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.
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
The Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic has released a whitepaper calling for manadatory breach notification. Speficially, CIPPIC is calling for an amendment to PIPEDA:
Amend Principle 7 of PIPEDA to include a requirement to notify affected individuals of a security breach that results in the acquisition of unencrypted personal information by an unauthorized person. Such requirement should include specifics regarding the type of personal information and breach that triggers the obligation to notify, form and content of notices, timing of notices, who should be notified, etc. Failure to notify affected individuals as required under the Act should be subject to tough penalties.
Notification should be required when designated personal information has been, or is reasonably believed to have been, acquired by an unauthorized person. Good faith acquisition of personal information by an employee or agent of the agency for the purposes of the agency should not trigger the notification requirement, provided that the personal information is not used or subject to further unauthorized disclosure.
An "unauthorized person" means:a) A person who is not an employee or agent of the person that maintains the designated personal information;
b) An employee or an agent of the person that maintains the designated personal information who(i) exceeds his or her authority to access the designated personal information; or
(ii) uses the information for purposes not related to his or her duties.
"Designated personal information" is information, in electronic or paper form, which includes the first name, initial, or middle name, and last name, or address, in combination with any of the following data: government issued identification number including social insurance number, driver’s license number, or health card number; account numbers, credit or debit card numbers, or other unique identifiers issued by other organizations together with any security code, password or access code that would permit access to the individual's information. Information that is encrypted, redacted, or otherwise altered by any method or technology in such a manner that the name or data elements are unreadable by unauthorized persons does not constitute "designated personal information".
The Canadian Privacy Law Blog is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 Canada License.