Transcript: Ann Cavoukian | Nov 12, 2006

[Theme music plays]

The opening sequence rolls. The logo of "Big Ideas" featuring a lit lamp bulb appears against an animated yellow slate.
Then, Andrew Moodie appears in the studio. The walls are decorated with screens featuring lit lamp bulbs, and two signs read "Big Ideas."
Andrew is in his early forties, clean-shaven, with short curly black hair. He's wearing a tan shirt.

Andrew says Hello, I'M ANDREW MOODIE;
THIS IS
BIG IDEAS.
AND THIS...

He shows a PCI circuit and says
IS AN OLD FAX MODEM.
NOW, WHEN I FIRST
BOUGHT THIS,
I WAS INSANE
WITH EXCITEMENT.
SUDDENLY, I WOULDN'T HAVE
TO BUY A FAX MACHINE.
I'D BE ABLE TO SEND
AND RECEIVE FAXES
USING MY COMPUTER.
BACK IN 1995, THAT'S
WHAT THESE WERE FOR.
BUT TODAY, THIS LITTLE
CHIP SET HAS BECOME
THE SINGLE GREATEST
DANGER TO MY PRIVACY.
JUST YESTERDAY, I BOUGHT
SOMETHING ONLINE,
AND I WAS ASKED FOR MY
ADDRESS, MY PHONE NUMBER,
MY EMAIL, MY CREDIT
CARD INFORMATION,
AND ACCORDING TO
ANN CAVOUKIAN,
I SHOULD BE VERY CONCERNED
ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS TO THAT
INFORMATION ONCE IT
GETS OUT ONTO THE WEB.
SHE SHOULD KNOW.
CAVOUKIAN IS THE CURRENT
INFORMATION AND PRIVACY
COMMISSIONER, AND SHE
IS HERE TO TALK ABOUT
SOCIAL NETWORKING
AND PRIVACY.

A clip plays in which Ann Kavoukian walks across a room in which dozens of people dine at round tables. She walks onto a stage.

[Applause]

Later, she stands behind a wooden lectern decorated with maple leaves, and addresses an unseen audience. She's in her late forties, with chestnut hair in a short bob. She's wearing a black blazer and a gold necklace.

She says UNAUTHORIZED USE AND
DISCLOSURE OF YOUR PERSONAL
INFORMATION IS
INCREASINGLY AT RISK,
AND SOMETHING WE HAVE
TO TAKE VERY SERIOUSLY.
BECAUSE YOU ARE
REQUIRED, COMPELLED
TO GIVE INFORMATION
TO THE STATE.
THINK OF WHEN YOU APPLY
FOR A DRIVER'S LICENSE,
OR HEALTH INFORMATION IS
PROVIDED IN THE CONTEXT
OF A PHYSICIAN WHO
BILLS UPON SEEING YOU.
THERE ARE SO MANY INSTANCES
WHERE YOU MUST GIVE
INFORMATION TO
THE GOVERNMENT.

A caption appears on screen. It reads "Ann Cavoukian. Information and Privacy Commissioner, Ontario. Arts and letters club, Toronto. October 12, 2006."

Ann continues BUT YOU MUST ONLY GIVE
THAT INFORMATION
TO THE GOVERNMENT FOR A VERY
NARROW AND PRESCRIBED USE.
IT'S NOT THAT THE GOVERNMENT
CAN DO WHATEVER IT WANTS
WITH THIS INFORMATION.
YOU KNOW THAT'S
NOT THE CASE.
WE'RE HERE TO ENSURE THAT
THAT REMAINS NARROW.
THAT THE GOVERNMENT ONLY
USES INFORMATION FOR
THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH IT WAS
GIVEN, AND THEN AFTER THAT,
DOES NOT DISCLOSE
THE INFORMATION,
DO ANYTHING WITH IT ABSENT
YOUR KNOWLEDGE AND CONSENT.
THIS IS FUNDAMENTAL.
WITH RESPECT TO THE
PUBLIC'S RIGHT OF ACCESS
TO INFORMATION,
NOTHING COULD BE MORE
IMPORTANT TO DEMOCRACY,
IN TERMS OF THE OPENNESS
AND TRANSPARENCY THAT
ARE ABSOLUTELY KEY
TO KEEPING GOVERNMENT
ACCOUNTABLE.

A slide reads "Value of access. The two fundamental values of democracy enshrined in the Acts are the right to access information held by the government and the protection of your personal information from prying eyes."

Ann continues HOW DO YOU KNOW WHAT YOUR
GOVERNMENT IS DOING?
YOU HAVE TO FIND OUT.
THE MEDIA HAS TO BE ABLE TO
ASK QUESTIONS TO UNEARTH
INFORMATION THAT GOVERNMENTS
MAY WISH TO KEEP PROTECTED.
IT IS ABSOLUTELY VITAL
THAT THESE FACTORS
ARE STRONGLY PROTECTED.
AND SO WE GO TO GREAT
LENGTHS TO ENSURE
THAT KIND OF OPENNESS
AND TRANSPARENCY,
WHICH IS KEY TO BOTH
ACCESS AND PRIVACY,
ARE STRONGLY EXERCISED.
AND WE MAKE A POINT - OH,
IF I EVER HEAR ANYONE
IN THIS GOVERNMENT -
AND I HAVE NOT -
SAY WHAT I READ A FEW WEEKS
AGO - I WAS GIVING A SPEECH;
THERE WAS A RIGHT TO KNOW
WEEK; AND A REPORTER,
ROB CRIBB IN
THE TORONTO STAR
HAD DONE EXTENSIVE
INTERVIEWS WITH
GOVERNMENT BUREAUCRATS
AT THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT LEVEL.
AND HE WAS QUOTING FROM ONE
GOVERNMENT BUREAUCRAT
WHO SAID, WHY SHOULD THE PUBLIC
HAVE THIS INFORMATION?
IT'S NOT THEIR
INFORMATION?
WHAT RIGHT DO
THEY HAVE TO THIS?
AND I WENT CRAZY
WHEN I HEARD THAT.
BECAUSE CAN YOU IMAGINE,
A) A GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL,
NOT ONLY THINKING THAT,
BUT SAYING IT PUBLICLY,
WHICH SUGGESTS HE DOESN'T
KNOW HOW SERIOUS THAT IS.
AND B) HOLDING THOSE
KIND OF THOUGHTS
AND STILL HAVING
HIS JOB.
HE SHOULD BE FIRED.
BECAUSE IF THAT
IS YOUR VIEW:
WHAT RIGHT DOES THE PUBLIC
HAVE TO THEIR INFORMATION?
EXCUSE ME, THIS IS
ABSOLUTELY APPALLING.
WHEN I READ THIS, AND IT WAS
TWO WEEKS AFTER MY SURGERY,
AND I'M SUPPOSED TO
STAY REALLY CALM,
I SAID TO ROB CRIBB,
WHEN I WAS READING THIS,
IT WAS ON A SATURDAY, AND
I WAS GETTING VERY UPSET,
AND MY HUSBAND WAS TRYING TO
WRESTLE THE NEWSPAPER AWAY
FROM ME BECAUSE HE WAS
TRYING TO KEEP ME CALM
AND EVEN KEELED, YOU
CANNOT HOLD THOSE VIEWS,
IN MY VIEW, AND BE A MEMBER
OF GOVERNMENT BECAUSE
IT JUST SHOWS YOU DO NOT
KNOW THE FREEDOMS
THAT WE CHERISH IN
THIS SOCIETY THAT
WE MUST FIGHT TOGETHER
TO KEEP PROTECTED.
NOW, I'LL TURN
BRIEFLY TO PRIVACY.
DAVID FLAHERTY, A
DEAR FRIEND OF MINE,
WHO SOME OF YOU KNOW,
AND WHO WAS THE FORMER
COMMISSIONER IN
BRITISH COLUMBIA,
YOU TRY TO DEFINE PRIVACY,
HE SAID, DON'T EVEN TRY.
YOU JUST KNOW IT
WHEN YOU LOSE IT.
IT'S ONE OF THOSE RIGHTS
THAT YOU ENJOY AND TAKE
FOR GRANTED EVERY DAY, JUST
LIKE FREEDOM, BUT BOY,
DO YOU KNOW WHEN IT'S
GONE BECAUSE IT IMPACTS
YOUR LIFE DRAMATICALLY.
THEY SAY THAT THE FIRST
THREAD THAT UNRAVELS WHEN
A FREE SOCIETY MORPHS
INTO A TOTALITARIAN STATE
IS THE LOSS OF PRIVACY.
IT'S THE FIRST THREAD
BECAUSE WITHOUT THAT,
YOU HAVE NO ABILITY, NONE,
TO HAVE ANY SENSE OF,
THIS IS MY
PRIVATE SPHERE.
I DON'T HAVE TO GIVE
THIS INFORMATION
TO THE GOVERNMENT.
AND WHAT DRIVES ME
CRAZY, AND PLEASE,
NEVER ACCEPT THIS
AS AN ARGUMENT.
IF SOMEBODY SAYS TO YOU, WELL,
IF YOU HAVE NOTHING
TO HIDE, WHAT DO YOU
HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT?
YOU HAVE A HELL OF A LOT TO
WORRY ABOUT BECAUSE WE
DO NOT LIVE IN A SOCIETY
THAT SAYS YOU MUST GIVE
EVERYTHING, EVERY PIECE OF
INFORMATION
ABOUT YOUR LIFE AND ACTIVITIES
AND DETAILS OF WHERE YOU WENT
AND WHAT YOU DID AND
WHO YOU MET WITH,
YOU HAVE TO TELL
THAT TO THE STATE,
YOU HAVE TO TELL
THAT TO THE POLICE.
NO.
LAST TIME I LOOKED,
FREEDOM WAS PRECISELY
ABOUT THE OPPOSITE.
THAT WE ARE ONLY TO COMPEL
TO GIVE CERTAIN THINGS
THAT ARE REQUIRED BY LAW
TO THE GOVERNMENT,
AND THAT INFORMATION IS
STRONGLY CONTROLLED
IN TERMS OF ITS USE
AND DISCLOSURE.
BEYOND THAT, YOU'RE FREE
TO DO WHAT YOU WISH,
TO THINK WHAT YOU WANT,
TO KEEP INTIMATE
THAT INFORMATION
WHICH YOU CHERISH.
THAT'S WHAT
FREEDOM IS ABOUT.
MARY PICKFORD, WHO WAS
AN ACADEMY AWARD-WINNING
ACTRESS MANY YEARS
AGO, ALSO, I THOUGHT,
GRABBED IT VERY WELL.
"ONE OF THE GREAT PENALTIES
THOSE OF US WHO LIVE
OUR LIVES IN FULL VIEW OF
THE PUBLIC MUST PAY
IS THE LOSS OF THAT MOST
CHERISHED BIRTHRIGHT
OF MAN'S PRIVACY."
SO YOU DON'T JUST HAVE TO
BE A PRIVACY COMMISSIONER
TO UNDERSTAND THE
VALUE OF THIS.
AND YOU MAKE CONSCIOUS
CHOICES WHEN YOU WISH
TO GIVE UP A LITTLE BIT
OF PRIVACY IN ORDER
TO SHARE SOME INFORMATION.
I'M VERY PUBLIC ABOUT
MY MEDICAL SITUATION,
AND THE SURGERIES I'VE HAD,
AND MY EXPERIENCE IN
AND OUT OF HOSPITALS BECAUSE
I THINK IT HELPS ME,
A) AS A PRIVACY COMMISSIONER
IN TERMS OF THE HEALTH
INFORMATION PROTECTION ACT,
AND HOW IMPORTANT
HEALTH INFORMATION IS,
BUT IT ALSO, I HOPE,
GIVES SOME COMFORT TO
PEOPLE TO KNOW THAT YOU CAN
HAVE WHAT MAY SEEM LIKE
REALLY ONEROUS MEDICAL
PROCEDURES, AND YOU CAN
GET ON WITH YOUR LIFE.
IT'S NOT A BIG DEAL.
THESE ARE CHOICES
YOU MAKE.
BUT AGAIN, PRIVACY
IS ALL ABOUT CHOICE.
IT'S ABOUT USER CONTROL
AND EMPOWERMENT.
IT'S MY CHOICE TO SHARE
THAT INFORMATION WITH YOU.
AND I CHOOSE TO DO SO.
LET ME START BY TELLING
YOU WHAT PRIVACY IS NOT.

