Canadian Privacy Law Blog

The Canadian Privacy Law Blog: Developments in privacy law and writings of a Canadian privacy lawyer, containing information related to the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (aka PIPEDA) and other Canadian and international laws.

Thursday, December 06, 2007

UK Missing discs 'hold witness protection scheme IDs'

Just when you thought it couldn't get any worse: Scotsman.com News - Missing discs 'hold witness protection scheme IDs'.

Posted by privacylawyer at 12/06/2007 06:35:00 am
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to XShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Labels: europe, privacy, uk

No comments:

Post a Comment

Newer Post Older Post Home
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

2013 clawbie winner - best practitioner blog

2013 Canadian Law Blog Awards Winner

Links

  • Now on YouTube: "Canadian PrivacyLawyer" channel
  • Follow me on Twitter: @privacylawyer
  • The Canadian Privacy Law Blog
  • The Canadian Cloud Law Blog
  • Privacy resources
  • David Fraser's profile
  • Privacy Calendar
  • Cloud Computing and Privacy FAQ

Search This Blog

About this site and the author

The author of this blog, David T.S. Fraser, is a Canadian privacy lawyer who is a partner with the firm of McInnes Cooper. He has a national and international practice advising corporations and individuals on matters related to Canadian privacy laws.

For full contact information and a brief bio, please see David's profile.


Please note that I am only able to provide legal advice to clients of my firm. If you have a privacy matter, please contact me about becoming a client. I am not able to provide free legal advice. Any unsolicited information sent to David Fraser may not be protected by solicitor-client privilege.


The views expressed herein are solely the author's and should not be attributed to his employer or clients. Any postings on legal issues are provided as a public service, and do not constitute solicitation or provision of legal advice. The author makes no claims, promises or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained herein or linked to. Due to professional ethics, the author may not be able to comment on matters in which a client has an interest. Nothing herein should be used as a substitute for the advice of competent counsel.


This web site is presented for informational purposes only. These materials do not constitute legal advice and do not create a solicitor-client relationship between you and David T.S. Fraser. If you are seeking specific advice related to
Canadian privacy law or PIPEDA, contact the author, David T.S. Fraser.

Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/privacylawyer

Blog Archive

  • ►  2024 (4)
    • ►  September (1)
    • ►  May (1)
    • ►  March (1)
    • ►  February (1)
  • ►  2023 (6)
    • ►  December (3)
    • ►  November (1)
    • ►  May (1)
    • ►  April (1)
  • ►  2022 (19)
    • ►  December (1)
    • ►  August (2)
    • ►  June (2)
    • ►  May (4)
    • ►  April (2)
    • ►  March (4)
    • ►  February (2)
    • ►  January (2)
  • ►  2021 (2)
    • ►  December (2)
  • ►  2020 (5)
    • ►  November (2)
    • ►  October (1)
    • ►  April (1)
    • ►  February (1)
  • ►  2019 (11)
    • ►  December (1)
    • ►  November (2)
    • ►  October (1)
    • ►  August (1)
    • ►  May (1)
    • ►  April (3)
    • ►  February (2)
  • ►  2018 (8)
    • ►  December (2)
    • ►  September (2)
    • ►  April (1)
    • ►  March (1)
    • ►  January (2)
  • ►  2017 (16)
    • ►  December (1)
    • ►  November (2)
    • ►  October (4)
    • ►  September (1)
    • ►  July (1)
    • ►  June (2)
    • ►  May (1)
    • ►  March (1)
    • ►  February (3)
  • ►  2016 (12)
    • ►  December (2)
    • ►  November (1)
    • ►  September (2)
    • ►  April (1)
    • ►  January (6)
  • ►  2015 (37)
    • ►  December (2)
    • ►  November (4)
    • ►  October (2)
    • ►  August (2)
    • ►  July (4)
    • ►  June (1)
    • ►  May (1)
    • ►  April (7)
    • ►  March (6)
    • ►  February (6)
    • ►  January (2)
  • ►  2014 (84)
    • ►  December (2)
    • ►  November (10)
    • ►  October (14)
    • ►  September (6)
    • ►  July (3)
    • ►  June (6)
    • ►  May (6)
    • ►  April (13)
    • ►  March (5)
    • ►  February (8)
    • ►  January (11)
  • ►  2013 (85)
    • ►  December (7)
    • ►  November (13)
    • ►  October (3)
    • ►  September (2)
    • ►  August (2)
    • ►  July (7)
    • ►  June (5)
    • ►  May (5)
    • ►  April (11)
    • ►  March (11)
    • ►  February (6)
    • ►  January (13)
  • ►  2012 (90)
    • ►  December (14)
    • ►  November (7)
    • ►  October (14)
    • ►  September (8)
    • ►  August (2)
    • ►  July (10)
    • ►  June (8)
    • ►  May (7)
    • ►  April (4)
    • ►  February (11)
    • ►  January (5)
  • ►  2011 (130)
    • ►  December (10)
    • ►  November (19)
    • ►  October (9)
    • ►  September (11)
    • ►  August (2)
    • ►  July (10)
    • ►  June (13)
    • ►  May (9)
    • ►  April (15)
    • ►  March (19)
    • ►  February (4)
    • ►  January (9)
  • ►  2010 (155)
    • ►  December (21)
    • ►  November (15)
    • ►  October (13)
    • ►  September (23)
    • ►  August (10)
    • ►  July (8)
    • ►  June (10)
    • ►  May (16)
    • ►  April (15)
    • ►  March (5)
    • ►  February (6)
    • ►  January (13)
  • ►  2009 (131)
    • ►  December (9)
    • ►  November (14)
    • ►  October (14)
    • ►  September (8)
    • ►  August (7)
    • ►  July (7)
    • ►  June (15)
    • ►  May (9)
    • ►  April (11)
    • ►  March (14)
    • ►  February (12)
    • ►  January (11)
  • ►  2008 (279)
    • ►  December (13)
    • ►  November (17)
    • ►  October (18)
    • ►  September (12)
    • ►  August (15)
    • ►  July (25)
    • ►  June (26)
    • ►  May (20)
    • ►  April (53)
    • ►  March (28)
    • ►  February (18)
    • ►  January (34)
  • ▼  2007 (357)
    • ▼  December (31)
      • 2007 "worst year ever" for data breaches
      • The Year in Law and Technology from A to Z
      • Offsite surveillance in Halifax bar may set precedent
      • The Worst Privacy Quotes of the Year for 2007
      • TJX creates executive jobs to deal with privacy is...
      • UK considers proposal that execs be directly accou...
      • Canada on top in international privacy survey
      • The 2007 Security Hall of Shame
      • Halifax bar gets liquor license back on condition ...
      • Security breach affects hundreds of thousands of p...
      • Privacy resolutions from the PCC
      • The top science-and-tech privacy threats of 2007
      • Identity Theft Cartoon
      • More UK data breaches come to light
      • FTC green lights Google and DoubleClick merger
      • FBI aims for world's largest biometrics database
      • Surgeon snaps pictures of patient's privates
      • Alberta faults Ticketmaster for requiring consent ...
      • Google Maps with "my location"
      • New device may end drunk driving?
      • People don't really like surprises
      • Boy awaits bone-marrow transplant
      • UK Missing discs 'hold witness protection scheme IDs'
      • Credit-card company facing liquidation
      • Alberta drug testing case one to watch
      • US judge denies feds' request for Amazon customer ...
      • Incident: Passport applicant finds massive privacy...
      • Nevada Passes Data Encryption Law
      • Identity theft bill will help in battle
      • TJX Agrees to Pay $40.9 Million to Visa Card Issuers
      • There's No Such Thing As An Anonymized Dataset
    • ►  November (27)
    • ►  October (17)
    • ►  September (47)
    • ►  August (20)
    • ►  July (33)
    • ►  June (28)
    • ►  May (23)
    • ►  April (23)
    • ►  March (21)
    • ►  February (27)
    • ►  January (60)
  • ►  2006 (586)
    • ►  December (38)
    • ►  November (41)
    • ►  October (33)
    • ►  September (33)
    • ►  August (32)
    • ►  July (48)
    • ►  June (56)
    • ►  May (61)
    • ►  April (50)
    • ►  March (38)
    • ►  February (65)
    • ►  January (91)
  • ►  2005 (1152)
    • ►  December (101)
    • ►  November (84)
    • ►  October (100)
    • ►  September (72)
    • ►  August (114)
    • ►  July (112)
    • ►  June (108)
    • ►  May (76)
    • ►  April (121)
    • ►  March (113)
    • ►  February (67)
    • ►  January (84)
  • ►  2004 (545)
    • ►  December (62)
    • ►  November (71)
    • ►  October (80)
    • ►  September (73)
    • ►  August (43)
    • ►  July (27)
    • ►  June (31)
    • ►  May (20)
    • ►  April (16)
    • ►  March (18)
    • ►  February (37)
    • ►  January (67)
  • ►  1998 (1)
    • ►  April (1)

