“Dot”: Old English. A spot. A mark. A period used in applications as a name separator in files and web addresses. “Indicia”: Latin. Signs, indications, evidence. “Dot Indicia”: A personal blog examining marks and signs in our world about information, privacy and security.
Just how far is business supposed to go in protecting privacy? In the United States, one can starkly see an example with Apple and the retrieval of encrypted iPhone data. But a recent Canadian case also shines a spotlight on the role of the private sector in proactively protecting privacy interests. Read more »
Last week saw a rather striking decision issued by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. 2102 saw the tort of “intrusion upon seclusion” recognized; in 2016, we now have the tort of “public disclosure of private facts”. Unlike the 2012 decision, this one came with a large damage award. Read more »
Manitoba’s Intimate Image Protection Act came into force on 15 January 2016. The statute does something that I think is especially noteworthy – it creates a new privacy tort concerning the “non-consensual distribution of intimate images”.In short, Manitoba becomes the first Canadian province to provide victims of revenge porn with a common law remedy and the ability to sue the perpetrators for damages. Read more »
Last month saw an interesting study emerge from the Maurer School of Law at Indiana University. It discusses the current and potential role of lawyers in the area of cybersecurity and the emerging, but still nascent, field of cybersecurity law. This is not a topic one sees today at CPD sessions for lawyers and that alone makes the paper worth reading, especially for corporate counsel. Read more »
As we move more into 2015, I thought I’d put together my own list of the more interesting Canadian privacy cases of 2014. These are judicial decisions so there’s no Commissioner findings or orders here. Some of these I’ve blogged about; others I’ve simply noted for future reference. I’ve not seen a similar list so feel free to debate my choices and the order I’ve placed them. Read more »
Whenever a new technology arrives, society always plays “catch up” to determine what norms to apply to the use of that technology. It’s probably how we got traffic lights after the advent of automobiles. One “by-product” of smartphone cameras and the Internet is “revenge porn”. The Internet didn’t invent the problem but it sure magnifies it with devastating effect. Read more »
Throughout history, no matter what country, the scope and application of constitutional power can be best described as a “contact sport”. In Canada, the game is played by two levels of government operating under a division of power that has evolved through constitutional case law since 1867. A recent decision in Québec raises a new angle to consider for those companies who think they only have to deal with the federal OPC. Read more »
When it comes to privacy and data protection, I often tell people that that while “rules” are important, the “exceptions” matter more. A recent decision out of the Ontario Court of Appeal illustrates this point rather nicely. It concerns two banks, a debt, a mortgage discharge statement and PIPEDA. Read more »
Today, the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) issued a significant decision with respect to another piece of technology that we commonly carry on our person – mobile phones. The court in R. v. Fearon addressed whether the police can search such phones under the common law power to “search incident to a lawful arrest”. In doing so, the SCC has changed the common law with respect to such searches. Read more »
Who knew six months could pass so quickly? The last blog post seemed like yesterday. After getting the shoulder better and renewing an intent to blog on a more regular basis, here is part 2 of the R v. Spencer blog post. In the last post, my focus was on the meaning of “lawful authority”. Here I want to focus on what I think is the more important aspect of the case — the “reasonable expectation of privacy” in subscriber information. Read more »
