Slashdot Mirror

Is compliance with The Privacy Act considered a lawful excuse?

"With regard to all these initiatives except street video surveillance, Government officials have repeatedly told me privately that pressure from the United States government is a strong motivating factor.

Let me be blunt: "The United States made us do it" cannot be a sufficient or acceptable justification for the Government to intrude on a fundamental right of Canadians.

Canada is a sovereign country.

Throughout our history, there have been important instances where Canada has found it necessary to take a position different from that of the United States on matters involving rights or values. It is surely no exaggeration to say that if our leaders had instead consistently succumbed to U.S. pressures to adopt that country's approaches as our own, there would today be no distinct Canada as we know it.

The same is true with regard to appropriate respect for fundamental rights in the wake of September 11. If the U.S. government is indeed exerting pressure on Canada to take steps that cannot be justified on their merits in accordance with our Canadian values and rights, then Canadians are entitled to expect that the Government will remain steadfast in meeting its responsibilities rather than trample on their rights out of fear of U.S. retaliation. "

"... The right not to be known against our will -- indeed, the right to be anonymous except when we choose to identify ourselves -- is at the very core of human dignity, autonomy and freedom... But though we tend to take it for granted, privacy -- the right to control access to ourselves and to personal information about us -- is at the very core of our lives. It is a fundamental human right precisely because it is an innate human need, an essential condition of our freedom, our dignity and our sense of well-being..."

"...The bottom line is this: If we have to live our lives weighing every action, every communication, every human contact, wondering what agents of the state might find out about it, analyze it, judge it, possibly misconstrue it, and somehow use it to our detriment, we are not truly free. That sort of life is characteristic of totalitarian countries, not a free and open society like Canada. But that is where we are inexorably headed, if the Government's current initiatives are allowed to proceed. "

And this is the main problem with systematic surveillance by the government; it is much too easy to misinterpret the information that is gathered to make false conclusions about you.

National ID cards makes it possible to cross-reference data from many sources and store it forever, and the information that is gathered may be incomplete, or worse, incorrect. Who will watch the system to ensure abuses won't occur?

Do you play violent video games? Do you like watching porn? drink lots of beer?

Worse still, do you know for certain that you do not have any genetically inhereted diseases?

How would you like it if your employer or your health insurance company knew that you have a family history (and therefore through genetics you have a greater chance) of alcoholism or mental illness, even though you don't have any of those diseases?

You might trust your government's word that they'll won't abuse the power that has been granted, but can you trust your government and their actions in 50 years time? Governments always try to overstep the powers that they've been given.

Even if you have "nothing to hide", imagine this scenerio in a police state with cameras everywhere:

Someone stops you on the street and asks for directions. You tell him what he wants to know, and maybe chat for a moment. Then he goes on his way.
What you don't know is that on the police screen, biometrics has identified him - rightly or wrongly - as a suspected terrorist. And, of course, your name and address are available too. The watchers have no way of knowing what was said, just that you met and talked.

I think this quote from a speech made by the Canada's Privacy Commission sums it up quite nicely:

If you have to go through life knowing that everywhere you go, everyone you meet, everything you do, may be observed, scrutinized, cross-referenced, judged, maybe misinterpreted and used against you by persons unknown, by authorities of the state - if you have to go through life like that, you are not truly free.

This guy has proven where he ethically stands on the issue of privacy, and it is definitely not be one the side of those who care about privacy.

Personally, I am glad that I call myself Canadian, as we have a respectable Privacy Commissioner, who has been earning my respect over time. Our guy is on the side of the citizens.

This guy has proven where he ethically stands on the issue of privacy, and it is definitely not be one the side of those who care about privacy.

Personally, I am glad that I call myself Canadian, as we have a respectable Privacy Commissioner, who has been earning my respect over time. Our guy is on the side of the citizens.

The Patriot Act is a tax on civil liberties. Perhaps it is necessary. But we must demand at least as much proof of its necessity and review of its impact as we would a new tax. To require cost benefit analyses is *not* saying that it should be abolished, unless it cannot withstand scrutiny. And if it can't, why have it? If you're going take civil liberties out of my constitutional wallet, you better be ready to tell me where you're spending them and how well you're doing.

For these reviews or cost benefit analyses, a minimum step would be to require them to meet the requirements from this well-written report:

"...I have suggested that any [proposed new law] must meet a four-part test:

• It must be demonstrably necessary in order to meet some specific need.
• It must be demonstrably likely to be effective in achieving its intended purpose. In other words, it must be likely to actually make us significantly safer, not just make us feel safer.
• The intrusion on privacy must be proportional to the security benefit to be derived.
• And it must be demonstrable that no other, less privacy-intrusive, measure would suffice to achieve the same purpose..."

