On the hardware front, Canadian schools are using everything from Chromebooks and iPads to Raspberry Pi, Sphero, and virtual reality products. The mass proliferation of education technology, on the other hand, is relatively new to Canadian schools. In Ontario, for example, the collection, use, retention, and disclosure of student information is subject to provisions in the Education Act, the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and the Personal Health Information Act. This may seem insignificant in workplaces where employers do no more than collect basic personal information and performance data, but in others, access to the workforce can mean signing up for Facebook, carrying around a GPS tracker, wearing a body camera, or installing a computer application that monitors your day-to-day behaviour.ĭata collection is by no means new to Canada’s education system: schools across Canada have always collected personal and academic information for student records, and there is a patchwork of legislation in place to govern some aspects of this activity.

In this context, agreeing to workplace privacy policies is a necessary prerequisite to employment, with little to no ability to renegotiate the terms. Employers provide new employees with a complex set of privacy policies to be signed during the onboarding process, alongside a myriad of other work-related requirements, such as dress codes, IT policies, or codes of conduct. In practice, workplace privacy tends to be a one-way street. Although it’s worth noting that in some cases, employee information can actually be collected and used without consent, so long as it is reasonable and for purposes related to employee management.Ī best-case scenario might involve two-way negotiations between employers and employees shortly after hiring, resulting in individually tailored privacy policies where necessary. In short, employers are expected to balance their right to collect employee information with their employees’ rights to privacy.

Naturally then, privacy setting-induced gatekeeping has emerged most forcefully in places where there are clear and exorbitant power imbalances: in the workplace in education and in low-competition commercial environments.Įmployee information is governed by a complex web of federal and provincial privacy legislation, collective bargaining agreements, legal decisions, and the Charter of Right and Freedoms. This becomes increasingly more apparent as newspaper companies around the world move to introduce pay walls for their content. Media companies–newspapers, broadcasters, publishers, record labels, and now, social media networks–act as gatekeepers by filtering information for dissemination to the public, and in so doing, they control access to that information. The clearest and perhaps most well-known example of gatekeeping lies with the media. In controlling access, gatekeepers will usually also control the terms. Gatekeeping emerges most often when there is unequal power distribution between two or more parties, and therefore unequal ability to control access to something. ing / noun / the activity of controlling, and usually limiting, general access to something.In the workplace or in education, for example, it can mean losing access to a new job opportunity or to higher quality education.Įmployees, students, and consumers are increasingly being asked to trade their personal information for access to education, the workforce and consumer products, giving rise to a brand-new class of gatekeeping. In the absence of a fall-back option, however, saying no means much more. Saying ‘no’ in this context means missing out on tailored, or higher quality services and settling for the fall-back option: the basics. In many areas of our lives, saying ‘yes’ to privacy policies has become a necessary prerequisite to access–whether that be access to lower insurance rates, personalized banking, or other products and services.

Ctic privacy protector review