DOCSLIB.ORG

Protecting the Privacy of Canadians: Review of the Privacy Act

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Protecting the Privacy of Canadians: Review of the Privacy Act PROTECTING THE PRIVACY OF CANADIANS: REVIEW OF THE PRIVACY ACT Report of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics Blaine Calkins Chair DECEMBER 2016 42nd PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION Published under the authority of the Speaker of the House of Commons SPEAKER’S PERMISSION Reproduction of the proceedings of the House of Commons and its Committees, in whole or in part and in any medium, is hereby permitted provided that the reproduction is accurate and is not presented as official. This permission does not extend to reproduction, distribution or use for commercial purpose of financial gain. Reproduction or use outside this permission or without authorization may be treated as copyright infringement in accordance with the Copyright Act. Authorization may be obtained on written application to the Office of the Speaker of the House of Commons. Reproduction in accordance with this permission does not constitute publication under the authority of the House of Commons. The absolute privilege that applies to the proceedings of the House of Commons does not extend to these permitted reproductions. Where a reproduction includes briefs to a Standing Committee of the House of Commons, authorization for reproduction may be required from the authors in accordance with the Copyright Act. Nothing in this permission abrogates or derogates from the privileges, powers, immunities and rights of the House of Commons and its Committees. For greater certainty, this permission does not affect the prohibition against impeaching or questioning the proceedings of the House of Commons in courts or otherwise. The House of Commons retains the right and privilege to find users in contempt of Parliament if a reproduction or use is not in accordance with this permission. Also available on the Parliament of Canada Web Site at the following address: http://www.parl.gc.ca PROTECTING THE PRIVACY OF CANADIANS: REVIEW OF THE PRIVACY ACT Report of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics Blaine Calkins Chair DECEMBER 2016 42nd PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION STANDING COMMITTEE ON ACCESS TO INFORMATION, PRIVACY AND ETHICS CHAIR BLAINE CALKINS VICE-CHAIRS DANIEL BLAIKIE JOËL LIGHTBOUND MEMBERS BOB BRATINA WAYNE LONG NATHANIEL ERSKINE-SMITH RÉMI MASSÉ MATT JENEROUX RAJ SANI PAT KELLY OTHER MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT WHO PARTICIPATED WILLIAM AMOS MICHAEL V. MCLEOD MEL ARNOLD MARC MILLER RENÉ ARSENEAULT PIERRE PAUL-HUS KERRY DIOTTE MICHEL PICARD MATTHEW DUBÉ HON. MICHELLE REMPEL PIERRE-LUC DUSSEAULT FRANCIS SCARPALEGGIA JULIE DZEROWICZ MARK STRAHL DAVID TILSON CLERKS OF THE COMMITTEE Hugues La Rue Michel Marcotte LIBRARY OF PARLIAMENT Parliamentary Information and Research Service Michael Dewing Chloé Forget Maxime-Olivier Thibodeau iii THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON ACCES TO INFORMATION, PRIVACY AND ETHICS has the honour to present its FOURTH REPORT Pursuant to its mandate under Standing Order 108(3)(h)(vi), the Committee has studied the Privacy Act and has agreed to report the following: v TABLE OF CONTENTS PROTECTING THE PRIVACY OF CANADIANS: REVIEW OF THE PRIVACY ACT ..... 1 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................. 1 1.1 Mandate......................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Review of the Privacy Act .............................................................................. 1 1.3 The need for reform ....................................................................................... 3 CHAPTER 2: TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGES ........................................................... 5 2.1 Purpose clause and definition of personal information .................................. 5 2.1.1 Purpose clause ................................................................................... 5 2.1.2 The definition of “personal information” .............................................. 7 2.1.3 The definition of metadata .................................................................. 8 2.2 Information-sharing agreements .................................................................. 10 2.3 Safeguarding personal information .............................................................. 14 2.4 Reporting breaches of personal information ................................................ 16 CHAPTER 3: LEGISLATIVE MODERNIZATION ..................................................... 19 3.1 Criteria for the collection, disclosure, use and retention of personal information ............................................................................................... 19 3.1.1 The Privacy Commissioner’s recommendation ................................ 19 3.1.2 Witnesses’ views .............................................................................. 19 3.1.2.1 Reduce the quantity of personal information collected ............. 20 3.1.2.2 Criteria for collecting personal information ............................... 21 3.1.2.3 The necessity test and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ....................................................................................... 22 3.1.2.4 The addition of criteria for the sharing, use and retention of personal information ....................................................................... 22 3.1.2.5 Obligation for accuracy ............................................................ 24 3.1.2.6 The views of federal institutions ............................................... 