I was thinking a bit more recently about the story that was the basis for my previous post ("F-bomb-dropping attorney gets worldwide notoriety"). There is a second privacy aspect ... Thanks to the internet, the Chicago lawyer who left the message in question is probably going to be living with the incident for a very long time. It is now routine to google job applicants, contacts and just people you know. If he finds himself looking for a job or going on a blind date, googling his name will bring back this story as if it only happened today. I've heard it said that you should never write anything in an e-mail that you wouldn't wanted reported on the front page of the New York Times. This is a reminder that you shouldn't write an e-mail or leave a voice-mail that you wouldn't want on the front pages, either. The internet takes it to the next level, since it is all a quick click away.
Re: F-bomb-dropping attorney gets worldwide notoriety
Article: Blawgs may be worth a try
I just discovered an article about Canadian lawyers' blogs from Canada Law Book. It mentions this blog, but I didn't know about it when it came out in June. And I'm not too offended that the author didn't get my name right.
...
"The marketing advantage of blawgs are that they put your name out there," says Girard. "If a blawg is reasonably well read, it will move up pretty quickly in the Google rankings."
Aficionados estimate that there are currently about 500 law-related blogs online in the United States, which indicates the trend is still in its infancy. Interested readers can search them out by going to www.blawg.org
In Canada, an initial Law Times search turned up only Girard's site (www.e-Lawg.com). Later searches found a few more: one for a lawyer in Nova Scotia on elder law (www.nselderlaw.ca), one on privacy law from David T.S.
CooperFRASER at McInnes Cooper in Atlantic Canada (pipeda.blogspot.com), Martin G. Ertl in B.C. has two, www.opinionated.ca and another called Boiler-plate (contract.matinertl.ca), which is "dedicated to elegant drafting in contracts."Michael Crawford, a marketing and communications consultant with marketingdept.biz in Toronto, thinks he knows why there are so few in Canada.
Read the full article here.
READ THIS! Privacy chief to e-commerce firms: Don't blame PIPEDA
I highly recommend reading this article from ITBusiness.ca. It quotes from both Jennifer Stoddart (Federal Privacy Commissioner) and Anne Cavoukian (Ontario Commissioner) emphasising how important it is to gain and maintain customer trust. So, get your privacy act together.
Privacy chief to e-commerce firms: Don't blame PIPEDA
8/25/2004 5:00:00 PM - Jennifer Stoddart defends the federal legislation and warns software vendors about potential damage to their corporate reputations. Plus: Why can't security and privacy assessors get along?
...
Stoddart made an aggressive pitch, referring to a 2002 Leger Marketing survey that found issues with security and privacy continue to be the biggest barrier to Canadians making online purchases.
"These fears are fuelled by an identity theft problem galloping out of control, which is estimated to result in losses of $2 trillion worldwide by the end of 2005," she said.
Stoddart cautioned that while a company may see a business opportunity in data mining, "their next door neighbour might see it as an unacceptable invasion of privacy".
Yet, if a business conforms with PIPEDA’s "informed consent" and "document storage" provisions on the treatment of personal electronic information, that business stands to recoup the loyalty of would-be customers, she said.
"This will help you grow your business by improving trust."
Ann Cavoukian, information and privacy commissioner of Ontario and one of Stoddart’s co-presenters, pointed to a Harris/Westin poll conducted in 2001 and 2002 which supported her federal counterpart’s argument.
Over 90 per cent of the poll’s respondents said the volume and frequency of business they conduct with a company is directly related to the level of confidence they have in that company’s privacy practices. The same poll found that 83 per cent of respondents would stop doing business with a company if they felt that their personal information was misused. ...
Document meta-data FAQ and risk information
Canadian Bankers push for ID theft law
Stronger ID Theft Laws Needed, CBA Says
VANCOUVER — The Canadian Bankers Association will advocate for new identity theft legislation at this week's national police chiefs' convention in Vancouver.
On Wednesday, the banking association's security director will address the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police about the need to reform the Criminal Code to curtail identity theft.
"It's part of our ongoing effort with law enforcement," said Caroline Hubberstey, banking association spokeswoman.
Among other changes, the banking association wants to see identity theft clearly defined in the Criminal Code. They also want to make it an offence to possess multiple pieces of other people's identification, Ms. Hubberstey said.
