Earlier today, Canada’s Privacy Commissioner, Jennifer Stoddart, submitted to Parliament the OPC’s Annual Report on PIPEDA for the period from January 1 to December 31, 2009.
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.
Elizabeth Denham, Canada’s Assistant Privacy Commissioner with primary responsibility for the federal private sector privacy law, PIPEDA, has reportedly just been appointed B.C.’s Information and Privacy Commissioner.
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!!
Canada’s Privacy Commissioner, Jennifer Stoddart, has teamed up with nine other country’s privacy watchdogs today to warn Google and other organizations to better respect people’s privacy rights. The privacy commissioners have sent a letter to Google, accusing it of overlooking privacy values and legislation in launching new online products.
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:
collecting and processing only the minimum amount of personal information necessary to achieve the identified purpose of the product or service;
providing clear and unambiguous information about how personal information will be used to allow users to provide informed consent;
creating privacy-protective default settings;
ensuring that privacy control settings are prominent and easy to use;
ensuring that all personal data is adequately protected, and
giving people simple procedures for deleting their accounts and honouring their requests in a timely way.”
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.
This really is the kind of personal information that identity thieves love so the OPC article is a useful read. In fact, businesses whose employees create accounts on their behalf would be well-advised to have employees read the OPC article.
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.
Jennifer Stoddart, Canada’s Privacy Commissioner, delivered a landmark speech today at the 11th Annual Privacy and Security Conference in Victoria, B.C.
In her remarks, Stoddart discussed the challenge of technology, globalized data flows and social change. While reflecting on her years as Canada’s “village elder” in the privacy community, Stoddart commented:
“When I took over as Privacy Commissioner, Facebook didn’t exist. Neither did Twitter, Flickr, YouTube, Google Street View, Foursquare, iPods and all the many novel ways in which people now routinely connect with the rest of the world. And it’s not just technology that’s different; it’s other drivers of change as well. Like real-time globalization, for instance, and the instantaneous worldwide flow of data. It’s the way people embrace and respond to technology. Their expectations of what the technology can do for them, and at what cost. Is it desirable, for example, to buy greater convenience at the cost of less privacy? In light of these colossal changes over the past decade alone, it would be foolish to try to predict what the next decade will hold. But what we can say for certain is that the regulatory framework we have in place now for the protection of privacy and personal information is already being sorely tested.”
Read the Privacy Commissioner’s full remarks here.
Commissioner Work is as personable as he is professional. I’ve had the pleasure to speak at privacy conferences with Commissioner Work and let’s just say that I’m glad I presented first! As privacy professionals will know, he’s a plain spoken, intelligent speaker and so his sessions are always a “must attend”.
Thanks to Commissioner Work for agreeing to engage in this online Q & A conversation. If you’d like to learn more about Frank Work, the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Alberta (the “Alberta OIPC”) or the issues raised in this conversation, I’d encourage you to visit the Alberta OIPC’s website.
Q. Your office has investigated identity theft arising from crystal meth abuse. What’s the link between the two?
A. A couple of years ago the Edmonton police raided a hang out for meth users. They found a lot of papers from businesses in the area, which they gave to us. Cell phone contracts, credit bureau checks, credit card information and so on. The police told me that meth users, unlike some other substance abusers, are pretty alert when they are high. They don’t sleep. They have lots of time to do the kind of detailed work necessary to engineer credit card fraud and identity theft.
Q. So what can the public do to protect itself from that kind of identity theft?
A. Individuals should shred bank and credit card statements. They shouldn’t carry certain ID, like birth certificates, on them. These kinds of foundation documents are very useful for identity theft. Always report lost or stolen credit cards, but also lost or stolen driver’s licences, birth certificates, and passports. Check your bank and credit card statements to make sure someone else isn’t using them. Do a credit bureau reference on yourself maybe once a year. If your score is lower than you think, find out why. If your score changes from one year to the next, find out why. Sometimes it can be identity theft (someone using your good name). Sometimes it can be an error on the part of the credit bureau.
The other side of the problem is organizations that have peoples’ info. They must take proper care of it. As I said, we have been given credit reports, draft mortgages, cell phone contracts, purchase of goods contracts and bookkeepers files, all thrown away. These papers all have potential for fraudulent use. Businesses need to shred this stuff. Furthermore, for businesses that have customer databases, how well secured is it? Who on their staff has access to it? We have had cases where someone in the business is taking the info and using or selling it for fraud and identity theft.
