Source: http://www.barrysookman.com/category/privacy/
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 21:22:30+00:00

Document:
Are search engines subject to PIPEDA? Should they be required to de-index web pages such as when information about an individual is inaccurate, incomplete or outdated, ;or when the linked to information is illegal? Should search engines be subject to a notice and de-indexing or demotion regime? And, should search engines be required to geo-fence to ensure that search results containing personal information about Canadians that violates PIPEDA is not made accessible in Canada regardless of which domain a Canadian searches on? In a Draft OPC Position on Online Reputation released yesterday in response to a public consultation, the answer to each of those questions was YES.
This is a preview of OPC position on online reputation: search engines must de-index privacy violating personal information . Read full post.
This is a preview of Digital Privacy Act Security Breach Regulations: my representations . Read full post.
The Federal Court of Canada released a landmark decision finding that the court has the jurisdiction to make an extra-territorial order with world-wide effects against a foreign resident requiring the foreign person to remove documents containing personal information about a Canadian citizen that violates the person’s rights under Canada’s privacy law, the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA). In A.T. v. Globe24h.com, 2017 FC 114 the Honourable Mr Justice Mosely ordered the individual operator of the website Globe24h.com to remove all Canadian tribunal and court decisions posted on the site that contain personal information and to take all necessary steps to remove the decisions from search engines caches.
This is a preview of PIPEDA’s global extra-territorial jurisdiction and right to be forgotten: A.T. v. Globe24h.com . Read full post.
This is a preview of PIPEDA privacy law given business friendly interpretation by Supreme Court: RBC v Trang . Read full post.
This is a preview of Microsoft wins big in warrant fight to protect privacy of user data . Read full post.
This is a preview of Privacy injunctions in the age of the Internet and social media: PJS v News Group Newspapers . Read full post.
The territorial reach and enforcement jurisdiction of European Union’s data protection law has become a lot more important these days following the decision of the Court of Justice in the Schrems case. In a case decided just a few days before Schrems, the same court gave Directive 95/46/EC a broad reading holding that the laws of a Member State apply to data controllers in another Member State who operate a website that processes data of residents of the first Member State. The Court, however, construed the enforcement jurisdiction of supervisory authorities narrowly ruling they do not have the ability to impose penalties on controllers not established in the Member State. The judgment of the Court in Weltimmo s.r.o. v Nemzeti Adatvédelmi és Információszabadság Hatóság, Case C‑230/14, October 1, 2015 has significant repercussions for EU and non-EU businesses that operate websites that target residents of a Member State and potentially for the territorial reach of the “right to be forgotten”.
This is a preview of Long arm of EU privacy law: CJEU judgment in Weltimmo v Hatóság . Read full post.
On October 6, 2015 the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) released a bombshell, but not completely unexpected judgment, invalidating a decision of the European Commission that underpinned the EU-US privacy safe harbor. In Schrems v. Data Protection Commissioner  EUECJ C-362/14 (06 October 2015), the CJEU held that supervisory data authorities in Member States have the joint right with the EU Commission to review whether non-EU countries provide adequate protection to personal data transferred to them from the EU despite a decision by the EU Commission that such protection is provided. It also invalided Commission Decision 2000/520 which had found that transfers of personal data to the US from the EU provided adequate protection where the recipient complied with the EU-US Safe Harbour Principles.
This is a preview of Schrems, what the CJEU decided and why it is a problem for Canadian and other non-EU businesses (updated) . Read full post.
EU’s highest court struck a major blow to the EU-US safe harbour earlier today in the closely watched case, Schrems v. Data Protection Commissioner  EUECJ C-362/14 (06 October 2015). The decision of the CJEU, which followed the earlier opinion of the Advocate General, is the worst privacy nightmare that could have been imagined by the thousands of US and EU based companies that rely on the safe harbour to transfer personal data to the US for processing. It affects giant social networks like Facebook, search engines like Google, cloud hosting providers, and thousands of other companies that do business in the EU and that transfer personal data to the US.
This is a preview of Schrems brings down EU-US safe harbour . Read full post.

References: v. 
 v. 
 CJEU 
 v. 
 CJEU 
 CJEU 
 v.