25 3.1.3 The Committee’s recommendation ................................................... 26 3.2 The various overview models ...................................................................... 27 3.2.1 Overview models in the provinces and territories ............................. 27 3.2.2 The Privacy Commissioner’s view .................................................... 28 3.2.2.1 The Privacy Commissioner’s initial recommendation ............... 28 vii 3.2.2.2 The Privacy Commissioner’s modified recommendation .......... 29 3.2.3 Witnesses’ views .............................................................................. 31 3.2.3.1 Witnesses advocating for the order-making model .................. 31 3.2.3.2 Witnesses advocating for the hybrid model .............................. 32 3.2.4 The view of federal institutions ......................................................... 34 3.2.5 The powers of the Privacy Commissioner and Information Commissioner ........................................................................................ 34 3.2.6 The Committee’s recommendation ................................................... 36 3.3 Expand judicial recourse and remedies ....................................................... 36 3.4 Statutory mechanism for independently reviewing complaints .................... 39 3.5 Privacy impact assessments ....................................................................... 39 3.5.1 The Privacy Commissioner’s view .................................................... 39 3.5.2 Witnesses’ views .............................................................................. 40 3.5.3 The Committee’s recommendation ................................................... 42 3.6 Consultation on draft legislation and regulations ......................................... 43 3.6.1 The Privacy Commissioner’s view .................................................... 43 3.6.2 Witnesses’ views .............................................................................. 44 3.6.3 The Committee’s recommendation ................................................... 45 3.7 Provide the Office of the Privacy Commissioner with an explicit public education and research mandate ............................................................ 46 3.7.1 The Privacy Commissioner’s view .................................................... 46 3.7.2 Witnesses’ views .............................................................................. 46 3.7.3 The Committee’s recommendation ................................................... 48 3.8 Require an ongoing five-year review of the Privacy Act .............................. 48 CHAPTER 4: ENHANCE TRANSPARENCY ........................................................... 49 4.1 Grant the Privacy Commissioner discretion to publicly report on government privacy issues when in the public interest ............................ 49 4.1.1 The Privacy Commissioner’s view .................................................... 49 4.1.2 Witnesses’ views .............................................................................. 51 4.1.3 The Committee’s recommendation ................................................... 52 4.2 Share information with the Privacy Commissioner’s counterparts domestically and internationally ............................................................... 52 4.2.1 The Privacy Commissioner’s view .................................................... 52 4.2.2 Witnesses’ views .............................................................................. 53 viii 4.2.3 The Committee’s recommendation ................................................... 53 4.3 Discretion to discontinue or decline complaints ........................................... 54 4.3.1 The Privacy Commissioner’s view .................................................... 54 4.3.2 Witnesses’ views .............................................................................. 55 4.3.3 The Committee’s recommendation ..................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • ICO – Privacy Impact Assessment Handbook
    Using this handbook Part 1 – Background information Part 2 – The PIA process Appendix 1 – The PIA screening questions Appendix 2 – Data protection compliance checklist template Appendix 3 – PECR compliance checklist template Appendix 4 – Privacy strategies Using this handbook Back to ICO homepage Advice on using this handbook Because organisations vary greatly in size, the extent to which their activities intrude on privacy, and their experience in dealing with privacy issues makes it difficult to write a ‘one size fits all’ guide. The purpose of this handbook is to be comprehensive. It is important to note now that not all of the information provided in this handbook will be relevant to every project that will be assessed. The handbook is split into two distinct parts. Part I (Chapters I and II) are designed to give background information on the privacy impact assessment (PIA) process and privacy. Part II is a practical “how to” guide on the PIA process. The handbook’s structure is intended to enable a reader who is knowledgeable about privacy to quickly start working on the PIA. Background information on privacy and PIAs is provided for other readers who would like some general information prior to starting the PIA process. It is also important to note that some of the recommendations in this handbook may overlap with work which is being done to satisfy other requirements, such as information security and assurance, other forms of impact assessment or requirements to carry out broader consultations during the development of a project. A PIA does not have to be conducted as a completely separate exercise and it can be useful to consider privacy issues in a broader policy context.
