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>>


Is covert surveillance ever legal?

June 10, 2010

A former administrator in the Rural Municipality of La Broquerie has alleged that town politicians installed hidden video surveillance cameras in nearly every room in the municipality offices to secretly spy on rival councillors, staff and even the public.

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>>


Camera ban missed privacy point

March 25, 2010

Last week’s widely reported ruling by Judge Tim Preston that cameras will not be permitted into the Brian Sinclair inquest hinged largely on a desire to protect the privacy rights of witnesses.

But what if some individual witnesses don’t have privacy concerns and actually want their testimony broadcast to the world?

Read More>>


Man jailed for secretly filming naked wife: ABC News

March 12, 2010

In what can only be describe as a bizarre fact scenario, ABC News is reporting that “an appeals court in the US state of Minnesota has upheld a one-year prison sentence for a man who drilled a hole in his bathroom wall and filmed his wife naked without her consent.”

The case is interesting because it deals with the important privacy issue of what constitutes a “reasonable expectation of privacy” (in this case, in one’s own bathroom).  Read the story here>>


Businesses should learn from 2010 Olympics surveillance camera debate

February 16, 2010

The 2010 Olympics are finally here! So too are the reportedly pervasive crowd surveillance cameras that are monitoring spectators’ every move.

Privacy advocates are already voicing concern.  But unlike previous public debates regarding privacy and surveillance cameras, I expect that the concerns that’ll be raised during and after the 2010 Olympics will be more comprehensive than the traditional “privacy vs security” debate. For instance,  Jennifer Stoddart, Canada’s Privacy Commissioner, recently commented on this blog that “one of the big issues will revolve around the pervasive crowd surveillance measures, and what will happen with all of the cameras and recordings after the flame is extinguished.”

Of course, there are legal tests that governments (and businesses) should use to determine the appropriateness of installing surveillance cameras in the first place. But once any organization has decided to install surveillance cameras there’s a corresponding requirement to appropriately manage the data that’s collected. For instance, organizations must ensure that they have security, retention and destruction policies in place. This is the “devil in the detail” that’s often overlooked.

I expect public scrutiny of the surveillance cameras being used during the 2010 Olympics. And such scrutiny will increase public expectations on businesses to properly manage data that they too collect by surveillance cameras.


What would happen if one of your employees posted a video of an irate customer on YouTube?

May 25, 2009

Screaming

The posting of a YouTube video of a woman throwing a tantrum at the Hong Kong International Airport should serve as a reminder to Canadian businesses that employees these days can (and do) easily record and post videos online from their mobile phones.

The three minute video shows a Cathay Pacific customer yelling and flailing her limbs as she lies on the floor after missing her flight from Hong Kong to San Francisco. I’ve been upset at missing a flight before, but the woman in this video takes things to an entirely new level. The video has drawn over five millions views and nearly 21,000 comments, which has resulted in some incredibly cruel and objectionable online commentary about the woman. Since the release of the video, Cathay Pacific has disciplined the gate worker who recorded the video on his mobile phone (although the video was posted on YouTube by a third party) and the company has issued a formal apology to the woman.

The video is noteworthy because it demonstrates the power of new technologies such as YouTube and the corresponding risks to Canadian businesses. Had the video been recorded by an employee of a Canadian business, subject to Canadian privacy laws, the potential privacy complaint and/or lawsuit by the woman in the video could have been substantial. 

Canadian businesses should be reminded of the need to protect against the dissemination of this type of video through employee privacy training and the adoption and enforcement of privacy policies and procedures.

Canadian businesses don’t need to look too far to find examples where more effective employee privacy training may have mitigated, or even prevented, privacy complaints.

Read the rest of this entry »


Google Street View battle may impact how Canadian privacy laws enforced

April 6, 2009

street-2The looming battle between privacy advocates and Google Street View could have implications beyond Google and its Canadian-based service providers, who are currently taking detailed photos of Canadian cities.  I’m quoted in today’s Winnipeg Sun article on this issue, where I argue that the implications of the Google Street View battle could extend to how Canadian privacy laws are interpreted and enforced. 

If you’re not ramped up on Google Street View, you may want to read the Wikipedia description, which does a good job of explaining the Google service. David Fraser also has an illustrative blog post, which highlights the remaining privacy issues despite Google’s efforts to blur faces and licence plates. 

Despite the fact that Google’s Canadian-based service providers are taking pictures in public places, Canadian privacy laws generally require the consent of individuals for the collection of their personal information.  In fact, the first ever Case Summary under PIPEDA dealt with video surveillance activities in public places.   In the Case Summary, the former Privacy Commissioner advised the company being investigated that its intended public video surveillance for commercial purposes was unlawful and should not be pursued.   More recently, and on point, Canada’s Privacy Commissioner, Jennifer Stoddart, has sent a letter to Google outlining the concerns about Google Street View from a Canadian privacy law perspective. 

Stay tuned… this story is just beginning.


Guidelines aid in use of surveillance cameras

February 10, 2009

surveillanceGuidelines aid in use of surveillance cameras

My column of June 4, 2008 in the Winnipeg Free Press describes the guidelines published by the Privacy Commissioner of Canada jointly with the privacy commissioners of British Columbia and Alberta, and how businesses can use them to remain compliant with the law.


Identity theft, loss of privacy face people in a wired world

February 5, 2009

linked-networksIdentity theft, loss of privacy face people in a wired world

My February 7, 2005 column in the Winnipeg Free Press concerns identity theft and workplace surveillance.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 73 other followers