Podcasts about privacy commissioner

New Zealand’s Privacy Commissioner has issued new rules around the automated use of biometrics. Biometric processing is the use of tech, like facial recognition, to collect and process people’s biometric information. The Code comes into force on 3 November 2025, but agencies already using biometrics have until 3 August 2026, to align themselves with the new rules. Today on The Front Page, Privacy Commissioner Michael Webster is with us, to take us through what all of this means, and how we can protect ourselves. Follow The Front Page on iHeartRadio, Apple Podcasts, Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts. You can read more about this and other stories in the New Zealand Herald, online at nzherald.co.nz, or tune in to news bulletins across the NZME network. Host: Chelsea DanielsEditor/Producer: Richard MartinProducer: Jane YeeSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

** There are less than 10 tickets remaining for the live recording of Uncommons with Catherine McKenna on Thursday Oct 2nd. Register for free here. **On this two-part episode of Uncommons, Nate digs into Bill C-2 and potential impacts on privacy, data surveillance and sharing with US authorities, and asylum claims and refugee protections.In the first half, Nate is joined by Kate Robertson, senior researcher at the University of Toronto's Citizen Lab. Kate's career has spanned criminal prosecutions, regulatory investigations, and international human rights work with the United Nations in Cambodia. She has advocated at every level of court in Canada, clerked at the Supreme Court, and has provided pro bono services through organizations like Human Rights Watch Canada. Her current research at Citizen Lab examines the intersection of technology, privacy, and the law.In part two, Nate is joined by Adam Sadinsky, a Toronto-based immigration and refugee lawyer and co-chair of the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers' Advocacy Committee. Adam has represented clients at every level of court in Canada, including the Supreme Court, and was co-counsel in M.A.A. v. D.E.M.E. (2020 ONCA 486) and Canadian Council for Refugees v. Canada (2023 SCC 17).Further Reading:Unspoken Implications A Preliminary Analysis of Bill C-2 and Canada's Potential Data-Sharing Obligations Towards the United States and Other Countries - Kate Robertson, Citizen LabKate Robertson Chapters:00:00 Introduction & Citizen Lab03:00 Bill C-2 and the Strong Borders Act08:00 Data Sharing and Human Rights Concerns15:00 The Cloud Act & International Agreements22:00 Real-World Examples & Privacy Risks28:00 Parliamentary Process & Fixing the BillAdam Sadinsky Chapters:33:33 Concerns Over Asylum Eligibility in Canada36:30 Government Goals and Fairness for Refugee Claimants39:00 Changing Country Conditions and New Risks41:30 The Niagara Falls Example & Other Unfair Exclusions44:00 Frivolous vs. Legitimate Claims in the Refugee System47:00 Clearing the Backlog with Fair Pathways50:00 Broad Powers Granted to the Government52:00 Privacy Concerns and Closing ReflectionsPart 1: Kate RobertsonNate Erskine-Smith00:00-00:01Kate, thanks for joining me.Kate Robertson00:01-00:01Thanks for having me.Nate Erskine-Smith00:02-00:15So I have had Ron Debert on the podcast before. So for people who really want to go back into the archive, they can learn a little bit about what the Citizen Lab is. But for those who are not that interested, you're a senior researcher there. What is the Citizen Lab?Kate Robertson00:16-01:00Well, it's an interdisciplinary research lab based at University of Toronto. It brings together researchers from a technology standpoint, political science, lawyers like myself and other disciplines to examine the intersection between information and communication technologies, law, human rights, and global security. And over time, it's published human rights reports about some of the controversial and emerging surveillance technologies of our time, including spyware or AI-driven technologies. And it's also really attempted to produce a thoughtful research that helps policymakers navigate some of these challenges and threats.Nate Erskine-Smith01:01-02:50That's a very good lead into this conversation because here we have Bill C-2 coming before Parliament for debate this fall, introduced in June, at the beginning of June. And it's called the Strong Borders Act in short, but it touches, I started counting, it's 15 different acts that are touched by this omnibus legislation. The government has laid out a rationale around strengthening our borders, keeping our borders secure, combating transnational organized crime, stopping the flow of illegal fentanyl, cracking down on money laundering, a litany of things that I think most people would look at and say broadly supportive of stopping these things from happening and making sure we're enhancing our security and the integrity of our immigration system and on. You, though, have provided some pretty thoughtful and detailed rational legal advice around some of the challenges you see in the bill. You're not the only one. There are other challenges on the asylum changes we're making. There are other challenges on lawful access and privacy. You've, though, highlighted, in keeping with the work of the Citizen Lab, the cross-border data sharing, the challenges with those data sharing provisions in the bill. It is a bit of a deep dive and a little wonky, but you've written a preliminary analysis of C2 and Canada's potential data sharing obligations towards the U.S. and other countries, unspoken implications, and you published it mid-June. It is incredibly relevant given the conversation we're having this fall. So if you were to at a high level, and we'll go ahead and some of the weeds, but at a high level articulate the main challenges you see in the legislation from the standpoint that you wrote in unspoken implications. Walk us through them.Kate Robertson02:51-06:15Well, before C2 was tabled for a number of years now, myself and other colleagues at the lab have been studying new and evolving ways that we're seeing law enforcement data sharing and cross-border cooperation mechanisms being put to use in new ways. We have seen within this realm some controversial data sharing frameworks under treaty protocols or bilateral agreement mechanisms with the United States and others, which reshape how information is shared with law enforcement in foreign jurisdictions and what kinds of safeguards and mechanisms are applied to that framework to protect human rights. And I think as a really broad trend, what is probably most, the simplest way to put it is that what we're really seeing is a growing number of ways that borders are actually being exploited to the detriment of human rights standards. Rights are essentially falling through the cracks. This can happen either through cross-border joint investigations between agencies in multiple states in ways that essentially go forum shopping for the laws and the most locks, that's right. You can also see foreign states that seek to leverage cooperation tools in democratic states in order to track, surveil, or potentially even extradite human rights activists and dissidents, journalists that are living in exile outside their borders. And what this has really come out of is a discussion point that has been made really around the world that if crime is going to become more transient across borders, that law enforcement also needs to have a greater freedom to move more seamlessly across borders. But what often is left out of that framing is that human rights standards that are really deeply entrenched in our domestic law systems, they would also need to be concurrently meaningful across borders. And unfortunately, that's not what we're seeing. Canada is going to be facing decisions around this, both within the context of C2 and around it in the coming months and beyond, as we know that it has been considering and in negotiation around a couple of very controversial agreements. One of those, the sort of elephant in the room, so to speak, is that the legislation has been tabled at a time where we know that Canada and the United States have been in negotiations for actually a couple of years around a potential agreement called the CLOUD Act, which would quite literally cede Canada's sovereignty to the United States and law enforcement authorities and give them really a blanket opportunity to directly apply surveillance orders onto entities, both public and private in Canada?Nate Erskine-Smith06:16-07:46Well, so years in the making negotiations, but we are in a very different world with the United States today than we were two years ago. And I was just in, I was in Mexico City for a conference with parliamentarians across the Americas, and there were six Democratic congressmen and women there. One, Chuy Garcia represents Chicago district. He was telling me that he went up to ICE officials and they're masked and he is saying, identify yourself. And he's a congressman. He's saying, identify yourself. What's your ID? What's your badge number? They're hiding their ID and maintaining masks and they're refusing to identify who they are as law enforcement officials, ostensibly refusing to identify who they are to an American congressman. And if they're willing to refuse to identify themselves in that manner to a congressman. I can only imagine what is happening to people who don't have that kind of authority and standing in American life. And that's the context that I see this in now. I would have probably still been troubled to a degree with open data sharing and laxer standards on the human rights side, but all the more troubling, you talk about less democratic jurisdictions and authoritarian regimes. Well, isn't the U.S. itself a challenge today more than ever has been? And then shouldn't we maybe slam the pause button on negotiations like this? Well, you raise a number of really important points. And I think thatKate Robertson07:47-09:54there have been warning signs and worse that have long preceded the current administration and the backsliding that you're commenting upon since the beginning of 2025. Certainly, I spoke about the increasing trend of the exploitation of borders. I mean, I think we're seeing signs that really borders are actually, in essence, being used as a form of punishment, even in some respects, which I would say it is when you say to someone who would potentially exercise due process rights against deportation and say if you exercise those rights, you'll be deported to a different continent from your home country where your rights are perhaps less. And that's something that UN human rights authorities have been raising alarm bells about around the deportation of persons to third countries, potentially where they'll face risks of torture even. But these patterns are all too reminiscent of what we saw in the wake of 9-11 and the creation of black sites where individuals, including Canadian persons, were detained or even tortured. And really, this stems from a number of issues. But what we have identified in analyzing potential cloud agreement is really just the momentous decision that the Canadian government would have to make to concede sovereignty to a country which is in many ways a pariah for refusing to acknowledge extraterritorial international human rights obligations to persons outside of its borders. And so to invite that type of direct surveillance and exercise of authority within Canada's borders was a country who has refused for a very long time, unlike Canada and many other countries around the world, has refused to recognize through its courts and through its government any obligation to protect the international human rights of people in Canada.Nate Erskine-Smith09:56-10:21And yet, you wrote, some of the data and surveillance powers in Bill C-2 read like they could have been drafted by U.S. officials. So you take the frame that you're just articulating around with what the U.S. worldview is on this and has been and exacerbated by obviously the current administration. But I don't love the sound of it reading like it was drafted by AmericanKate Robertson10:22-12:43officials. Well, you know, it's always struck me as a really remarkable story, to be frank. You know, to borrow Dickens' tale of two countries, which is that since the 1990s, Canada's Supreme Court has been charting a fundamentally different course from the constitutional approach that's taken the United States around privacy and surveillance. And it really started with persons looking at what's happening and the way that technology evolves and how much insecurity people feel when they believe that surveillance is happening without any judicial oversight. And looking ahead and saying, you know what, if we take this approach, it's not going to go anywhere good. And that's a really remarkable decision that was made and has continued to be made by the court time and time again, even as recently as last year, the court has said we take a distinct approach from the United States. And it had a lot of foresight given, you know, in the 1990s, technology is nowhere near what it is today. Of course. And yet in the text of C2, we see provisions that, you know, I struggle when I hear proponents of the legislation describe it as balanced and in keeping with the Charter, when actually they're proposing to essentially flip the table on principles that have been enshrined for decades to protect Canadians, including, for example, the notion that third parties like private companies have the authority to voluntarily share our own. information with the police without any warrant. And that's actually the crux of what has become a fundamentally different approach that I think has really led Canada to be a more resilient country when it comes to technological change. And I sometimes describe us as a country that is showing the world that, you know, it's possible to do both. You can judicially supervise investigations that are effective and protect the public. And the sky does not fall if you do so. And right now we're literally seeing and see to something that I think is really unique and important made in Canada approach being potentially put on the chopping block.Nate Erskine-Smith12:44-13:29And for those listening who might think, okay, well, at a high level, I don't love expansive data sharing and reduced human rights protections, but practically, are there examples? And you pointed to in your writing right from the hop, the Arar case, and you mentioned the Supreme Court, but they, you know, they noted that it's a chilling example of the dangers of unconditional information sharing. And the commission noted to the potentially risky exercise of open ended, unconditional data sharing as well. But that's a real life example, a real life Canadian example of what can go wrong in a really horrible, tragic way when you don't have guardrails that focus and protect human rights.Kate Robertson13:31-14:56You're right to raise that example. I raise it. It's a really important one. It's one that is, I think, part of, you know, Canada has many commendable and important features to its framework, but it's not a perfect country by any means. That was an example of just information sharing with the United States itself that led to a Canadian citizen being rendered and tortured in a foreign country. Even a more recent example, we are not the only country that's received requests for cooperation from a foreign state in circumstances where a person's life is quite literally in jeopardy. We have known from public reporting that in the case of Hardeep Najjar, before he was ultimately assassinated on Canadian soil, an Interpol Red Notice had been issued about him at the request of the government of India. And the government had also requested his extradition. And we know that there's a number of important circumstances that have been commented upon by the federal government in the wake of those revelations. And it's provoked a really important discussion around the risks of foreign interference. But it is certainly an example where we know that cooperation requests have been made in respect of someone who's quite literally and tragically at risk of loss of life.Nate Erskine-Smith14:57-16:07And when it comes to the, what we're really talking about is, you mentioned the Cloud Act. There's also, I got to go to the notes because it's so arcane, but the second additional protocol to the Budapest Convention. These are, in that case, it's a treaty that Canada would ratify. And then this piece of legislation would in some way create implementing authorities for. I didn't fully appreciate this until going through that. And I'd be interested in your thoughts just in terms of the details of these. And we can make it as wonky as you like in terms of the challenges that these treaties offer. I think you've already articulated the watering down of traditional human rights protections and privacy protections we would understand in Canadian law. But the transparency piece, I didn't fully appreciate either. And as a parliamentarian, I probably should have because there's... Until reading your paper, I didn't know that there was a policy on tabling of treaties That really directs a process for introducing treaty implementing legislation. And this process also gets that entirely backwards.Kate Robertson16:09-17:01That's right. And, you know, in researching and studying what to do with, you know, what I foresee is potentially quite a mess if we were to enter into a treaty that binds us to standards that are unconstitutional. You know, that is a diplomatic nightmare of sorts, but it's also one that would create, you know, a constitutional entanglement of that's really, I think, unprecedented in Canada. But nevertheless, that problem is foreseen if one or both of these were to go ahead. And I refer to that in the cloud agreement or the 2AP. But this policy, as I understand it, I believe it was tabled by then Foreign Affairs Minister Maxime Bernier, as he was at the time, by Prime Minister Harper's government.Nate Erskine-Smith17:02-17:04He's come a long way.Kate Robertson17:07-18:12I believe that the rationale for the policy was quite self-evident at the time. I mean, if you think about the discussions that are happening right now, for example, in Quebec around digital sovereignty and the types of entanglements that U.S. legal process might impact around Quebec privacy legislation. Other issues around the AI space in Ontario or our health sector in terms of technology companies in Ontario. These treaties really have profound implications at a much broader scale than the federal government and law enforcement. And that's not even getting to Indigenous sovereignty issues. And so the policy is really trying to give a greater voice to the range of perspectives that a federal government would consider before binding Canada internationally on behalf of all of these layers of decision making without perhaps even consulting with Parliament First.Nate Erskine-Smith18:12-19:15So this is, I guess, one struggle. There's the specific concerns around watering down protections, but just on process. This just bothered me in particular because we're going to undergo this process in the fall. And so I printed out the Strong Borders Act, Government of Canada Strengthens Border Security and the backgrounder to the law. And going through it, it's six pages when I print it out. And it doesn't make mention of the Budapest Convention. It doesn't make mention of the Cloud Act. It doesn't make mention of any number of rationales for this legislation. But it doesn't make mention that this is in part, at least, to help implement treaties that are under active negotiation. not only gets backwards the policy, but one would have thought, especially I took from your paper, that the Department has subsequently, the Justice Department has subsequently acknowledged that this would in fact help the government implement these treaties. So surely it shouldKate Robertson19:15-19:57be in the background. I would have thought so. As someone that has been studying these treaty frameworks very carefully, it was immediately apparent to me that they're at least relevant. It was put in the briefing as a question as to whether or not the actual intent of some of these new proposed powers is to put Canada in a position to ratify this treaty. And the answer at that time was yes, that that is the intent of them. And it was also stated that other cooperation frameworks were foreseeable.Nate Erskine-Smith19:59-20:57What next? So here I am, one member of parliament, and oftentimes through these processes, we're going to, there's the objective of the bill, and then there's the details of the bill, and we're going to get this bill to a committee process. I understand the intention is for it to be a pretty fulsome committee hearing, and it's an omnibus bill. So what should happen is the asylum components should get kicked to the immigration committee. The pieces around national security should obviously get kicked to public safety committee, and there should be different committees that deal with their different constituent elements that are relevant to those committees. I don't know if it will work that way, but that would be a more rational way of engaging with a really broad ranging bill. Is there a fix for this though? So are there amendments that could cure it or is it foundationally a problem that is incurable?Kate Robertson20:58-21:59Well, I mean, I think that for myself as someone studying this area, it's obvious to me that what agreements may be struck would profoundly alter the implications of pretty much every aspect of this legislation. And that stems in part from just how fundamental it would be if Canada were to cede its sovereignty to US law enforcement agencies and potentially even national security agencies as well. But obviously, the provisions themselves are quite relevant to these frameworks. And so it's clear that Parliament needs to have the opportunity to study how these provisions would actually be used. And I am still left on knowing how that would be possible without transparencyNate Erskine-Smith22:00-22:05about what is at stake in terms of potential agreements. Right. What have we agreed to? If thisKate Robertson22:05-24:57is implementing legislation what are we implementing certainly it's a significantly different proposition now even parking the international data sharing context the constitutional issues that are raised in the parts of the bill that i'm able to study within my realm of expertise which is in the context of omnibus legislation not the entire bill of course yeah um but it's hard to even know where to begin um the the the powers that are being put forward you know i kind of have to set the table a bit to understand to explain why the table is being flipped yeah yeah we're at a time where um you know a number of years ago i published about the growing use of algorithms and AI and surveillance systems in Canada and gaps in the law and the need to bring Canada's oversight into the 21st century. Those gaps now, even five years later, are growing into chasms. And we've also had multiple investigative reports by the Privacy Commissioner of Canada being sent to Parliament about difficulties it's had reviewing the activities of law enforcement agencies, difficulties it's had with private sector companies who've been non-compliant with privacy legislation, and cooperating at all with the regulator. And we now have powers being put forward that would essentially say, for greater certainty, it's finders keepers rules. Anything in the public domain can be obtained and used by police without warrant. And while this has been put forward as a balancing of constitutional norms, the Supreme Court has said the opposite. It's not an all or nothing field. And in the context of commercial data brokers that are harvesting and selling our data, including mental health care that we might seek online, AI-fueled surveillance tools that are otherwise unchecked in the Canadian domain. I think this is a frankly stunning response to the context of the threats that we face. And I really think it sends and creates really problematic questions around what law enforcement and other government agencies are expected to do in the context of future privacy reviews when essentially everything that's been happening is supposedly being green lit with this new completely un-nuanced power. I should note you are certainly not alone in theseNate Erskine-Smith24:57-27:07concerns. I mean, in addition to the paper that I was talking about at the outset that you've written as an analyst that alongside Ron Deaver in the Citizen Lab. But there's another open letter you've signed that's called for the withdrawal of C2, but it's led by open media. I mean, BCCLA, British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian Council for Refugees, QP, International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group, Penn Canada, the Center for Free Expression, privacy experts like Colin Bennett, who I used be on the Privacy Committee and that were pretty regular witnesses. You mentioned the