cabinets—they include proper and ongoing staff training, privacy audits and assessing the privacy impacts of new policies, programs or services. Safeguarding personal information requires ongoing attention, and a willingness and ability to adjust the safeguard strategy when needed.

Q – Your work in the area of social networking as been outstanding, which in the case of Facebook resulted in a number of changes to the social networking site—changes that were implemented on a global basis. Some readers may presume that a privacy commissioner such as you wouldn’t use social networking sites. In my case, I’m active on LinkedIn. How about you?

A – I have several accounts with social networks, including Facebook and LinkedIn. I first joined the networks because I wanted to deeply understand the services, and their functionality; this was critical to my work. But Facebook also helps me keep track of my far-flung 20-something children who live their lives on-line! But I am a savvy consumer of these services, and obviously avail myself to all of the privacy controls they offer. I do not post anything on either of those sites that is not already publicly available or any information that I would not hesitate to make public. I am very careful before downloading any third party application—carefully scrutinizing their privacy policies beforehand.

Q - In your view, what kind of privacy developments should we watch for in the coming year in British Columbia?

A – On the government side, I think the primary issues will be an increase in the development of linked data networks containing personal information bringing risks to transparency, appropriate access, use and disclosure and a heightened risk of transmission of inaccurate and incomplete information.

On the private sector side, I know we will see more collaboration and cooperative oversight between the federal and provincial commissioners. New technologies and business models challenge the ability of any office to “go it alone”. Canada is a leading voice on privacy and new technologies. I look forward to working with my colleagues on smart, relevant and timely oversight.


Let’s talk privacy and access to information

September 27, 2010

CJOB|680′s Geoff Currier recently asked me to participate in his live radio program called “The Nighthawk”. Geoff and callers raised a number of issues related to privacy and access to information law including the following question that Geoff asked… “Once I go on Twitter/Facebook, do I automatically surrender my privacy rights?  In Vancouver wherein an alleged gang rape and some photos of the victim were posted online and distributed out there…what does our law say about that? You are standing on Portage & Main and you kiss your wife and I happen to take a photograph of that… is that an invasion of your privacy?” To hear the answer to this and other questions please listen to the live broadcast recording here>>

Thanks to Geoff Currier and CJOB|680 for the invitation to participate in the program.


Big Brother watching, but we don’t care

September 3, 2010

Canadians are concerned about their privacy, right? I know, because they tell me so on Facebook. Go figure.

On one hand, we say we care about our privacy. And then we engage in activities, especially online, that compromise our privacy. So are we privacy hawks or, in this age of social media, do we believe privacy is dead? Actually, the answer is somewhere in between.  Read more HERE>>


Social Media and the Workplace webinar: Watch now!

May 20, 2010

Thanks to everyone from Europe, the U.S. and across Canada who attended last week’s Social Media and the Workplace webinar. If you didn’t have a chance to attend, you can now watch the webinar here.

Related information on this blog that may be of interest to you includes this audio link to my recent CJOB|68 radio interview with Human Resources specialist Barbara Bowes in which we discuss privacy issues in the workplace. You may also want to read this article I penned with my colleague Andrew Buck entitled Monitoring Employee Email: A Privacy Primer. And, of course, you can use the blog’s “Tags” to navigate to specific content of interest.


Employee monitoring in today’s workplace

May 10, 2010

There’s no question that as we dive deeper into the information age technology will continue to permeate the workplace. Tech gadgets such as iPhones and Blackberries are cheaper and more convenient than ever before.  But as the workplace becomes inundated with these tech tools, businesses increasingly have to ask themselves how they can manage the corresponding legal risks inevitably raised by empowering a legion of employees armed with Smartphones. If only there was “an app for that”!

The “fuel” for many gadgets currently in the workplace is data, which may or may not relate to the employer. And I’m not just thinking of Smartphones provided by the employer.  I’m also thinking of social media websites such as Facebook and Twitter, which are often accessed after work hours on employees’ home computers.

What happens when an employer uses data gleaned from a company-owed iPhone or Blackberry to monitor an employee in the workplace? What about monitoring an employee’s Facebook page? After all, it’s not uncommon for information about an employer or its clients to appear on an employee’s Facebook page. Further, some employees have no second thoughts whatsoever about posting personal messages during paid company time. Many employers are introducing social media policies to mitigate the resulting legal risks. But how far should employers go to protect their interests?