At present, about 30 Criminal Code offences and one under the National Defence Act address identity theft, she said.
Privacy Presentations from the CBA Annual CLE Extravaganza
As promised a short while ago, I've posted the presentations from the CBA Annual CLE session on cross-border privacy issues. Many thanks to Simon Chester for compiling our three powerpoints into one coherent (and hefty) acrobat file.
Cross-Border Issues for Privacy Law Compliance in Canada, the US & the EU
Presented by the National Privacy Law Section and the National Business Law Section
This panel will focus on issues facing multi-national organizations that seek
to align their privacy law compliance procedures across jurisdictions. The
panel will examine the approaches taken by multi-nationals in complying
with the new Canadian laws, as well as requirements for Canadian
companies doing business in the US and the EU.Moderator: David M.W.Young, Partner, Lang Michener LLP (Toronto)
Speakers: Simon Chester, Partner, McMillan Binch LLP (Toronto)
Evelyn L. Sullen, Staff Counsel, Volkswagen of America Inc. (Auburn Hills, MI)
David T.S. Fraser, Associate, McInnes Cooper (Halifax)
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
Simon Chester's Op/Ed piece on outsourcing and privacy
Monday morning's National Post contained an opinion piece by Simon Chester, which conveniently coincided with his presentation to the Canadian Bar Association in Winnipeg on cross-border privacy issues. The piece does not appear to be generally available on the National Post's site, but it is on Simon's firm's site: http://www.mcmillanbinch.com/Upload/News/SChester_National_Post_081604.pdf. Whether privacy is the big outsourcing bogeyman remains to be seen, but there does appear to be a growing concern about personal information being beamed around the world.
Regardless of the legal and contractual restrictions attached to the data as it crosses frontiers, I think John and Jane Public (if they know about it) are nervous at the idea and for some businesses, perception is as important as reality.
I'll also take the opportunity to throw in a shameless plug for Nova Scotia, a great nearshore outsourcing destination where service providers get great privacy advice and are easily within the reach of US regulators and the Canadian Privacy Commissioner. For more info, check out "The Nova Scotia Business Case."
(Old) Survey: Office-workers give away passwords for a cheap pen
I made a reference to an illuminating survey in a presentation a little while ago, but forgot where I heard it. Well, if you're checking my sources, here it is:
Office workers give away passwords for a cheap pen
By John Leyden
Published Friday 18th April 2003 08:24 GMTWorkers are prepared to give away their passwords for a cheap pen, according to a somewhat unscientific - but still illuminating - survey published today.
The second annual survey into office scruples, conducted by the people organising this month's InfoSecurity Europe 2003 conference, found that office workers have learnt very little about IT security in the past year.
If anything, people are even more lax about security than they were a year ago, the survey found.
Ninety per cent of office workers at London's Waterloo Station gave away their computer password for a cheap pen, compared with 65 per cent last year.
Men were slightly more likely to reveal their password with 95 per cent of blokes, compared to 85 per cent of women quizzed, prepared to hand over their password on request.
The survey also found the majority of workers (80 per cent) would take confidential information with them when they change jobs and would not keep salary details confidential if they came across them.
If workers came across a file containing everyone's salary details, 75 per cent of workers thought they would be unable to resist looking at it, again up from 61 per cent in 2002. A further 38 per cent said they would also pass the information around the office.
Naughty.
Ok. Repeat after me: "I will not exchange my company's security for a cheap pen." (At least hold out for a Montblanc.)
Report from the CBA in Winnipeg
I just returned from a very good few days at the Canadian Bar Association’s annual get-together
in Winnipeg, Manitoba. There were quite a few privacy-related events during the
two-day substantive program.
The first event was more administrative than anything. It
was the meeting of the CBA Privacy Law subsection. The meeting was chaired by Brian Bowman, the section
secretary who is also a privacy lawyer at Pitblado
in Winnipeg. We reviewed the privacy-related resolutions passed by the CBA
general meeting and the extensive activity undertaken by the section during its
first year. (I’m told that it has an unprecedented level of activity for a
brand-new section.) The next year should be just as busy.
David
Young, who chairs the Advocacy and Government Relations subsection led a
discussion of the contribution that can be made when the Personal Information Protection
and Electronic Documents Act (Canada) comes up for full review in 2006.
