Voltage said:
Collecting personal information and documenting them in an electronic or other form
without the person's consent is ilegal in Canada. The related legislation is here:
http://www.privcom.gc.ca/legislation/index_e.asp. Jurisdiction is the residence of the person(s) who collected the info electronically or otherwise, not the location of the hardware that stores the data. Now that you are aware of this legislation, in a court of law the argument that you didn't know is inadmissible.
-you know who.
I strongly suggest if you have any concerns about private data being collected that you contact the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada and speak with them. They will advise you as to the viability of filing a complaint.
What is of greater concern is why ElfgoneBad created a second, new MERB handle to post this information in an intimidating fashion. MODs? Do you have anything to say about members who maintain two handles? Mr. Elf sent me exactly this same email, to the letter, moments ago, so unless this is a very unfortunate coincidence, I'd say he is someone who needs reminding of the rules.
Mr. Elf is trying to scare SPs from exchanging information to which they have a fundamental legal and human right to do. He does not know PIPEDA, I happen to know it and the Privacy Commissioner of Canada quite well, and using big words and fake legal terms doesn't make you a lawyer
Elf/Voltage is dead wrong. Using information as a disincentive to commerce is the exact opposite of what PIPEDA protects against (that is, collecting information so you can profit from it), and his last line about 'alerting me to the law means I can't claim ignorance in a court of law' is a joke.
First off, there have been no cases that I know of filed in federal court under PIPEDA thus far.
The Privacy Commissioner issues finding, and rulings, and people have complied (I have won cases under PIPEDA).
Secondly, there is no provision under PIPEDA under which ignorance can be used as a defense. This shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the law (and in fact all others in this country).
Thirdly, his attempt to define the rules of evidentiary admissibility is equally incorrect.
Mr. Elf wants to play lawyer and scare people away from facts they need to do their job safely.
if you have any concerns, Elf, about MTL BTL, go ahead and file try a complaint with the PCOC. i think you will find that the staff there is much smarter than you, and they will determine that there is nothing to be done because we simply aren't even close to breaking the law.