Comments on: A clarification on court decisions

By: Jonathan Mitchell QC >> Anonymity and privacy in case reporting in Scotland

Fri, 26 Sep 2008 11:35:21 +0000

[...] of compulsion or exigency the word ‘necessary’ is placed“. [back]See also ‘A clarification on court decisions‘; ‘Anonymization of parties’ names in Canadian case law?‘ and ‘Online [...]

By: Denis Rasmussen

Denis Rasmussen — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 00:23:46 +0000

It’s important to realise that the Internet is international and largely unregulated. We live in an age where fragments of information are being gathered and scattered across the internet. Details about one’s private life on the Internet can become more permanent digital baggage. An entire generation is growing up in very different world, one where people will accumulate detailed records beginning with childhood that will stay with them for life wherever they go. I am surprised to hear that several administrative tribunals are posting personal information online. As long as privacy is undervalued as constitutional right, it will be difficult to argue that its protection is worth the effort. And as long as privacy is undervalued, it will be difficult to justify harsh penalties for those who willfully breach it for their own petty purposes. Thanks to Ms Stoddart for her courage and honor for defending our freedoms!

By: Jonathan Schaeffer

Jonathan Schaeffer — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 16:44:09 +0000

The growing sophistication of search engines highlights how much easier it has become to find specific information online. The fact that private information contained in federal tribunal rulings is being spread through the internet is inacceptable. Privacy needs mor protection and Privacy commissioner needs teeth. You guys are doing a great job. Keep up the good work.

Jonathan Schaeffer

By: BlackStar

BlackStar — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 12:26:33 +0000

Legally, the Commissioner’s points should be accepted. “Educational value” of tribunal decisions is fully achieved by initials instead of real names. The public’s interest in real names is more likely curiosity than legitimate “public interest”. As “right to privact” has repeatedly been included in the Charter rights by the highest court, the infringement of the privacy should be limited to as minimal as possible by applying “Oakes test”.

By: josephine Ledoux

josephine Ledoux — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 19:45:59 +0000

Je suis juriste et tiens très sincèrement à féliciter la Commissaire pour son courage, son bon sens et sa clairvoyance sur une question aussi sensible qu’importante. La Loi sur la protection de la vie privée est une loi à valeur quasi constitutionnelle. À l’ère d’internet de des nouvelles technologies, il est fondamental de trouver un juste équilibre entre le droit à l’information et la protection des renseignements personnels. L’idée que des tribunaux administratifs puissent à leur guise, mettre sur Internet des décisions qui comportent des détails sur la vie intime ou non des personnes est absurde et totalement inacceptable dans nos sociétés démocratiques. En clair, c’est ni plis ni moins qu’une intrusion totalitaire dans la profonde intimité des personnes.

Avec Internet qui met en oeuvre des techniques ésotériques et instantanées, c’est avec une facilité déconcertante que l’on peut pénétrer dans votre vie privée et faire usage de certains renseignements disponibles sur internet pour des fins autres que ceux auquels ils étaient destinés.

Les recherches suggèrent aujourd’hui que le développement des nouvelles technologies a permis l’intégration et la centralisation d’informations confidentielles privées et qu’un renseignement personnel inséré dans une banque de données ou un site internet, puis dévoilé, ne peut être considéré comme un bien exclusif car, une fois qu’il est divulgué, nul ne peut contraindre ceux qui en ont pris connaissance à l’oublier.

La plupart des tribunaux administratifs ont encore énormement de difficulté aujourd’hui à démontrer en quoi le prélèvement d’informations personnelles de leurs décisions les empêche d’atteindre les objectifs qui sont les leurs. La société évolue, et avec elles, les pratiques aussi. Il est malheureux de constater qu’on aoit encore obligé de l’expliquer à certaines personnes.

By: John H. Cameron

John H. Cameron — Sun, 31 Aug 2008 23:30:59 +0000

Access to all lawful databases is a given these days. Good speech.

In the areas of National Security….post 9/11 laws protecting companies from rendering assistance to law enforcement is now an issue in the United States and I’m sure Canada. Thank God for the recently passed laws on this issue in the US and wherever they are put in place. So that means pre
9/11 are: Grandfathered? Correct? LOL

By: Heidi Lein

Heidi Lein — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 07:54:18 +0000

Thanks for your work. The video on social network sites was fascinating and frightening.

There was also an article discussing the loss of idealism with the loss of privacy. That silence is the new norm – blind acceptance, blending in. No wonder that student lambasting Kerry got tazered. Going with the flow may very well take us over the falls.

Again, thank you. Keep up the good fight.

Heidi Lein