Want to stay current on e–commerce law? Sign up for Email Newsletter.
Privacy Complaint of Transit Driver Regarding the Collection of Information Rejected
The Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada recently rejected a complaint from a driver providing transportation services to mobility-impaired residents of a city. The driver argued that the technology installed on the vehicles he drove was improperly collecting his personal information and improperly collecting clients’ personal information.
The driver alleged that because the respondent municipality had installed a mobile data terminal (“MDT”) and a global positioning system (“GPS”), the technology was being used “to keep track of his time throughout the day; to make sure he does not take a break or lunch; to time every pick-up and drop-off; and to track his route and travel time.” He also argued that clients’ rights were being infringed because the technology displayed their names, addresses and destinations. The respondent, on the other hand, contended that the MDT system aids drivers and dispatchers as to when pick-ups and drop-offs have been completed, while the GPS technology allows vehicles to be tracked for emergency purposes, as well as to track route scheduling and service adjustments. Specifically, they argued that the purpose for using MDT/GPS is to increase efficiency and quality of service.
The Assistant Commissioner concluded that the complaint was not well-founded. It was found that, “[t]he use of technology to collect, use or disclose personal information may be an acceptable practice as long as it does not contravene any principles of the Act.” In this situation it was reasonable for the municipality to assume it had consent from the drivers because all of the drivers were advised in advance that this technology was going to be implemented. In addition the “personal information” collected was not sensitive and the municipality had a legitimate interest in collecting it in order to efficiently deliver its services. Overall, the Assistant Commissioner found that the measure was demonstrably necessary to meet the specific need and it was effective in meeting that need; the loss of privacy was proportional to the benefit gained; and that there was no less privacy-invasive way of achieving the same end.
For a copy of the decision, visit:
http://www.priv.gc.ca/cf-dc/2009/2009_011_0527_e.cfm