Industry committee  With regard to the allowances under PIPEDA to collect personal information, we need to clarify which parts of proposed section 7.1 we're discussing. In proposed paragraph 7.1(3)(a), we're just describing which ones are in and which ones are out. Proposed paragraph 7.1(3)(b) means

Industry committee  This is where we have permitted 7(1)(b) in PIPEDA to exist regarding the collection of electronic addresses. Proposed subsection (3) is about the unauthorized collection of personal information, and we didn't feel the exception set out in 7(1)(b) was appropriate to (3).

Industry committee  Paragraph 7(1)(b) in PIPEDA would permit a private company to collect personal information without authorization with regard to an investigation in defence of a contract or a law. We're saying that limitation is not appropriate, that that allowance under proposed subsection (3) i

Industry committee  No, this would limit the unauthorized collection. This is placing a further limitation on the unauthorized collection.

Industry committee  A significant tightening, yes.

Industry committee  As in other parts of other bills, there must be an expectation of consent if personal information is to be collected. In this case, collection of this kind is limited to use by an electronic network.

Industry committee  Clause 78, proposed subsection 7.1(3), as drafted, seems very reasonable. There should be consent for personal information to be collected by an unauthorized method.

Industry committee  It would complicate her investigations in this area, because everywhere else in PIPEDA, she doesn't recognize telephone addresses as being part of PIPEDA.

Industry committee  As drafted, the clause says that you have to have authorization to collect information and authorization to access a network. Those are the two conditions. It is the access and the collection of information that are not authorized. Otherwise, there should be no problem.

Industry committee  It's just a matter of interpretation. Currently, PIPEDA does not recognize telephone accounts. That was the reason for the difference between the definition in the PIPEDA amendments and the definitions up front in ECPA, where we are recognizing all electronic addresses. I think i

Industry committee  The idea of clause 78, proposed subsections 7.1(1) and (2), is to limit the collection of electronic addresses—e-mails, IP addresses, and so on—and, in proposed subsection 7.1(3), the idea is to limit the collection of personal information by a computer without authorization.

Industry committee  That would depend on the way in which the clause is interpreted. It also depends on the nature and the scope of the investigation. We do not think that it should adversely affect an investigation into a private company.

Industry committee  They would not necessarily prove that there is fault. They would have to first prove the materiality of the information that's in that subject header.

Industry committee  It's almost understood under the act, but there wouldn't be a burden of proof on the bureau to have to do this. If we add the language in, they would have to do it.

Industry committee  Just by reading what it says in the header and having an understanding. They would have to prove the materiality of the comments or the issue raised in the subject line or the header.