The CBC covers the CRTC's recent letters on iOptOut.ca with reaction from the CBA.

Wiertz Sebastien - Privacy by Sebastien Wiertz (CC BY 2.0) https://flic.kr/p/ahk6nh
Privacy
CRTC Says iOptOut.ca Requests “Valid and Should be Honoured”
My weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, Ottawa Citizen version, homepage version) builds on the CRTC's announcement last week that the national do-not-call registry (DNC) will be operational by September 30th. I report that the CRTC also recently affirmed the ability for Canadians to use third-party websites – particularly iOptOut.ca – to opt-out telemarketing calls from organizations that are currently exempt under the law.
Last March, I established iOptOut.ca, a website that enables Canadians to opt-out of many exempted organizations with a few easy clicks at no cost. Visitors to the site are asked to enter their phone number (and email address if they wish) and to indicate their calling preferences for nearly 150 organizations. The public reaction has been extremely supportive. Since its launch, the site has sent out millions of opt-out requests on behalf of tens of thousands of Canadians. The reaction from several leading associations has been less enthusiastic. Within weeks of its debut, both the Canadian Marketing Association and the Canadian Bankers Association sent letters to CRTC Chair Konrad von Finckenstein complaining about the service and seeking support for their position that requests generated from the site were invalid. In fact, the CMA sent a notice to its members stating that "it is the view of the Association that members need not honour do-not-call requests that originate from the organization in question."
Von Finckenstein recently responded to the letters (CMA letter, CBA letter – posted with CRTC permission) with an unequivocal rejection of the complaints, providing a clear indication that failure to honour the opt-out requests could lead to significant penalties (companies face penalties of up to $15,000 per violation under the law).
CRTC Says iOptOut Requests “Valid and Should be Honoured”
Appeared in the Toronto Star on August 4, 2008 as Get Online Help to Override Do-Not-Call Exemptions The Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission's announcement last week that the national do-not-call registry (DNC) will be operational by September 30th generated a collective sigh of relief from Canadians tired of unwanted telemarketing […]
61 Reforms to C-61, Day 30: TPMs – Anti-circumvention and Privacy
The inclusion of a privacy exception within Bill C-61's anti-circumvention provisions was not particularly surprising given that the U.S. DMCA includes one and there has been mounting concern about the privacy implications of DRM. The issue has captured the attention of the Canadian privacy community for the past few years. In 2006, a group of privacy and civil liberties organizations and experts sent a public letter to the responsible ministers calling for assurances that:
- any proposed copyright reforms will prioritize privacy protection by including a full privacy consultation and a full privacy impact assessment with the introduction of any copyright reform bill;
- any proposed anti-circumvention provisions will create no negative privacy impact; and
- any proposed copyright reforms will include pro-active privacy protections that, for example, enshrine the rights of Canadians to access and enjoy copyright works anonymously and in private.
The group (of which I am a member) sent a follow-up letter earlier this year as did Privacy Commissioner of Canada Jennifer Stoddart, who posted a public letter expressing concern that copyright reform could have a negative impact on privacy. Given those concerns, an exception to protect personal information is not unexpected. However, Section 41.14 fails to provide Canadians with full privacy protection and Bill C-61 unquestionably makes it more difficult for Canadians to effectively protect their privacy.
B.C. Civil Liberties Association on C-61
The B.C. Civil Liberties Association has adopted a position paper on C-61, warning of its effects on freedom of speech and privacy.