Canada's new privacy laws are being enacted in a 2-stage process. The first stage passed at the start of 2002, governing personal health information.

The second stage comes into effect on Jan 1, 2004, affecting the collection of personal information for all commercial activities.

Why is privacy a basic, fundamental right? Read the sections on privacy in this short but powerful essay [privcom.gc.ca]:

" A popular response is: "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.

"By that reasoning, of course, we shouldn't mind if the police were free to come into our homes at any time just to look around, if all our telephone conversations were monitored, if all our mail were read, if all the protections developed over centuries were swept away. It's only a difference of degree from the intrusions already being implemented or considered.

"The truth is that we all do have something to hide, not because it's criminal or even shameful, but simply because it's private. We carefully calibrate what we reveal about ourselves to others. Most of us are only willing to have a few things known about us by a stranger, more by an acquaintance, and the most by a very close friend or a romantic partner. The right not to be known against our will -- indeed, the right to be anonymous except when we choose to identify ourselves -- is at the very core of human dignity, autonomy and freedom.

"If we allow the state to sweep away the normal walls of privacy that protect the details of our lives, we will consign ourselves psychologically to living in a fishbowl. Even if we suffered no other specific harm as a result, that alone would profoundly change how we feel. Anyone who has lived in a totalitarian society can attest that what often felt most oppressive was precisely the lack of privacy...

"...The bottom line is this: If we have to live our lives weighing every action, every communication, every human contact, wondering what agents of the state might find out about it, analyze it, judge it, possibly misconstrue it, and somehow use it to our detriment, we are not truly free. That sort of life is characteristic of totalitarian countries, not a free and open society...

With this new policy, bad data will affect you and your ability to, say, travel without strip searches. And you'll have few (meaning zero) opportunities to fix it. But the best part is that the bad data will creep out to taint anyone you associate with: you'll now have a permanent case of dataSARS. If you're a possible terrorist, then your old roommates might be too. And your new business partners. And whoever you call regularly, so now grandma gets a breast cancer screening whenever she flies.

I think the privacy commissioner of Canada is a precog: most of what he's warning about in his must-read essay on privacy is coming true. (Or Ashcroft is using it as an anti-blueprint):

" If information that is actually about someone else is wrongly applied to us, if wrong facts make it appear that we've done things we haven't, if perfectly innocent behavior is misinterpreted as suspicious because authorities don't know our reasons or our circumstances, we will be at risk of finding ourselves in trouble in a society where everyone is regarded as a suspect. By the time we clear our names and establish our innocence, we may have suffered irreparable financial or social harm.

"Worse yet, we may never know what negative assumptions or judgments have been made about us in state files... Decisions detrimental to us may be made on the basis of wrong facts, incomplete or out-of-context information or incorrect assumptions, without our ever having the chance to find out about it, let alone to set the record straight.

" That possibility alone will, over time, make us increasingly think twice about what we do, where we go, with whom we associate, because we will learn to be concerned about how it might look to the ubiquitous watchers of the state..."

"The bottom line is this: If we have to live our lives weighing every action, every communication, every human contact, wondering what agents of the state might find out about it, analyze it, judge it, possibly misconstrue it, and somehow use it to our detriment, we are not truly free. That sort of life is characteristic of totalitarian countries, not a free and open society...

" A popular response is: "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.

"By that reasoning, of course, we shouldn't mind if the police were free to come into our homes at any time just to look around, if all our telephone conversations were monitored, if all our mail were read, if all the protections developed over centuries were swept away. It's only a difference of degree from the intrusions already being implemented or considered.

"The truth is that we all do have something to hide, not because it's criminal or even shameful, but simply because it's private. We carefully calibrate what we reveal about ourselves to others. Most of us are only willing to have a few things known about us by a stranger, more by an acquaintance, and the most by a very close friend or a romantic partner. The right not to be known against our will -- indeed, the right to be anonymous except when we choose to identify ourselves -- is at the very core of human dignity, autonomy and freedom.

If we allow the state to sweep away the normal walls of privacy that protect the details of our lives, we will consign ourselves psychologically to living in a fishbowl. Even if we suffered no other specific harm as a result, that alone would profoundly change how we feel. Anyone who has lived in a totalitarian society can attest that what often felt most oppressive was precisely the lack of privacy.

" All this personal information -- more than 30 data elements including every destination to which we travel, who we travel with, how we pay for the tickets (sometimes including credit card numbers), what contact numbers we provide, even any dietary preferences or health-related requirements we communicate to the airline -- will be available for an almost limitless range of governmental purposes under the broad information-sharing provisions of the Customs Act. ..."

