Justice committee  No.

Justice committee  I'm not saying I'm concerned about the preservation powers.

Justice committee  Thanks very much for the question. I agree that in virtually every circumstance in which government or law enforcement agencies obtain the information about an individual when that individual is not informed at the time, they should be informed within six months—six months seem

Justice committee  It may be, and if one wants to accomplish this result, as I said, one could amend PIPEDA, or one could maybe convince the telcos to put in their terms of service that this information will be handed over in bulk, which I don't think Canadians have an appetite for.

Justice committee  Let me just flip to exactly what I said in my opening statements. I think it needs to be that the person knew or ought to have known that the individual in the images did not consent. I think that in a lot of cases it is the initial sharer of those images, or somebody who knows t

Justice committee  —it's the accused, with respect to whatever their activities were. The crown will point to the terms of use of the Internet service provider if it's to their benefit to do that. In some cases, some Internet service providers put in black and white in their terms of service that

Justice committee  It would depend upon the form of liability. Certainly, one can consent, as long as it's informed consent, to what would otherwise be an intrusion upon your seclusion. If you agreed that somebody could do something to you that would otherwise be an invasion of your privacy, it wou

Justice committee  —but certainly it has been pointed to as a basis for diminishing that expectation. I guess it takes three to tango, in that case.

Justice committee  No, I think my conclusion actually comes down to the blameworthiness of the conduct.

Justice committee  The guilty mind: somebody who knew, somebody who was in fact betraying a trust. That in my mind reaches a level of criminal culpability. Somebody who has no idea, and no reason to know? You don't criminalize that sort of conduct.

Justice committee  The provider can do that and, in my view, the provider should do that, but again, it's an important distinction between who is reporting the crime and who is being asked for the evidence.

Justice committee  My understanding is that of that number of 1.2 million, a large portion of them relate to a special law enforcement database that is essentially the same as Canada 411, where it's non-private information. It's stuff that would already be in the phone book, but it's just immediate

Justice committee  I'm happy to, but I don't think the two are analogous at all. The reason is that if I as a private citizen see a crime taking place, I don't have a legal duty to, but I certainly can pick up the phone, call 911, and report it.

Justice committee  Certainly, and again, the distinction is when the police request it rather than at the initiative of the organization.... In a number of the cases that are reported where the police have asked for customer information without a warrant, when it finally goes to trial, it's not the

Justice committee  Or even if I suspect: any private citizen can do that. Because I'm not subject to PIPEDA. I'm not an organization subject to privacy legislation, and I don't have a contractual relationship with the people in that room who say, “I will keep your information private.” What you're