{"id":2741,"date":"2018-04-11T21:23:51","date_gmt":"2018-04-11T21:23:51","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/ccla.org\/?p=2741"},"modified":"2021-09-09T17:52:35","modified_gmt":"2021-09-09T17:52:35","slug":"dans-lactualite-le-commissaire-canadien-a-la-protection-de-la-vie-privee-propose-des-outils-pour","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/ccla.org\/fr\/get-informed\/talk-rights\/in-the-news-canadas-privacy-commissioner-proposes-tools-to\/","title":{"rendered":"Dans l'actualit\u00e9 : Le commissaire \u00e0 la protection de la vie priv\u00e9e du Canada propose des outils pour\u2026"},"content":{"rendered":"\n\t\t
<\/div><\/div><\/div>
\n\t
\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t
<\/div><\/div>
<\/div><\/div>
\n\t
\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
<\/div><\/div>\n\t\t\t<\/div> \n\t\t<\/div>\n\t<\/div> \n<\/div><\/div>\n\n\t\t\t<\/div> \n\t\t<\/div>\n\t<\/div> \n<\/div><\/div>\n\t\t
<\/div><\/div><\/div>
\n\t
\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
<\/div><\/div>\n
\n\t
\n\t\t
\n

\n

Because the Learn section of TalkRights features content produced by CCLA volunteers and interviews with experts in their own words, opinions expressed here do not necessarily represent the CCLA\u2019s own policies or positions. For official publications, key reports, position papers, legal documentation, and up-to-date news about the CCLA\u2019s work\u00a0check out the In Focus section of our website.<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

On January 26, 2018, the Office of Privacy Commissioner of Canada (\u201cOPC\u201d) released a\u00a0draft policy position paper<\/a>\u00a0on the issue of protecting one\u2019s \u201conline reputation.\u201d In the draft paper, the commissioner interprets the\u00a0Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act<\/em>\u00a0(PIPEDA<\/em><\/a>) as providing individuals with the right to request search engines to \u201cde-index\u201d any links to websites that contain demonstrably inaccurate, incomplete, or outdated information about the individual and providing individuals the qualified right to request the owner of a commercial website to modify or remove any such misinformation. This article provides a detailed summary of the two key proposals made by OPC in the draft paper and offers some brief critical commentary.<\/p>\n

Competing Interests: Protection of One\u2019s Online Reputation and Freedom of Expression<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n

Allowing unrestricted access to personal information on the internet that is inaccurate, misleading, or outdated, may have a harmful and long-lasting impact on the individual\u2019s life, especially if that misinformation is used to make decisions. Many employers, for example, use internet search engines as part of their job application screening process. That said, the OPC also recognizes that a person\u2019s interest in protecting his or her online reputation needs to be balanced against a countervailing interest of another person\u2019s right to freedom of expression\u2014a value that is enshrined in the\u00a0Charter<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Accordingly, by its own admission, the OPC does not seek to propose any new, independent right to protect one\u2019s online reputation in the draft policy paper. Instead, the OPC argues that,\u00a0<\/em>properly interpreted,<\/em>\u00a0PIPEDA\u00a0<\/em>implies certain protections for an individual\u2019s online reputation.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Proposal #1: De-Indexing<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n

\u00a0<\/strong>PIPEDA<\/em>\u00a0is the primary Canadian statute governing the way private sector organizations may collect, use or disclose personal information in the course of their commercial activities. Pursuant to paragraph 4(1)(a),\u00a0PIPEDA<\/em>\u00a0applies to \u201cevery organization in respect of personal information that [\u2026] the organization collects, uses or discloses in the course of commercial activities.\u201d The OPC argues that the activities of search engines fall within the scope\u00a0PIPEDA.<\/em><\/p>\n

When a user searches the name of a person, the search engine\u2019s algorithm\u00a0uses<\/em>\u00a0all of the personal information about the person being searched that exists on the internet to create a list of websites containing the most relevant information about that person. This, according to the OPC, constitutes \u201ccollection,\u00a0use<\/em>\u00a0or disclosure\u201d of personal information within the meaning of\u00a0PIPEDA<\/em>. Secondly, the search engine\u2019s primary aim in using the personal information is to generate revenue from advertisers. In other words, personal information is being used by the search engine in the course of commercial activity. Therefore, since search engines \u201ccollect, use, or disclose\u201d personal data in the course of a commercial activity, the OPC argues that search engines are subject to the provisions found in\u00a0PIPEDA.<\/em><\/p>\n

According to the OPC, the existing principals under\u00a0PIPEDA<\/em>, namely, principle 4.6, 4.9 and 4.10, imply a right to de-index. De-indexing is a means by which search engines remove certain links from the search results of specific search terms (such as a person\u2019s name), or lower the ranking of certain websites in the search results. It is important to note that de-indexing does not remove the content itself from the source website nor does it prevent the content from being accessed by navigating directly to the website.<\/p>\n

The relevant principles from\u00a0PIPEDA<\/em>\u00a0read as follows:<\/p>\n