Privacy/Confidentiality
 

Is this all of Canada or just some parts with an obsession with total secrecy privacy?

In recent times I've seen things in the local paper about incidents involving teachers or child deaths for example. All that is reported is the number. Nothing else.

Fair enough not to identify an individual or some information leading to the identification of an individual but, really, what's the point in a number? What's wrong with announcing what % of child deaths, for example, were accidental or resulted from neglect or disease or whatever? It seems pointless just to announce a number and nothing more.

What I found especially annoying is yesterday the health department here announced a death (just that there had been one) of someone who had a heat related death. I'm not expecting a name or even where they lived. But "he had a number of chronic conditions" isn't really enough.

The complete lack of any other information is due to "privacy issues" but why is naming someone who died in a previously reported fatal vehicle accident or someone shot dead any less private?

What a fantastic opportunity this heat related death would be as a warning for others to take appropriate care in extreme weather. Name the age or chronic condition as being a contributing factor - nobody is going to say "aha, that must be Jack Jones of Saint John" or maybe a brief explanation of what happened - fell in their back yard and couldn't get attention; fell asleep; took the dog for a walk and didn't make it back; ran out of water....there must be something they could say that keeps identity private while providing useful information for other people and cut the likelihood of them dismissing the danger with an "I'll be fine" or whatever.

People are asked to keep an eye on neighbours; have an emergency supply kit; take a blanket with you if you drive when it's cold. Yet very little seems to be said about precautions in hot weather. Here was the ideal opportunity to warn people and the health department failed to take it.

Re: Privacy/Confidentiality
 

It does seem to be very much a privacy concern, but one from the point of view of the person. I think public officials in many cases are running scared of being sued for ??? defamation, or whatever. Something that I think is a spill over from what happens below the line.

Although we have had many reminders from the doctors in the BC Public Health service re watching our neighbours and WHY. We're always being reminded to keep as cool as we can, seek air conditioned places, drink lots of water, wear a hat, etc etc etc., and to make sure that elderly or sick neighbours are also taking care of themselves.

We're just having a cool day (ca 20C) after our 5th heat wave of the summer (according to powers-that-be), with heat returning on Monday or Tuesday.

Re: Privacy/Confidentiality
 

In the movies and on TV - no idea how accurate this is - patient or employee confidentiality doesn't apply when the person is dead. But that's still something associated with the individual. In this example there's no such association to be made.

Maybe someone should sue for not releasing pertinent information when that might have saved someone.
I see warnings on the weather network website, but nothing in the newspaper here. In the winter they carry the warnings about expected storms, only travel if necessary, stuff like that. But even then, you know how it is...everyone thinks these things happen to other people.

Give them an example of how it did happen to someone like them - mention the age, medical condition, how, where, whatever - and it might get taken more seriously.

Re: Privacy/Confidentiality
 

Regarding the heatwave information being handled differently from other warnings - here in Queensland my department deals with natural disasters, and works closely with the Bureau of Meteorology to issue warnings about severe weather such as storms and floods. However for some reason heatwaves are not within our remit, they are not considered "severe weather" and are dealt with by the Health Department. We have only just started including them in reports, and we can only do that at the specific request of the health department. Similarly, a "drought" - as is currently beunbg experienced by a huge part of Australia - is not considered a "natural disaster" and we don't report on it.
Its probably a similar situation in Canada, all tied up in red tape.

Re: Privacy/Confidentiality
 

Just took a look at the Chronicle Herald and they say Nickleback's coming.... can't think of anything they wouldn't admit if they'll come right out with that. :lol:

Re: Privacy/Confidentiality
 

That should give partiallydischarged a laugh too :lol:

Re: Privacy/Confidentiality
 

Now there's a coincidence. Today's Moncton newspaper.

https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/british...25b1cc6778.jpg

Re: Privacy/Confidentiality
 

From CBC radio news this morning and its website.

New Brunswick's Justice and Public Safety department issued a statement over the weekend announcing the death last week of 27 year old Alisha Paul, a First Nations woman released from custody and hit by a vehicle when crossing the highway.