Privacy Commissioner has not signed the open letter, but the Privacy Commissioner of both Canada and the Information Commissioner of Ontario, who's also responsible for privacy. In the context of the treaties that you were mentioning, the Budapest Convention in particular, they had highlighted concerns absent updated, modernized legislation. And at the federal level, we have had in fits and starts attempts to modernize our private sector privacy legislation. But apart from a consultation paper at one point around the Privacy Act, which would apply to public sector organizations, there's really been no serious effort to table legislation or otherwise modernize that. So am I right to say, you know, we are creating a myriad number of problems with respect to watering down privacy and human rights protections domestically and especially in relation to foreign governments with relation to data of our citizens here. And we could potentially cure those problems, at least in part, if we modernize our privacy legislation and our privacy protections and human rights protections here at home. But we are, as you say, a gap to chasm. We are so woefully behind in that conversation. It's a bit of an odd thing to pass the open-ended data sharing and surveillance piece before you even have a conversation around updating your privacy protections.Kate Robertson27:07-28:13Yeah, I mean, frankly, odd, I would use the word irresponsible. We know that these tools, it's becoming increasingly well documented how impactful they are for communities and individuals, whether it's wrongful arrests, whether it's discriminatory algorithms. really fraught tools to say the least. And it's not as if Parliament does not have a critical role here. You know, in decades past, to use the example of surveillance within Quebec, which was ultimately found to have involved, you know, years of illegal activity and surveillance activities focused on political organizing in Quebec. And that led to Parliament striking an inquiry and ultimately overhauling the mandate of the RCMP. There were recommendations made that the RCMP needs to follow the law. That was an actual recommendation.Nate Erskine-Smith28:14-28:16I'm sorry that it needs to be said, but yeah.Kate Robertson28:16-29:05The safeguards around surveillance are about ensuring that when we use these powers, they're being used appropriately. And, you know, there isn't even, frankly, a guarantee that judicial oversight will enable this to happen. And it certainly provides comfort to many Canadians. But we know, for example, that there were phones being watched of journalists in Montreal with, unfortunately, judicial oversight not even that many years ago. So this is something that certainly is capable of leading to more abuses in Canada around political speech and online activity. And it's something that we need to be protective against and forward thinking about.Nate Erskine-Smith29:05-29:58Yeah, and the conversation has to hold at the same time considerations of public safety, of course, but also considerations for due process and privacy and human rights protections. These things, we have to do both. If we don't do both, then we're not the democratic society we hold ourselves out as. I said odd, you said irresponsible. You were forceful in your commentary, but the open letter that had a number of civil society organizations, I mentioned a few, was pretty clear to say the proposed legislation reflects little more than shameful appeasement of the dangerous rhetoric and false claims about our country emanating from the United States. It's a multi-pronged assault on the basic human rights and freedoms Canada holds dear. Got anything else to add?Kate Robertson30:00-30:56I mean, the elephant in the room is the context in which the legislation has been tabled within. And I do think that we're at a time where we are seeing democratic backsliding around the world, of course, and rising digital authoritarianism. And these standards really don't come out of the air. They're ones that need to be protected. And I do find myself, when I look at some of the really un-nuanced powers that are being put forward, I do find myself asking whether or not those risks are really front and center when we're proposing to move forward in this way. And I can only defer to experts from, as you said, hundreds of organizations that have called attention towards pretty much every aspect of this legislation.Nate Erskine-Smith30:57-31:44And I will have the benefit of engaging folks on the privacy side around lawful access and around concerns around changes to the asylum claim and due process from the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers. But as we do see this move its way through Parliament, if we see it move its way through Parliament in the fall, if they're recognizing that the call was for withdrawal, but also recognizing a political reality where if it is to pass, we want to make sure we are improving it as much as possible. If there are amendments along the way, if there are other people you think that I should engage with, please do let me know because this is before us. It's an important piece of legislation. And if it's not to be withdrawn, we better improve it as much as possible.Kate Robertson31:46-32:02I appreciate that offer and really commend you for covering the issue carefully. And I really look forward to more engagement from yourself and other colleagues in parliament as legislation is considered further. I expect you will be a witness at committee,Nate Erskine-Smith32:02-32:06but thanks very much for the time. I really appreciate it. Thanks for having me.Part 2: Adam SadinskyChapters:33:33 Concerns Over Asylum Eligibility in Canada36:30 Government Goals and Fairness for Refugee Claimants39:00 Changing Country Conditions and New Risks41:30 The Niagara Falls Example & Other Unfair Exclusions44:00 Frivolous vs. Legitimate Claims in the Refugee System47:00 Clearing the Backlog with Fair Pathways50:00 Broad Powers Granted to the Government52:00 Privacy Concerns and Closing ReflectionsNate Erskine-Smith33:33-33:35Adam, thanks for joining me.Adam Sadinsky33:35-33:36Thanks for having me, Nate.Nate Erskine-Smith33:36-33:57We've had a brief discussion about this, by way of my role as an MP, but, for those who are listening in, they'll have just heard a rundown of all the concerns that the Citizen Lab has with data surveillance and data sharing with law enforcement around the world. You've got different concerns about C2 and you represent the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers. What are your concerns here?Adam Sadinsky33:57-35:31I mean, our biggest concern with this bill is new provisions that create additional categories of folks ineligible to claim asylum in Canada. And specifically to have their hearings heard at the Immigration and Refugee Board. The biggest one of those categories is definitely, a bar on individuals making refugee claims in Canada one year after they have arrived in Canada, and that's one year, whether they have been in Canada for that whole year or they left at some point and came back. Those folks who have been here, who came more than a year ago, if they now fear persecution and want to make a claim for refugee protection, this bill would shunt them into an inferior system where rather than having a full hearing in their day in court.Their application will be decided by an officer of immigration, alone, sitting in the cubicle, probably, with some papers in front of them. That person is going to make an enormous decision about whether to send that person back home where they feared persecution, torture, death. Our position is that this new form of ineligibility. Is unfair. it doesn't meet the government's goals, as we understand them, and we share, we share the views of organizations like, Citizen Lab, that the bill should be withdrawn. There are other ways to do this, but this bill is fundamentally flawed.Nate Erskine-Smith35:31-35:57Let's talk about government goals. Those looking at the influx of temporary residents in Canada specifically, and I don't, and I don't wanna pick on international students, but we've seen a huge influx of international students just as one category example. And they've said, well, if someone's been here for a year and they didn't claim right away, they didn't come here to claim asylum. Because they would've claimed within that first year, presumably, you know, what's the problem with, uh, with a rule that is really trying to tackle this problem.Adam Sadinsky35:57-38:33The issue is, I mean, Nate, you had mentioned, you know, people who had come to Canada, they didn't initially claim and it didn't initially claim asylum, temporary residents. What do we do about it? I wanna give a couple of examples of people who would be caught by this provision, who fall into that category. But there's legitimate reasons why they might claim more than a year after arriving in Canada. The first is someone who came to Canada, student worker, whatever. At the time they came to Canada, they would've been safe going back home they didn't have a fear of returning back home. But country conditions change and they can change quickly. The Taliban takeover of Afghanistan in 2021, was a stark example there may have been people who came to Canada as students planning to go back to Afghanistan and rebuild their country. As the bill is currently written. If there were to be a situation like that, and there will be some other Afghanistan, there will be some other situation down the line. Those people who weren't afraid when they originally came to Canada and now have a legitimate claim, will have an inferior, process that they go through, one that is riddled with issues, examples of unfairness compared to the refugee, the regular refugee system, and a lack of protection from deportation, pending any appeal.So that's one category. A second category is people who were afraid of going back home when they came to Canada but didn't need to claim asylum because they had another avenue to remain in Canada. So the government advertised, Minister Frazier was saying this often come to Canada, come as a student and there's a well-established pathway. You'll have a study permit, you'll get a post-graduation work permit. This is what the government wanted. The rug has been pulled out from under many of those people. Towards the end of last year when Canada said, okay, it's enough, too many temporary residents. But what about the temporary residents who had a fear of returning home when they came? They went through the system the “right way,” quote unquote. They didn't go to the asylum system. they went through another path. And now they're looking at it. They say, well, you know, I came to Canada to study, but also I'm gay and I'm from a country where, if people know about that, you know, I'll be tortured. Maybe since they've been in Canada, that person in that example, they've been in a relationship, they've been posting on social media with their partner. It is very dangerous so why, why shouldn't that person claim refugee protection through regular means?Nate Erskine-Smith38:33-39:06Is this right on your read of the law as it is written right now, if someone were to come with their family when they're a kid and they were to be in Canada for over a year and then their family were to move back to either the home country or to a different country, and, they wake up as a teenager many years later, they wake up as an adult many years later and their country's falling apart, and they were to flee and come to Canada. By virtue of the fact they've been here for a year as a kid, would that preclude them from making a claim?Adam Sadinsky39:06-39:10It's even worse than that, Nate.Nate Erskine-Smith39:09-39:10Oh, great.Adam Sadinsky39:10-39:47In your example, the family stayed in Canada for more than a year. Yes, absolutely. That person is caught by this provision. But here's who else would be someone comes when they're five years old with their family, on a trip to the United States. during that trip, they decide we want to see the Canadian side of Niagara Falls. They either have a visa or get whatever visa they need, or don't need one. They visit the falls, and at that point that they enter Canada, a clock starts ticking. That never stops ticking. So maybe they came to Canada for two hours.Nate Erskine-Smith39:44-39:45Two hours and you're outta luck.Adam Sadinsky39:45-39:47They go back to the USNate Erskine-Smith39:47-39:47Oh man.Adam Sadinsky39:47-40:09They never come back to Canada again. The way that the bill is written, that clock never stops ticking, right? Their country falls apart. They come back 15 years later. That person is going to have a very different kind of process that they go through, to get protection in Canada, than someone who wouldn't be caught by this bill.Nate Erskine-Smith40:09-40:34Say those are the facts as they are, that's one category. There's another category where I've come as a student, I thought there would be a pathway. I don't really fear persecution in my home country, but I want to stay in Canada we see in this constituency office, as other constituency offices do people come with immigration help or they've got legitimate claims. We see some people come with help with illegitimate claimsAdam Sadinsky40:34-42:46We have to be very careful when we talk about categorizing claims as frivolous. There is no question people make refugee claims in Canada that have no merit. You'll not hear from me, you'll not hear from our organization saying that every 100% of refugee claims made in Canada, are with merit. The issue is how we determine. At that initial stage that you're saying, oh, let's, let's deal quickly with frivolous claims. How do you determine if a claim is frivolous? What if someone, you know, I do a lot of appeal work, we get appeals of claims prepared by immigration consultants, or not even immigration consultants. And, you know, there's a core of a very strong refugee claim there that wasn't prepared properly.Nate Erskine-Smith42:46-42:46Yeah, we see it too. That's a good point.Adam Sadinsky42:46-42:46How that claim was prepared has nothing to do with what the person actually faces back home. We have to be very careful in terms of, quick negative claims, and clearing the decks of what some might think are frivolous claims. But there may be some legitimate and very strong core there. What could be done, and you alluded to this, is there are significant claims in the refugee board's backlog that are very, very strong just based on the countries they come from or the profiles of the individuals who have made those claims, where there are countries that have 99% success rate. And that's not because the board is super generous. It's because the conditions in those countries are very, very bad. And so the government could implement policies and this would be done without legislation to grant pathways for folks from, for example, Eritrea 99ish percent success rate. However, the government wants to deal with that in terms of numbers, but there's no need for the board to spend time determining whether this claim is in the 1%, that doesn't deserve to be accepted. Our view is that 1% being accepted is, a trade off for, a more efficient system.Nate Erskine-Smith42:46-43:30Similarly though, individuals who come into my office and they've been here for more than five years. They have been strong contributors to the community. They have jobs. They're oftentimes connected to a faith organization. They're certainly connected to a community based organization that is going to bat for them. There's, you know, obviously no criminal record in many cases they have other family here. And they've gone through so many appeals at different times. I look at that and I go, throughout Canadian history, there have been different regularization programs. Couldn't you kick a ton of people not a country specific basis, but a category specific basis of over five years, economic contributions, community contributions, no criminal record, you're approved.Adam Sadinsky43:30-44:20Yeah, I'd add to your list of categories, folks who are working in, professions, that Canada needs workers in. give the example of construction. We are facing a housing crisis. So many construction workers are not Canadian. Many of my clients who are refugee claimants waiting for their hearings are working in the construction industry. And the government did that, back in the COVID pandemic, creating what was, what became known as the Guardian Angels Program, where folks who were working in the healthcare sector, on the front lines, combating the pandemic, supporting, folks who needed it, that they were allowed to be taken again out of the refugee queue with a designated, pathway to permanent residents on the basis of the work and the contribution they were doing. All of these could be done.Adam Sadinsky44:20-45:05The refugee system is built on Canada's international obligations under the refugee convention, to claim refugee protection, to claim asylum is a human right. Every person in the world has the right to claim asylum. Individuals who are claiming asylum in Canada are exercising that right. Each individual has their own claim, and that's the real value that the refugee board brings to bear and why Canada has had a gold standard. The refugee system, replicated, around the world, every individual has their day in court, to explain to an expert tribunal why they face persecution. This bill would take that away.Nate Erskine-Smith45:05-46:18Yeah, I can't put my finger on what the other rationale would be though, because why the, why this change now? Well, we have right now, a huge number over a million people who are going to eventually be without status because they're not gonna have a pathway that was originally, that they originally thought would be there. The one frustration I have sometimes in the system is there are people who have come into my office with, the original claim, being unfounded. But then I look at it, and they've been here partly because the process took so long, they've been here for over five years. If you've been here for over five years and you're contributing and you're a member of the community, and now we're gonna kick you out. Like your original claim might have been unfounded, but this is insane. Now you're contributing to this country, and what a broken system. So I guess I'm sympathetic to the need for speed at the front end to ensure that unfounded claims are deemed unfounded and people are deported and legitimate claims are deemed founded, and they can be welcomed. So cases don't continue to come into my office that are over five or over six years long where I go, I don't even care if it was originally unfounded or not. Welcome to Canada. You've been contributing here for six years anyway.Adam Sadinsky46:18-46:33But if I can interject? Even if the bill passes as written, each of these individuals is still going to have what's called a pre-removal risk assessment.Nate Erskine-Smith46:31-46:33They're still gonna have a process. Yeah, exactly.Adam Sadinsky46:33-46:55They're still gonna have a process, and they're still going to wait time. All these people are still in the system. The bill is a bit of a shell game where folks are being just transferred from one process to another and say, oh, wow. Great. Look, we've reduced the backlog at the IRB by however many thousand claims,Nate Erskine-Smith46:53-46:55And we've increased the backlog in the process.Adam Sadinsky46:55-48:25Oh, look at the wait time at IRCC, and I'm sure you have constituents who come into your office and say, I filed a spousal sponsorship application two and a half years ago. I'm waiting for my spouse to come and it's taking so long. IRCC is not immune from processing delays. There doesn't seem to be, along with this bill, a corresponding hiring of hundreds and hundreds more pro officers. So, this backlog and this number of claims is shifting from one place to another. And another point I mentioned earlier within the refugee system within the board, when a person appeals a negative decision, right? Because, humans make decisions and humans make mistakes. And that's why we have legislative appeal processes in the system to allow for mistakes to be corrected. That appeal process happens within the board, and a person is protected from deportation while they're appealing with a pro. With this other system, it's different. The moment that an officer makes a negative decision on a pro that person is now eligible to be deported. CBSA can ask them to show up the next day and get on a plane and go home. Yes, a person can apply for judicial review in the federal court that does not stop their deportation. If they can bring a motion to the court for a stay of removal.Nate Erskine-Smith48:19-48:25You're gonna see a ton of new work for the federal court. You are gonna see double the work for the federal courtAdam Sadinsky48:25-48:39Which is already overburdened. So unless the government is also appointing many, many new judges, and probably hiring more Council Department of Justice, this backlog is going to move from one place to another.Nate Erskine-Smith48:39-48:41It's just gonna be industry whack-a-mole with the backlog.Adam Sadinsky48:41-48:52The only way to clear the backlog is to clear people out of it. There's no fair way to clear folks out of it in a negative way. So the only way to do that is positively.Nate Erskine-Smith48:52-49:37In the limited time we got left, the bill also empowers the governor and council of the cabinet to cancel documents, to suspend documents. And just so I've got this clearer in my mind, so if, for example: say one is a say, one is a student on campus, or say one is on a, on a work permit and one is involved in a protest, and that protest the government deems to be something they don't like. The government could cancel the student's permit on the basis that they were involved in the protest. Is that right? The law? Not to say that this government would do that. But this would allow the government to legally do just that. Am I reading it wrong?Adam Sadinsky49:37-50:46The bill gives broad powers to the government to cancel documents. I think you're reading it correctly. To me, when I read the bill, I don't particularly understand exactly what is envisioned. Where it would, where the government would do this, why a government would want to put this in. But you are right. I would hope this government would not do that, but this government is not going to be in power forever. When you put laws on the books, they can be used by whomever for whatever reason they can they want, that's within how that law is drafted. You know, we saw down south, you know, the secretary of State a few months ago said, okay, we're gonna cancel the permits of everyone from South Sudan, in the US because they're not taking back people being deported. It's hugely problematic. It's a complete overreach. It seems like there could be regulations that are brought in. But the power is so broad as written in this law, that it could definitely be used, for purposes most Canadians would not support.Nate Erskine-Smith50:46-51:07And, obviously that's a worst case scenario when we think about the United States in today's political climate. But, it's not clear to your point what the powers are necessary for. If we are to provide additional powers, we should only provide power as much as necessary and proportionate to the goal we want to achieve. Is there anything else you want to add?Adam Sadinsky51:07-51:43I just wanna touch, and I'm sure you got into a lot of these issues, on the privacy side but. The privacy issues in this bill bleed over into the refugee system with broad search powers, um, particularly requiring service providers to provide information, we are concerned these powers could be used by CBSA, for example, to ask a women's shelter, to hand over information about a woman claiming refugee protection or who's undocumented, living in a shelter, we have huge concerns that, you know, these powers will not just be used by police, but also by Canada Border Services and immigration enforcement. I'm not the expert on privacy issues, but we see it we see the specter of those issues as well.Nate Erskine-Smith51:43-52:22That's all the time we got, but in terms of what would help me to inform my own advocacy going forward is, this bill is gonna get to committee. I'm gonna support the bill in committee and see if we can amend it. I know, the position of CARL is withdraw. The position of a number of civil society organizations is to withdraw it. I think it's constructive to have your voice and others at committee, and to make the same arguments you made today with me. Where you have. I know your argument's gonna be withdrawn, you'll say then in the alternative, here are changes that should be made. When you've got a list of those changes in detailed, legislative amendment form, flip them to me and I'll share the ideas around the ministry and around with colleagues, and I appreciate the time. Appreciate the advocacy.Adam Sadinsky52:22-52:24Absolutely. Thank you. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.uncommons.ca

