Articles by: Michael Geist

back to drawing board by Michael Kötter (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0) https://flic.kr/p/dqQzTn

Back to the Drawing Board: Bell Drops Opt-Out Targeted Ad Program

Days after the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada released its decision that found that Bell was violating Canadian privacy law with its targeted ad program, the communications giant advised that it is withdrawing its program and deleting all customer profiles. A company spokesperson stated yesterday that Bell plans to re-introduce the program using an opt-in consent approach. That would likely require more than just a change to the privacy policy since the company would need to provide customers with incentives or compensation to get much acceptance to be voluntarily tracked.

My weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) notes that Bell’s targeted advertising program, which creates customer profiles that include age, gender, account location, credit score, pricing plan, and average revenue per user, generated controversy from the moment it was announced in October 2013. The communications giant maintained that it complied with Canadian privacy laws, yet many clearly disagreed as the Privacy Commissioner of Canada received an unprecedented barrage of complaints.

April 14, 2015 — 2 comments — Columns

Why Bell’s Opting-Out Approach Isn’t Good Enough

Appeared in the Toronto Star on April 11, 2015 as Why Bell’s Opting-Out Approach Isn’t Good Enough Bell’s targeted advertising program, which creates customer profiles that include age, gender, account location, credit score, pricing plan, and average revenue per user, generated controversy from the moment it was announced in October […]

April 14, 2015 — Comments are Disabled — Columns Archive

fuzzy copyright by Nancy Sims (CC BY-NC 2.0) https://flic.kr/p/37jCsU

The Copyright Notice Flood: What to Consider If You Receive a Copyright Infringement Notification

For the past few months, I’ve received daily emails from people who have been sent a copyright infringement notification as part of Canada’s notice-and-notice system. Most of the notifications come from CEG-TEK, a U.S.-based anti-piracy firm. Canadian Internet providers are now required by law to forward these notifications and CEG TEK has been taking advantage of a loophole in the system to include a settlement demand within the notification. Some of the recipients claim that the notification has been sent in error. Others say that they have received multiple notifications for a single download. In some cases, the recipient has clicked on the settlement demand link, while in others the person has called the company and revealed their identity. In virtually every case, they are looking for advice on what to do.

My typical response has been to point to my earlier posts on the issue that have explained Canada’s notice-and-notice system, the misuse of the system by rights holders in sending misleading information about Canadian copyright law, the government’s failure to stop the inclusion of settlement demands within the notices, and the massive expansion in the number of notices with the arrival of CEG TEK. I also point to Industry Canada’s page on the notice-and-notice system, which provides the government’s perspective on the issue. These resources can be helpful, but what most people really want to know is whether they should pay the settlement or ignore it. I don’t condone infringement but I believe that the misuse of the notice and notice system is extremely problematic. Moreover, I certainly think people that did not infringe copyright should not pay a settlement demand. I’m unable to provide specific legal advice, but I can provide more information that may assist in making a more informed decision about a system that was designed to discourage infringement, not create a loophole to facilitate settlement demands.

April 13, 2015 — 33 comments — News

No Spam by Thomas Hawk (CC BY-NC 2.0) https://flic.kr/p/y1JmD

CRTC, Competition Bureau Enforcement Actions Show Anti-Spam Law Has Teeth

As the launch of the Canadian anti-spam law neared last spring, critics warned that enforcement was likely to present an enormous challenge. Citing the global nature of the Internet and the millions of spam messages sent each day, many argued that enforcement bodies such as the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission and the Competition Bureau were ill-suited to combating the problem.

My regular technology law column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) notes that in recent weeks it has become increasingly clear that the CRTC and the Bureau can enforce the law against companies that send commercial emails that run afoul of the new legal standards. Those agencies have completed three enforcement actions against Canadian businesses that point to the risks of millions of dollars in fines for failing to obtain proper consent before sending commercial messages, not granting users the ability to unsubscribe from further messages, or sending false or misleading information.

April 8, 2015 — 7 comments — Columns

CRTC, Competition Bureau Enforcement of Canadian Anti-Spam Law Picks Up Steam

Appeared in the Toronto Star on March 28, 2015 as Plenty of Fish, Avis Fines Show Anti-Spam Law Has Teeth As the launch of the Canadian anti-spam law neared last spring, critics warned that enforcement was likely to present an enormous challenge. Citing the global nature of the Internet and […]

April 8, 2015 — 2 comments — Columns Archive