" This is unprecedented. The Government of Canada has absolutely no business creating a massive database of personal information about all law-abiding Canadians that is collected without our consent from third parties, not to provide us with any service but simply to have it available to use against us if it ever becomes expedient to do so. Compiling dossiers on the private activities of all law-abiding citizens is the sort of thing the Stasi secret police used to do in the former East Germany. It has no place in a free and democratic society. ..."

" It is difficult to imagine a more flagrant disregard for the rights of Canadians. This database is legally wrong and morally wrong. If the Government can get away with systematically logging and analyzing all the foreign travel activities of every law-abiding citizen, then no other private activity will long be safe from being included in the same personal dossiers -- our shopping, our banking, our communications, our movements within the country. The "Big Brother" society will be irrevocably upon us. ..."

Unfortunately we in the US don't have anyone in a comparable position as this guy-- an ombudsman of privacy-- so its unlikely this proposal will be revamped to take privacy into consideration. I'd worry that complaining about it will get you on the list, and once there, you can't get off (or even correct data about yourself). Does this new system actually get us additional security for its great loss of privacy? Quoting once more: "...I have suggested that any [proposed new law] must meet a four-part test:

• It must be demonstrably necessary in order to meet some specific need.
• It must be demonstrably likely to be effective in achieving its intended purpose. In other words, it must be likely to actually make us significantly safer, not just make us feel safer.
• The intrusion on privacy must be proportional to the security benefit to be derived.
• And it must be demonstrable that no other, less privacy-intrusive, measure would suffice to achieve the same purpose..."

" All this personal information -- more than 30 data elements including every destination to which we travel, who we travel with, how we pay for the tickets (sometimes including credit card numbers), what contact numbers we provide, even any dietary preferences or health-related requirements we communicate to the airline -- will be available for an almost limitless range of governmental purposes under the broad information-sharing provisions of the Customs Act. ..."

" This is unprecedented. The Government of Canada has absolutely no business creating a massive database of personal information about all law-abiding Canadians that is collected without our consent from third parties, not to provide us with any service but simply to have it available to use against us if it ever becomes expedient to do so. Compiling dossiers on the private activities of all law-abiding citizens is the sort of thing the Stasi secret police used to do in the former East Germany. It has no place in a free and democratic society. ..."

" It is difficult to imagine a more flagrant disregard for the rights of Canadians. This database is legally wrong and morally wrong. If the Government can get away with systematically logging and analyzing all the foreign travel activities of every law-abiding citizen, then no other private activity will long be safe from being included in the same personal dossiers -- our shopping, our banking, our communications, our movements within the country. The "Big Brother" society will be irrevocably upon us. ..."

Unfortunately we in the US don't have anyone in a comparable position as this guy-- an ombudsman of privacy-- so its unlikely this proposal will be revamped to take privacy into consideration. I'd worry that complaining about it will get you on the list, and once there, you can't get off (or even correct data about yourself). Does this new system actually get us additional security for its great loss of privacy? Quoting once more: "...I have suggested that any [proposed new law] must meet a four-part test:

• It must be demonstrably necessary in order to meet some specific need.
• It must be demonstrably likely to be effective in achieving its intended purpose. In other words, it must be likely to actually make us significantly safer, not just make us feel safer.
• The intrusion on privacy must be proportional to the security benefit to be derived.
• And it must be demonstrable that no other, less privacy-intrusive, measure would suffice to achieve the same purpose..."

• It must be demonstrably necessary in order to meet some specific need.
• It must be demonstrably likely to be effective in achieving its intended purpose. In other words, it must be likely to actually make us significantly safer, not just make us feel safer.
• The intrusion on privacy must be proportional to the security benefit to be derived.
• And it must be demonstrable that no other, less privacy-intrusive, measure would suffice to achieve the same purpose..."

"... The Government is, quite simply, using September 11 as an excuse for new collections and uses of personal information about all of us... that cannot be justified by the requirements of anti-terrorism and that, indeed, have no place in a free and democratic society. ... the Government has shown no willingness to modify these initiatives in response to privacy concerns. "...Now "September 11" is invoked as a kind of magic incantation to stifle debate, disparage critical analysis and persuade us that we live in a suddenly new world where the old rules cannot apply.

"I wish to emphasize at the outset that I have never once raised privacy objections against a single actual anti-terrorist security measure. Indeed, I have stated repeatedly ever since September 11 that I would never seek as Privacy Commissioner to stand in the way of any measures that might be legitimately necessary to enhance security against terrorism, even if they involved some new intrusion or limitation on privacy. I have objected only to the extension of purported anti-terrorism measures to additional purposes completely unrelated to anti-terrorism, or to intrusions on privacy whose relevance or necessity with regard to anti-terrorism has not been in any way demonstrated. ..."