We replay a conversation with Dr Susie Allanson and Lizzie O'Shea from 12 July 2022 about the fight for reproductive rights in Australia. Dr Susie Allanson was a clinical psychologist for more than 35 years. Twenty-six of those years were at the Fertility Control Clinic in Melbourne. Susie led the clinic's campaign for safe access to abortion. Lizzie O'Shea is a lawyer and writer. Lizzie represented the Fertility Control Clinic in the Supreme Court case to stop the harassment of staff and patients by anti-abortion fanatics. Together they wrote the book, 'Empowering Women: From Murder & Misogyny to High Court Victory'. In this conversation Dr Susie Allanson begins by speaking about their book and then Lizzie O'Shea speaks about the overturning of Roe v Wade and provides more insight into the Australian context. Please note that since the airing of this conversation, WA has decriminalised abortion as of 27 March 2024. Dr Sophie Rudolph, Senior Research Fellow in the Faculty of Education at the University of Melbourne, researches the educational implications of settler colonialism and is engaged with a range of communities in efforts towards transforming systems of oppression. Sophie speaks about the Anti-Palestinian Racism in Schools' report (which she co-authored) that was launched on Friday 26 September 2025. The report brings together 15 months of testimonies from students, teachers, and school community members, revealing how anti-Palestinian racism is deployed and normalised in schools.  Bee leads the Asian Migrant Project at Vixen. They do outreach and support work and advocate for sex workers. They are also one of the co-founders of Justice for Our Sisters, a collective of Asian and Asian Migrant sex workers in Naarm. Last time we had Bee on the show, we spoke  about the ongoing raids by Australian Border Force that are targeting Asian migrant sex workers, Vixen's new project called Rising Red Lantern, and what is required to achieve full decriminalisation of sex work in Victoria. Bee is back in the studio with us this morning to give us an update on the violence and threats made to Asian migrant sex workers and the upcoming fundraising event for Rising Red Lantern. *Listeners are advised that the conversation includes descriptions of police raids and references to violence against sex workers. If you are a migrant sex worker in need of support, you can reach out to your local peer organisation. That's Scarlet Alliance for the peak body at www.scarletalliance.org.au or Vixen in so-called Victoria at www.vixen.org.au. If you need to talk to someone about the issues covered in today's interview, you can also contact QLife on 1800 184 527 or go to www.qlife.org.au.Penny Carr is Convenor of National Association of Renters' Organisations. The National Association of Renters' Organisations (NARO) is a Federation of State and Territory based Tenants' Unions and Tenants Advice Services across Australia. This month, the National Association of Renters' Organisations has released a National Report Card into renting, two years on from the National Cabinet's promise of a 'Better Deal for Renters'. Penny speaks about the findings of the report card, what issues remain for renters, and what we need from governments to truly create a fair deal for renters.  Lucinda Thorpe is Privacy Campaigner at Digital Rights Watch. Lucinda is back on Tuesday Breakfast to talk about the Privacy Commissioner's recent landmark decision regarding KMart's use of facial recognition technology and the impacts that this surveillance tech has on our privacy and why it is dangerous to normalise the use of these tools. Songs:Pay Per View - Georgia MaqFeel it Change - Stella Donnelly