A slide reads "What privacy is not. Security does not equal privacy."

Ann continues OFTEN A FALLACY
THAT SECURITY
IS ASSOCIATED
WITH PRIVACY.
THAT THEY ARE
ONE AND THE SAME.
THEY ARE NOT.
BUT LET ME BE CLEAR,
SECURITY IS ABSOLUTELY
VITAL TO PRIVACY.
YOU CANNOT HAVE PRIVACY
WITHOUT SECURITY,
BUT YOU CAN, IN FACT,
HAVE SECURITY
WITHOUT ANY PRIVACY.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE
SITUATION POST 9-11,
THE TWO THINGS
THAT HAPPENED,
ONE WAS THE WIDE
INTRODUCTION OF
ANTITERRORISM STATUTES,
THE U.S. PATRIOT ACT,
THE ANTITERRORISM
ACT IN CANADA.
ALL OVER THE WORLD WE
HAD THESE KIND OF LAWS
INTRODUCED WITHIN
WEEKS AFTER 9-11.
AND YOU CAN
UNDERSTAND WHY.
BUT FROM A PRIVACY
PERSPECTIVE, THE FEAR,
WHICH WAS VERY REAL, WAS
THAT ALL OF THESE MEASURES
WERE BEING INTRODUCED
BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT
HAD TO BE SEEN TO BE
DOING SOMETHING TO
ALLAY THE FEARS
OF THE PUBLIC.
AND YET, THE MEASURES
INTRODUCED IN THESE STATUTES,
ARE THEY REAL OR ARE THEY
ILLUSORY IN TERMS
OF ACTUALLY ENHANCING OUR
SECURITY AND PUBLIC SAFETY?
I WILL SUBMIT TO YOU TODAY,
THEY ARE LARGELY ILLUSORY.
BECAUSE WHAT THEY DID -
TWO FACTORS IN EACH LAW -
IT EXPANDED THE POWERS OF
SURVEILLANCE ON THE PART
OF THE STATE, ON THE
PART OF THE GOVERNMENT
SO THEY CAN COLLECT MORE
INFORMATION, MORE BROADLY,
WITH LESS OVERSIGHT,
FEWER QUESTIONS ASKED.
THE SECOND THING IT DID
WAS DIMINISH INDEPENDENT
OVERSIGHT, JUDICIAL
OVERSIGHT.
AND THAT'S A VERY
DANGEROUS FORMULA.
BECAUSE WHAT YOU WANT IS
IF YOU HAVE AN EXPANSION
OF POWERS OF SURVEILLANCE
ON THE PART OF GOVERNMENT,
YOU ALSO WANT TO STRENGTHEN
THOSE WHO OVERSEE THOSE
POWERS TO ENSURE THAT
THEY ARE NOT ABUSED.
WITHOUT THAT OVERSIGHT,
YOU SIMPLY DO NOT HAVE
ANY ABILITY TO CONTROL
WHAT'S TAKING PLACE.
AND THAT IS PRECISELY
WHAT IS HAPPENING.
I'M NOT GOING TO TALK
ABOUT MAHER ARAR'S CASE,
BUT RECENTLY IN THE PAPERS,
WHAT ARE THEY ASKING FOR
THAT THE TRAGEDY IN TERMS
OF THE MISINFORMATION
THAT WAS COLLECTED AND
THEN SHARED THAT LED
TO THE HORRIFIC EVENTS THAT
Mr. ARAR WAS SUBJECTED TO,
THAT THERE WAS
VIRTUALLY NO OVERSIGHT.
WHO IS OVERSEEING
THESE PEOPLE?
WHO IS ENSURING
THAT, IN FACT,
ACCURATE INFORMATION
WAS BEING SHARED.
AND THEN ONCE THEY REALIZED
IT WASN'T ACCURATE,
THAT IT WAS BEING PULLED
IN AND THAT THE PROPER
PROTECTIONS WERE
BEING INTRODUCED?
I WOULD SUGGEST TO YOU
OVERSIGHT WAS INSUFFICIENT,
AND CERTAINLY
NOT INDEPENDENT.
ANYWAY, I DIGRESS.
FORGIVE ME, I DO
THAT A LOT.
LET ME TELL YOU, IN
TERMS OF ONLINE WORLD,
WHAT ARE THE DIFFERENCES
BETWEEN SECURITY
AND PRIVACY.
PRIVACY SUBSUMES A MUCH
BROADER SET OF PROTECTIONS
THAN SECURITY ALONE.
IT SUBSUMES PROTECTIONS
RELATING TO AUTHORIZED
COLLECTION USE AND
DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION.
SECURITY KICKS IN, ONCE
YOU HAVE INFORMATION,
YOU WANT TO ENSURE IT
REMAINS CONFIDENTIAL
AND SECURE.
ONLY THOSE WHO HAVE A
RIGHT OF ACCESS TO IT,
GET ACCESS TO IT.
BUT WITH PRIVACY, THE
SET OF PROTECTIONS
SUBSUMED UNDER THE TERM
FAIR INFORMATION PRACTICES,
IT'S MUCH BROADER.
SECURITY ALSO INVOLVES
ORGANIZATIONAL CONTROL.
IT OFTEN ATTEMPTS TO
PROTECT COMPANY DATA,
OR GOVERNMENT DATA,
AND SYSTEMS
FROM EXTERNAL ATTACKS.
YOU'LL HAVE
PERIMETER CONTROL,
AND FIREWALLS SET IN.
ALL OF THAT IS
VERY IMPORTANT,
BUT IT'S NOT THE SAME.
I.T. PROFESSIONALS OFTEN
MAKE THE MISTAKE,
IF YOU KEEP THE INFORMATION
CONFIDENTIAL
AND YOU PRESERVE IT
FROM CORRUPTION FROM
THE OUTSIDE, THEN
PRIVACY IS GUARANTEED.
IT IS NOT.
I MEET WITH A
LOT OF TECHIES,
AND I WISH I WAS
A SOFTWARE EXPERT.
AND I ASK THEM, TELL ME
WHAT PRIVACY PROTECTIONS
THEY HAVE BUILT IN.
AND THEY SAY, OH,
LADY, WE'VE GOT
THEM OFF THE SCALE.
WE'VE GOT THIS FIREWALL,
WE'VE GOT THESE
PROTECTIONS...
AND I LOOK
AROUND, AND I SAY,
BUT WHAT PRIVACY
PROTECTIONS DO YOU HAVE?
AND WE A DIALOGUE ABOUT
WHAT THAT HAS MEANS.
WHAT I THINK OF PRIVACY,
IF YOU NEED A SHORTHAND,
THINK USE.
HOW IS THE
INFORMATION USED?
HOW IS IT PROTECTED FROM
UNAUTHORIZED USE AND ABUSE?
IN AN EMPLOYMENT CONTEXT,
HOW CAN YOU ENSURE THAT
THE INFORMATION IS
LEGITIMATELY USED
FOR EMPLOYMENT PURPOSES?
IN A BUSINESS CONTEXT,
HOW CAN YOU ENSURE THAT
CONSUMER INFORMATION
IS PROPERLY USED FOR
LEGITIMATE PURPOSES AND NOT
SUBJECTED TO UNAUTHORIZED
USES THAT THE CONSUMER
NEVER KNEW ABOUT,
HAD NEVER GRANTED
THEIR CONSENT TO.
THE GERMANS HAVE
A WONDERFUL TERM.
IT'S CALLED INFORMATIONAL
SELF-DETERMINATION.
IT'S ABOUT AN INDIVIDUAL
DETERMINING THE FATE
OF HIS OR HER
INFORMATION.
AND IN FACT, IT IS SUCH AN
IMPORTANT RIGHT THAT IT WAS
ENSHRINED INTO THE GERMAN
CONSTITUTION IN 1989.
IT IS ABSOLUTELY
FUNDAMENTAL TO GERMANY.
AND IT IS NO ACCIDENT THAT
GERMANY HAPPENS TO BE
THE STRONGEST DATA PROTECTION
COUNTRY IN THE WORLD.
IT IS NO ACCIDENT THAT
GERMANY WENT THROUGH
THE THIRD REICH WHERE
ALL OF THEIR FREEDOMS
WERE COMPLETELY
REMOVED FROM THEM.
WHEN I TALK ABOUT PRIVACY, I
TALK ABOUT PERSONAL CONTROL
OVER THE COLLECTION, USE
AND DISCLOSURE OF RECORDED
INFORMATION ABOUT AN
IDENTIFIABLE INDIVIDUAL.
YOU'LL SEE THAT TERM A LOT,
AN IDENTIFIABLE INDIVIDUAL.
WHERE THERE'S ANY
PERSONAL INFORMATION
LINKED TO THAT
INDIVIDUAL.
AND AGAIN, THIS TERM THAT
I USE, FAIR INFORMATION
PRACTICES, IS THE BEDROCK
OF ALL PRIVACY LAWS
AND PRIVACY
POLICIES WORLDWIDE.
THE ACTUAL WORDING IN THE
PARTICULAR SET OF FAIR
INFORMATION PRACTICES YOU
ACCESS MAY VARY A BIT,
BUT THE ESSENCE
IS THE SAME.
AND IT RELATES TO
RESTRICTING THE COLLECTION,
USE AND DISCLOSURE OF
PERSONAL INFORMATION.
I'M ONLY GOING TO REFER
YOU TO CANADA'S
FAIR INFORMATION PRACTICES
BECAUSE THEY ARE SUBSUMED
UNDER THE FEDERAL PRIVATE
SECTOR LAW WE HAVE,
THE PERSONAL
INFORMATION PROTECTION
AND ELECTRONIC
DOCUMENTS ACT.
AND THE REASON IT'S
IMPORTANT TO KNOW THIS
IS BECAUSE - FIRST OF ALL,
THIS ACT WHICH HAS MANY
ACRONYMS - I'LL REFER
TO IT AS PIPEDA.
PIPEDA WAS DEEMED TO BE
SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR
WITH THE EUROPEAN DIRECTIVE
ON DATA PROTECTION.
THE VERY FIRST FAIR
INFORMATION PRINCIPLES
EMERGED OUT OF EUROPE
IN THE LATE '70s.
IT IS REALLY IMPORTANT, AS A
BUSINESS IN NORTH AMERICA,
TO BE DEEMED TO
BE IN COMPLIANCE
WITH THE EUROPEAN DIRECTIVE
ON DATA PROTECTION.
IF YOU ARE NOT DEEMED TO
HAVE SORT OF AN EQUAL
SETTING WITH YOUR FAIR
INFORMATION PRACTICES
WITH THE DIRECTIVE, THEN
YOU WILL BE PRECLUDED
FROM ENGAGING IN BUSINESS
PRACTICES WITH THE EU.
WHEN THE EUROPEAN UNION
DIRECTIVE FIRST CAME OUT
IN '95, PEOPLE WERE WORRIED
THIS WAS GOING TO POSE
A NON-ECONOMIC TRADE BARRIER
WITH CANADA AND
THE UNITED STATES BECAUSE NO
ONE WANTED TRADE OR BUSINESS
IMPACTED BECAUSE OF THE
ABSENCE OF EQUIVALENT
PRIVACY PROTECTIONS.
SO CANADA PASSED THIS
LEGISLATION IN 2000.
IT WAS DEEMED TO BE
SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR
WITH THE EU DIRECTIVE,
SO WE'RE FINE.
WE CAN ENGAGE IN BUSINESS
WITHOUT ANY FEAR.
AND THE ONLY OTHER THING YOU
NEED TO KNOW IS IN ONTARIO,
WHEN PHIPA, OUR PERSONAL
HEALTH INFORMATION
PROTECTION ACT
CAME INTO PLACE,
IT WAS DEEMED TO BE
SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR
WITH THE FEDERAL STATUTE,
WHICH MEANS WE'RE GOLDEN,
WE CAN DO BUSINESS WITH
EUROPEAN INSURANCE
COMPANIES, BANKS, WHATEVER,
OR WITH THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT,
THERE'S NO ISSUE.
ALL OF THESE RELATE
TO SOME ASPECT
OF PRIVACY PROTECTION.
I'M NOT GOING TO GO
INTO IT IN DETAIL.
BUT I POINT YOU TO
JUST ONE, SAFEGUARDS.

A slide pops up titled "Summary of Canada's fair information practices."
It displays a long list of bullet points, on which one is highlighted: Safeguards."

Ann continues THAT IS THE ONE PRINCIPLE
OUT OF TEN WHICH
REFERS TO THE NEED
FOR SECURITY.
WHEN I SAID SECURITY
DOESN'T EQUAL PRIVACY,
THAT'S WHAT I MEANT.
SECURITY SAFEGUARDS
ARE VERY IMPORTANT,
MUST EXIST IN ORDER TO HAVE
STRONG PRIVACY PROTECTION.
BUT IT IS ONLY ONE OF TEN
PRINCIPLES IN CANADA.
YOU CAN SEE THAT PRIVACY IS
MUCH BROADER THAN SECURITY.
I'M JUST GOING TO TALK ABOUT
A COUPLE OF BARRIERS FIRST
TO ACCESS AND PRIVACY,
ADMINISTRATIVE BARRIERS
THAT SIMPLY SHOULD
NOT EXIST.
AND WE WORK VERY HARD
WORKING WITH GOVERNMENT
TO ENSURE THAT THIS
DOESN'T HAPPEN IN ONTARIO.
ONE IS THE AUTOMATIC
BLOCKING OF GOVERNMENT
DOCUMENTS IN TERMS OF
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
BECAUSE IT'S A
POLICY OF A MINISTRY.
SOMETIMES THIS IS CALLED RED
FLAGGING OR AMBER LIGHTING
A PRACTICE IN WHICH CERTAIN
F.O.I. REQUESTS ARE FLAGGED
AS POTENTIALLY
POLITICALLY SENSITIVE,
AND MAY BE BROUGHT TO A
MINISTER'S ATTENTION.
THIS IS NOT GOOD NEWS.
IN FACT, ANYTIME
YOU HEAR ABOUT IT,
YOU WANT TO BRING IT TO
THE MEDIA'S ATTENTION,
TO MY ATTENTION, TO
SOMEONE'S ATTENTION
BECAUSE IF YOU LOOK AT THE
ACT, LAST TIME I LOOKED,
THERE WAS NO EXEMPTION THAT
PERMITTED NONDISCLOSURE
BECAUSE OF POLITICAL
SENSITIVITY
OR EMBARRASSMENT TO
THE GOVERNMENT.
THAT'S TOO BAD.
THAT IS NOT AN
ACCEPTABLE EXEMPTION.
IT HAS TO GO OUT.
SO IF YOU DON'T HAVE
INFORMATION A) BECAUSE
YOU THINK IT'S ONE
OF THESE REASONS,
OR YOU JUST HAVEN'T
BEEN GIVEN INFORMATION,
YOU CAN ALWAYS APPEAL THAT
DECISION TO MY OFFICE.
WE'LL GET ON IT
RIGHT AWAY.
AND WE'LL ENSURE IF
THERE IS AN EXEMPTION
THAT APPLIES TO IT,
IT'S A LEGITIMATE ONE,
NOT ONE OF THESE
THAT DEALS WITH
SORT OF THE CONTENTIOUS
ISSUES PROCESS.
THE OTHER ONE THAT
DISTURBS ME ARE BLANKET,
INCORRECT REFUSALS
TO SHARE INFORMATION.
AND THEY QUOTE PRIVACY
LAWS AS THE REASON.
PEOPLE HIDE
BEHIND PRIVACY.
THEY USE IT AS A SHIELD
WHEN THEY DON'T WANT
TO RELEASE SOME
INFORMATION.
AND THEN, WHAT THAT DOES
IS IT TRIVIALIZES PRIVACY,
SO WHEN THERE ARE VERY
LEGITIMATE USES
OF THE PRIVACY
PROTECTION FEATURES,
IT'S NOT THE SAME.
PEOPLE ASSOCIATE IT WITH
THIS WEAK INSTANCE.
AND I CAN GIVE
YOU SOME EXAMPLES.
HERE, IN ONTARIO, WE HAD A
RECENT CASE WHERE SOMEONE
DIDN'T WANT TO IDENTIFY AN
INJURED FAMILY MEMBER
WHO WAS IN A HOSPITAL.
THIS WAS JUST AN
UNFORTUNATE CASE.
IT ACTUALLY, IT WAS
RIDICULOUS, UNDER PHIPA,
YOU ARE PERMITTED TO
IDENTIFY INDIVIDUALS
TO CLOSE FAMILY
MEMBERS; AND, IN FACT,
THIS INDIVIDUAL HAD
ACTUALLY GIVEN THEIR CONSENT
TO HAVING THEIR
DAUGHTER CONTACTED.
IT WAS JUST A MESS.
THERE HAVE BEEN OTHER CASES
WHERE SOMEONE'S IDENTITY,
THE IDENTITY OF A DECEASED
INDIVIDUAL, FOR EXAMPLE,
IN THE PAST, HAS NOT
BEEN PERMITTED
TO BE SHARED WITH
CLOSE FAMILY MEMBERS.
THAT HAS NOW CHANGED AS
A RESULT OF RECENT
AMENDMENTS TO THE
GOOD GOVERNMENT ACT.
SO NOW IT'S MUCH
MORE HUMANE,
AND PEOPLE CAN HAVE ACCESS
TO INFORMATION RELATING
TO A CHILD OR LOVED ONE
WHO DIED IN AN ACCIDENT,
OR SOMETHING, AND YOU CAN
IMAGINE THEY'RE DISTRAUGHT,
THEY NEED INFORMATION.
ANOTHER CASE THAT OFTEN
HAPPENS, HAPPENED IN B.C.
IT'S HAPPENED HERE, AS
WELL, WHERE A UNIVERSITY,
IN THIS CASE, REFUSED
TO SHARE INFORMATION
ON A SUICIDAL CHILD
WITH THEIR MOTHER.
AND PERHAPS THE MOTHER
COULD HAVE INTERVENED
AND PREVENTED
THE SUICIDE.
IT WAS A MOST
UNFORTUNATE CASE.
THE B.C. COMMISSIONER
AND I HAVE WORKED TOGETHER
TO ENSURE THINGS LIKE
THAT DON'T HAPPEN.
SO I JUST CAUTION YOU.
IF IT DOESN'T SOUND
RIGHT, DON'T BELIEVE IT.
IF THEY SAY PRIVACY LAWS
MADE ME DO IT OR NOT DO IT,
QUESTION IT.
ASK YOURSELF WHAT POSSIBLE
EXEMPTION COULD THERE BE
PROTECTING THIS
INFORMATION?
AND IF YOU'RE NOT SURE,
PLEASE CALL MY OFFICE,
THAT'S WHY WE'RE THERE.

