“The intent and principles of PIPEDA line up almost perfectly with genealogical emphasis about privacy protection and the ethics surrounding that, but the genealogical societies do not seem to be aware that it could be a fantastic tool in ensuring those ethics are followed and are caught up instead in determining whether or not they are bound by the legislation. In my opinion PIPEDA needs to be embraced and it's principles entrenched into genealogical societies' policies and practices.”

September 7, 2013
G. Alvin Murray, Certified Saskatchewan Instructor, CCSG


The following was taken from R. v. Dyment, [1988] 2 SCR 417, as reproduced at http://canlii.ca/t/1ftc6:

“22. Finally, there is privacy in relation to information. This too is based on the notion of the dignity and integrity of the individual. As the Task Force put it (p. 13): "This notion of privacy derives from the assumption that all information about a person is in a fundamental way his own, for him to communicate or retain for himself as he sees fit." In modern society, especially, retention of information about oneself is extremely important. We may, for one reason or another, wish or be compelled to reveal such information, but situations abound where the reasonable expectations of the individual that the information shall remain confidential to the persons to whom, and restricted to the purposes for which it is divulged, must be protected. Governments at all levels have in recent years recognized this and have devised rules and regulations to restrict the uses of information collected by them to those for which it was obtained; see, for example, the Privacy Act, S.C. 1980-81-82-83, c. 111.

23. One further general point must be made, and that is that if the privacy of the individual is to be protected, we cannot afford to wait to vindicate it only after it has been violated. . . . Invasions of privacy must be prevented, and where privacy is outweighed by other societal claims, there must be clear rules setting forth the conditions in which it can be violated.” (Emphasis added)

From http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1997/1997canlii358/1997canlii358.html, at paragraph 67, in the case of Dagg v. Canada (Minister of Finance), [1997] 2 SCR 403, we learn that the Supreme Court of Canada also invites us to consider R. v. Duarte, 1990 CanLII 150 (SCC), [1990] 1 S.C.R. 30, at p. 46 (“privacy may be defined as the right of the individual to determine for himself when, how, and to what extent he will release personal information about himself”); (and) R. v. Osolin, 1993 CanLII 54 (SCC), [1993] 4 S.C.R. 595, at pp. 613-15 (per L’Heureux-Dubé J., dissenting); Westin, supra, at p. 7 (“[p]rivacy is the claim of individuals . . . to determine for themselves when, how, and to what extent information about them is communicated to others”); (and) Charles Fried, “Privacy” (1968), 77 Yale L.J. 475, at p. 483 (“[p]rivacy . . . is control over knowledge about oneself”).


The design of this site is to readily afford access to ‘research tools’ that may be used to answer the question which asks if the Saskatchewan Genealogical Society (SGS), and certain other genealogical societies, are or are not limited by the terms and provisions of The Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) when indiscriminately collecting and selling personal information about those “in the land of the living.”

Thursday, September 5, 2013

One summary of PIPEDA

“ . . . The PIPEDA Guide, prepared by the Federal Department of Justice, explains as follows:

The PIPEDA gives you the right to:

    know why an organization collects, uses, or discloses your personal information;
    expect an organization to collect, use, or disclose your personal information reasonably and appropriately, and not use the information for any purpose other than that to which you have consented;
    know who in the organization is responsible for protecting your personal information;
    expect an organization to protect your personal information by taking appropriate security measures;
    expect the personal information an organization holds about you to be accurate, complete, and up-to-date;
    obtain access to your personal information and ask for corrections if necessary; and
    complain about how an organization handles your personal information if you feel your privacy rights have not been respected.

This law requires organizations to:

    obtain your consent when they collect, use , or disclose your personal information;
    supply you with a product or a service even if you refuse consent for the collection, use, or disclosure of your personal information unless that information is essential to the transaction;
    collect information by fair and lawful means; and
    have personal information policies that are clear, understandable , and readily available.

. . .

PIPEDA does not cover:

    Federal government organizations already covered by the Privacy Act.
    Provincial or territorial governments and their agents.
    Organizations that collect, use , or disclose personal information, solely, for journalistic, artistic, or literary purposes.
    Individual’s that collect, use , or disclosure personal information for their own purposes, such as genealogical research shared with other family members.”

More can be found at http://www.integrashredding.ca/privacy/2-uncategorised/26-pipeda.html

No comments:

Post a Comment