No related posts.


Lawful Access Heads to Committee: The Opposition Found Its Voice, the Government Never Found Its Defence
Is Data De-Identification Dead?: Why the AI Privacy Risk Isn’t What It Learns, But What It Figures Out
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 265: Jason Millar on Claude Mythos, Project Glasswing, and the Governance Crisis in Frontier AI
A Standard That Doesn’t Exist: Parliamentary Secretary for Justice Offers Misleading Defence of Bill C-22’s Lower Threshold for Subscriber Information
More Surveillance Demands to Come?: Government Admits Bill C-22’s Lawful Access Provisions Could Be Expanded
Michael Geist
mgeist@uottawa.ca
This web site is licensed under a Creative Commons License, although certain works referenced herein may be separately licensed.
Somewhat two-faced
Although I do feel for Anthony Chai and do not believe that NetFirms should have handed over his information, I do have a problem with his lawsuit.
His primary criticism is that NetFirms, a non-Thai company, handed over information to the Thai government when Anthony Chai believes that the Thai laws do not extend beyond the border of Thailand.
So, he is suing NetFirms, a non-US company, saying that they violated US law. But the company is Canadian… why should they have followed US law?
The bottom line is…
What business did a Canadian company have in handing over the information?
Are warrantless requests already being executed and honoured here?
I agree with Gregg!
Lets’ concentrate on the real issue: what gave the Canadian ISP the right to divulge personal information to the Thai authorities? The plaintiff has every right to sue the Canadian ISP for divulging private information without authorisation, and, as a proof of the abuse that is already going on, it should be enough to stop the Internet Spying Bill dead in its tracks.