Latest news with #PrivacyAct
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
4 reasons to be concerned about Bill C-4's threats to Canadian privacy and sovereignty
In Canada, federal political parties are not governed by basic standards of federal privacy law. If passed, Bill C-4, also known as the Making Life More Affordable for Canadians Act, would also make provincial and territorial privacy laws inapplicable to federal political parties, with no adequate federal law in place. Federal legislation in the form of the Privacy Act and the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act sets out privacy standards for government and business, based on the fair information principles that provide for the collection, use and disclosure of Canadians' personal information. At the moment, these laws don't apply to political parties. Some provinces — especially British Columbia — have implemented laws that do. In May 2024, the B.C. Supreme Court upheld the provincial Information Commissioner's ruling that B.C.'s privacy legislation applies to federal political parties. That decision is currently under appeal. Bill C-4 would undermine those B.C. rights. It would make inapplicable to federal parties the standard privacy rights that apply in other business and government contexts— such as the right to consent to the collection, use and disclosure of personal information — and to access and correct personal information held by organizations. Why should we be concerned about Bill C-4's erasure of these privacy protections for Canadians? There are four reasons: In light of threats to Canadian sovereignty by United States President Donald Trump, the Canadian government and Canadian politicians must rethink their approach to digital sovereignty. Until now, Canadian parties and governments have been content to use American platforms, data companies and datified campaign tactics. Bill C-4 would leave federal parties free to do more of the same. This is the opposite of what's needed. The politics that resulted in Trump being elected twice to the Oval Office was spurred in part by the datafied campaigning of Cambridge Analytica in 2016 and Elon Musk in 2024. These politics are driven by micro-targeted and arguably manipulative political campaigns. Do Canadians want Canada to go in the same direction? Read more: Bill C-4 would undermine one of the mechanisms that makes Canada a society: collective political decisions. Datified campaigning and the collection of personal information by political parties change the nature of democracy. Rather than appealing to political values or visions of what voters may want in the future or as a society — critically important at this historical and troubling moment in history — datified campaigning operates by experimenting on unwitting individual citizens who are alone on their phones and computers. It operates by testing their isolated opinions and unvarnished behaviours. For example, a political campaign might do what's known as A/B testing of ads, which explores whether ad A or ad B is more successful by issuing two different versions of an ad to determine which one gets more clicks, shares, petition signatures, donations or other measurable behaviour. With this knowledge, a campaign or party can manipulate the ads through multiple versions to get the desired behaviour and result. They also learn about ad audiences for future targeting. Read more: In other words, political parties engaging in this tactic aren't engaging with Canadians — they're experimenting on them to see what type of messages, or even what colour schemes or visuals, appeal most. This can be used to shape the campaign or just the determine the style of follow-up messaging to particular users. University researchers, to name just one example, are bound by strict ethical protocols and approvals, including the principle that participants should consent to the collection of personal information, and to participation in experiments and studies. Political parties have no such standards, despite the high stakes — the very future of democracy and society. Most citizens think of elections as being about deliberation and collectively deciding what kind of society they want to live in and what kind of future they want to have together as they decide how to cast their ballots. But with datified campaigning, citizens may not be aware of the political significance of their online actions. Their data trail might cause them to be included, or excluded, from a party's future campaigning and door-knocking, for example. The process isn't deliberative, thoughtful or collective. Political parties collect highly personal data about Canadians without their knowledge or consent. Most Canadians are not aware of the extent of the collection by political parties and the range of data they collect, which can include political views, ethnicity, income, religion or online activities, social media IDs, observations of door-knockers and more. If asked, most Canadians would not consent to the range of data collection by parties. Some governments can and do use data to punish individuals politically and criminally, sometimes without the protection of the rule of law. Breaches and misuses of data, cybersecurity experts say, are no longer a question of 'if,' but 'when.' Worse, what would happen if the wall between political parties and politicians or government broke down and the personal information collected by parties