IPC - Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner/Ontario | What's New http://www.ipc.on.ca en-us Commissioner Cavoukian's Letter to Matt Galloway http://www.ipc.on.ca/english/About-Us/Whats-New/Whats-New-Summary/?id=309 Commissioner Cavoukian’s letter to Matt Galloway regarding Mark Pugash’s Metro Morning interview. (<A href="http://www.ipc.on.ca/images/WhatsNew/2014-04-17-MI13-8_Galloway_Letter_1.pdf" target=_blank>Letter</A>) Thu, 17 Apr 2014 00:00:00 GMT National Privacy & Data Governance Congress - Call for Presentations http://www.ipc.on.ca/english/About-Us/Whats-New/Whats-New-Summary/?id=307 This flagship event will bring together professionals from industry and government to explore practical strategies for today’s challenges and tomorrow’s changes. The Program Advisory Committee is interested in high-quality submissions for presentations that will enable attendees to gain clarity about the issues relating to the Congress theme: Risky Business - Embracing Privacy and Data Governance in a Hostile World. <br> <br> The objective of all plenary, breakout and workshop sessions is to provide Congress delegates with practical information and training about interrelated aspects of privacy and data governance. <br> <br> Your session could be selected as a half-day pre-conference workshop session or a 90 minute breakout session. A majority of submissions will be selected for 90 minute breakout sessions. <br> <br> <strong>Timeline</strong> - All presentation proposals and supporting documentation must be submitted by April 25, 2014. <br> <br> <strong>Submissions</strong> - SUBMIT presentation proposals via email to congress@pacc-ccap.ca <br> <br> For more information, please click <a href="http://www.pacc-ccap.ca/index.php/events/congress2014" target="_blank">here</a>. Tue, 08 Apr 2014 00:00:00 GMT Practice Direction #7 - Sharing of representations http://www.ipc.on.ca/english/About-Us/Whats-New/Whats-New-Summary/?id=306 Amendment to <A href="http://www.ipc.on.ca/english/resources/best-practices-and-professional-guidelines/best-practices-and-professional-guidelines-summary/default.aspx?id=490">Practice Direction 7 (Sharing of Representations)</A> <P>The IPC has amended Practice Direction 7, on the sharing of representations during the adjudication stage of the appeal process, to clarify the criteria for withholding representations. Previously, Practice Direction 7 stated, in section 5(a), that the adjudicator may withhold information contained in a party’s representations where, among other things, disclosure of the information would reveal the substance of a record claimed to be exempt. The amendment clarifies that the adjudicator may also withhold information contained in a party’s representations where disclosure of the information would reveal the substance of a record claimed to be excluded. </P> Wed, 26 Mar 2014 00:00:00 GMT We Must Strongly Protect Privacy in Electronic Health Records http://www.ipc.on.ca/english/About-Us/Whats-New/Whats-New-Summary/?id=305 Re: Quiet death of doctor-patient confidentiality, Toronto Star Opinion Feb. 10 Contrary to the suggestion in Quiet Death of Doctor-Patient Confidentiality, privacy and confidentiality are not dead – far from it! <br> <br> The Personal Health Information Protection Act, over which I have oversight responsibility, protects the privacy of individuals and the confidentiality of their personal health information. Amendments to the Act proposed in Bill 78, which I encourage all political parties to support, will further strengthen the protections in the electronic health record. <br> <br> While it is true that health care providers will have access to the electronic health record, they will only be permitted to collect information for limited purposes – to provide health care to the individual or to eliminate or reduce a significant risk of harm. Further, all accesses will be logged, audited and monitored. <br> <br> Ontarians have the right to withhold or withdraw consent to the collection, use and disclosure of their health information for health care purposes, including in the electronic health record, and to request a correction when they believe their records are inaccurate. This is in addition to the obligation on health care providers to ensure that information is accurate and complete. <br> <br> Ontarians also have the right to obtain copies of their records and a log of persons who have accessed their records. The fees charged to provide these records, including by commercial storage companies, cannot exceed “reasonable cost recovery.” My office has issued an Order clearly stating that individuals may only be charged $30 for the first 20 pages and 25 cents thereafter. <br> <br> My office has the authority to investigate complaints and conduct investigations on its own initiative when it believes the Act has been or is about to be contravened, and to issue binding orders. I am proud to say my office has conducted numerous investigations, resulting in individuals being given access to their health records, in reducing the fees charged to individuals for access, in securing abandoned health records, and in addressing unauthorized access to electronic records. <br> <br> On a final note, check your facts, I never