What are Internet cached webpages? 

When search engines such as Google, Yahoo, and Bing crawl a website, they take a snapshot of what the site looks like at that time. This “snapshot” is known as a cached webpage and it’s stored by the search engine. The cached webpage is what the search engine then uses to determine whether the site matches a user’s specific query.

When a user clicks on the cached webpage, they will be taken to the version of the webpage that was online when the site was last crawled and not the current version. The cached webpage can be accessed when the current version of the site is unavailable due to Internet congestion, a slow website, or the webpage has recently been removed.

How can you deal with Internet cached webpages?

It is very difficult to remove a cached webpage from a search engine if you’re not the webmaster of the website. If you’re not the webmaster and you’d like a cached page removed from Google, Yahoo or Bing, you have three options:

1. You can contact the site administrator and ask them to take the steps necessary to have the cached webpage removed from the search engine in question. Google typically responds to such requests from webmasters within 2-3 hours and Yahoo typically responds in 5 hours;
2. You can seek a court order or other legal document to have certain content removed from the website/cached webpage; or
3. You can just wait until the search engine crawls the site again and updates its cached webpages. This option can take the longest amount of time to see results since it might be 1-2 months before the site is crawled again.

Google offers an additional tool to have a cached webpage removed by a party who does not own the webpage in question. My understanding is that this process will only work for HTML pages and will not work for PDFs or .doc files):

1. The webpage must be have been updated since the cached version;
2. Go to (http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=1663691) and click on Google Public URL Removal Tool;
3. Sign in to Google;
4. Then it will prompt you for the URL you’d like removed;
5. Click Continue;
6. Type a word that appears on the out-of-date cached version of the page but not anywhere on the live version. Its better to use single words and not phrases; and
7. Click Remove cache.

Given the technical nature of this topic, and fact that I’m not a techie, I’d recommend that you work with a technology professional and not rely on this post. That being said I hope this helps and at least provides you with some general information to get you started.

More to follow on this important Bill.

In 2008, Toyota Matrix advertised the “Your Other You” campaign which targeted young males. It encouraged individuals to provide someone else’s personal information, who would then receive an invitation to a fake personality test.  What really happened was, the “victim” ended up receiving numerous disturbing emails from an imaginary soccer hooligan with a pitbull named Trigger.  This impersonator claimed to be on their way to the victim’s house, who had no idea it was a hoax. In order to promote the advertising campaign, a fake social networking account for the stalker was even set up.

How would a similar case play out here in Canada? Under the PIPEDA framework , there would possibly be a violation of the law because of the alleged collection, use and disclosure of personal information without consent. Further, PIPEDA’s requirement that the “identified purposes” of any collection, use or disclosure of personal information would not likely met. Finally, the reasonableness test, enshrined in PIPEDA, would probably be violated. In short, the facts pertaining to the case could put the relevant parties in the crosshairs of the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada and courts. As a result, the case should serve as a warning to advertising agencies to ensure that privacy law considerations are thoroughly canvassed with legal counsel before initiating campaigns involving personal information – especially where people are submitting friends’ data.

Some things you may not know… Under the default settings, when a person tags you in a status update this will appear on your profile. Therefore you may want to consider using the new tag/post review features in order to allow you to choose whether it makes it onto your wall or not. The default settings are set to “off”. When someone tags you in a post, it will be that person’s privacy settings that have final say over what is visible unless you specifically adjust the settings pertaining to posts you are tagged in. So make sure you personalize your privacy settings individually, because a “one size fits all” approach may not be in your best interests.

Do these changes require you to revisit your privacy settings? Your privacy settings should not have changed from what they were before, however some simplifications have been made. Therefore it is important that you check your settings to see what settings are now controlled “inline” (again, meaning adjustable for each separate post whether it be a picture, post or other information) and make sure that these inline controls are by default set to what you want.

