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 21, 2005
Currently, there's a significant debate raging in the United States as the Congress considers a whole range of proposals related to an organization's obligation to notify individuals if the security related to personal information is compromised. The "gold standard" is that set out in California's legislation (Civil Code Sections 1798.29 and 1798.82), which requires notification of consumers if certain kinds of unencripted personal information is disclosed. Other states have followed California's lead with varying degrees of similarity.
Many pro-privacy commentators are concerned that Congress will ultimately enact legislation, such as HR 4127, which will pre-empt state laws and will only require notification if there is a "a reasonable basis to conclude that there is a significant risk of identity theft". This threshold is too high, it is argued, and consumers will never know when their information has been released. (See: DATA bill will not effectively help deal with the very real threat of ID theft.) Other commentators are concerned that if the threshold is too low, too many notices will be sent out to consumers and the notices will eventually be ignored and be meaningless.
For the purposes of the debate, allow me to suggest a compromise:
I don't think this is the magic bullet, but I expect it would satisfy the stated objectives of both sides of the debate.
Any thoughts? Comments are welcomed, either using the blog's comment feature or via e-mail.
UPDATE 20051121: Added reference to letter by privacy and consumer groups.
The Canadian Privacy Law Blog is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 Canada License.