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.

Sunday, September 04, 2005

California RFID bill born again

The Library Law Blog is reporting that the controvertial California RFID bill (SB 768: Identity Information Protection Act of 2005) is back on the legislative agenda after being shelved: LibraryLaw Blog: Breaking News - California RFID bill born again.

Previous posting: The Canadian Privacy Law Blog: San Fran Chronicle wants RFID privacy bill back on the agenda.

Posted by privacylawyer at 9/04/2005 08:13:00 am
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to XShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Labels: information breaches, rfid

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)
    • ►  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)
      • Edmonton Police cleared of alleged leak of persona...
      • DHS privacy officer to resign?
      • EFF goes after warrantless cell-phone tracking
      • Survey says security breaches cost companies custo...
      • Effect of privacy/security incidents on stock prices
      • Incident: Back-to-back hacking attacks at Californ...
      • Incident: Sensitive personal information stolen fr...
      • Outline of Federal Statutes and Bibliography of Se...
      • Privacy as a pretext
      • Incident: Tiscali in UK consumer data security breach
      • Skype security and privacy concerns
      • Hoofnagle: Penalties Alone Won't Reduce Identity T...
      • Cardsystems assets being sold to CyberSource
      • BC school board incident involved much more info t...
      • US Gov't agency to drop screening travelers using ...
      • Credit card companies head to court over disclosur...
      • ACLU launches online ads against the Partiot Act
      • Personal information stolen from Vancouver Island ...
      • New finding from the Privacy Commissioner: Bank em...
      • MasterCard plans 4 million RFID cards
      • New technologies for scanning IDs
      • Put this up your skirt or down your blouse to prot...
      • The business of hacking, cracking, etc.
      • Researchers say Australian privacy laws hinder res...
      • Privacy-enhanced computer display
      • Push to remove social security numbers from common...
      • Incident: Another mailing label incident
      • Incident: U of Miami students' Social Security Num...
      • Incident: Japanese tax office loses PCs with info ...
      • ChoicePoint alleges misuse of its data, alerts aff...
      • Arrest made in Berkeley laptop theft case
      • Teen jailed over Paris Hilton hack
      • Phishers faxing fake tax forms
      • IBM's new privacy-minded encryption technology
      • Dutch database to track residents from cradle to g...
      • Smut and personal data left on resold PCs
      • Proposed Ontario law about adoption records raises...
      • Canada's Do-Not-Hesitate-To-Call List
      • Fraud Reveals Workings of Internet Theft
      • US Panel agrees that government needs new rules an...
      • European telcos come out against proposed retentio...
      • ChoicePoint unit to help in Katrina recovery efforts
      • Reporting data loss debatable
      • The internet changes petitions
      • Don't show your new Master Card to the guy with th...
      • New Jersey bank sued in connection with informatio...
      • Free VoIP service harvests your contacts
      • Information Commissioner opposes proposed merger w...
      • More on disclosures of sensitive personal informat...
      • Privacy International demands Yahoo boycott
      • Indian call center worker arrested for stealing cu...
      • Group Files FOIA Request for Gov. Docs on Katrina ...
      • SOX and privacy laws collide
      • Comments on California's on-again-off-again RFID Bill
      • University of Texas system phases out social secur...
      • Just so you know: Pager message are not super secret
      • Blue Cross upsets plan members by printing social ...
      • Manitoba ombudsman chastises school for hidden cam...
      • Incident: Iowa Student Loan CD With Personal Infor...
      • UK Labour admits ID card 'oversell'
      • Tasmanian public sector privacy law goes into effe...
      • Privacy compliant merchandise return policies
      • Spyware creator indicted on US privacy charges
      • Embattled Cardsystems submits audit report to cred...
      • Technological measures to remove sensitive informa...
      • Reliance on new technology may increase identity t...
      • Research study at Indiana University suspended fol...
      • California RFID bill born again
      • Finding on implied consent to video surveillance i...
      • Two US airlines install surveillance cameras for p...
      • Arkansas criminal records clerk fired for checking...
      • ChoicePoint says it's securing public's data better
    • ►  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.