Post Tagged with: "lsat"

LSAC Complies with Privacy Commissioner Finding

A student discussion forum confirms that the LSAC has substituted fingerprinting with a photograph for students who take the LSAT exam.

Read more ›

August 27, 2007 1 comment Must Reads

LSAT Fingerprinting Finding Posted

CIPPIC has posted a copy of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada's preliminary finding on the requirement for LSAT test-takers to provide a fingerprint.

Read more ›

July 3, 2007 3 comments Must Reads

Privacy Commissioner Rules that LSAT Fingerprinting Violates the Law

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 […]

Read more ›

June 22, 2007 1 comment Must Reads

Alberta Privacy Commish Releases Outsourcing Report

On the heels of last week’s discussion over LSAT fingerprinting, Alberta Privacy Commissioner has released a lengthy report on the privacy implications of data outsourcing by public bodies. The report recommends ensuring that a public body has a template or check list in place to ensure that an outsource provider […]

Read more ›

February 26, 2006 Comments are Disabled News

LSAT Fingerprinting Tests the Limits of Privacy Law

My weekly Law Bytes column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) examines the growing controversy over the mandatory fingerprinting of students taking the LSAT.  There has been swift reaction to the thumb-printing story, with the federal, British Columbia, and Alberta Privacy Commissioners joining forces in a combined privacy investigation.  Moreover, the Canadian Council of Law Deans, which represents law schools across the country, has expressed concern over the practice, acknowledging that the data could be subject to a USA Patriot Act request.  The Council raised questions about whether the practice might violate federal and provincial privacy statutes.

Read more ›

February 19, 2006 5 comments Columns