PrivacyScan is reporting that the Privacy Commissioner is about to release a finding that the LSAT fingerprinting requirement violates Canadian privacy law. The Commissioner rejected arguments that the test is non-commercial and thus outside PIPEDA. Moreover, she found that there are less privacy invasive mechanisms to address concerns about fraudulent test taking. A full decision release is expected within weeks.
Privacy Commissioner Rules that LSAT Fingerprinting Violates the Law
June 22, 2007
Share this post
One Comment
Law Bytes
Episode 202: David Soberman on the Reality Behind Claims Canadian Wireless Prices Have Been Cut in Half
byMichael Geist
May 6, 2024
Michael Geist
April 22, 2024
Michael Geist
April 15, 2024
Michael Geist
April 8, 2024
Michael Geist
Search Results placeholder
Recent Posts
- The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 202: David Soberman on the Reality Behind Claims Canadian Wireless Prices Have Been Cut in Half
- The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 201: Robert Diab on the Billion Dollar Lawsuits Launched By Ontario School Boards Against Social Media Giants
- The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 200: Colin Bennett on the EU’s Surprising Adequacy Finding on Canadian Privacy Law
- Debating the Online Harms Act: Insights from Two Recent Panels on Bill C-63
- The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 199: Boris Bytensky on the Criminal Code Reforms in the Online Harms Act
Fingerprinting the Innocent
A few of us sitting in a pub the other day started talking about fingerprinting and privacy. The question we came up with was, ‘why are people fingerprinted immediately after being arrested but before being charged?’ Example, as a 17 year old I was picked up for shop lifiting, I was fingerprinted and photographed. However, I was released and charges were dropped. Why were those steps taken over something so minor?
Thanks.