Michael Geist

Latest Posts

One Phone Call is Not Enough: Court Rules You Have the Right to Google a Lawyer

Hollywood crime dramas are infamous for the scene when an accused is taken to a local police station and permitted a single phone call to contact a relative or lawyer. While the storyline is myth – there is no limit on the number of phone calls available to an accused or detainee – a recent Alberta case established a new, real requirement for law enforcement. After a 19-year old struggled to find a lawyer using the telephone, the court ruled that police must provide an accused with Internet access in order to exercise their right to counsel.

Christopher McKay, who faced a driving while under the influence charge, told police that he wanted to exercise his right to legal counsel. McKay’s cellphone and other personal belongings were placed in a police locker when he arrived at the station. McKay was told there was a toll-free number available to contact a lawyer as well as White and Yellow pages that could be consulted. He called the toll-free number but was unable to find assistance.

My weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) notes that what followed was the product of a demographic deeply familiar Hollywood movies and reliant on the Internet. McKay assumed that he had used his single phone call and did not consider using directory assistance (411), which he did not think was a “viable search engine.” Instead, he noted that Google was his main method to search for information.

February 19, 2013 — 17 comments — Columns

Businesses Think Anti-Spam Law Should Protect Them, Not Consumers

For the past month, business groups from across the country have waged an extraordinary campaign against Canada’s anti-spam legislation. With the long overdue law likely to take effect by year-end, groups such as the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, and the Canadian Marketing Association, have launched an all-out blitz to carve out large loopholes in the law and exempt highly questionable conduct.

My weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) notes that the business groups’ chief concern is that the law moves Canada toward a stricter “opt-in” privacy approach that requires marketers to obtain customer consent before sending commercial electronic messages. The move will provide Canadians with greater control over their in-boxes, while also resulting in more effective electronic marketing campaigns for businesses.

February 15, 2013 — 10 comments — Columns

Copyright Lobby Groups Want Canada Back on Piracy Watch List

The IIPA, the umbrella lobby group that represents the major movie, music, and entertainment software lobby groups, released its recommendations for the U.S. piracy watch list last week. Those that thought passing Bill C-11 – the Canadian copyright reform bill that contained some of the most restrictive digital lock rules in the world – would satisfy U.S. groups will be disappointed. The IIPA wants Canada back on the piracy watch list, one notch below the Special Watch List (where the US placed Canada last year).

February 14, 2013 — 26 comments — News

NDP MP Charmaine Borg Raises Concerns Over Watered Down Anti-Spam Regulations

NDP MP Charmaine Borg, the party’s digital issues critic, has written to Industry Minister Christian Paradis to express concern over the draft anti-spam regulations, noting that they appear to circumvent the will of Parliament. The letter cites testimony from Industry Canada officials in 2010, who told the Industry Committee “what the legislation is trying to do is not allow a third party to give express or implied consent on behalf of another person.” Yet despite that position, the department has now proposed a third party referral exception. Borg notes:

After defending their decision to exclude a third party referral exception from the bill, Industry Canada officials, two-years later, introduced the very same exception into the regulations. Yet it was the text of Bill C-28 – explicitly excluding a third-party referral exception – that received multi-partisan support in the House, Industry Committee and the Senate. It appears that in the intervening two years since Bill C-28 received Royal Assent, Industry Canada has decided to regulate around the will of Parliament.

February 13, 2013 — 3 comments — News

Lawful Access is Dead (For Now): Government Kills Bill C-30

Justice Minister Rob Nicholson announced yesterday that the government will not be proceeding with Bill C-30, the lawful access/Internet surveillance legislation:

We will not be proceeding with Bill C-30 and any attempts that we will continue to have to modernize the Criminal Code will not contain the measures contained in C-30, including the warrantless mandatory disclosure of basic subscriber information or the requirement for telecommunications service providers to build intercept capability within their systems. We’ve listened to the concerns of Canadians who have been very clear on this and responding to that.

This shift in policy is remarkable, particularly for a majority government that has used crime as a legislative wedge issue. Almost one year ago to the day – on February 13, 2012, Public Safety Minister Vic Toews infamously told the House of Commons that critics of his forthcoming bill could stand with the government or with the child pornographers. Bill C-30 was introduced the following day, but within two weeks, a massive public outcry – much of it online – forced the government to quietly suspend the bill and now a year later openly acknowledge that it is dead.

February 12, 2013 — 12 comments — News