I expect there will be no shortage of suggestions. Ann Goldsmith, legal counsel
to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner
mentioned they have many suggestions already, with deemed consent for due
diligence review in the course of sales of businesses near the top of their list.
Cross-border privacy issues
The second event was also on Monday: a panel discussion of
cross-border privacy issues. Moderated by David Young of Lang Michener, the panel was composed
of Simon
Chester of McMillan Binch,
Evelyn Sullen of Volkswagen of America Inc.
and me. The presentation that I gave is available here and I’ll try to
get permission to post Simon and Evelyn’s powerpoints.
Simon Chester began with a presentation on European privacy
law, using three European women as illustrations of the law’s development and
enforcement: (a) Bodil Lindqvist,
(b) Naomi Campbell (see Campbell v. MGN Limited, [2004] UKHL 22) and (c)
Princess
Caroline of Monaco. The first example demonstrates how some authorities in Europe
are being much more aggressive in enforcing the Data Protection Directive,
including against clearly non-commercial and “domestic” use of personal
information. The latter two examples show how the balance between privacy and
freedom of the press are moving clearly towards privacy in Europe. (We will not
likely see any of the Campbell/Caroline examples in Canada soon, as PIPEDA
specifically does not apply to information collected for “artistic, literary or
journalistic purposes. Any similar complaints against paparazzi will have to be
grounded in the independent tort of “invasion of privacy”, which is being
slowly developed in the Canadian provinces that do not have a statutory tort.) Interested readers should take a look at Simon's comprehensive paper, which is available here.
Evelyn’s presentation included an overview of the sectoral
laws in the United States (COPPA, HIPAA, GLB, etc.) and a look at Volkswagen USA’s
experience in addressing PIPEDA and the European privacy rules. It was
estimated that VW spent about $500K in complying with PIPEDA, including postage
for sending a “grandfathering/opt-out” letter to all customers in their
database.
One of the questions posed was whether to adopt a fragmented
privacy management system within an international company or should one try to
develop a policy that complies with all legal regimes in which the company
operates. Much of what was discussed in the international context is also
applicable within the Canadian federal system. We are dealing with a number of
privacy regimes in this country, including the present 100% overlap between
federal and provincial laws in Alberta and British Columbia. (I am told that
the Order-in-Council to declare AB and BC’s laws “substantially similar” to
PIPEDA is on the agenda for the next meeting of the federal cabinet.) We also
have an interesting overlap in the health privacy arena. Alberta, Saskatchewan
and Manitoba each have provincial health information laws and none of them are
expected to be declared substantially similar. This means that physicians in
private practice, who are engaged in “commercial activities”, must comply with
PIPEDA and with the local health information law. In most cases, the healthcare
professionals can design their programs to comply with the most demanding
individual rules and principles. In some cases, this is not always possible as
some contradictions may appear between the laws.
Update on Canada’s Privacy Laws
On Tuesday, Brian Bowman moderated a panel of
representatives from various privacy commissioners’ offices. On the panel was
Heather Black, Assistant Privacy Commissioner of Canada; Brian Loukidelis,
Information and Privacy Commissioner from British Columbia, Barry Tuckett, Manitoba’s
Ombudsman and Mary O'Donoghue, legal counsel to the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario.
Each of the panelists gave an update on developments in their respective
jurisdictions, beginning with Heather Black’s overview of the roll-out of
PIPEDA. Heather made an interesting distinction between systemic and more
accidental violations of PIPEDA. Systemic violations are those which
demonstrate a systemic problem, such as a lack of awareness, policies or
procedures. Accidental ones are simply where a company’s established – and otherwise
compliant – procedures and policies are not followed, resulting in a breach.
Both are problems, but the balance of complaints is leaning further away from
systemic breaches. Heather also mentioned that the number of complaints that
are “well founded” has declined (to the end of 2003) to around 20% from 45% a
couple of years before.
Mary O'Donoghue, from the Ontario Information and Privacy
Commissioner’s Office, provided a very good and brief overview of the Personal Health
Information Protection Act, 2004.
At the moment, I’m a little jetlagged. I’ll try to write
more about the conference when I’ve got a few more minutes and once I’ve heard
back from my co-panellists about posting their materials.
PIPEDA for Financial Planners
I recently gave a presentation for Advocis, the Canadian national association for financial planners. The presentation is available here: PIPEDA for Financial Planners.
