- Ms Kaye is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Mary Carlisle is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Prem Gill is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Nancy Flight is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Justin Everett is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- John Westover is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Nora Etches is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Edward Henderson is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Bharadwaj Chandramouli is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Dean Chatterson is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Marius Scurtescu is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Robert Parkes is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- James Murton is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Susan Doyle is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Vincent Strgar is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Helen Spiegelman is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Subir Guin is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Kimball Finigan is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Joanne Manley is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- David Leach is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
Your Privacy Ends at the Border
But the Google Buzz slam by 10 governments may signal a new day of global privacy protection.
Back off Google: Canadian Privacy Commissioner Jennifer Stoddart.
Last week the talk of the privacy world was news that 10 privacy and data protection commissioners -- led by Canadian Privacy Commissioner Jennifer Stoddart -- had released a public letter to Google CEO Eric Schmidt, expressing concern that the Internet giant was forgetting its privacy responsibilities.
The letter, also signed by the heads of privacy agencies from France, Germany, Ireland, Israel, Italy, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Spain and the United Kingdom, focused on the recent introduction of Google Buzz, a service that offered new social media capabilities. It attracted the wrath of users and privacy advocates after Google automatically assigned users a network of "followers" from among people with whom they corresponded most often on Gmail.
Google quickly altered the offending features, but the damage was clearly done, as privacy commissioners from around the world used the incident as the basis for a shot across the company’s bow.
Stoddart's role in the letter is instructive. Fresh off last year's successful showdown with Facebook, in which the popular social media site agreed to alter some of its policies for its more than 400 million users based on a single Canadian complaint, her office has jumped on the technology bandwagon, actively blogging, twittering, and engaging on Internet related issues.
Bring in the regulators?
Business reaction to the letter was decidedly mixed, however. Some argued that it foreshadowed potential regulatory action against Google and other major Internet companies. Others were more skeptical, noting that a closer reading of the letter revealed that the commissioners had few specific complaints remaining about Google Buzz, given the changes implemented by the company weeks earlier. Moreover, when asked about the status of the case, Stoddart admitted that there had not been a formal investigation into the matter.
As experts debated the importance of the letter, the longer-term impact may come not from specific actions against a company such as Google (there does not appear to be much likelihood of imminent action) but rather from the realization that the joint effort may represent a major step toward the globalization of privacy enforcement.
The difficulties associated with cross-border privacy enforcement has long been viewed as a particularly thorny issue in a world where data moves effortlessly across borders and private companies retain massive databases containing a myriad of personal information.
The European Union has attempted to address the issue by establishing restrictions on the export of data, requiring that data transfers be limited to those countries with "adequate" privacy protections. Canada has adopted a different approach, eschewing restrictions on data exports but holding organizations accountable for the data they collect, regardless of its location.
A new international layer of enforcement
Despite efforts to assure the public that these regulatory systems offered effective privacy protections, the reality has been that privacy rules are purely domestic creatures that end at the border. Indeed, only a few years ago, Stoddart's office maintained that it could not even investigate a case involving a foreign-based company.
The joint letter signals a new approach to privacy enforcement, one based on greater cooperation and mutual recognition of common privacy principles. While the specifics of privacy laws may vary, the underlying principles are remarkably similar across jurisdictions. As privacy and data protection commissioners work together on issues with a global impact, they create a new layer of enforcement that could lead to joint investigations and parallel enforcement actions.
After years of grappling with the challenges of borderless privacy concerns in a bordered world, that is a development worth buzzing about. ![]()




13
Login or register to post comments
Takuan
2 years ago
too late for us
Campbell has already sold our medical records across the border, something that will REALLY come home to roost when they finish dismantlng our health care and throw us to the talons of the private insurers salivating at the gates. "You may already be A Disqualified!"
cboo44
2 years ago
Privacy ?
I wonder how many people who set their hair on fire about "privacy" are on Facebook ?
runner
2 years ago
fact check: @takuan
Takuan, I understand what you're getting at, but what Campbell did was to outsource the management of the Medical Services Plan and PharmaCare to a US-based company, Maximus. Maximus set up a BC division solely for this purpose, with all the records (supposed to be) maintained within the province. http://www.maximus.com/services/health/health-care-canada
I have not seen any evidence that our health records under this arrangement have been sent outside BC.
The Tyee did a nice report last year on how Maximus is subsequently charging us way more than the original contract was for (more financial expertise from the Libs!):
http://thetyee.ca/News/2009/05/06/Maximus/
Anyhew....just mentioning this for accuracy. A bunch of our money is heading out of the province, but not necessarily our medical records.
...and cboo44, I think you absolutely hit the nail on the head :-)
Takuan
2 years ago
supposed to be
you hit the nail right on the head.
alive
2 years ago
off subject, but relevant!
Speaking of outscourcing:
The contractors that supply food and cleaning services to BC hospitals are under review these days, because their contracts are up for renewal!
