tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6273930.post6368242929900978820..comments2024-03-08T07:29:54.585-04:00Comments on Canadian Privacy Law Blog: Privacy commissioner urged to probe Tory eavesdroppingprivacylawyerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03943567746055311435noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6273930.post-27135815158657922452008-12-07T08:22:00.000-04:002008-12-07T08:22:00.000-04:00This is an interesting claim. I had heard they wer...This is an interesting claim. I had heard they were eavesdropping on the news and that perked my interest. I was not aware they had received an email invitation albeit in error. It makes me wonder about two things.<BR/><BR/>The first is when law firms, insurance companies and other businesses append statements such as the following on outgoing emails:<BR/><BR/>"This transmission is intended only for each addressee. It may contain confidential, privileged, proprietary and commercially sensitive information ("Information"). Any unauthorized disclosure, copying, or retransmission of this message or any Information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission or any information in error, please so confirm by return email."<BR/><BR/>My understanding is that this has no weight and a court has never reached a verdit to date. If the email had something like this attached, I would love to see it brought to court and a decision on the validity of it made.<BR/><BR/>My second comment is in regards that the PMO office is not covered by the privacy act. I feel there is a fundamental problem with democracy and our country when individuals, or groups can claim that they are not bound by laws like everyone else. Effectively, they are stating they are above the typical citizen, and above the law. In my opinion that is a fundamental flaw that eventually we will all 'pay for'. <BR/><BR/>-mikeMichael Dundashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14053750507205026016noreply@blogger.com