became available to governments? What if the data were used for political purposes, such as for vetting people for political appointments or government benefits? What if it were used against civil servants? What if it were to be used at the border, or passed to other governments? What if it were passed to and used by authoritarian governments to harass and punish citizens? What if it was passed to tech companies and further to data brokers? OpenMedia recently revealed that Canadians' data is being passed to the many different data companies political parties use. That data is not necessarily housed in Canada or by Canadian companies. If provincial law is undermined, there are few protections against any of these problems. Bill C-4 would erase the possibility of provincial and territorial privacy laws being applied to federal political parties, with virtually nothing remaining. Privacy protection promotes confidence and engagement with democratic processes — particularly online. Erasing privacy protections threatens this confidence and engagement. The current approach of federal political parties in terms of datified campaigning and privacy law is entirely wrong for this political moment, dangerous to Canadians and dangerous to democracy. Reforms should instead ensure federal political parties must adhere to the same standards as businesses and all levels of government. Data privacy is important everywhere, but particularly so for political parties, campaigns and democratic engagement. It is important at all times — particularly now. This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organisation bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Sara Bannerman, McMaster University Read more: Why Elon Musk's US billion loss wasn't really that – and what it tells us about the philanthropy of the ultra-wealthy Mitigating AI security threats: Why the G7 should embrace 'federated learning' Meta's AI-powered smart glasses raise concerns about privacy and user data Sara Bannerman receives funding from the Canada Research Chairs program, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, and McMaster University. She has previously received funding from the Office of the Privacy Commissioner's Contributions Program and the Digital Ecosystem Research Challenge.
Canada News.Net
6 days ago
- Politics
- Canada News.Net
4 reasons to be concerned about Bill C-4's threats to Canadian privacy and sovereignty
In Canada, federal political parties are not governed by basic standards of federal privacy law. If passed, Bill C-4, also known as the Making Life More Affordable for Canadians Act, would also make provincial and territorial privacy laws inapplicable to federal political parties, with no adequate federal law in place. Federal legislation in the form of the Privacy Act and the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act sets out privacy standards for government and business, based on the fair information principles that provide for the collection, use and disclosure of Canadians' personal information. At the moment, these laws don't apply to political parties. Some provinces - especially British Columbia - have implemented laws that do. In May 2024, the B.C. Supreme Court upheld the provincial Information Commissioner's ruling that B.C.'s privacy legislation applies to federal political parties. That decision is currently under appeal. Bill C-4 would undermine those B.C. rights. It would make inapplicable to federal parties the standard privacy rights that apply in other business and government contexts- such as the right to consent to the collection, use and disclosure of personal information - and to access and correct personal information held by organizations. Why should we be concerned about Bill C-4's erasure of these privacy protections for Canadians? There are four reasons: In light of threats to Canadian sovereignty by United States President Donald Trump, the Canadian government and Canadian politicians must rethink their approach to digital sovereignty. Until now, Canadian parties and governments have been content to use American platforms, data companies and datified campaign tactics. Bill C-4 would leave federal parties free to do more of the same. This is the opposite of what's needed. The politics that resulted in Trump being elected twice to the Oval Office was spurred in part by the datafied campaigning of Cambridge Analytica in 2016 and Elon Musk in 2024. These politics are driven by micro-targeted and arguably manipulative political campaigns. Do Canadians want Canada to go in the same direction? Bill C-4 would undermine one of the mechanisms that makes Canada a society: collective political decisions. Datified campaigning and the collection of personal information by political parties change the nature of democracy. Rather than appealing to political values or visions of what voters may want in the future or as a society - critically important at this historical and troubling moment in history - datified campaigning operates by experimenting on unwitting individual citizens who are alone on their phones and computers. It operates by testing their isolated opinions and unvarnished behaviours. For example, a political campaign might do what's known as A/B testing of ads, which explores whether ad A or ad B is more successful by issuing two different versions of an ad to determine which one gets more clicks, shares, petition signatures, donations or other