School Suspicions And Privacy Rights
According to a report by the CBC…
“Universities in British Columbia can share confidential medical records about troubled students if there’s a perceived a threat to public safety, the province’s privacy commissioner says.
Responding to a U.S. government report issued June 13 on the April 16 massacre at Virginia Tech that left 33 people dead — including the student who fired the gun — David Loukidelis said a university student’s confidential medical records can be shared — regardless of the student’s age.”
[…]
“Tim Rahilly, senior director of student and community life at Simon Fraser University in Vancouver, said he often noticed the beginning of problems with students and wondered whether that information could be shared.
He said the university would ask the student whether it can talk to the student’s parents about the concerns.
“The student can say no and if they are above the age of majority we are a little bit hamstrung,” Rahilly said.
Loukidelis said if a student denies a request to share personal information with their parents or school officials, an assessment can be made.”
Welcome to the age of suspicion. In such an age, precautions must be taken to ensure the safety of the public. That being the case, the civil liberties of individuals can be sacrificed to ensure that the public is safeguarded, even if the disclosure of private, personal information results in absolutely nothing. At least, retort the powers that be, the possibility of something occurring was investigated.
This brings us to a rather ambiguous juncture – what constitutes behviour that is deemed troubling enough to request that an individual’s private information be disclosed, and who then decides if that information points to the possibility of a threat?
According to BC’s Privacy Commissioner – ‘an assessment can be made’ if a student refuses to agree to the disclosure of private information. Who then is responsible for making that assessment and what does the outcome entail with regards to the rights of the student in question if they are of legal age?
In the case of post secondary institutions, the majority of those in attendance are of legal age and therefore possess rights under the law as adults. Therefore, how can an ‘assessment’ be made without the authorities being involved? And if the authorities are involved, surely a court order must be obtained before any personal information, such as medical or financial records, can be released.
I am certainly not saying that there aren’t troubled youths out there that require assistance, but there is a marked difference between confronting them about it and possessing the authority to examine private information if they fail to cooperate without first obtaining a court order – something which should require substantiated evidence that the individual in question intends to commit a crime or poses a threat to others.
Ultimately, that’s what this is about – criminality and the rights of those that have not committed any offense but simply can be deemed a threat because of the observations and concerns of a few individuals.
Now, according to the article…
“”The laws in B.C. fully enable university and college officials to take steps to protect individual and indeed public safety…”
[…]
“…there’s a long list of exemptions in B.C.’s privacy laws that allow a student’s private information to be shared for the good of public safety.”
If anyone out there has any expertise in this area, I’d like to know what that ‘long list’ of exemptions actually contains.
Want to bookmark or share this entry?
This entry was posted on Monday, September 3rd, 2007 at 6:03 pm. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
September 3rd, 2007 at 6:37 pm
Does a university fall under category as a federally regulated or public institution?
Why Alberta, BC and Quebec aren’t online with PIPEDA is beyond me I realize they have similar legislation but this could set precedent for other provinces.
That said where is the privacy commissioner of Canada on this one? Summer vacation?
September 3rd, 2007 at 6:44 pm
Personal information is any factual or subjective information, recorded or not, about an identifiable individual. It includes It includes the fol:
- age, name, weight, height,
- MEDICAL RECORDS
- ID numbers, income, ethnic origin, or blood type
- opinions, evaluations, comments, social status, or disciplinary action
- employee files, credit records, loan records, dispute with a merchant, intentions (For example, to acquire goods and services, or change jobs)
Personal Info doesn’t include:
-an employee’s name, title, business address of telephone number
-an individual’s collection, use, or disclosure of personal information strictly for personal purposes (for example, personal greeting card list)
- the collection, use or disclosure of personal information
- solely for journalistic, artistic, or literary purposes
-by provincial or territorial governments and their agencies
- by federal government organizations listed in the Privacy Act
September 3rd, 2007 at 7:11 pm
I read this earlier today and was rather disturbed by it. It’s bad enough that our medical records are already handled by Maximus, an American company (and thus subject to the Patriot Act).
I share many of the same concerns already highlighted in this entry:
Who exactly makes the “assessment,” & how does this assessor go about creating it? How does the student protect him/herself from this “assessment” from going beyond it’s stated intentions and into a witch-hunt? Does the student receive any representation when challenging this “assessment”?
I really hope that the Student Unions pick up this cause, mobilize, and fight for their right to privacy.
As it is, this article is barely skimming the surface of this issue.
September 3rd, 2007 at 7:44 pm
I have volunteered in the area of peer support at a BC University for years, and although the service is confidential, if someone disclosed to me that they were thinking of harming themselves, or someone else, (or have witnessed, or know of child abuse) that is the only time that confidentiality can be broken, and information on the individual would be passed on (even then, the information is passed on to counsellors, doctors who evaluate the situation themselves, before involving anyone else -ie. police.)