A former Wellington City Mayor has met with the Council CEO after her private papers were among confidential documents found in a desk bought from a dump sale. A man bought the desk at a city tip-shop and found termination agreements, whistleblower allegations, and staff pay details inside - dating from the 1980s to the 2000s. The council has launched a investigation and contacted the Privacy Commissioner. Dame Kerry Prendergast says it's appalling the documents have gotten out but says the meeting was reassuring. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On the Heather du Plessis-Allan Drive with Ryan Bridge Full Show Podcast for Tuesday 23rd September 2025, Workplace Relations Minister Brooke van Velden talks through the changes to our annual and sick leave entitlements. Ryan asks NZ First Deputy Leader Shane Jones whether the party is playing politics by invoking its "agree to disagree" clause over the government's latest immigration changes. We hear Autism New Zealand's reaction to the Trump's administrations "discovery" around the condition. And the Privacy Commissioner has a warning for retailers who post CCTV video and images of apparent shoplifters on social media. Get the Heather du Plessis-Allan Drive Full Show Podcast every weekday evening on iHeartRadio, or wherever you get your podcasts. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Privacy Commissioner has issued a warning for retailers who aim to publicly shame shoplifters. The Commissioner says businesses posting CCTV footage and images of crimes on social media causes 'real harm' - and doing so breaks privacy laws. Michael Webster says many of these images are posted to shame the perpetrators as opposed to sharing information - which breaches the Privacy Act. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Retail giant Kmart has been accused of violating customers' privacy with its use of facial recognition. The company says it trialled the technology to tackle increased theft and fraud and is considering appealing the Privacy Commissioner's ruling. - آسٹریلیا ریٹیل کی دنیا کے بڑے نام Kmart پر الزامات لگے ہیں کہ اُس نے فیشل ریکگنیشن ٹیکنالوجی استعمال کر کے اپنے صارفین کی پرائیویسی کی خلاف ورزی کی ہے تاہم کمپنی کا کہنا ہے کہ یہ ٹیکنالوجی صرف چوری اور فراڈ سے نمٹنے کے لیے آزمائشی طور پر استعمال کی گئی تھی، اور وہ اب پرائیویسی کمشنر کے فیصلے کے خلاف اپیل پر غور کر رہی ہے۔

