The federal privacy commissioner is squaring off against the RCMP for urging the government to adopt changes that would legally compel companies to give police personal information of employees and customers without their knowledge or consent - changes the office says would invade the privacy of Canadians.What the article doesn't note is that there's also already authority under PIPEDA for the private sector to disclose information reasonably related to law enforcement:
The RCMP is also seeking changes to the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) that would prohibit banks, employers and other institutions from letting Canadians know the police is looking at their personal information without the RCMP's permission.
It's a situation that has raised serious alarm with Privacy Commissioner Jennifer Stoddart and some MPs who say the changes would be a critical invasion of privacy and create massive potential for abuse in terms of how personal information is collected by and given to the police...
Under the current law, companies may provide personal information without knowledge or consent if a government institution has demonstrated lawful authority to obtain it and suspects the information could relate to national security, the defence of Canada or the conduct of international affairs...
(T)he privacy commissioner warns loosening those restrictions will have serious implications for the privacy rights of Canadians and will create a situation where companies are forced to dig up information on their employees at the request of the police. "This means that basically the private sector is conscripted into being a branch of law enforcement," Stoddart said. "This is a fundamental change in the democracy. This is a very worrying change. In my opinion, this is a very privacy-invasive measure."
7(3) ...(A)n organization may disclose personal information without the knowledge or consent of the individual only if the disclosure is...While it's tough to tell from the article precisely what change the RCMP is seeking, it appears that the main change sought is to make sure that an individual would never be informed of a disclosure which is stated to be for law enforcement purposes - as an organization would be punished for informing the individual, but would receive immunity for disclosure no matter how baseless a request was. And that would only ensure that there's no means of redress where personal information is requested or disclosed for illegitimate purposes.
(h.2) made by an investigative body and the disclosure is reasonable for purposes related to investigating a breach of an agreement or a contravention of the laws of Canada or a province...
If there's any good news, it's that the current Parliament doesn't seem particularly likely to go along with the RCMP's request for unrestricted, unmonitorable access to information about Canadians. And indeed, it's times like these that it's a relief to have the Libs in opposition rather than in government.
After all, while in power the Libs would seem far too likely to pass such legislation (much like the original ATA) with the Cons' support. But as long as the Libs are in opposition and taking a relatively critical eye to the merits of putting more power in the hands of the state, there should be reason for optimism that they'll join with the NDP (whose MP Pat Martin is already on record echoing the Privacy Commissioner's concerns about existing law) and the Bloc to make sure that government institutions aren't authorized to demand accountability-free access to the personal information of Canadians.
No comments:
Post a Comment