Q. Alberta’s private sector privacy legislation was recently amended to include mandatory breach notification. How will this impact privacy regulation in, and outside of, Alberta?
A. It is early days yet. Hopefully it will make organizations extra careful with personal information. Will that raise the bar for organizations in other provinces? Maybe. If you are going to change your practices here, you might as well change them everywhere. Possibly more provinces will legislate. A big piece of the picture will be when the Federal government amends PIPEDA in this regard. Maybe this will increase pressure to do so. It will be a challenge to figure out what “a real risk of significant harm” is. It will be a challenge to figure out in which cases there should be notice given and what kind of notice.
Q. You’ve worked as a lawyer in different countries around the world. How does Canada’s approach to privacy compare to your experience in other places?
A. We aren’t perfect but we are way ahead of most other jurisdictions. The “commissioner” system of enforcement has served us well because we do not have the kind of well funded civil society organizations which can advocate for privacy. Commissioners can and do advocate. I mean, I would love to have an ACLU, or and EPIC or an EFF in Canada. Our civil liberties people, like FIPA in BC do great work with the resources they have but resources are scarce. We need some rich people to endow some of these groups. The other thing is that I think, relative to other societies, Canadians have a disposition towards privacy. We get it to some extent. I like to think it is because we are, yes, polite, and respectful of other people. That makes us respect each other’s space. We must not lose that as the world becomes one big facebook/google culture. Teach your children well.
Q. Looking forward, what kind of privacy developments should we watch for in 2010?
A. Cyber attacks, hacks and other losses will continue. Governments will continue to bring surveillance technologies to bear every time anything bad happens. I will continue to get judicially reviewed. I would like to think people will start resisting surveillance and other intrusions into their lives but I don’t see it happening. Governments like surveillance. Heck, the public likes surveillance because we are just so bad at risk assessment. We are scared of everything it seems and we want someone to keep an eye on everything for us. It will be interesting to see if technology begins to fail us. For example, what if there is another airplane bombing attempt and the technology doesn’t prevent it? They bring in new technology. And that doesn’t prevent the next one (God forbid). Maybe they run out of technology, although, for the money involved I don’t see that happening. Someone will come up with a new toy. Will someone ever say “this technology isn’t doing what we want it to and it is costing us a bundle?” I think that will be a social shock.
January 28th is Data Privacy Day 2010! Canada’s Privacy Commissioner is marking the day by “urging companies to ensure they have the proper systems in place to safeguard information; and reminding individuals to think twice about what they post on the Internet.” See the Privacy Commissioner’s news release here.
Will the virtual strip-search scanners soon to be operational in Winnipeg’s Richardson International Airport be an invasion of privacy? Absolutely. Should they be installed despite privacy concerns? Absolutely.
You may note that the above link takes you to the Winnipeg Sun. I’m delighted to have been asked by Sun Media Corp. to provide Comment columns like today’s on a monthly basis. I hope you find them of interest!
Don’t let anyone tell you that something can’t be done because of privacy laws. For example, how many times have you heard someone say, “privacy laws handcuff the ability of law enforcement to protect Canadians” or “businesses can’t compete because of heavy-handed privacy laws”? Yes, in very limited circumstances privacy laws can restrict certain activities. But, these cases are few and far between. In many more circumstances, privacy considerations simply need to be built into the design of a product or service.
Case in point is the recent coverage that Assistant Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Chantal Bernier, has approved the use of airport scanners that can see through your clothes. Who would have thought that the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada would ever approve what have been refered to as “naked” airport scanners? But if you look at the manner in which the scanners will apparently be rolled out, there appears to be a balance between security and privacy considerations. As I’ve previously posted, “Privacy by Design” can help those with a “can-do” attitude.
Regardless of whether I agree that the “naked” airport scanners are lawful (and regardless of whether I’ll choose to walk through one of these scanners myself), it’s great to see an attempt at “Privacy by Design” in action. To be honest, however, my greatest concern is for the poor airport security professionals who may one day have to look at my less than stellar outline. I’m not sure how much they get paid, but it’s probably not enough!
