The Privacy Commissioner has repeatedly declared the
Canadian Firearms Registry computer systems secure and said so again in
his report on page 35...
The
Whole report can be found here
BUT:
Would The Privacy Commissioner
Office 'Totally Trust' Their Families lives to a government
office that has been plagued with problems, inefficiencies, and ongoing
deception directed at the Canadian public from day 1 ?
PROTECTION & SECURITY
Though the Review Team conducted only a preliminary review of the security measures instituted by the Canadian Firearms Centre and some of its partners, it would appear that adequate physical, personnel, and information technology security measures have been instituted to protect personal information against unauthorized disclosure.
The security measures include:
the use of physical barriers, security zones, and containers to restrict
access;
the use of secure telephone lines;
explicit staff responsibilities and security procedures for the
processing,
storage, transmission and disposal of sensitive information;
enhanced reliability checks of all employees;
specific procedures in dealing with clients. For example, retail
outlets are
able to find out if they can have clearance to sell a firearm to
a specific
customer, but they do not have access to information about why a
particular clearance is not granted;
RCMP Threat and Risk Assessments have resulted in high level configurations
and security domains (designated Protected B); advanced technology to protect
the CFRS against tampering or unauthorized entry (i.e. encryption for business-to-business
transfers);
the use of software, hardware and operating system access controls
by both
the RCMP (CPIC/FIP and PIRS) and the DOJ (CFRS); each type of user
has a different level of access; only the federal, provincial and municipal
jurisdictions have access to CFRS; no one in the private sector has access
to CFRS; and data on the number and types of firearms owned is separate
from the owner's name and address, and is protected by a unique firearms
identification number so that even if a security breach takes place, it
would be difficult to link the two categories of data.
It was noted at the Central Processing Site in Miramichi that limited
use was being made of unsecured fax machines. Also, transfers of non-restricted,
restricted and prohibited firearms applications can now be submitted by
fax to CFOs. This service is available for transfers involving a licensed
business (i.e. business to business, business to individual, individual
to business and consignment sales).
The Privacy Commissioner is still investigating (see Outstanding Issues below).
APPENDIX H – Outstanding Issues
The following privacy issues were raised either during the course
of our Review or subsequent to
it, and they remain outstanding:
Personal information handling practices by the CCRA
Since January 1, 2001, the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency (CCRA)
is involved in the
customs declarations component of the Firearms Act. However, at
the time of our review, this
part of the Act was not yet in force and, as such, our review did
not cover CCRA's personal
information handling practices of this new activity related to the
movement of firearms. It is also
noted that the effective date for imports and exports of firearms
will be 2003.
Outsourcing
In February 2001, the Privacy Commissioner began looking at the privacy
implications of the
Program's outsourcing plans.
Also, our review of outsourcing issues includes a review of the Program's
contractual
arrangements with private investigators conducting tertiary screening
investigations.
Also, we are looking at the existing contractual agreement with BDP
Inc., a company in Ottawa
that is providing Data and Image Capture Services as part of an
Outsourced Processing Centre.
International information sharing agreements
Our Office is also reviewing the Program's information sharing arrangement
with the United States
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF), as well as any other
existing international
agreement relating to the Program.