Wiertz Sebastien - Privacy by Sebastien Wiertz (CC BY 2.0) https://flic.kr/p/ahk6nh

Privacy

Canadian Regulators Place Google’s Business Model Under Microscope

Among the many Internet success stories of the past two decades, Google stands alone. The undisputed king of search, hundreds of millions rely on it daily, supporting an Internet advertising business model that generates tens of billions of dollars annually.

My weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) notes that kind of success invariably leads to legal and regulatory issues, though most of Google’s legal fights have focused on content, such as the inclusion of controversial websites in its search index, the digitization of millions of books through its book search initiative, and the removal of links that may lead to websites that host infringing content.

January 21, 2014 — 6 comments — Columns

Canadian Regulators Place Google’s Business Model Under Microscope

Appeared in the Toronto Star on January 18, 2014 as Canadian Regulators Put Google’s Business Model Under Microscope Among the many Internet success stories of the past two decades, Google stands alone. The undisputed king of search, hundreds of millions rely on it daily, supporting an Internet advertising business model […]

January 21, 2014 — Comments are Disabled — Columns Archive

European Report Says Canadian Privacy Law Should Be Re-Examined Due to Surveillance Activities

The European Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs has issued a detailed draft report on the U.S. surveillance activities and its implications for European fundamental rights. The report loops Canada into the discussion, noting Canada’s participation in the “five-eyes” consortium and expressing concern about the implications for trust in the Canadian legal system. The report states:

whereas according to the information revealed and to the findings of the inquiry conducted by the LIBE Committee, the national security agencies of New Zealand and Canada have been involved on a large scale in mass surveillance of electronic communications and have actively cooperated with the US under the so called â€˜Five eyes’ programme, and may have exchanged with each other personal data of EU citizens transferred from the EU;

whereas Commission Decisions 2013/651 and 2/2002 of 20 December 2012 have declared the adequate level of protection ensured by the New Zealand and the Canadian Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act; whereas the aforementioned revelations also seriously affect trust in the legal systems of these countries as regards the continuity of protection afforded to EU citizens; whereas the Commission has not examined this aspect.

January 9, 2014 — 4 comments — News

Podcast on the Fight for Digital Rights

I appeared on CJSR’s Think to discuss the Fight for Digital Rights. Listen to this podcast or download it in iTunes.

December 19, 2013 — Comments are Disabled — ExtPodcasts

The Privacy Threats in Bill C-13, Part Two: The Low Threshold for Metadata

My first post on the privacy threats in Bill C-13 focused on the voluntary disclosure of personal information and the complete civil and criminal immunity granted to intermediaries such as ISPs and telecom companies that provide such disclosures. This post focuses on the low threshold the bill establishes for a new “transmission data” warrant and explains why this represents a serious privacy risk.

The bill defines transmission data as data that:

(a) relates to the telecommunication functions of dialling, routing, addressing or signalling;
(b) is transmitted to identify, activate or configure a device, including a computer program as defined in subsection 342.1(2), in order to establish or maintain access to a telecommunication service for the purpose of enabling a communication, or is generated during the creation, transmission or reception of a communication and identifies or purports â€¨to identify the type, direction, date, time, duration, size, origin, destination or termination of the communication;
(c) does not reveal the substance, meaning or purpose of the communication.

The bill creates a new warrant that allows a judge to order the disclosure of transmission data where there are reasonable grounds to suspect that an offence has been or will be committed, the identification of a device or person involved in the transmission will assist in an investigation, or will help identify a person. The government relies on the fact that this is a warrant with court oversight to support the claim that Canadians should not be concerned by this provision. Yet the reality is that there is reason for concern as the implications of treating metadata as having a low privacy value is enormously troubling.

December 11, 2013 — 4 comments — News