Is there one set of privacy rules for regular businesses and one for the media? In a past case summary, the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (the “OPC”) found that a radio station which had broadcast the name and comments of a caller who had phoned the radio station’s news tips line to relay specific details of a robbery was not a violation of the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act(PIPEDA). Why wasn’t this a violation?
PIPEDA contains provisions aimed at protecting the media’s right to “freedom of expression”, which is a pretty fundamental right worth protecting in a free and democratic society. Specifically, PIPEDA’s privacy obligations don’t apply to “any organization in respect of personal information that the organization collects, uses or discloses for journalistic, artistic or literary purposes and does not collect, use or disclose for any other purpose”. When the collection of personal information is solely for journalistic purposes, journalists aren’t required to obtain the consent of individuals about whom the information relates. The result is that if a journalist’s activities are truly “journalistic” then they can proceed with the collection and broadcast of personal information without seeking permission from individuals. Of course, it’s still a good idea to obtain consent in most circumstances despite the exemption.
When the media collects, uses or discloses personal information for reasons that are not journalistic, serious issues arise as they would for any regular business. In the finding noted above, the OPC determined that the personal information collected by the radio station was intended soley for journalistic purposes. That’s why the OPC was of the view that there had not been any violation of PIPEDA. Any illusion that the media are not bound by PIPEDA is wrong. But there are appropriate exemptions in the law that help them to conduct their important work.
In a press release, the Commissioner expressed shock and disappointment with the fact that the stolen laptops, which contained the personal health information of more 300,000 individuals, were not encrypted. “This is shocking for me…I don’t know what we have to do to drive this message home” said the Commissioner. “The standard in Alberta for storing personal or health information on portable devices is encryption. I can’t accept anything less.” The Alberta incident is strikingly similar to an incident that occurred in Ontario back in 2007. The Ontario incident also involved the theft of a non-encrypted laptop containing personal health information. A review of the incident by Ann Cavoukian, Ontario’s Information and Privacy Commissioner, produced an order for information of this type to be encrypted.
These incidents demonstrate how easily sensitive data can be compromised when stored on laptops. Encryption is a relatively easy way to improve the security of such information. But, where do you start? There are numerous encryption options available. Choices range from free open source encryption software like TrueCrypt to full information security consultations from companies that offer comprehensive data protection services like Seccuris. Regardless of which course you choose, one fact remains the same, encrypting laptops significantly improves security and that’s just smart business.
Have you heard the saying “Just when you think you understand the situation, what you don’t understand is that the situation has changed”? If you think you understand The Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (“PIPEDA”), get ready… changes may be just around the corner.
PIPEDA was introduced back in 2001. It requires the Canadian Government to review the law every five years. To this end, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics (the “House of Commons Committee”) conducted its review and held public hearings from November 2006 to February 2007, where it heard from over 60 witnesses and considered over 30 submissions from a wide range of interested organizations and individuals. I had the pleasure of appearing before the House of Commons Committee to present the Canadian Bar Association’s National Privacy & Access Law Section’s submission, which you can read here. The House of Commons Committee issued its report to Parliament in May 2007 (which outlined 25 recommended changes to the law), to which the Canadian Government subsequently issued its response in October 2007. As part of the Canadian Government’s response, further public consultation on key issues was requested. A link to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner’s reply to this request can be read here and the Canadian Bar Association’s response can be read here.
Changes to PIPEDA may include:
a mandatory breach notification regime that would require organizations to promptly notify affected individuals and to report major data breaches to the Privacy Commissioner of Canada;
amendments to account for the unique circumstances regarding consent in employer/employee relationships; and
modifications to allow organizations to collect, use and disclose personal information as necessary for the conduct of business transactions, such as mergers and acquisitions.
The Industry Canada website targets 2009/10 for the implementation of changes resulting from this first PIPEDA review. Yet, there is no definitive time frame, so stay tuned. Changes may be just around the corner.
