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 197: Divest, Ban or Regulate?: Anupam Chander on the Global Fight Over TikTok
byMichael Geist
March 25, 2024
Michael Geist
March 18, 2024
Michael Geist
March 11, 2024
Michael Geist
February 26, 2024
Michael Geist
Search Results placeholder
Recent Posts
- Tweets Are Not Enough: Why Combatting Relentless Antisemitism in Canada Requires Real Leadership and Action
- The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 197: Divest, Ban or Regulate? – Anupam Chander on the Global Fight Over TikTok
- The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 196: Vibert Jack on the Supreme Court’s Landmark Bykovets Internet Privacy Ruling
- Better Laws, Not Bans: Why a TikTok Ban is a Bad Idea
- Government Gaslighting Again?: Unpacking the Uncomfortable Reality of 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.