Under section 5(3) of PIPEDA, an organization can collect, use, and disclose personal information \u201conly for purposes that a reasonable person would consider are appropriate in the circumstances\u201d. Clearview alleged that its use of the information was legitimate given potential benefits to law enforcement and national security. Clearview marketed its services to Canadian organizations with the RCMP and other law enforcement agencies using Clearview\u2019s services. Once again, the report rejected Clearview\u2019s argument, finding that while some information may have been used for law enforcement, the primary objective was to operate a commercial technology.<\/p>\n

In evaluating whether the use of information is reasonable the Commissioners must complete a \u201cbalancing of interests\u201d between the individual\u2019s right to privacy and the commercial needs of an organization. The report accepted that facial biometric data is sensitive and unique to an individual. Clearview\u2019s use of this data amounted to \u201cmass identification and surveillance of individuals\u201d. As Clearview\u2019s use of the information was unrelated to the original purposes for which the images were posted and could be used to the detriment of individuals, Clearview\u2019s use could not be deemed legitimate. Moreover, the images were obtained in a manner that contravened privacy laws.<\/p>\n

Leveraging Data Within Canada\u2019s Privacy Regime<\/h2>\n

The joint report recommended that Clearview stop offering facial recognition services in Canada, with Canada\u2019s Privacy Commissioner, Daniel Therrien, alleging the company placed Canadians in a continuous \u201cpolice lineup\u201d. The Commissioners also recognized shortcomings in Canada\u2019s privacy legislation. Therrien has noted that federal laws could be clearer that surveillance of this kind should be prohibited to preserve privacy rights.<\/p>\n