The CBC covers the CRTC's recent letters on iOptOut.ca with reaction from the CBA.
Post Tagged with: "cba"
My weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, Ottawa Citizen version, homepage version) builds on the CRTC's announcement last week that the national do-not-call registry (DNC) will be operational by September 30th. I report that the CRTC also recently affirmed the ability for Canadians to use third-party websites – particularly iOptOut.ca – to opt-out telemarketing calls from organizations that are currently exempt under the law.
Last March, I established iOptOut.ca, a website that enables Canadians to opt-out of many exempted organizations with a few easy clicks at no cost. Visitors to the site are asked to enter their phone number (and email address if they wish) and to indicate their calling preferences for nearly 150 organizations. The public reaction has been extremely supportive. Since its launch, the site has sent out millions of opt-out requests on behalf of tens of thousands of Canadians. The reaction from several leading associations has been less enthusiastic. Within weeks of its debut, both the Canadian Marketing Association and the Canadian Bankers Association sent letters to CRTC Chair Konrad von Finckenstein complaining about the service and seeking support for their position that requests generated from the site were invalid. In fact, the CMA sent a notice to its members stating that "it is the view of the Association that members need not honour do-not-call requests that originate from the organization in question."
Von Finckenstein recently responded to the letters (CMA letter, CBA letter – posted with CRTC permission) with an unequivocal rejection of the complaints, providing a clear indication that failure to honour the opt-out requests could lead to significant penalties (companies face penalties of up to $15,000 per violation under the law).
The Canadian Bar Association has been hit by a security breach. The CBA has advised affected members that: Your records may have been affected by this unauthorized activity. The files contained personal information relating to online orders (name, address, phone, fax, member number) and encrypted credit card information. We have […]
The Canadian Bar Association's National magazine features an article (page 30) on copyright reform that touches on video, P2P file sharing, and DRM.
The PIPEDA hearings continued on Monday with a robust debate on order making power, naming names, and the effect of contractual provisions on privacy protection. The Information Technology Association of Canada uniformally argued that PIPEDA works fine, changes are unnecessary and costly, and dismissed proposed provisions such as naming names or order making power. My colleague Ian Kerr focused on contractual issues, while the Canadian Bar Association supported order making power with the development of a new tribunal.
While I was not in attendance, the notes from the hearing suggest that this hearing would be better named "ITAC Attacks". In its zeal to dissuade the committee from recommending any changes, ITAC made several unsubstantiated claims including claims that most organizations approach the commissioner where security breaches occur, that there is a good level of privacy compliance in Canada, and that the U.S. is not less prone to privacy invasions than Canada (all offered without reference to any supporting study). It would be worth noting which companies comprise ITAC's membership and inquire directly whether they support the strongest assault yet on reforms that might improve Canada's privacy law framework.
The full notes of the day's event, from Kathleen Simmons, are posted below: