A Commissioner has ruled that snooping by public employees is the most serious kind of privacy violation. .According to Blacklock’s Reporter, this warning was given in the case of an employee from the Town of Hafford, Saskatchewan, who was caught looking through property records..“My office views employee snooping files as the most egregious type of privacy breaches,” wrote Saskatchewan Privacy Commissioner Ronald Kruzeniski. .“This is because the breach did not occur accidentally or through employee error. Employee snooping is an intentional act. Even worse is when an employee snoops and uses the information for potential personal gain.”.The Town of Hafford, a small community with a population of 400 people located northwest of Saskatoon, confirmed in a letter dated Jan. 25 that they discovered an employee accessing property records without any reason to do so..“The incident was a result of employee snooping,” wrote the Town. .“The employee confirmed they did not keep copies and will not use the information.”.The Town stated that they discovered three cases where property records were accessed, including information about home sale prices, building permits, lines of credit, and mortgages..“Hafford considered there was not a real risk that significant harm would occur and therefore that the breach did not meet the threshold to notify the individuals,” wrote the town..However, Commissioner Kruzeniski determined that the employee was using property records to personally profit from a real estate transaction. The employee “not only snooped but then used the information for personal gain.”.Evidence in the case included a text message in which the employee wrote one house seller: “I know you purchased it for a song.” The asking price would see the vendor “walking away with a decent profit,” the employee added..“The employee used the information to try and negotiate a lower purchase price,” wrote Commissioner Kruzeniski. .“This is incredibly intrusive.”.“All affected individuals deserve to know that this employee snooped in their home property files for their own personal gain,” wrote Kruzeniski. .The Commissioner told the Town to let all the property owners, who were affected, know about the breach and teach their employees how to protect people's privacy properly..“Snooping or the unauthorized access of personal information occurs when employees access personal information without a need to know,” wrote Kruzeniski. .“That is, they access personal information for reasons beyond completing their job duties. Snooping is a harmful and intrusive activity that undermines the trust citizens have in a local authority’s ability to maintain the confidentiality of their information.”.In the Hafford case, no one lost their job. However, the person, who was snooping, was given a disciplinary letter for breaking the Local Authority Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.
A Commissioner has ruled that snooping by public employees is the most serious kind of privacy violation. .According to Blacklock’s Reporter, this warning was given in the case of an employee from the Town of Hafford, Saskatchewan, who was caught looking through property records..“My office views employee snooping files as the most egregious type of privacy breaches,” wrote Saskatchewan Privacy Commissioner Ronald Kruzeniski. .“This is because the breach did not occur accidentally or through employee error. Employee snooping is an intentional act. Even worse is when an employee snoops and uses the information for potential personal gain.”.The Town of Hafford, a small community with a population of 400 people located northwest of Saskatoon, confirmed in a letter dated Jan. 25 that they discovered an employee accessing property records without any reason to do so..“The incident was a result of employee snooping,” wrote the Town. .“The employee confirmed they did not keep copies and will not use the information.”.The Town stated that they discovered three cases where property records were accessed, including information about home sale prices, building permits, lines of credit, and mortgages..“Hafford considered there was not a real risk that significant harm would occur and therefore that the breach did not meet the threshold to notify the individuals,” wrote the town..However, Commissioner Kruzeniski determined that the employee was using property records to personally profit from a real estate transaction. The employee “not only snooped but then used the information for personal gain.”.Evidence in the case included a text message in which the employee wrote one house seller: “I know you purchased it for a song.” The asking price would see the vendor “walking away with a decent profit,” the employee added..“The employee used the information to try and negotiate a lower purchase price,” wrote Commissioner Kruzeniski. .“This is incredibly intrusive.”.“All affected individuals deserve to know that this employee snooped in their home property files for their own personal gain,” wrote Kruzeniski. .The Commissioner told the Town to let all the property owners, who were affected, know about the breach and teach their employees how to protect people's privacy properly..“Snooping or the unauthorized access of personal information occurs when employees access personal information without a need to know,” wrote Kruzeniski. .“That is, they access personal information for reasons beyond completing their job duties. Snooping is a harmful and intrusive activity that undermines the trust citizens have in a local authority’s ability to maintain the confidentiality of their information.”.In the Hafford case, no one lost their job. However, the person, who was snooping, was given a disciplinary letter for breaking the Local Authority Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.