agreed that “a slight loss of privacy is a small price to pay for better, faster, more advanced medical care.” Far from it. I do not believe in zero-sum games. I have always held the view that we must strongly protect privacy while facilitating the effective delivery of health care services. Ontarians deserve no less. <br> <br> Ann Cavoukian, Ph.D. <br> Information and Privacy Commissioner <br> Ontario, Canada Fri, 14 Feb 2014 00:00:00 GMT 'Metadata' matters http://www.ipc.on.ca/english/About-Us/Whats-New/Whats-New-Summary/?id=304 Dr. Ann Cavoukian and Avner Levin, Director of the Privacy and Cyber Crime Institute at Ryerson University, wrote the following important op-ed for this morning's <a href="http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/02/10/cavoukian-levin-metadata-surveillance-is-an-invasion-of-our-privacy/" target="_blank">National Post</a>: <br> <br> Last week, Canadians learned that the Communications Security Establishment Canada (CSEC) conducted a sweeping 2012 mobile, WiFi-driven warrantless surveillance operation. The operation involved the processing of at least two weeks of identifying information associated with our mobile devices, their location in time and space, primarily in Canada (beginning at a major international airport). Such metadata has the power to show our movements and associations through an airport, across town, or across the country. Our mobile devices and the associated metadata leave behind a digital trail that can reveal where you live, work, travel, what you purchase online, who you associate with, even what time you are likely to go to bed, wake up and leave home. <br> <br> The metadata operation may have been a test run (an alarming thought in itself), but the net result of this kind of surveillance power is, in CSEC’s own words, “game-changing.” One of the goals of the top secret operation appears to have been “a 5-Eyes effort to enable the [signals intelligence] system to provide real-time alerts of events of interest.” <br> <br> As this and other Snowden documents reveal, Canadians should be worried that our spies are working ever more closely with the NSA and other secretive agencies around the world, apparently to defeat our privacy. So what’s next? <br> <br> In response to questions from concerned Canadians, CSEC said, “No Canadians or foreign travellers were tracked. … CSEC’s activities, including the collection and analysis of metadata, are authorized under the <i>National Defence Act</i>.” The word “metadata” does not appear in the <i>Act</i>. What of Defence Minister Rob Nicholson? He simply repeated CSEC’s carefully crafted statement. Commissioner Plouffe, the watchdog charged with reviewing CSEC’s activities,  acknowledged that he was “aware of the metadata activities referred to.” He also said he is reviewing the matter further. In the meantime, he assured us that “the law prohibits CSEC from directing its activities at Canadians.” <br> <br> Are these answers sufficient? Absolutely not. Canadians are right to worry that intelligence agencies have become too powerful, that their secretive, multi-billion dollar capacities operate without sufficient oversight. <br> <br> There are two things Canadians should know: One, as Dr. Vint Cerf (co-inventor of the Internet), put it, metadata “can be much more revealing than the content of our communications.” Two, the <i>National Defence Act</i> clearly states that CSEC’s foreign intelligence “activities ... shall not be directed at Canadians or any person in Canada.” But that is exactly what appears to be at issue here - a “game-changing” warrantless surveillance operation that collected and used the metadata of Canadians. Whether officials call it “tracking” or “collecting” makes no difference. We are talking about a powerful surveillance system in the hands of secretive intelligence agencies. The “trust us” model is wearing thin. <br> <br> In our view, state surveillance of our metadata must be consistent with time-honoured legal protections, grounded in independent judicial and parliamentary oversight. In the aftermath of last week’s shocking revelations, no one is saying that CSEC listened in on Canadians’ phone calls or read our emails. But you don’t have to target our “communications” to strip us of our privacy.  In “several seconds,” the analysis gleaned from two weeks of our metadata can be far more revealing than anything overheard during an hour-long phone call. <br> <br> It is time that Canadians challenged CSEC’s party line that “everything is fine, it’s only metadata.” Let’s dispel the myth that metadata surveillance is not invasive of privacy – it is!  