measurable behaviour. With this knowledge, a campaign or party can manipulate the ads through multiple versions to get the desired behaviour and result. They also learn about ad audiences for future targeting. In other words, political parties engaging in this tactic aren't engaging with Canadians - they're experimenting on them to see what type of messages, or even what colour schemes or visuals, appeal most. This can be used to shape the campaign or just the determine the style of follow-up messaging to particular users. University researchers, to name just one example, are bound by strict ethical protocols and approvals, including the principle that participants should consent to the collection of personal information, and to participation in experiments and studies. Political parties have no such standards, despite the high stakes - the very future of democracy and society. Most citizens think of elections as being about deliberation and collectively deciding what kind of society they want to live in and what kind of future they want to have together as they decide how to cast their ballots. But with datified campaigning, citizens may not be aware of the political significance of their online actions. Their data trail might cause them to be included, or excluded, from a party's future campaigning and door-knocking, for example. The process isn't deliberative, thoughtful or collective. Political parties collect highly personal data about Canadians without their knowledge or consent. Most Canadians are not aware of the extent of the collection by political parties and the range of data they collect, which can include political views, ethnicity, income, religion or online activities, social media IDs, observations of door-knockers and more. If asked, most Canadians would not consent to the range of data collection by parties. Some governments can and do use data to punish individuals politically and criminally, sometimes without the protection of the rule of law. Breaches and misuses of data, cybersecurity experts say, are no longer a question of "if," but "when." Worse, what would happen if the wall between political parties and politicians or government broke down and the personal information collected by parties became available to governments? What if the data were used for political purposes, such as for vetting people for political appointments or government benefits? What if it were used against civil servants? What if it were to be used at the border, or passed to other governments? What if it were passed to and used by authoritarian governments to harass and punish citizens? What if it was passed to tech companies and further to data brokers? OpenMedia recently revealed that Canadians' data is being passed to the many different data companies political parties use. That data is not necessarily housed in Canada or by Canadian companies. If provincial law is undermined, there are few protections against any of these problems. Bill C-4 would erase the possibility of provincial and territorial privacy laws being applied to federal political parties, with virtually nothing remaining. Privacy protection promotes confidence and engagement with democratic processes - particularly online. Erasing privacy protections threatens this confidence and engagement. The current approach of federal political parties in terms of datified campaigning and privacy law is entirely wrong for this political moment, dangerous to Canadians and dangerous to democracy. Reforms should instead ensure federal political parties must adhere to the same standards as businesses and all levels of government. Data privacy is important everywhere, but particularly so for political parties, campaigns and democratic engagement. It is important at all times - particularly now.
Canada Standard
6 days ago
- Politics
- Canada Standard
4 reasons to be concerned about Bill C-4's threats to Canadian privacy and sovereignty
In Canada, federal political parties are not governed by basic standards of federal privacy law. If passed, Bill C-4, also known as the Making Life More Affordable for Canadians Act, would also make provincial and territorial privacy laws inapplicable to federal political parties, with no adequate federal law in place. Federal legislation in the form of the Privacy Act and the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act sets out privacy standards for government and business, based on the fair information principles that provide for the collection, use and disclosure of Canadians' personal information. At the moment, these laws don't apply to political parties. Some provinces - especially British Columbia - have implemented laws that do. In May 2024, the B.C. Supreme Court upheld the provincial Information Commissioner's ruling that B.C.'s privacy legislation applies to federal political parties. That decision is currently under appeal. Bill C-4 would undermine those B.C. rights. It would make inapplicable to federal parties the standard privacy rights that apply in other business and government contexts- such as the right to consent to the collection, use and disclosure of personal information - and to access and correct personal information held by organizations. Why should we be concerned about Bill C-4's erasure of these privacy protections for Canadians? There are four reasons: In light of threats to Canadian sovereignty by United States President Donald Trump, the Canadian government and Canadian politicians must rethink their approach to digital sovereignty. Until now, Canadian parties and governments have been content to use American platforms, data companies and datified campaign tactics. Bill C-4 would leave federal parties free to do more of the same. This is the opposite of what's needed. The politics that resulted in Trump being elected twice to the Oval Office was spurred in part by the datafied campaigning of Cambridge Analytica in 2016 and Elon Musk in 2024. These politics are driven by micro-targeted and arguably manipulative political campaigns. Do Canadians want Canada to go in the same direction? Read more: How political party data collection may turn off voters Bill C-4 would undermine one of the mechanisms that makes Canada a society: collective political decisions. Datified campaigning and the collection of personal information by political parties change the nature of democracy. Rather than appealing to political values or visions of what voters may want in the future or as a society - critically important at this historical and troubling moment in history - datified campaigning operates by experimenting on unwitting individual citizens who are alone on their phones and computers. It operates by testing their isolated opinions and unvarnished behaviours. For example, a political campaign might do what's known as A/B testing of ads, which explores whether ad A or ad B is more successful by issuing two different versions of an ad to determine which one gets more clicks, shares, petition signatures, donations or other measurable behaviour. With this knowledge, a campaign or party can manipulate the ads through multiple versions to get the desired behaviour and result. They also learn about ad audiences for future targeting. Read more: A/B testing: how offline businesses are learning from Google to improve profits In other words, political parties engaging in this tactic aren't engaging with Canadians - they're experimenting on them to see what type of messages, or even what colour schemes or visuals, appeal most. This can be used to shape the campaign or just the determine the style of follow-up messaging to particular users. University researchers, to name just one example, are bound by strict ethical protocols and approvals, including the principle that participants should consent to the collection of personal information, and to participation in experiments and studies. Political parties have no such standards, despite the high stakes - the very future of democracy and society. Most citizens think of elections as being about deliberation and collectively deciding what kind of society they want to live in and what kind of future they want to have together as they decide how to cast their ballots. But with datified campaigning, citizens may not be aware of the political significance of their online actions. Their data trail might cause them to be included, or excluded, from a party's future campaigning and door-knocking, for example. The process isn't deliberative, thoughtful or collective. Political parties collect highly personal data about Canadians without their knowledge or consent. Most Canadians are not aware of the extent of the collection by political parties and the range of data they collect, which can include political views, ethnicity, income, religion or online activities, social media IDs, observations of door-knockers and more. If asked, most Canadians would not consent to the range of data collection by parties. Some governments can and do use data to punish individuals politically and criminally, sometimes without the protection of the rule of law. Breaches and misuses of data, cybersecurity experts say, are no longer a question of "if," but "when." Worse, what would happen if the wall between political parties and politicians or government broke down and the personal information collected by parties became available to governments? What if the data were used for political purposes, such as for vetting people for political appointments or government benefits? What if it were used against civil servants? What if it were to be used at the border, or passed to other governments? What if it were passed to and used by authoritarian governments to harass and punish citizens? What if it was passed to tech companies and further to data brokers? OpenMedia recently revealed that Canadians' data is being passed to the many different data companies political parties use. That data is not necessarily housed in Canada or by Canadian companies. If provincial law is undermined, there are few protections against any of these problems. Bill C-4 would erase the possibility of provincial and territorial privacy laws being applied to federal political parties, with virtually nothing remaining. Privacy protection promotes confidence and engagement with democratic processes - particularly online. Erasing privacy protections threatens this confidence and engagement. The current approach of federal political parties in terms of datified campaigning and privacy law is entirely wrong for this political moment, dangerous to Canadians and dangerous to democracy. Reforms should instead ensure federal political parties must adhere to the same standards as businesses and all levels of government. Data privacy is important everywhere, but particularly so for political parties, campaigns and democratic engagement. It is important at all times - particularly now.