(apparently people do it sometimes to go to a store there :ohmy:)

The RCMP says "A 27-year-old woman from Kingsclear First Nation has died after being struck by a pickup truck as she was attempting to cross the highway" but they are not confirming her identity
Come on, it's already in the public domain. Obsessed with secrecy :rolleyes:

Re: Privacy/Confidentiality
 

I think there's some new trend about this. One mass killings in the US, for example, they're encouraging media not to name the shooter so as not to give him notoriety. Anyway, once the machines take over we're all just numbered biological meat-forms anyway, and entirely expendable. Could be that, especially if we are already in the simulation.

Re: Privacy/Confidentiality
 

Yes, I agree warning the inhabitants of a city that Nickelback is coming to do a concert is a good idea so people can make alternate plans. Same with radio stations....'coming up after the break we'll be featuring Nickelback...you have been warned'

1st prize - a pair of Nickelback tickets
2nd prize - 2 pairs of tickets.

Re: Privacy/Confidentiality
 

One aspect of privacy trend in Canada is for police forces not to name murder victims, the RCMP and other police agencies tend to no longer name murder victims, the Vancouver Police has a much different opinion on it though, and almost always releases the names of victims once next of kin has been notified.

VPD's view:

“Homicide victims are not able to speak for themselves and we hope by sharing details of the offence, we will generate tips that could lead to the identity of those responsible for the death,” reads a statement from the VPD. “We never want to live in a society where someone can be murdered in secret.”


I get annoyed when different government departments need info from one another and I have to fill out a pile of forms in order for said government offices to talk to one another, so much wasted time and paper.

Re: Privacy/Confidentiality
 

It is a waste of time. In due course we will all have an official digital identity which we can share (digitally).

Re: Privacy/Confidentiality
 

The latest one.

NB Health Authority treats rare disease but they won't say what it was.

Someone visiting NB from another country fell ill and had several months of complex treatment including isolation for an infectious disease. There's no details of the patient or the family visited. Fair enough.
They've tested the family and nobody else infected so unless there's a long incubation period, which I assume the experts would know, there's no danger to anyone. The main doctor involved said he couldn't discuss in detail because of privacy rights (fair enough) but said he wasn't authorised to say what the disease was. "I don't quite see that" he stated but others obviously did.

That he was apparently allowed to say it wasn't Ebola does at least suggest there's some recognition of a public right to know but no more.

Funny thing...I looked at the Health Network website and there's an awful lot of detail there - albeit with a load of made up names - but there is a lot of treatment detail in a "aren't we good" sort of way. Just nothing about the disease itself.

I can see that if it had just happened, there might be some panic caused by an announcement - assuming it was Ebola or something else people have heard of and might panic about - but the patient fell ill last September.

Maybe the newspaper was just being mischievous with it's "won't say what it was" headline. :unsure:

Re: Privacy/Confidentiality
 

Re: Privacy/Confidentiality
 

Well I guess when the public wanted privacy/confidentiality as they didn't want the nasty Government agencies knowing things about them.this is what we now have. Yes it has gone too far for certain things but apparently, privacy/confidentiality of individuals trumps the potential safety of the public.

Re: Privacy/Confidentiality
 

We recently had 16 cases of Legionnaires' disease in the city. Fortunately nobody died.

After narrowing the source down to a named part of the city and eventually to a cooling system in a particular building, the health department are refusing to say where it was.

They don't want people to change their habits and not go there now it has been made safe.

Of course it was safe before it became not safe and there's been no assurance that whatever caused it to stop being safe won't happen again.

But what of those people who may change their plans and not go to the area that was originally named as the source even though they may be going to a building that is definitely not the one that was the source? How many other businesses may suffer through any loss of custom from people changing their habits unnecessarily?

What about people who have had some health issues and they dismissed their symptoms as those of a cold, cough or flu but if they discovered they had been in the building which had been the source of 16 cases of Legionnaires' disease (and more?) they could see their doctor and have their condition properly identified and treated if it did happen to be more than a cold?

Re: Privacy/Confidentiality
 

There was a cluster of Legionnaires last year around these parts, but the health authority for the region did state where once they located the source, water cooling towers at a local mall and Wal-Mart.

It is interesting at times to see how different government agencies handle things, Vancouver Police for example tends to be more public when it comes to providing information to the public, where the RCMP is more secretive for example.

Re: Privacy/Confidentiality
 

And it goes on.

Coronavirus related but that's not the issue.

