RSS FeedCIRA, whois and IP Osgoode
Check out my post about CIRA’s ‘whois’ policy on the recently launched IP Osgoode wesbite. I wrote it as an assignment for my IP law class with professor D’Agostino.
I Spy with my Little Eye Something that is a Tort
The B.C. Supreme Court has awarded damages to a Vancouver woman whose landlord installed, without notice, a hidden video camera in the hallway outside of her suite.
According to the ruling judge, Justice Paul Walker, at issue in the case was the competing rights of the two parties: the tenant’s ‘right to quiet enjoyment’, including the right to ‘reasonable privacy’, as entitled by Section 28 of the Residential Tenancy Act, and the landlord’s right to “protect its property and its obligation to protect the interests of other tenants in a residential apartment building.”
In his ruling, Justice Paul Walker wrote,
As far as I am aware, there is no reported decision in Canada dealing with the issue.
Without a direct precedent or evidence as to the actual damages caused, the judge awarded the plaintiff a nominal amount of $3,500 plus court costs in compensation.
Ms. Heckert, the plaintiff, testified that she found it “very creepy” and an invasion of her privacy to have the video camera installed outside her suite.
It is clear from the video shown to me that any person watching the video images from the 12th-floor camera is able to see a very close-up and detailed image of anyone entering and exiting Ms. Heckert’s suite,
Justice Walker said.
This view is quite intrusive of personal privacy.
Google Chrome Launched Today
Google Chrome is expected to give IE and FIrefox a run for their money. Google has changed its position on open source software several times this month.
One feature that has drawn attention are its privacy settings,
The Incognito window, which is Google Chrome’s privacy mode, is also a key feature that… was meant to keep stuff off a users computer so sites won’t appear in history and cookies aren’t saved.
The launch was accompanied by a comic book release that can be viewed here.
Updates
Steve Matthews points out some issues with the new browser.
Users having difficulty initializing the application should see some problem-shooting here.
LSAT Thumbprinting a Privacy Violation
I always felt like I was a criminal when LSAC, the organization that offers the LSAT exam, required mandatory thumbprints on entry.
Weren’t we the ones defending the criminals (or prosecuting them)? Why are we being treated like them?
This commenter says,
When I was a psychology student I used to administer the LSAT. One thing I always found amusing is that you have to leave your thumbprint to take the test. What does that mean? Other professional or graduate tests do not require this.
Then there is the fact that it’s an American company, meaning the American government would have access to my prints if they so chose.
Should Canadian law students be forced to provide prints to a foreign country as a requirement to entry into a Canadian law school?
And I’m not the only one with these concerns.
Canadians Aren’t so Patriotic about the U.S.
In 2006, Daniel Gervais, acting dean of the common-law section at the University of Ottawa expressed to the CBC his apprehension over the U.S. Patriot Act,
The act gives the power to agencies such as the FBI to get access to information that is sent to the U.S.
Michael Geist, also of UofO, elaborates further,
Test takers in B.C. and Alberta have raised objections to the mandatory thumb-printing, expressing concern sensitive personal information could find its way into the hands of U.S. law enforcement. Empowered by provisions in the U.S. Patriot Act, authorities could compel the LSAC to surrender the data.
Patriot Act fears stem from the secretive nature of the law since authorities can compel disclosures with minimal oversight and without opportunity for the affected person to challenge the disclosure.
Critics also point to the statute’s potential misuse. Those fears were exacerbated last week with reports U.S. counter-terrorism databases contain an astonishing 325,000 names.
There has been swift reaction to the thumb-printing story, with the federal, B.C., and Alberta privacy commissioners joining forces in a combined privacy investigation. The Canadian Council of Law Deans, which represents law schools across the country, has expressed concern over the practice, acknowledging that the data could be subject to a Patriot Act request. The Council raised questions about whether the practice might violate federal and provincial privacy statutes.
Phillipa Lawson, Executive Director – Canadian Internet Policy & Public Interest Clinic at UofO added,
In the LSAT case, the stated purpose of collecting thumbprints (to deter fraud) is clearly reasonable. But is the collection of thumbprints necessary to achieve this purpose? Do other, less intrusive but equally effective methods of deterring fraud exist? And is the fraud-deterrent value of thumbprinting proportional to its privacy invasiveness? The privacy commissioners now investigating this matter will have to answer these questions.
And Mark Lewis weighed in, quipped,
Personally, I think it is time for a cage match pitting the Patriot Act vs. PIPEDA.
Recent developments indicate that round 1 may have just begun.
Non-Profit Status of LSUC Will not Provide Immunity
David Canton of eLegal wrote in the London Free Press recently that the Privacy Commissioner of Canada has found the thumbprinting to be a violation of privacy.
The recommendation came following a complaint by University of Victoria philosophy Professor Eike-Henner Kluge.
The Commissioner used a 4-part test:
- Is the measure demonstrably necessary to meet a specific need?
- Is it likely to be effective in meeting that need?
- Is the loss of privacy proportional to the benefit gained?
- Is there a less privacy-invasive way of achieving the same end?
Their conclusion is that thumbprinting were never intended for their expressed purpose, let alone meeting their purpose.
Canton said,
LSAC took the position that since it was a Delaware corporation headquartered in the United States, the privacy commissioner had no jurisdiction over its activities.
The privacy commissioner found, however, that there were sufficient Canadian connections to make LSAC subject to the provisions of PIPEDA, at least to the extent it operates in Canada.
The Commissioner also stated,
LSAC’s status as a non-profit, non-stock, membership-based organization is not determinative. The Act applies to organizations, defined in section 2 as including “an association, a partnership, a person and a trade union.” There is no exemption for non-profit or member-oriented organizations. To the contrary, the definition of “commercial activity,” namely, “any particular transaction, act or conduct or any regular course of conduct that is of a commercial character, including the selling, bartering or leasing of donor, membership or other fundraising lists,” makes clear Parliament’s intention that the Act apply to commercial transactions that non-profit, membership-based organizations might engage in.
Ding, Ding, Ding
So it seems law students, who are in training to defend the rights of others, might finally realize these privacy rights that many have been complaining about for years.
Let the fight begin.
Podcast Feeds