"...When people are worried about their safety, when we have seen the horrors of which today's breed of terrorists are capable -- and there may be more -- it's easy to lose perspective. It's easy to fall into the trap of thinking that security is all that matters and that human rights such as privacy are a luxury. But such extremes can only reward and encourage terrorism, not diminish it. They can only devastate our lives, without commensurately safeguarding them. Of course we all want to be safe. But we could be safer from terrorism -- perhaps -- if we permanently evacuated all the high-rise office towers, if we closed down the subways, if we forever grounded all airplanes. Yet no reasonable person would be likely to argue for adopting such measures. We'd say, "We want to be safe, yes -- but not at the price of sacrificing our whole way of life. The same reasoning should apply, in my view, to arguments that privacy should indiscriminately be sacrificed on the altar of enhanced security..."

"...But if we apply the premises of war to the challenges of dealing with terrorism, we will by definition be committing ourselves to a "war" with no possible end -- because there is no single, definable enemy. Any group of individuals, or even any single individual, that is willing to commit public mayhem in support of any particular cause is thereby a terrorist. And so for every particular group or faction of terrorists that is neutralized, another one may readily spring up... This means that there can never be a moment when it will be possible to declare a definitive victory in a "war" against terrorism. We need to recognize, therefore, that any intrusions or limitations on the fundamental human right of privacy that are imposed as a purported wartime measure against terrorism will likely never be rescinded. What we are confronting is the prospect of a permanent redefinition of Canadian society. And what will this redefinition achieve in terms of protecting us? ...

"If Parliament and the public at large have been slow to react, it is probably because for most people, most of the time, privacy is a pretty abstract concept. Like our health, it's something we tend not to think about until we lose it -- and then discover that our lives have been very unpleasantly, and perhaps irretrievably, altered. ... But though we tend to take it for granted, privacy -- the right to control access to ourselves and to personal information about us -- is at the very core of our lives. It is a fundamental human right precisely because it is an innate human need, an essential condition of our freedom, our dignity and our sense of well-being."

"... A popular response is: "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." By that reasoning, of course, we shouldn't mind if the police were free to come into our homes at any time just to look around, if all our telephone conversations were monitored, if all our mail were read, if all the protections developed over centuries were swept away. It's only a difference of degree from the intrusions already being implemented or considered.
The truth is that we all do have something to hide, not because it's criminal or even shameful, but simply because it's private. We carefully calibrate what we reveal about ourselves to others. Most of us are only willing to have a few things known about us by a stranger, more by an acquaintance, and the most by a very close friend or a romantic partner. The right not to be known against our will -- indeed, the right to be anonymous except when we choose to identify ourselves -- is at the very core of human dignity, autonomy and freedom.

"If we allow the state to sweep away the normal walls of privacy that protect the details of our lives, we will consign ourselves psychologically to living in a fishbowl. Even if we suffered no other specific harm as a result, that alone would profoundly change how we feel. Anyone who has lived in a totalitarian society can attest that what often felt most oppressive was precisely the lack of privacy. But there also will be tangible, specific harm... The more information government compiles about us, the more of it will be wrong. That's simply a fact of life... The bottom line is this: If we have to live our lives weighing every action, every communication, every human contact, wondering what agents of the state might find out about it, analyze it, judge it, possibly misconstrue it, and somehow use it to our detriment, we are not truly free. That sort of life is characteristic of totalitarian countries, not a free and open society...

• It must be demonstrably necessary in order to meet some specific need.
• It must be demonstrably likely to be effective in achieving its intended purpose. In other words, it must be likely to actually make us significantly safer, not just make us feel safer.
• The intrusion on privacy must be proportional to the security benefit to be derived.
• And it must be demonstrable that no other, less privacy-intrusive, measure would suffice to achieve the same purpose..."

"... The Government is, quite simply, using September 11 as an excuse for new collections and uses of personal information about all of us... that cannot be justified by the requirements of anti-terrorism and that, indeed, have no place in a free and democratic society. ... the Government has shown no willingness to modify these initiatives in response to privacy concerns. "...Now "September 11" is invoked as a kind of magic incantation to stifle debate, disparage critical analysis and persuade us that we live in a suddenly new world where the old rules cannot apply.

"I wish to emphasize at the outset that I have never once raised privacy objections against a single actual anti-terrorist security measure. Indeed, I have stated repeatedly ever since September 11 that I would never seek as Privacy Commissioner to stand in the way of any measures that might be legitimately necessary to enhance security against terrorism, even if they involved some new intrusion or limitation on privacy. I have objected only to the extension of purported anti-terrorism measures to additional purposes completely unrelated to anti-terrorism, or to intrusions on privacy whose relevance or necessity with regard to anti-terrorism has not been in any way demonstrated. ..."

