Ever wondered what would happen if your employee goes rogue and leaks confidential information? In a recent landmark decision, the High Court in Britain considered just that.
Privacy is sometimes wrongly seen as antithetical to information sharing. It is not. Privacy and information sharing are different sides of the same coin. Our Privacy Act could just have easily and just as accurately been called the Information Sharing Act. Rather than arbitrarily limit what information can be shared, with whom, and for what purposes, the Privacy Act provides a framework for safe information sharing.
Privacy authorities in our region rounded off the year in Vancouver with the 48th Asia Pacific Privacy Authorities (APPA) Forum on 16-17 November. The meeting was hosted by the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (OPC-Canada) and the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner for British Columbia (OIPC-BC). Our office was represented by the Commissioner, John Edwards, and myself.
Rumours of the demise of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) have proved premature. It has been given new life - with some important changes – as the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP). What has happened and does this mean anything for privacy?
What’s in a trust mark? In general, a trust mark is a symbol that tells consumers that the product or service they are considering buying or subscribing to is reliable and trustworthy. Trust marks are created by industry or watchdog organisations to reassure customers about the quality or protection that comes with a product or service.
It can be useful to compare an organisation’s processes or performance against another one’s competitors in the same industry class. It is especially useful to compare with the ‘best in class’ and set targets to meet or exceed the industry norms. This is sometimes called ‘best practice benchmarking’ and is an important tool to support continuous improvement.