On Twitter

About this page and the author

The author of this blog, David T.S. Fraser, is a Canadian privacy lawyer who practices with the firm of McInnes Cooper. He is the author of the Physicians' Privacy Manual. He has a national and international practice advising corporations and individuals on matters related to Canadian privacy laws.

For full contact information and a brief bio, please see David's profile.

Please note that I am only able to provide legal advice to clients. I am not able to provide free legal advice. Any unsolicited information sent to David Fraser cannot be considered to be solicitor-client privileged.

Privacy Calendar

Links

RSS FEED for this site

Blogs I Follow

Small Print

The views expressed herein are solely the author's and should not be attributed to his employer or clients. Any postings on legal issues are provided as a public service, and do not constitute solicitation or provision of legal advice. The author makes no claims, promises or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained herein or linked to. Nothing herein should be used as a substitute for the advice of competent counsel.

This web site is presented for informational purposes only. These materials do not constitute legal advice and do not create a solicitor-client relationship between you and David T.S. Fraser. If you are seeking specific advice related to Canadian privacy law or PIPEDA, contact the author, David T.S. Fraser.

Monday, August 22, 2005

National Post editorial against Lawful Access

Today's editorial in the National Post has come out against aspects of Canada's proposed lawful access rules:

National Post
"...There will be a temptation for some to forgive this excess in light of enhanced concerns for security after 9/11. But this incorrectly assumes that the new laws would be reserved for extreme cases such as threats to national security. Think again: The Privacy Commissioner reveals that the initiative to reform Canada's lawful access laws predates the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
In any case, our judiciary is not insensible to the terrorist threat. And so in cases where tapping an e-mail account or cell phone truly is warranted, the police should have no problem convincing a judge that a warrant should be issued. Removing the robed gatekeeper does little to enhance safety, but merely increases the chance of a rogue officer invading someone's privacy for no valid reason.
We share the Privacy Commissioner's skepticism "about the need for these potentially intrusive and far-reaching measures." We agree that the government should be able to get just about any information it needs to protect national security. But that information should be protected from invasive fishing expeditions by the usual safeguard we have come to expect in a free society: a vigilant judge."

Labels: information breaches, lawful access