Canadians deserve far more than carefully crafted assurances. We are entitled to much greater transparency. We should all be pushing CSEC for a full accounting – write to your MP now, seeking answers to these questions. Mon, 10 Feb 2014 00:00:00 GMT Managerial Effectiveness for Freedom of Information and Records Information Management Professionals http://www.ipc.on.ca/english/About-Us/Whats-New/Whats-New-Summary/?id=303 This course is part of the Certificate in Freedom of Information and Records Information Management (FOI/RIM). Leadership, team building and communication skill are essential for Freedom of Information and Records information management professionals. Participants will learn how to effectively lead change management teams and embed a culture of privacy within their organization. This course will support the expectation of "Privacy by Design" as set out by the Ontario Information and Privacy Commissioner. This course will focus on essential skills that enable FOI and RIM professionals to effectively: <br> <ul> <li>Lead and build productive teams <br> <li>Influence key stakeholders <br> <li>Lead strategic efforts <br> <li>Communicate with relevant audiences <br> <li>Make critical decisions <br> <li>Manage performance <br> <li>Develop and impact organizational culture </ul> <br> Date: July 14-18, 2014 <br> For more information on the course, please click <a href="http://www.professionalcertificates.ca/certificates-courses/freedom-of-info-records/managerial-effectiveness" target=_blank"> here.</a> Tue, 04 Feb 2014 00:00:00 GMT Commissioner Cavoukian: The silence over privacy puts our freedoms at risk http://www.ipc.on.ca/english/About-Us/Whats-New/Whats-New-Summary/?id=302 <em>Commissioner Cavoukian contributed the following opinion piece to this morning’s <a href="http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/why-the-silence-around-privacy/article16516631/" target="_blank">Globe and Mail</a></em>: <br> <br> Technology allows our every move to be tracked, collected and catalogued by our governments. U.S. President Barack Obama's announcement of reforms to the National Security Agency (NSA) demonstrates that free and open societies need a candid discourse on the surveillance powers of intelligence agencies. <br> <br> Yet, while our U.S. neighbours are debating the future of phone and Internet surveillance programs, our government is maintaining a wall of silence around the activities of the Communications Security Establishment Canada (CSEC). This silence is putting our freedoms at risk. <br> <br> There is also a striking contrast between how the two countries watch over their intelligence agencies. The NSA must first go before the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (however imperfect) for permission to conduct surveillance activities that affect Americans, whereas CSEC simply asks the government, through the minister of defence. The NSA is overseen by two congressional committees. CSEC is overseen by a single commissioner – a supernumerary judge, with a small staff. His after-the-fact review of CSEC’s activities is only submitted to Parliament after his report is reviewed by the same minister who approved the activities involved. The resulting annual reports often speak in circumspect and general terms. Parliament, and therefore the public, have virtually no say. This approach to accountability is inadequate at best, by any standard of independent oversight. <br> <br> The status quo leaves Canadians vulnerable to secret and unaccountable methods of surveillance. Edward Snowden’s revelations have demonstrated the enormity of the NSA’s surveillance of U.S. citizens, but we still know startlingly little about the extent of Canada’s own surveillance programs. What we do know hasn’t come from our political leaders, but rather from Mr. Snowden and journalist Glenn Greenwald. Only in this climate has the CSEC commissioner acknowledged that they intercept, retain, and use the private communications of a “small” number of Canadians. No word yet on CSEC’s metadata surveillance programs. And complete silence on CSEC’s role in helping the NSA to secretly plant “backdoors” in the encryption standards that we all depend upon, thus weakening the privacy and security of our digital communications. <br> <br> Many important questions remain unanswered. What is a “small” number of private communications? What is the nature and scale of CSEC’s metadata programs? How long is this information kept? How much international information-sharing is going on? How far can CSEC go in actively collaborating with foreign intelligence agencies? <br> <br> Unfortunately, our only way of finding much-needed answers to these questions may be through another Snowden revelation. In a society dedicated to freedom and the rule of law, this is preposterous. Canadians are entitled to know precisely how far this agency is empowered to go. CSEC needs to be brought under an appropriate system of prior judicial oversight and be controlled by Parliament. We must develop a legal framework that allows for necessary surveillance and security, but also provides strong privacy protection, transparency and accountability. Until we have that, we are left to trust the government’s blanket statement that “everything is fine, just leave it to us.” This is simply intolerable. Blind faith is not enough. <br> <br> Canadians deserve to know, not only whether CSEC activities are in compliance with controversial laws, but that CSEC is truly respecting Canadians’ rights to privacy. A “trust us” model is unacceptable. <br> <br> To help break this inexcusable silence, my office is holding a public symposium on Tuesday, on International Privacy Day, which everyone is invited to view via webcast at <a href="http://www.RealPrivacy.ca" target="_blank">www.RealPrivacy.ca</a>. Mon, 27 Jan 2014 00:00:00 GMT Commissioner Cavoukian: So Glad You Didn’t Say That! A Response to Viktor Mayer-Schönberger http://www.ipc.on.ca/english/About-Us/Whats-New/Whats-New-Summary/?id=301 <em><strong>This article by Dr. Ann Cavoukian originally appeared in IAPP's <a href="https://www.privacyassociation.org/privacy_perspectives/post/so_glad_you_didnt_say_that_a_response_to_viktor_mayer_schoenberger" target="_blank">Privacy Perspectives</a>.  </strong></em> <br> <br> In response to my comments on an IAPP story, “<a href="https://www.privacyassociation.org/publications/keynote_forget_notice_and_choice_lets_regulate_use" target="_blank">Forget Notice and Choice, Let’s Regulate Use</a>,” Viktor Mayer-Schönberger distances himself from views attributed to him by the IAPP, and positions taken in an earlier white paper (“<a href="http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=41191" target="_blank">Data Protection Principles for the 21st Century</a>”). <br> <br> My first thought when reading Mayer-Schönberger’s response was, “I’m so glad he didn’t mean that!” In sum, Mayer-Schönberger assures me that our views are aligned as follows: The belief that individuals have an interest in privacy protection; privacy should be anchored in the <a href="https://www.privacyassociation.org/privacy_perspectives/post/the_oecd_heralds_the_arrival_of_the_privacy_profession" target="_blank">OECD Fair Information Practice Principles</a>; the public should have control over their personal information; and privacy does not impede innovation. Allow me to assure all of you that in addition to the IAPP story, I have indeed viewed the <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40fSCZaLv_A" target="_blank">video of Mayer-Schönberger’s Brussels keynote</a>, and have read the two papers he referenced. <br> <br> Mayer-Schönberger reaffirms the importance of privacy as a value, while suggesting that to be effective, the mechanisms to ensure privacy must be changed. The answer he offers is shifting the focus away from “consent,” to “use” because according to Mayer-Schönberger, as stated in his keynote, “data protection should not rely on an individual’s ability to comprehend what is going on exactly with his or her data and take actions.” <br> <br> I too am in favour of systems which take the burden away from the individual to protect their own privacy. In today’s mobile world, individuals should not be expected to negotiate overly long and complex user agreements. However, my approach has been to develop the concept of <a href="http://www.privacybydesign.ca/index.php/about-pbd/"><em>Privacy by Design</em></a> (PbD), in which organizations are urged to build in privacy measures, right from the outset, so that the individual’s privacy is protected by default. But <em>Privacy by Design</em> was not referenced in the various papers Mayer-Schönberger simultaneously references and distances himself from. I found this somewhat surprising given PbD’s prominence on the global stage, having been unanimously passed as an International framework for privacy in 2010, now translated into 35 languages, included in the draft EU Data Protection Regulation, and referenced by the FTC as forming an essential component of their privacy program. <br> <br> The changes to privacy protection proposed in the papers cited by Mayer-Schönberger, which are consistent with his keynote, include removing Purpose Specification and leaving the decision to obtain consent to the discretion of the organization. The acceptable determination of secondary uses of the data would be left up to the company involved. With due respect, since the OECD principles are interrelated (and were re-affirmed in July, 2013), removing such fundamental concepts as Purpose Specification and Use Limitation would unhinge the rest of the principles – at that point, one could no longer say the approach was anchored in the current privacy framework. If there is no Purpose Specification, you cannot ensure openness and accountability to the data subject. How could such changes not weaken Fair Information Practices? <br> <br> Mayer-Schönberger suggests in his keynote that in place of consent and purpose specification, an accountability model in which legal restrictions and regulatory oversight, rather than individual consent, regulate the use of personally identifiable information. This is the antithesis of PbD, in terms of allowing privacy harms to develop and then, after-the-fact, offering systems of redress. In this day and age, this is too little, too late. I am of course in favour of responsible data use and accountability, but not eliminating the data subject from the picture, in terms of making the necessary determinations relating to the uses of their personally identifiable information. Also, speaking on behalf of regulators, who endeavor to pursue the cases that come before them vigorously, our offices and resources are already stretched to the limit, with no additional resources being allocated for such enforcement. And with the massive growth in online connectivity and ubiquitous computing, we would barely see the tip of the iceberg of the privacy infractions that would arise. <br> <br> The<a href="http://www.privacybydesign.ca/index.php/about-pbd/7-foundational-principles/" target="_blank"> 7 