The Department of Foreign Affairs has sent requests to people who submitted comments on the first ACTA consultation to ask their permission to post their comments online. I previously posted the summary of those comments obtained under ATIP.
Archive for April, 2009
The Electronic Commerce Protection Act – The Privacy Provisions
The Electronic Commerce Protection Act includes a noteworthy change to Canada's private sector privacy legislation (earlier posts on anti-spam provisions, enforcement, do-not-call). PIPEDA includes specific provisions dealing with the issue of consent for the collection of personal information, including the possibility of collecting personal information without knowledge or consent in certain circumstances. The ECPA adds a new provision that effectively overrides this exception – ie. it requires consent. The provisions are designed to target both spyware and the harvesting of email addresses or other collection of personal information without consent (a practice known as dictionary attacks).
The new PIPEDA Section 7.1(2) states:
Stockwell Day Hears About IP in U.S. Visit
Days ahead of the release of the USTR Special 301 report that will undoubtedly criticize Canada over its intellectual property laws, Trade Minister Stockwell Day met in Washington with the head of the USTR, Ron Kirk. A USTR release on the meeting confirms that IP issues was one of the […]
Warner Music Issues Takedown on Lessig Presentation
Techdirt reports that Warner Music sent a DMCA notice-and-takedown demand to YouTube over a Larry Lessig presentation.
The Electronic Commerce Protection Act – The Enforcement Prohibitions
The Electronic Commerce Protection Act will accomplish little if there is not a real commitment to enforcement. The enforcement provisions form the bulk of anti-spam bill (my review of the prohibitions here, the effect on the do-not-call list here). The enforcement part of the bill includes details on who does the enforcing, investigative powers, and penalties associated with anti-spam violations. The short version is that the CRTC has been given a wide range of investigatory powers, including the power to compel ISPs to preserve transmission data. Once it concludes its investigation, it can pursue a settlement or bring a notice of violation. The penalties run as high as $10 million. There are also smaller roles for the Privacy Commissioner and Competition Bureau as well as provisions to facilitate anti-spam lawsuits.
The more detailed version is:
Recent Posts
Debating the Online Harms Act: Insights from Two Recent Panels on Bill C-63 
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 199: Boris Bytensky on the Criminal Code Reforms in the Online Harms Act 
AI Spending is Not an AI Strategy: Why the Government’s Artificial Intelligence Plan Avoids the Hard Governance Questions 
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 198: Richard Moon on the Return of the Section 13 Hate Speech Provision in the Online Harms Act 
Tweets Are Not Enough: Why Combatting Relentless Antisemitism in Canada Requires Real Leadership and Action
