PIPEDA 101 PowerPoint (Done by Communications)

Who’s Watching
the Kids?
OPC Perspectives
on Youth Privacy
Jennifer Seligy
Legal Counsel, Office of the
Privacy Commissioner of Canada
IAPP Privacy Symposium
May 23, 2013
Overview
• Personal Information Protection and
Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) application in the youth context
• Challenges
• Case studies
• Questions
PIPEDA
• Commercial activities
• References to minors (Principle 4.3 (Note);
Principle 4.3.6)
• Meaningful consent (Principle 4.3.2)
• Appropriate purposes (subsection 5(3))
Daycare – video surveillance
• Complaint about daycare offering an optional
webcam service
– Live feed plus recording and archiving
• Key issues:
– Safeguards
– Consent
– Appropriate purposes
Daycare – video surveillance
Recommendations:
• Encryption
• No recording/archiving
• Monitoring of service logs and access
• Contractual safeguards
• Parental consent
Nexopia.com
• Multi-faceted complaint against a youthoriented social networking website
• Key findings:
- Default privacy settings not appropriate for target
youth audience
- Lack of clarity about privacy settings
- Lack of meaningful consent for collections, uses
and disclosures of personal information
- Indefinite retention of personal information
Nexopia.com
Recommendations:
• Stricter defaults
• Better communication
• Greater transparency
• Permanent deletion
A.B. v. Bragg Communications Inc.,
2012 SCC 46
A.B. v. Bragg Communications Inc.
• Facts:
– Fake Facebook profile with negative comments about
A.B.’s appearance and sexually explicit references
– A.B. applied for an order requiring the Internet
provider to disclose the individual behind the IP
address associated with the fake profile, in order to
pursue an action in defamation
– A.B. sought to anonymously seek the identity of the
creator of the fake profile and a publication ban on
the contents of the profile
A.B. v. Bragg Communications Inc.
• Issues:
– Freedom of the press and open courts
principle
– Privacy and protecting children
• OPC intervention
A.B. v. Bragg Communications Inc.
• Decision:
– A.B. allowed to proceed anonymously in her
application for an order to disclose the identity of the
relevant IP user(s); no publication ban on the part of
the fake profile that contains no identifying
information
– Recognition of the inherent vulnerability of children
– Recognition of the importance of privacy in the
specific context of young persons
Questions?
www.priv.gc.ca
1-800-282-1376