Text: Small Text  Normal Text  Large Text  Larger Text
  • Blog
  • The Anti-Spam Bill: New Name, Roughly Same Bill

Blog Archive

PrevPrevApril 2014NextNext
SMTWTFS
  12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
27282930

The Anti-Spam Bill: New Name, Roughly Same Bill

PDF  | Print |  E-mail
Tuesday May 25, 2010
The government today introduced Bill C-28, the Fighting Internet and Wireless Spam Act.  The bill carries a new name from the old Bill C-27 (which was titled the Electronic Commerce Protection Act), but the bill is roughly the same as the bill that passed the House of Commons last year.  That bill was subject to considerable change based on compromises from all parties.  The resulting bill was not as strong as first introduced, but it did garner the support of all four political parties and most observers.  The new bill contains some modest changes involving privacy, but most of the core provisions remain unchanged.  It deserves broad support and should be placed on the fast track given that it was effectively the subject of extensive hearings from the Industry Committee.  For more on the original bill, see here, here, here, and here.  A transcript of my appearance before the Industry Committee can be found here.
Comments (4)add comment

Gregg said:

I have reported spam....
....from compromised CBSA computers, Revenue Canada (or whatever they call themselves now) computers, forestry, National Research Council and the BC Legislature. When ran through the lookup database, some of these computers have been infected since 1999!
(tells you how old the software is)

These are all trojans inside potentially sensitive computers. Thankfully the botnet mastesr were too stupid to even flip burgers, otherwise they could identity thief 33 million people!

I say the anti-spam concerns should have the level of a national security one!
May 25, 2010

Anonymous said:

Law enforcement lobby successes
Look at all the stuff in the new PIPEDA to placate the law enforcement lobby:

-general addition of "for the purpose of performing policing services"--not defined--to the exemptions under 7(3)(c.1)

-addition of (d.1) allowing disclosure "to another organization" if necessary for an investigation

-"clarification" that "lawful authority" in 7(3)(c.1) means "lawful authority other than a subpoena etc."--still without defining "lawful authority"

-"clarification" that under 7(3)(c.1) organizations do NOT need to verify the validity of the lawful authority!! directly contrary to the OPC's rulings

-preventing organizations from telling customers they've disclosed their information to police without getting police permission first
May 25, 2010

Anonyme said:

@Anonymous
What where you expecting really?

Consumer friendly laws?
May 25, 2010

Epad said:

http://www.efox-shop.com/
Efox-shop Grosshandel
Apad
Apad iRobo
iRobot
billig tablet pc
billig mid
Tablet Laptop
Tablet PC
Touchscreen Tablet Laptop
Hipad
Epad
Opad
in http://www.efox-shop.com/.
August 08, 2010

Write comment
smaller | bigger

busy
Tags:
, , , ,
Share: Slashdot, Digg, Del.icio.us, Newsfeeder, Reddit, StumbleUpon, TwitterEmailPrintPDF
Related Items: