Join the forum discussion on this post
In testimony before Canada’s Parliamentary committee studying the privacy implications of Google street-level mass photography, Jonathan Lister, Head of Google Canada testified that Members of Parliament should not be concerned about Google storing personal information about Canadians on U.S. servers because the U.S. could get it anyway.
The concern about where the data is physically stored arises out of the recent history of warrantless searches in the United States and the vulnerability of Canadian citizens to having their personal data taken without their knowledge or consent under Patriot Act or other privacy invasion provisions.
Lister told the Canadian Parliament on June 17, 2009, “Yes, but if the data were stored in Canada, it could also be seized. I think it’s under the mutual legal assistance treaty with the U.S. So there’s no difference.”
The Secure Surfing Organization asserts its profound disagreement with Google’s position on this subject.
No mutual assistance agreement can over-ride or subrogate the fundamental rights of Canadians, one of which is to be free from unreasonable search and seizure.
The only way the mutual assistance agreement would expose records stored on a Canadian server is if a judge or justice had heard a reasonable cause case and granted a warrant. A mere request for assistance pursuant to a bilateral agreement would not be reasonable cause.
The reason the position taken by Google matters is that it so clearly illustrates the company’s utter lack of respect or concern for the privacy of the people it wants to index, categorize, homogenize and monetize.
Instead of shrugging off the Committee’s concern, a responsible executive would have provided some assurances that Google would resist warrantless searches even if they were being perpetrated in the U.S.
We don’t not have video to share on this testimony, but we wish to underscore what we saw live. The tone an attitude of Lister, the body language, was dismissive and almost sarcastic.
Google simply does not take privacy concerns seriously from the very top on down.
