On this episode of the show, we go back to a time before British Columbia had freedom of information or privacy laws—to the year 1990—and find out what it was like to request information from government.
Then, we find out how a small group of dedicated individuals were able to advocate, draft, and ultimately bring about B.C.’s Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, bringing this province one step closer to the ideal of open government.
We’ll hear about how the new legislation offered the promise of greater government transparency and accountability, and about what’s transpired in the nearly thirty years since the Act was passed.
Guests on this episode include: FIPA co-founder Darrell Evans, FIPA co-founder and former Information and Privacy Commissioner David Loukidelis, current Information and Privacy Commissioner Michael McEvoy, former Attorney General Colin Gableman, former MLA Barry Jones, current MP Murray Rankin, and the Vancouver Sun’s legislative reporter Vaughn Palmer.
Last November, we published Carroll Anne Boydell’s analysis of BC’s new whistleblower legislation – the Public Interest Disclosure Act (PIDA) – and how it compares to international best practice standards. The study, which is currently available to download from our website, examines different legislations containing protections for whistleblowers who disclose wrongdoing in the province and determines how well they follow best practice principles.
Data Subjects is a new podcast dedicated to issues surrounding privacy and freedom of information rights in Canada.
The show marks FIPA’s first foray into the world of podcasts. Episodes will tackle a wide variety of topics, from the history of FOI in Canada, to the pitfalls of our modern privacy rights, and many more. Each episode will feature interviews with some of Canada’s most renowned figures from both the privacy and FOI landscapes, as well as stories from within FIPA.
Data Subjects will launch this spring and will be available on your favourite podcast provider like Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, Spotify, and on our website.
He then put forward two concepts he deemed to be main pillars of the current state of privacy: Surveillance Capitalism as discussed in Shoshana Zuboff’s new book and Bernard E. Harcourt’s study on the Expository Society.
“Privacy is a collective good. Thinking about the perils that privacy faces right now requires us to think about privacy as a democratic good.”
– Mike Larsen
The two ideas were both entirely unsurprising, yet undeniably unsettling. While the monetization of data has become fairly well-known (and seemingly accepted), Larsen disputed the belief that the collection of our digital footprint is dedicated solely to economic means like marketing and advertising. I heard noticeable gasps from around the audience when he delved into the other side of surveillance, the one we don’t talk about enough: prediction of behaviour, political sentiment, and voting practices – and information such as these can open the possibility for the steering and manipulation of the public.
discussion on the Expository Society veered towards a more academic vernacular,
the subject in its most basic nutshell did hit close to home. It is essentially
a critique on how the digital age and the dawn of social media have changed our
habits, how we have become more incentivized and inclined to share personal
information in public spaces, which in turn builds copious amounts of
about the safety of our data was a sentiment that Vonn echoed in her
discussion, stating that we create more data than most places, but
unfortunately, “we can’t really protect it.” Vonn also delved into sovereignty
and transparency, citing the lack of ability to hold government bodies
accountable, relative to the amount of access government has to our personal
information. As for tips and solutions, Vonn proposed a tactic she admittedly
described as unpopular – go analog. A self-confessed Luddite, Vonn spoke of the
security measures created by simply leaving devices like laptops (and yes, even
phones) at home when travelling or crossing the US-Canada border.
only celebrate Data Privacy Day once a year, the discussion it generates allow
for issues surrounding data, surveillance, and privacy to permeate our general
discourse. And while the meaningful action that we seek can come so few and far
between, these discussions do represent a small victory. At the end of the day,
we want as many people talking and caring about these issues. After all,
privacy is a collective good.