Today’s post is the first in a series that I’ll publish in the coming weeks to provide you with an overview of legal developments regarding monitoring in the workplace, with a focus on employer monitoring of employee social media and Smartphone activities. Upcoming posts will also examine workplace privacy issues related to email, video and GPS monitoring. Stay tuned… 

In the meantime, click here to listen to my recent CJOB|68 radio interview with Human Resources specialist Barbara Bowes in which we discuss privacy issues in the workplace. You may also want to attend a complimentary Social Media in the Workplace webinar that I’ll be providing with a few of my colleagues next week (May 19th). Click here for info and to register (space is limited so register soon).


Why the banks want to be your Facebook friend: Canadian Business Online

April 13, 2010

Canadian Business Online is asking if you “ever wonder who’s checking your Facebook profile? Sure, there are probably the old standbys, like your high-school crush and your nosy co-worker, but you should be aware that there might be someone else checking you out: your banker. Financial institutions of all stripes have been scouring social-networking sites since the days when MySpace was all the rage; now they troll Facebook, Twitter and blogs to find out more about their customers. Don’t be surprised if soon they take the information they’ve found about you and use it to determine your creditworthiness.”

Yours truly was interviewed by Canadian Business Online for this article and, as you’ll see, I comment that I’m not aware of whether, or to what extent, the big banks and credit card companies are using personal information that’s publicly available on social networking websites to determine credit worthiness.  That being said, in the insurance industry “using information from social-networking sites has already become commonplace”. The message that I’d take from this article is that Canadians’ understanding of privacy, and the ground rules for managing publicly available personal information that we willingly post online, is rapidly evolving.  

Read the Canadian Business Online article here>.


Israeli military ‘unfriends’ soldier after Facebook leak: BBC

March 18, 2010

In what should serve as a valuable reminder of the need to educate employees about what constitutes acceptable postings on social networking websites, BBC is reporting that “the Israeli military cancelled a planned raid on a Palestinian village after one of its soldiers posted details of the operation on Facebook. The unnamed soldier revealed the time and place of the raid and the name of his unit on the social networking site.”

I’ve previously commented on social networking websites and employer-employee relationships.  This BBC report is just one more example of a situation which may have been prevented with better employee training and a clear social networking policy.  Common sense should, and typically does, guide employees in determining what to post online. Yet, if an Israeli soldier can’t think twice before posting the details of a planned operation it’s easy to see how some employees of Canadian businesses – perhaps yours - unintentionally post valuable corporate information online.


No clear cut protection from YouTube

March 5, 2010

Over the past two weeks nearly a million people around the globe have viewed a couple of YouTube videos filmed and posted by Churchill High School students, which show two of their teachers performing a simulated lap dance.

The identities of the teachers have been widely reported. Now the question is: Could the teachers sue the students for violating their privacy?

Read more>>


Website discussion boards: Who’s responsible for defamatory comments?

November 9, 2009

Internet ForumA great feature of website discussion boards is that they allow people to instantly share thoughts on a given topic with others from their community or around the world.  However, they are fraught with complicated legal issues for the businesses, or website operators, who make them available on the Internet.

To prove defamation, a claimant must demonstrate that a defendant “published” defamatory words. Currently in Canada it’s clear that a person who posts defamatory comments about another person or business on a discussion board can be liable for defamation.  It’s also clear, as I’ve mentioned in a previous post, that a person or business may be liable in certain circumstances if they hyperlink to defamatory content on another website.  But what about defamatory comments made by others on your website? The answer is less than clear, primarily because of two generally competing public policy views. One view is that website operators should not be liable for defamatory content posted on their discussion boards because the task of monitoring is too onerous for most businesses; and that website operators aren’t “publishing” the defamatory content but are merely “distributing” (which generally doesn’t attract liability for defamation). The other view is that website operators should be liable because the potential for instantaneous and severe damage to claimant’s reputations caused by online defamation should compel website operators to monitor, and be responsible for, their discussion boards.

After American courts struggled with these competing public policy views, the U.S. Congress passed legislation granting immunity to businesses that operate website discussion boards, regardless of the level of control that website operators may have regarding posted comments.  The case of Finkel v. Facebook is a recent example of the immunity that can be provided to U.S. based companies. There is no similar “immunity” legislation in Canada, and the specific issue has not yet come before a Canadian court.  Of course, each case is decided on its own facts, and one would anticipate that key factors a Canadian court would consider would be a website’s Terms of Use, the degree of control and content monitoring by a website operator, and any actions a website operator took (or didn’t take) in response to a notice from a third party regarding defamatory comments.

This is a rapidly emerging area of law, and businesses should consult a lawyer with relevant expertise to assist in drafting adequate Terms of Use and to discuss potential risks prior to launching, or continuing to host, a website discussion board.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 77 other followers