    [Show full text]
  • Evidence of the Standing Committee on Finance
    43rd PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION Standing Committee on Finance EVIDENCE NUMBER 034 Thursday, April 15, 2021 Chair: The Honourable Wayne Easter 1 Standing Committee on Finance Thursday, April 15, 2021 ● (1545) Ms. Julie Dzerowicz: Is this first panel a one-hour session or is it [English] an hour and a half? The Chair (Hon. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.)): I call the The Chair: It will be about an hour and 10 minutes. We want to meeting to order. start the second panel at five o'clock. Welcome to meeting number 34 of the House of Commons Ms. Julie Dzerowicz: Thank you very much. Standing Committee on Finance. Pursuant to the committee's motion adopted on Friday, February The Chair: That's an hour and 12 minutes. 5, 2021, the committee is meeting to study all aspects of COVID-19 spending and programs. On Generation Squeeze, I understand they were in and they were out, and they were in and they were out. We can ask the clerk to Today's meeting is taking place in the hybrid format, pursuant to give the reasons, if he wants. Was any reason given, Mr. Clerk? the House order of January 25, and therefore members are attend‐ ing in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application. The Clerk of the Committee (Mr. Alexandre Roger): The email didn't give a specific reason, but the witness did say he would like The proceedings will be made available via the House of Com‐ to wait until the budget came out to have more content for his pre‐ mons website.
    [Show full text]
  • Protecting Privacy Under the Fourth Amendment
    Protecting Privacy Under the Fourth Amendment The Fourth Amendment' has explicitly been held to protect personal privacy2 since at least the mid-nineteenth century.3 Experts in many fields, including law, psychology, philosophy and sociology, believe that privacy is vitally important to all human beings,' and the Supreme Court has 1. The Fourth Amendment provides that: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. U.S. CONST. amend. IV. Under the Fourteenth Amendment, the states must comply with the provisions of the Fourth Amendment. Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 655 (1961). 2. As a constitutional concept, privacy is an elusive yet fundamental value. Although the word "privacy" does not appear in the Constitution, the Supreme Court has recognized a constitutional right to privacy based upon provisions of the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Amendments and their respective "penumbras." Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 484-85 (1965); cf Beaney, The ConstitutionalRight to Privacy in the Supreme Court, 1962 SUP. CT. REV. 212, 215 ("The nearest thing to an explicit recognition of a right to privacy in the Constitution is contained in the Fourth Amendment".) This right to privacy is a "fundamental personal right, emanting 'from the totality of the constitutional scheme.' " Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 494 (1965) (Goldberg, J., con- curring) (quoting Poe v.
    [Show full text]
  • Spotlight On… Protection of Sensitive Data Including Personal Information
    Spotlight On… Protection of Sensitive Data including Personal Information Purpose On Sept. 7, 2017 media reports indicated that a large American credit score bureau had been breached, exposing the personal information of millions of consumers in the U.S. and in the U.K. and potentially affecting 8,000 individuals in Canada. On November 28, 2017 the Canadian arm of this U.S. company posted information on its website indicating that an additional 11,670 Canadians had been affected by the breach, bringing the total number of Canadians affected to about 19,000. In response to CCIRC partner questions concerning this event, this product provides information on what organizations can do to reduce the risk of sensitive data, such as personal information, being exfiltrated from their organization. Information in this note includes: . The Canadian statutory definitions of personal information . Upcoming regulatory changes to data breach reporting in Canada . Examples of reported breaches of Canadian personal information . Tactics, techniques, and procedures employed to target Canadian personal information . Tips for safeguarding sensitive information . Advice from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) for individuals who believe their personal information may have been compromised What is “Personal Information”? According to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (OPC), these are the statutory provisions relevant to the meaning of “Personal Information” in Canada: Section 2(1) of the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents
    [Show full text]
  • Canada Gazette, Part I
