On March 5, 2013 the California District Court[1] dismissed a proposed class action against LinkedIn arising from hackers infiltrating LinkedIn’s computer system.
In June 2012 hackers infiltrated LinkedIn’s computer system and posted approximately 6.5 million user passwords on the Internet. Following the breach, …
In July of 2012 I wrote an entry for this blog discussing Canada’s pending anti-spam legislation. On January 5, 2013 Industry Canada released a revised set of proposed regulations to the legislation, titled the Electronic Commerce Protection Regulations. There is a 30 …
The Supreme Court of Canada has now released its decision in the case of R v. Cole, affirming that an employee in a workplace has a reasonable expectation of privacy about personal information contained on workplace computers. This expectation …
The lay person’s definition of “spam” likely contemplates advertisements for questionable drug enhancement products and solicitation from individuals set to receive a substantial inheritance; however, Canada’s anti-spam legislation tackles more than just these quintessential stereotypes. The law takes the approach …
The British Columbia Court of Appeal in B.C. (Ministry of Children and Family Development) v. Harrison has confirmed a broad interpretation of the obligation on a public body under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (“FIPPA“) …
The British Columbia Information and Privacy Commissioner has recently published a number of new or updated resources for private sector organizations. These materials are publicly available on the Commissioner’s website and provide a useful education tool (or refresher) for chief …
Who controls the personal email of public body employees on the public body’s email system? Under public sector information and privacy legislation all records, including email, that are in the custody of or under the control of the public body are …
The B.C. Supreme Court’s recent reasons in School District No. 49 (Central Coast) v British Columbia (Information and Privacy Commissioner), confirms the Commissioner’s jurisdiction to decide questions of solicitor-client privilege over information in public body records. However, the Court also concluded that …