A slide reads "Privacy and universities."

Ann continues I'M SO EXCITED BECAUSE
IN JUNE OF THIS YEAR,
UNIVERSITIES NOW
FALL UNDER OUR ACT,
THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
AND PROTECTION ACT,
AND THIS IS
REALLY GOOD NEWS.
AND YOU MAY BE WONDERING
WHY WEREN'T UNIVERSITIES
UNDER THE ACT TO BEGIN WITH
LIKE COMMUNITY COLLEGES?
WELL, THERE'S NOT
ONE GOOD DARN REASON.
DECISIONS GET
MADE POLITICALLY.
AND THIS WAS A
POLITICAL DECISION.
BUT IT'S NOW BEEN CORRECTED,
AND UNIVERSITIES
FALL UNDER OUR ACT, AND I'M
DELIGHTED TO HEAR THAT.
JUST TODAY, I'M LISTENING
TO THE NEWS, AGAIN,
POOR PETER, EVERY
MORNING HAS TO BEAR
WITH THIS ASSAULT OF ME
CALLING HIM, SAYING, WHAT,
THERE'S A STORY
ABOUT THIS THING,
AND HOW COULD WE NOT
HAVE KNOWN ABOUT IT,
OR WHAT HAPPENED?
AND THIS MORNING'S STORY WAS
THAT BROCK UNIVERSITY
HAS HAD SOMETHING LIKE 70,000
INSTANCES OF PERSONAL
INFORMATION WERE STOLEN FROM
ITS WEBSITE ON PEOPLE WHO,
I BELIEVE, GAVE
MONEY IN RESPONSE
TO FUNDRAISING EFFORTS.
WELL, I WENT BALLISTIC
WHEN I HEARD THAT.
IT'S A HUGE NUMBER.
AND I DON'T BELIEVE IN
ONTARIO WE'VE HAD THOSE
KIND OF NUMBERS, AND
THERE'S A COUPLE
OF THINGS THAT SHOULD
HAPPEN IMMEDIATELY
WHEN YOU HEAR THAT.
SO I CALL PETER, AND PETER
SETS THE WORLD IN MOTION.
SO HE HAS A VERY
BIG JOB.
THE THING IS, I COULDN'T
HAVE TAKEN ACTION
BEFORE IF THE ACT
DIDN'T COME INTO PLAY.
IT COMES INTO PLAY BECAUSE
NOW WE CAN NOT JUST
HELP BROCK UNIVERSITY
DEAL WITH THIS.
AND THEY'VE BEEN GREAT.
THEY'VE BEEN WORKING WITH
US ON THIS WHOLE ISSUE,
AND I HAVE NOTHING
BUT PRAISE FOR THEM.
BUT WE CAN HELP THE PUBLIC,
THE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC
GET TO KNOW WHAT THEY
SHOULD BE DOING IMMEDIATELY.
IF YOU ARE EVER A VICTIM
OF IDENTITY THEFT,
IMMEDIATELY CONTACT
YOUR CREDIT BUREAU
AND ADVISE THEM OF
WHAT HAPPENED.
CONTACT YOUR CREDIT
CARD ASSOCIATION,
WHATEVER BANK
YOU DEAL WITH.
BUT THE REASON YOU WANT
TO EXPLORE WITH A CREDIT
BUREAU THE POSSIBILITY OF
PLACING A CREDIT FREEZE
OR FRAUD ALERT ON YOUR
ACCOUNT IS BECAUSE ONE
OF THE FIRST THINGS THE BAD
GUYS DO, THE IDENTITY THIEVES,
IS THEY TRY TO OPEN
UP A NEW ACCOUNT,
NEW CREDIT CARD UNDER
YOUR NAME, OF COURSE.
AND THEY CAN GET AWAY WITH
WRACKING UP THOUSANDS
AND THOUSANDS OF
DOLLARS OF CHARGES.
YOU'LL NEVER KNOW ABOUT IT
BECAUSE YOU WON'T BE GETTING
ANY STATEMENTS BECAUSE
THAT'S NOT YOUR CREDIT CARD.
IT WILL BE DIVERTED.
OF COURSE THE MAIL WILL BE
DIVERTED TO THEIR ADDRESS.
I DIGRESS ONCE AGAIN, BUT
IF YOU'RE EVER A VICTIM
OF IDENTITY THEFT,
GO TO OUR WEBSITE.
WE HAVE A COUPLE OF PAPERS
ON WHAT YOU SHOULD AND
SHOULDN'T DO, AND WE'D BE
HAPPY TO SHARE THEM WITH YOU.
SO NOW THE PUBLIC HAS A
RIGHT OF ACCESS IN TERMS
OF GOVERNMENT RECORDS,
INFORMATION HELD
BY PUBLICLY FUNDED
UNIVERSITIES IN ONTARIO,
AND UNIVERSITIES ALSO
MUST PROTECT NOT ONLY
THE PRIVACY OF THEIR
STUDENTS, BUT OF OTHERS,
SUCH AS THE EXAMPLE
I JUST GAVE,
PEOPLE WHO PROVIDE THEM WITH
THEIR PERSONAL INFORMATION.
YOU KNOW, IT'S SUCH
AN INTERESTING WORLD.

A slide reads "Online social networking."

Ann continues I'M GOING TO ADMIT THIS,
I DIDN'T EVEN KNOW
ABOUT SOCIAL
NETWORKS LAST YEAR.
IT'S TRUE.
I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S
AN AGE THING,
OR THERE'S SOME FACTOR,
I'M SURE THAT'S IN THERE,
BUT I JUST WASN'T
AWARE OF IT.
ACTUALLY, MY ONLY INTERACTION
WITH SOCIAL NETWORKS
WAS MYSPACE, AND I
WAS SO HORRIFIED WHEN
I LEARNED ABOUT IT, I'M
SURE I JUST COMPLETELY
PUT IT OUT OF MY MIND AND
WENT ON TO SOMETHING ELSE.
BUT THIS YEAR, I'VE
LEARNED A GREAT DEAL.
AND AS YOU KNOW, THERE'S
BEEN AN EXPLOSIVE GROWTH
OF ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS
SINCE JUST A FEW YEARS AGO,
2002, INCLUDING
FACEBOOK, FRIENDSTER,
AND MYSPACE AMONG THE
MOST HIGHLY USED ONES.
IT'S ESTIMATED THAT ONLINE
SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES RANK
IN THE TOP TEN MOST VISITED
WEBSITES IN THE WORLD.
THIS IS STAGGERING TO ME.
AND OF COURSE IT TARGETS
THE YOUNGER DEMOGRAPHIC -
WITNESS WHY I WASN'T
AWARE OF THIS.
AND IS LARGELY FUNDED
THROUGH ADVERTISING,
PRODUCT PLACEMENT,
AND AS YOU'D EXPECT,
VENTURE CAPITAL.

A slide reads "Privacy issues for online social networking."

Ann continues NOW, AS A PRIVACY
COMMISSIONER,
THE WHOLE CONCEPT
OF A SOCIAL NETWORK,
I HAD TO GET MY MIND AROUND
THIS BECAUSE I WAS 20,
I DO REMEMBER BEING
REALLY SOCIAL.
ACTUALLY, I'M STILL SOCIAL,
BUT I WAS MORE SOCIAL
IN MY TWENTIES, AND I DIDN'T
HAVE A PRIVACY JOB,
AND I LOVED TALKING TO
PEOPLE, AND MEETING PEOPLE,
AND SHARING INFORMATION.
I LOVED IT.
SO I PUT MYSELF BACK
THERE AND I REMEMBERED,
OH YEAH, YOU GO TO UNIVERSITY,
WHAT DO YOU WANT TO DO?
YOU WANT TO MEET PEOPLE.
THAT'S THE WHOLE RAISON
D'ETRE OF BEING
IN UNIVERSITY, AND
MOST OF THE TIME,
UNLESS YOU ARE GOING
TO A UNIVERSITY
IN YOUR OWN TOWN WITH
FRIENDS FROM HIGH SCHOOL,
YOU MAY NOT KNOW
A LOT OF PEOPLE.
SO YOUR PURPOSE IN LIFE IS NOT
TO PROTECT YOUR PRIVACY,
UNLIKE MINE, BUT TO
GET IT OUT THERE,
GET THE INFORMATION
OUT THERE, OKAY?
SO I DID WRAP MY
HEAD AROUND THAT.
AND THIS HELPED ME
UNDERSTAND THE RISE
IN SOCIAL NETWORKS
SUCH AS THESE.
OF COURSE, I AM A PRIVACY
COMMISSIONER NOW,
SO IT RAISED THE
OBVIOUS QUESTIONS.
WHAT ABOUT PROTECTING
THE PERSONAL INFORMATION
AT THESE WEBSITES?
AND I THINK OF
THE THREE P'S.
THIS IS MY SUMMARY:
PROFESSORS,
PROSPECTIVE EMPLOYERS,
AND PREDATORS.
THESE SORT OF
LEAPED TO MIND.
HOW ARE YOU GOING TO
PROTECT THIS INFORMATION
FROM THE THREE P's?
WHAT ARE YOU
GOING TO DO?