CBC website releases information that New Brunswick has its firs presumptive case of the dreaded lurgy. The official information includes the age range of a woman returning from France and now in self isolation at home in South Eastern NB. Most likely Greater Moncton but could be some smaller places.

They make a point of saying that's all the information being released.

This morning the official information has been amended to her having arrived from France. It's as if someone has realised that "returned" means she was already living here and that's too much information, whereas if they say "arrived" then that could be someone already here or newly arrived. Obsessed with secrecy.

Not even an arrival date or where she changed planes.

Of course the authorities will be tracking down those who may have come into contact - you know, there's mention of those within three rows on the plane, that sort of thing.

But what about other stuff like someone helping her with her suitcase at baggage claim; being in the airport toilet at the same time which might be as much or more at risk than being three rows away; the taxi driver that drove her home (the journey may not have been recorded if she got in at the airport taxi stand).

If they at least announced her arrival date and the flight connecting to Moncton - or conversely announced that she arrived at another airport and came to Moncton by train or other means, then some people would know they had nothing to worry about - at least from her.

Now contrast this with the openness elsewhere.

Arsenal football club announces that yesterday's game was off because last month there was a social gathering after they played Greek club Olympiacos and the owner of that club has been confirmed as having the virus. So, given the potential for passing it on, yesterday's match was off. But the weekend's game can go ahead and there's a full explanation of how that makes sense because of the 14 day 'quarantine' period since the social gathering.
Everyone knows when, where and why.

Tom Hanks releases a statement about he and his wife have tested positive. Okay that's voluntary but the news report says that he's in Australia for a movie and a member of the production team was found to have it and how all those connected were tested. Everyone knows where they stand and maybe there are those with no official connection but equally at risk. They can do something about it.

The NBA season has been suspended after a player on one of the teams has tested positive. Player not named but the team has been named so that alerts anyone - official or otherwise - who may have had some contact.

A little openness allows anyone who may have been at risk to respond appropriately. Secrecy not only does not do that, it may cause those who have no need to worry to do so and maybe more.

Re: Privacy/Confidentiality
 

Apparently University of New Brunswick students who attended a conference in Toronto on mining might have been exposed to Coronavirus.
NS has also confirmed 8 employees who also attended are self isolating while NB refuses to say anything, not even whether anyone attended. :rolleyes:

Re: Privacy/Confidentiality
 

I think sometimes Canada has too much secrecy sure don't give out names, addresses and such, but the level of secrecy in this country is at times concerning especially when it comes to police, one should be wary of police agencies who operate in secrecy and not transparent with information.

This article from 2019 touches on things a bit.

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local...rting-everyone

It took me nearly a year to get records from Ontario from a public agency about myself, in the end I got the records, but they didn't want to provide them easily and made it difficult.

Re: Privacy/Confidentiality
 

Thanks for that. The comparison with the US is a bit weird because I'm always astonished how mid-case a lawyer or the DA will appear on the steps of the courthouse and make some sort of statement that just seems so wrong and in the UK there would likely be a contempt of court or mistrial declared.

When there's been some sort of incident like those criminal ones in that article - home invasion, violence etc - at least the RCMP here make some sort of effort among the lack of information to reassure the public. "Not a random incident" is a fairly common one.

Re: Privacy/Confidentiality
 

Out my way RCMP is the most tight lipped. Vancouver Police is a little more open and other municipal forces fall in between for the most part.

Re: Privacy/Confidentiality
 

Earlier I posted that other Atlantic provinces had made public certain information relevant to some of their student residents while NB was refusing to comment.

How's this - The first case in NB was someone returning from France. The province refused to give any information about date of arrival or place of arrival; most likely to have been at one of Canada's other airports and then a domestic flight to Moncton. (at the time, they wouldn't even say Moncton but they've been a little bit more forthcoming since, referring to Zones of the province).

Since then, a Prince Edward Island resident is either presumptive or positive (I don't recall which) and flew Toronto to Moncton on her way home to PEI. The relevant information regarding the flight has been made available by PEI but not NB.

Furthermore, it seems there's the possibility of University of NB students coming into contact with a presumptive case or two. Obviously the province has contacted the University who have made public the date of possible contact, the 2 rooms involved and the times the two presumptive students were there.

Nothing released about who, but enough information for anyone potentially affected to know of that possibility.

But the information came from the University rather than the Government who remains schtum. :(