As we enter the new year, FIPA had the opportunity to submit to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner (“OPC”) in response to their call for input on the draft guidance on biometric technologies. The OPC initiated this public consultation for the following two draft documents for processing biometrics:
FIPA’s assessment finds that the current draft guidance documents fail to adequately call for private organizations and public institutions to consider the risks of biometric processing for marginalized people—be they employees, clients, or consumers.
Drawing from both their individual backgrounds and from academic scholarship, FIPA legal researcher Noah Escandor, with support from fellow FIPA legal researchers Jerika Caduhada and Gage Smith, suggested that the OPC consider the perspectives of marginalized populations in the guidance documents; specifically of those racialized, LGBTQ2SIA+, and Indigenous populations.
BC FIPA thanks the OPC for their consideration of our submission and looks forward to the amendments made to the biometric processing guidance documents.
Do women experience more privacy invasions and benefit less from data protection law than men; non-whites than whites; poor than rich; old than young; ill people than healthy; and so on?”
Charles D. Raab
FIPA suggested that the OPC’s guidance for processing biometrics should include:
Guidance that reminds public institutions and private organizations to consider the marginalized perspectives they serve and their employees.
Regardless of whether organizations are aware of marginalized vulnerabilities, or the bias embedded in technology, they should be called to consider these factors by the guidance.
Include examples for how public institutions and private organizations can practice the protection of marginalized perspectives.
For example: providing greater control over information, facilitating privacy decisions, and creating privacy systems to protect information. These examples should be considered at all stages of data collection—including prior to data being collected.
Improvements to general clarity through additional description and examples.
FIPA noted that the guidance documents’ clarity could be improved through additional descriptions or examples. Although succinct writing is effective, a balance should be met between concision and providing sufficient information to ensure the guidance is clear for the broad intended audience of these guidance documents.
Interested in being part of activities like this?
There are lots of ways to work with us or act as an Academic Advisor. We are always open to making our research results better so be sure to provide any feedback and constructive criticism regarding this publication and its methodology to FIPA at fipa.bc.ca .