Headline after headline these days talk about the growing incidences of identity theft. But who really are these identity thieves? Do they work alone or for KAOS (Get Smart fans will understand this joke)? To answer this timely question, there is a recent post on the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada’s blog entitled “Who are these identity thieves?“
The post cites an earlier survey by the Privacy Commissioner that shows that one Canadian out of six has been the victim of some form of identity theft and that more than 90% of Canadians report that they are concerned about identity theft. The Privacy Commissioner’s post also cites a report by Benoit Dupont, the Canada Research Chair in Security, Identity and Technology at l’Université de Montréal, and his colleague Guillaume Louis, which offers an illuminating profile of identity thieves. Here are some highlights:
1.7 million Canadians were affected by identity theft in 2008.
More than 45% of cases of identity theft involve Internet use. However, the way “offenders” use the Internet is not as significant as we might think in terms of acquiring the victim’s personal information. On the contrary, it plays a greater role in actually committing fraud.
“Women account for nearly 40% of offenders. We believe that this strong presence can be attributed to the absence of violence inherent to this sort of crime and the possibility of committing the crime without help from an accomplice.”
“Identity thieves are relatively older than other offenders; the average age is 33 years.”
“Offenders acted alone in the majority of cases (64.6%), which seems to contradict the theory of extensive involvement by organized crime in this type of offence.”
The Privacy Commissioner’s post also cites a 2008 report released by the McMaster eBusiness Research Centre that showed that victims spent more than 20 million hours and $150 million resolving problems associated with these crimes. If you’d like to read more about identity theft, please click on the “Identity theft” link under this blog’s Tags.
The Bill has been introduced as a private member’s Bill by Mavis Taillieu of the Opposition Progressive Conservative Party of Manitoba. It seeks to regulate the collection, use and disclosure of personal information by organizations in the private sector and is intended to be “substantially similar” to the federal Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA). It would also establish a duty for organizations to notify individuals who may be affected when the personal information an organization has collected is lost, stolen or compromised. Such a requirement would be groundbreaking in Canada (notwithstanding Ontario’s Personal Health Information Protection Act, which has a mandatory breach notification requirement).
Regrettably, the Government of Manitoba indicated in the Legislative Assembly debate last week that it has two primary concerns with the Bill. The first concern is that the Bill lacks an independent oversight body such as a Privacy Commissioner of Manitoba. Legislative rules prevent private member’s Bills from containing financial penalties and so the Bill could not contain such provisions. However, the government could add those provisions in amendments. In fact, I assisted with the drafting of the Bill and would happily provide the government with the relevant provisions. The second concern raised by the government is that the Bill would introduce legislation in Manitoba that (according to the government) would regulate activities in the private sector already governed by PIPEDA. However, PIPEDA does not apply to the activities of private sector organizations in provinces such as Alberta and British Columbia, both of whom have Personal Information Protection Acts, because PIPEDA does not apply where “substantially similar” provincial legislation exists.
The Bill was first introduced in 2005 and since that time the need for such a law has significantly grown. It’s modelled after Alberta’s Personal Information Protection Act, which provides a more business-friendly and clear legislative scheme than PIPEDA. As I’ve previously argued, it would be good policy for the Government of Manitoba to support the Bill and I once again urge them to do so.
If you want a more business-friendly privacy law in Manitoba, I’d strongly encourage you to contact the Government of Manitoba and Mavis Taillieu to indicate your support.
Additional coverage on this topic by the Canadian HR Reporter here.
This month’s Canadian Lawyer magazine’s feature article, entitled The Privacy Dance, profiles Canada’s Privacy Commissioner, Jennifer Stoddart. The article provides an excellent overview of contemporary privacy issues in the context of featuring the esteemed career of Stoddart.
In my view, Canada is very well served by Stoddart and her team at the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada. As a result, it’s nice to see that Stoddart’s ongoing efforts to protect and promote the privacy rights of Canadians are being recognized by the Canadian Lawyer Magazine.
The Government of Canada announced today the introduction of anti-spam legislation called the Electronic Commerce Protection Act(“ECPA”) that “aims to boost confidence in online commerce by protecting the privacy and personal security concerns that are associated with spam, counterfeit websites and spyware.”
According to the government’s News Release, the ECPA would allow businesses and individuals to initiate civil actions against anyone who violates the law. The ECPA deals with unsolicited text messages, or “cellphone spam”, as a form of “unsolicited commercial electronic message”.
It would establish a regulatory enforcement regime that would enable the CRTC to impose penalties of up to $1 million for individuals and $10 million in all other cases. The Competition Bureau would use a penalty regime already provided for in the Competition Act, and the federal Privacy Commissioner‘s powers to cooperate and exchange information with her counterparts would be expanded in respect of the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act.
