Post Tagged with: "privacy"

Ontario Privacy Commish Sides With Opt-Out on Behavioural Online Tracking

The U.S. FTC is in the midst of considering a proposed Do-Not-Track planthat seeks to address mounting concerns about behavioural tracking of online activities for marketing purposes [the practice became apparentin one of my recent classes when we visited an online dating site to discuss the use of Google advertising only to find that dating site advertisements appeared in subsequent, unrelated browsing]. Yesterday, both Google and Mozilla announced that they would install do-not-track features on the Chrome and Firefoxbrowsers.

The Electronic Privacy Information Center, one of the leading privacy groups in the U.S., makes the case for an opt-in approach, noting that it would better protect consumer privacy and is consistent with many other U.S. privacy statutes. It adds that:

Opt-in is more effective than opt-out because it encourages companies to explain the benefits of information sharing, and to eliminate barriers to exercising choice. Experience with opt-out has shown that companies tend to obfuscate the process of exercising choice, or that exemptions are created to make opt-outimpossible.

January 25, 2011 — 5 comments — News

Stoddart to Give Public Lecture on Privacy Protection

Privacy Commissioner of Canada Jennifer Stoddart will give a free, public lecture on making privacy protection more effective for Canadians at the University of Ottawa on Wednesday, January 19, 2011 at 4:00 p.m. Details here.

January 17, 2011 — 1 comment — News

The Letters of the Law: 2010 in Tech Law from A to Z

The past twelve months in law and technology were exceptionally active, with the passage of anti-spam legislation, record penalties for violating the do-not-call list, and relentless lobbying on new Canadian copyright legislation. A look back at 2010 from A to Z (Toronto Star version, homepage version):

A is for the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, which concluded in October with a watered-down treaty after the U.S. caved on several controversial Internet issues.

B is for Black v. Breeden, an Ontario Court of Appeal ruling involving postings on the Hollinger International, Inc. website that Conrad Black claimed were defamatory.

C is for Crookes v. Newton, the high-profile Supreme Court case that addressed the liability hyperlinks between websites.

D is for the do-not-call list, which gained new life when the CRTC pressured Bell into paying $1.3 million for multiple violations of the list rules.

E is for the Electronic Commerce Protection Act, the initial name of Canada’s anti-spam legislation that received royal assent in December, six years after a task force recommended new Canadian spam laws.

December 28, 2010 — 12 comments — Columns

Federal Court Awards PIPEDA Damages

Slaw reports that a federal court judge has awarded $5,000 in damages to a self-represented applicant for violations of PIPEDA, relating to an inaccurate credit report.

December 21, 2010 — Comments are Disabled — News