ARCHIVED - Telecom - Commission Letter - 8180-8/00- Confirmation -Fulfillment of CLEC Requirements - Windsor and Kitchener, Ontario - TELUSIntegrated Communications (2000) Inc.
This page has been archived on the Web
Information identified as archived on the Web is for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. Archived Decisions, Notices and Orders (DNOs) remain in effect except to the extent they are amended or reversed by the Commission, a court, or the government. The text of archived information has not been altered or updated after the date of archiving. Changes to DNOs are published as “dashes” to the original DNO number. Web pages that are archived on the Web are not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards. As per the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada, you can request alternate formats by contacting us.
LetterOttawa, 27 August 2001 Our file: 8665-C12-14/01 To: Distribution list Re: Confidentiality provisions of Canadian carriers Pursuant to the process set out in Public Notice CRTC 2001-60, dated 31 May 2001, please find attached the Commission's interrogatories. Responses to all interrogatories are to be filed with the Commission, served on all interested parties and received no later than 26 September 2001. Sincerely,
Campbell Laidlaw Attachments
c.c.: Philippe Tousignant (819-997-1334) Attachment To : The Companies, CWTA, TELUS, Microcell, Call-Net, ARC et al., Rogers Wireless, Privacy Commissioner of Ontario, AT&T. (CRTC) 27 Aug 01 - 100 - PN 01-60 100. The Companies, CWTA and TELUS (and other parties) propose that the Commission use the following definition of affiliates:
AT&T proposes that the Commission use the definition of related parties, instead of the above definition:
If the Commission granted the requested relief, what would be the implication of using one definition over the other in terms of efficiency of sharing information on one hand and contributing to the protection of privacy of subscribers on the other hand? To : The Companies, CWTA, TELUS, Microcell, Call-Net, ARC et al., Rogers Wireless, Privacy Commissioner of Ontario, Mr. Murray Long. (CRTC) 27 Aug01 - 101- PN 01-60 101. Provide your definition of sensitive customer information and provide examples? Address how the form of consent (i.e. implied or express) should vary according to the sensitive nature of the information? To : The Companies and TELUS. (CRTC) 27 Aug01 - 102 - PN 01-60 102. The Companies state that the form of consent found in their proposed Code of Privacy (i.e. 3.6 In general, the use of products and services by a customer, ., constitutes implied consent for the [Company] to collect, use and disclose personal information for all identified purposes.) would be replacing the current written requirement Identify all means by which subscribers would be made aware of the proposed definition of consent used by the Companies and explain how this would give a reasonable assurance that the consumer gave an "informed consent". To : The Companies, TELUS, Microcell, Call-Net, Rogers Wireless, AT&T. (CRTC) 27 Aug01 - 103 - PN 01-60 103. Since 1997, approximately what percentage of your subscribers has given written consent to the disclosure of information to affiliates? Do the agreements authorise disclosure to affiliates in general or to specific (identified) affiliates? Do they authorise disclosure to others, please specify? To : The Companies, CWTA, TELUS, Microcell, Call-Net, ARC et al., Rogers Wireless, AT&T. (CRTC) 27 Aug01 - 104- PN 01-60 104. Provide comments on the possibility of all Canadian Carriers being required to file with the Commission the results of any internal privacy audits (such as the one identified in paragraph 55,15 November 2001, Part VII application by The Companies). To : The Companies, CWTA, TELUS, Microcell, Call-Net, Rogers Wireless, AT&T. (CRTC) 27 Aug01 -105 - PN 01-60 105. The submitted Privacy Codes (Attachments 1 to 6, 15 November 2001, Part VII application by The Companies) indicate that for a customer, personal informationincludes: customer's credit information, billing records, service and equipment, and any recorded complaints. 1. Provide a complete list of confidential information retained by your company beyond the above. 2. Comment on the merits of the following forms of express consumer consent with regards to the above type of information:
To : The Companies, CWTA, TELUS, Microcell, ARC et al., Rogers Wireless, Privacy Commissioner of Ontario, AT&T. (CRTC) 27 Aug01 - 106 - PN 01-60 106. Comment on Call-Net's submission (31 July 2001, re: PN 2001-60), paragraphs 7-8-9. To : Microcell. (CRTC) 27 Aug01 - 107 - PN 01-60 107. In paragraph 15 of its 30 July 2001 submission, Microcell stated that "technology itself can contribute solutions to the challenge of protecting personal privacy, including by enabling consumers to give meaningful, informed, and limited consent to the collection, use or disclosure of their personal information with a minimum of administrative difficulty. Specify the meaning of "limited consent" to disclosure of information. To : The Companies, CWTA, TELUS, Microcell, Call-Net, ARC et al., Rogers Wireless, AT&T. (CRTC) 27 Aug01 - 108 - PN 01-60 108 The Privacy Commissioner of Ontario stated (27 July 2001 submission, re: PN 2001-60) that consent should be limited in time. Comment on this suggestion. If a time limit is appropriate, what should it be? How would consent then be again granted by the consumer? To : The Companies, CWTA, TELUS, Microcell, Call-Net, ARC et al., Rogers Wireless, Privacy Commissioner of Ontario, AT&T. (CRTC) 27 Aug01 - 109- PN 01-60 109. Should the Commission grant the requested relief,
To : ARC et al. (CRTC) 27 Aug01 -110 - PN 01-60 110. Provide a complete copy of the Ekos Research Associates Inc. survey referred to in ARC et al.'s submission dated 30 July 2001. |
- Date modified: