Information & Ethics Committee on Oct. 28th, 2010

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Do other U.S. agencies, like Homeland Security or the FBI or the CIA, have access to this data now that it's stored in the United States? Would they have access, given that this data has left Canada? I know we raised concerns about the actual photographs being stored in the United States and privacy concerns around that. It seems to me we've taken a further step with private correspondence, e-mails, that kind of thing, what we're accessing on the Internet now going out of the country and being stored there. It seems to me that we've raised the level of privacy concerns significantly. So do any of those agencies have access to that data now that it's in the United States?

[Patricia Kosseim]

I'll let Mr. Caron answer that question.

[Daniel Caron]

I guess personal information that is stored in any country is subject to the laws of that country. So it would be possible in certain circumstances for some U.S. agencies to have access to that information.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Which they wouldn't have access to if that information had been kept and stored here in Canada.

[Daniel Caron]

They would have access to it by virtue of being President of the United States, for example.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

So if the data collected in Canada had never been transferred to the United States, they might not have access to it here.

[Daniel Caron]

I can't fully answer that question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you, Mr. Siksay.

There are a couple of points I want to cover, Madam Kosseim.

First of all, on Wednesday the Federal Trade Council in the United States issued a two-page ruling on this issue chastising Google but without sanctions. Insofar as you're aware, is this the end of the regulatory issue in the United States?

[Patricia Kosseim]

I believe that was a letter from the Federal Trade Commission.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Yes.

[Patricia Kosseim]

Interestingly, it's echoing the same messages the commissioner gave Google and saying that in their view, given the recent indication of Google's response to the recommendations, which the commissioner also made, they felt confident they could stop the inquiry on that basis.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

To summarize what you're saying, I believe you testified that a number of civil actions are going on against Google, but as far as being a regulatory issue, the investigation was started but it's been concluded.

[Patricia Kosseim]

This is just one regulatory body, the Federal Trade Commission. There may be the FCC, Federal Communications Commission. I understand there may also be attorneys general of 38 states or more who have come together and are inquiring further into this incident to determine what action, if any, they will also be taking. So this is just one regulatory agency.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Mr. Caron, are you aware of other regulatory matters going on?

[Daniel Caron]

I'm aware of the fact that a request has been issued to the Federal Communications Commission, and as Mrs. Kosseim mentioned, 38 attorneys general are looking into this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

The last issue I want on the record is whether the Office of the Privacy Commissioner is satisfied at this time that the Google street view application itself as well as the Canpages' street scene counterpart sufficiently protects the privacy rights of Canadians and what, if any, are your outstanding privacy concerns?

[Patricia Kosseim]

With regard to the street view imaging technology by Google and Canpages, one point I just want to clarify is that those were never the subject of an investigation by the commissioner. Those were dealt with by correspondence between the commissioner and the organizations. So the extent of what we know is not as in-depth as it would have been had there been an investigation into those matters.

But on the basis of the correspondence and the response of the organizations, there has been a lot of movement on the part of both organizations to comply with or to move along in harmony with the recommendations the commissioner has made, including notification to neighbourhoods before they arrive, discussions with vulnerable stakeholders and groups, take-down procedures, retention and deletion mechanisms, and other such protections. So on the basis of that correspondence there's been a lot of movement. Of course there could always be improved notification, and there could always be ongoing improvements to blurring technology, but so far there's been great improvement and movement toward the commissioner's wishes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Colleagues, I believe that's the end of the rounds. That's the end of questions, I believe.

I'm going to ask you, Madam Kosseim, if you have any concluding remarks for this committee. Do you have any closing remarks you want to make or leave us with?

[Patricia Kosseim]

In summary, I think the important point has already been made. And I thank all members for having given us the opportunity, on several occasions, to repeat the key message, which is our hope that organizations, in conceiving, developing, and deploying information technologies from which we, as Canadians, all benefit take the proactive measures up front to identify the risks, assess them, and manage them before deployment of these technologies on a widespread basis. I thank you for the opportunity to say that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

On behalf of all the committee members, I want to thank you. I think all members of the committee are probably confused and at the same very concerned about what's going on. I have a suspicion the world of technology is moving faster than we're moving. But again, it's our job, perhaps, to catch up.

That being said, I want to thank you again for your excellent work. I want to thank you for your appearance here today.

The next meeting is Tuesday at 3:30.

The meeting is adjourned. Thank you.