Yesterday’s post on the coalition of business lobby groups support for a spyware provision in the Canadian anti-spam law attracted considerable attention, with many shocked at the breadth of the proposal. While the post focused on how the provision could be broadly interpreted to permit spyware to track copyright infringement, block websites, or to stop attempts to access wireless networks without authorization, it did not discuss yet another serious concern involving the jurisdictional scope of the provision. As noted in the post, the lobby groups, led by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Canadian Marketing Association, the Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association and the Entertainment Software Association of Canada, have asked the government to create an exception for the express consent requirement on software installation for:
Blog
Competition Bureau to the CRTC on Wireless Code: Be Bolder
The Competition Bureau yesterday posted its submission to the CRTC on its draft wireless code. The key message from the Bureau: be bolder. The Bureau expresses concern with the competitiveness of the wireless telecom sector in Canada:
certain impediments continue to diminish the effect of competitive forces in this industry. First, certain industry practices have tended to impose costs on consumers who wish to avail themselves of competitive alternatives. Second, consumers are not always provided with sufficient information in an adequately clear manner to make informed purchase decisions. These features can deprive consumers, competitors, and the Canadian economy of the beneficial effects of competition in this industry, namely lower prices, higher quality service, and greater innovation. This submission provides recommendations on how the Wireless Code can minimize the effect of these impediments.
Sony Rootkit Redux: Canadian Business Groups Lobby For Right To Install Spyware on Your Computer
The deadline for comments on Industry Canada’s draft anti-spam regulations passed earlier this week with a group of 13 industry associations – including the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Canadian Marketing Association, the Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association and the Entertainment Software Association of Canada – submitting a lengthy document that, if adopted, would gut much of the law. The groups adopt radical interpretations of the law to argue for massive new loopholes or for the indefinite delay of several provisions. I will focus on some of the submissions shortly, but this post focuses on the return of an issue that was seemingly killed years ago: demands to permit surreptitious surveillance by the copyright owners and other groups for private enforcement purposes.
During the anti-spam law debates in 2009, copyright lobby groups promoted amendments that would have allowed for expansive surveillance of user computers. Coming on the heels of the Sony rootkit scandal, the government ultimately rejected those proposals (the Liberals had plans to propose such amendments but backed down), leaving in place an important provision that requires express consent prior to the installation of computer software. The provision states:
CRTC Should Be Bolder With Wireless Code
The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission unveiled its much-anticipated draft wireless code of conduct lasts week, offering a promise of new, enforceable protections for consumers. The draft code, which is open for public comment until mid-February, generated a mixed reaction. Some consumer groups welcomed it as a step in the right direction. But other commentators were left underwhelmed, disappointed that the code does little to address consumer frustrations with issues such as long-term wireless contracts and exorbitant roaming fees.
My weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) notes the draft code features some welcome changes to the current wireless landscape, including the possibility of consumer cancellation of contracts when providers change key terms, clear limits on contract termination penalties, and monthly bill caps when additional fees are incurred (thereby reducing the likelihood of bill shock after a trip abroad). Perhaps most importantly, the code is enforceable, backed by the possibility of monetary compensation of up to $5,000.
Yet the draft code ultimately disappoints, since its underlying philosophy is that consumer frustrations with the Canadian wireless market can be best addressed by more information.
Does Canada’s Anti-Spam Law Really Discriminate Against Charities and Schools? No.
My earlier posts on Canada’s anti-spam law focused on claims about restrictions involving family and personal relationships as well as the exaggerated concerns about the impact on small and medium sized businesses. This post tackles one of the strangest criticisms of the Canadian anti-spam law to date: the claim that it discriminates against charities, schools, and other not-for-profit organizations. In fact, the opposite is true since the law features additional protections for these groups that are not otherwise available to conventional commercial businesses.
Recent Posts
The Law Bytes Podcast Law Society of Ontario CPD Professionalism Pack 
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 242: Sukesh Kamra on Law Firm Adoption of Artificial Intelligence and Innovative Technologies 
The Sound of Silence: On Being Jewish in Canada in 2025 
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 241: Scott Benzie on How Government Policy Has Eroded Big Tech Support for Canadian Culture 
What Is the Canadian Government Doing With Its Incoherent Approach to TikTok?