What should you be doing moving forward? It is important to remember that Facebook is continually updating its layout, and this includes its privacy templates. While users should not fear that their settings will completely reset each time such changes occur, they should keep a close eye on new features that may (1) replace an existing feature; (2) remove an existing feature entirely; or (3) introduce something entirely different, which might require some tweaking from its default settings.

I’m delighted to let you know about a cool feature on Pitblado’s new website called the “Whiteboard Sessions”, which are vlogs (or video blogs). We’ve just posted a 3 minute vlog of mine entitled “Are you a spammer?“, wherein I discuss:  

• highlights of the new law
• why you should care 
• an overview of the rules  
• penalties for non-compliance; and
• proactive tips to help comply with the law

To watch “Are you a spammer?” please click here>>

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

“I am deeply troubled by the large number of major breaches we are seeing, including serious incidents in recent weeks that have affected hundreds of thousands of Canadians,’’ Jennifer Stoddart said in a speech today at the Canada 3.0 forum in Stratford, Ont. “It seems to me that it’s time to begin imposing fines – significant, attention-getting fines – on companies when poor privacy and security practices lead to breaches.” To learn more, read the complete news release.

Other related blog posts include Employee monitoring in today’s workplace and Social media: Is your organization’s head in the sand?

You see Canada’s private-sector privacy legislation (PIPEDA) requires organizations to retain personal information only “as long as necessary”, regardless of the format in which such information is held. So emails and paper records alike should only be retained as long as necessary.

I know that many organizations across Canada are struggling to develop business-friendly retention schedules that comply with the law. In some cases, these businesses are outsourcing their efforts. Do you work with such a company? Does your company offer these services? If so, I know that readers of this blog would welcome any positive recommendations. Feel free to post a “Comment” below with your thoughts.

• Raising awareness about youth privacy
• Does Canada have the privacy legislation it needs?
• New guidance document on biometrics and privacy
• OPC news 

Doing the presentation made me think that it might help your organization to highlight the following previous posts… Hope they help!

• Social media: Is your organization’s head in the sand?
• Social Media and the Workplace webinar: Watch now!
• Employee monitoring in today’s workplace
• Adam Herstein’s excellent post called That’s Just Not Acceptable – Acceptable Use Policies in the Workplace

Yet in recent days, privacy issues have impacted school buses, casinos and garbage bins. This may seem odd when most privacy news stories these days deal with Facebook and other websites. But the world of privacy is increasingly affecting just about every segment of society. Read more>>

The police had asked a local utility company to attach a digital recording ammeter (DRA) to the electric meter on a home in order to monitor electrical usage. The data gleaned from the DRA and from other sources was then used to obtain a warrant to search the home. The search resulted in exposing a marijuana grow op. The defence argued that the installation of the DRA infringed the privacy rights of the accused to be secure against unreasonable search contained in Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

A critical factual consideration, on which much of the disagreement in the case turned, was the degree to which the use of DRA technology reveals private information. The SCC ultimately decided that DRA technology merely indicates electricity use, not what the electricity was used for, so it was a reasonable loss of privacy.

Here’s an excerpt from the decision:

The central issue in this case is thus whether the DRA discloses intimate details of the lifestyle and personal choices of the individual that form part of the biographical core data protected by the Charter’s guarantee of informational privacy.  The evidence available on the record offers no foundation for concluding that the information disclosed by the utility company yielded any useful information at all about household activities of an intimate or private nature that form part of the inhabitants’ biographical core data.  The DRA’s capabilities depend of course on the state of the technology at the time of its use.  As DRA technology now stands, it is not capable of giving access to the occupants’ personal information.  Instead, the DRA data merely yield an additional piece of information to evaluate suspicions — based on an independent evidentiary foundation — police already have about a particular activity taking place in the home.

