The much-anticipated PIPEDA review is scheduled for later this year and the Privacy Commissioner of Canada has kicked things off with a discussion/consultation paper. The Commissioner’s comments on the effectiveness of the law will be very important and this paper is presumably an attempt to gauge public opinion on several […]
Post Tagged with: "privacy"
Dutch Appeals Court Refuses to Disclose File Sharers Identities
When CRIA lost its file sharing lawsuits against 29 alleged file sharers in 2004, it immediately characterized Canadian law as out-of-step with the rest of the world and dismissed the privacy-related concerns that arose from the case. Two years later, The Register brings word that the Netherlands appears to be […]
Ryerson Study on Workplace Monitoring
Avner Levin of Ryerson University has conducted a new study that finds that Canadian employers engage in widespread employee surveillance, typically with little concern for the privacy implications of such activity.
CBA Speaks Out on ISP Snooping
The Canadian Bar Association has spoken out forcefully against lawful access and the growing concern that ISPs are monitoring or investigating their customers’ communications. In a public letter to the Justice Minister, the CBA notes that ISPs action "seems to be introducing a corporate or industry content monitoring scheme, without […]
Bell Controversy Puts Spotlight on Net Surveillance
My weekly Law Bytes column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) focuses on last week’s controversy involving Bell Sympatico and a change to its user agreement. The Bell clause, which took effect on June 15th, advised subscribers that the company retains the right to "monitor or investigate content or your use of your service provider’s networks and to disclose any information necessary to satisfy any laws, regulations or other governmental request."
A widely circulated Canadian Press story (which featured several of my comments), noted that the Conservative government is expected to reintroduce lawful access legislation this fall and speculated that the change might have been in anticipation of that statutory reform. Many online pundits also chimed in, pointing to the battle over network neutrality in the United States, expressing fears that the Bell change might be designed to pave the way for a two-tier Internet in Canada under which ISPs levy fees on websites to deliver their content.
For its part, Bell swiftly issued a statement emphatically denying that the amendments were linked to lawful access, maintaining that the company had a "a long and established history of protecting the privacy of its customers."
The gist of the column is that regardless of the motivations for the change – whether harmless drafting amendments, lawful access, or network neutrality – the public and media reaction demonstrates how increased Internet surveillance is a political and business minefield that invariably stirs up vociferous opposition.
Recent Posts
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 200: Colin Bennett on the EU’s Surprising Adequacy Finding on Canadian Privacy Law 
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
