outsourcing

Showing posts with label outsourcing. Show all posts

News Release Privacy Commissioner calls for further examination of transfer of personal information about Canadians across borders

Continuing the theme of cross-border data transfers, the federal Privacy Commissioner has just issued the following press-release:

News Release

Privacy Commissioner calls for further examination of transfer of personal information about Canadians across borders

Ottawa, August 18, 2004 - The Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Jennifer Stoddart, today calls for a greater dialogue between governments, the private sector and the public about cross-border exchanges of Canadians’ personal information. The Commissioner articulated this need in the Office’s submission to the Information and Privacy Commissioner of British Columbia about the privacy implications of the USA PATRIOT Act.

The Privacy Commissioner congratulates the B.C. Information and Privacy Commissioner, David Loukidelis, for leading this important inquiry.

"The growing frequency in which personal information is shared across borders in increasingly globalized interdependent economies has important privacy implications for Canadians," said Ms. Stoddart. "We have an obligation to protect the privacy rights of Canadians. We must have a balanced and reasoned approach to personal information protection."

Canadians expect that governments and the privacy sector will collaborate to protect against mismanagement of personal information. We must collectively seek a balance balance will be struck between the requirements of national security, the need for public safety and the conditions of an open and efficient economy.

In the submission, the Privacy Commissioner recommends practical measures for citizens, companies and governments to better manage the cross-border flow of personal information. Some measures include:

Citizens can lodge a complaint with the Privacy Commissioner or provincial and territorial commissioners, depending on the organization whose conduct has raised the concern if they feel that an organization subject to privacy laws has violated their privacy rights. Under the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA), please request a copy of the Office’s Individuals Guide or visit http://www.privcom.gc.ca/information/02_05_d_08_e.asp (PDF).

Private sector organizations can comply with their obligations under PIPEDA or similar provincial legislation to protect customers’ personal information and to adopt appropriate safeguards. Under PIPEDA, organizations can request a copy of the Office’s Business Guide, or visit www.privcom.gc.ca/information/guide_e.asp (PDF).

Review by the federal government of PIPEDA and the Privacy Act to ensure that the highest standards of privacy protection relating to cross-border flow of personal information are met.

Enhanced federal/provincial/territorial cooperation in privacy protection and the promotion of a multi-stakeholder dialogue (private sector, civil society and other institutional partners) on privacy issues of national significance.

Along with this release, the Commissioner has also issued a fact sheet on cross-border personal information transfers:

What Canadians Can Do to Protect Their Personal Information Transferred Across Borders

Canadians benefit from a reasonable standard of protection of their personal information. They do not want to see that protection vanish when personal information about them is transferred across borders, and they do not want to see governments or organizations in Canada transfer their information across borders if it will be put at risk of inappropriate disclosure, whether for security or for commercial purposes.

The extent to which personal information about Canadians should be made available to foreign governments is a complex issue of continuing concern. Nonetheless, Canadians can take some measures to protect their personal information from inappropriate disclosure to foreign governments:

By bringing complaints about the handling of personal information (especially outsourcing arrangements) to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada or provincial and territorial commissioners, depending on the organization whose conduct has raised the concern;

By relying on the "whistle blowing" provisions of PIPEDA if a US based affiliate of a Canadian organization seeks to reach into Canada to obtain personal information held in a Canadian database in order to comply with a US legal order. These provisions would protect the confidentiality of employees who notify the Privacy Commissioner of Canada that a company intends to transfer information abroad in violation of PIPEDA. The provisions also protect employees against retaliation by the employers, such as harassment, dismissal or demotion;

By letting organizations in Canada that collect personal information about Canadians know that there is a concern about personal information being processed outside Canada;

By taking advantage of the information rights existing under PIPEDA and provincial private sector statutes which require organizations to follow fair information practices, notably obtaining consent for information use;

By reminding companies in Canada of their legal obligation to introduce appropriate security measures to prevent their subsidiaries or affiliates in another country from secretly obtaining access to personal information held in Canada to comply with a court order made in the foreign country;

By raising their concerns about the potential for excessive disclosure of personal information to foreign governments or to foreign companies with their elected representatives; and

Generally, by being more attentive to what may be happening to their personal information when it crosses borders and to the importance of clear and enforceable international standards on information sharing in democratic countries.