Retail giant Kmart has been accused of violating customers' privacy with its use of facial recognition. The company says it trialled the technology to tackle increased theft and fraud and is considering appealing the Privacy Commissioner's ruling. - 零售巨头Kmart因使用人脸识别技术，被指侵犯顾客隐私。该公司表示，相关技术原为应对日益增加的盗窃与欺诈行为而试行，现正考虑对隐私专员的裁决提出上诉。点击 ▶ 收听完整报道。

Retail giant Kmart has been accused of violating customers' privacy with its use of facial recognition. The company says it trialled the technology to tackle increased theft and fraud and is considering appealing the Privacy Commissioner's ruling.

It is people, not laws, that drive privacy. What about privacy makes it universal across the world and throughout history? How do non-Western societies demonstrate how individuals, communities and civilisations instinctively cherish privacy? How did the Ancient Romans solve universal and timeless privacy problems around maintaining and verifying identity? This podcast series, Privacy Across Time & Space, was inspired by a panel discussion at the Venice Privacy Symposium in May 2025. In it we hear from global privacy leaders Alexander White (Queensland Privacy Commissioner), Alexandra Delaney-Bhattacharya (Isle of Man Information Commissioner) and Shana Morgan (Global Head of AI, L3Harris Tech). as they share inspiring stories of privacy as both an inalienable right and a practical solution that transcends global, political, and socio-economic boundaries. In this first episode, Commissioner Brent Homan talks with Alexander White, a former privacy advisor to the US Department of Homeland Security, Bermuda's first Privacy Commissioner and now Queensland's new Privacy Commissioner.

Listen in with host Paul Spain and tech journalist Bill Bennett for a thought-provoking discussion on the government's proposed road user charges and what data tracking in vehicles really means for privacy and everyday Kiwis. Motorola's One NZ partnership and new Phone lineup, Privacy Commissioner's new rules on biometric data, the challenges of cloud and data centre infrastructure, Spark's recent business shifts, and why satellite broadband is shaking up the telco market. If you care about privacy, tech innovation, or how global giants and local players are shaping the future, this episode is packed with insights you won't want to miss. Thanks to our Partners One NZ, Workday, 2degrees, HP, Spark and Gorilla Technology

GenAI as Therapist A New York Times op-ed explores how people are using ChatGPT for therapeutic conversations and emotional processing, raising questions about whether AI companions represent innovative digital self-care or a concerning workaround for unmet mental health needs.USA's "Make HealthTech Great Again" Pledge The White House hosted a summit with 60+ tech companies to sign a HealthTech Ecosystem pledge promoting data interoperability and AI in healthcare, though questions remain about whether this represents genuine reform or just encourages data sharing with private platforms while healthcare infrastructure gets decimated.Australia Gets Tough on De-Identification Australia's Privacy Commissioner issued new guidance clarifying that supposedly "de-identified" health data used for AI training may still qualify as personal information, potentially ending the era of inadequately anonymised data sharing and pushing the industry toward synthetic data or on-premise learning.OpenAI's Kenya Study: Clinical Copilot in Action OpenAI's real-world study with Penda Health in Kenya showed their GPT-4o clinical copilot reduced diagnostic errors by 16% and treatment errors by 13% across 40,000 patient visits, demonstrating measurable improvements when AI is properly integrated into clinical workflows.George and Louise chat with Dr Danny Sands - Pioneer of participatory medicine, discusses the origins of the e-patient movement and participatory medicine, from early email communication with patients and exploring how to maintain human connection while embracing technological advancementConnect with Danny on LinkedInResources:NY Times I'm a Therapist. ChatGPT Is Eerily Effective LinkAustralian Privacy Commissioner ruling LinkSands (2025) From Internet to Artificial Intelligence (Al) Bots: Symbiotic Evolutions of Digital Technologies and e-Patients LinkShout outs to: Liz Salmi, ePatientDave, Danny Sands, Ian Opperman, Gavin Andrews, Dr Amit Thacker Africa Health BusinessVisit Pulse+IT.news to subscribe to breaking digital news, weekly newsletters and a rich treasure trove of archival material. People in the know, get their news from Pulse+IT – Your leading voice in digital health news.Follow us on LinkedIn Louise | George | Pulse+ITFollow us on BlueSky Louise | George | Pulse+ITSend us your questions pulsepod@pulseit.newsProduction by Octopod Productions | Ivan Juric

The local health unit says West Nile is back in Chatham-Kent, but only in mosquitoes. There's another peaceful protest coming up in Dresden this weekend, opposing a proposed landfill expansion just outside of town. Some brand new Canadian theatre productions will be showcased in Chatham this week. Provincial divisions were on display ahead of the premiers' meeting with Prime Minister Mark Carney today. A provincial pilot project that used paramedics to support seniors living in their homes is being made permanent. Canada's Privacy Commissioner is investigating a cyberattack at WestJet. Major League Baseball is calling up its first-ever female umpire this Saturday.

The final biometrics code, which governs how technology such as facial recognition, is collected and used, has just been released by the Office of the Privacy Commissioner. 

