JackWritesCode
Joined 7 years ago
Joined 7 years ago
So my question to you is: Which part of the Personal Information Protection Act in BC would undermine the EU's adequacy decision towards BC? The reason I'm pushing on this question is because the "stamp" occurs for a reason. Please let me know where the PIPA would lead to the European Commission labelling BC as inadequate.
2. We're mixing things up here with Amazon, Google and Azure. Those companies are subject to FISA 702[1] and EO12333[2]. We are not subject to these surveillance laws here in Canada. I've spoken at length about this before, about how the US government could compel one of these companies to secretly spy on people using their EU infrastructure. So our company is not in the same position.
I'll wait for your specifics around the PIPA.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveilla... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_12333
1. The GDPR is regulation from the European Union
2. PIPEDA has an Exemption order for BC (British Columbia, Canada) and applies "in respect of the collection, use and disclosure of personal information that occurs within the Province of British Columbia".
Firstly, the Exemption order states "Whereas the Governor in Council is satisfied that the Personal Information Protection Act, S.B.C. 2003, c. 63, of the Province of British Columbia, which is substantially similar to Part 1 of the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, applies to the organizations described in the annexed Order;"
Secondly, which part of BC's Personal Information Protection Act would undermine it's adequacy ruling under the GDPR?
Finally, let's get into Fathom's pageview/event collection script and explain how it works:
1. There is no collection, use and disclosure of personal information that occurs within the Province of British Columbia
2. EU traffic is automatically routed via EU Isolation and processed on German-owned servers. This allows us to stop US government snooping on EU traffic
3. Fathom Analytics is incorporated in BC. But nobody in BC has access to our EU Isolation infrastructure. I'm the CTO of Fathom Analytics and I have access to our EU Isolation infrastructure. I'm not in BC. Additional access to EU Isolation is from Germany only. Heck, not even GitHub Actions has access to EU Isolation, we self-host GitLab to keep things completely isolated. We put a lot of time and effort into this.
I'll wait back to hear back from you on which parts of the BC's PIPA undermine the adequacy ruling. Our lawyer here in Canada is incredibly well versed in Canadian privacy law, so we can definitely loop her in if there's any confusion here.
I hope that addresses your point and helps inform other people who may be reading this.
The query was:
SELECT SUM(pageviews) as total, pathname FROM pageviews GROUP BY pathname ORDER BY total DESC LIMIT 10.
If we don’t hear an answer from you, I’ll be really upset. Otherwise, we may have to add your ideas to the article!
Looking back, I’m glad we went in this direction. Fathom has grown beyond what we could’ve imagined. Let’s see what happens over the next five years.
The background of Schrems II was that the US government can compel US companies to track foreign nationals and it would be lawful under US law. This is where the argument of "company in X under Y laws" comes into play. For example, Amazon is a US company. An EU subsidiary is still subject to it's parents control. If that parent is a US company, it's subject to US surveillance laws. Hello Schrems II.
So I'm not fully following why we're having a discussion around processing happening in Canada when personal data (IP Address) hits our EU Isolation infrastructure.
If you have any sources you can cite where the European Commission states BC as an exemption to Canada's adequacy ruling, please throw it back to me. I've not seen that.