While I understand the Court’s reasoning with respect to fingerprinting, credit and criminal checks, as these are objective measures, I am less convinced by the need for sweeping searches of social media, given the greater degree of subjectivity in assessing security risks (e.g., while advocating for ISIS is an easy one, what about environmental activism, criticism of government policies etc).

Given that new recruits will invariably be digital natives, with rich social media histories, there will invariably be less clear cases. The old adage remains, ‘let he or she who is without sin,’ as most new employees will likely have some sharing that in retrospect was not wise:

The Federal Court has refused to stop the rollout of a new security screening process for Canada’s public servants, which includes fingerprinting, credit and criminal checks and sweeping searches of social media as the minimum clearance needed for the job.

The decision was a setback for the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, which had sought an injunction to partly halt the implementation of the process, which is supposed to be fully operational by October 2017.

The union is appealing the decision.

In her decision, Federal Court Judge Catherine Kane said the union raised a “serious issue” but failed to prove the key tests needed for an injunction. She said the union didn’t provide “concrete evidence” of “irreparable harm” and offered only “speculative assertions” that the public interest would be harmed by proceeding.

“The applicants have raised one or more serious issues but have not established with any non-speculative evidence that any one of its members will suffer irreparable harm in the interim period,” Kane wrote.

The judge, however, found that the government would face “irreparable harm” if it had to halt the process and such a delay would not be in the public interest in ensuring Canada’s national security.

“There is also a public interest in maintaining international relations and in maintaining the trust and confidence of Canadians in the government employees who administer and deliver programs and services and have access to a wide range of information from and about citizens,” Kane wrote.

“The public has an interest in ensuring that government employees who handle their information are properly screened.”

PIPSC originally filed a legal challenge alleging that the new screening process is unconstitutional and violates the Privacy Act. That case has not yet been heard.

Meanwhile, it sought an injunction to stop public servants from the “irreparable harm” of turning over all kinds of personal and sensitive information before that court decision is rendered. It argued that once information is revealed and privacy is lost, it can’t be regained.

Departments have until October 2017 to implement the new security standard, which replaced a 20-year-old standard. Implementation coincidentally began days before the killing of a Canadian soldier in Quebec and the shooting of reservist Nathan Cirillo at the National War Memorial, which threw the government into a heightened security crisis.

Like the old policy, the new security protocol requires a basic reliability status and an enhanced reliability status. There is also a secret and top-secret security clearance.

PIPSC is objecting to the amount of information the government will be collecting for the “basic reliability status” — the minimum standard of screening for any public service job — arguing that the type of information required is unreasonable, unnecessary and unjustified.

The institute says that credit and criminal checks with fingerprinting and open-source searches are invasive and not necessary for most ordinary employees who don’t work in intelligence and security.

It argued the screening measures force employees to reveal details about their lifestyle and personal choices. They violate “reasonable” expectations of privacy and “employees shouldn’t have to trade off privacy rights” to become employees.

The union wanted the government to go back to the old standard for those who don’t need “enhanced reliability status” until the court decides on its constitutional challenge.

The government, however, argued the overhaul was necessary because the old one didn’t live up to the security standards of Canada’s allies. Halting screening for basic reliability would be confusing and unworkable because it’s the base level all employees would have to meet first.

The government has been screening employees since the 1940s, but a standard was not introduced until 1994. The government argued it had to modernize the standard to keep up with technology changes, security threats and to “maintain trust in government by citizens, stakeholders and other foreign governments.”

The government also noted that credit and criminal checks, including fingerprinting, aren’t new and were previously done on a case-by-case basis.

The government said that old policy had already been rescinded so there would be a big gap in screening which would undermine Canada’s relationship with its allies and their confidence in Canada’s security.

In her ruling, Kane said the basic reliability status was the foundation for all security clearances, and reverting to the previous standard would be “impractical, inefficient, costly and would create inconsistency, confusion, gaps in security screening pending the determination of the judicial review.”

She said government has a responsibility and authority to make policy to screen its employees and contractors to “ensure proper administration of government.”

“Modernization of the standard is in the public interest. The advances of technology cannot be ignored,” she wrote.

“On the one hand, technology that allows broad access to networks of information and collaborative work environments has many benefits but, on the other hand, permits a wider range of people to access information they otherwise had no access to and no need to access. “

She said drawing that line between employees’ privacy and ensuring that government programs operate securely “is not the role of the court on this motion.”