Bull Housser Blogs
The BC Supreme Court declined to certify a class action againt Apple Inc. alleging the surreptitious collection and storing of locational data on iPhones, iPads, iPhone 3G and iPhone 3GS through the "location services" capabilities on those devices.
In the annual privacy sweep, involving privacy enforcement authorities from around the world, 1,211 apps were assessed, 151 of them by the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada. The sweep, which focused on the collection of personal information by mobile apps, found many apps "were requesting permission to access potentially sensitive information, like your location or access to your camera functions, without necessarily explaining why. This left many of our sweepers with a real sense of unease."
Mulitnational big box Home Depot announced Monday that it has discovered software buried in its Canadian and US stores designed to steal credit and debit card information.
Home Depot suspects that customers who shopped in the US and Canada since April could be affected. It has not yet announced what information tied to cards may have been compromised.
In Cook v. The Insurance Corporation of British Columbia 2014 BCSC 1289, the Court has confirmed that a civil claim cannot be advanced claiming contractual or tortious breaches of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIPPA) in BC.
In the case, Cook advanced claims alleging ICBC's improper collection, use and disclosure of his personal information to the police and a doctor, relying on FOIPPA duties. Cook also relied on terms of his insurance contracts.
With the availability of inexpensive techology, individuals are more able to engage in their own surveillance.
Where do our privacy rights begin and end in our private and public spaces. What is public and private space? Do our rights differ depending on who is watching, the intent, or use?
These are questions our society must answer. We have to grapple with them thoughtfully.
In Order 14-21, the Commissioner's Delegate ordered the District of Mission to withhold most of the information included in RFP response submissions by proponents except for publicly available information and information of a general nature.
It appears that the issue persuading the Delegate to order the records withheld was that the contract had not been awarded and there was evidence that the parties may be invited to compete for the same or similar work. It was also important that there were confidentiality provisions in the RFP.
In R v. Quesnelle 2014 SCC 46, the Supreme Court of Canada deals with the question of whether records of previous unrelated complaints and witness statements about the accused should be provided in the criminal disclosure process. The Court concludes they should not, affirming the proposition that people are entitled to provide information to law enforcement with confidence that they will only disclose it (even to the accused) for good reason.