"...When people are worried about their safety, when we have seen the horrors of which today's breed of terrorists are capable -- and there may be more -- it's easy to lose perspective. It's easy to fall into the trap of thinking that security is all that matters and that human rights such as privacy are a luxury. But such extremes can only reward and encourage terrorism, not diminish it. They can only devastate our lives, without commensurately safeguarding them. Of course we all want to be safe. But we could be safer from terrorism -- perhaps -- if we permanently evacuated all the high-rise office towers, if we closed down the subways, if we forever grounded all airplanes. Yet no reasonable person would be likely to argue for adopting such measures. We'd say, "We want to be safe, yes -- but not at the price of sacrificing our whole way of life. The same reasoning should apply, in my view, to arguments that privacy should indiscriminately be sacrificed on the altar of enhanced security..."

"...But if we apply the premises of war to the challenges of dealing with terrorism, we will by definition be committing ourselves to a "war" with no possible end -- because there is no single, definable enemy. Any group of individuals, or even any single individual, that is willing to commit public mayhem in support of any particular cause is thereby a terrorist. And so for every particular group or faction of terrorists that is neutralized, another one may readily spring up... This means that there can never be a moment when it will be possible to declare a definitive victory in a "war" against terrorism. We need to recognize, therefore, that any intrusions or limitations on the fundamental human right of privacy that are imposed as a purported wartime measure against terrorism will likely never be rescinded. What we are confronting is the prospect of a permanent redefinition of Canadian society. And what will this redefinition achieve in terms of protecting us? ...

"If Parliament and the public at large have been slow to react, it is probably because for most people, most of the time, privacy is a pretty abstract concept. Like our health, it's something we tend not to think about until we lose it -- and then discover that our lives have been very unpleasantly, and perhaps irretrievably, altered. ... But though we tend to take it for granted, privacy -- the right to control access to ourselves and to personal information about us -- is at the very core of our lives. It is a fundamental human right precisely because it is an innate human need, an essential condition of our freedom, our dignity and our sense of well-being."

"... A popular response is: "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." By that reasoning, of course, we shouldn't mind if the police were free to come into our homes at any time just to look around, if all our telephone conversations were monitored, if all our mail were read, if all the protections developed over centuries were swept away. It's only a difference of degree from the intrusions already being implemented or considered.
The truth is that we all do have something to hide, not because it's criminal or even shameful, but simply because it's private. We carefully calibrate what we reveal about ourselves to others. Most of us are only willing to have a few things known about us by a stranger, more by an acquaintance, and the most by a very close friend or a romantic partner. The right not to be known against our will -- indeed, the right to be anonymous except when we choose to identify ourselves -- is at the very core of human dignity, autonomy and freedom.

"If we allow the state to sweep away the normal walls of privacy that protect the details of our lives, we will consign ourselves psychologically to living in a fishbowl. Even if we suffered no other specific harm as a result, that alone would profoundly change how we feel. Anyone who has lived in a totalitarian society can attest that what often felt most oppressive was precisely the lack of privacy. But there also will be tangible, specific harm... The more information government compiles about us, the more of it will be wrong. That's simply a fact of life... The bottom line is this: If we have to live our lives weighing every action, every communication, every human contact, wondering what agents of the state might find out about it, analyze it, judge it, possibly misconstrue it, and somehow use it to our detriment, we are not truly free. That sort of life is characteristic of totalitarian countries, not a free and open society...

There is still dissent left in Canada. As Barlow quoted the Navajo "It's impossible to awaken a man who is pretending to be asleep." Canada has yet to pretend to be asleep, but for how long can Canadians afford to be awake?

I don't understand how this is different from a drug screening test. Most employers require it.

As already echoed by other posts to this comment, most employers do not require drug screening.

One thing that is really interesting is that, according to what I have heard, pre-employment drug testing in Canada is unheard of. Even companies in the US which do it at all their branches don't do it in Canada.

Apparently one thing we can learn from the Canucks is that they have a higher regard for privacy issues (as evidenced by the Privacy Commissioner's recent and very eloquent report to Parliament) and Canadians as a whole are much more willing to show their middle fingers high to any employer whose policies they don't like.

Having said that, as time has gone on, I've become convinced that the employers who do drug testing are doing it because they have bought the line, hook and sinker, of drug testing companies, who claim all sorts of horrible things that happen if you don't do drug testing, and that you must invest in these fairly expensive and tremendously profitable tests. I believe that drug testing policies always come from the department of Human Resources, which is usually collectively as dumb as a branch of the DMV, and not much more sympathetic either.

Someday someone with some balls is gonna invest some money in a real study on drug testing, and show how truly worthless they are, but for right now the drug testing companies are running the show.

Our privacy laws (which are fairly new) were modelled after the privacy standards in the EU. And from interviews, letters and everything I've seen, our privacy commissioner is great spokesperson for individual privacy rights in Canada.

