Results For: rethinking and fisa

CASL: the unofficial FAQ, regulatory impact statement, and compliance guidelineCASL: the unofficial FAQ, regulatory impact statement, and compliance guideline



The “anti-spam” portion of Canada’s anti-spam/spyware law (CASL) came into on July 1, 2014. The “malware/spyware” computer program provisions come into force on January 15, 2015.

Most organizations are having very difficult times adapting to CASL’s confusing and prescriptive rules. According to a recent mini-survey conducted by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce of over 160 of its members, from responses to questions answered over 90% of Canadian organizations believe that CASL should be scrapped, amended, or at least be subject to a Parliamentary review before it becomes law.

CASL Industry Canada regulations: summary and commentsCASL Industry Canada regulations: summary and comments



The Government has published final regulations and the Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement (RIAS) related to Canada’s anti-spam legislation (CASL). It has also published a copy of the Order in Council fixing the date when the Act will come into force. They are available on the fightspam.ca website.

Most of the Act will take effect on July 1, 2014. The sections of the Act related to the unsolicited installation of computer programs or software will come into force on January 15, 2015.

CRTC Issues CASL (Canada’s Anti-Spam Law) Guidelines, background and commentaryCRTC Issues CASL (Canada’s Anti-Spam Law) Guidelines, background and commentary



Last week the CRTC released its first two “information bulletins” intended to help businesses in interpreting CASL and the CRTC’s regulations under CASL. While certain of the Commission’s interpretations are helpful, some are troublesome as they would impose new requirements not contemplated either by the statute or the CRTC’s own regulations. They would necessitate costly compliance, which would particularly affect small and medium-sized businesses and mobile digital commerce.

Under the Commission’s interpretation of its regulations and the related provisions of CASL, among other things:

  • Users should be given the opportunity to unsubscribe from all messages from the sender, not merely CEMs.

Computer and Internet Law Weekly Updates for 2011-05-29Computer and Internet Law Weekly Updates for 2011-05-29



Computer and Internet Law Updates for 2011-05-26Computer and Internet Law Updates for 2011-05-26



Rethinking CASLRethinking CASL



SPAM is awful.  It wastes our time. It clogs the Internet. It is full of scams, malware and fraudulent, false and misleading messages. Who wouldn’t cheer when Canada finally decided late in 2010 to outlaw SPAM and related afflictions of malware, spyware, address harvesting and sending false and misleading commercial electronic messages?

Indeed, there was much satisfaction when Canada’s anti-SPAM law, also known as FISA[2], was given royal assent on December 15, 2011.  After a lengthy and thorough review process, including consultations and Parliamentary reviews, Canadians could look forward to the toughest anti-SPAM law in the world just as soon as the regulations were finalized, which is expected this summer.

Michael Geist on CASL: flaws not Festivus grievancesMichael Geist on CASL: flaws not Festivus grievances



Last week Michael Geist published a blog post summarizing his remarks to Industry Minister Moore as to why the almost universal criticisms of Canada’s anti-spam/malware law CASL are unfounded. He suggested it is intense lobbying by “squeaky wheels” with “knee jerk” “greatly exaggerated” and “Festivus” grievances about CASL” that has delayed bringing the law into effect”. He acknowledges that CASL creates new compliance obligations but suggests they are not onerous and even standard internationally (when referring to “opt-in” for spam) and that there is not much more to CASL than “a simple proposition – obtain customer consent and you can do pretty much whatever you like.”

Evaluating the Industry Canada CASL regulations: my submission to the consultationEvaluating the Industry Canada CASL regulations: my submission to the consultation



Yesterday, along with many organizations, I filed a personal submission to the Industry Canada consultation on the draft Electronic Commerce Protection Regulations. My cover letter addressed to Bruce Wallace of Industry Canada is set out below and is followed by a copy of the complete submission.

———————————————

I appreciate the opportunity to provide comments on the above-noted consultations.

I make these comments in my personal capacity and not on behalf of my firm or any of its clients. I write as one of the leading technology lawyers in Canada and the author of a six volume book on Computer, Internet and e-Commerce Law, the most authoritative book on these subjects in Canada.

IPC v UFCW Charter/privacy case going to Supreme Court (updated)IPC v UFCW Charter/privacy case going to Supreme Court (updated)



If privacy legislation significantly impairs Charter rights do privacy rights or Charter rights prevail? Specifically, does an individual’s right to privacy for publically crossing a picket line under Alberta’s comprehensive privacy legislation Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA) have to yield to a union’s right of free expression to film and disseminate that act under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms? This question was answered in the affirmative by the Alberta Court of Appeal in United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 401 v Alberta (Attorney General), 2012 ABCA 130.

New CASL regulations coming but will they fall short?New CASL regulations coming but will they fall short?



Andy Kaplan-Myrth of Industry Canada spoke last week at a well-attended joint meeting of the Toronto Computer Lawyer’s Group and the CBA on Canada’s new anti-spam/spyware law (CASL). Specifically he talked about the upcoming revised Industry Canada regulations. Andy is a policy analyst with IC and is one of the people in charge of producing these regulations.

Here is a short summary of what was discussed from notes taken by James Gannon. One caveat, any questions that Andy answered related to interpretation of the statute were his personal opinion and not those of Industry Canada or the CRTC.