Presentation: PIPEDA for Physicians
I just attended Insight Information Co.'s Health Privacy conference in Halifax. The content was fantastic and the presenters were really top-notch. It was a bit disappointing that there were no healthpractitioners in attendance, but with a $1300 price tag it is hard to manage unless you have a hospital or other organization paying your way.
Without a doubt, I found that the best speaker was Karen Rose, who is the new Info and Privacy Commissioner for PEI. She spoke about the challenges and advantages of privacy compliance. I've asked her for her speaking notes, which I'll also ask her if I can post here. Suellen Murray, from the Nova Scotia Department of Health discussed the process that is underway to harmonize the health information laws from coast to coast (minus Quebec). She wasn't able to discuss the substance since there are some minor revisions underway, but the process is promising.
I was asked to present on PIPEDA in private practices. Since everyone in attendance came from public institutions (read: non-commercial, and therefore beyond PIPEDA's hooks), the interest was largely academic. I tried to emphasise that many of the doctors who are present in hospitals are going to be grappling with this development, so they'd better be sensitive to it. My presentation, PIPEDA for Physicians, is available here.
Privacy Law and Project Management
Yesterday, I gave a two and a half hour presentation (see: Privacy Law and Project Management) [link fixed] to the Nova Scotia Chapter of the Project Management Institute. The presentation began with an introduction to PIPEDA and led into a discussion of integration of privacy into project planning, drawing heavily from privacy impact assessment methodologies, especially the Canadian federal government's PIA guidelines and PIA policy. These days, no significant technology project should proceed without considering the potential privacy risk presented by the project.
Presentation: PIPEDA and Employers (Hewitt)
I was invited to give a presentation to a conference arranged by Hewitt Associates (a leading HR outsourcing services provider) on PIPEDA for HR professionals. The presentation is available here: PIPEDA and Employers (Hewitt)
Presentation: PIPEDA and Pharmacists
Last weekend, National Privacy Services was invited to give a presentation on PIPEDA to a group of independent pharamcists. The presentation is available here: PIPEDA and Pharmacists.
Presentation: PIPEDA and Physicians - MSNS AGM 2004
I was recently invited to give a presentation to the Annual General Meeting of the Medical Society of Nova Scotia on the impact of PIPEDA on physicians. (See presentation: PIPEDA and Physicians - MSNS AGM 2004.)
Since last year, I have been working with National Privacy Services and the Medical Society to design an easy-to implement solution for busy physicians. In our experience, most physicians don't have the time or the inclination to design their own compliance program. And as small business people with tightening revenue, physicians don't have the resources to engage a privacy lawyer to assist them. (Perhaps as important, most doctors don't know about the law, let alone what they need to do to address it.)
The final product is the Physician's Privacy Manual, which includes a complete suite of products that a physician can implement in his or her practice. The Manual includes:
- Privacy training manual (the only one of its kind designed from the ground up to address privacy in the private practice;
- Policies and procedures to adopt in the practice;
- Consent form for affirmative, opt-in consent;
- Educational tools, including a privacy statement for patients and poster; and
- Multi-media CD with a one-hour overview of PIPEDA and its requirements.
The procedures and tools contained in the Physician's Privacy Manual have been extensively field tested in private practices and subjected to review by a wide range of physician focus groups. For more information, contact National Privacy Services at http://www.privlaw.com or (toll free) at 1-877-PRIVLAW.
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 ...
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: Google's GMail faces fight on privacy
Privacy International has filed a complaint against GMail, Google's new web-based e-mail service that offers 1GB of storage. The complaint has been filed in a number of jurisdictions, including Canada.
Privacy International: "PI intensifies pressure on Google's Gmail service
Privacy International has filed a complaint asking the privacy and data protection commissions in France,Germany, the Netherlands, Greece, Italy, Spain, Czech Republic, Belgium, Denmark, Sweden, Ireland, Portugal, Poland, Austria,Australia and Canada along with the European Commission and the EU Commissioners internal Article 29 Data Protection Working Group to investigate the serious privacy problems that Google's Gmail service poses."
The most reported aspect of the privacy concerns revolve around Google's intention of serving ads that are based on the content of e-mails. There is also a concern related to the amount of storage offered and the risks that may be associated with it.