Guess what: suddenly they tripled the number of people cleaning, and suddenly the food is edible!
This is first hand experience, because I was in Victoria General 3 months ago and things were dismal, but when re-admitted last week I saw a total change!
Yes, I actually enjoyed the food served!
It is your guess for how long that change will last?
My guess is one day after the contracts are renewed!
My question is: who leaked the info that they would be scrutinized?
Yeah, yeah, not exactly on the subject here, but the Tyee does not have a running article where it might fit in better, and this needs to be known!
The Blackbird
2 years ago
Hypocritical Governments
Hasn't anyone heard of Echelon?
For years, intelligence agencies of the governments of Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, New Zealand and Australia have gotten around their respective laws prohibiting electronic surveillance of citizens within their own borders without obtaining a warrant by partnering with each other to spy on us for them.
Now they're upset because someone else has better spy toys? Control freaks ... http://bit.ly/aG1jWE
The Blackbird
2 years ago
Your Privacy Does Not End at the Border ...
... if you're a nonviolent protester in Canada with an anti-corporate/globalization position.
The Red Tent campaigners' Olympic Wrap-Up banner around the downtown LiveCity site is an excellent example. Even though the campaign's website offers a statement of principles with the first being nonviolence, uniformed Vancouver Police officers used hand-held videorecorders to capture footage for an as yet to be publicly disclosed purpose. These activists included lawyers, teachers, artists and others who do not have criminal records and who have never expressed a desire to rebel in a violent manner.
It begs the questions, why do Vancouver Police have a policy of surveilling known peaceful demonstrators and what are they doing with the images and sound recordings they have and will continue to collect unless they are held to account for this egregious invasion of law-abiding citizens' privacy?
Last month, in a case brought forward by a nonviolent activist against the London Metropolitan Police, a judge ruled that no police department may surveil or store any records of peaceful protesters engaged in lawful activities and that any departments that have done so must delete all files stored in their databases. It is noteworthy that this ruling came down in CCTV-happy Britain before their own Olympic Games: http://bit.ly/Me2Xi
I learned last week that the Vancouver Police Department is presently reviewing its policy of surveillance of nonviolent protesters. If, after its review, the VPD decides to stick to continue the practice, we may very well have a similar law suit filed against in Canada.
Takuan
2 years ago
the VPD
is the lapdog of the moneyed, They'll do , or not do, whatever the money tells them. Never forget that.
The Blackbird
2 years ago
So?
Where do "the moneyed" run when they get caught fleecing us, police included? They go to the public purse. Never forget that.
mikev
2 years ago
Google Buzz
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/04/02/google_buzz_outs_andrew_mclaughlin_contacts/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/04/12/obama_mclaughlin_google_probe/
LOL!
Dennis J
2 years ago
Your Privacy stop at the border!
You lost your `privacy' a long time ago when the `Patriot Act' came into being in the US. Canada didn't do much about it then and the gov't is doing anything about now. Get use to it...you want something STAND UP and fight for it.
Running Frog
2 years ago
So back to Google..
You can sign up for my group on FB (search for title in name search):
Why is Google refusing to clear it's cache?!
.. Which states:
Do you have too many trash links listed under your personal name on Google? Why Google is now refusing to clear it's cache when it used to very routinely run it's webcrawler upon request?
Why is Facebook refusing to add on the code to block our messages from being indexed on Google?!
What happens is that your bloggers' comments etc. become indexed under your personal name on Google and it becomes nearly impossible to rid your name of this form of trash links; it's just reindexed and reindexed instead.. Just for future employers etc. to see no less!
This is a full-on (very sneaky) violation of the publics' privacy rights.. Not a frugal use of our Resources, Power Smart etc; now is it?!
Sign up now and let's put out a very solid statement; to end to this form of Blanket 'Media' and MIND FEAR/CONTROL STRATEGIES now.
Facebook (and all Blogger) Webmasters: Are you somehow still not aware that you can block every single comment made on your blogs so that they will not appear on search engines; to maintain your bloggers' personal privacy rights instead:
*This is also a Webmasters' HINT for FB also = STEP UP*
http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=156412&cbid=-1kfcd4d7mitsp&src=cb&lev=answer
IT IS FULLY ILLEGAL TO FAN SLANDER ACROSS THE INTERNET AGAINST THE PEOPLES' WILL; ONLY TO HAVE OTHER BLOGGERS RE-INDEX AND RE-INDEX; AND FURTHER TO HAVE THESE COMPANIES REFUSE TO DELETE THEIR ON-LINE TRASH?!
LET'S RECLAIM OUR PRIVACY RIGHTS NOW.
We need to maintain our right to personal privacy and peaceful on-line protests and petition signing; without being to the nth degree; PROFILED for the activity?!
By Facebook and Google?! Two Two for the price of one.
Or enforce Class Action Lawsuits instead?
Running Frog
2 years ago
My medical records were STOLEN by Criminals?!
Also.. re: our medical records. This was not done on a vote. I want mine back. What to do please?