Yahoo
17-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Splashtop Expands with Sovereign Cloud Infrastructure in Australia to Strengthen Data Residency and Security Compliance
New localized services empower Australian customers with data sovereignty, enhanced performance, and flexible deployment options. SYDNEY, June 17, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Splashtop, a global provider of remote access, support, and endpoint management solutions, today announced its establishment of Australia-based infrastructure via a dedicated user database to support growing demand for data sovereignty, regional compliance, and high-performance remote access. This strategic investment enables organizations in Australia to use Splashtop services with confidence, knowing their data remains stored and processed locally under Australian jurisdiction. Splashtop's Australian sovereign cloud helps government, education, and enterprise customers meet national data protection standards, including new data sovereignty requirements under the 2023 Privacy Act. It also streamlines compliance with key frameworks such as the Essential Eight Maturity Model, the Information Security Manual (ISM), and enables readiness for Information Security Registered Assessors Program (IRAP) assessments. The dedicated infrastructure improves connection performance, supports compliance efforts, and underscores Splashtop's continued commitment to offering flexible, secure solutions globally. In addition to its regional cloud infrastructure, Splashtop offers an on-premise deployment option for organizations with stricter data governance policies or air-gapped environments. 'As more countries take steps to enforce digital sovereignty, we're investing in infrastructure that gives our customers choice and control,' said Mark Lee, CEO and Co-founder of Splashtop. 'This localized infrastructure supports data residency and helps streamline compliance, giving Australian customers greater peace of mind.' 'From sovereign cloud to on-prem, Splashtop is committed to meeting customers where they are technically and geographically,' added Leonard Wong, Regional Vice President at Splashtop. 'With our Australia infrastructure now live, we're better positioned to meet regional procurement and compliance requirements, opening the door to support new customers that demand strict data residency assurances.' This new regional infrastructure bolsters Splashtop's growing global footprint, including existing deployments in the United States, Canada, Japan, the European Union, and now Australia. The rollout reflects Splashtop's broader mission to deliver secure, performant, and compliant solutions that align with regional regulations and customer expectations. To learn more about Splashtop's cloud and on-premise solutions, visit About Splashtop Splashtop is the top-rated global provider of remote work, support, and management solutions that simplify security and performance in the work-from-anywhere world. With customer success as the #1 priority, Splashtop's technology is easy to deploy, use, and manage for small and midsize businesses and enterprises, offering advanced security features, high-throughput, broad device support, and 24/5 customer support. The approachable solution selected by more than 30 million users, Splashtop is a partner enabling users to grow and scale on their own terms with highly flexible plans. Splashtop is a member of the Microsoft Intelligent Security Association (MISA), aligning with Microsoft in their efforts to help customers address the evolving challenges of today's IT landscape. Visit and follow us on LinkedIn to learn more. CONTACT: Splashtop Inc. +61 (2) 9161 7275 pr@ in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
11-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Dems question Trump's use of Postal Service inspectors
House Democrats are seeking more information and a face-to-face briefing from the U.S. Postal Service about the Trump administration's use of Postal Inspection Service (USPIS) officers to aid the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) with President Trump's immigration crackdown. 'The investigative activities of USPIS are crucial in taking down criminal networks, drug traffickers and other dangerous actors who use or abuse the mail system to carry out illicit activities,' Democrats on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee wrote in a letter to Postal Service leaders obtained by The Hill on Wednesday. 'We are deeply concerned that the partnership between USPIS and DHS is not only an improper use of USPIS personnel but will also significantly detract from USPIS's critical mission of addressing the present and increasing threats of mail theft and fraud, and attacks against our Postal workforce,' the letter continued. Trump issued an executive order Jan. 20 shortly after he was sworn back into office that created a system of task forces under DHS and the Attorney General with 'representation from any other Federal agencies with law enforcement officers.' The Postal Inspection Service, one of the country's oldest law enforcement agencies, has nearly 1,300 postal inspectors and 500 uniformed postal police officers, according to the latest Postal Service figures. The House Oversight Democrats wrote in their letter that they want to know more about how postal workers are aiding with immigration efforts after a Postal Inspection Service officer was spotted at a recent immigration raid of a Colorado nightclub where more than 100 migrants were detained. 'To reach every address in the United States, the Postal Service maintains a wide swath ofpersonal information on individuals present in the United States,' they wrote. 'This data is highly restricted, may only be shared in very limited situations, and is largely protected by the Privacy Act, which requires the Postal Service to implement comprehensive protections of personal information.' The Postal Service didn't immediately respond to The Hill's request for comment. The Washington Post reported in April that the Trump administration was using the Postal Service's law enforcement arm to obtain photographs of envelopes and packages through its long-existing mail surveillance program, as well as 'package- and mail-tracking information, credit card data and financial material and IP addresses' to track down people who are in the country illegally. U.S. postal inspectors have similarly collaborated with law enforcement agencies in the past to locate fugitives, drug traffickers and other alleged criminals. According to The Washington Post report, Postal Service officials agreed to aid the federal immigration enforcement efforts because leaders fear a larger threat to the Postal Service from Trump, but one source told the outlet that 'Inspection Service is very, very nervous about this.' 'It is clear that DHS intends to use the highly sensitive information maintained by thePostal Service as part of its broader weaponization of personal information to carry out its mass deportation agenda,' House Democrats wrote in their letter. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
