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.

Monday, January 30, 2006

Risks and rewards of data retention

Michael Geist's weekly LawBytes column is about the Risks and Rewards of Data Retention.

Posted by privacylawyer at 1/30/2006 07:00:00 am
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Labels: information breaches, retention

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

  • 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

  • ►  2023 (2)
    • ►  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)
      • Missouri shuts down call record vendor
      • Australia to review privacy laws
      • Don't keep the data that you don't need
      • How to handle an inappropriate disclosure of perso...
      • Risks and rewards of data retention
      • IP addresses are personal information
      • Database on sellers of used goods upsets Ontario P...
      • Incident: Rhode Island gov't website hacked
      • How much privacy can politicians expect?
      • NYT on surveillance technology
      • RFID Cartoon
      • Majority of internet users have no clue about what...
      • Record, punitive fine for Choicepoint's data disaster
      • Incident: AMEX subsidiary loses laptop with person...
      • Alberta Commissioner slaps computer reseller for n...
      • How to not be evil as an online business
      • Hiding your identity online
      • University of Notre Dame server hack exposes donor...
      • T-Mobile seeks halt to cell phone record sales
      • The search trail you leave behind
      • Techniques of the phone record brokers
      • Phone tracking comes to the US
      • Microsoft responds to subpoena controversey
      • World Tracker turns anyone into a cellphone spy
      • Missouri seeks TRO against call record vendors
      • The Canadian angle on the sale of phone records
      • Legal conflicts for bloggers
      • Security of phone records
      • Other search engines handed over data to US DOJ
      • House chairman promises bill banning sale of phone...
      • Rutgers replaces SSNs as student identifiers
      • UK Privacy Law interferes with medical research, s...
      • US DOJ has subpoenaed Google's search records
      • Cingular gets restraining order against two online...
      • FCC investigating sales of phone records
      • Apple changes its (i)Tune and asks if it can commu...
      • What's encoded on hotel room keys?
      • New hope for the tort of invasion of privacy in On...
      • Privacy and loyalty programs: What information con...
      • How do they do that? Techniques of phone record ve...
      • One month till data breach law in Ohio
      • Duty to protect third-parties from online porn ove...
      • Conviction in Nova Scotia card skimming case
      • No official sanction after security and privacy br...
      • Upcoming conference: Personal Information Protecti...
      • Phone records of Gen. Wesley Clark bought for unde...
      • Privacy is in the eye of the beholder
      • Checking out Mao? No need to worry
      • Visa and Mastercard mull open standard for transac...
      • Nova Scotia Auditor General concerned about effect...
      • Nova Scotia FOIPOP Review Officer to form Right to...
      • Incident: Bank tape lost with data on 90,000 custo...
      • Is iTunes reporting your listening back to the mot...
      • Incident: Data for 55,000 customers stolen from Ba...
      • Iconic eatery Cafe Henry Burger shuts its doors af...
      • More on anonymous annoyances
      • Incident: County clerk accidentally releases SSNs ...
      • Behind the curtain: Why retailers ask for your per...
      • Incident: Hotel registration cards found in dumpst...
      • Movie website raises privacy issues by use of age ...
      • Anonymous 'net annoyers headed to jail
      • Crystal ball gazing for 2006: Geist
      • China to adopt privacy law
      • Homeland Security opening private mail
      • More on Minnesota's privacy politics
      • Courts continue to decline to exclude evidence bas...
      • Employee fired after welfare client information fo...
      • Nova Scotia's FOIPOP Review Officer to step down
      • Illinois fights cell records theft
      • EU Working Party advisory opinion on location-base...
      • Candidates for Governor try to top each other on p...
      • More on Minnesota proposal to block bulk sales of ...
      • Portable RFID killer developed
      • Not one, not two but thirteen new California pivac...
      • Law enforcement concerned about sale of their phon...
      • Info theft and ID fraud by HMO employees
      • Most online retailers aren't there yet on new paym...
      • New state privacy laws for '06
      • Minnesota AG seeks end to bulk sales of drivers' l...
      • Birthday Cards lead to investigation by the Privac...
      • Alberta Commissioner finds minor breaches of Healt...
      • Incident: Tax preparer puts obscured social securi...
      • Privacy pitfalls of quoting fees based on salary m...
      • UK DNA database and the war against spit
      • CIPPIC challenges Privacy Commissioner's denial of...
      • Happy birthday to the Canadian Privacy Law Blog
      • Building privacy into hospital designs
      • California celebs now have greater privacy against...
      • Conviction for failing to provide ID overturned in...
      • Americans and privacy
      • Employee privacy in union organizing
  • ►  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) laptop (97) facebook (96) video surveillance (94) social networking (93) rfid (91) national security (90) air travel (82) presentations (80) cardsystems (72) australia (68) retention (65) british columbia (62) body scanner (61) europe (61) public sector (59) pipa (56) lawful authority (55) airlines (52) incident (52) outsourcing (47) phipa (47) uk (47) schneier (46) transparency report (45) pipeda findings (44) warrants (44) tort (43) pipeda review (40) ip address (38) litigation (37) cyberbullying (34) vanity (34) retail (32) biometrics (30) criminal law (29) Federal Court of Canada (27) media-mention (27) telemarketing (27) csis (25) pipeda (24) 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) 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) video (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) swift (12) Bill C-13 (11) C-30 (11) R v Spencer (11) privilege (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) pipeda requests (7) police (7) Bill C-12 (6) China (6) Viacom v Google (6) breach (6) charter (6) cross-border (6) freedom of expression (6) production order (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) AskThePrivacyLawyer (3) CLOUD Act (3) Digital Privacy Act (3) R v Fearon (SCC) (3) Telus (3) cbsa (3) cra (3) drones (3) hmrc (3) location based services (3) podcast (3) search warrant (3) Bill C-51 - Anti-Terrorism Act 2015 (2) COVID19 (2) Consumer Privacy Protection Act (2) Digital Charter Implementation Act (2) Health Canada (2) Newfoundland (2) PIPEDA reform (2) RTBF (2) advertising (2) annual report (2) bell (2) best of (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) April 1 (1) AtlSecCon (1) Bill C-475 (1) CPPA (1) ETHI Committee (1) GDPR (1) Legislation (Bills) (1) MLAT (1) Missing Persons Act (NS) (1) Nunavut (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) conflicts of laws (1) consent (1) constitution (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) 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.