Privacy legislation - let's make some trouble

by RunningMan 19 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  RunningMan

  As of January 1, 2001, Canada has new privacy legislation (Bill C-6).
  Similar legislation has been adopted in the U.S., although I am not
  familiar with it. Some highlights that could pose problems for the society
  include:

  Consent: The knowledge and consent of the individual are required
  for the collection, use or disclosure of personal information.

  Individual access: Upon request, an individual shall be informed
  of the existance,use and disclosure of his or her personal
  information and shall be given access to that information.

  There are also limitations on the use, disclosure and retention of
  personal information.

  The act also provides the federal privacy commissioner with
  extended powers to investigate and publicize complaints.

  The Society is clearly offside on this legislation. They keep
  house to house records, maps, not at home lists, and RV
  lists - all without disclosing to persons that this information
  is retained, or obtaining their consent.

  I would love to lodge a complaint with the federal
  privacy commissioner, but unfortunately, I am still an
  active JW. Would someone like to lodge this complaint
  in Canada? I could assist in some ways.

  Our U.S. friends will probably find the same situation.
• 

  TR

  RM,

  Actually it sounds like another practical way to file legal action against the WTS. Hey, there are some good ideas of late on this forum.
  
  Hey mustang, what do you think?

  TR
• 

  Skimmer

  I have no doubt that the WBTS legal crew has been informed of these and similar postings and is already working on defenses.

  It remains to be seen if and how they will fight against privacy regulations that will adversely impact their control addiction and their money streams.

  In an earlier day, they might have considered the tactic of taking all of the record keeping underground in an attempt to make it invisible to the regulatory authoriies. Yet they dare not risk that now because of the possibility that at least one of their many disgruntled workers will expose the illegalites and cover-ups.
• 

  mustang

  It sounds like the Canadians are more organized than we are here in the U.S., at least so far.

  But, it's worth a try. Got to read some more on this one. Practical sounds like a good description. Definitely worth tossing a complaint about 'failure to disclose' to such a commisioner.

  The more paperwork required, the more difficulty, like Skimmers No Call List(???name). Though here in the U.S. such a thing has been struck down based on the 'free exercise' clause of the 1st Amendment.
  (Some city ordinance had the Chief of Police choosing what you could read!!!)

  I'm just reading into the Privacy & Personhood Chapter on Constitutional Law. Need more data, of course. Just finished the chapter on Religious Autonomy. Gotta tell you, there is some frightening stuff in there. Religions can push HARD in the U.S.
  for whatever they consider religious freedom. If you aren't LEGALLY
  educated and aware, they can mow you down.

  But, THE SWORD CUTS BOTH WAYS!!!!

  Mustang
  Disclaimer: nothing that I write or utter is to be considered legal advice. Consult proper counsel for such matters. Further, all that I write or utter, is considered to be protected by religious freedom under the 1st Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as the "free exercise", as well as "freedom of speech" clauses.
• 

  mustang

  As they say, two can play this game.

  Religious freedom isn't restricted to just a GIANT, ORGANIZED RELIGION. Individuals or a SMALL RELIGION can do it too.

  As I mentioned above, the SWORD CUTS BOTH WAYS. If the Law recognizes XYZ, da biggie, it recognizes you, too. If the dispute is over purely religious ideas, and goes to CHURCH LAW, the Secular Law is out of it.

  Mustang
  Disclaimer: same as previously stated in this thread.
• 

  mustang

  Disclaimer: nothing that I write or utter is to be considered legal advice. Consult proper counsel for such matters. Further, all that I write or utter, is considered to be protected by religious freedom under the 1st Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as the "free exercise", as well as "freedom of speech" clauses.

  Feel free to use this disclaimer, if you see the need. Frankly, you all need to protect and assert your religious freedom. Spread it around.
• 

  expatbrit

  Sorry to rain on the parade here, but I believe that there are specific provisions in the new privacy legislation exempting religious and/or non-profit orgs.

  I'm at work now, so don't have time to look it up, but will later.

  Expatbrit, who would loveto see the WT running scared from lawsuits
• 

  Skimmer

  Hello mustang:

  You are correct in your recollection about it having been found invalid (in parts of the USA, at least) for a local chief of police to require registration of door-to-door uninvited callers. I agree with the decision to some extent as I don't want a third party determining who I can and cannot talk with.

  But the NDNCL project is different in that there is no reliance on any civic authority to determine registtration requirements for door-to-door callers. A NDNCL request can be made only by the householder, not by any third party.

  With the NDNCL, third paries (the courts) get involved only if the WTBTS chooses to ignore householders' requests and so shows a need for corrective punishment.
• 

  Skimmer

  Hello expatbrit:

  I agree that seeing the WTBTS runing scared because of legal actions can provide an atavistic satisfaction of a sort. A taste of their own medicine, being motivating by fear.

  The drawback is that lawsuits will just serve to re-enforce the WTBTS martyr complex. Like most of those afflicted with paranoia, they will blame everyone else instead of taking responsibilty to correct their own mistakes.

  And what if someone manages to win a big settlement? The money will just come out of the poor rank and file JWs and you can bet that theyre will be no decline in the living standard of those holed up in the Patterson complex.

