Are search engines subject to PIPEDA? Should they be required to de-index web pages such as when information about an individual is inaccurate, incomplete or outdated, ;or when the linked to information is illegal? Should search engines be subject to a notice and de-indexing or demotion regime? And, should search engines be required to geo-fence to ensure that search results containing personal information about Canadians that violates PIPEDA is not made accessible in Canada regardless of which domain a Canadian searches on? In a Draft OPC Position on Online Reputation released yesterday in response to a public consultation, the answer to each of those questions was YES.
Posts Tagged ‘PIPEDA’
OPC position on online reputation: search engines must de-index privacy violating personal informationJanuary 27th, 2018
The Federal Court of Canada released a landmark decision finding that the court has the jurisdiction to make an extra-territorial order with world-wide effects against a foreign resident requiring the foreign person to remove documents containing personal information about a Canadian citizen that violates the person’s rights under Canada’s privacy law, the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA). In A.T. v. Globe24h.com, 2017 FC 114 the Honourable Mr Justice Mosely ordered the individual operator of the website Globe24h.com to remove all Canadian tribunal and court decisions posted on the site that contain personal information and to take all necessary steps to remove the decisions from search engines caches.
Canada’s federal privacy law, PIPEDA, was enacted to be one of our framework laws that would underpin our digital economy. It’s goal was to recognize the privacy rights of individuals and at the same time to recognize the legitimate needs of organizations to collect, use, and disclose personal information. That balance between privacy and uses of personal information for appropriate purposes was underscored by the Supreme Court in a decision released yesterday in Royal Bank of Canada v. Trang 2016 SCC 50. .
The Digital Privacy Act (Bill S-4) will make significant changes to Canadian privacy law when it is enacted. The amendments to PIPEDA have been in the making since 2007 following the statutory review of PIPEDA by the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. The Bill has passed the Senate and was referred to the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology. The INDU Committee will begin considering the Bill on November 25, 2014.
Bill S-4, the Digital Privacy Act (An Act to amend the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act,) was given First Reading in the Senate today. The summary of the Bill describes the proposed amendments as follows:
The Government will likely introduce new Bills to amend the Copyright Act and the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) within the next few days. The Parliament of Canada Notice Paper for Wednesday September 28, 2011 provides notice that the Minister of Industry and Minister of State (Agriculture) will introduce a Bill entitled “An Act to Amend the Copyright Act” and a Bill entitled “An Act to Amend the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act”. The actual notices are dated September 27, 2011, which means that the Bills could be introduced as early as this Thursday.
SPAM is awful. It wastes our time. It clogs the Internet. It is full of scams, malware and fraudulent, false and misleading messages. Who wouldn’t cheer when Canada finally decided late in 2010 to outlaw SPAM and related afflictions of malware, spyware, address harvesting and sending false and misleading commercial electronic messages?
Indeed, there was much satisfaction when Canada’s anti-SPAM law, also known as FISA, was given royal assent on December 15, 2011. After a lengthy and thorough review process, including consultations and Parliamentary reviews, Canadians could look forward to the toughest anti-SPAM law in the world just as soon as the regulations were finalized, which is expected this summer.
Supreme Court rules on whether access laws apply to records of PMO but not which records are personal informationMay 15th, 2011
The Supreme Court released its reasons Friday in an important appeal in which the Court had to decide whether citizens can demand disclosure of records located in the offices of the Prime Minister, Ministers of the Crown, the RCMP and PCO under the Access to Information Act. In Canada (Information Commissioner) v. Canada (Minister of National Defence), 2011 SCC 25, the Supreme Court ruled that none of the requested documents had to be disclosed. The ruling, however, by-passed an important opportunity to clarify the meaning of the term “personal information” in Canadian privacy legislation.
The Office of the Privacy Commissioner released a report yesterday on online tracking, profiling and targeting and cloud computing, Report on the 2010 Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada’s Consultations on Online Tracking, Profiling and Targeting, and Cloud Computing. These areas are currently very hot and challenging topics for Canadians and Canadian businesses.
The privacy issues raised by online tracking, profiling and targeting and cloud computing raise many questions with important public policy and economic implications. The report, by and large, raises and does a good job of explaining the issues and challenges. Beyond explaining general principles, it does not purport to provide any real guidelines. After discussing the issues and generally applicable principles, the OPC asked for further comments and input on most of the intriguing questions.
Earlier today the Government introduced two important Bills – Bills C-28 and C-29.
Bill C-28, Fighting Internet and Wireless Spam Act, is the re-introduction of the Electronic Commerce Protection Act (ECPA). It is essentially the Bill as passed by the House of Commons just before the olympics with a few changes. Most of the changes are to harmonize the language to drafting conventions or to clarify the legislative intent.
The Bill is a major improvement over the initial version of the ECPA which was significantly improved during the Industry Committee review.
The Bill would do the following: