I know the report, I figured you didn't as you were proven a liar again as you've claimed, over and over again that THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A FIELD OF ENTRY FOR DRIVERS LICENSE NUMBER OR PERSONAL INFORMATION, EVER!!! And you were so sure that NONE existed. Well there you go. Big lie on your part and proven a liar yet again. So now you're telling the public what ? That the private information that was taken from their drivers license was ok and that NOW they can trust you after telling that lie?? Did you read the report fully? Here's a few key areas of the report which you conveniently don't mention AHEM!
[17] It further follows that the Calgary store contravened section 7(2),
since an organization cannot require someone to consent to collection of
personal information that is not necessary.
[10] Section 7(2) of PIPA is also relevant to this case. It provides as
follows:
An organization shall not, as a condition of supplying a product or
service, require an individual to consent to the collection, use or
disclosure of personal information about an individual beyond what
is necessary to provide the product or service.
Isn't that what, we the consumer advocates have been saying all along??? It just goes to show you CT -Aholè what's written down in the legislation is the law. And that your interpretation is self serving and erodes the intention of consumer protections and IS NOT THE LAW!
I see that you've also quietly dismissed the other links on the Canadian Tire privacy scandal in Quebec and mentioning the other privacy case in BC! So convenient of you. So yeah have a big cup of STFU liar liar Canadian Tire.
Good summary of the CT lies on this topic.
Also consider this statement:
"2) the second store did not have a drivers license number on file"
Ok, so nothing was left in the system by the time the investigators showed up. But that doesn't prove that additional information hadn't been previously collected (as the complainant said), and then erased before the investigators started looking. After all, there was a place to enter this data: "one screen in the merchandise return system allowed for the collection of D/L or other ID numbers".
Also, something new to add to the "CT Lies List":
"3) The investigator agrees ... that the collection of name, phone number and address is reasonable"
Sounds so convincing, doesn't it? But it's just not at all true, because the investigator wrote, "I will consider only the collection, recording and retention of D/L numbers".
True to their word, the investigator offered no opinion on this topic.
Nice lie, Crappy People!
Here's another CT Lie:
"4) The computer returns system was re-designed in December of 2005"
Really? The report says that, huh? Well, let's have a look at the actual report, shall we?
"Canadian Tire Corporation Limited, in consultation with the CTDA,
is in the process of redesigning the merchandise return computer program."
So, yet another CT lie. The report clearly does
not say that "the system
was re-designed".
What evidence has been produced to demonstrate that the redesigned program no longer accepts "the collection of D/L or other ID number"?
Has any report of a follow-up audit been posted here? No, not even close.
Has a screen image of the new screens been posted here? No, the Crappy People have vehemently refused.
So, are Canadian consumers supposed to simply take the word of the Crappy People, who have just been caught telling even more lies today, on this same topic?
No, it's going to take something more convincing than just the word of proven liars.
Nice job, Crappy People!
Nice job, Stores #419 and #428!
Yes, very credible, indeed!