The ECPA is nearly 70 pages long. Stay tuned to this blog. As soon as I’ve been able to digest the content I’ll post again on how the ECPA is likely going to affect Canadian businesses, especially those enaged in online marketing.
Does PIPEDA apply to non-Canadians? It’s a common question.
PIPEDA applies to organizations that collect, use, or disclose “personal information” in the course of a commercial activity. The definition of “personal information” does not specify the residency of the individual to whom the personal information must relate. As a result, organizations are well-advised to manage their personal information holdings in accordance with all of the obligations set forth in PIPEDA regardless of the residency of the individuals to whom information relates. If they don’t, non-Canadians (including U.S. residents) may initiate privacy complaints to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada.
Another day, another development in the Google Street View story. Canada’s Privacy Commissioner and several provincial privacy commissioners have commented on street level imaging technology by releasing a timely Fact Sheet on the related privacy issues.
The commissioners point out that ”a common misconception is that a company doesn’t need your permission to take your photograph in a public place. In fact, one of your key protections under Canadian privacy law is that you should know when your picture is being taken for commercial reasons, and what your image will be used for. Your consent is also needed.”
The Winnipeg Free Press is also running an excellent story in today’s newspaper, which highlights some of the broader issues related to Google Street View. Arthur Schafer, a professor at the University of Manitoba and director of the Centre for Professional and Applied Ethics, comments in the story about the related ethical issues while I comment in the story about the related legal issues.
The 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.
If you’re a privacy professional, you’re likely overwhelmed with the ongoing task of staying on top of legal, industry and technology developments. As you know, there’s no shortage of issues these days. Hopefully, this blog is helping your efforts!
But if you work for a private sector organization and haven’t yet signed up for the federal Privacy Commissioner‘s e-newsletter entitled Privacy Perspectives, I’d suggest you do. It contains great information and helps to stay on top of things.
If you’re still in need of ongoing assistance and aren’t already a member of the Privacy Forum, you may want to touch base with me to learn more. It has been a super venue over the last 6 years for information sharing and the current members are an excellent group of individuals and first rate privacy professionals.
As the OPC points out, PIPEDA does not prohibit organizations in Canada from transferring personal information to organizations in other jurisdictions for processing, but Canadian organizations are still accountable and the OPC can investigate complaints and audit privacy practices of Canadian organizations.
an organization is responsible for personal information in its possession or custody, including information that has been transferred to a third party for processing. The organization shall use contractual or other means to provide a comparable level of protection while the information is being processed by a third party.
The primary means by which an organization can protect personal information that it transfers to a third party for processing is through a contract. Organizations must also be transparent about their privacy practices, including advising customers that their personal information may be sent to another jurisdiction for processing and that while the information is in another jurisdiction, it may be accessed by the courts, law enforcement and national security authorities.
Check out the OPC’s Guidelines, and if your business hasn’t yet signed privacy contracts with all third parties to whom you transfer or disclose personal information, now may be the time.
Privacy professionals will know first hand the importance of conducting regular staff privacy training, which can mitigate customer privacy complaints and (as a result) the overall costs of privacy compliance.I certainly know from my practice that the costs to businesses can be quite significant when having to deal with serious privacy complaints.These costs can include settlements, legal fees and lost productivity.Obviously, it’s better to be proactive and reduce the chances of having to deal with privacy complaints.That’s where regular staff privacy training comes in! Businesses really should conduct staff privacy training on a regular basis – in my view, at least on an annual basis.
In a recent speech to the 10th Annual Privacy and Security Conference in Victoria, B.C., Privacy Commissioner Jennifer Stoddart commented, “Polling for my Office in 2007 found that only a third of all businesses reported having trained staff about their responsibilities under Canada’s privacy laws. This is a huge concern! We recently conducted an analysis of 86 breaches reported to my Office and found that employee awareness and training was the most important contributing factor. It was an issue in more than half of the spills we examined! We found that very basic mistakes – human errors – often lead to breaches. Breaches are caused mostly by employee misconduct and human error, not technological weaknesses.”The full speech is entitled, “A Privacy Check Up For Canadians: Is the Glass Half Empty or Half Full?” and is definitely worth reading.
