Join my Facebook page
Follow @mgeist
Join me on Google+
Subscribe to my RSS feed
Email me
Connect on LinkedIn
Pinned Posts in Pinterest
Funny Internet Spam for eMail and Websites is Spicy by epSos .de (CC BY 2.0) https://flic.kr/p/dAPegg
Spam
In Defence of Canada’s Anti-Spam Law, Part Two: Why the Legislation Is Really a Consumer Protection and Privacy Law in Disguise
My first post defending Canada’s anti-spam law focused on why spam remains a problem and how the new law may help combat fraudulent spam and target Canadian-based spamming organization. Most would agree that these are legitimate goals, but critics of the law will argue that it still goes too far since it covers all commercial electronic messages, not just fraudulent or harmful messages.
If the law were only designed to deal with harmful spam, they would be right. However, the law was always envisioned as something more than just an anti-spam bill. Indeed, when it was first introduced, it was called the Electronic Commerce Protection Act, reflecting the fact that it was expressly designed to address online consumer protection issues (the name CASL was an unofficial working name developed within Industry Canada). The law has at least three goals: provide Canada with tough anti-spam rules, require software companies to better inform consumers about their programs before installation, and update Canadian privacy standards by re-allocating who bears the cost for the use of personal information in the digital environment.
In Defence of Canada’s Anti-Spam Law, Part One: Why Spam is Still a Problem and the New Law Will Help
Canada’s anti-spam legislation took effect at the beginning of the month, sparking a steady stream of critical opinion pieces calling it an absurd solution to a mostly non-problem or “ludicrous regulatory overkill.” The criticisms generally boil down to three claims: spam isn’t a big problem, the law is ineffective because most spam originates outside Canada, and the law is overbroad because it targets legitimate businesses alongside fraudulent spam. I think all three criticisms are wrong. This post addresses why spam is still a problem and how the law will help. A second post tomorrow tackles the broad scope of the law, arguing that it is better understood as privacy legislation that fairly apportions the costs associated with electronic marketing.
Enforcing CASL: How To Report Spam Violations
With Canada’s anti-spam law now in effect, many are starting to ask about enforcement of the law. While no one should expect the law to eliminate spam, the goal much more modest: target the bad actors based in Canada and change the privacy culture by making opt-in consent the expected standard for consumer consents. The CRTC, the lead regulatory agency, has made it clear that the fear-mongering of million dollar penalties for inadvertent violations is not going to happen. Chair Jean-Pierre Blais recently stated:
The Benefits of Consent
Commercial email did not grind to a halt the day after Canada’s anti-spam legislation took effect and neither did the coverage about the law’s impact (I appeared on CBC’s The Current to debate the issue). Coverage included Microsoft backtracking from its earlier decision to stop security update emails, apparently taking the time to actually read the legislation and find the exception for security notification. There was also a CBC story about the Canadian Avalanche Centre, which stopped an email service after hundred of customization options became “too much of a hassle to maintain”, but the CBC used the timing to link the decision to CASL.
But what really caught my attention was this tweet from Jason Faber, the marketing manager at BoldRadius.
Keep Calm and Get Consent: Canada’s Anti-Spam Law Takes Effect This Week
Canada’s anti-spam legislation takes effect this week, sparking panic among many businesses, who fear that sending commercial electronic messages may grind to a halt on July 1st. The reality is far less troubling. The new law creates some technical requirements for commercial email marketing alongside tough penalties for violations, but left unsaid is that Canadian law has featured rules requiring appropriate consents for over a decade.
My weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, homepage version)The concern over the new anti-spam law, which mirrors similar worries from 2004 when private sector privacy legislation arrived, suggests that many may not have complied with their existing obligations. As Canadians receive a flood of requests for consent from long-forgotten organizations they never realized had collected and used their personal information in the first place, the controversy over the rollout of the new anti-spam law says more about poor compliance rates with current privacy laws than it does about the new regulations.
Recent Posts
UK ISPs and Rights Holders Agree on Voluntary Notice-and-Notice Style Copyright System
July 25, 2014- Why Has Bell Remained Silent on Its Subscriber Information Disclosure Practices?
July 24, 2014 - OECD Releases New Broadband Data: Canada Ranks in Bottom Third on Mobile Broadband Subscriptions
July 23, 2014 - Welcome to the Hotel California: ISPs Who Won’t Take No For An Answer
July 22, 2014 - Come Back With a Warrant: How Will the Canadian Government Respond to the Supreme Court’s Reshaping of Privacy Law?
July 21, 2014
Recent Columns
- Come Back With a Warrant: How Will the Canadian Government Respond to the Supreme Court’s Reshaping of Privacy Law?
July 21, 2014 - The Future of Television Review is the CRTC’s Make or Break Moment
July 16, 2014 - Why The Secrecy on the TPP Talks in Ottawa This Week? Because There is Something to Hide
July 7, 2014 - Keep Calm and Get Consent: Canada’s Anti-Spam Law Takes Effect This Week
June 30, 2014 - Should Canadian Courts Decide What the World Gets to See Online?
June 27, 2014