Specifically, thanks to a law that he pushed through, this statement in the letter (among others) would be illegal: You do not have the right to opt out of the disclosure of this information...

What were they saying about Soviet Canuckistan?

A lot has been mentioned about 'The ISP's terms and conditions' or User agreements but this is not the core of the case. Once the user terminates an account the User Agreement does not apply. This person, to her knowledge, terminated the account. The complaint is:' The ISP had improperly used her personal information without her knowledge and consent for a purpose other than that for which it had been collected '
The ISP used her personal information, the content her e-mail, for the purpose of collecting an alleged over-due balance. The e-mail was collected without her knowledge and it was collected to reclaim the over-due balance.

The Longitudinal Labour Force File fiasco of a couple of years ago. Of course, it has since been dismantled (or else put in the hands of a government body beyond the reach of the Privacy Commissioner) but I would not put it past the federal government to try this again under a different guise.

Here's a little more info.

Who you need to talk to is the Privacy Commission, not puny little MLAs. Our Privacy Commissioner is very much an advocate for the people. I've had a change to attend a course on privacy which he spoke at. That would be the appropriate venue for your concerns.

This is quite a hot topic in Vancouver, and a smaller city in the BC interior, Kelowna.

There's an interesting read on a Canadian Government website (clipped from a local Vancouver newspaper).

On a related topic, at a fireworks event in Vancouver a couple of weeks ago, I noticed a police helicopter overhead at a couple hundred feet, buzzing back and forth around the crowds as everyone was leaving to go home. Despite the obvious police surveillance, there were still some violent attacks in the crowds, as reported by the news the following day.

.Dave

Do not like companies taking your private information and using/giving it to whomever they like? Move to Canada where we pass laws against things like that.

PIPEDA

A few things Canadians are protected from

• Phone companies(or any corporation as of Jan 1 2004) are not be able to give any information, let alone on who you call, to affililiates with out your explicit and informed consent.
• They are restricted from utilizing your information (beyond that which you would find on a business card) for any purpose internally for which they do not have express written consent from you.
• If they provide information to a third party then they are legally liable (criminal and unspecified civil damages) if that company misuses your information.
• You may request at any time, and they have 30 days, to provide you with all of the information that they have about you.
• If the reason they have your information every ends (ie you leave them as a cusomter) they must destroy or anonymize that information.
• To prevent a company wiggling out of this by claiming you have to give up said information rights to get said service, well that is explicitly prohibited.

Companies who do not comply with PIPEDA face stiff criminal and civil consequences, and the privacy commisioner, at his discretion, may publish any and all information about a companies internal privacy policies. This last part is in fact designed to embarass a company publicly, something corporations definitely do not want.

Bascially to fail to live up to your obligations under the legislation you will be charged, humiliates and potentially loose a ton of money

Case in point, already a bank had to pay $1000 to a woman because they mistakenly printed the word "bankrupt" in her address field on her bank statement. Imagine if they had done that to 10,000 customers by mistake? Also keep in mind that was a mistake, imagine what will happen if they do something on purpose?

So if you are concerned about your privacy you can do one of two things.

1. Move to Canada
2. Lobby your government to take the power over your information out of the hands of greedy self-serving corporations and put it where it belongs, in your hands

First, a sensible editorial from the Vancouver Sun.

Second, some words from the Canadian privacy commissioner, in which he comes down on video surveillance.

Third, the cameras are ruled illegal.

Canada has a privacy commissioner who is independent of the government and police and who has one overriding concern above all else: ensuring that the constitutional privacy rights of the Canadian public are respected.

In the past, he's also prevented the government from creating a super database that merges all information from all sources -- police, medical, political, taxation, etc -- into one system. So ruled because it would make it far too easy for the various branches of government to look at data they shouldn't have access to.

Thank goodness Canada's got the foresight and commonsense to have an independent commissioner!

First, a sensible editorial from the Vancouver Sun.

Second, some words from the Canadian privacy commissioner, in which he comes down on video surveillance.

Third, the cameras are ruled illegal.

Canada has a privacy commissioner who is independent of the government and police and who has one overriding concern above all else: ensuring that the constitutional privacy rights of the Canadian public are respected.

In the past, he's also prevented the government from creating a super database that merges all information from all sources -- police, medical, political, taxation, etc -- into one system. So ruled because it would make it far too easy for the various branches of government to look at data they shouldn't have access to.

Thank goodness Canada's got the foresight and commonsense to have an independent commissioner!

The use of Search Warrants or subpoenas to order disclosure is similar in Canada, however PIPEDA seems to allow the disclosure of information without warrant when requested by the authorities. What would make more sense is an order simply mandating disclosure of information without being wrapped up in the auspices of a search warrant. The privacy policies of ISPs should reflect this type of scenario, which would, I'd think, invalidate concerns over unreasonable search and seizure.

