Changes clean up privacy laws
For the London Free Press - November 7, 2011 - Read this on Canoe The Canadian government recently introduced Bill C-12 (the Safeguarding Canadians' Personal Information Act) that contains amendments to the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA).
The PIPEDA privacy legislation charted new territory when it was enacted a few years ago. Most of these amendments are a result of things learned since then, and have been contemplated for some time.
For example, the new bill amends the "business card exemption" to make it clear that one's business e-mail address is not personal information.
It was a glaring error when a person's business telephone number and physical address was deemed not to be personal information, but their business e-mail address was considered personal information.
Provisions are included to govern privacy issues when personal information is transferred during corporate mergers and acquisitions. That includes things such as customer information. This was another glaring error that needed to be corrected.
One of the controversial sections of PIPEDA was the ability (but not the obligation) to provide personal information to government authorities if they provide the custodian of the information with proof of its "lawful authority."
The meaning of "lawful authority" has been debated over the years. Out of an abundance of caution, many organizations simply required a subpoena or court order before they would turn personal information over to police.
The proposed amendments contain a provision saying that lawful authority means something other than a subpoena or court order. But this addition is not helpful in describing what lawful authority is.
The amendments contain lengthy provisions that will, for the first time, require disclosure of privacy breaches. When enacted, these provisions will require certain breaches to be reported to either the privacy commissioner, to individuals who may be affected, or both.
Not all privacy breaches must be disclosed. The amendments list various factors to determine whether a breach is material and thus must be disclosed to the commissioner.
Factors include the sensitivity of the personal information, the number of individuals affected, and whether the breach indicates there is a systemic problem.
The test to determine whether a breach must be disclosed to individuals is slightly different, being whether "the breach creates a real risk of significant harm to the individual."
The tests to determine when the thresholds have been reached to require disclosure to the commissioner or the public are somewhat subjective. No doubt the privacy commissioner will interpret the thresholds to be lower than some entities facing a breach would interpret it.
It will be interesting to see how the breach disclosure sections work in practice. Some entities have been very forthright about disclosing privacy breaches. They may consider it the right thing to do, or fear the headline risk if the fact there was a breach is disclosed by another source.
Of course, we may not know how many privacy breaches have not been disclosed that these sections will now require to be disclosed.