Labels

information breaches (2048) privacy (1770) health information (307) identity theft (294) surveillance (271) ontario (227) law enforcement (221) alberta (162) cloud computing (142) google (141) bc (136) patriot act (136) nova scotia (132) lawful access (129) breach notification (107) choicepoint (102) facebook (97) laptop (97) video surveillance (94) social networking (93) national security (91) rfid (91) air travel (82) presentations (80) cardsystems (72) australia (68) retention (65) british columbia (62) body scanner (61) europe (61) public sector (59) lawful authority (56) pipa (56) incident (53) airlines (52) outsourcing (47) phipa (47) uk (47) schneier (46) transparency report (45) warrants (45) pipeda findings (44) tort (43) pipeda review (40) ip address (38) litigation (37) cyberbullying (34) vanity (34) retail (32) biometrics (30) criminal law (30) Federal Court of Canada (28) media-mention (27) telemarketing (27) csis (26) pipeda (25) Canada's Anti-SPAM Law (CASL) (23) aol (23) internet service providers (23) portable storage devices (23) dhs (22) homeland security (22) privacy act (22) video (22) humour (21) spam (21) id swiping (20) saskatchewan (20) tjx (20) Gary Dickson (18) Privacy Act (Canada) (18) Cyber-safety Act (Nova Scotia) (17) google street view (17) piidpa (17) pretexting (17) HRSDC Breach (2012) (16) libraries (16) no-fly list (16) facial recognition (15) international travel (14) intrusion upon seclusion (14) Bill C-30 (13) access to information (13) workplace (13) doubleclick (12) loyalty cards (12) privilege (12) swift (12) Bill C-13 (11) C-30 (11) R v Spencer (11) voyeurism (11) class action litigation (10) employment (10) universities (10) pipeda damages (9) Personal Health Information Act (NS) (8) Personal Health Information Protection Act (ON) (8) UFCW Case (Alberta) (8) border (8) dncl (8) government (8) street view (8) cba (7) cross-border (7) pipeda requests (7) police (7) production order (7) Bill C-12 (6) China (6) Viacom v Google (6) breach (6) charter (6) freedom of expression (6) security (6) skype (6) supreme court (6) technology (6) 2007 in review (5) Bill S-4 (5) bullying (5) csec (5) damages (5) dna (5) fraud (5) metadata (5) new zealand (5) political parties (5) quebec (5) radwanski scandal (5) research (5) usa patriot act (5) Health Canada Breach (2013) (4) Re X (CSIS Act) (4) Right To Be Forgotten (4) Rogers (4) Yahoo (4) photographing police (4) photography (4) search warrant (4) AskThePrivacyLawyer (3) CLOUD Act (3) Digital Privacy Act (3) PIPEDA reform (3) R v Fearon (SCC) (3) Telus (3) cbsa (3) cra (3) drones (3) hmrc (3) location based services (3) podcast (3) Bill C-51 - Anti-Terrorism Act 2015 (2) COVID19 (2) CPPA (2) Consumer Privacy Protection Act (2) Digital Charter Implementation Act (2) Health Canada (2) Newfoundland (2) RTBF (2) advertising (2) annual report (2) bell (2) best of (2) conflicts of laws (2) defamation (2) encryption (2) expectation of privacy (2) guest post (2) interview (2) presentation (2) privacy by design (2) publication bans (2) social media (2) startups (2) tower dumps (2) twitter (2) year in review (2) Age verification (1) April 1 (1) AtlSecCon (1) Bill C-27 (1) Bill C-475 (1) Bill C-63 (1) Bill S-210 (1) Cambridge Analytica (1) Canadian Security Intelligence Service (1) ETHI Committee (1) Federal Court of Appeal (1) GDPR (1) Legislation (Bills) (1) MLAT (1) Missing Persons Act (NS) (1) Nunavut (1) Online Harms (1) Online Safety (1) Personal Health Information Act (NL) (1) Privacy Act (BC) (1) Privacy Commissioner of Canada (1) Privacy law (1) R v Jarvis (SCC) (1) Teksavvy (1) accountability (1) apple (1) assistance order (1) background checks (1) blackberry (1) california (1) census (1) children (1) civil law (1) computer programs (1) consent (1) constitution (1) cybersecurity (1) data subject access requests (1) ecpa (1) events (1) evidence (1) false light publicity (1) foipop (NS) (1) forensics (1) geolocation (1) goverment (1) htcia (1) human rights (1) incident response (1) india (1) insurance (1) intimate images (1) japan (1) jurisdiction (1) law reform (1) legal profession (1) malware (1) manitoba (1) media law (1) mobile (1) money laundering (1) multimedia (1) pandemic (1) passports (1) pbd (1) privacy advocacy (1) privacy engineering (1) privacy impact assessment (1) privacy policies (1) privacy statements (1) public health (1) publishing (1) reform (1) research in motion (1) scams (1) shaming (1) slaw (1) smartphones (1) software (1) spyware (1) targeted advertising (1) third-party discovery (1) tip (1) transfers for processing (1) tsa (1) videography (1) wireless (1)

Licensing terms



Creative Commons LicenseThe Canadian Privacy Law Blog is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 Canada License.
Simple theme. Powered by Blogger.