There’s an interesting story we cover below about how Canada, unlike many other countries, does not routinely disclose information about convicted sexual offenders when they travel to other countries. On the other hand, Canada does routinely receive and act on this information when other countries provide Canadian law enforcement with the travel plans of convicted sex offenders. It doesn’t seem to be a two-way street and I personally think this should change. What do you think?
The RCMP says it’s the Privacy Act that prohibits them from disclosing travel information of sex offenders to other countries. If you know me, you know I really don’t like it when people say privacy laws stand in the way of doing something good. Most of the time, I just don’t buy it.
So, to me, there are a couple of possible solutions.
First, you can amend the legislation that creates the sex offender registry to specifically allow for this type of sharing. A relatively simple fix, no?
Or, you can move away from the old position that Section 8(2)(m) of the Privacy Act can’t be used in any systemic way. This section of the Privacy Act states you can disclose personal information without consent if the public interest in disclosure outweighs the invasion of privacy that will result. Seems to fit the bill in this case, I would’ve thought, and it could be fortified with an information sharing agreement.
I think part of the problem is the privacy commissioner has long interpreted this section as only being used as a one-off, in rare cases, and not really as a way of systematically disclosing information. At the same time, it looks like they get hundreds of notifications a year from departments about disclosures in the public interest. Are they all really so unique from one another or are there certain types done with more regularity?
Anyway, when people tell me privacy laws get in the way of doing the right thing, I get annoyed, and this is just the latest example. But more than that, it makes me want to find solutions, so today I wanted to offer a couple. I think it’s high time to revisit this small but important detail.