A final factor affecting the informational privacy analysis is the fact that G’s interest in the electricity use data was not exclusive.  G’s electricity consumption history was not confidential or private information which he had entrusted to the utility company.  As the supplier of electricity, the utility company had a legitimate interest of its own in the quantity of electricity its customers consumed.  Consequently, it is beyond dispute that the utility company was within its rights to install a DRA on a customer’s line on its own initiative to measure the electricity being consumed.  The utility company was not an interloper exploiting its access to private information to circumvent the Charter at the behest of the state; rather, its role is limited to the wholly voluntary cooperation of a potential crime victim.

While a territorial privacy interest involving the home is a relevant aspect of the totality of the circumstances informing the reasonable expectation of privacy determination, the Charter’s protection of territorial privacy in the home is not absolute.  Where, as in the case at bar, there was no direct search of the home itself, the informational privacy interest should be the focal point of the analysis.  The fact that the home was the focus of an otherwise non-invasive and unintrusive search should be subsidiary to what the investigative technique was capable of revealing about the home and what information was actually disclosed.  The fact that the search includes a territorial privacy aspect involving the home should not be allowed to inflate the actual impact of the search to a point where it bears disproportionately on the expectation of privacy analysis.

The new Barbie Video Girl, which retails for just over $100, has a built-in camera in the doll’s necklace and an LCD screen on her back. The doll also comes equipped with a USB cable that enables you to transfer video recordings to your home computer and then online to YouTube or Facebook.

Not surprisingly, some are calling for a ban on Barbie Video Girl because of the potential that children will post online videos which infringe their privacy. Should we ban Barbie Video Girl? If so, should we ban all children’s toys with cameras? Read more>>

In fact, device fingerprinting works so well that many businesses that use it might not even be aware that they’re doing so. Is your organization using the technology? If so, it’s vital that your organization’s use of device fingerprinting complies with applicable privacy laws.

To learn more about device fingerprinting click here to view a presentation that I recently delivered alongside Steven Johnston (Senior Security and Technology Advisor, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada) and David Stark (CIPP, Vice President, Compliance and Privacy Officer, GFK Group) to the International Association of Privacy Professionals in Baltimore, Maryland. As you’ll see, the presentation includes an overview of device fingerprinting, identifies relevant privacy law issues (my contribution to the presentation), the OPC’s perspective and provides practical examples.   

Thanks to the IAPP for the opportunity to present and compliments to Steven Johnston and David Stark for excellent remarks.

In B.C., landlords and property managers acting on their behalf must comply with B.C.’s Personal Information Protection Act (“B.C.’s PIPA”). The guidelines are intended to assist landlords and property managers in discharging their duties under B.C.’s Residential Tenancy Act in a manner that respects the privacy of tenants and promotes transparency in the operation of landlord and tenant relationships.

Despite the B.C. focus, landlords and property managers in other jurisdictions would be well-served by reading the guidelines – especially given that B.C.’s PIPA is “substantially similar” to PIPEDA.

No one knows more detailed personal information about you than your Facebook friends. So do we need new privacy laws to protect you from violations perpetrated by other individuals? Read more>>

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.

In this recent case involving Veteran Affairs, a veteran had filed a complaint with the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (“OPC”) alleging that Veterans Affairs had violated the Privacy Act by including excessively detailed and sensitive medical information in briefing notes to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. The complainant also alleged that Veteran Affairs had transferred his medical file to a hospital administered by Veterans Affairs without his consent.

The OPC has issued the following formal recommendations to Veterans Affairs, but they should also serve as useful recommendations to other organizations:

• “Take immediate steps to develop an enhanced privacy policy framework with adequate protections and controls to regulate access to personal information within the department.
• Revise existing information-management practices and policies to ensure that personal information is shared within the department on a need-to-know basis only.  Personal information, including but not limited to sensitive medical information, should not be shared with programs that have no operational requirements for access to such information.
• Provide training for employees about appropriate personal information-handling practices.
• Review procedures to ensure that consent is obtained prior to personal information being transferred to veterans’ hospitals.”

