| |
|
|  |
May 11, 2005 |
|
|
|
| |
May 10, 2005 |
|
|
|
| |
April 19, 2005 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Describing privacy
When I give presentations and teach about privacy, I always start with a discussion of "what is privacy". The concept means very different things to people, depending upon their background and the baggage they bring to the discussion. to help us wade through this, Daniel Solove, of George Washington University Law School has written an article in the U. Penn Law Review that addresses the vocabulary and taxonomy of the slippery concept of privacy:
SSRN-A Taxonomy of Privacy by Daniel Solove:
"Privacy is a concept in disarray. Nobody can articulate what it means. As one commentator has observed, privacy suffers from 'an embarrassment of meanings.' Privacy is far too vague a concept to guide adjudication and lawmaking, as abstract incantations of the importance of 'privacy' do not fare well when pitted against more concretely-stated countervailing interests.
In 1960, the famous torts scholar William Prosser attempted to make sense of the landscape of privacy law by identifying four different interests. But Prosser focused only on tort law, and the law of information privacy is significantly more vast and complex, extending to Fourth Amendment law, the constitutional right to information privacy, evidentiary privileges, dozens of federal privacy statutes, and hundreds of state statutes. Moreover, Prosser wrote over 40 years ago, and new technologies have given rise to a panoply of new privacy harms.
A new taxonomy to understand privacy violations is thus sorely needed. This article develops a taxonomy to identify privacy problems in a comprehensive and concrete manner. It endeavors to guide the law toward a more coherent understanding of privacy and to serve as a framework for the future development of the field of privacy law. "
Thanks to Bruce Schneier for the link: Schneier on Security: A Taxonomy of Privacy. - David T.S. Fraser [PIPEDA and Canadian Privacy Law]
8:47:35 PM 
| |
|
|
|
| |
April 4, 2005 |
|
|
|
|
|
Government Took Reasonable Precautions to Safeguard Data From PIPEDA and Canadian Privacy Law: A British Columbia Court has ruled against a British Columbia Union. The union was arguing that the Court should prevent the B.C. government from entering into a contract that involved locating confidential health data in a subsidiary of a U.S. company. The union argued that the U.S. parent could be ordered to produce the confidential information under the U.S. Patriot Act.
The provincial privacy commissioner had previously held that there was a reasonable probability of disclosure of confidential information under the Patriot Act.
The Court examined the contract and concluded that the government had taken all reasonable steps to ensure the privacy of the data.
8:23:13 PM
| |
|
|
|
|
|
CRTC Requires VOIP to Deliver 911 Service The CRTC gave notice that VOIP carriers will be required to deliver 911 service or provide ongoing notice to clients along with acknowledgement of limitations on 911 service. Most VOIP carriers have indicated they will likely be able to meet the new requirement.
Here is the Government announcement.
7:45:28 PM
| |
|
|
|
| |
March 23, 2005 |
|
|
|
| |
March 22, 2005 |
|
|
|
|
|
RSS and Privacy Risks David T.S. Fraser [PIPEDA and Canadian Privacy Law] picked up an interesting post on the impact of RSS on privacy issues. Because you can subscribe to an RSS feed without giving any personal information, it is superior, from a privacy perspective, to opt in mailing lists where some information usually has to be disclosed:
The Information Security News - Blog Archive - Editorial: How RSS can reduce privacy risks:
"Offering web site content updates via an RSS feed rather than by opt-in email can reduce the risk of privacy exposures. Because subscribing to an RSS feed is a 'pull' technology, it avoids the collection of personal information (email address, name, etc.) that would normally get collected in order to maintain a subscription to a site update alert, newsletter or digest..."
8:19:59 PM
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Lawyers, Blogging and the Public Interest Alex Barnett and Kevin O'Keefe are having an interesting discussion of whether blogging furthers the ethical obligation of lawyers to advance public discourse of legal issues and educate the public.
While I would not go so far as to suggest a moral obligation to blog, anything that enhances the public's access to legal information and access to justice is laudable.
7:56:24 PM
| |
|
|
|
| |
March 20, 2005 |
|
|
© Copyright 2005 Michael Girard.
|
|
|
|
|
Shoot the Stars
| May 2005 |
| Sun |
Mon |
Tue |
Wed |
Thu |
Fri |
Sat |
| 1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
| 8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
| 15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
20 |
21 |
| 22 |
23 |
24 |
25 |
26 |
27 |
28 |
| 29 |
30 |
31 |
|
|
|
|
| Apr Jun |
Canadian Courts
Courts of Appeal
Firms
Blawgs
|
|
