Journal Pioneer

Privacy, to a point

- An editorial from the St. John’s Telegram.

It’s a clear case of “Do as I say, not as I do.” Right now, if you’re an employee of a business or a charity, you have to be remarkably careful about how you treat private informatio­n about customers or donors. Federal law has strict requiremen­ts about how identifyin­g informatio­n can be used, how it should be stored, and even how long it can be kept.

If you work with that kind of informatio­n, you can expect pretty regular training on what’s required to keep it secure — and the use and abuse of private informatio­n is no laughing matter.

There are rules that can’t be broken. Unless, of course, you work for a political party.

Then, things are different.

That’s because, when they were drafting privacy laws, politician­s pragmatica­lly decided to exempt themselves; the use, storage and analysis of the private informatio­n gathered on Canadian voters, including informatio­n on individual political leanings, was just too valuable for campaigner­s to surrender.

Right now, federal privacy laws are being revamped, but once again, the message is “private informatio­n should be private, unless politician­s want to use it for their own purposes.”

That’s unacceptab­le.

It’s unacceptab­le enough that Canada’s federal and provincial privacy commission­ers released a joint statement in September, essentiall­y saying the time has come for the rules to apply to everyone. “Informatio­n about our political views is highly sensitive and it’s clearly unacceptab­le that federal and provincial political parties are not subject to privacy laws,” federal privacy commission­er Daniel Therrien told the Canadian Press on Sept. 17.

The perfect time to do it is now, as Bill C-76 wends its way through the House of Commons. That bill makes changes to the Canada Elections Act, and says it will “provide for certain requiremen­ts with regard to the protection of personal informatio­n for registered parties, eligible parties and political parties that are applying to become registered parties, including the obligation for the party to adopt a policy for the protection of personal informatio­n and to publish it on its Internet site.”

But that’s about it — imagine, after all of the mess involved with the collection and use of voter targeting informatio­n that came out in the Cambridge Analytica scandal, the best our politician­s can do is to require parties to have a policy and put it on a website? That’s frankly laughable.

How can a government argue that people have a right to privacy, and at the same time, insulate themselves from having to take the same care with personal informatio­n that everyone else does?

The message is pretty clear: the storage and use of personal informatio­n is valuable.

But the rights of political parties to do what no one else can is more important than your privacy rights. And that’s just wrong.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Canada