Foundational Principles of <em>Privacy by Design</em></a> build upon and raise the bar of Fair Information Practices. We did this by adding elements of proactive privacy protections — embedding privacy into information technologies, business practices and networked infrastructure. An ancillary benefit of employing PbD is that companies can experience a “Privacy Payoff” — gaining a sustainable, competitive advantage. By strongly de-identifying one’s personal data holdings, companies will face far less liability should they experience a breach due to a rogue employee or hacking incident, not to mention the harm involved in cases of identity theft (think Target). <br> <br> The suggestion to downplay consent and purpose specification are in stark contrast to a growing movement among the private sector (see the <a href="http://personaldataecosystem.org/" target="_blank">Personal Data Ecosystem Consortium</a>) that believe providing the individual with ultimate control over their personal information is the most commercially advantageous scenario for the future. The World Economic Forum has encouraged consensus regarding the rules for obtaining individuals’ permissioned flow of data in different contexts, specifically citing PbD (See “Unlocking the Value of Personal Data: From Collection to Usage”). There is also nothing in this approach that would prevent a Personal Data Ecosystem company from enabling Big Data analytics. <em>Privacy by Design</em> is inherently positive-sum, not zero-sum. For more, see our paper “<a href="http://www.privacybydesign.ca/index.php/paper/big-privacy/" target="_blank">Big Privacy: Bridging Big Data and the Personal Data Ecosystem Through <em>Privacy by Design</em></a>.” Big Data will require Big Privacy, enabling both to flourish. <br> <br> I also take issue with Mayer-Schönberger’s statement in his keynote that purpose specification is “crippling big data innovation” and suggest that he explore some of the material to de-identify large data sets for Big Data purposes (see the excellent work of <a href="http://www.privacybydesign.ca/index.php/ambassador/dr-khaled-el-emam/" target="_blank">Dr. Khaled El Emam</a>, for example, in designing strong de-identification tools). Just as Big Data algorithms have grown in sophistication, so too has our ability to de-identify, encrypt, obfuscate, aggregate, introduce noise, etc., so that the data may be reused in a positive-sum manner for many of the altruistic purposes in healthcare and education that Mayer-Schönberger references. This too is consistent with applying a PbD framework – what is needed is Big Data <b>and</b> Big Privacy. <br> <br> While I am sure that Mayer-Schönberger and I share similar views on the value of privacy, it is nonetheless important to voice other perspectives, such as <em>Privacy by Design</em>, that are not currently reflected in his view of how the OECD principles should be revised. I look forward to doing so in an upcoming paper with <a href="http://www.privacybydesign.ca/index.php/ambassador/dr-alexander-dix/" target="_blank">Berlin Data Protection and Freedom of Information Commissioner Alexander Dix</a>, and University of Ottawa Professor Khaled El Emam. Stay tuned, and definitely join in! <br> <br> PS:  This matter is of such great importance that we decided to hold <a href="https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/7288258316040370945" target="_blank"><span style="color: black;">a live webinar on Friday, January 24 at 9:00 a.m. EST</span></a> with Commissioner Alexander Dix, Professor Khaled El Emam, <a href="https://www.cdt.org/pr_statement/nuala-oconnor-named-president-ceo-center-democracy-technology" target="_blank">CDT President Nuala O’Connor</a> and myself.  I hope you will join us! Please click on the above link for additional details. Fri, 17 Jan 2014 00:00:00 GMT Consent and Personal Control Are Not Things of the Past http://www.ipc.on.ca/english/About-Us/Whats-New/Whats-New-Summary/?id=300 Three key thought leaders in the field of data protection have responded to Victor Mayer-Schönberger’s comments on the “Data Protection Principles for the 21st Century” as reported in the IAPP Dashboard story <a href="https://www.privacyassociation.org/publications/keynote_forget_notice_and_choice_lets_regulate_use" target="_blank">“Forget Notice and Choice, Let’s Regulate Use.”</a> The response by Ann Cavoukian, the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario, Canada, Alexander Dix, the Berlin Data Protection and Freedom of Information Commissioner, and Professor Khaled El Emam, University of Ottawa, outlines that is a necessity to control one’s personal data and how it is used. The trio’s statement is below in its entirety: <br> <br> <blockquote>We will be releasing a white paper, early in the new year, challenging the view that consent and personal control of one’s data by data subjects is a thing of the past – it is not. In fact, in the wake of Edward Snowden’s revelations, we are witnessing the opposite: a resurgence of interest in strengthening personal privacy. <br> <br> There is no question that the field of Big Data and data analytics is growing exponentially, which in turn is leading to new challenges with respect to data privacy. At the same time, there