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
- Wired seeking worst corporate privacy offenders
- OECD sets international privacy cooperation framew...
- Facebook glitch may have exposed private informati...
- Privacy Commissioners call for suspension of no-fl...
- Adoptees challenge disclosure legislation
- Google calls censorship number one trade barrier; ...
- Frank Work headed to re-appointment
- MySpace posting good enough for cross-examination
- US Appeals Court holds that law enforcement need a...
- Names of defaulted student loan debtors sent in ma...
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.
Sunday, July 01, 2007
OPC finds LSAT fingerprinting violates PIPEDA
In a preliminary letter to the complainant, the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada has concluded that the Law School Admissions Council violates PIPEDA by requiring candidates to submit to fingerprinting at the time the LSAT test is taken:
CIPPIC News « CIPPICIn a decision released earlier this month, the Privacy Commissioner of Canada found that the requirement for Canadian students to provide a finger/thumb print in order to take the Law School Admission Test (LSAT) is an unnecessary infringement of privacy.
One of the most interesting aspects of the letter is the conclusion that the non-profit LSAC is engaged in commercial activities sufficient to have PIPEDA apply in the first place.
Also, the Assistant Commissioner's conclusion turned on the four point test applied in the past to video surveillance:
- Is the measure demonstrably necessary to meet a specific need?
- Is it likely to be effective in meeting that need?
- Is the loss of privacy proportional to the benefit gained?
- Is there a less privacy-invasive way of achieving the same end?
Labels: biometrics, patriot act, privacy, surveillance, video surveillance
The Canadian Privacy Law Blog is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 Canada License.
