The Right to Privacy by UNARMED CIVILIAN https://flic.kr/p/f3fSQC (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)

The Right to Privacy by UNARMED CIVILIAN https://flic.kr/p/f3fSQC (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)

Podcasts

The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 72: Emily Laidlaw on the Good, the Bad, and the Missed Opportunities Behind Canada’s Privacy Reform

Canada’s new privacy bill is only a couple of weeks old but it is already generating debate in the House of Commons and careful study and commentary from the privacy community. As the biggest overhaul of Canada’s privacy rules in two decades, the bill will undoubtedly be the subject of deep analysis and lengthy committee review, likely to start early in 2021. Last week’s Law Bytes podcast featured Navdeep Bains, the Innovation, Science and Industry Minister, who is responsible for the bill. This week, Professor Emily Laidlaw of the University of Calgary, who holds the Canada Research Chair in Cybersecurity Law, joins the podcast with her take on the good, the bad, and the missed opportunities in Bill C-11.

The podcast can be downloaded here, accessed on YouTube, and is embedded below. Subscribe to the podcast via Apple Podcast, Google Play, Spotify, Youtube or the RSS feed. Updates on the podcast on Twitter at @Lawbytespod.

 

Show Notes:

Laidlaw, AB Lawg: Canada’s Proposed New Consumer Privacy Protection Act: The Good, the Bad, the Missed Opportunities

Credits:

CTV News, Government Introduces Privacy Bill

4 Comments

  1. I have always believed that Canadian reforms are the best and people are always happy about them. Of course, reform is first of all a way out of a comfortable chair for people, but nevertheless it is desirable for a happier future, changes are always better than stagnation and routine

  2. bitly.com When you create a shortened
    URL. Free URL shortener to create the perfect short URLs for
    your business.

  3. Pingback: ● NEWS ● #MichaelGeist #Canada ☞ The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 72:… | Dr. Roy Schestowitz (罗伊)

  4. Hi,
    So I fully agree that plain language in legal consent contracts should be required.
    But why are we allowing the primary corporate contact to share our data to 3rd parties? We should require that the core features that the 1st party offers to the user (the 2nd party) can not be conditional on accepting 3rd party data sharing. And only once the core functions are agreed to (and the sharing of user data *only* to the 1st party and no further) are then further consent contracts displayed for the user to *optionally* agree to, for sharing their user data to 3rd parties for some additional features that are nice to have but not required to make the user experience acceptable to the user.

    This may push features that are supplied to by, say, Google Ads, for example, into being owned and operated by the 1st party business but I see this as at least increasing jobs for people and better wealth sharing as it pulls back the “efficiency” of these activities. It would also weaken the power that a single entity (such as Google) has over users, if the activity they currently provide is spread out to the businesses that currently use their services.
    Anyway, this is just a start of an idea on how to prevent our private data from spreading out to 3rd parties (that the user currently have no real control over), and would need a lot of refining by experts, but hopefully the core idea is clear.

    Has anyone else (experts) suggested something like this before?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

*