Project Ontario is a grassroots organization calling on the Ontario government to adopt more fiscally conservative policies. But how does their charge stand up against Premier Doug Ford's three majority governments? Steve Paikin and John Michael McGrath discuss what conservatives are saying. A new report from the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario revealed that Doug Ford's staff members were using code words to talk about the Greenbelt deal. Steve and John Michael discuss the revelations and the connection to Ford's comments on First Nations relationships surrounding Bill 5. The Toronto Transit Commission has been given the keys to the Eglinton Light Rail Transit line, so does that mean an opening date is in sight? Steve and JMM discuss why people still need to hold their horses as the line heads into a long period of stress testing. Steve's column: https://www.tvo.org/article/analysis-how-the-1985-election-changed-ontario-politics-forever JMM's column: https://www.tvo.org/article/analysis-could-ontarios-recycling-changes-leave-cities-holding-the-bag Credit: T-shirt image of Frank Miller - Anthony Miles/King's Printer for Ontario/wikipedia.orgSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Foodstuffs is hoping to bring retail crime down after a successful trial of live facial recognition technology. The Privacy Commissioner has deemed Foodstuffs North Island's trial compliant with the Privacy Act, and effective in reducing harm. But his report states there's more work to do. General Counsel for Foodstuffs North Island, Julian Benefield, says retail crime has put staff at risk - and the company's hoping to change that. "Our trial has been a success, it found that technology was effective in reducing harm. Our independent evaluator found a 16 percent reduction in serious harm incidents across the trial period - and over 100 serious incidents avoided." LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Tonight on The Huddle, former Labour Minister Stuart Nash and Jack Tame from ZB's Saturday Mornings and Q&A joined in on a discussion about the following issues of the day - and more! The Government wants state owned enterprises to pick up its game - or else? Chris Luxon has ruled out asset sales this term, but do we think they're on the horizon? The Privacy Commissioner has given the thumbs up to Foodstuffs' facial recognition software. Would we mind if this technology was rolled out nation-wide? LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Foodstuffs is hoping to bring retail crime down after a successful trial of live facial recognition technology. The Privacy Commissioner has deemed Foodstuffs North Island's trial compliant with the Privacy Act, and effective in reducing harm. But his report states there's more work to do. General Counsel for Foodstuffs North Island, Julian Benefield, says retail crime has put staff at risk - and the company's hoping to change that. "Our trial has been a success, it found that technology was effective in reducing harm. Our independent evaluator found a 16 percent reduction in serious harm incidents across the trial period - and over 100 serious incidents avoided." LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I am really torn. Because when it comes to facial recognition technology, I've always been of the view that if you're not doing anything wrong, there's nothing to worry about. But, at the risk of sounding like I'm going a bit “civil liberties” on it, I'm starting to change my tune a bit. Which I'll admit is a bit weird considering the Privacy Commissioner has announced that he's all good with the facial recognition trial that Foodstuffs supermarkets have been doing in the North Island. But what's making me feel uneasy is the potential for this tick of approval from the Privacy Commissioner to be seen as a licence for anyone and everyone to use facial recognition however they want. Because there's an outfit in Christchurch —which isn't a supermarket— using facial recognition technology right now. Which shows why the Privacy Commissioner is also saying that, as well as the Foodstuffs trial being all good, we need to tread carefully with how this technology is used. He's not saying it outright, but I think we're on a slippery slope if we don't make sure there are better legal safeguards in place to make sure businesses and organisations —and individuals too possibly— don't start using facial recognition however and wherever they want. So that we don't look up in two years' time and realise that we've got a runaway train on our hands. Which is why I don't think Michael Webster giving his tick of approval for what Foodstuffs North Island has been doing —saying that it complies with the Privacy Act— is the be-all and end-all. I know you would think that it might reassure me that I've been on the right track thinking that only people breaking the law need to be worried about facial recognition technology. But I'm not so sure. Because it's not just supermarkets in the North Island giving facial recognition a go. The Richmond Club, in Christchurch, is also using it. I've seen a photo of a poster on the wall at the Richmond Club telling users of its pokie machines that it's trialling facial recognition software to help it keep an eye on problem gamblers. The sign says: “The Richmond Club is currently trialling facial recognition software - however, this is only in the gaming room.” The poster says: “Such footage is used in conjunction with our CCTV surveillance cameras and other publicly-available sources of imagery to assist in identifying individuals for a variety of reasons.” And it goes on to say that it's all about identifying problem gamblers and that all footage is destroyed when someone who has been playing the machines leaves the room. The person who sent me this photo said they spoke to half of the people in the gaming room at the time and none of them were aware that facial recognition was being used, despite the sign on the wall. And they didn't like the sound of it. Which I can understand. Because using pokie machines isn't illegal. Even though I can't stand pokie machines, they're not illegal. Just like having a gambling problem isn't illegal. Stealing stuff from a supermarket is illegal, but going and playing the pokies on a Saturday afternoon isn't. Yes, the Richmond Club is legally obliged to look out for problem gamblers, but does it need facial recognition to do that? There's no doubt it's probably very useful, but I reckon the club could easily look out for people without facial recognition. And I would, generally, say that using facial recognition to track people doing anything that isn't illegal, is not what it should be used for. I heard the Privacy Commissioner Michael Webster saying this morning that people are, generally, happy for it to be used to try and stop crime. But at the same time, people are concerned about it being misused. He referred to a survey his office did which found that two thirds of people are happy to see increased use of facial recognition if it reduces theft and enhances personal safety. But it also found that 49% of people are concerned or very concerned about facial recognition technology being mis-used. These survey findings also said that 64% of people are concerned about not being told about or agreeing to the use of facial recognition technology. So the Richmond Club in Christchurch is ticking the box on that front, with the poster on the wall telling people that it's trialling facial recognition in the gaming room. But I think we're in real danger of this technology being used in ways that most of us would consider to be over the top. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In today's episode, according to results out on Wednesday morning, the left bloc would have enough support to govern, the Privacy Commissioner says facial recognition technology in North Island supermarkets has potential safety benefits, despite raising significant privacy concerns, after a shareholders meeting on Tuesday media company NZME - which owns the New Zealand Herald and Newstalk ZB - has a revamped board and an historic ship at the Paihia waterfront in Northland has been 90 percent destroyed by fire.

The Privacy Commissioner says facial recognition technology in North Island supermarkets has potential safety benefits, despite raising significant privacy concerns. Commissioner Michael Webster spoke to Corin Dann.

Foodstuffs North Island's facial recognition trial might have the tick of approval overall, but there's still work to do. The Privacy Commission's ruled the trial was compliant with the Privacy Act and was successful in reducing harmful behaviour. But Commissioner Michael Webster told Mike Hosking they're recommending Foodstuffs keep systems updated and review impacts of skin tone on identification accuracy. Webster says there are still concerns over technical bias issues due to the software coming from overseas. It's also made recommendations for other interested businesses. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On Episode 87, we tell you about Toronto's new bubble zone bylaw (a.k.a. protest ban), we discuss whether police can use Clearview AI facial recognition technology without violating privacy rights, and we update you on our latest win for free speech in Whitehorse, Yukon. Stories and cases discussed in this week's episode: CCF to drop lawsuit after Whitehorse amends speech-restricting Civility Policy (CCF)Some protests in Toronto are crossing lines. We shouldn't let city staff decide where those lines are (Toronto Star)Carson Jerema: The Governor General just undermined the King of Canada (National Post)Clearview AI Inc. v Information and Privacy Commissioner for British Columbia (CanLii)Not Reserving Judgment is a podcast about Canadian constitutional law hosted by Josh Dehaas, Joanna Baron, and Christine Van Geyn. The show is brought to you by the Canadian Constitution Foundation, a non-partisan legal charity dedicated to defending rights and freedoms. To support our work, visit theccf.ca/donate.

Almost 2 years ago we did a deep dive on the Western Standard and where they get their funding from, despite claims they accept no government funding whatsoever.As we finally got our FOIP results back after involvement from the office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner, this is a follow up on the 100's of thousands of taxpayer dollars that the Western Standard has recieved from Danielle Smith's government!And on that note...If you're able to support our legal defense fund to fight back against the $6 Million lawsuit against us by Sam Mraiche, the man who imported Vanch masks and the Turkish Tylenot as well as who hosted MLA's and Ministers in his skybox as he had business with the government...You can do that at www.savethebreakdownab.ca!As always, if you appreciate the kind of content that we're trying to produce here at The Breakdown, please consider signing up as a monthly supporter at our Patreon site at www.patreon.com/thebreakdownab and we can now accept e-transfers at info@thebreakdownab.ca!If you're listening to the audio version of our podcast, please consider leaving us a review and a rating, and don't forget to like and follow us on Bluesky, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and Threads!

 More body cameras for Loblaws staff: a security measure or threat to privacy? GUEST: Ann Cavoukian, former 3-term Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario, and Executive Director at Global Privacy & Security by Design Centre The road to the federal election: who's on top? GUEST: Max Cameron, Professor at UBC's Department of Political Science Will Poilievre's proposed GST cut bring relief to homebuyers? GUEST: Michael Geller, President of The Geller Group, Architect, Planner and Real Estate Consultant Canada's Song: a tribute by Glass Tiger's Alan Frew GUEST: Alan Frew, lead singer of Glass Tiger Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The province has been trying to change the way Freedom of Information works in this province. The outgoing privacy commissioner, Tricia Ralph chats about that, and the challenges facing her successor. 

The provincial government has been trying to change the way Freedom of Information works in this province. We spoke to outgoing privacy commissioner Tricia Ralph about that, and some of the challenges facing her successor.

Every time a Canadian sends an email, streams a video, or stores a file in the cloud, there's a good chance their data is taking an unnecessary detour through the United States. That was always a vulnerability but with the U.S. government spiraling into instability under Trump's MAGA administration, it's becoming an outright threat. Trump's erratic foreign policy, public hostility toward allies, and reckless trade aggression have turned global stability into a gamble. The U.S. is no longer behaving like a reliable partner; it's acting like a volatile power willing to weaponize tariffs, intelligence networks, and even border agreements to serve a hardline nationalist agenda. Canada's digital infrastructure, which remains dangerously dependent on U.S. routes and data centers, is now a weak point in a world where economic warfare and political intimidation are becoming routine. While other nations are fortifying their digital borders, Canada continues to rely on a country that, at any moment, could decide to use that access as leverage. This isn't just about privacy; it's about making sure Canada doesn't wake up one day to find its economy, security, and communications infrastructure caught in the crosshairs of an unstable neighbour. How U.S. Routing Betrays Canada Internet traffic doesn't follow borders, it follows the path of least resistance. For decades, Canadian telecom giants have relied on US routes to move data, citing cheaper bandwidth and existing infrastructure. However, this convenience comes at a steep cost: About 81% of Canadian internet traffic is routed through the US because of how these routes are set up. Once on American soil, data becomes subject to the Patriot Act, which grants US authorities sweeping powers to access, monitor, and even seize information stored by companies under their jurisdiction regardless of its origin. This means sensitive health records, financial transactions, and confidential corporate communications from Vancouver to St. John's could be intercepted by foreign agencies. Worse, Canada has no legal recourse to challenge these intrusions. The former Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Daniel Therrien, has asked the government to make more concrete efforts in this regard and asked that all Canadians should have a resource/easy remedy if their privacy rights are violated. This is the natural result of what's called "Boomerang routing." At least 25% of Canada's domestic internet data detours through MAGA land, meaning every fourth image, video, and email passes through American cyberspace. This is often due to business strategies by large domestic carriers like Bell and Telus. However, this dependency on US infrastructure poses risks to data security, weakens Canada's bargaining power, and highlights the need for stronger national network sovereignty?. Boomerang routing exposes Canadians to risks from NSA surveillance, especially for individuals labelled as "persons of interest" and for corporations handling sensitive data like intellectual property. Spying, Leverage, and Economic Control The risk to Canada, when its internet traffic is so heavily routed from the US and sits outside the domain of Canadian privacy laws during a major part of its transit, is multifaceted. Surveillance Overreach: The Patriot Act isn't theoretical. In 2013, Edward Snowden's leaks revealed that US agencies routinely collect bulk data crossing their networks. Canadian information is swept up in this dragnet, leaving citizens and businesses vulnerable to espionage. Geopolitical Leverage: With the rise of MAGA-aligned leadership in the US a movement openly skeptical of international alliances Canada's reliance on US digital highways becomes a strategic liability. Should tensions escalate, critical data flows could be throttled or weaponized in trade disputes. Economic Consequences: Every byte routed abroad weakens Canada's control over its digital economy. Startups hesitate to host data locally due to perceived inse...

On today's episode, the Privacy Commissioner will now investigate whether Census and Covid-19 vaccination data shared with Manurewa Marae was misused for election purposes, Russia and the US have concluded their first direct talks since Moscow's invasion of Ukraine 3 years ago, and Olympic high jump champion Hamish Kerr was named Sportsman of the Year, ahead of kayak cross Olympic gold medallist Finn Butcher, triathlete Hayden Wilde, footballer Chris Wood and the jockey James McDonald.

The Privacy Commissioner will now investigate whether Census and Covid-19 vaccination data shared with Manurewa Marae was misused for election purposes. Waipareira Trust and president of Te Pāti Māori John Tamihere spoke to Corin Dann.

Cybersecurity Today: North Korean Hacks, AI Memory Breach, and School Data Comprimise In this episode of Cybersecurity Today, host Jim Love covers a range of crucial topics in the cybersecurity landscape. North Korean hackers are using new social engineering tactics to infiltrate systems by posing as South Korean officials, while prompt injection attacks are compromising the long-term memory of Google's Gemini AI. Canada's Privacy Commissioner is investigating a significant data breach affecting students' personal information in PowerSchool, and the FBI's Operation Level Up is tackling cryptocurrency investment frauds, potentially saving victims millions. Get the latest insights and stay informed on how to protect yourself against these evolving threats. 00:00 Introduction and Headlines 00:23 North Korean Hackers' New Tactics 02:35 Prompt Injection Attacks on AI 04:37 Canada's PowerSchool Data Breach 06:38 FBI's Operation Level Up 09:20 Conclusion and Upcoming AI Show

On the Mike Hosking Breakfast Full Show Podcast for Thursday 13th of February, there's potential reforms for both the fisheries and media sector – will either make an impact? Can you still buy KFC and rent a house? The Privacy Commissioner has new rules for what landlords can and can't look through bank accounts for. Kiwi golfer Ben Campbell has got a full-time gig with LIV Golf, and he joined to explain how it's currently running and whether the stigma still exists. Get the Mike Hosking Breakfast Full Show Podcast every weekday morning on iHeartRadio, or wherever you get your podcasts. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

A reminder landlords aren't privy to the personal information of their tenants. Privacy Commissioner Michael Webster says many renters feel the need during the busy rental season to disclose more about themselves to secure a flat. He says it can be tempting for landlords to collect this information when considering applications. Webster says there's also been issues in the past of landlords black-listing tenants and sharing their information when they've had issues. But he told Mike Hosking there are processes to protect landlord's property through bond arrangements in rental agreements and the Tenancy Tribunal. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

What are the unique challenges that come with managing cross-disciplinary teams? As Australia’s Privacy Commissioner, Carly Kind is a leading authority on the intersection of technology and human rights. She was also the director of the Ada Lovelace Institute, an organisation dedicated to ensuring data and AI are employed ethically. In this episode, Kind shares her insights into ''Silicon Valley bros", cross-disciplinary teams and the ethical use of tech. Join the movement to fast-track your professional development. Become an FW Diamond member today. Keep up with @futurewomen on Instagram, Facebook, LinkedIn and Threads See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

As a tenant, how do you know all the info your landlord collects is kept private?  What do they do with all that information?  What if there is a privacy breach and my info is compromised?  In today's episode I review the detailed email the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada provided with you.  There is an amazing amount of information for both tenants and landlords, including the Privacy Commissioner's ruling on security cameras in common areas AND "bad tenant lists".  Join me today for an amazing introduction into the privacy involved in rentals!

When Bunnings started to use facial recognition technology to check on who was in its stores, without the consent of customers, it raised alarm bells. It says the face scans were deleted within one second and the tech helped to make stores safer, by identifying thieves or people who've been violent. But at what cost? The hardware giant has now been found to have breached Australians' privacy.  Today, tech reporter Ange Lavoipierre on what Bunnings was up to, how the technology works and whether it's something to be wary of. She says the technology was used in 63 stores across Victoria and New South Wales over a three-year period. The Privacy Commissioner, Carly Kind, ruled that Bunnings' actions interfered with the privacy of potentially hundreds of thousands of customers. Ange Lavoipierre also discusses the broader implications of such surveillance technologies and the potential for misuse of biometric data.Featured: Ange Lavoipierre, ABC national technology reporterKey Topics:Facial recognition technologyPrivacy breach Retail surveillancePrivacy Commissioner Carly KindBiometric data misuseRetail security Consumer privacy rightsSurveillance technology

In this episode, Cam is again joined by Kaman Tsoi and, together, they continue the cross-examination of Privacy Commissioner Carly Kind. In this podcast, we talk about the role of the board, the OAIC's enforcement approach and the Cyber Security Strategy, including the Commissioner's view on the extortion demand ‘conundrum'. Commissioner Kind also offers some wise words on what it takes to be a good lawyer in the cyber space…courageous! Commissioner Kind is a very impressive individual. She brings a very pragmatic perspective to the role and her personality is coming through in the OAIC's approach and engagement. Thanks again for listening. This is Cross Examining Commissioner Kind, Part 2…here we go…

Send us a textOn this week of Serious Privacy, Paul Breitbarth of Catawiki and Dr. K Royal along with esteemed co-host and colleague Ralph O'Brien bring you the day 2 of the #GPA (Global Privacy Assembly) in #Jersey. We feature open conversations with Eduardo Ustaren of Hogan Lovells; Shana Morgan, Global Head of Privacy & AI Legal Compliance, L3Harris Technologies; Alexander McD White, the inaugural Privacy Commissioner for Bermuda and Patricia Kosseim, Commissioner, Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario (IPC). And forgive us - sometimes the conversation space was a little too open, but we have fabulous podcast tools (Riverside, Descript, and Auphonics!) Tune in for some #livinglearninglaughing. If you have comments or questions, find us on LinkedIn and IG @seriousprivacy @podcastprivacy @euroPaulB @heartofprivacy and on Blue Sky under the same - Serious Privacy, EuroPaulB, and HeartofPrivacy - and email podcast@seriousprivacy.eu. Rate and Review us! Proudly sponsored by TrustArc. Learn more about NymityAI at https://trustarc.com/nymityai-beta/ #heartofprivacy #europaulb #seriousprivacy #privacy #dataprotection #cybersecuritylaw #CPO #DPO #CISO

In this podcast series, we explore all things cyber, including the legal, regulatory and policy developments that impact corporates around the world. We look at the evolving cyber risk landscape, by speaking to those people who are on the frontline, protecting companies from cyber incidents and shaping the legal and regulatory environment. In this episode, Cam is joined by Kaman Tsoi, one of the country's most experienced and respected privacy lawyers. Together they cross-examine Privacy Commissioner Carly Kind. Commissioner Kind takes on her first role in the public sector (at the OAIC). She had a successful career working in human rights law with the UN (spending time in Geneva, New York and London) and then moved into privacy (and the intersection of human rights with technology). She has worked on strategic litigation and privacy policy advice. She is the founding director of the Ada Lovelace Foundation. In today's podcast we talk about the privacy reform agenda, the role of the regulator in strategic enforcement and the efficacy of the notifiable data breach regime. Commissioner Kind is an impressive individual, who brings a very practical approach to the role. Thanks again for listening. This is Cross Examining Commissioner Kind. Here we go…