  More than any money, I'd just love to see the GB and the head cheeses of the various corporations up on the witness stand. Oh, I'd even get cable TV so I could watch it on the Court Channel. And I'd be smiling all the way because I know that hundreds of thousands of JWs would be watching as well.
• 

  expatbrit

  Here's some blurb on the new privacy act.

  The act is targeted at "commercial activities". Curiously, I could find no specific statement that exempted religious or non-profit orgs. from the act. So this raises the question: is the WT included under the provisions of this act? More searching required.

  Expatbrit

  Department of Justice

  Privacy provisions highlights
  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Purpose

  The purpose of the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act is to provide Canadians with a right of privacy with respect to their personal information that is collected, used or disclosed by an organization in the private sector in an era in which technology increasingly facilitates the collection and free flow of information.

  Application

  Legislation will initially apply to the federally-regulated private sector, including telecommunications; broadcasting; banking and interprovincial transportation. It will also apply to federal Crown corporations operating in these areas: Atomic Energy of Canada Limited; the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation; the various Ports Corporations; Marine Atlantique and Via Rail.

  The legislation will cover federal entities which are not covered under the existing federal Privacy Act, such as Canada Lands Co., some subsidiaries of Canada Post, the Canadian Race Relations Foundation, Cape Breton Development Corporation (DEVCO) and Enterprise Cape Breton.

  The provisions will also apply to trade in personal information that occurs inter-provincially or internationally.

  Three years after coming into effect, the provisions will apply more broadly to all personal information collected, used, or disclosed in the course of commercial activities, so that all Canadians, no matter where they live, will be assured of privacy protection. Where and whenever a province adopts legislation that is substantially similar, the organizations, classes of organizations or activities, covered will be exempted from the application of federal law.

  Privacy Principles

  The privacy provisions are based on the Canadian Standards Association’s Model Code for the Protection of Personal Information, recognized as a national standard in 1996. The Standard addresses the ways in which organizations collect, use and disclose personal information. It also addresses the rights of individuals to have access to their personal information and to have it corrected if necessary.

  The code’s 10 principles are:

  1. Accountability: An organization is responsible for personal information under its control and shall designate an individual or individuals who are accountable for the organization's compliance with the following principles.

  2. Identifying Purposes: The purposes for which personal information is collected shall be identified by the organization at or before the time the information is collected.

  3. Consent: The knowledge and consent of the individual are required for the collection, use or disclosure of personal information, except when inappropriate.

  4. Limiting Collection: The collection of personal information shall be limited to that which is necessary for the purposes identified by the organization. Information shall be collected by fair and lawful means.

  5. Limiting Use, Disclosure, and Retention: Personal information shall not be used or disclosed for purposes other than those for which it was collected, except with the consent of the individual or as required by the law. Personal information shall be retained only as long as necessary for fulfilment of those purposes.

  6. Accuracy: Personal information shall be as accurate, complete, and up-to-date as is necessary for the purposes for which it is to be used.

  7. Safeguards: Personal information shall be protected by security safeguards appropriate to the sensitivity of the information.

  8. Openness: An organization shall make readily available to individuals specific information about its policies and practices relating to the management of personal information.

  9. Individual Access: Upon request, an individual shall be informed of the existence, use and disclosure of his or her personal information and shall be given access to that information. An individual shall be able to challenge the accuracy and completeness of the information and have it amended as appropriate.

  10. Challenging Compliance: An individual shall be able to address a challenge concerning compliance with the above principles to the designated individual or individuals for the organization's compliance.

  Exceptions

  Some groups, such as law enforcement agencies and journalists, have a lawful or investigative need to collect, use and disclose personal information without having to obtain the consent of the concerned individuals. For these reasons, certain exemptions are included:

  Personal information collected, used or disclosed solely for journalistic, artistic or literary purposes;
  if the action clearly benefits the individual or if obtaining permission could infringe on the information’s accuracy;
  where such data can contribute to a legal investigation or aid in an emergency where people’s lives and safety could be at stake; and
  if disclosure aids, in times of emergency, matters of legal investigation, or facilitates the conservation of historically important records.
  PRIVACY COMMISSIONER'S ROLE

  Complaints

  Individuals will have the right to complain about any aspect of an organization’s compliance with the provisions relating to the protection of personal information to the federal Privacy Commissioner. The Commissioner will have general powers to receive and investigate complaints, and to attempt dispute resolution.

  Remedies

  Unresolved disputes relating to certain matters can be taken before the Federal Court. In addition to its normal powers, the Court may order an organization to correct its practices and award damages to the complainant. Punitive damages may not exceed an amount of $20,000.

  Public Information

  The Privacy Commissioner will have a mandate to develop and conduct information programs to foster public understanding of the privacy provisions of the Act.

  Annual Report

  The Privacy Commissioner will report annually on the application of the provisions on personal information and the extent to which the provinces have enacted legislation.

  ONE-TIME REVIEW

  The privacy provisions of the Act will be reviewed five years after the coming into force of the legislation by a Committee of the House of Commons, or of both Houses of Parliament.