Slashdot Mirror
Facebook Faces the Canadian Privacy Commissioner
dakohli writes "Canwest's Sarah Schmidt writes that Facebook has until Monday to find a way to fix its 'serious privacy gaps.' And if the Canadian Privacy Commissioner isn't happy with the Web Company's response, then she has two weeks to push it to the Canadian Federal Court in Ottawa. 'A spokeswoman for the commission said it's premature to say whether the feud will end up in court. This would be an international first for Facebook, which has grown to more than 200 million users since its launch in 2004.'"
At least one country is going to try to close this massive loophole of never destroying a user's information when they want to remove their account. I mean I can understand that being able to just "deactivate" an account is useful when a user just wants to stop using facebook for a while but how hard is it to have a remove feature that deletes a users information?
Keep your private information private by not posting it on Facebook!
That one phrase is one of the most interesting and most insulting that can be used. Void where prohibited is the same as saying we're not sure where a judge will rule this illegal, but in case they do, you lose. Why not be user friendly (anyone remember that phrase?) and say what laws you ARE in compliance with, perhaps listing a reference to your licensing documents? Even lawyers are prohibited from practicing law in regions they are not licensed for. Yes, I realize that the WWW is not quite the same thing, but in the EULA you should mention all the regions where it is legal and above board since the L in EULA stands for license. As a user, if you don't know where you are in compliance, how the hell am I supposed to know? While 'buyer beware' always applies, in this day and age, it's not unreasonable to expect that a service list where it is in compliance with privacy laws in their privacy statement.
As far as Facebook users should be concerned, if the government of Canada thinks there are privacy violations, there are... at least until Facebook clears the matter up unequivocally and publicly. After all, how can I in good faith sign or accept a EULA if I cannot be sure your service is in compliance with the applicable laws? DING That is to say that EULAs are wrong from word one, but staying on point, if there is to be one, shouldn't the burden be on the provider to show what privacy laws they are in compliance with?
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
Or, how about, users research what they are getting into in the first place? Do you seriously expect facebook to go through the law books on every national and local level and state which laws, where, they are in compliance with, AND keep up-to-date on them? That's impossible, and ridiculous. I can't seriously fathom how you could seriously consider forcing someone to go through laws everywhere stating how they are in compliance with them.
Do you own a web site? Any sort of a web site? Good, because that same onus is now upon YOU to do the very same thing, if you collect any sort of user data. Have fun!
The Privacy Commissioner is an officer of parliament (who reports directly to the Senate and the House of Commons), not an official of the Government of Canada.
Atheism is a religion to the same extent that not collecting stamps is a hobby.
In this case it's probably more akin to -
Given: ZFC
Prove: The continuum hypothesis
Given the legal systems of every country on Earth, I'm pretty sure you can find at least two contradictory laws.
More importantly to Canada, it means roughly a third of the entire country is on Facebook. That's getting into the realm of national security concerns when detailed information that much of your population resides in a foreign country.
I would first like to take this opportunity to complain about the size of the margins on the paper supplied to students...
Ahh - My eye!
The doctor said I'm not supposed to get Slashdot in it!
Someone who reports directly to the house and senate is beholden to them. This means committees not individual people like normal bureaucrats, which means there is a much higher level of standard regarding issues when push comes to shove in a body like this. The privacy commissioner is not a regulatory agency like the CRTC, it's an actual oversight board and committee meant to safeguard the privacy of the citizens of Canada.
Om, nomnomnom...
They do business with people within those nations, but are not actually situated within those nations, unless of course they have some headquarters in that nation (or locality).
No. They don't need to headquarters in a nation. They don't even need a branch office. They don't need any staff at all. They only need to have a "presence".
So what is a "presence"?
Pretty much anything that is selling OR promoting your product or service in Canada would count -- "doing business in Canada".
Facebook in particular has deals with the major wireless carriers to promote 'facebook on your mobile phone', and that would qualify it having a Canadian presence. It is actively doing business in Canada.
But Joe Average American running a blog, per your example, is merely accessible from Canada, and he and his site don't have any Canadian presence.
Now if facebook doesn't actually have any offices or staff in Canada, there's not really much that the Canadian government can do directly to them, even if they are deemed to have a presence. But it can go after facebooks canadian partners (such as the aforementioned wireless carriers) and force them to cease dealing with facebook which gives them some limited leverage over facebook insofar as they can make it so that if facebook wants to continue running promotions in Canada, and have its 'app' and 'bookmarks' and whatnot preloaded on phones then it has to meet whatever laws are in place.
Meanwhile they would have zero leverage over your example Joe Average American blogger, who couldn't care what the Canadian governement does in Canada.
The Government of Canada is currently led by Stephen Harper. The Parliament of Canada is 308 House of Commons members and 105 Senators; the government answers to the House of Commons, and the Governor General asks the membership of the Commons to form a government from their membership which, by custom, is the leader of the majority party. Parliament is above the Government, and serves to keep the Government in check.
Technically, then, the Government is a part of the Parliament, not the other way around.
(Fun fact: There are actually three components of Parliament: The House, the Senate, and the Library of Parliament.)