Post Tagged with: "pipeda"

Why Canada’s Telecom Companies Should Come Clean About Customer Information

Earlier this week, I wrote a column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) arguing that Canada’s telecom companies should come clean about their disclosures of customer information. That column was in response to a public letter from leading civil liberties groups and academics sent to Canada’s leading telecom companies asking them to shed new light into their data retention and sharing policies. The letter writing initiative, which was led by Christopher Parsons of the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto’s Munk School of Global Affairs, is the latest attempt to address the lack of transparency regarding how and when Canadians’ personal information may be disclosed without their knowledge to law enforcement or intelligence agencies.

That initiative has now effectively been joined by the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada and NDP MP Charmaine Borg. Chantal Bernier, the interim Privacy Commissioner of Canada, released recommendations yesterday designed to reinforce privacy protections in the age of cyber-surveillance. The report includes the following recommended reform to PIPEDA:

require public reporting on the use of various disclosure provisions under PIPEDA where private-sector entities such as telecommunications companies release personal information to national security entities without court oversight.

January 29, 2014 — 5 comments — Columns

Why Canada’s Telecom Companies Should Come Clean About Customer Information

Appeared in the Toronto Star on January 25, 2014 as Why Canada’s Telecoms Should Come Clean About Customer Information Last week I joined leading civil liberties groups and academics in a public letter sent to Canada’s leading telecom companies asking them to shed new light into their data retention and […]

January 28, 2014 — 1 comment — Columns Archive

European Report Says Canadian Privacy Law Should Be Re-Examined Due to Surveillance Activities

The European Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs has issued a detailed draft report on the U.S. surveillance activities and its implications for European fundamental rights. The report loops Canada into the discussion, noting Canada’s participation in the “five-eyes” consortium and expressing concern about the implications for trust in the Canadian legal system. The report states:

whereas according to the information revealed and to the findings of the inquiry conducted by the LIBE Committee, the national security agencies of New Zealand and Canada have been involved on a large scale in mass surveillance of electronic communications and have actively cooperated with the US under the so called â€˜Five eyes’ programme, and may have exchanged with each other personal data of EU citizens transferred from the EU;

whereas Commission Decisions 2013/651 and 2/2002 of 20 December 2012 have declared the adequate level of protection ensured by the New Zealand and the Canadian Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act; whereas the aforementioned revelations also seriously affect trust in the legal systems of these countries as regards the continuity of protection afforded to EU citizens; whereas the Commission has not examined this aspect.

January 9, 2014 — 4 comments — News

Why Peter MacKay Is Wrong About Warrantless Access to Personal Information

The debate on Bill C-13 opened yesterday in the House of Commons with opposition MPs calling on the government to split the bill into two (cyberbullying and lawful access) and raising concerns about the voluntary disclosure provision that would give Internet providers complete criminal and civil immunity for voluntary retention and disclosure of subscriber information. When asked about the issue, Justice Minister Peter MacKay said the following:

The provision would clarify that the police officer can lawfully ask – and he points out – that individuals and groups voluntarily preserve data or provide documentation, but only when no prohibition exists against doing so. That is to suggest that organizations would still be bound by the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, something known as PIPEDA, which makes it clear that an organization is entitled to voluntarily disclose personal information to the police, without the consent of the person to have the information relayed.

However police have to have lawful authority to do so. They still have to obtain a warrant. They can ask that the information be preserved and temporarily put on hold so that it cannot be deleted, but in order for police to access that information that is frozen, they must still obtain a warrant. There is no warrantless access.

Unfortunately, MacKay is wrong.

November 28, 2013 — 5 comments — News

Privacy Commissioner of Canada Sets Out Targets for PIPEDA Reform

Privacy Commissioner of Canada Jennifer Stoddart this morning set out her office’s goals for PIPEDA reform. The last attempt to reform the private sector privacy law stalled in the House of Commons with Bill C-12 still technically alive (having been sitting at second reading for months) but destined to die […]

May 23, 2013 — 2 comments — News