September 3rd, 2007 at 7:47 pm
Correct me if im wrong, but in the Virginia Tech situation wasn’t the shooter supposed to undergo court ordered psychiatric help which he never went to ? In that case didn’t the state have a legal resort of preventing this (ie arresting him for violating a court order )?
September 3rd, 2007 at 7:55 pm
I suppose shedding light on society’s role in these individuals becoming “troubled” would be akin to an admission of guilt, so let’s label the individual as a “threat” and wash our hands clean.
September 3rd, 2007 at 8:10 pm
this is a tricky subject.
At my school we had an incident where roommates turned in an international student because of his obsession with guns, dying in a dramatic way, illegally purchasing 2 AK-47, and possessing lots of ammunition. To be honest I am glad that his roommates had the gumption to say something to authorities, because a) he needed to get help, & b) they prevented something that could have been tragic.
I don’t agree with the need to make personal information public. What if this information wasn’t even available? Not everyone with problems have recorded private information that can be shared. Even still I don’t think that those with “unstable” medical records should be ostracized and made to live in fear/anxiety that their personal problems are going to be plastered all over their public life just because administration feels uneasy. This kind of action doesn’t help a person heal or get through the problems they do have.
A link to the story:
http://kutv.com/topstories/local_story_164085910.html
September 3rd, 2007 at 8:53 pm
This is a tricky subject indeed- at what point, if ever, is it jusitifiable to intrude on the personal rights of individuals, based on an assessment that they are a threat to the public?
I too, worked with youth at risk at one point in time- and although all information disclosed was cofidential, there were exceptions, whereby if the person indicated that they were thinking about, or intended to carry out, an act of self-harm to themselves or to others, we were obligated to provide them with information about where they can obtain support, and to report them to program staff.
There are many sides to this situation, but what I found throughout this work, was that many of the youth I spoke to were not only in need of someone to talk to, but some were desperate for help, because they saw that they were a threat to themselves, and possibly to others. At that point in time, what is the proper course of action, especially if the persons do not know how, or are too ashamed, to seek out support and help themselves?
It is true that who and what is deemed to be ‘troubled’ is a slippery slope- on the other hand, if they are sharing this information with parents, psychiatrists, counsellors, etc..- people that you would associate with being able to help those who feel helpless- there are certainly justifiable grounds for this to happen.
September 3rd, 2007 at 11:04 pm
If they don’t have a sufficient evidence to prove that the person is a threat to a) oneself b) to others or c) someone is threatening them, I believe it’s illegal for them to check. I know that I signed a legally binding form with a therapist so that my school and future schools (when applying for college/university) could not have access to my medical records. (Apparently schools are less likely to accept a student with a history of mental illness.) As far as I know, the form was from the federal government, not provincial.
However, it is troubling how easy they could get into records of students who didn’t sign the form because there really is no standard criteria for deciding if someone is a threat. I’m also not naive enough to think that for example, my records could not be accessed. I’m sure they could pull a few strings and access them. But they would also face a lawsuit.
Those politicians love to have the upper hand don’t they? One has to question if there’s really any bounds to what they can do.
September 4th, 2007 at 12:46 am
The very fact that these policies are being enforced, instead of there being a grass roots media and strong community reverence for change, will only further to increase shootings brought on by a state of fear and paranoia. It is maddening to me that there is seemingly no end in sight, our governmental state of beuracracy, and corporate greed will not end until, communities begin to stand as one, and either stop paying taxes altogether of raise arms to the federal government!!!! Something must be done and soon.
jesseoneil@hotmail.com life is the moment
September 4th, 2007 at 2:56 am
[quote comment="25310"]I have volunteered in the area of peer support at a BC University for years, and although the service is confidential, if someone disclosed to me that they were thinking of harming themselves, or someone else, (or have witnessed, or know of child abuse) that is the only time that confidentiality can be broken….[/quote]
I too volunteered in Peer Support Worker at a University in BC but we were trained if we felt a session was moving towards the disclosure of something along the lines of self-harm, hurting someone else, child abuse, etc. we were to inform the client up front that we were obligated to inform the “proper” people (generally the counsellor in charge of the Peer Support Network & they would take it from there) should they disclose that info. I’m not sure if that’s what all Peer Support workers are trained to do but I suppose it allows the person to make a bit more of an informed decision. Then again, we were also trained to have people that disclosed intentions of harming themsleves to sign a “contract” in which they’d “agree” not to follow through with it which seemed rather ridiculous in some instances.
