The Canadian Privacy Law Blog: Developments in privacy law and writings of a Canadian privacy lawyer, containing information related to the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (aka PIPEDA) and other Canadian and international laws.
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.
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, November 14, 2005
HR 4127, also known as the Data Accountability and Trust Act (DATA), has apparently crossed a preliminary hurdle in the House by passing the House Energy and Commerce committee's Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection.
This bill, among others, is rather unpopular as it sets a very high threshold for requiring notification of consumers of security breaches. "Security breach" is defined in a way that requires "a reasonable basis to conclude that there is a significant risk of identity theft":
(1) BREACH OF SECURITY- The term `breach of security' means the unauthorized acquisition of data in electronic form containing personal information that establishes a reasonable basis to conclude that there is a significant risk of identity theft to the individual to whom the personal information relates. The encryption of such data, combined with appropriate safeguards of the keys necessary to enable decryption of such data, shall establish a presumption that no such reasonable basis exists. Any such presumption may be rebutted by facts demonstrating that the method of encryption has been or is likely to be compromised.
And by the way, it pre-empts all similar state laws.
Read about the latest and some commentary on the bill: Bill Requiring Notice of Breaches Goes Forward - Computerworld
The Canadian Privacy Law Blog is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 Canada License.