---------- Forwarded Message ---------- Date: Sunday, January 7, 2001 11:36 AM -0500 From: EFC Stuff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: re: re: Canada's new Privacy Law ... your thoughts? Paul raises the interesting and valid point that the new privacy law may pose a risk to our freedom to collect and use information as we wish. This is one reason that journalists, for example, were concerned about how this law might interfere with their professional investigative practices. The law has been modified to address these kinds of concerns. The main thing that the new law does, in my opinion, is that it recognizes the enormous difference in power and resources that national or multi-national corporations have over individual Canadians, and the law simply says that they cannot collect, uses, or disclose our personal information through deceptive practices. As long as Air Miles is open about what personl information is collected and how it is used, then we are able to make an informed decision about whether we want to participate in their program. The "access to information" provision of the new law is the simplest mechanism to enable individuals to find out whether a company is dealing with them fairly. Clearly, Parliament has been persuaded that it is unreasonable for individual Canadians to be forced to rely upon civil litigation ... having to take huge corporations to court as the sole means of protecting their personal privacy. But still, ... to the extent that this new law might interfere with our freedom to traffic in information ... we'd all be better off if the law was *tested*, rather than disregarded. Paul wrote: > I agree that privacy is an important issue in today's information based > society, and I too consider it to be a fundamental individual right. > However, just I have a Common Law right to engage in voluntary transactions > of money and property, so should I have a right to exchange information with > other parties, and on whatever terms that are mutually agreeable. Mutual agreements based on informed consent are not altered by this law. > If I provide information to a party voluntarily - without coercion - I don't > have any moral right to demand anything of that party outside of whatever > agreement was made. If the party were to disregard the terms of the > agreement, then I would clearly have legitimate grounds for civil > litigation. The law particularly focuses on "fair information practices". Yes, if you have provided information and the company has been open with you about how it will be used, then you have no basis for complaint. But! ... if BlockBuster sells your video rental history to a third party, without you giving permission, then there is a problem ... and you shouldn't you have to spend 3 years and $20,000 in legal fees to seek redress. > In the case of Air Miles, or Safeway Club, or web sites that collect > personal information, I believe the exchange of information for goods and/or > services is perfectly legitimate. If I don't care for the terms, then I can > simply choose not to engage in such a transaction, and my privacy would > therefore be adequately protected. Air Miles will be a good test of this law. As long as they are open about how they use personal information, people are free to make an informed decision about whether to participate. Today, it's not clear how many Air Miles members know how their information is used. > In Canadian law, when there is a dispute over whether the terms of a > contract are being met, the burden of proof is rightly placed on the party > that contends otherwise. The "access to information" provision of Bill C-6 > puts this well founded principle on its head, placing the burden of proof on > the holder of the personal information to prove that it is in compliance. We have "access to information" laws for personal information held by the government and we don't think of this as "on its head". Imagine if the government simply responded: "We refuse to answer. You have to trust us. Or take us to court". And besides, ... the company does not need to demonstrate it is in compliance with all aspects of the law ... they simply need to respond to an access request from an individual. That response would include: the information the company has on that person, and a copy of their privacy policy spelling out how it is collected, used, disclosed. > One case I have heard cited in favour of such privacy protection laws is of > some (American) company that filed for bankruptcy, and the Receiver > proceeded to liquidate its assets, including its amassed personal > information without the consent of those that provided it. In this case, I > believe that this would be legitimate grounds for civil litigation if the > terms under which the information was supplied were not upheld. But who to > sue? The company would be defunct. Rather than target that unusual situation, where the company is gone, ... the law says that practice (promising one thing, but doing another) can't be standard operating procedure for businesses. > If instead of individuals' personal information being sold, we suppose it > was the "Colonel's Secret Recipe" or the source code to Microsoft Windows > that was previously licenced to the (now defunct) company, it would be clear > to the Receiver that such information could not be legally resold. Such an > action would violate the terms of the contract with the information > supplier, and would undoubtedly expose the Receiver to significant legal > liability. So should be the case if the terms of the contract between > individuals and the defunct company are not upheld. It is not only the resale of personal information (by the Third Party to Fourth Party) but also the use or disclosure that we are concerned about. > This liability should be enough to protect our privacy when we deal with > voluntary transactions of information. If we need legal privacy protection, > it should be to protect individuals against those who acquire this > information through involuntary means, namely our governments. Governments > have the power to coerce private information from us, then use and > distribute this information as it sees fit, without the necessary checks and > balances in place to protect our privacy. We already have access/privacy for the public sector. Now we have a new law for the private sector too. > So far, I believe Canadian governments have been relatively benign in this > regard, but that's certainly no guarantee that it will continue to be the > case. For instance, various state governments in the United States have > recently sold personal information from their driver's license databases to > private corporations, without the consent of their citizens. These citizens > had no choice but to supply this information if they wanted to legally > operate automobiles in those states. You should look into what provinces like Ontario are doing with your motor vehicle records ... > In cases where the provision of personal information is involuntary, then I > strongly believe we need laws that place significant restrictions on what > can be done with that information - laws such as those in Bill C-6. The > holders of such personal information should be required to be accountable > for their actions, and there should be legal remedies for those who have had > their private information unjustifiably released. So you do agree there is a reason for Bill C-6 ... involuntary (or deceptive) collection of personal information. > How we as individuals or companies choose to process information stored on > our own computer systems should remain our own business, unless we have > agreed to do otherwise. We'll see how this law gets challenged by organizations that do not wish to comply ... > If we want to protect our freedom of speech, we must equally protect our > freedom to receive, store, manipulate and transmit information. The best way > to achieve this is not through restrictive laws such as those in Bill C-6, > but to uphold existing contract law and keep the activities of our > governments in check. > > Sincerely, > > Paul C. Bryan > [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- David Jones, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---------- End Forwarded Message ---------- ********************************************** To (un)subscribe visit the list's WWW page at: <http://crypto-canada.greatvideo.com>