    EXTRA Vol. 153, No. 12 ÉDITION SPÉCIALE Vol. 153, no 12 Canada Gazette Gazette du Canada Part I Partie I OTTAWA, THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 2019 OTTAWA, LE JEUDI 14 NOVEMBRE 2019 OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER BUREAU DU DIRECTEUR GÉNÉRAL DES ÉLECTIONS CANADA ELECTIONS ACT LOI ÉLECTORALE DU CANADA Return of Members elected at the 43rd general Rapport de député(e)s élu(e)s à la 43e élection election générale Notice is hereby given, pursuant to section 317 of the Can- Avis est par les présentes donné, conformément à l’ar- ada Elections Act, that returns, in the following order, ticle 317 de la Loi électorale du Canada, que les rapports, have been received of the election of Members to serve in dans l’ordre ci-dessous, ont été reçus relativement à l’élec- the House of Commons of Canada for the following elec- tion de député(e)s à la Chambre des communes du Canada toral districts: pour les circonscriptions ci-après mentionnées : Electoral District Member Circonscription Député(e) Avignon–La Mitis–Matane– Avignon–La Mitis–Matane– Matapédia Kristina Michaud Matapédia Kristina Michaud La Prairie Alain Therrien La Prairie Alain Therrien LaSalle–Émard–Verdun David Lametti LaSalle–Émard–Verdun David Lametti Longueuil–Charles-LeMoyne Sherry Romanado Longueuil–Charles-LeMoyne Sherry Romanado Richmond–Arthabaska Alain Rayes Richmond–Arthabaska Alain Rayes Burnaby South Jagmeet Singh Burnaby-Sud Jagmeet Singh Pitt Meadows–Maple Ridge Marc Dalton Pitt Meadows–Maple Ridge Marc Dalton Esquimalt–Saanich–Sooke Randall Garrison Esquimalt–Saanich–Sooke
    [Show full text]
  • Core 1..16 Journalweekly (PRISM::Advent3b2 17.25)
    HOUSE OF COMMONS OF CANADA CHAMBRE DES COMMUNES DU CANADA 42nd PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION 42e LÉGISLATURE, 1re SESSION Journals Journaux No. 22 No 22 Monday, February 22, 2016 Le lundi 22 février 2016 11:00 a.m. 11 heures PRAYER PRIÈRE GOVERNMENT ORDERS ORDRES ÉMANANT DU GOUVERNEMENT The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Trudeau La Chambre reprend l'étude de la motion de M. Trudeau (Prime Minister), seconded by Mr. LeBlanc (Leader of the (premier ministre), appuyé par M. LeBlanc (leader du Government in the House of Commons), — That the House gouvernement à la Chambre des communes), — Que la Chambre support the government’s decision to broaden, improve, and appuie la décision du gouvernement d’élargir, d’améliorer et de redefine our contribution to the effort to combat ISIL by better redéfinir notre contribution à l’effort pour lutter contre l’EIIL en leveraging Canadian expertise while complementing the work of exploitant mieux l’expertise canadienne, tout en travaillant en our coalition partners to ensure maximum effect, including: complémentarité avec nos partenaires de la coalition afin d’obtenir un effet optimal, y compris : (a) refocusing our military contribution by expanding the a) en recentrant notre contribution militaire, et ce, en advise and assist mission of the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) in développant la mission de conseil et d’assistance des Forces Iraq, significantly increasing intelligence capabilities in Iraq and armées canadiennes (FAC) en Irak, en augmentant theatre-wide, deploying CAF medical personnel,
    [Show full text]
  • Privacy in the Employment Relationship, Practical Law Practice Note 6-517-3422 (2017)
    Privacy in the Employment Relationship, Practical Law Practice Note 6-517-3422 (2017) Privacy in the Employment Relationship by Thomas H. Wilson, Vinson & Elkins LLP and Corey Devine with Practical Law Labor & Employment Maintained • USA (National/Federal) This Practice Note provides an overview of privacy issues in employment, which may arise in various contexts, such as background checks, drug testing, email and other electronic surveillance and tracking by GPS. Invasion of privacy claims are highly fact-intensive and largely dependent on state law. This Note contains information that is general and not jurisdiction-specific. Contents Overview of Privacy Laws Background Checks Background Checks Conducted Internally by the Employer Background Checks Conducted Externally by a Third Party Employment Testing of Applicants or Employees Drug Testing Polygraph Tests HIV or AIDS Tests Medical and Physical Examinations Other Types of Testing Employee Personnel Records Employee Medical Records Sensitive Personally Identifiable Information Employee Electronic Communications Monitoring of Emails and Internet Usage Requiring Disclosure of Electronic Account Access Information Monitoring of Telephone Calls Video Surveillance of Employee Behavior on the Job Searching Employee Surroundings on the Job No Expectation of Privacy in Common Areas Employer Limits © 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1 Privacy in the Employment Relationship, Practical Law Practice Note 6-517-3422 (2017) Employees' Lawful, Off-Duty Activities Tracking Employee Movements by GPS Privacy Concerns Consent and Notice Other Considerations Monitoring and Employee Rights Under the National Labor Relations Act Information about Employees Relevant to Health and Safety This Note provides a general overview of the key legal principles involved in employee privacy in the private employment context.
