hi, not much time.   I am a fraud investigator who has worked in the Court
system for many yrs.  time has enabled me to note the suspect cover up of
court retention schedules.  disturbing when we consider that a charge
usually begins in J.P.s office.  at that time a tape is made of the
interview with the alleged victim.  If a charge is accepted by the J.P. and
a warrant or "Information " is signed by J.P. this is placed on an Intake
Docket.  When the tape is full of interviews the J.P. sends the full tape
over to the court reporters at old city hall.  the completed intake docket
is attached to the tape to ease access to names and dates by a court
reporter asked to transcribe a charge on the tape.       the retention sch.
of these tapes and the dockets shud be     EASILY ACCESSIBLE.   SHOULD NOT
BE DESTROYED AS SOON AS CASE IS DEALT WITH.  SINCE THIS IS THE HEART OF MOST
CRIMINAL CHARGES THE IMPORTANCE OF THESE DOC'S CANNOT BE UNDERESTIMATED.

I WAS CONCERNED WITH THIS SECTION FOR STARTERS:
* Seven, the draft bill provides that any personal information records shall
be destroyed when their original purpose is finished.


IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THIS BILL DOES NOT ENEN RELATE TO COURT RETENTION
SCHEDULES............?????????

THANK U FOR YOUR TIME       JAYE......

----- Original Message -----
From: "Loryl MacDonald" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 2:09 PM
Subject: Proposed Ontario Privacy of Personal Information Act


> Dear Ontario Archival Colleagues:
>
> On February 4, 2002, the Ontario Government released a consultation draft
of broad privacy legislation, the proposed Privacy of Personal Information
Act.
>
> If this draft becomes legislation, it will transform the manner in which
private, not-for-profit, and some public sector organizations in Ontario
manage
> personal information in their custody. The legislation will also have a
profound impact on archives and archives' users.
>
> Briefly, the general archival implications are the following:
> * One, the definition of "personal information" is broad and includes
incidental personal information found in most types of archival records.
> * Two, the proposed legislation is retroactive, thereby potentially
closing many records currently available to the public.
> * Three, while the draft exempts personal information collected, used or
disclosed for artistic, journalistic or literary purposes, it does not
provide
> exemptions for archival purposes or for historical or scholarly research.
> * Four, the passage of time clause is unreasonably long, only allowing
disclosure of information without consent if the record is more than 150
years old or if
> the record's subject has been dead for more than 75 years.
> * Five, the proposed Act makes no provisions for research agreements.
> * Six, it is unclear whether or not private records acquired by archives
are subject to the proposed legislation.
> * Seven, the draft bill provides that any personal information records
shall be destroyed when their original purpose is finished.
>
> The Archives Association of Ontario is submitting a response to the
sponsoring Ministry of Consumer and Business Services.  I encourage you to
review the draft
> bill and to make a submission as well.  The deadline for submission is
March 31, 2002.  The draft legislation and accompanying information may be
found in at
> the following:
> http://www.cbs.gov.on.ca/mcbs/english/pdf/56XSMB.pdf
>
> If you have any questions, comments or suggestions, please do not hesitate
to contact me. Let's be heard!
>
> Best Regards,
> Loryl MacDonald
> AAO Vice-President
> (416) 978-7657 or [log in to unmask]
>