For your info : www.privcom.gc.ca

You can also use PIPEDA to stop Canadian companies from telemarketing you. Under PIPEDA, you have the right to know where they got your personal information from, who they may have given it to, what they have on you, etc. You must also consent to how they intend to use your personal information, and you may revoke consent at any time.

Currently, this only applies to federal companies, but as of 2004 (I think -- verify on the Privacy Commissioner's site) this will apply provincially.

It's worked for me. Plus, the moment you say "Under my rights as defined by the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, I first demand to know where you got my personal information from, and second, I do not give my consent to have this information used for telemarketing purposes. By the way, who is your privacy officer -- you do know that under the auspices of the act you are legally required to have one and to provide me with his or her contact information for privacy complaints?" the telemarketer on the phone has visions of lawsuits and takes you off the lists.

The law is a intimidating and powerful thing.

You can also use PIPEDA to stop Canadian companies from telemarketing you. Under PIPEDA, you have the right to know where they got your personal information from, who they may have given it to, what they have on you, etc. You must also consent to how they intend to use your personal information, and you may revoke consent at any time.

Currently, this only applies to federal companies, but as of 2004 (I think -- verify on the Privacy Commissioner's site) this will apply provincially.

It's worked for me. Plus, the moment you say "Under my rights as defined by the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, I first demand to know where you got my personal information from, and second, I do not give my consent to have this information used for telemarketing purposes. By the way, who is your privacy officer -- you do know that under the auspices of the act you are legally required to have one and to provide me with his or her contact information for privacy complaints?" the telemarketer on the phone has visions of lawsuits and takes you off the lists.

The law is a intimidating and powerful thing.

Furthermore, if you've been defrauded, you can probably get a free copy of your credit report, and that can potentially help you clean up a whole other category of problem: inaccurate (but not fraudulent) credit information.

The Globe and Mail reported on April 16, 2001 that the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, George Radwanski, said employees have a "fundamental, inherent right" to privacy in the workplace, and this includes the right to private e-mail.

The new federal privacy law pertaining to electronic documents, which took effect Jan. 1, stipulates that an organization may collect, use or disclose personal information "only for purposes that a reasonable person would consider appropriate." Mr. Radwanski, who has the authority to investigate and refer breaches of the act to the Federal Court of Canada, says "random snooping" through employees' e-mail boxes is clearly a breach.

I submitted this info as a story submission yesterday, but it was turned down by the Slashdot editors. However it does relate to the discussion of this story so I will slip it in here:

Trickster Coyote writes: Canada's Privacy Commissioner has ruled that constant videotaping from police surveillance cameras violates the Privacy Act and that even just monitoring the cameras without taping violates the spirit of the law if not the letter. Says the commish: "...monitoring and recording the activities of vast numbers of law-abiding citizens as they go about their day-to-day lives" is not a legitimate part of police activities. Read the official report or news articles from canada.com or The Globe and Mail.

Trickster Coyote
"Reality leaves a lot to the imagination." -- John Lennon

I submitted this info as a story submission yesterday, but it was turned down by the Slashdot editors. However it does relate to the discussion of this story so I will slip it in here:

Trickster Coyote writes: Canada's Privacy Commissioner has ruled that constant videotaping from police surveillance cameras violates the Privacy Act and that even just monitoring the cameras without taping violates the spirit of the law if not the letter. Says the commish: "...monitoring and recording the activities of vast numbers of law-abiding citizens as they go about their day-to-day lives" is not a legitimate part of police activities. Read the official report or news articles from canada.com or The Globe and Mail.

Trickster Coyote
"Reality leaves a lot to the imagination." -- John Lennon

You do realize that not all modern democratic nations require that all of its citizens be identified by a unique number? In fact there are many that would argue that a free and democratic society must not force such a system on its citizens.

Americans seem to have grown so used to having "unique" number stamped onto your arm at birth that you assume that it is necessary. Then you wonder why all of you can have your indentities stolen by anyone with $5 and an internet account.

In Canada for instance everyone over 12 has a SIN or social insurance number issued to them. However the use of the SIN as part of an identification system is severely restricted. Further the number itself is not considered unique. In fact it is possible, even in a relatively small group(say 10,000 people) for this number to collide.

No company can require you to provide your SIN for any purpose, including credit card companies or apartment rental companies etc. Nor can they use it to uniquely identify you.

There are a few specific exceptions.

Basically the only purposes for which you must provide your SIN is where the recipient has responsibilities to Canada Customs and Revenue Agency(CCRA), Canada's IRS. For example your employer or other agent for which you will have income. For example an investment bank where interest income will be returned will require a SIN to report income to the CCRA. In this case the number must be only used for this purpose, not for indentification (ie not as a unique key) and must be destroyed upon termination of your relationship (ie you move to a new job).