    [Show full text]
  • INTRUSIVE MONITORING: EMPLOYEE PRIVACY EXPECTATIONS ARE REASONABLE in EUROPE, DESTROYED in the UNITED STATES Lothar Determannt & Robert Spragueu
    INTRUSIVE MONITORING: EMPLOYEE PRIVACY EXPECTATIONS ARE REASONABLE IN EUROPE, DESTROYED IN THE UNITED STATES Lothar Determannt & Robert SpragueU TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ................. ...................... 980 II. EMPLOYER MONITORING AND EMPLOYEE PRIVACY-U.S. PERSPECTIVE ............................ 981 A. WORK-RELATED EMPLOYER MONITORING........................................981 B. WORK-RELATED EMPLOYEE PRIVACY ................ ....... 986 1. Work-Related Rights to Privag Under the Constitution.....................986 2. Work-Related Rights to Privag Under the Common Law..................990 3. Statutog Rjghts to Privag................................. 993 a) The Electronic Communications Privacy Act ............... 995 C. INTRUSIVE WORKPLACE MONITORING AND EMPLOYEE PRIVACY................................................ 1001 1. Employer Access to PersonalWeb-Based Applications..................... 1007 2. Webcams ...................................... 1009 3. GPS ..................................... 1012 D. WORKPLACE PRIVACY TRENDS IN THE UNITED STATES............... 1016 III. EMPLOYER MONITORING AND EMPLOYEE PRIVACY-EUROPEAN PERSPECTIVE .. ................... 1018 A. LAWS IN EUROPE-OVERVIEW ................ ............. 1019 B. CIVIL RIGHTS PROTECTIONS FOR PRIVACY AT THE EUROPEAN LEVEL............................. .......... 1019 ( 2011 Lothar Determann & Robert Sprague. t Dr. iur habil, Privatdozent, Freie Universitat Berlin; Adjunct Professor, University of California, Berkeley School of Law and Hastings College
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Privacy Report
    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ANNUAL PRIVACY REPORT THE CHIEF PRIVACY AND CIVIL LIBERTIES OFFICER AND THE OFFICE OF PRIVACY AND CIVIL LIBERTIES OCTOBER 1, 2016 – SEPTEMBER 30, 2020 1 (MULTI) ANNUAL PRIVACY REPORT MESSAGE FROM THE CHIEF PRIVACY AND CIVIL LIBERTIES OFFICER I am pleased to present the Department of Justice’s (Department or DOJ) Annual Privacy Report, describing the operations and activities of the Chief Privacy and Civil Liberties Officer (CPCLO) and the Office of Privacy and Civil Liberties (OPCL), in accordance with Section 1174 of the Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005. This report covers the period from October 1, 2016, through September 30, 2020. The Department’s privacy program is supported by a team of dedicated privacy professionals who strive to build a culture and understanding of privacy within the complex and diverse mission work of the Department. The work of the Department’s privacy team is evident in the care, consideration, and dialogue about privacy that is incorporated in the daily operations of the Department. During this reporting period, there has been an evolving landscape of technological development and advancement in areas such as artificial intelligence, biometrics, complex data flows, and an increase in the number of cyber security events resulting in significant impacts to the privacy of individuals. Thus, the CPCLO and OPCL have developed new policies and guidance to assist the Department with navigating these areas, some of which include the following:
    [Show full text]
  • Outspoken Liberal MP Wayne Long Could Face Contested Nomination
    THIRTIETH YEAR, NO. 1617 CANADA’S POLITICS AND GOVERNMENT NEWSPAPER WEDNESDAY, MARCH 27, 2019 $5.00 Senate to ditch Phoenix in January p. 5 The Kenney campaign con and the new meaning of narrative: PCO clerk Budget puts off transition: what pharmacare reform, but Lisa Van Dusen feds say it takes the fi rst p. 9 to expect p. 6 ‘concrete steps’ p. 7 News Politics News Parliamentary travel Tories block some House Outspoken Liberal MP committee travel, want to stay in Ottawa as election looms Wayne Long could face Half of all committee trips BY NEIL MOSS that have had their travel he Conservatives are blocking budgets approved by THouse committee travel, say contested nomination some Liberal committee chairs, the Liaison Committee’s but Tory whip Mark Strahl sug- gested it’s only some trips. Budgets Subcommittee A number of committees have Liberal MP had travel budgets approved by Wayne Long since November have the Liaison Committee’s Subcom- has earned a not been granted travel mittee on Committee Budgets, reputation as an but have not made it to the next outspoken MP, authority by the House of step to get travel authority