Getting the privacy balance right is not easy, from both theoretical and practical perspectives. As examples, here are some recent developments that go both ways.

Pro Privacy

• Proposed Bill C-12 amendments to PIPEDA that would mandate privacy breach notification in certain circumstances.
• The Ontario Court of Appeal decision in Jones v Tsige that created a tort of breach of privacy, or “intrusion upon seclusion” for intentional, offensive privacy invasions.
• The US Supreme court decision in US v Jones that decided police need to get a warrant before attaching a GPS tracking device to a vehicle.

Anti Privacy

• Proposed Bill C-12

Summary

Historically actions around privacy stemmed from concepts of trespass in the common law, and were only recognized as cearly actionable where stipulated by statute. An Ontario Court of Appeal decision today, Jones v. Tsige, changed that by recognizing the tort of invasion of privacy.

The action arose between two employees in a bank who did not know or work with each other. The plaintiff had a common law relationship with the former husband of the defendant, and the defendant acknowledged looking at the plaintiff’s bank information without just cause or reason on multiple occasions.

The plaintiff claimed $70,000 . . . [more]

Last May I attended a talk by Ron Deibert, Director of Citizen Lab, part of the Munk School of Global Affairs, University of Toronto, at the annual Mesh Conference in Toronto. He talked about cyber crime having become one of the world’s largest growth sectors, with savvy young coders from poorer nations leading the way. Cyber crime, he explained, takes advantage of:

• mobile networking and reliance on the web for our computing
• lack of controls (i.e. regulation and legislation) internationally
• proper security practices and policies not yet in place

Deibert has written a report for GISWatch (Global Information . . . [more]

Third party assurance reports have become an integral part of outsourcing transactions: they represent an auditor’s report on the controls in place at a service provider that impact a customer’s financial reporting. In this posting, I want to look at the new Canadian standard, CSAE 3416. Before doing so however, I want to consider third party assurance reporting in more detail.

Third Party Assurance Reporting

Third party assurance reports relate to the control objectives and controls established by a service provider, i.e. it is the service provider that is responsible for the control objectives relating to its business, the specific . . . [more]

The European Court of Justice issued its breathlessly awaited (at least by some) decision in SABAM v. Scarlet today, striking a serious blow to those imposing intense international pressure with the objective of securing exceptional enforcement for intellectual property rights online. These efforts aim to leverage Internet intermediaries such as ISPs, hosting sites, domain name registrars and even individual blogging sites in order to stomp out any infringing activity occurring on the platforms they operate.

As these intermediaries process and host vast amounts of online conduct, they are uniquely placed to impose unprecedented levels of monitoring and control onto users . . . [more]

The trend to more invasive surveillance and control by North American governments (indeed, by many countries that we consider civilized democracies), or their granting of too much control to others is disturbing. Too many things are making creeping (and sometimes creepy) inroads into privacy rights, along with the usual specious “if you’ve got nothing to hide… ” argument. Too many things are tending towards shoot first, ask questions later. And governments are too eager to look to ISP’s and others who run the internet pipes to control what flows through.

Some examples:

The proposed US SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) . . . [more]

Last month the respected German national newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine (FAZ) published an exposé in its Sunday edition Feuilleton about a German government computer surveillance program introduced into citizens’ computers some years ago and the ease with which it can be cracked and misused. The Staatstrojaner, or “state trojan,” is a key-logging program that can record everything entered into an infected computer via the keyboard, and, in this case I believe, control the computer to some degree.

The newspaper’s exposé is available in English as a PDF file via Edge.

To uncover and reverse engineer the trojan, FAZ teamed up . . . [more]

Perhaps the thorniest of emerging Internet legal and policy issues these days is the question of Internet intermediaries. It is a feature of the Internet that all online activity is intermediated through at least one and often several service providers, such as ISPs, social networking sites, blog hosting sites, etc. Standing at the crux of all this activity, intermediaries are uniquely placed to exert a great deal of control and surveillance over activities of downstream users, making them a compelling target for policy-makers and aggrieved plaintiffs alike. The Supreme Court of Canada’s recent seminal decision in Crookes v. Newton offers . . . [more]

Flags are being raised by numerous privacy experts about expected federal “lawful access” legislation. This legislation–expected to be reintroduced–was last seen in the 40th Parliament, 3rd session, which ended March 26, 2011 and includes:

• Bill C-50 – Improving Access to Investigative Tools for Serious Crimes Act
• Bill C-51 – Investigative Powers for the 21st Century Act
• Bill C-52 – Investigating and Preventing Criminal Electronic Communications Act

Excerpted from a commentary by Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario Ann Cavoukian published in today’s National Post:

At issue is the anticipated re-introduction of a trio of federal bills that will provide

There is an August 22, 2011 decision from the U.S. District Court, Eastern District, in the Matter of Historical Cell-Site Information, 10-MC-897 (NGG), NYLJ 1202511989637 that Slaw readers may find interesting. The U.S. Attorney’s office wanted 113 days of cell phone records from Verizon Wireless. The court said:

While the government’s monitoring of our thoughts may be the archetypical Orwellian intrusion, the government’s surveillance of our movements over a considerable time period through new technologies, such as the collection of cell-site-location records, without the protections of the Fourth Amendment, puts our country far closer to Oceania than our Constitution

The Section of State and Local Government Law of the American Bar Association (ABA) hosted a panel on cyberbullying at the 2011 Annual Meeting.

The panelists included James Hanks of Ahlers & Cooney, Grant Bowers, Legal Counsel for the Toronto District School Board, Dr. Jeff Gardere, a psychologist from New York with expertise in mental health, and Kathy Macdonald, from the Calgary police.

Notes from James Hanks’ talk, focusing on American legislation, is available here. This post focuses primarily on the Canadian content by the rest of the panel.

Defining the Problem

Cyberbullying is completely different from . . . [more]

These are notes are from a panel presentation organized by the ABA Section on Labor and Employment Law at the American Bar Association 2011 conference in Toronto on Sunday, August 7, 2011. Panelists included Douglas E. Dexter, Farella Braun & Martell LLP, San Francisco; Roy L. Heenan, Heenan Blaikie LLP, Montreal; Mauricio Paez, Jones Day, New York; and Lauren Schwartzreich, Outten & Golden LLP, New York. The moderator was Cynthia E. Nance, Professor of Law, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, Arkansas. Note: these are my selected notes from this session; any inaccuracies or omissions are my . . . [more]