See the Privacy Comission of Canada's web site for more information.

Even the CCRA does not use your SIN as an standalone identifier. You see the CCRA has learned that in a database you can use multiple DB columns to create a unique id. So in fact your identity is determined by multiple values.

So in Canada you get the benefits of being able to identify someone for tax purposes without all of the danger and flaws in a single "unique" number. A number which even in the US is aparently not all that unique if you read some of the posts.

Now the US government wants to issue a unique number for phone, e-mail and fax?

You americans are crazy.

Unfortunately, the problem with a government funded Internet infrastructure is that you have to abide by government rules.

Yes, including Laws, like the Privacy Act (Public Sector) and PIPEDA (Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act -- Private Sector.)

In Canada, we have a Privacy Commissioner to help prevent violations to personal privacy from both the government and corporations. The Commissioner acts as a privacy watchdog -- the role is non-partisan.

It's not perfect, but it's pretty good.

Unfortunately, the problem with a government funded Internet infrastructure is that you have to abide by government rules.

Yes, including Laws, like the Privacy Act (Public Sector) and PIPEDA (Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act -- Private Sector.)

In Canada, we have a Privacy Commissioner to help prevent violations to personal privacy from both the government and corporations. The Commissioner acts as a privacy watchdog -- the role is non-partisan.

It's not perfect, but it's pretty good.

It certainly sounds a lot better than anything going on in the U.S. or Europe right now. Of course, Canada doesn't have any monolithic "Law Enforcement" agencies like the FBI to impose their will on anyone. (CSIS is a little scary, but I don't they have any way to circumvent the privacy laws.)
-----------------

Here's thePrivacy Commissioner's website. It's a little dry, but all the relevant current and proposed laws are archived there.

A full explanation of Canadian Copyright law can be found here (PDF).

Other interesting Canadian laws relating to intellectual property and online privacy are:

• Trademarks
• The Privacy Act (privacy between individuals and the federal government)
• The Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) (privacy between individuals and the private sector

The last one is a new law, and a very good law. I strongly advise all Canadians, plus those interested in privacy to read it. Essentially, it now means that the individual legally has complete control over his or her own personal information and over what organizations may do with that information.

I've tried to get a story posted about this, but to no avail. There are so many good things about this law that I haven't been able to shut up about it for weeks.

I'll hop off my soapbox now.

A full explanation of Canadian Copyright law can be found here (PDF).

Other interesting Canadian laws relating to intellectual property and online privacy are:

• Trademarks
• The Privacy Act (privacy between individuals and the federal government)
• The Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) (privacy between individuals and the private sector

The last one is a new law, and a very good law. I strongly advise all Canadians, plus those interested in privacy to read it. Essentially, it now means that the individual legally has complete control over his or her own personal information and over what organizations may do with that information.

I've tried to get a story posted about this, but to no avail. There are so many good things about this law that I haven't been able to shut up about it for weeks.

I'll hop off my soapbox now.

And having public/universal healthcare doesn't address the privacy issues. Seems like governmental medicine would fall under freedom of information acts. That would suck.

Actually no.

Medical information in Canada is protected under doctor-patient privledge. I don't know what our equivalent of the Freedom of Information Act is, but under the Privacy Act (which controls government use of personal information) no information about an individual can be disclosed to others without the consent of that individual. (There are some exceptions for medical emergencies, law enforcement, etc.)

Moreover, the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA -- controls the private use of personal information) explicitly states that medical practitioners must protect personal information. This is a new act, and it will be phased starting Jan 01, 2001.

Under PIPEDA, the information about this woman's genetic disease could not be released to her employer without her explicit consent. Although she went to HR to have them contact the drug company, that information would be considered private and could not be released to her boss.

Hmmm.... Privacy and health care. Not bad.

And having public/universal healthcare doesn't address the privacy issues. Seems like governmental medicine would fall under freedom of information acts. That would suck.

Actually no.

Medical information in Canada is protected under doctor-patient privledge. I don't know what our equivalent of the Freedom of Information Act is, but under the Privacy Act (which controls government use of personal information) no information about an individual can be disclosed to others without the consent of that individual. (There are some exceptions for medical emergencies, law enforcement, etc.)

Moreover, the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA -- controls the private use of personal information) explicitly states that medical practitioners must protect personal information. This is a new act, and it will be phased starting Jan 01, 2001.

Under PIPEDA, the information about this woman's genetic disease could not be released to her employer without her explicit consent. Although she went to HR to have them contact the drug company, that information would be considered private and could not be released to her boss.

Hmmm.... Privacy and health care. Not bad.