This and other similar news stories should serve as a reminder that PIPEDA requires organizations to exercise care in the disposal or destruction of personal information to prevent unauthorized parties from gaining access to the information (for example, don’t dispose of sensitive tax information records in a back lane). Other provincial laws, such as Alberta’s PIPA and B.C.’s PIPA, have similar requirements. Disposal or destruction policies and procedures should focus on physical, organizational and technological measures.

Key lessons for the private sector from today’s Annual Report include, among other things, (1) a reminder of the need to assess the threats/risks inherent in wireless communications and to fill any gaps in policies and/or practices related to smart phones, Wi-Fi networks and data stored on mobile devices and (2) ensuring that policies and procedures are in place for paper shredding and the disposal of surplus computer equipment.

Read the full Annual Report here>>.

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

The PWC survey demonstrates that spending is shifting to monitoring of company networks, at a time when more employees are bringing their own PDA’s and computers into the workplace.  But as PWC states, businesses should be making employees the first line of defence against data leaks. 

The PWC survey and commentary serves as a reminder of the need to focus resources for data security (and privacy law compliance) strategically. This means investing in technological safeguards but it should mean investing in privacy training for your staff.  It’s an important point because so many of the privacy breaches these days result from mistakes, or human error, by one’s own employees.  I’d suggest that you compare your organization’s line item for network monitoring with your line item (if it exists) for privacy training. Are your privacy risk mitigation efforts as strategic as they could be?

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>>

In the absence of specific legal requirements, the decision to notify customers when privacy breaches occur is not an easy task. Far from it. Factors that businesses should consider include assessing what personal information was compromised, the cause and extent of the privacy breach, the number of affected individuals and the anticipated harm that could result from the privacy breach.

As I have previously posted, we’ve seen million dollar privacy awards here in Canada but what’s interesting is the fact that the FTC took issue with an organization “misrepresenting” its privacy protection practices. It’s a good reminder that simply having a privacy policy doesn’t cut it. Businesses must ensure that internal policies and procedures exist and are enforced on an ongoing basis in order to live up to commitments made in privacy policies.

Manitoba’s Ombudsman is investigating these explosive allegations. If they are true, it is very hard to image a legal defence. But can the use of covert video surveillance ever be legal?

Read more>>

As the Commissioner notes, “the dominant theme of [the OPC's] work in 2009 was the protection of privacy in an increasingly online, borderless world. A case in point was the investigation that resulted in more public attention than any other in [the OPC's] history: Facebook.”  The Commissioner notes two key issues, namely, Data without borders and Risks remaining in the wake of mortgage broker breaches.

From today’s news release:

The Honourable Tony Clement, Minister of Industry, and the Honourable Denis Lebel, Minister of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec), today announced two steps that the Government of Canada is taking to enhance the safety and security of the online marketplace. Together, the tabling of amendments to the legislation protecting the personal information of Canadians (Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, or PIPEDA) and the reintroduction of anti-spam legislation in the House of Commons (the proposed Fighting Internet and Wireless Spam Act, or FISA) are important steps towards positioning Canada as a leader in the digital economy.

Here’s the full Industry Canada news release.

(Hat tip to David Fraser’s Canadian Privacy Law Blog )

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.

Read more>>

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).

Elizabeth Denham

Denham has served as Canada’s Assistant Privacy Commissioner since 2007. Since then, and as reported by Times Colonist, she has “spearheaded a high-profile investigation into the way Facebook handles user information, which pushed the company to revamp the way it handles and shares personal information from more than 200 million users worldwide. She launched a follow-up investigation into Facebook early this year after a complaint that the default setting of the new privacy options presented to users actually made a person’s information more readily available than before the changes.”

I’ve had the pleasure of working on matters with Elizabeth Denham. She is very practical in her approach to privacy and is an extremely personable individual. As a result, B.C. will be well-served by her as she embarks in her new role. Congratulations Commissioner Denham!