Some people laugh.

Ann continues WELL, I DIDN'T KNOW IF ANY
OF THE STUDENTS HEARD
ABOUT THE THREE P's, SO
YOU'LL HEAR WHAT WE DID
ABOUT THAT IN A MOMENT.
AND WHAT ABOUT
THE FUTURE?
LADIES AND
GENTLEMEN, I KNOW,
STUDENTS PROBABLY DON'T
THINK PAST TOMORROW
OR THE NEXT COURSE,
OR THE NEXT EXAM,
I PROBABLY DIDN'T
BACK THEN EITHER,
BUT NOW I KNOW HOW
INFORMATION
COMES BACK TO
HAUNT YOU.
SO MANY OF THE CASES
THAT COME BEFORE US
ARE PRECISELY THAT.
INFORMATION USED
IN ANOTHER CONTEXT,
COMPLETELY INAPPROPRIATE.
UNAUTHORIZED USES
IN THE WRONG HANDS.
JUST UNFLATTERING
PICTURES.
YOU CAN IMAGINE, YOU'RE AT
A DRUNKEN UNIVERSITY PARTY,
I MEAN, I'VE PROBABLY BEEN
TO ONE OF TWO OF YEARS AGO,
AND PICTURES ARE SNAPPED,
AND THEY ARE FUN
IN THAT CONTEXT.
AT ANOTHER CONTEXT WHERE
YOU'RE AT AN EMPLOYMENT
HIRING SESSION, AND THEY'VE
GOT IT ON THE SCREEN
WHILE THEY'RE TALKING TO YOU,
AND THEY'RE ASKING YOU,
IS THIS WHAT
YOU DO PUBLICLY?
THIS IS NOT GOOD NEWS.
SO A GOOGLE VITAE.

A slide reads "A 'Google Vitae'?"

Ann continues I THOUGHT THAT
WAS A COOL TERM.
I MENTIONED EARLIER, THERE
WAS A VERY RECENT SURVEY,
77 PERCENT OF ALL
EMPLOYERS SEARCH ONLINE.
THEY DO BACKGROUND CHECKS
ON PERSPECTIVE EMPLOYEES.
AND NOW THEY WOULD RE
ROUTINELY LOOK AT FACEBOOK,
MYSPACE, IT MAKES SENSE.
35 PERCENT OF THESE
EMPLOYERS HAVE ACTUALLY
ELIMINATED CANDIDATES
BASED ON WHAT THEY FOUND.
SO THE OBVIOUS LESSON THAT
YOU KNOW AND THAT I KNOW,
BUT WE HAVE TO
GET STUDENTS TO KNOW,
IS THAT ANYTHING YOU POST
ONLINE STAYS ONLINE,
POSSIBLY FOREVER.
IT CAN BE SEARCHED
BY THE THREE P's,
DON'T FORGET ALL
THREE OF THEM,
AND THIS CAN CREATE
AN ONLINE RESUME
THAT YOU MAY NOT BE
ABLE TO CONTROL.
I THINK THAT'S THE
MOST IMPORTANT THING.
YOU MAY NOT BE ABLE
TO CONTROL THIS.
THE NOTION OF PERSONAL
CONTROL, USER CONTROL
IS FUNDAMENTAL
TO PRIVACY.
AND IT SHOULD ALWAYS
PERMEATE ALL OF YOUR ACTIONS,
ESPECIALLY ONLINE.
SO WHEN WE MET WITH FACEBOOK
EARLIER IN THE YEAR,
I WAS, YOU KNOW, GUARDED,
BUT THEN MUCH MORE
RECEPTIVE ONCE I LEARNED
ABOUT THE PROTECTIONS
THAT THEY ACTUALLY HAVE IN
PLACE IN TERMS OF PRIVACY.
AND I'M GOING TO TELL YOU
ABOUT THOSE IN A MOMENT.
BUT I WAS PLEASANTLY
SURPRISED,
AND SO I SUGGESTED
TO FACEBOOK,
WHY DON'T WE DO
A JOINT BROCHURE,
A JOINT PUBLICATION, LET'S
DO SOMETHING TOGETHER
TO SHOW YOU RESPECT PRIVACY,
AND THAT WE RESPECT
THE PROTECTIONS FACEBOOK
HAS PUT INTO PLACE.
AND THE FIRST THING
WE DID, THOUGH,
I WANTED TO - SO
FACEBOOK SAID YES,
SO I WAS VERY PLEASED THEY
AGREED TO WORK WITH US.
I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT
I KNEW WHERE STUDENTS
WERE AT BECAUSE, YOU KNOW,
I HAVE FOND MEMORIES
OF MY UNIVERSITY DAYS.
I SEEM TO HAVE SPENT
ENOUGH TIME IN UNIVERSITY.
ONCE YOU DO GRADUATE WORK,
THERE'S A LOT OF TIME THERE,
BUT IT WAS A FEW
YEARS AGO.
SO I SAID, LET'S PULL
TOGETHER A FOCUS GROUP
OF UNIVERSITY STUDENTS
AND HAVE THEM TELL ME WHY
THEY LIKE THESE THINGS,
WHY THEY ARE ON THE NET,
HOW OFTEN THEY USE IT,
WHAT DO THEY THINK,
AREN'T THEY WORRIED
ABOUT THE THREE P's.
LET'S TALK ABOUT IT.
SO WE DID.
WE CONVENED A
FOCUS GROUP.
AND IT WAS JUST
ILLUMINATING.
I LEARNED SO MUCH, AND I'M
GOING TO TELL YOU ABOUT IT.
BUT ONE OF THE
THINGS I LEARNED,
EVEN AMONG THIS GROUP, WHO
LOVE FACEBOOK, BY THE WAY,
I WAS BLOWN AWAY, THAT WAS
THEIR PREFERRED CHOICE
IN TERMS OF MYSPACE,
FRIENDSTER,
THE OTHER SOCIAL NETWORKS,
AND EVEN THOUGH THAT
WAS THE CASE, ONE OF THE
WOMEN TOLD ME THE STORY.
SHE SAID, IN HER DORM, THE
PERSON WHO WAS THE PREFECT,
OR DON, WHAT ARE THEY
CALLED, A PEER COUNSELLOR,
WAS ACTUALLY FIRED,
AND SHE WAS A STUDENT.
WHY WAS SHE FIRED?
SHE WAS FIRED BECAUSE OF
WHAT SHE HAD POSTED
ON NOTEBOOK.
SHE WAS AT A PARTY, SHE
WAS SMOKING SOMETHING,
IT WAS GRASS OR SOMETHING,
IT WASN'T A CIGARETTE.
AND THIS WAS PUBLICLY
DISPLAYED AND
IT WAS LINKED TO
HER PROFILE.
I DON'T THINK - I DON'T
KNOW HOW IT GOT ON HER
PROFILE, BUT IT WAS THERE,
AND ONE OF THE UNIVERSITY
ADMINISTRATORS SAW
IT, AND SHE WAS FIRED.
JUST LIKE THAT.
SO IT CRYSTALLIZED
SOME OF THE CONCERNS
THAT PEOPLE SHOULD
BE AWARE OF.
IN ANOTHER CASE, A PROFESSOR
IN A FRESHMAN CLASS
APPARENTLY WOULD DO
THIS, I DON'T KNOW WHERE.
THE PROFESSOR WOULD
HAVE FACEBOOK RUNNING,
AND HE WOULD HAVE PEOPLE
STAND UP TO ANSWER QUESTIONS,
ASK A QUESTION,
THEY WOULD STAND UP
TO ANSWER, AND HE WOULD
PULL UP THEIR PROFILE.
I'M NOT CONDONING
THESE PRACTICES,
I JUST WANT YOU TO
KNOW WHAT'S OUT THERE.
OKAY, SO WE DECIDED TO
DO THIS JOINT GROUP,
AND HERE'S THE FOCUS GROUP
I'M TELLING YOU ABOUT.
WE DREW STUDENTS FROM A WIDE
NUMBER OF UNIVERSITIES,
AND EVERY STUDENT
THERE EXCEPT ONE
WAS AN ACTIVE USER
OF FACEBOOK.
THEY ALL FAVOURED IT.
IT WAS QUITE
SURPRISING.
I WAS SURPRISED.
AND THEY GAVE ME LOTS
OF REAL-LIFE STORIES.
HOW THEY USE IT, THEIR
PERSONAL EXPERIENCE,
WHY THEY USE IT.
AND THEY SAID, I DON'T KNOW
IF ANY OF YOU ARE ACTIVE
UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS,
BUT BEWARE.
THEY SAID, OH YEAH,
WHEN WE'RE IN CLASS,
WHEN EVERYBODY
HAS A LAPTOP,
WE JUST GO ON AND CHECK
EACH OTHER'S PROFILES
DURING CLASS, YOU KNOW,
CLASSES GET BORING.
WELL, I WOULDN'T HAVE
ALLOWED THAT IN MY CLASS.
I WOULD HAVE BEEN WALKING
UP AND DOWN AISLES.
IT'S UP TO PROFESSORS TO MAKE
THE CLASSES INTERESTING.
HOPEFULLY, THAT WILL PREVENT
THE FACEBOOK USE
IN THE CLASS, THAT'S
WHAT I'M OBJECTING TO.
BUT THEY SAID THEY LOOK
AT THE PROFILES, 8, 10,
12 TIMES A
DAY, EASILY.
THEY'RE CONSTANTLY CHECKING
WHO'S DONE WHAT SINCE
THE LAST TIME
THEY DID THIS.
I MEAN, THIS WAS A
REAL EYE OPENER TO ME.
AND THIS IS AGAIN WHY I
THINK IT'S SO IMPORTANT
WHAT WE'RE DOING
NOW WITH FACEBOOK.
MOST STUDENTS WERE
TOTALLY UNAWARE
OF THE PRIVACY ISSUES.
THEY DIDN'T KNOW
ABOUT THE THREE P's,
BELIEVE ME THEY DID BY
THE END OF THE SESSION.
THEY DIDN'T KNOW HOW
INFORMATION COULD BE USED
AGAINST THEM IN
THE FUTURE.
AND THEY DIDN'T KNOW HOW TO
SET THE PRIVACY FILTERS.
I MEAN, THEY COULD
HAVE FIGURED IT OUT.
THIS IS NOT HARD TO DO
IF YOU GO TO MY PRIVACY
ON FACEBOOK, IT'S
NOT HARD TO DO,
BUT YOU HAVE TO TURN
YOUR MIND TO IT,
AND THEY WEREN'T
AWARE OF THESE.
SO BY THE END OF
THE FOCUS GROUP,
WHAT WAS VERY
GRATIFYING TO ME,
THERE WERE TEN
PEOPLE THERE.
ONE OUT OF THE TEN, A WOMAN,
SAID AS SOON AS SHE LEFT
THE FOCUS GROUP, SHE WAS
GOING BACK TO REVIEW
HER PRIVACY SETTINGS AND
STRENGTHEN HER PRIVACY.
AND I WAS SO
TOUCHED BY THAT.
THAT WAS LIKE, 10 PERCENT,
NOT A SCIENTIFIC EXAMPLE,
BUT I THOUGHT THAT
WAS WONDERFUL.
AND THE OTHER TWO WOMEN
SAID THEY WERE GOING
TO THINK ABOUT IT.
SO WHAT I'M HOPING TO DO,
AND THAT IS THE CHALLENGE
I'M GOING TO ISSUE
TO EVERYONE TODAY,
IS ANY OF YOU WHO ARE
EITHER ON FACEBOOK
OR HAVE CHILDREN OR FRIENDS
OR STUDENTS WHO ARE
ON FACEBOOK, I'M ASKING
EVERYONE TO GO
TO THEIR FACEBOOK
SETTINGS AND REVIEW THEM.
TAKE TWO MINUTES.
THAT'S HOW LONG
IT TAKES.
REVIEW YOUR PRIVACY SETTINGS
AND MAKE AN INFORMED CHOICE.
REMEMBER, PRIVACY
IS ALL ABOUT CHOICE,
YOUR PERSONAL CHOICES.
BUT PLEASE, LET THEM
BE INFORMED CHOICES.
TURN YOUR MIND TO THAT.
I'M NOT GOING TO
TELL YOU WHAT TO DO,
THAT WOULD BE TAKING
AWAY YOUR FREEDOM.
BUT I DO ASK THAT YOU
MAKE INFORMED CHOICES.
GO AND REVIEW
YOUR SETTINGS.
IT WILL TAKE TWO MINUTES,
AND THEN AT LEAST
YOU'LL BE MAKING,
HOPEFULLY, WISE DECISIONS.

