In a surprising and troubling decision, the Ontario Court of Appeal has permitted a police search of a cellphone that was not password protected or locked during the course of an arrest. The court found that the police had a reasonable belief that the phone might contain relevant evidence and […]
Wiertz Sebastien - Privacy by Sebastien Wiertz (CC BY 2.0) https://flic.kr/p/ahk6nh
Privacy
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.
Distributel Fights Back Against Motion to Disclose Subscriber Information in File Sharing Case
Distributel, an independent ISP with services in Quebec, Ontario, Alberta, and B.C., has fought back in a file sharing lawsuit launched by NGN Prima Productions, opposing a motion to disclose the names of subscribers alleged to have engaged in file sharing. It appears that NGN is using Canipre to identify alleged file sharers, the same company that has supplied information to Voltage Pictures in its case involving thousands of subscribers at TekSavvy. Distributel did not oppose a similar request in November 2012, but says in court documents filed today that several factors led to a change in position when NGN filed another request for more names.
First, Distributel was concerned with how NGN treated its subscribers, demanding a $1500 settlement in a notice claiming that subscribers could face up to $20,000 in damages. Distributel noted the lack of evidence for the claim made by NGN, relying on an expert analysis of BitTorrent to highlight the shortcomings. Moreover, Distributel says NGN is engaged in copyright trolling, citing the misrepresentation in the potential liability (the law now features a cap of $5,000 for non-commercial statutory damages) and the settlement demands that far exceed actual damages.
Canadian Chamber of Commerce Attacks Anti-Spam Law: Challenges the Law’s Opt-In Requirement
For the past two days I’ve called attention to the shocking demands by business groups, including the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Canadian Marketing Association, and the Entertainment Software Association of Canada, to legalize spyware by permitting the secret installation of computer programs to monitor activities of Canadians suspected a potential contravention of the law (including laws such as copyright or any foreign law) or unauthorized use of a computer system (including wireless networks).
The Canadian Chamber of Commerce added its own submission to the government’s consultation on the anti-spam regulations. The Chamber’s key concern is the very foundation of the law: opt-in consent that requires businesses to obtain consent before sending commercial electronic messages (subject to a wide range of exceptions). The Chamber says:
Does Canada’s Anti-Spam Law Really Make It Illegal To Email a Step-Parent or Great Uncle? No.
Over the past couple of weeks, there have been a myriad of posts and articles criticizing Canada’s anti-spam legislation. According to some posts – primarily those by Barry Sookman – the legislation will stop family members from sending commercial email to each other, parents from promoting their children’s lemonade stands, and discriminate against charities and schools. Is this true? In a word, no. While there is little point in unpacking each of the many outrageous claims, over the next few days I’ll offer up a few posts on some of the crazier ones.
Today’s post focuses on the suggestion that families will be stopped from sending commercial messages to other family members. Sookman writes:
Recent Posts
Solomon’s Choice: Charting the Future of AI Policy in Canada 
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 232: What Will Canadian Digital Policy Look Like Under the New Liberal Carney Government? 
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 231: Sara Bannerman on How Canadian Political Parties Maximize Voter Data Collection and Minimize Privacy Safeguards 
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 230: Aengus Bridgman on the 2025 Federal Election, Social Media Platforms, and Misinformation 
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 229: My Digital Access Day Keynote – Assessing the Canadian Digital Policy Record
