<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
	<channel>
		<title>Privacy commissioner's office sees sharp rise in complaints</title>
		<description>Discuss Privacy commissioner's office sees sharp rise in complaints</description>
		<link>http://www.canadiansecuritymag.com/CCTV/News/Privacy-commissioner-s-office-sees-sharp-rise-in-complaints.html</link>
		<lastBuildDate>Sat, 25 May 2013 08:29:54 --500</lastBuildDate>
		<generator>JComments</generator>
		<atom:link href="http://www.canadiansecuritymag.com/feed/com_k2/1674/Page-1.html" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<item>
			<title>K. Trudeau says:</title>
			<link>http://www.canadiansecuritymag.com/CCTV/News/Privacy-commissioner-s-office-sees-sharp-rise-in-complaints.html#comment-164</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Interesting topic. This is not a new debate, however it seems to take on a new prominence by the sheer volume of unblinking eyes being proposed. However, cameras being installed for ostensibly "security" purposes - whether legitimately so or not - do need supporting terms of reference and concepts of operations to support, and more importantly to limit their uses. For instance if an employer uses video captures in employee performance evaluation when the camera was installed for the sole purpose of enhancing security does that "mission creep" cause us to be alarmed? Should it? Good things to consider before we rush headlong into a full embrace of this technology in the belief that it is just to enhance our safety and security.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>K. Trudeau</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 12 Oct 2012 06:17:11 --500</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.canadiansecuritymag.com/CCTV/News/Privacy-commissioner-s-office-sees-sharp-rise-in-complaints.html#comment-164</guid>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