A slide reads "Law enforcement."

Ann continues REMEMBER THAT ANY TIME
YOU PUT INFORMATION IN
A DATABASE, IT IS
POTENTIALLY ACCESSIBLE
BY LAW ENFORCEMENT.
THIS IS NOT A
HARD THING.
ALL OF THESE
ORGANIZATIONS' WEBSITES
HAVE TO FOLLOW THE LAW.
IF THE FBI OR THE RCMP COME
KNOCKING AT YOUR DOOR
WITH A COURT ORDER, OF
COURSE YOU HAVE TO COMPLY.
SO DON'T THINK THIS
INFORMATION
IS SOMEHOW PRIVATE.
IT ALWAYS ASTOUNDS ME THAT
THAT IS WHAT PEOPLE THINK.
MANY STUDENTS THINK THAT.
YOU'RE DOING IT PRIVATELY
IN YOUR BEDROOM,
WHO KNOWS OTHER THAN
YOU AND WHOEVER
YOU ARE DEALING
WITH IT.
EVERYBODY KNOWS,
POTENTIALLY.

A slide reads "It's simple: Understand the risks."

Ann continues NOW, I KNOW NO ONE IS
THINKING ABOUT THE FUTURE
AT THE STUDENT STAGE, BUT
IF YOU WANT TO HAVE
A CAREER IN SOME KIND
OF HIGH TRUST AREA,
YOU DO WANT TO JOIN
THE FBI IN THE FUTURE,
OR THE INTELLIGENCE
COMMUNITY,
OR BE A PROFESSOR,
WHATEVER,
THESE ARE THINGS
TO CONSIDER.
LAWS OF DEFAMATION,
OF COURSE,
APPLY ONLINE AS
THEY DO OFFLINE.
AND NEVER EVER
ASSUME ANYTHING
YOU PUT ONLINE
IS PRIVATE.
OBVIOUSLY, IT'S NOT.

A slide reads "Closed networks."

Ann continues LET'S SAY YOU GO TO
RYERSON, OR U OF T,
OR YORK UNIVERSITY, THOSE
ARE EACH CLOSED NETWORKS
THAT HAVE THEIR
OWN e-mail ADDRESS,
UNIVERSITY e-mail ADDRESS, SO
THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN ACCESS
THAT NETWORK IS BY HAVING
A LEGITIMATE e-mail ADDRESS
FROM THAT INSTITUTION.
THE OTHER BEAUTY OF HAVING
THAT VERIFIABLE
EMAIL ADDRESS IS
IT ALLOWS YOU TO -
I WAS GOING TO SAY CHECK UP
ON OTHERS - BY THAT I MEAN,
LET'S SAY YOU DO GET AN
ABUSIVE e-mail FROM SOMEONE,
OR SOMEONE POSTS SOMETHING
THAT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE,
YOU CAN GO TO
FACEBOOK AND COMPLAIN.
YOU CAN SAY, I GOT THIS
EMAIL FROM THIS PERSON,
IT'S TOTALLY INAPPROPRIATE,
UNAUTHORIZED, WHATEVER,
GO CHECK IT OUT, AND
THEY WILL DO THAT.
THEY HAVE STAFF WHO WILL
INVESTIGATE YOUR COMPLAINTS.
SO IN THAT SENSE, HAVING A
VERIFIABLE e-mail ADDRESS
IS A VERY STRONG PRIVACY
PROTECTION BECAUSE IT SHOWS
ONLY LEGITIMATE USERS ARE
ON THIS CLOSED PLATFORM.
CONTRAST THAT WITH AN OPEN
PLATFORM ACCESSIBLE
TO ANYONE WHO CAN
IMPERSONATE ANYTHING.
WHEN I THINK OF PREDATORS,
I'M NOT SO WORRIED ABOUT
FACEBOOK, BUT WHEN I THINK
OF OTHER OPEN PLATFORMS,
THINK ABOUT IT, ANYONE
CAN PRESENT THEMSELVES
IN ANY LIGHT, AND CAN
ASSUME ANYONE'S IDENTITY.
THIS IS A HUGE PROBLEM.
SO IF YOU'RE THINKING YOU'RE
HAVING A CONVERSATION
WITH THIS NICE MAN YOU MET
WHO KEEPS FLATTERING YOU
AND SAYING NICE THINGS, DON'T
BELIEVE THEM, CHECK IT OUT.
DON'T CHECK THEM OUT BY
SENDING THEM YOUR CONTACT
INFORMATION, OTHER
PERSONAL INFORMATION,
NEVER EVER GO AND
MEET THEM SOMEWHERE,
THERE ARE PROTECTIONS YOU
MUST TAKE INTO PLACE.
IN AN OPEN PLATFORM,
THEY'RE MUCH GREATER.
IN A CLOSED PLATFORM,
I'M NOT SUGGESTING
YOU SHOULDN'T BE CAREFUL,
BUT AT LEAST YOU
CAN AUTHENTICATE THE IDENTITY
OF ONE OF THESE VERIFIED USERS,
AND YOU CAN
PLACE COMPLAINTS
IF THEY ABUSE
YOUR TRUST.
YOU CAN ALSO BLOCK
THE NAME AND NETWORK -
YOUR NAME AND NETWORK FROM
BEING SEARCHED BY ANYONE
OUTSIDE THE TYPE OF NETWORK
TO WHICH YOU BELONG.
SO IF YOU DON'T WANT
PEOPLE FROM OTHER NETWORKS
ACCESSING YOU,
YOU CAN SAY THAT.
YOU CAN LIMIT ACCESS
WITHIN YOUR NETWORK.
YOU CAN SAY, I ONLY
WANT MY FIVE FRIENDS,
THESE FIVE FRIENDS, TO
HAVE ACCESS TO MY PROFILE.
SO THERE'S A LOT OF
POTENTIAL IN TERMS
OF WHAT YOU CAN DO.
THE PRIVACY SETTINGS
AVAILABLE TO YOU,
SHOULD YOU WISH TO
AVAIL YOURSELF OF THEM.
AND THAT IS MY GOAL HERE,
TO MAKE THE PRIVACY OPTIONS
AVAILABLE, MAKE
PEOPLE AWARE OF THEM.

A slide reads "Privacy options."

Ann continues BLOCKING ACCESS TO ONE'S
ADDRESS OR PERSONAL CONTACT
INFORMATION I THINK
IS REALLY ADVISABLE.
YOU DON'T WANT
PEOPLE SHOWING UP,
WHO YOU DON'T KNOW,
ESPECIALLY, OBVIOUSLY,
TO YOUR DOOR,
OR TO A CLASS.
LIKE IF YOU POST
YOUR CLASS SCHEDULE,
SOMEONE MAY COME AND GREET
YOU UNBEKNOWNST TO YOU.
SO YOU HAVE TO BE VERY
PROTECTIVE OF
THE INFORMATION THAT YOU
CAN LEGITIMATELY BLOCK.
AND YOU CAN BLOCK
INFORMATION BY ANYONE OTHER
THAN VERIFIED FRIENDS,
OR FRIENDS OF FRIENDS,
YOU HAVE THOSE OPTIONS.
YOU CAN TURN OFF THE
AUTOMATIC STREAMING
OF ONLINE ACTIVITIES
MADE AVAILABLE THROUGH
A RECENT DEVELOPMENT
CALLED A NEWS FEED.
SO WHAT THAT MEANS IS
I'M ASSUMING PEOPLE
GO TO THEIR PROFILE AND
THEY UPDATE IT AT THE END
OF THE DAY OR WEEK
OR WHENEVER.
IF YOU WANT, THAT INFORMATION
CAN AUTOMATICALLY
GO OUT TO OTHERS,
SENT OUT TO THEM,
SO YOUR FRIENDS WILL KNOW,
I DID THIS LAST NIGHT,
AND I'M GOING TO DO THIS
TOMORROW, WHATEVER.
BUT YOU ALSO HAVE THE
ABILITY TO BLOCK THAT.
YOU MAY NOT WANT THE WORLD
TO KNOW, IMMEDIATELY,
THE FIVE THINGS
YOU DID LAST NIGHT.
EVEN THOUGH YOU DON'T MIND
POSTING IT ON YOUR PROFILE.
THE CHOICE IS YOURS.
JUST BE AWARE OF THE
FACT THERE IS A CHOICE,
AND MAKE SURE YOU INDICATE
THAT ON YOUR PROFILE,
IF YOU DON'T WANT THIS
AUTOMATIC FEED TO BE ENGAGED.
AND I CAN TELL
YOU IT WORKS.
I HAD A RECENT CASE
WHERE I WENT ONLINE AND
I JUST WANTED TO CHECK IF
THERE WAS ANY CAVOUKIANS.
LIKE, THERE'S THREE
OF US IN THE WORLD.
ARE WE ON FACEBOOK?
I DIDN'T THINK SO.
MY TWO BROTHERS
AND I.
SO I CHECKED, AND
MUCH TO MY SURPRISE,
ONE OF MY BROTHERS
WAS ON THERE.
AND THIS IS A
BROTHER WHO GUARDS
HIS PRIVACY
MORE THAN I DO.
SO I WAS SURPRISED AT THIS,
AND SO WE IMMEDIATELY
CONTACTED FACEBOOK, AND
LIKE THAT, IT'S GONE.
I MEAN, THEY INVESTIGATE
IMMEDIATELY.
NOW, I REALIZE THE
FACT IT WAS ME,
AND I WAS ASKING THEM MIGHT
HAVE HAD SOMETHING TO DO
WITH IT, BUT I ASSURE YOU,
THEY WOULD HAVE ACTED
AS QUICKLY FOR ANY
MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC.
THE POINT IS THEY HAVE
A PROCESS BUILT IN
THAT IF YOU SUSPECT
SOMETHING IS ASTRAY,
THEY WILL INVESTIGATE.
AND I THINK THAT'S KEY.
BECAUSE THINGS HAPPEN.
PEOPLE WILL POST THINGS
UNDER YOUR NAME,
AND IT'S NOT YOU,
IT'S SOMEBODY ELSE.
SO THIS IS A VERY
IMPORTANT FEATURE.
I SHOULD TELL YOU,
JUST FOR A MOMENT,
WHAT IS THE U.S.
GOVERNMENT DOING?
THEIR CONCERN IS WITH
ONLINE PEDOPHILES,
AS YOU MIGHT IMAGINE;
AND U.S. CONGRESS
IS FOCUSING ON A NEW
PIECE OF LEGISLATION,
HR-5319, DELETING ONLINE
PREDATORS ACT OF 2006,
SO KEEP YOUR
EYES TUNED.
MYSPACE, I UNDERSTAND,
HAS LAUNCHED A CAMPAIGN
TO PROMOTE THE SAFE
USE FOR CHILDREN,
INCLUDING A
PARENTAL VETO.
AND I UNDERSTAND THIS
RELIES HEAVILY
ON PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT.
FACEBOOK, I THINK, IS THE
BEST PRIVACY PROTECTION
DUE TO THE FOLLOWING.
FIRST OF ALL, I THINK
TO EXERCISE PRIVACY
YOU HAVE TO EXERCISE
USER CONTROL.
RELYING ON PARENTS OR YOUR
BOSS OR YOUR MOTHER OR
YOUR BROTHER TO DO IT
FOR YOU, I DON'T THINK
IS AN EFFECTIVE MEASURE.
SO THE PRIVACY OPTIONS
AVAILABLE WHICH
I'VE ILLUSTRATED TODAY,
ARE THERE FOR YOU TO USE,
BUT I AM ASKING YOU TO
PLEASE EXERCISE THAT CHOICE
AND GET IN THERE AND TAKE
A LOOK AT WHAT YOU WANT.
AND IF THERE'S ANYTHING
WE CAN DO TO HELP YOU,
PLEASE CONTACT US; WE'RE
HERE TO SERVE YOU.

A slide reads "How to contact us. Ann Cavoukian, Ph.D. Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario. 2 Bloor Street East, Suite 1400. Toronto, Ontario, Canada. M4W 1A8. Phone: 416-326-3333, 1-800-387-0073.
Web: www.ipc.on.ca
E-mail: info@ipc.on.ca"

The clip ends and Andrew reappears in the studio with a caption that reads "Andrew Moodie."

He says FACEBOOK, MYSPACE,
LAVALIFE, YOUTUBE.
WHO WOULD HAVE THOUGHT TEN
YEARS AGO THAT THERE WOULD BE
SO MANY WAYS FOR HUMAN
BEINGS TO CONNECT
WITH EACH OTHER?
AND WITH THIS EXPLOSION
COME THE GROWING WAYS
THAT HUMAN BEINGS CAN
EXPLOIT EACH OTHER.
INTERNET ANONYMITY PROVIDE
SOME WITH AN AMAZING SENSE
OF FREEDOM, AND OTHERS
WITH THE FREEDOM
TO BE DOWNRIGHT NASTY.
NOW, AS THE FATHER
OF TWO YOUNG GIRLS,
I TAKE SOME COMFORT IN HOW
VOCIFEROUS CAVOUKIAN IS
ABOUT PERSUADING THE YOUNG
TO BE INFORMED AND MAKE
THE RIGHT CHOICES ABOUT
THEIR PRIVACY.
THE TRUTH IS THAT MOST OF
US, AND I INCLUDE MYSELF,
TAKE OUR PRIVACY
FOR GRANTED.
HOWEVER, AS
CAVOUKIAN POINTS OUT,
YOU KNOW HOW IMPORTANT
YOUR PRIVACY IS,
THE MOMENT YOU
LOSE IT.
IF YOU'RE INTERESTED IN WHAT
ANN CAVOUKIAN'S OFFICE
IS ALL ABOUT, HERE'S
AN EXPLANATION.

A slide reads "IPC: Our role."

Ann says IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT
THAT YOU KNOW WE ACT
AS AN OVERSIGHT AGENCY.
WE OVERSEE COMPLIANCE
WITH ONTARIO'S FREEDOM
OF INFORMATION AND
PROTECTION OF PRIVACY ACTS.
AND I WILL REVIEW
THOSE IN A MOMENT.
BUT YOU SHOULD ALSO KNOW
THAT AS AN OVERSIGHT AGENCY,
OUR INDEPENDENCE,
INDEPENDENCE FROM GOVERNMENT,
IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT
BECAUSE OTHERWISE
WE WOULDN'T BE IN
POSITION TO CRITIQUE,
CRITICIZE THE GOVERNMENT,
WHICH AT TIMES
WE ARE REQUIRED TO
DO BY LAW.
IF THEY CONTROLLED
OUR BUDGET,
THAT WOULD BE MUCH
MORE DIFFICULT TO DO.
SO I'M AN OFFICE
OF THE LEGISLATURE.
I REPORT THROUGH THE
SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
TO THE LEGISLATURE,
WHICH OF COURSE CONSISTS
OF ALL THREE
POLITICAL PARTIES.
AND AS A RESULT OF THAT, MY
BUDGET IS NOT CONTROLLED
BY THE GOVERNMENT
OF THE DAY.
THAT ARMS LENGTH
RELATIONSHIP FROM
GOVERNMENT IS
EXTREMELY IMPORTANT,
AND I AM SO GRATEFUL THAT
WE HAVE THAT IMPARTIALITY
BECAUSE THERE HAVE BEEN
MANY TIMES OVER THE PAST,
OH, GOSH, IT'S GOING
TO BE ALMOST 20 YEARS,
THAT WE HAVE HAD TO PUBLICLY
CRITICIZE THE GOVERNMENT,
AND REQUIRE THEM, COMPEL
THEM TO TAKE CERTAIN ACTIONS.
OUR ROLE, AS I SAID,
IS TO OVERSEE COMPLIANCE
WITH THREE STATUTES: THE
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
AND PROTECTION OF PRIVACY
ACT THAT APPLIES TO
ALL PROVINCIAL
INSTITUTIONS;
ITS MUNICIPAL COUNTERPART
THAT APPLIES TO
MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENTS,
LIBRARIES, BOARDS,
EVERYTHING AT THE
MUNICIPAL LEVEL,
AND NOW WE HAVE THE
PERSONAL HEALTH INFORMATION
PROTECTION ACT, WHICH CAME
INTO PLACE TWO YEARS AGO.
AND I'M DELIGHTED TO SAY
HAS BEEN JUST A RESOUNDING
SUCCESS, AND IT COVERS ALL
PERSONAL HEALTH INFORMATION
IN THIS PROVINCE, HELD
EITHER IN THE PUBLIC
OR PRIVATE SECTOR.
SO HOSPITALS, AS WELL
AS PRIVATE PHYSICIANS,
LAB TESTING FACILITIES,
ANYWHERE THAT HEALTH
INFORMATION RESIDES IS
COVERED UNDER THIS ACT.
SO IT APPLIES
VERY BROADLY, BOTH PUBLIC
AND PRIVATE SECTOR.
OUR MANDATE IS QUITE
BROAD, AND WE TAKE
IT VERY SERIOUSLY.
WE DO A
NUMBER OF THINGS.
OUR BREAD-AND-BUTTER
BUSINESS IS INVESTIGATING
COMPLAINTS AND RESOLVING
APPEALS WITH RESPECT
TO INFORMATION THAT HAS BEEN
REQUESTED OF THE GOVERNMENT
UNDER FREEDOM
OF INFORMATION,
BUT THAT HAS EITHER BEEN
DENIED OR NOT PROVIDED
IN FULL OR IN
A TIMELY MANNER.
WE ARE VERY BUSY WITH
THOSE ACTIVITIES,
BUT THAT'S ONLY
WHERE IT BEGINS.
I THINK OUR POLICY WORK
IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT
BECAUSE SINCE 1992 WHEN
THE WORLDWIDE WEB
WAS FIRST INVENTED, THERE
HAS BEEN AN EXPLOSION
OF PRIVACY-RELATED ISSUES THAT
WE COULD NOT HAVE FORESEEN.
THE COLLECTION, USE AND
DISCLOSURE OF PERSONAL
INFORMATION THAT HAS BEEN
FACILITATED BY THE WEB
AND ONLINE ACTIVITIES HAS
LED TO SUCH AN ENORMOUS GROWTH
AND AMASSING OF PERSONAL
INFORMATION IN DATABASES
SO DIVERSE THAT QUITE FRANKLY,
IT'S PRACTICALLY IMPOSSIBLE
TO KNOW ALL THE PLACES
WHERE YOUR INFORMATION RESIDES.
WHICH IS WHY IT IS THAT MUCH
MORE IMPORTANT TO BE IN CONTROL
OF THOSE SMALL AREAS
THAT YOU CAN EXERCISE
SOME CONTROL.
AND I SAY THAT IN A VERY
MEASURED WAY BECAUSE
INCREASINGLY, YOU HAVE
LESS CONTROL ONLINE.
SO TO THE EXTENT THAT YOU
CAN EXERCISE ANY KIND
OF CONTROL, YOU
SHOULD DO SO.
WE DO A GREAT DEAL OF
RESEARCH IN MY OFFICE.
WE HAVE A MANDATE TO
RESEARCH ACCESS
AND PRIVACY ISSUES, WHICH
WE TAKE VERY SERIOUSLY.
WE HAVE A MANDATE TO
EDUCATE THE PUBLIC,
WHICH WE ALSO TAKE
VERY SERIOUSLY.
AND WE HAVE A HISTORY OF
BUILDING PARTNERSHIPS
WITH ORGANIZATIONS THAT COME
TO OUR ATTENTION IN VARIOUS
WAYS, AND THAT ATTRACT OUR
INTEREST BECAUSE THEY
DO ENGAGE IN PRIVACY
PROTECTIVE PRACTICES,
OR THEY ARE RESPECTFUL OF
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION,
AND ENSURING THAT
INFORMATION GOES OUT.
WE HAVE A HISTORY OF THAT, AND
WE TAKE THAT VERY SERIOUSLY.

A slide reads "What do the acts cover?"

Ann continues BRIEFLY, WHAT
THE ACTS COVER,
THE TWO PUBLIC SECTOR ACTS
PROVIDE THE PUBLIC
WITH A RIGHT OF ACCESS
TO INFORMATION HELD BY
THE GOVERNMENT IN ACCORDANCE
WITH TWO SIMPLE PRINCIPLES.
INFORMATION SHOULD BE
AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC.
REMEMBER, THE INFORMATION
THE GOVERNMENT COLLECTS
IS NOT THE GOVERNMENT'S
INFORMATION.
THE GOVERNMENT IS
THERE AT THE PLEASURE
OF THE GOVERNED.
DO NOT MAKE THE MISTAKE EVER
OF THINKING THAT THERE'S
A GOVERNMENT THAT HAS
ITS OWN INFORMATION.
IT'S YOUR INFORMATION.
AND THAT IS THE
FUNDAMENTAL PREMISE
OF FREEDOM OF
INFORMATION.
IT IS INHERENT TO A FREE
AND DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY.
AND IF WE WANT TO
PRESERVE OUR FREEDOMS,
WE BETTER ENSURE THAT THAT
PRINCIPLE IS FOLLOWED.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

[Applause]

Back in the studio, Andrew says
YOUR PRIVACY, HOWEVER, WILL
NOT BE SEVERELY COMPROMISED
IF YOU WERE TO ASK FOR
MORE INFORMATION ABOUT
OUR FUTURE PROGRAMS.
SO TO DO SO PLEASE,
SEND US AN e-mail AT
bigideas@tvo.org;
YOU CAN ALSO LISTEN TO THE
PODCASTS OF THE VARIOUS
TALKS AND LECTURES WHICH
HAVE AIRED ON
BIG IDEAS.
FOR MORE INFORMATION
ON THAT, PLEASE GO TO
www.tvo.org/bigideas
AND NOW, TAKE A LOOK AT
SOME OF THE LECTURES
WE ARE PREPARING FOR YOU.

A clip plays on a slate that reads "Coming up, Paul Steinhardt."

In the clip, Paul Steinhardt addresses an audience in an auditorium.

He says THIS SUBJECT BEGAN ABOUT
TWO DECADES AGO WITH
THE ACCIDENTAL DISCOVERY OF
THIS PARTICULAR MATERIAL.

A picture shows a silver material with parts that look like snowflakes.

Paul continues AN ALLOY MIXTURE OF
SIX PARTS ALUMINUM,
AND ONE PART MANGANESE.
NOW, WHAT YOU'RE SEEING
MOSTLY IN THIS PICTURE
IS ACTUALLY PURE ALUMINUM.
WHAT I WANT YOU TO FOCUS
YOUR EYES ON ARE THESE
SORT OF FEATHERY-LOOKING
THINGS THAT ARE SITTING
EMBEDDED IN THAT ALUMINUM.
THAT'S THE MATERIAL
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT,
THESE GRAINS OF
ALUMINUM MANGANESE.
THEY HAVE A KIND OF
SNOWFLAKE APPEARANCE,
BUT WHAT'S STRIKING
ABOUT THEM,
AT LEAST WHAT'S
STRIKING, FOR EXAMPLE,
ABOUT THIS ONE, IT SEEMS,
AT LEAST TO THE EYE,
SUPERFICIALLY TO HAVE
A FIVEFOLD SYMMETRY.
WE JUST PROVED TO OURSELVES
THAT FIVEFOLD SYMMETRY IS
IMPOSSIBLE FOR CRYSTALS,
IMPOSSIBLE FOR ANY KIND OF
MATTER THAT IS MADE FROM
REPEATING BUILDING BLOCKS.
NOW, JUST SEEING A PICTURE
LIKE THAT ISN'T CONVINCING.
TO REALLY CONVINCE YOURSELF
WHAT THE SYMMETRY IS,
WHAT YOU DO IS PERFORM
WHAT WE CALL AN ELECTRON
DEFRACTION EXPERIMENT.
WE SCATTER ELECTRONS THROUGH
A GRAIN OF THIS MATERIAL,
AND LOOK AT THE SCATTERING
PATTERN IT PRODUCES.
BECAUSE THAT SCATTERING
PATTERN REVEALS THE ORDER
AND SYMMETRY OF THE
SOLID THAT THE ELECTRONS
PASS THROUGH.
SO FOR EXAMPLE, IF YOU PASS
ELECTRONS THROUGH A CUBIC
CRYSTAL, IT WILL PRODUCE
A LATTICE OF SHARP SPOTS,
WHOSE SHARPNESS INDICATES
THAT THE STRUCTURE
IS MADE FROM EXACTLY
REPEATING ELEMENTS OVER
AND OVER AGAIN,
WITH EQUAL SPACING.
AND FURTHERMORE, THE
PATTERN OF SPOTS,
IF I SHOOT THE ELECTRONS
ALONG AN ACCESS, SAY,
SQUARE SYMMETRY, THE
PATTERNS OF SPOTS
WILL HAVE A SQUARE
PATTERN OF SPOTS.
WHAT HAPPENED IN
THIS CASE, THOUGH,
IS THEY GOT A
PATTERN LIKE THIS.
THEY GOT A PATTERN
WHICH HAD SHARP SPOTS.
THESE ARE SHARP.
THE REASON THEY LOOK KIND
OF BROAD IS THEY SIMPLY
OVEREXPOSED THE FILM, BUT
THEY'RE ACTUALLY QUITE SHARP.
BUT WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE
SYMMETRY OF THIS PATTERN,
IT REVEALS SOMETHING
WHICH WAS SHOCKING,
AT LEAST AT THE TIME.

The image changes to one of a series of dots in a circular pattern.

Paul continues IF YOU LOOK, FOR EXAMPLE,
AT THESE SPOTS OVER HERE,
THEY FORM A RING OF SPOTS.
IF YOU COUNT THEM AS THEY GO
AROUND, THERE'S ONE, TWO,
THREE, FOUR, FIVE, SIX,
SEVEN, EIGHT, NINE, TEN.
TENFOLD SYMMETRY.
ONE OF THE MANY DISALLOWED
SYMMETRIES FOR CRYSTALS.
EVEN THOUGH THE
PATTERNS ARE SHAPE,
WHICH IS INDICATING THIS IS
ORDERED LIKE A CRYSTAL,
THERE'S SOME REGULAR
ORDERING TO THE SAMPLE.
AND THEN IF YOU
LOOK MORE CLOSELY,
YOU MIGHT EVEN BE ABLE
TO PICK OUT PENTAGONS
AND DECAGONS IN THE
PATTERN, AS WELL.
SO THIS PATTERN WAS A
REAL PUZZLE TO THEM.
ALL THEY COULD SAY IS
IT DISOBEYED THE LAWS
OF CRYSTALLOGRAPHY, BUT
THEY HAD NO EXPLANATION
FOR HOW THIS WAS POSSIBLE,
What the internal structure would be that would allow this.

The clip ends.

Back in the studio, Andrew says
I'm Andrew Moodie. See you next week.

[Theme music plays]

The end credits roll.

bigideas@tvo.org

416-484-2746

Big Ideas. Producer, Wodek Szemberg.

Producers, Lara Hindle, Mike Miner, Gregg Thurlbeck.

Logos: Unifor, Canadian Media Guild.

A production of TVOntario. Copyright 2006, The Ontario Educational Communications Authority.

Watch: Ann Cavoukian