Talk:Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act

Hello, last week I made an edit to the PHIPA (Personal Health Information Protection Act), adding the year it was established and a the acts three major functions.

Imthiyaz84 (talk), 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

Hello, last week I made an edit to the PHIPA (Personal Health Information Protection Act), adding the year it was established and a the acts three major functions. Imthiyaz84 (talk), 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I have added the following changes: - Seperate the "Personal Information Protection Act (Ontario)" part from the British Columbia part. I thought they might be parallel as they talk about similar laws in two regions. - Add examples to the circumstance where an individual might be rejected to obtain informaiton about himself. This is in paragraph two. - Add a reference link to the word "substantively similar" in paragraph two. I thought it might help to let readers know how the government defines the word. Jen. Lee (talk) 19:16, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, does anyone think the third paragraph which talks about Canada's greater emphasis on personal privacy compare to the U.S. is not very relevant to the article itself and it is a little biased? Jen. Lee (talk) 17:26, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I've added a couple sentences to the first paragraph highlighting the mandatory 5 year Parliamentary review required by PIPEDA. I think this is a good thing to note, given that this mandatory review was an important point of discussion when PIPEDA was enacted. The first review has already taken place and a second review is likely to take place in the next year or so. Asafari (talk) 21:13, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I've been doing some reading on privacy and wanted to suggest an edit to the top of the article, regarding Canadian's greater privacy expectation vs. US. I'll make the edit to the page - see what you think...the article I cite is interesting in that it compares EU's very rigorous approach, US trumping of privacy by security, placing Canada in the middle ground -- Terracotta11 (talk) 12:54, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Terracotta11 - I like that you have added some comparative information, to put the Canadian position within the international context! I think it's very useful. However, I'm not sure that we want to make reference to the Charter in this article on PIPEDA for 2 reasons.

(1) PIPEDA is about private sector organizations, while the Charter regulates interaction between the government and individuals. Here are a couple nice quotes that sum this concept up: “The Charter regulates interactions between the state (federal, provincial and territorial governments) and individuals.” (http://www.pch.gc.ca/pgm/pdp-hrp/canada/frdm-eng.cfm) and “Remember that the Charter applies only to laws and government policies, not to the actions of any person or organization in the private sector.” (http://www.bccla.org/privacy/privacy1-4.html). In this regard, I think the context within which the reference to the Charter was made in the Georgetown Journal of International Law article that you cited is not specific to PIPEDA, but rather more broadly about privacy. (At least that is how I am reading it!)

(2) There is no express constitutional right to privacy and the privacy values in the Charter mainly are focused on the criminal law context (which is different from the main focus of PIPEDA). There is a paragraph in this research report that sums this up nicely: http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/LOP/ResearchPublications/prb0585-e.htm

I think the main concern with including reference to the Charter in a specific article on PIPEDA (and not privacy as a general concept like this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_privacy_law), is that it might lead readers to believe that s.7 and s.8 of the Charter directly applies to the use of personal information by private sector entities in the course of commercial business. So I'm going to remove the reference to the Charter, but let me know if you disagree! (Perhaps the language could be revised to keep it from potentially confusing readers).

Asafari (talk) 21:43, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Asafari: Just saw your comments, thanks very much. You are correct - I also think the reference in the Georgetown Journal article is a general comment about the priority privacy is given in Canadian law and I mentioned it in that way. But agreed it could be misleading in the context of PIPEDA, so not a problem to remove it from that para. The international context comments were the substantive part of what I was trying to add. Good addition re the review. Terracotta11 (talk) 14:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi,

The first line "...group of data protection directives that limit trade with nations not providing privacy protection equivalent to the EU directives.." is not accurate. While PIPEDA was passed partially in response to EU legislation, that is/was not the primary motivation of the legislation.

From the Industry Canada website:

"The Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) is a new law that protects personal information in the hands of private sector organizations and provides guidelines for the collection, use and disclosure of that information in the course of commercial activity."

Source: http://privacyforbusiness.ic.gc.ca/epic/internet/inpfb-cee.nsf/en/hc00005e.html

I will try and re-write the first paragraph to reflect this.

--Davidley 20:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)