This bonus episode of Dark Poutine is brought to you by MasterCard. In this special episode, we're exploring a growing threat hitting more close to home than ever—cybercrime. We've dived deep into all sorts of dark tales before, but this one is a bit different because it's happening right now, affecting people and businesses across Canada.   Sources: Mastercard Trust Centre | Cybersecurity Solutions for Every Business mastercard.ca/trust webcrunchers.com | Wayback Machine Elk Cloner John Draper Michael Calce Mafiaboy's story points to Net weaknesses Meet Mafiaboy, The 'Bratty Kid' Who Took Down The Internet 'Mafiaboy' breaks silence, paints 'portrait of a hacker' | CNN A Q&A with MafiaBoy Canadian Centre for Cyber Security Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada | FinTRAC Cyber attacks in Canada | Konbriefing.com Why Canada has so many cyberattacks—and why we're all at risk | MacLeans Cyber attacks are getting easier, experts warn after 3rd federal incident | GlobalNews National Equifax hacked: Canadians among those exposed by credit monitoring company's data breach - National PIPEDA Findings #2019-001: Investigation into Equifax Inc. and Equifax Canada Co.'s compliance with PIPEDA in light of the 2017 breach of personal information - Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada Am I Impacted? | LifeLabs LifeLabs hack: What Canadians need to know about the health data breach | GlobalNews Privacy breach alerts and information | Province of NS Cyber Incident | ADSC Ticketmaster Data Security Incident Cyber security and cybercrime challenges of Canadian businesses, 2017 The Daily — Impact of cybercrime on Canadian businesses, 2021 Canadian Small Business Cybersecurity Survival Guide - Canadian Chamber of Commerce Nearly half of small businesses have experienced random cyberattacks in the past year | CFIB Ransomware/ Cyber Incident | Toronto Zoo Baseline cyber threat assessment: Cybercrime - Canadian Centre for Cyber Security Cyber Attacks in Canada 2023: A Year in Review Criminal hackers 'very likely' to pose threat to national security, economy in near term: report | CBC News Data Responsibility & Governance Practices | Personal Data Security Cybercrime: an overview of incidents and issues in Canada | RCMP Significant Cyber Incidents | Strategic Technologies Program | CSIS National Cyber Threat Assessment 2023-2024 | Canadian Centre for Cyber Security Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Māori AI and data experts say the technology is primarily based on European-looking individuals and struggles to recognise people of colour, including Māori and Pasifika. Privacy Commissioner Michael Webster spoke to Ingrid Hipkiss.

PODCAST: This Week in Amateur Radio Edition #1332 - Full Version Release Date: September 7, 2024 Here is a summary of the news trending This Week in Amateur Radio. This week's edition is anchored by Chris Perrine, KB2FAF, Denny Haight, NZ8D, Dave Wilson, WA2HOY, Don Hulick, K2ATJ, Will Rogers, K5WLR, Marvin Turner, W0MET, Eric Zittel, KD2RJX, William Savacool, K2SAV, Joshua Marler, AA4WX, George Bowen, W2XBS, and Jessica Bowen, KC2VWX. Produced and edited by George Bowen, W2XBS. Approximate Running Time: 1:44:53 Podcast Download: https://bit.ly/TWIAR1332 Trending headlines in this week's bulletin service 1. FCC: FCC Rule Grants Drone Operators Spectrum Access For Navigation 2. AMSAT: Japanese Company Takes First Step Toward Removing Space Junk 3. AMSAT: The Starliner Spacecraft Has Started To Emit Strange Noises 4. AMSAT: Halibut Electronics Releases New EggNOGS Kit For Satellite Antennas 5. AMSAT: Satellite Shorts From All Over 6. WIA: Wireless Shimano Derailleurs Subject To Hacking 7. BB: Los Angeles Transit Agency Fears Revenue Hit If FCC Approves Spectrum Plan 8. ARRL: ARRL Utah Section Expanding Emergency Communication Capabilities 9. ARRL: Hams Respond As Hawaii Threatened By Three Major Storms 10. ARRL: September Is National Preparedness Month: Have A Go Kit 11. ARRL: Hawaiian Islands Grid Madness 2024 / Pacificon, Hosting The 2024 ARRL Pacific Division Convention 12. Czech Republic Youth On The Air Adventure Camp Winds Down 13. Incident Command System Adopted By ARES Into Its Traning 14. Patricia Nelson KE0QXD, Silent Key 15. Hams In India Reunite A Man With His Family Who Thought He Was Dead 16. $1 Million Payment Made By ARRL To Ransomware Hackers 17. A Spectrum Of Experience Is Provided By A Childrens Museum 18. MIssissippi Emergency Communicator 19. Faster, More Energy Efficient Operation Promised By New Transistor 20. ARRL: ARRL VEC Services Update During Systems Disruption 21. ARRL: Volunteer Monitoring Program Monthly Report 22. ARRL: Pacificon 2024 Convention Announced 23. ARRL: Upcoming RadioSport Contest Listing and Upcoming Conventions 24. AMSAT: Polaris Dawn is set for a historic launch and first commercial space walk 25. WIA: German Astronomer Johanness Kepler drew sunspots without knowing it 26. ITU: International Telecommunications Union updates its global treaty to enhance radio spectrum use worldwide 27. ARRL: ARRL Club Grants will be awarded in November 28. ARRL: Estate planning for hams - What happens to all your stuff? 29. ARRL: New England Vice Director K9HI presented with signed citation from Massachusetts Governor 30. Memorandum of Understanding is signed by the FCC and the Privacy Commissioner of Canada Plus these Special Features This Week: * Working Amateur Radio Satellites with Bruce Paige, KK5DO - AMSAT Satellite News - Get an update from AMSAT and what's new with all those amateur satellites in orbit *Australia's own Onno Benshop, VK6FLAB, and Foundations of Amateur Radio finds Onno Implementing the KISS, or Keep It Simple Stupid, principle to amateur radio, and takes a look at what happens to a new piece of computer gear when you plug it in * The DX Corner with Bill Salyers, AJ8B with all the latest news on DXpeditions, DX, upcoming Radio Sport contests, and more * Weekly Propagation Forecast from the ARRL with Solar Prognosticator Tadd Cook, K7RA in Seattle, Washington * Our own amateur radio historian, Will Rogers, K5WLR, returns with another edition of A Century Of Amateur Radio. This week, Will takes us back to see how the vacuum tube revolutionized radio, changing it more than any other single invention. This week we take a close up look at the invention of The Audion ----- Website: https://www.twiar.net X: https://x.com/TWIAR Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/groups/twiari YouTube: https://bit.ly/TWIARYouTube RSS News: https://twiar.net/?feed=rss2 Automated (Full): https://twiar.net/TWIARHAM.mp3 (Static file, updated weekly) Automated (1-hour): https://www.twiar.net/TWIAR1HR.mp3 (Static file, updated weekly) ----- This Week in Amateur Radio is produced by Community Video Associates in upstate New York, and is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. If you would like to volunteer with us as a news anchor or special segment producer please get in touch with our Executive Producer, George, via email at w2xbs77@gmail.com. Thanks to FortifiedNet.net for the server space! Thanks to Archive.org for the audio space.

EU AI Act – Why, What & How with Dr. Ann Cavoukian, Nicola Fabiano, Punit Bhatia and Raghu Bala   The EU AI Act. Let us demystify the EU AI Act in this podcast that features a panel of experts. Together, they delve into the reasoning behind the Act, its core tenets, why was it needed? What does it entail? How does this legislation benefit society? They also discuss the crucial topics of responsible AI, trustworthy AI, and ethics in AI. The conversation explores critical questions surrounding the Act's effectiveness, the technical preparedness of regulators, and its potential societal benefits. But the discussion doesn't stop there. The panel also tackles broader challenges in AI development, including mitigating bias in data and fostering ethical and responsible AI practices. Join us with Dr. Ann Cavoukian, Nicola Fabiano, Punit Bhatia and Raghu Bala as we embark on a journey to understand the significance of compliance with AI regulations, not just limited to the EU AI Act but within a broader global context.  KEY CONVERSATION POINT   Why did we need this EU AI Act?   What is this EU AI Act all about?  Do Lawmakers and regulators have sufficient technical expertise?  How does this EU AI Act help society?  How do we reach a state wherein data is not biased?  Responsible AI, trustworthy AI and ethics in AI.  How to start the journey to compliance with AI regulation? And when?   ABOUT THE GUEST  Dr. Ann Cavoukian is a globally recognized privacy expert, distinguished academic, and passionate advocate for privacy by design. As the former Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario, Canada, she pioneered the concept of Privacy by Design, which emphasizes embedding privacy protections into the design and operation of systems, processes, and technologies. Dr. Cavoukian's groundbreaking work has earned her numerous accolades, including being named as one of the Top 25 Women of Influence in Canada and receiving the Meritorious Service Medal from the Governor General of Canada. Her expertise is sought after globally, and she has served as a consultant, advisor, and speaker for governments, corporations, and academic institutions worldwide. Nicola Fabiano is a distinguished Italian lawyer with a rich background in data protection, privacy, and artificial intelligence (AI) regulation. As an adjunct professor at Ostrava University in Rome and a former President of the San Marino Data Protection Authority, he brings a wealth of expertise to the table. Nicola has served as a national expert for the Republic of San Marino on key committees of the Council of Europe, including those focused on Convention No. 108 and the Ad hoc Committee on Artificial Intelligence. With his extensive experience as a government advisor for drafting legislation on personal data protection and his innovative contributions such as the Data Protection and Privacy Relationships Model (DAPPREMO), Nicola is at the forefront of shaping AI policy and ethics. Raghu Bala is a distinguished technology thought leader, entrepreneur, and author whose expertise spans a broad spectrum of cutting-edge domains, including IoT, AI, blockchain, mobile technologies, cloud computing, and Big Data. With a unique blend of deep technical knowledge and robust business acumen, Raghu has established himself as a visionary in Internet-related ventures. As the CEO of UnifyGPT Agentic Platform and an instructor for MIT Sloan's AI, De-Fi, and Blockchain courses, he is at the forefront of shaping the future of technology. Raghu's impressive resume includes co-authorship of the Handbook on Blockchain and contributions as a Contributing Editor to Step into the Metaverse.  RESOURCES   Websites www.fit4privacy.com, www.punitbhatia.com   Podcast https://www.fit4privacy.com/podcast   Blog https://www.fit4privacy.com/blog   YouTube http://youtube.com/fit4privacy   

This episode reports on the latest patches from Microsoft, Nvidia, JetBrains and ARM, as well as action by the Privacy Commissioner of Canada