The Canadian Privacy Law Blog: Developments in privacy law and writings of a Canadian privacy lawyer, containing information related to the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (aka PIPEDA) and other Canadian and international laws.
Recent Posts
- Privacy law must have teeth
- More on privacy and the Canada Revenue Agency
- Toronto police remove downtown CCTV cameras
- Presidential signing statement may open door to op...
- Kitty credit cards
- Incident: CRA misdirects taxpayer information
- New Year privacy resolutions
- Identity theft insurance
- State and local governments getting into the intel...
- Happy New Year!
On Twitter
About this page and the author
The author of this blog,
David T.S. Fraser, is a Canadian privacy lawyer who practices with the
firm of McInnes Cooper. He is the author of the Physicians' Privacy Manual. He has a national and international practice advising corporations and individuals on matters related to Canadian privacy laws.
For full contact information and a brief bio, please see David's profile.
Please note that I am only able to provide legal advice to clients. I am not able to provide free legal advice. Any unsolicited information sent to David Fraser cannot be considered to be solicitor-client privileged.
Privacy Calendar
Archives
- January 2004
- February 2004
- March 2004
- April 2004
- May 2004
- June 2004
- July 2004
- August 2004
- September 2004
- October 2004
- November 2004
- December 2004
- January 2005
- February 2005
- March 2005
- April 2005
- May 2005
- June 2005
- July 2005
- August 2005
- September 2005
- October 2005
- November 2005
- December 2005
- January 2006
- February 2006
- March 2006
- April 2006
- May 2006
- June 2006
- July 2006
- August 2006
- September 2006
- October 2006
- November 2006
- December 2006
- January 2007
- February 2007
- March 2007
- April 2007
- May 2007
- June 2007
- July 2007
- August 2007
- September 2007
- October 2007
- November 2007
- December 2007
- January 2008
- February 2008
- March 2008
- April 2008
- May 2008
- June 2008
- July 2008
- August 2008
- September 2008
- October 2008
- November 2008
- December 2008
- January 2009
- February 2009
- March 2009
- April 2009
- May 2009
- June 2009
- July 2009
- August 2009
- September 2009
- October 2009
- November 2009
- December 2009
- January 2010
- February 2010
- March 2010
- April 2010
Links
Blogs I Follow
Small Print
The views expressed herein are solely the author's and should not be attributed to his employer or clients. Any postings on legal issues are provided as a public service, and do not constitute solicitation or provision of legal advice. The author makes no claims, promises or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained herein or linked to. Nothing herein should be used as a substitute for the advice of competent counsel.
This web site is presented for informational purposes only. These materials do not constitute legal advice and do not create a solicitor-client relationship between you and David T.S. Fraser. If you are seeking specific advice related to Canadian privacy law or PIPEDA, contact the author, David T.S. Fraser.
Tuesday, January 09, 2007
PIs, privacy and pretexting
Kevin Bousquet, a private investigator with The Corpa Group, has an interesting and long post on PIs, privacy law and pretexting on his blog. It's his view that privacy laws have backfired and that Bill C-299 (the anti-pretexting private member's bill) will have a disastrous effect on the ability of private investigators to deal with fraud, among other things. It's obvious that he put a lot of thought into it and, though I don't agree with many of his conclusions, it is an interesting perspective.
Oddly, there wasn't anyone espousing this perspective who appeared at the PIPEDA review hearings.
Labels: law enforcement, pipeda review, pretexting, privacy, surveillance, video surveillance
1/09/2007 07:16:00 AM
:: (3 comments)
::
Backlinks
: March 06, 2008 10:02 PM
I had to work under a pretext. I went in under the pretext (the lie) of being a customer buying counterfeit watches. I bought a few. Moments later the civil sheriff was at the door doing a seizure.
The day before that I told another lie. I had to find a father who abducted his daughter outside of a family court order. He was well known to be sexually molesting her. I had an idea the man was living in a certain trailer park.
I spoke to the park owner (an elderly lady I recall) said I had a parcel to deliver. The park owner confirmed the man and his daughter were residing at a certain lot. Moments later the police arrived.
Imagine if police departments were not allowed to lie or work under pretext. A police officer poses as a buyer of drugs. The drug dealer asks, Are you a cop?
The police officer says, “no” . Is it a lie or a lawful pretext?
Certain crimes i.e. the police are not involved it is left to the private sector.
This issue is criminal intent. There is NO criminal intent.
PI’s are fighting crimes in which police are not involved and left to the private sector.
: March 20, 2008 10:57 AM
As part of the process the Bounty Hunter hires a Private Investigator to locate the man. The private investigator finds the grandmother of the felon.
He creates a pretext on the grandmother, telling her that her grandson has one a free prize, a new turbo powered car washer. The grandmother states that the felon is living with his girlfriend and gives and address and telephone number.
Shortly after the felon is apprehended. A criminal is off the streets thanks to lawful pretext as legislated in that state.
: March 22, 2008 1:06 PM
The Canadian Privacy Law Blog is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 Canada License.