What Companies Do to Protect the Personal Information of Canadians Transferred Across Borders

Companies that are subject to PIPEDA or similar provincial legislation must comply with that legislation. It is important for the management of organizations subject to such laws to understand their responsibilities under the laws — for example, the obligations in PIPEDA to ensure the security of personal information. PIPEDA requires personal information to be protected by security safeguards appropriate to the sensitivity of the information.

Corporate leaders increasingly recognize that maintaining a high level of public trust in how personal information is handled is vital to achieve customer loyalty. It is also abundantly clear to corporate leaders that personal information holdings are key business assets that need to be protected against misuse.

And, finally, the Federal Commission has released a submission to the BC Privacy Commissioner in response to his request for submissions about the USA Patriot Act. (See previous blog entries: BC Responds to USA Patriot Act, Campaign in BC to Prevent Outsourciing and Labour groups raise outsourcing privacy fears.) The Commissioner's submission is available at http://www.privcom.gc.ca/media/nr-c/2004/sub_usapa_040818_e.asp

BC Commissioner's report on outsourcing delayed

I guess this is a good sign ... there has been so much interest in the BC Information and Privacy Commissioner's call for comments on the effect of outsourcing on privacy that he has been forced push back the anticipated delivery time of his report.

Coverage here:

B.C. privacy commissioner's report into U.S. Patriot Act delayed

"VICTORIA (CP) -- B.C.'s information and privacy commissioner has delayed the release of his advisory report on how the U.S. Patriot Act could affect Canadians because of the sheer volume of responses he's gotten during his inquiry.

David Loukidelis said in a news release Tuesday the report won't be ready until mid-September. "

USA Patriot Act and outsourcing

ITAC, the Information Technology Association of Canada, has entered the fray over the privacy risks of outsourcing Canadian services to US companies. The Globe and Mail has an article on the ITAC submission to the BC Privacy Commissioner:

U.S Patriot Act a 'red herring,' ITAC says

TORONTO, Aug. 6 — The Information Technology Association of Canada has called the U.S Patriot Act a "red herring" when it comes to concerns about privacy of Canadians.

In a a submission filed with the Information and Privacy Commissioner for British Columbia, ITAC argued that outsourcing is a beneficial force for governments and their taxpayers and citizens. It also explains that the U.S. Patriot Act is not a logical vehicle to access Canadian personal information held by U.S.-linked outsourcing companies in the performance of Canadian outsourcing contracts....

Article: U.S. laws put Canadian privacy at risk

You can always count on Michael Geist to provide good commentary on privacy issues. His latest LawBytes article in the Toronto Star adds to the debate about the collision between the USA Patriot Act (among others) and Canadian privacy laws:

TheStar.com - U.S. laws put Canadian privacy at risk:
"Although it has garnered only limited attention in the rest of the country, for the past few months the British Columbia privacy and information technology communities have been embroiled in a high-stakes issue that raises difficult questions about the effectiveness of Canadian privacy law and the potential threat posed by data outsourcing to the United States. "

One thing that we shouldn't forget is that PIPEDA gives Canadian law enforcement access to Canadian personal information without consent and without notice to the individual concerned.