are strong solutions that have been proposed and which are being deployed in Big Data analytics contexts. That these solutions are not widely used yet only means that we need to double our efforts to transition best practices rather than abandon ship. One solution involves the application of strong de-identification measures at the earliest opportunity to remove the harm of having personal identities linked with the data, thereby enabling extensive data analytics to be performed on non-personally identifying data. This can be done at the point of collection or the first use of the collected data. Other solutions may also be pursued in the form of encrypting personal identifiers, or aggregating datasets. <br> <br> To suggest that Big Data’s entry into the world of personal data must inevitably lead to the obliteration of Fair Information Practices, which form the basis of virtually all privacy laws around the world and, which will be further strengthened in the forthcoming EU Data Protection Regulation, is sadly misguided. Yes, Big Data will lead to invaluable findings, but this need not happen at the expense of privacy. Privacy by Design rejects such dated zero-sum thinking in favour of doubly-enabling positive-sum solutions. <br> <br> We must also not overlook public sentiment. To argue that the public would readily accept taking away all control of their personal information and giving it to private sector companies and to the government would be a colossal misread of the public`s views. There is no evidence that legislators and the public are prepared today to cast aside their existing privacy interests. In fact, there is growing intolerance of data breaches and privacy infractions (with specific reference to unacceptable Big Data pursuits). We need changes that will increase public trust – erosion of personal control will most likely not be one of them. <br> <br> Applying the appropriate tools and methods, given the context of data collection and use, makes ultimate sense. This means that we need to have a tool box consisting of many tools. Controls at the point of collection, and controls at the point of use may be suitable at different times, and for different reasons. Both are valuable measures, but shrinking the toolbox limits the capacity of privacy professionals to address complex data analytics situations. <br> <br> Our paper will argue that privacy does not impede innovation – quite the contrary, it breeds innovation and creativity! New methods will be discovered whereby the value derived from Big Data and data analytics will be achieved with privacy embedded directly into the design process. Privacy by ReDesign may also be used on existing datasets to de-identify personal identifiers <u><strong>before</strong></u> submitting the data for use in analytics. <br> <br> In our upcoming paper, we will point to recent developments that are serving to strengthen Fair Information Practices and privacy interests. Not only through the Snowden revelations but also as a result of other developments such as the growth of the Personal Data Ecosystem, the determinations of the European Parliament LIBE Committee, forthcoming EU Data Protection Regulation – all of this will strengthen the resolve and pursuit of Fair Information Practices, not the reverse. Never before have so many demanded that their right to privacy, and in turn their freedoms, be respected.</blockquote> Thu, 09 Jan 2014 00:00:00 GMT Commissioner Cavoukian speaks with NPR’s All Things Considered http://www.ipc.on.ca/english/About-Us/Whats-New/Whats-New-Summary/?id=298 <STRONG>Commissioner Cavoukian speaks with NPR’s All Things Considered</STRONG><BR> <BR> This past Friday, Dr. Cavoukian spoke with NPR’s All Things Considered for their All Tech Considered column. The Commissioner spoke about a wide range of topics including the operationalizing of Privacy by Design, the fundamental right of privacy, and how a privacy-protective approach can be used in mass surveillance:<BR> <BR> What we have learned through the revelations of [Edward] Snowden is that there is massive surveillance on a scale that is unprecedented. And if anything it has grown the need for Privacy By Design. And exploring ways of how you do privacy and surveillance, can you do both? … Yes you can. …<BR> <BR> Imagine what the NSA is doing. And I’m not suggesting it should continue in the way that they’re doing it, but just imagine their model, where they’re collecting tons of metadata and it’s left in plain text, meaning it’s not encrypted. At the very least, if you must do that, there’s something called homomorphic encryption, which simply means that you encrypt the data and you can engage in data analysis on the encrypted values. … It allows you to do surveillance … so no one’s personal information is in plain text. And then only when you get a hit … on potential terrorist activity, you get a court order, a warrant and you decrypt that data. … It is eminently possible to do things in a much more privacy protective way.<BR> <BR> Listen to the full <A href="http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2013/12/13/250737120/a-movement-to-bake-online-privacy-into-modern-life-by-design" target=_blank>interview </A> Mon, 16 Dec 2013 00:00:00 GMT