Appeared in the Toronto Star on June 28, 2014 as Why Has Canada’s New Anti-Spam Law Caused Such an Uproar 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 […]
Articles by: Michael Geist
Should Canadian Courts Decide What the World Gets to See Online?
The challenge of jurisdiction and the Internet has long been one of the most contentious online legal issues. Given that the Internet has little regard for conventional borders, the question of whose law applies, which court gets to apply it, and how it can be enforced is seemingly always a challenge.
Striking the right balance can be exceptionally difficult: if courts are unable to assert jurisdiction, the Internet becomes a proverbial “wild west” with no applicable law. Conversely, if every court asserts jurisdiction, the Internet becomes over-regulated with a myriad of potentially conflicting laws vying to govern online activities.
My weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) notes that in recent years, courts in many countries have adopted a reasonable balance where they are willing to assert jurisdiction over online activities or companies where there is a “real and substantial” connection, but they limit the scope of enforcing their rulings to their own jurisdiction. In other words, companies cannot disregard local laws where they operate there, but courts similarly should not disregard the prospect of conflicting rules between different countries.
Should Canadian Courts Decide What the World Gets to See Online
Appeared in the Toronto Star on June 21, 2014 as Should Canadian Courts Decide What the World Gets to See Online The challenge of jurisdiction and the Internet has long been one of the most contentious online legal issues. Given that the Internet has little regard for conventional borders, the […]
The Canadian Anti-Spam Law Panic: Same As It Ever Was
As the Canadian media reports on the panic associated with the new anti-spam law set to take effect next week, consider the following from Macleans titled “Few Companies Prepared for New Privacy Law“:
The new law..says organizations can only collect personal information for a stated reason – and can use it only for that purpose. Among others things, that means a company that supplies a service can’t sell its list of subscribers to another company’s marketing department. Individuals must be informed, and give their consent, before personal information is collected, used or disclosed..But most firms are unaware of the new law.”
The article continues by noting that “there’s confusion over which organizations might be exempt” and that “there is no grandfather clause – all existing customer information needs to be compliant.” The message is similar in a Globe and Mail article titled “Many small firms not ready for privacy rules“, which also notes the possibility of a constitutional challenge. An IT World Canada reiterates that concern in its coverage:
most Canadian organizations are not aware of the [law]. And very few are prepared to comply.
Say Anything: The Government’s Response to its Disintegrating “Privacy” Reform Strategy
The Supreme Court of Canada’s Spencer decision is still only a few days old, but it has become clear that the ruling has left the government’s privacy and lawful access strategy in tatters. I’ve posted earlier on how the decision – which held that Canadians have reasonable expectation of privacy in their subscriber information and that voluntary disclosure of such information to the police constitutes an unlawful search – blows away the government’s plans for Bills C-13 and S-4 by contradicting longstanding government policy positions.
While there are options for the government to establish reforms that are consistent with the court ruling and that would grant police the access they say they need, government ministers have instead adopted a rather bizarre response of saying anything, no matter how inconsistent with prior positions, the court’s analysis, or public comments from authorities such as the Privacy Commissioner of Canada. There is admittedly a track record for this: Conservatives have dismissed privacy concerns from Carole Todd, the Boys and Girls Club of Canada, the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, and many more. Further, the Conservative leader in the Senate claims Spencer has “no impact whatsoever” on Bill S-4.
Recent Posts
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 244: Kris Klein on the Long Road to a Right to be Forgotten Under Canadian Privacy Law 
Government Doubles Down in Defending Bill C-2’s Information Demand Powers That Open the Door to Warrantless Access of Personal Information 
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 243: What Are Canada’s Digital Policy Plans as Parliament Returns from the Summer Break? 
Grocery Shopping While Jewish 
Privacy Lost: How the Government Deleted Bill C-11’s Key Privacy Principle Just Two Months After Passing it Into Law
