Slashdot Mirror
Canadian Privacy Act
Nos. writes "Yesterday, I happened upon an Act that came into effect in Canada on January 1, 2004. The Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act protects almost every bit of personal information not publicly available. For example, your name, race, date of birth, income, etc. are protected where your address and telephone number are not (these are generally available in the telephone book). Some of the more interesting parts of the faq include such wonderful things as: '[businesses must] supply you with a product or a service even if you refuse consent for the collection, use or disclosure of your personal information unless the information is essential to the transaction'. Definitely a step in the right direction."
Well, privacy, like encryption, should be based on the knowledge that a highly motivated individual can and will break the system, but that the goal is to make the cost (money, time, resources, personal risk...) involved is high enough that 1) it cannot be done en masse, and 2) the value obtained from such a violation is by far overshadowed by the expediture. This is the basic idea behind security, too, both information security and physical security.
#define DRM chmod 000
These laws are great in theory but considering the government's lack of enthusiasm to protect personal information (at least in the US) they are nearly impossible to enforce.
The whole war on spam is the exact same thing. The government passes all of these laws to make it look like they're doing something but then can't/won't enforce said laws.
They can pass all the laws they want but if the government is unwilling to enforce them then what's the point?
Chaos reigns within.
Reflect, repent, and reboot.
Order shall return.
well, unless you want a credit rating. All the "down with the man!" in the world won't help when you're trying to buy a house...and your credit history is tracked with that number.
aaaand what if a recall notice is sent out?
It does seem like a step in the right direction. It's mind-boggling to me how America, being as "enlightened" as it is, seems hesitant to respect privacy rights. In Europe employee monitoring laws are being tightened while in America this report says the trend is increasing. Even in California when a protective bill was passed it was vetoed by the (formed) Gov. Grey Davis. And I think that the argument is frivolous that if you have nothing to hide then it shouldn't be a problem. Then, surely, you wouldn't object to a full body search every morning coming into work?
It just demonstrates how strongly America loves its businesses and corporations (and subsequently, its money). These corporate/business-friendly policies that put so much pressure on American employees are just like outsourcing in that they alienate the apparently "not-worthwhile" American employee. While America may keep their corporations and their corporate revenue, they might lose a comparable amount in salaries and income taxes. Perhaps.
I like these progressive-non-Big-Brother (i.e. not China, Saudi Arabia, evidently) countries that respect the people and their lives rather than corporations.
You do raise a good point about govenment monitoring and the like. It does seem like small consolation to have your privacy rights from your employer, but still allow the government to monitor every aspect of your existence.
Still, this is a good thing.
I love this place. Our drinking age is lower, our technology is cheaper, our women are cuter...
Seriously though, I have done allot of thinking about the difference between Americans and Canadians lately and I believe that the best way of explaining it is by looking at American idol and comparing it to CBC's Monday Report. Americans like to laugh at themselves and Canadians like to laugh at their politicians.
I think most of the spin about Canada being a socialist state is bogus. We have stronger state education and health care, but I think that's only a wise application of capitalism. Heck we spend less per capita on state health insurance than the U.S. does. And we cover everyone, instead of just the old people.
;-)
I think the argument usually comes down to taxation rates. I've lived and worked in both the U.S. and Canada. All I know is, I payed whackloads less on employee stock options that I exercized in Canada than I did in the U.S. Sure in some states (not all!) the income tax rate is lower than in Canada, but in the states stock option gains were taxable as regular income, which in canada only 50% of the gains were taxable as regular income. I'd take half of 43% over 35% tax any day...
Most importantly, though how can you call Canada socialist, totalitarian or big brother in relationship to the States when it comes to the government involvement in your lives below the 49th? Man I don't need some cop telling me I can't j-walk across the f'ing street when I want to. And how the heck can you have a reasonable folk music festival (e.g. Seattle's) with cops crawling over the place nicking anyone with Mary Jane?
I think the U.S. was the leader in establishing the free democratic state a couple of centuries ago, but I'd have to say the torch has been passed on. Not exclusively to Canada, but to a group of western countries that have taken the idea of personal freedom and run with it.
"I thought they were the dominant species..."
I see of /. Canada called socialist
yes, this is correct. Canada, like most countries with high standards of living (like most of Europe) is Socialist. As a Canadian, I'm quite proud of this.
This seems to be the counterproof.
No, this is exactly proof. This is what Socialist governments do - they enact laws that benefit people instead of ones that benefit corporations.
Americans seem to equate 'socialism' with 'totalitarianism', when the two have exactly zero in common. Perhaps if you understood what the terms actually mean, you wouldn't be so confused.
Did you just attend the Security and Privacy conference in Victoria yesterday? I hope you didn't just horribly mislead the Slashdot hordes by citing the dates off the top of your uninformed head instead of basic research. (This conference had discussion about various privacy legislation.)
1 5_e.asp
Specifically, the federal Privacy Act came into effect July 1, 1983, the federal PIPEDA (Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act) came into effect January 1, 2001, and the BC provincial PIPA (Personal Information Privacy Act) came into effect January 1, 2004. What it is important is that "[a]s of January 1, 2004, the [Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents] Act will cover the collection, use or disclosure of personal information in the course of any commercial activity within a province, including provincially regulated organizations. The federal government may exempt organizations or activities in provinces that have their own privacy laws if they are substantially similar to the federal law." PIPEDA has been in place for a few years now, it just got extended to corporatations; BC now has their own overriding legislation as well.
See here for more details:
http://www.privcom.gc.ca/fs-fi/02_05_d_
I also thought your post was a horrible summary of the various pieces of legislation and their consequences, but that's just my opinion. I'd suggest next time using the official government propoganda. Even your first sentence managed to probably be incorrect--PIPA (and probably PIPEDA, I'm not sure) does protect your personal information that is public as well, in terms of reasonable use (i.e. I believe telemarketers aren't allowed to go through the telephone directory).
Regards,
Casper
Nobody is required to buy anything on credit. You are free to save up your money in your piggy bank until you have enough to pay for your house in cash.
If however you would like to use someone else's money to buy your house then they are obviously going to want to know whether you are a good risk or not and are going to check your credit history to determine this.