Off the mark

Regular readers of this blog will know that I'm generally highly sympathetic to concerns about information management and privacy. But it's worth pointing out as well when apparent efforts to protect those interests are focused in the wrong direction - as seems to be the case in B.C. Privacy Commissioner David Loukidelis' apparent call for municipalities not to pass bylaws which could affect privacy in any way:

Laws making pawnshops and second-hand dealers turn over customers' personal information have been in force for decades, but Loukidelis is worried about an expansion of the number of businesses required to do the same.

"It should be left to the courts to issue warrants or orders to businesses to turn over customer information on a case-by-case basis where justified," Loukidelis wrote.

"It is doubtful that such bylaws are really effective and there are certainly tools that may more effectively achieve the community safety objectives that the bylaws purport to address."

Loukidelis said his office reviewed several such laws and found no measures to ensure that personal information is used properly and is protected...

Loukidelis said he passed on his concerns to the Union of B.C. Municipalities, but they were mostly unsympathetic to his argument.

The organization believes local governments should be able to enact bylaws to regulate businesses which may be associated with criminal activity.

But Loukidelis suggested the courts would likely disagree.

He said there are other tools that would achieve the same thing, be less invasive and likely more effective. He noted the province's Safety Standards Amendment Act, which came into force in June.

It requires B.C. Hydro and other electrical utilities to share domestic electrical consumption information with municipal safety authorities.

The intention is to allow safety officials to inspect residences whose electricity consumption is so high it might mean a marijuana grow-op is operating at the address.

"This new law effectively removes the point of such municipal bylaws and municipal councils, should, for this reason as well, not be passing them."

I agree with Loukidelis to the extent that any municipal laws affecting privacy should provide for protection of individual privacy except - and I'd certainly agree with an effort to talk to municipalities to try to improve existing and planned laws in that respect. But the gist of the article appears to be something else entirely, consisting of an argument by Loukidelis that municipalities should stay out of any regulation related to information management entirely on the basis that the province could do a better job. And that attempt to essentially limit the operation of municipalities can only make them all the less likely to want to cooperate with the OIPC, both on this issue and others.

Of course, it is important to ensure that information collected by any level of government is properly managed and safeguarded. But it's equally important to ensure that municipalities are able to address needs which are either specific to a community, or not yet addressed by the provincial government. And so long as that's done in a way which does take into account proviacy concerns, Loukidelis should be willing to support and approve of municipal action - not looking to eliminate it entirely.

(Edit: typo.)