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.
Friday, November 04, 2005
The Washington Post is continuing to chronicle the ongoing debate between the US political parties on proposals to implement a federal privacy law to protect consumers against indentity theft. Privacy advocates are very concerned that the process will result in a weak law that pre-empts much more rigorous state laws, such as that in California. The California law is largely responsible for the wave of publicity about privacy breaches in the last year.
Parties Split on Data-Protection Bill:
"... Under the bill, data brokers and other firms that store consumer data would have to notify consumers that their information was breached only when it was determined that a 'significant risk' of identity theft or other fraud might result.
That decision would be made by the company that was breached, which Democrats said was akin to having to no requirement at all.
This year alone, tens of millions of consumers have been notified of breaches at information brokers such as ChoicePoint Inc. and LexisNexis, financial institutions, government agencies, universities, online retailers and other firms.
Many notices were sent out under a California law that covers any firm doing business in the state.
'No notices would have gone out under the standard put forth in this bill,' which would preempt state laws, said Rep. Janice D. Schakowsky (D-Ill.). 'We would not have known how badly corporations treat personal information, nor would consumers have been able to take action to protect themselves -- even from financial identity theft -- if this bill had been in place in February 2005.'
Data brokers, direct marketers, financial institutions and several large technology companies supported the approach of the bill, as did FTC Chairman Deborah P. Majoras. They argue that thieves or hackers cannot always use data they might gain access to, and that bombarding consumers with notices every time a breach occurs would cause people to ignore them...."
The Canadian Privacy Law Blog is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 Canada License.