Matt, I totally agree with this being the “age of suspicion”. Guilty until proven innocent I suppose. However, for those doing the “assessing” there are so many degrees of “troubled” that it makes it difficult to truly make an informed assessment as opposed to an educated (or uneducated for that matter) guess. I also quite like the wordsmithing of it all…”…if there’s a perceived a threat to public safety”, “The student can say no…”, “…an assessment can be made”. Well, basically with wording like this, you’re hooped if you want to fight it because it’s so damn ambiguous! In instances like this the tie generally does not go to the runner so I guess we just have to suffer in silence if we’re having problems as to not have to worry about it being used against us at a later date? Hmm, I think I’m going to go have a quick refresher on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Oh how I remember when people used to think it actually meant something…
September 4th, 2007 at 6:12 am
im sorry, but, no offence to anyone who has kids….. they are messed up these days….. its the quiet ones u have to look out for….. when i was growin up, and the loser one was always by himself durin reccess, sittin by him self in the cafeteria, classmates makin fun of him since his family was poor on welfare, couldnt always get cute grrls for the teen dances, i decided one day, u knwo what, im gonna go talk to him…. i didnt give a shit what others say cuz jus the smallest thing can make that kid do some horrible things….. i talked to him about him, his family and other stuff, we hung out….. and right now, 14 years l8er, were best friends cuz i was the only one who would step up and talk to him…… remember when i mentioned his family was poor when he was growin up….. well, he now works for inco here in the mines here in sudbury makin mad cash cuz i would always lift his spirits……ill get to my point, it all comes down to bullyin in schools….. teachers arent doing enough to make this stop….. the school boards need to make changes about discipline or this is gonna continue….. where…. heck, it can happen tomorrow on the first day of school…. that one kid doesnt want to go back cuz he knows whats gonna happen all year round….. get teased, gettin name callin, the sadness and depression all over again….. something needs to be done….. yeah, their is anti-bullyin posters and videos we had to watch in school, but, we all thought they were jokes when watchin them or someone would jus rip down the poster…..
Marc
September 4th, 2007 at 8:07 am
My experience in this area is rather limited, but here goes. I once worked briefly as an information analyst, and spent some time looking at provincial information and privacy legislation. This by no means qualifies me as an expert, but I did learn a few basic concepts. Can anyone out there provide more insight?
Disclosure is a murky area, and the legislation allows for a great deal of discretion on the part of the heads of the public bodies, which are designated by the act as responsible for the final decision. I’m not sure what the long list of exemptions “for the good of public safety” that the Privacy Commissioner mentioned is referring to. While BC’S FIPPA does contain a long list permissible exceptions in Part 3, Division 2 (http://www.qp.gov.bc.ca/statreg/stat/F/96165_00.htm), I can really only see 2 exemption that refers to threats to safety:
1. s.33.1(1m):
“(m) if
(i) the head of the public body determines that compelling circumstances exist that affect anyone’s health or safety, and
(ii) notice of disclosure is mailed to the last known address of the individual the information is about, unless the head of the public body considers that giving this notice could harm someone’s health or safety;”
2. s.33.1. (1f). allows disclosure within the public body if there is a perceived threat to the minister or an employee or officer of the public body.
There is also an article allowing disclosure to a law enforcement agency, which like the other articles, allows for a lot of leeway(33.2(i)):
“(i) to a public body or a law enforcement agency in Canada to assist in a specific investigation
(i) undertaken with a view to a law enforcement proceeding, or
(ii) from which a law enforcement proceeding is likely to result;”
These exemptions provide an enormous amount of power. Disclosure does not require any kind of warrant, writ, or court order. The legislation provides almost no guidance and allows the public body a great deal of latitude, including the ability to avoid notifying the individual of the disclosure ahead of time.
So Matthew, you hit the nail on the head when you pointed out the difficulty of deciding what constitutes a threat to health and safety.
In answer to Patrick’s comments:
Universities are considered local public bodies, and fall under provincial information and privacy legislation. See Schedule 1 of BC’s Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy (FIPPA) Act at http://www.qp.gov.bc.ca/statreg/backup/stat/f/96165_00.htm. A guide to FIPPA is available from BC’s Office of the Information Commissioner- http://www.oipc.bc.ca/sector_public/public_info/privacy_rights.htm.
Federal information and privacy legislation applies only to the departments or ministries of the Government of Canada, as listed in Schedule 1 of the Access to Information Act (R.S., 1985, c. A-1) and in Schedule 1 of the Privacy Act (R.S., 1985, c. P-21). The Information Commissioner may not be commenting because his mandate is limited to the scope of federal legislation, i.e. federal government bodies: “The Information Commissioner is an ombudsman appointed by Parliament to investigate complaints that the government has denied rights under the Access to Information Act–Canada’s freedom of information legislation.” (Annual Report, 2006-2007)
In general, PIPEDA applies to commercial entities, not to government bodies (be they local or federal). See s.4 of the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (2000, c. 5).
September 4th, 2007 at 8:53 am
Today is my first day back at work at the University, and strangely enough I received an e-mail in my faculty account titled: Be Alert to Concerning Student Behaviours : Online Learning opportunity for Faculty. The online workshop titled ” A Guide for Faculty on Responding to Students in Distress” costs $249. If this is such an important issue and faculty need to be informed, why is there such a huge cost? Just another way for someone to make money, I guess.
September 4th, 2007 at 9:48 am
Sometimes the disclosure is for the benefit of the patient, rather than society, as in the case of suicide. There was a publicized case just a few years ago of a young UBC student who commited suicide. She had received counseling through UBC health services and they (the doctor) was aware of her suicidal thoughts and was monitoring her. The controversy arose after the suicide when the student’s mother tried to bring charges against UBC and the doctor, stating she should have been informed about her daughter’s suicidal thoughts, even though breaking confidentiality. She of course felt that had she been informed she could have intervened and prevented it. Unfortunately I don’t know the outcome of this.
Confidentiality CAN be broken when there is a clear and SPECIFIC threat made against someone else. This is not particularly new. There is a duty to protect potential victims. So if a patient says - I am going to shoot my chemistry teacher, this cannot be kept confidential. If the patient says - I feel like killing someone - this is not something that is reportable to authorities. It is a really complicated area though with lots of grey areas and health professionals often have to get advice from their professional bodies to clarify specific cases. It’s not done lightly, I can assure you of that.
September 4th, 2007 at 9:56 am
I hear what you are saying in the article, releasing private medical records is incredibly invasive and a MAJOR trampling of a students citizen rights.
However, Im going back to school tomorrow, and I really, really, really, really, REALLY dont want to get shot by some dickhead like that v-tech cocksucker (I refuse to say his name).
September 4th, 2007 at 10:40 am
There are hundreds of people with expertise in this area. They’re called lawyers and the all have a different answer to the question.
That’s the bad news.
There is no good news. It’s all about where the “responsibility line” comes in contact with the “liability line”.
September 4th, 2007 at 11:01 am
[quote comment="25334"]Sometimes the disclosure is for the benefit of the patient, rather than society, as in the case of suicide. There was a publicized case just a few years ago of a young UBC student who commited suicide. She had received counseling through UBC health services and they (the doctor) was aware of her suicidal thoughts and was monitoring her. The controversy arose after the suicide when the student’s mother tried to bring charges against UBC and the doctor, stating she should have been informed about her daughter’s suicidal thoughts, even though breaking confidentiality. She of course felt that had she been informed she could have intervened and prevented it.[/quote]
I find it very strange that the students condition was not revealed to her parents, considering that in my own situation the doctors immediately contacted my parents to let them know what was going on. However I admit that it didn’t make a difference that my parents knew because I still made my own choices. However I wonder if they attempted to prescribe her medication or if counselling was the only treatment she recieved. Not that medication is always the answer, but it can make a difference if a person is seriously depressed. So I guess it all comes back to where the line needs to be drawn.
September 4th, 2007 at 12:24 pm
So consent and they invade your privacy, don’t consent and they’ll give it their best shot to invade your privacy. Depending on the process it might just be a very expensive rubber stamp.
I honestly believe that this won’t result in any improvements for public safety. I can imagine that untrained people will view weird, but harmless, behaviour as a sign of danger and then someone’s privacy is invaded and nothing is accomplished.
September 5th, 2007 at 4:59 pm
[quote comment="25341"]I can imagine that untrained people will view weird, but harmless, behaviour as a sign of danger and then someone’s privacy is invaded and nothing is accomplished.[/quote]
This will change after the first few lawsuits in the multiple-millions for people having their lives ruined (what university would let them in if they were branded “dangerous”?).
The only way to make any of this (this == spying on citizens, revealing personal information, etc… for the “safety of the public”) reasonable is if EVERYONE is subject to the same rules!
That is, all information is available to all citizens. You want to know what dirty secrets your PM or MP has? They want to know yours? Good, you now know each other’s info. What good will it do? Who knows, but at least that is fair!
And of course, before you can label anyone anything, there had better be a real expert performing an analysis.
Would you want a telephone technician who read a few wikipedia articles making decisions about whether you fit enough for a 30km run? That’s the amount of education people are receiving to actually make assessments about you! Next time you walk through Security at an airport, ask a few questions, see how well they know the law or Charter of Rights and Freedoms. But also be polite, because if they are having a bad day, they can make your day a living hell, and you can’t do squat about it!
Welcome to the era where we’re too busy to notice until it is too late!