My October 1, 2008 column in the Winnipeg Free Press reports on a survey released by the Privacy Commissioner of Canada and the vital need for businesses to train their staff to identify and deal with privacy issues. Privacy training, or lack thereof, can affect the bottom line.
My July 2, 2008 column in the Winnipeg Free Press announces the Privacy Commission of Canada’s new youth privacy site, My Privacy. This is a great site for both parents and their children to view, to help youthful Internet users to be aware of the dangers of ignoring privacy settings as they’re filling out personal information on sites like Facebook and MySpace.
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.
My May 7, 2008 column in the Winnipeg Free Press explains the difference between Manitoba’s Information and Privacy Adjudicator and a privacy commissioner, as appointed in almost every other province and at the federal level.
My November 7, 2007 column in the Winnipeg Free Press discusses the Privacy Commissioner of Canada’s annual report and what it means to private sector businesses.
My May 2, 2007 column in the Winnipeg Free Press poses a challenge to the participants in the upcoming provincial election of May 22, 2007 to follow through on promises of a Manitoba privacy commissioner.
My October 4, 2006 column for the Winnipeg Free Press recommends the Manitoba government follow up on a campaign promise to create a Manitoba privacy commissioner as exists in almost every other Canadian province.
This blog provides practical assistance to Canadian businesses so they can better deal with issues related to privacy, access to information, online reputation management, intellectual property and technology legal matters. I hope you subscribe to this blog via RSS (below) or via e-mail (below) so that you can receive timely updates to new posts. Thanks, Brian
This blog is presented for informational purposes only. Content does not constitute legal advice or solicitation and does not create solicitor-client relationship. Views expressed are solely the author's and should not be attributed to any other party, including Pitblado LLP or its clients. The author makes no guarantees regarding the accuracy or adequacy of the information contained herein or linked to via this blog. The author is not able to provide free legal advice. If you are seeking advice on specific matters, please contact Brian Bowman at (204) 956.3520 or bowman@pitblado.com, but please be aware that any unsolicited information sent to the author cannot be considered to be solicitor-client privileged. Comments published on this blog do not reflect the views of Brian Bowman, Pitblado LLP or its clients.
Earlier today, Canada’s Privacy Commissioner, Jennifer Stoddart, submitted to Parliament the OPC’s Annual Report on PIPEDA for the period from January 1 to December 31, 2009. 
Posted by Brian Bowman 
Elizabeth Denham
Don’t let anyone tell you that something can’t be done because of privacy laws. For example, how many times have you heard someone say, “privacy laws handcuff the ability of law enforcement to protect Canadians” or “businesses can’t compete because of heavy-handed privacy laws”? Yes, in very limited circumstances privacy laws can restrict certain activities. But, these cases are few and far between. In many more circumstances, privacy considerations simply need to be built into the design of a product or service. 
A summer incident involving sensitive personal information on stolen laptops has brought the issue of data protection once again into the crosshairs of 
Have you heard the saying “Just when you think you understand the situation, what you don’t understand is that the situation has changed”? If you think you understand 
Headline after headline these days talk about the growing incidences of identity theft. But who really are these identity thieves? Do they work alone or for 
The 
This month’s 
The 
Does 
Another day, another development in the 
The looming battle between privacy advocates and 
If you’re a privacy professional, you’re likely overwhelmed with the ongoing task of staying on top of legal, industry and technology developments. As you know, there’s no shortage of issues these days. Hopefully, this blog is helping your efforts!
The 
Privacy professionals will know first hand the importance of conducting regular staff privacy training, which can mitigate customer privacy complaints and (as a result) the overall costs of privacy compliance.
Privacy matters to most customers: Staff should be able to handle concerns
New push to educate on online privacy: Youth can get info on important website
Guidelines aid in use of surveillance cameras
Privacy law update good: Job needs full-time commissioner
Ombudsman vital to public’s rights, but Doer forgets his 1999 promise to appoint a privacy commissioner
Businesses face challenge in winning people’s trust
Province failing on privacy issues; citizens deserve better protection
Identity theft growing rapidly
Privacy requires ongoing diligence
Privacy still on Canadians radar screen: poll
Years after Doer’s promise, Manitoba lacks privacy commissioner
