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
Ep. 265 – Jason Millar on Claude Mythos, Project Glasswing, and the Governance Crisis in Frontier AI
byMichael Geist

Ep. 265 – Jason Millar on Claude Mythos, Project Glasswing, and the Governance Crisis in Frontier AI
April 20, 2026
Michael Geist
March 30, 2026
Michael Geist
March 16, 2026
Michael Geist
Search Results placeholder
Michael Geist on Substack
Recent Posts
Lawful Access Heads to Committee: The Opposition Found Its Voice, the Government Never Found Its Defence
Is Data De-Identification Dead?: Why the AI Privacy Risk Isn’t What It Learns, But What It Figures Out
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 265: Jason Millar on Claude Mythos, Project Glasswing, and the Governance Crisis in Frontier AI
A Standard That Doesn’t Exist: Parliamentary Secretary for Justice Offers Misleading Defence of Bill C-22’s Lower Threshold for Subscriber Information
More Surveillance Demands to Come?: Government Admits Bill C-22’s Lawful Access Provisions Could Be Expanded

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.