Tag: Privacy

The OPC on online tracking, profiling and targeting and cloud computingThe OPC on online tracking, profiling and targeting and cloud computing



The Office of the Privacy Commissioner released a report yesterday on online tracking, profiling and targeting and cloud computing, Report on the 2010 Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada’s Consultations on Online Tracking, Profiling and Targeting, and Cloud Computing. These areas are currently very hot and challenging topics for Canadians and Canadian businesses.

The privacy issues raised by online tracking, profiling and targeting and cloud computing raise many questions with important public policy and economic implications. The report, by and large, raises and does a good job of explaining the issues and challenges.

Significant Privacy Law Decision: Leon’s Furniture v Alberta (IPC)Significant Privacy Law Decision: Leon’s Furniture v Alberta (IPC)



By Geoff Hall and Kara Smyth*

The Alberta Court of Appeal recently overturned a decision of the Alberta Privacy Commissioner resulting in a significant privacy law decision for businesses in Alberta and B.C. The Court endorsed a deferential approach to businesses and their adoption of reasonable policies towards the collection of personal information. The majority ruled that the collection of personal information must only be “reasonable.” A business need not show that it adopted the “best” or “least intrusive” approaches.”

Summary

In a split decision released March 29, 2011, the Alberta Court of Appeal overturned a decision of the Alberta Privacy Commissioner: Leon’s Furniture Limited v.

Developments in Computer, Internet and E-Commerce Law (2009-2010)Developments in Computer, Internet and E-Commerce Law (2009-2010)



Here are the slides used in my presentation to the Toronto Computer Lawyers Group earlier today,  The Year in Review: Developments in Computer, Internet and E-Commerce Law (2009-2010). It covers significant developements since my talk last spring.

The slides include a summary of the following cases and statutory references:

Tercon Contractors Ltd. v. British Columbia, 2010 SCC 4

Internet Broadcasting Corporation Ltd. v Mar LLC [2009] EWHC 844 (Ch)

Gammasonics Institute for Medical Research Pty Ltd v Comrad Medical Sysytems Pty Ltd [2010] NSWSC 267 (9 April 2010)

Kingsway Hall Hotel Ltd.

Government introduces bills to fight SPAM and spyware and to amend PIPEDAGovernment introduces bills to fight SPAM and spyware and to amend PIPEDA



Earlier today the Government introduced two important Bills – Bills C-28 and C-29.

Bill C-28, Fighting Internet and Wireless Spam Act, is the re-introduction of the Electronic Commerce Protection Act (ECPA). It is essentially the Bill as passed by the House of Commons just before the olympics with a few changes. Most of the changes are to harmonize the language to drafting conventions or to clarify the legislative intent.

The Bill is a major improvement over the initial version of the ECPA which was significantly improved during the Industry Committee review.

Is graduated response necessary to protect human rights from online copyright infringement?Is graduated response necessary to protect human rights from online copyright infringement?



Last week, the Irish High Court released an important decision in the EMI Records & Ors -v- Eircom Ltd ,  [2010] IEHC 108 case. The court held that a settlement agreement between an Irish ISP, Eircom, and owners of copyright protected sound recordings and videos to implement a voluntary graduated response system was compatible with Irish data protection legislation. The ruling by Justice Charleton delivered on 16th April, 2010, is noteworthy not only because it found that collecting and using IP addresses for the purposes of sending out graduated response notices to subscribers does not violate data protection legislation.