from something two New Brunswick Commons. Continued on page 4 political scientists say should help News him on the Politics campaign trail in a traditionally Conservative Ethics Committee defeats riding. The Hill Times photograph by opposition parties’ motion to Andrew Meade probe SNC-Lavalin aff air Liberal MP Nathaniel BY ABBAS RANA Erskine-Smith described week after the House Justice the opposition parties’ ACommittee shut down its He missed a BY SAMANTHA WRIGHT ALLEN The MP for Saint John- probe of the SNC-Lavalin affair, Rothesay, N.B., is one of about 20 motion as ‘premature,’ the House Ethics Committee also deadline to meet utspoken Liberal MP Wayne Liberal MPs who have yet to be as the Justice Committee defeated an opposition motion Long could face a fi ght for nominated.
    [Show full text]
  • Mr. Bruno Gencarelli Head of Unit for International Data Flows and Protection European Commission [email protected]
    Mr. Bruno Gencarelli Head of Unit for International Data Flows and Protection European Commission [email protected] 26 July 2019 Re: Access Now Responds to Privacy Shield Review Questionnaire - Third review Dear Mr. Gencarelli, Thank you for your invitation to provide information and observations on the European Commission’s third annual review of the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield arrangement, the mechanism to facilitate the transfer and processing of the personal data of individuals from the European Union to and within the United States. Access Now is an international organisation that defends and extends the digital rights of users at risk around the world.1 By combining innovative policy, user engagement, and direct technical support, we fight for open and secure communications for all. Access Now maintains a presence in 13 locations around the world, including in the policy centers of Washington, DC and Brussels.2 Access Now regularly analyzes data transfer arrangements under EU law, including the Safe Harbor arrangement that was invalidated by the Court of Justice of the European Union in 2015, and the Privacy Shield which replaced it.3 Users benefit from a free, open, and secure internet that is enabled by legal certainty for stakeholders to operate. Robust data transfer frameworks which ensure a high level of data protection in the free flow of data are key to deliver these benefits for all actors. The Privacy Shield continues to be inadequate to protect fundamental rights. Since negotiations began in 2016, Access Now has provided detailed analysis and recommendations to the EU Commission on how to improve the Privacy Shield.
    [Show full text]
  • MOVING FORWARD – TOWARDS a STRONGER CANADIAN MUSEUM SECTOR Report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage
    MOVING FORWARD – TOWARDS A STRONGER CANADIAN MUSEUM SECTOR Report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage Julie Dabrusin, Chair SEPTEMBER 2018 42nd PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION Published under the authority of the Speaker of the House of Commons SPEAKER’S PERMISSION The proceedings of the House of Commons and its Committees are hereby made available to provide greater public access. The parliamentary privilege of the House of Commons to control the publication and broadcast of the proceedings of the House of Commons and its Committees is nonetheless reserved. All copyrights therein are also reserved. Reproduction of the proceedings of the House of Commons and its Committees, in whole or in part and in any medium, is hereby permitted provided that the reproduction is accurate and is not presented as official. This permission does not extend to reproduction, distribution or use for commercial purpose of financial gain. Reproduction or use outside this permission or without authorization may be treated as copyright infringement in accordance with the Copyright Act. Authorization may be obtained on written application to the Office of the Speaker of the House of Commons. Reproduction in accordance with this permission does not constitute publication under the authority of the House of Commons. The absolute privilege that applies to the proceedings of the House of Commons does not extend to these permitted reproductions. Where a reproduction includes briefs to a Standing Committee of the House of Commons, authorization for reproduction may be required from the authors in accordance with the Copyright Act. Nothing in this permission abrogates or derogates from the privileges, powers, immunities and rights of the House of Commons and its Committees.
    [Show full text]