Executive Summary: Law School Admission Council Investigation
This investigation concerned a complaint about the Law School Admission Council's (LSAC) requirement that students applying to write the Law School Admission Test (LSAT) in Canada have their fingerprints collected. LSAC, a US-based non-profit, argued that Canadian privacy law did not apply to its activities. The Assistant Privacy Commissioner found that despite LSAC's location, Canada had a sufficient link to LSAC's operations to bring it under the Act. The Commissioner determined that fingerprinting was not demonstrably necessary, likely ineffective, and the loss of privacy outweighed the benefits, particularly since the fingerprints were rarely used.
- Jurisdiction of the Privacy Act over a US-based organization
- Necessity and proportionality of collecting fingerprints for LSAT authentication
- Effectiveness of fingerprinting as a deterrent
- Privacy implications of collecting biometric data
Complaint well-founded — LSAC ordered to cease fingerprinting and limit photo retention
The Commissioner found that LSAC's fingerprinting practice was not demonstrably necessary to meet its stated purpose, as the benefits gained from the minimal use of the data did not outweigh the loss of privacy. The Commissioner also found that the collection of fingerprints was outside the scope of what was necessary for the purpose.
AI-generated summary for reference only. Always verify against the official decision ↗
LSAC was recommended to permanently cease collecting thumbprints and limit the retention of photographs to five years.
This summary is informational only and not legal advice.