Blog

European Report Says Canadian Privacy Law Should Be Re-Examined Due to Surveillance Activities

The European Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs has issued a detailed draft report on the U.S. surveillance activities and its implications for European fundamental rights. The report loops Canada into the discussion, noting Canada’s participation in the “five-eyes” consortium and expressing concern about the implications for trust in the Canadian legal system. The report states:

whereas according to the information revealed and to the findings of the inquiry conducted by the LIBE Committee, the national security agencies of New Zealand and Canada have been involved on a large scale in mass surveillance of electronic communications and have actively cooperated with the US under the so called â€˜Five eyes’ programme, and may have exchanged with each other personal data of EU citizens transferred from the EU;

whereas Commission Decisions 2013/651 and 2/2002 of 20 December 2012 have declared the adequate level of protection ensured by the New Zealand and the Canadian Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act; whereas the aforementioned revelations also seriously affect trust in the legal systems of these countries as regards the continuity of protection afforded to EU citizens; whereas the Commission has not examined this aspect.

January 9, 2014 — 4 comments — News

Why CSEC and CSIS Should the Subject of an Independent Investigation

Months of surveillance-related leaks from U.S. whistleblower Edward Snowden have fuelled an international debate over privacy, spying, and Internet surveillance. The Canadian-related leaks – including disclosures regarding spying on the Brazilian government and the facilitation of spying at the G8 and G20 meetings hosted in Toronto in 2010 – have certainly inspired some domestic discussion. Ironically, the most important surveillance development did not involve Snowden at all.

My weekly technology column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) notes that late last year, Justice Richard Mosley, a federal court judge, issued a stinging rebuke to Canada’s intelligence agencies (CSEC and CSIS) and the Justice Department, ruling that they misled the court when they applied for warrants to permit the interception of electronic communications. While the government has steadfastly defended its surveillance activities by maintaining that it operates within the law, Justice Mosley, a former official with the Justice Department who was involved with the creation of the Anti-Terrorism Act, found a particularly troubling example where this was not the case.

January 8, 2014 — 7 comments — Columns

Technology and the Law in 2014: 14 Questions in Need of Answers

The coming year is likely to be a very significant one for law and technology. As the year unfolds, my recent law and technology column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) lists 14 questions (along with possible answers) that will go a long way to determining the path of Canadian technology law policy.

1. Will the government finally unveil a national digital strategy?

The long-promised national digital strategy could become a reality in 2014 after years of inaction. Industry Minister James Moore is on the verge of clearing out the lingering policy issues he inherited and may be ready to set his own path on a digital strategy.

2. Will the wireless spectrum auction be judged a failure?

The contentious wireless spectrum auction should take place early in 2014, but with few, if any, new competitors, the auction seems destined to do little more than entrench the status quo.

January 7, 2014 — 1 comment — Columns

The Letters of the Law: The Year in Tech Law and Policy

With Edward Snowden and the great wireless war of 2013 leading the way, law and technology issues garnered headlines all year long. My weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) takes a look back at 2013 from A to Z:

A is for Americangirl.ca, a Canadian domain name that was the subject of two dispute claims in 2013. The popular doll company relied on a quirk in the policy that permitted a follow-up complaint after its first case was rejected.

B is for Bell TV, which a federal court ordered to pay $20,000 for violating the privacy of a customer. The case arose when Bell TV surreptitiously obtained permission to run a credit check by including it as a term in its rental agreement without telling the customer.

C is for the Competition Bureau of Canada, which launched an investigation into alleged anti-competitive practices by search giant Google.

December 29, 2013 — 3 comments — Columns

Supreme Court of Canada Emphasizes Balance in Determining Copyright Scope of Protection

The Supreme Court of Canada issued another copyright decision this morning, ruling in favour of Claude Robinson in a longstanding copyright infringement battle over a children’s television series. Robinson was vindicated in the decision with an award of millions of dollars. The case is an important one for determining whether […]

December 23, 2013 — 46 comments — News