7(3) For the purpose of clause 4.3 of Schedule 1, and despite the note that
accompanies that clause, an organization may disclose personal information without the knowledge or consent of the individual only if the disclosure
is
(c) required to comply with a subpoena or warrant issued
or an order made by a court, person or body with jurisdiction to compel the production of information, or to comply with rules of court relating to the production of records;
(c.1) made to a government institution or part of a government institution that has made a request for the information, identified its lawful authority to obtain the information and indicated that
(i) it suspects that the information relates to national security, the
defence of Canada or the conduct of international affairs,
(ii) the disclosure is requested for the purpose of enforcing any law of
Canada, a province or a foreign jurisdiction, carrying out an investigation
relating to the enforcement of any such law or gathering intelligence for the purpose of enforcing any such law, or
(iii) the disclosure is requested for the purpose of administering
any law of Canada or a province;
(c.2) made to the government institution mentioned in section 7 of the
Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act as required by that section;
*(c.2) made to the government institution mentioned in section 7 of the
Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) Act as required by that section; *[Note: Paragraph 7(3)(c.2), as enacted by paragraph 97(1)(a) of chapter 17 of the Statutes of Canada, 2000, will be repealed at a later date.]
(d) made on the initiative of the organization to an investigative body, a
government institution or a part of a government institution and the
organization
(i) has reasonable grounds to believe that the information relates to a
breach of an agreement or a contravention of the laws of Canada, a province or a foreign jurisdiction that has been, is being or is about to be
committed, or
(ii) suspects that the information relates to national security, the defence
of Canada or the conduct of international affairs;

Labor groups raise outsourcing privacy concerns | CNET News.com

More coverage on the BC outsourcing privacy debate. This time, American CNET News.Com has a report that hightlights a submission co-written by Michael Geist, one of the leading Canadian academics on privacy and technology law:

Labor groups raise outsourcing privacy concerns | CNET News.com
A 34-page legal analysis released Monday suggests that the Canadian unions are exaggerating the impact of the Patriot Act. A section of the law enacted after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks lets police obtain records from any company with a U.S. branch if the information is said to be "relevant" to a terrorism investigation. The request is made to a secret court that meets behind closed doors in Washington, D.C.

The report, written by Michael Geist and Milana Homsi and filed with the BC Privacy Commissioner, says that current rules granting police the power to review data are "not significantly different than that which was available in a pre-Patriot Act era through grand jury subpoenas and national security letters." (National security letters are a type of administrative subpoena that doesn't require a judge's prior approval.)

The report also says that a Canadian law called the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act authorizes companies to secretly disclose data to government officials--a definition that could include U.S. police.

Article: B.C. responds to U.S. Patriot Act with privacy plan

The Vancouver Province is reporting that the BC government will be responding to concerns about the impact of the PATRIOT Act on BC by introducing legislation:

The Province: B.C. responds to U.S. Patriot Act with privacy plan:
"VICTORIA -- The B.C. government is moving to introduce tough new privacy protection laws in response to the USA Patriot Act.
Attorney General Geoff Plant and Management Services Minister Joyce Murray outlined the plan Friday to B.C.'s Information and Privacy Commissioner.
Murray says the government is taking every step to have the strongest privacy legislation in Canada.
He says the laws would make sure no sensitive personal information will be sent to the U.S. on either a temporary or permanent basis.
It limits the application of the Act by ensuring that American affiliates and B.C. service providers do not have access to information supplied by a public body.
Plant calls the move a 'made-in-B.C.' solution and hopes other provinces will follow.
The U.S. government introduced the Patriot Act after the 9/11 terrorist attacks to give more power to law agencies like the FBI. "

I'll post more info as I find it. In the meantime, you can check out information about the BC Privacy Commissioner's consultations on this matter at his website:http://www.oipcbc.org/sector_public/usa_patriot_act/patriot_act.htm.

Campaign in BC to prevent outsourcing of medical info management to US company

The BC Freedom of Information and Privacy Association has a report about a campaign launched to prevent the BC government from ousourcing the management of the BC Medical Services Plan to an American company. The fear is that once the info is in the hands of an American firm, it will be within easy reach of the FBI and others, thanks to the USA PATRIOT Act.

'Right to Privacy Campaign' launched to protect individuals' privacy by stopping Maximus deal:

A diverse and growing group of rights, health, union and other organizations has launched a province-wide campaign to demand that the BC government drop its proposed deal with the Maximus corporation because of the privacy implications of the USA PATRIOT Act.

The Right to Privacy Campaign (RPC) believes that contracting out the administrative functions of BC's Medical Services Plan and PharmaCare to the American corporation Maximus Inc. will place British Columbians' confidential health and related information within easy reach of the FBI and, through the FBI, the entire array of American government agencies.

The primary goal of the RPC is to ensure that there is 'no contracting out by the Government of BC of information or information management, such as MSP or PharmaCare, to any company subject to foreign laws that violate the privacy rights of Canadians, like the USA PATRIOT Act'...."

Unfortunately, the website of the Right to Privacy Campaign seems to be down, which I expect would have much more info.

BC privacy watchdog seeks US government, FBI input in Patriot Act

The British Columbia Privacy Commissioner has released a statementthat he will begin an inquiry into the impact of the US Patriot Act on the privacy of British Columbians. Specifically, he is concerned that US federal authorities will have access to personal information of British Columbians if a US company is used as the outsourced service provider for various public services.

Here are links to articles from Google News:

Pending inquiry, government should halt its plan to give private ...
BCGEU, Canada - 11 hours ago
The provincial government should immediately halt plans that would put private information on every British Columbians into the hands of US firms, pending a ...

BC privacy watchdog seeks US government, FBI input in Patriot Act ...
Canada East, Canada - 14 hours ago
VICTORIA (CP) - The FBI and US Attorney General John Ashcroft are being asked to contribute to a British Columbia study of the US Patriot Act. ...

Patriot Act probe begins
CBC British Columbia, Canada - 14 hours ago
VICTORIA - BC's Privacy Commissioner has launched a review of the impact of the US Patriot Act on government plans to contract out the Medical Services Plan to ...

BC privacy czar to study US Patriot Act
CTV, Canada - 12 hours ago
VICTORIA — The FBI and US Attorney General John Ashcroft are being asked to contribute to a British Columbia study of the US Patriot Act. ...

Article: U.S. Patriot Act worries Privacy Commissioner

There has been no shortage of spilled ink (or spilled electrons) on the impact of the US Patriot Act on the privacy of Americans. One aspect of the law has raised the ire of the Privacy Commissioner of British Columbia. He alleges that the law puts Canadian privacy at risk because it reaches into American companies that handle Canadian personal information, in Canada:

U.S. Patriot Act worries Privacy Commissioner:

"U.S. Patriot Act worries Privacy Commissioner

WebPosted May 11 2004 02:28 PM PDT

VICTORIA - B.C.'s Privacy Commissioner is asking the provincial government for extra money to examine the ability of U.S. authorities to access confidential information in Canada

The U.S. Patriot Act allows American law enforcement agencies to access private information held by U.S. companies.

That could include include information held by Canadian subsidiaries of U.S. companies. "

Full text here ...

Sorry, Your Crappy Document Coding Project Has Been Outsourced to India

Intrepid reporter Julie Kay files a well-researched and nuanced piece on big firms sending their document review and other legal work to India:

The general consensus is that law firms and corporate counsel began outsourcing lower-level legal work to India -- and a small number to the Philippines -- about five years ago. That work includes "back-office work": document processing and other work traditionally done by paralegals and new associates.

In the past couple of years, the market has grown, fueled by corporate budget pressures, favorable bar opinions and an explosion of LPOs around the country, which now total about 80. And the work they are doing is becoming more wide-ranging, including intellectual property, legal research, contract and conflict review and litigation support.

Forrester Research projects that legal outsourcing to India will reach $4 billion by 2015. Some experts, however, find that number too low and others too high. Regardless, other numbers don't lie -- there are an estimated 800,000 lawyers in India and nowhere near that many jobs. Attorneys there charge, on average, $35 an hour, or no more than half of what an upper paralegal or lower-level associate bills, and up to three times less than an upper-level associate's time.

I think any big firm civil litigator has encountered this over the last few years. But Julie's article leaves unasked and unanswered this question -- what does the firm charge the client for this outsourced legal work? Is a firm mark-up to a client ethical or legal?

