Post Tagged with: "clement"

Security Breach Disclosure Bill Has Bark But No Bite

Last week Industry Minister Tony Clement unveiled two bills touted as important components of the government’s national digital strategy. The Fighting Internet and Wireless Spam Act is a repeat of the anti-spam bill that passed through the House of Commons last year but died after Parliament prorogued. Since the new bill reflects roughly the same compromise that garnered all-party support, it should receive swift passage.

My weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) argues that the second bill, the Safeguarding Canadians' Personal Information Act, is likely to be far more controversial. The bill amends Canada’s existing privacy legislation by establishing new exceptions for businesses and new powers for law enforcement.

June 1, 2010 — 1 comment — Columns

Copyright Week in Canada: Bill Coming Thursday as Conservatives Indicate Openness to Amendments

This is copyright week in Canada as multiple reports indicate that the long-awaited copyright bill will be tabled on Thursday. The recent round of reports are noteworthy for several reasons. First, they confirm earlier reports that the government plans to introduce DMCA-style anti-circumvention legislation. This suggests that the digital lock provisions that were the source of enormous public outrage (and the dominant issue during last summer's copyright consultation) will remain largely unchanged from Bill C-61 and will unquestionably be the most hotly debated aspect of the bill.

Second, the reports also drop hints of other aspects of the bill. While I previously reported there will be no flexible fair dealing provision, the reports indicate that there will some changes to fair dealing. This comes as little surprise, given that C-61 included provisions on time shifting and format shifting.

Third, the government is increasingly turning its attention to what comes after the bill is introduced. The Canadian Press reports that the government is planning to pressure the opposition parties to hold summer hearings in an effort to fast-track the bill through the House of Commons. While this raises concern for many groups who may face challenges participating in summer hearings (and the hearings themselves risk becoming abbreviated as MPs cut the process short to get back to their constituencies), Industry Minister Tony Clement has also indicated that the government is open to compromise:

May 31, 2010 — 32 comments — News

DMCA-Style Reforms: “Not a Reasonable Policy To Foster Innovation or Respect for Copyright”

Canwest's Sarah Schmidt features an terrific story in which Industry Minister Tony Clement admits that he has infringed copyright in loading songs onto his iPod. Like many Canadians, Clement says that he shifted many CDs to his iPod, which now contains over 10,000 songs. What makes the article noteworthy is not the acknowledgement of infringement – Canadian Heritage Minister James Moore admitted infringing activity in using his PVR last year – but rather the focus on the need to update copyright law by legalizing activities that most Canadians view as perfectly acceptable. Notes Clement:

"Well you see, you know I think I have to admit it probably runs afoul of the current law because the current law does not allow you to shift formats. So the fact of the matter is I have compact discs that I've transferred, I have compact discs from my children or my wife that I've transferred onto my iPod. None of that is allowable under the current regime. It shows that the current regime is not realistic and is not modern to encompass how people obtain their entertainment in today's world. That's what happens in a family. You do tend to share music that way and I think most people would find that to be perfectly acceptable behaviour. But our current law is so antiquated, it doesn't contemplate that situation."

May 27, 2010 — 40 comments — News

C-29: The Anti-Privacy Privacy Bill

Industry Minister Tony Clement introduced two bills yesterday – the Fighting Internet and Wireless Spam Act (C-28) and the Safeguarding Canadians' Personal Information Act (C-29). I have spoken positively about C-28 (here, here, and here), which is long overdue and should receive swift passage. By contrast, C-29 is a huge disappointment. The bill is also long overdue as it features the amendments to Canadian private sector privacy law from a review that began in 2006 and concluded with a report in 2007.

Just over three years later, the government has introduced a bill that does little for Canadians' privacy, while providing new exceptions for businesses and new powers for law enforcement (David Fraser has helpfully created a redline version of PIPEDA with the proposed changes). The centrepiece of the bill is a new security breach disclosure provision, but the requirements are very weak when compared with similar laws found elsewhere. In fact, with no penalties for failure to notify security breaches, the provisions may do more harm than good since Canadians will expect to receive notifications in the event of a breach, but companies may err on the side of not notifying (given the very high threshold discussed below) safe in the knowledge that there are no financial penalties for failing to do so.

May 26, 2010 — 30 comments — News

Seven Copyright Questions for Canadian Heritage Minister James Moore

My op-ed in this week's Hill Times (HT version (sub req), homepage version) notes that with reports that a new copyright bill could be introduced this week, thousands of Canadians have been expressing concern with the government's plans, as there are mounting fears that the results from last summer's copyright consultation may be shelved in favour of a repeat of the much-criticized Bill C-61.

The foundational principle behind C-61 was the primacy of digital locks. When a digital lock (often referred to as digital rights management or technological protection measure) is used – to control copying, access or stifle competition – the lock supersedes virtually all other rights. The fight over the issue has pitted the tech-savvy Industry Minister Tony Clement, who has reportedly argued for a flexible implementation, against Canadian Heritage Minister James Moore, who has adopted what many view as an out-of-touch approach that would bring back the digital lock provisions virtually unchanged.

Moore has declined to comment on his position, but his approach raises some difficult questions:

May 25, 2010 — 56 comments — Columns