Continuing a series of blog posts that I’m calling “A Conversation with…“, I’m really pleased to post the following conversation with the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Saskatchewan, Gary Dickson, Q.C.

Gary Dickson was appointed as Saskatchewan’s first full-time Information and Privacy Commissioner back in 2003, and he was re-appointed in 2009 for a further five-year term.  That’s great news because Gary Dickson has been outstanding in his role as Commissioner. On a personal note, I’ve been thrilled to watch his many successes as Commissioner. I’ve known Gary for many years. In fact, it was he who suggested that I get involved with the Canadian Bar Association at a time when some of us were trying to form what is now the CBA’s National Privacy and Access Law Section. 

Thanks to Commissioner Dickson for agreeing to take part in this online Q & A conversation.  CFL fans may find some humour in the last Q & A below. Go Bombers! If you’d like to learn more about Commissioner Dickson or the Office of the Saskatchewan Information and Privacy Commissioner (“IPC”), I’d encourage you to visit the IPC’s website.

Q. You were previously an Alberta MLA. In that capacity, you were involved in privacy law development as the critic for the Freedom of Information and the Protection of Privacy portfolio, and also on several important privacy law committees and panels. What’s it like to now be involved with privacy as the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Saskatchewan?

A. The experience is exciting, stimulating, and almost always challenging. I am very fortunate that our office has a committed team of excellent staff who are focused on ensuring that Saskatchewan residents enjoy the full benefit of our provincial access and privacy laws. I’m very lucky to continue to be involved with such a fascinating area but from a very different perspective than that of a lawmaker. It has been very useful to have had that experience in the development of access and privacy legislation before I assumed the new Commissioner role in Saskatchewan. I hope that I am more aware and more sympathetic to the challenges and issues that arise with any access and privacy law for front line workers. It has certainly motivated me to promote wherever possible making such laws simpler and more accessible to the people who must administer them and for those who are the ‘data subjects’. I have also enjoyed the opportunity to modestly influence the way that our access and privacy laws are viewed and understood. My experience in Saskatchewan has been that those who work in public bodies or health trustee organizations genuinely want to do the ‘right thing’ in terms of transparency and privacy protection but are often unsure on where the line is drawn and are unfamiliar with best practices that have evolved over the last 26 years in Canada. As a result, a major focus for my initial five years in Saskatchewan has been on raising awareness and creating tools to assist those workers meet their statutory responsibilities.

Q. While Alberta, Quebec, British Columbia and Ontario (for personal health information only) have provincial privacy laws that are “substantially similar” to PIPEDA, Saskatchewan does not. Is it time for that to change?

A. I have for the last six years encouraged the former provincial government and now the current government to carefully consider the advantages of adopting a PIPA type law based on the B.C. and Alberta experience. As it stands, our fundraising foundations and NGOs, including those that deal with significant amounts of sensitive, prejudicial personal information are effectively unregulated. We often hear complaints from employees working in private businesses (not federal works, undertakings, etc.) who are extremely disappointed and upset when we tell them that they do not have the same privacy protection guaranteed to all public sector employees in Saskatchewan. I must acknowledge that the federal Privacy Commissioner has recently undertaken a pilot project in Saskatchewan to raise awareness of PIPEDA but this exercise also has highlighted how big the knowledge deficit is in the small and medium sized business sector. I remain of the view that Saskatchewan individuals, businesses and charitable NGOs should all benefit from a simple private sector privacy law. This could be designed to complement and harmonize with our public sector FOIP and Local Authority FOIP Acts and our Health Information Protection Act. It would allow for a more seamless kind of privacy protection that would be simpler for those organizations and for residents. I notice that the impetus for PIPA in BC and Alberta was really business organizations such as Chambers of Commerce realizing that PIPEDA is in some respects cumbersome and deficient for the SME sector. Business organizations in Saskatchewan do not appear to have adopted that view.

Q. The Saskatchewan Gaming Corporation has been recognized as a positive privacy story. What has it done, and what role has your office had in this development?

A. This is a good example of how an Information and Privacy Commission office can perhaps achieve more through consultation than by emphasizing the enforcement role. We started out a year ago with a complaint that the Casino Box Office in Regina required anyone purchasing a ticket for a show to provide name and contact information even if purchasing the ticket with cash. When we followed up with the Saskatchewan Gaming Corporation that operates the casinos in Regina and Moose Jaw, we found no senior identified FOIP Coordinator or Privacy Officer, no appropriate policies and procedures and no comprehensive training program for staff. Instead of focusing solely on the collection of personal information by the Box Office, we spent the better part of the year working with the Corporation in fundamentally reorganizing to meet its FOIP responsibilities as a ‘government institution’. With the assistance of a Portfolio Officer from our OIPC, the Corporation made a senior Vice President the new Privacy Officer and FOIP Coordinator. Comprehensive policies were put in place and a new FOIP training program rolled out. In the casino, the Box Office now only collects personal information if the ticket purchaser volunteered that information but it is no longer mandatory. In addition, prominent signage now advises customers of the Corporation’s information collection practices. There is also new literature readily available to customers. I think that as a result of our collaboration the Corporation and its leadership now view our office as a useful resource and as an office genuinely committed to operating on the basis of cooperation and collaboration.

Q. You’ve published a best practices guide for mobile device security. It’s getting easier to collect and store personal information, but are we keeping up with our privacy responsibilities in the meantime?

A. I’m afraid that privacy risks are not always top-of-mind for organizations embarking on new IT programs, systems, etc. Although we have developed a Privacy Impact Assessment tool available on our website, there is no statutory requirement that a PIA be done by a public body or health trustee before proceeding with new technology. What is perhaps even more troubling is that we see problems with old technology. Our office brought out a FAX advisory after we found a number of health information trustees didn’t appreciate that when the modern multi-use copier machine is sold as surplus equipment it likely will contain memory of the documents it has processed and perhaps substantial amount of personal health information. Look at the number of cases that have come to Information and Privacy Commissioners across the country that involved theft of unencrypted laptops. So, the short answer is that many organizations are not keeping up with their privacy responsibilities. The education and compliance challenge continues apace.

Q. Your office opened more than double the amount of case files in 2009 than it did in 2008. Is this number going up because of inadequate privacy practices, because the public is becoming more aware of its privacy rights, or both?

A. Good question. I think the answer is some of both. I believe there is significantly higher privacy awareness with the organizations that my office oversees and also greater public awareness. The difficult question is how accurately we can assess what is going with all approximate 3000 organizations that we oversee given that we are largely in a reactive role. In any given year if we are dealing with 200 organizations are these just the few ‘bad apples’ or is this indicative of widespread non-compliance. We simply don’t have the resources to be able to accurately assess and catalogue privacy compliance province wide. At the end of the day however, whatever the reason for the large increase in case files there is an indication that a lot more work is yet to be done to move to a more pervasive privacy protective culture.

Q. Looking forward, what kind of privacy developments should we watch for in 2010?

A. One of the interesting ‘growth’ areas will be the electronic health record. Our office just issued our first Investigation Report (H2010-001) dealing with our electronic health record now in development. This involved a pharmacist who entered the Pharmaceutical Information Program database on nine different occasions to view medication profiles for three individuals who were not patients/customers of that pharmacist of the pharmacy he worked for. We identified a number of problems in terms of HIPA compliance with the pharmacy, the regional health authority and the Ministry of Health. We also issued more than 20 recommendations for remedial action. Since the electronic health record is still some distance from completion, I anticipate that there may be more of this type of complaints touching on some element or another of the E.H.R. In fact, at the end of my Investigation Report, I included a Postscript which incorporated a number of broader considerations that this particular case highlighted.

We will be carefully monitoring changes to our health information regulations that enable regional health authorities to disclose certain personal health information of patients to hospital foundations without prior consent of those patients.