This Forbes article by Daniel Fisher suggests that courts may not like huge mark-ups on grunt work performed by temps, whether they are in India or Indiana:

The case illustrates how plaintiff attorneys in securities class actions have an incentive to hire small armies of temp attorneys to justify their fees to judges.
Stephen Vasil, a Yale Law School graduate, and Andrew Gilman, a New York University law grad, were hired through a temp agency to work on the Xerox case. Vasil says they often performed glorified secretarial work, including reviewing electronic documents to identify their author and destination. Vasil was paid $35 an hour, Gilman, $40. Yet the law firms in the case are asking for roughly $500 an hour for their services.
"We joked we could hire a bunch of 10-year-olds to do it for us," says Vasil, 34.

Having recently read Paul Theroux's excellent rumination on memory, travel, and aging, Ghost Train to the Eastern Star: On the Tracks of the Great Railway Bazaar, where Paul visits the outsourcing capital of India, Bangalore, it's clear to me there are still unresolved and perhaps unexamined issues regarding the outsourcing of legal work to that country.

In the meantime, big-firmers, be lucky there are still grunt-work coding jobs and doc reviews to be had, whether here or in Bangalore.

Brian LaBovick Helps Grow Indian Legal Economy

We all know that major coding and document review jobs are frequently outsourced, but what about legal work? Brian LaBovick is sending his grunt research jobs to lawyers in India:

By outsourcing some of his research tasks to India, Jupiter attorney Brian LaBovick saves as much as half on what it would cost to have the work done by legal professionals in the United States.

The managing partner of the six-lawyer firm LaBovick & LaBovick uses Bangalore, India-based Kamath Legal Solutions, which employs attorneys and paralegals educated in India to perform such tasks as legal research and document preparation.

Brian says the quality is high and the work product good. What say you? Has anyone done this before, and how has the experience been?

We're All Contract Lawyers in India (Or Will Be Soon).

Hi folks, time for a little actual news about our biz -- intrepid reporter Julie Kay takes a look at the growing trend of hiring lawyers on an hourly or contract basis:

As law firms downsize, laid-off attorneys and new law school graduates unable to find jobs have been turning to an option they may never have imagined at law school: becoming contract attorneys — hired guns for $35 an hour.

Yet in the past couple of months, even that field appears to be showing signs of a slowdown.

Blogs devoted to the topic of contract attorneys are rife with complaints about the lack of work, particularly in New York and Washington; sudden ending of jobs that were supposed to be long term; and the demise of such formerly standard perks as free lunches and car fare.

"The combination of the economic climate as well as the year-end and the change in administration has had an impact on our business," said Andy Jewel of Hudson Legal, which has offices in 11 cities. "With the change in administration, any government investigation or other regulatory work is generally put on hold until the new people are in place. Work has been slow."

Also cutting into their business is the growing popularity of outsourcing to India. Hudson Legal has countered with an ad campaign that encourages law firms to "onshore," and choose U.S. staffing companies where there are no security or privacy concerns and where they operate in the Eastern time zone.

So it's not only the big document reviews where contract lawyers are getting hired -- it's in situations where firms can't afford to hire an attorney as an associate, and pay the related health care and overhead costs.

I found this part of the article interesting:

Howrey is one law firm that uses a large number of contract attorneys — and acknowledges pushing staffing agencies for better rates as of late. The Washington-based firm has a minimum of 75 contract attorneys on the job on any given day and has had as many as 350 with large merger matters.

"We use them in the discovery process," said Ralph Allen, chief operating officer of Howrey. "We don't normally put a $300-an-hour or $400-an-hour associate on first-level document review. We have a process where staff attorneys and associates are monitoring and driving this process, supervising these folks. It lowers the costs for our clients tremendously."

I'd be curious to know if firms employing such lawyers are marking up the rate, or simply passing through the costs directly to the client. We all know big firms frequently mark up research and copying costs, so why not contract lawyers?

This has been SFL, reporting in from Hyderabad.

outsourcing

News Release Privacy Commissioner calls for further examination of transfer of personal information about Canadians across borders

News Release

Privacy Commissioner calls for further examination of transfer of personal information about Canadians across borders

What Canadians Can Do to Protect Their Personal Information Transferred Across Borders

What Companies Do to Protect the Personal Information of Canadians Transferred Across Borders