See the following media coverage:
London Free Press: Business Section - Google faces fight on privacy: "Google's free e-mail service, Gmail, has come under attack by privacy rights groups that claim it violates privacy laws in many countries. Many Internet service providers (ISPs) offer free e-mail with a limited amount of space to store messages. Gmail's generous 1GB storage capacity comes at a price -- the user's exposure to targeted advertisements based on the contents of their e-mails.
Google's free e-mail storage capacity is more than 100 times that offered by established rivals such as Yahoo and Hotmail. The service is promoted as a means for a user to create a centralized and permanent e-mail archive.
Privacy International filed complaints against Gmail with privacy regulators in Australia, Canada and 15 countries in Europe. "
SignOnSanDiego.com > News > Technology -- Google's free Gmail service comes under fire overseas: "Google's free e-mail service Gmail is under fresh fire from an international privacy rights group that said the soon-to-be-launched service violated privacy laws across Europe and elsewhere.
Privacy International, which has offices in the United States and Europe, said it filed complaints with privacy and data-protection regulators in Europe, Canada and Australia. It had already filed an initial complaint in Britain. "
Bits & Bytes for April 22, 2004: "Google Pressured On Privacy
Yet more Google news: the search giant's plans to include contextually targeted ads in its still-in-beta free e-mail service, Gmail, have drawn more fire.
The search giant intends to have its technology scan the content of e-mail messages, and target ads accordingly. The plan has generated privacy concerns and widespread criticism.
The free consumer service comes with 1 gigabyte of storage and the ability to easily search through old messages. The price of that is letting the company apply its highly successful keyword-advertising infrastructure to the content of the messages. Privacy International is the latest group to protest on grounds of privacy. The group filed a complaint Monday asking privacy and data protection commissions in sixteen countries to investigate potential invasion of consumers' privacy.
The international electronic privacy watchdog complained that the proposed service violates several statutes of the European Union's Data Protection law.
Google says what's drawing concern is what computers are capable of doing, not what the company does in reality. 'We pride ourselves in protecting users' data and holding ourselves to the highest standard,' said Wayne Rosing, VP of engineering for Google.
'We do not keep that data in correlated form, it's separated in various ways and we have policies inside the company that do not allow that kind of correlation to happen. We consider any program or programming that correlates user data with user identity to be a violation of trust and we do not do that,' said Rosing."
Article: U.S., Canadian firms worlds apart on privacy
Today's Toronto Star reports the results of a study comparing the privacy practices of Canadian and US companies:
"TheStar.com - U.S., Canadian firms worlds apart on privacy:
Compliance, security are aims in states
In Canada, privacy seen as good business
TYLER HAMILTON
TECHNOLOGY REPORTER
Canadian and U.S. companies have vastly different attitudes and motivations when it comes to protecting the privacy of their customers, according to a cross-national study to be released this week.
The study, the first to compare the corporate privacy practices of comparable Canadian and U.S. firms, found that Canadian businesses see their privacy practices as an opportunity to improve relations with customers, while their U.S. counterparts viewed privacy measures more as a way of complying with legislation and avoiding civil lawsuits.
Indeed, 61 per cent of surveyed Canadian companies linked 'good privacy practices' to customer trust and brand loyalty, compared to only 17 per cent of U.S. companies."
Article: Black box shows car crash data
Today's Globe and Mail has an article about "black boxes" in recent cars that, if I undersand them correctly, record data for the five seconds before tha airbags inflate. Much of the coverage related to them (See Google News Search) has focused on the privacy aspects of these devices.
globemegawheels.com - Black box shows car crash data:
"EDR could be either an eye-glazing acronym or the difference between you and the other driver paying huge sums of money or going to jail. And it's getting lots of attention since a Montreal man was sentenced to 18 months on evidence from his car's event-data recorder.
The revelation of the existence for a decade of the automotive event-data recorder is almost as momentous in traffic-law and civil-court terms as finding DNA was in criminal law.
If your vehicle has airbags, if you have a smart adjuster or lawyer and providing you don't drive like a maniac, proving who is in the wrong can be a lot easier.
But, if you're a little paranoid, certain that there is a Big Brother and that you're the object of his attention, and you drive on the wild side, you could see the EDR as part of a conspiracy to stick it to Canadian drivers."
