Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Part One of this series discussed the history of Canada's recently introduced Consumer Privacy Protection Act and reviewed the similarities with GDPR, such as data portability, the right not be forgotten, codes of practice, and a safe harbor provision. Part Two analyzed the new compliance requirement of valid consent. Part Three continues the analysis of new compliance requirements, including the content of organizational privacy policies and anonymization of personal information policies, and business transaction policies contained in the Act.
The federal Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) already requires that organizations make readily available to individuals information about its policies and practices relating to the management of personal information. However, the Act requires not only that this information be made available "in plain language" (see, Section 62(1) of the Act.), but also that the information now include (in addition to a description of the type of personal information under the organization's control, how an individual may make a request for disposal or access, and the business contact information of the individual to whom complaints or requests for information may be made — all of which are existing PIPEDA requirements) the following specific additional information: a) in addition to a general account of how the organization uses the personal information, an account as to how it applies the exceptions to the requirement to obtain an individual's consent, which must include a description of any activities in which it has a "legitimate interest" (see above); b) a general account of the organization's use of any automated decision system to make predictions, recommendations or decisions about individuals that could have a significant impact on them (see below); c) whether or not the organization carries out any international or interprovincial transfer or disclosure of personal information that may have "reasonably foreseeable privacy implications"; and d) the retention periods applicable to sensitive personal information. See, Section 62(2) of the Act.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.
When we consider how the use of AI affects legal PR and communications, we have to look at it as an industrywide global phenomenon. A recent online conference provided an overview of the latest AI trends in public relations, and specifically, the impact of AI on communications. Here are some of the key points and takeaways from several of the speakers, who provided current best practices, tips, concerns and case studies.
The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.