Finally, we are witnessing a number of new information and data-sharing initiatives with Executive Government and we expect to be busy considering these initiatives in the next few years.

Q. And, finally, how many points do you think the Winnipeg Blue Bombers will beat the Saskatchewan Roughriders this year in the Labour Day Classic game?

A. I love the fact that all of those Bomber fans come to Regina and generously spend their dollars in our hotels and restaurants and I always feel badly for their long drive back to Winnipeg. Sorry Brian but I don’t see that the return trip to Winnipeg is likely to be any more joyous in 2010!!

Canadian employees – in ever increasing numbers – are blogging, tweeting and accessing social networking websites. These forms of social media are increasing the legal risks for Canadian businesses. These risks include disgruntled employees intentionally revealing trade secrets, defaming supervisors, harassing co-workers, or posting negative information about their employers’ business. There are even additional threats resulting from loyal employees who inadvertently disclose information online that runs afoul of security, privacy and competition laws. Join us for this 75 minute webinar during which we will discuss:

• The legal do’s and don’ts of monitoring employee social media activities during and after work hours;
• Tips for creating meaningful social media policies;
• Tips for dealing with privacy and competition law, and securities regulatory risks; and
• How to deal with potential civil liability resulting from employee social media activities.

Space is limited so please register here soon.

Other presenters (in addition to yours truly):

• Robert A. Watchman
• Philip Watts
• Matthew T. Duffy 

The privacy commissioners’ letter states, “we are increasingly concerned that, too often, the privacy rights of the world’s citizens are being forgotten as Google rolls out new technological applications. We were disturbed by your recent rollout of the Google Buzz social networking application, which betrayed a disappointing disregard for fundamental privacy norms and laws… Unfortunately, Google Buzz is not an isolated case. Google Street View was launched in some countries without due consideration of privacy and data protection laws and cultural norms. In that instance, you addressed privacy concerns related to such matters as the retention of unblurred facial images only after the fact, and there is continued concern about the adequacy of the information you provide before the images are captured… We therefore call on you, like all organizations entrusted with people’s personal information, to incorporate fundamental privacy principles directly into the design of new online services. That means, at a minimum:

The privacy commissioners’ demand that Google and other organizations better incorporate privacy into the design of new online services underscores the need for the “Privacy by Design” initiative that Ontario’s Information and Privacy Commissioner recently discussed in my “A Conversation with Dr. Ann Cavoukian” post. All organizations, regardless of their size (after all, we’re all not Google), would be well-advised to learn from today’s “buzz” about Google Buzz.

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>.

Well, the first thing you should do is ask the police for written documentation relating to their request. You should also immediately contact a lawyer with appropriate expertise because this type of scenario can be a legal minefield. For example, are you actually dealing with the police or some bold scam artist? Do the police have the legal authority to demand the requested information? Should they have a warrant?

Presuming that you end up providing the records to the police, you’ll need to ensure that you’re not providing too much information. If the records of your customer are co-mingled with another individual, you’ll need to consider whether you can legally provide the police with access to the other person’s information. Are you then barred from telling the customer that the police were at your office? What sort of internal records should you keep to document that the police accessed your files? How long do you need to keep those internal records?

It’s never fun to say “no” to the police. They are, after all, typically armed. But hopefully the police will make it easy for you to satisfy yourself, and your lawyer, that working cooperatively with them won’t violate your customer’s privacy and unnecessarily exposing your business to liability.

CNET is reporting today that “a broad coalition of companies including Google, Microsoft, and AT&T, joined by liberal and conservative advocacy groups, will announce a major push [today] to update federal privacy laws to protect mobile and cloud computing users”.

Of course, in Canada cloud computers have the benefit of PIPEDA and – where they exist – substantially similar provincial privacy laws. To learn more about cloud computing, and related privacy law implications, you may want to check out this previous post.