Google’s New Privacy Policy: Going Too Far?

Anyone who uses one of Google’s multitudes of services recently has been confronted with Google’s new Privacy Policy, which was implemented on the 1^st of March. Internet privacy is obviously a major concern for users and governments alike, and this new policy has been met with mixed reaction. Canadian reaction has suggested that it is a step in the right direction, whereas American lawmakers have asked for changes, and this week the European Union has suggested that the changes are in breach of European law. The multiplicity of reaction means it is important to understand what the changes are and why so many have come to their unique positions about it.

Read the rest of this entry »

Lawful Access: Reviewing the Bill C-30 Controversy

On February 14^th, the government finally re-tabled Bill C-30, long referred to as the ‘lawful access’ legislation and now re-introduced as the “Investigating and Preventing Criminal Electronic Communications Act” or the short and controversial title of “Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act”. Commentators such as Michael Geist and the University of Toronto’s Lisa Austin have spent the past weeks and months pointing out the potential privacy issues raised by the Bill, and the false equivalencies being used to promote it. Read the rest of this entry »

TIP Conference Day 2: Non-Practising Entities

- with Rachel Weiner

The second day of the TIP Conference focused on the controversial and sexy (for patent law) topic of non-practising entities. The public has a tendency to label non-practising entities as patent trolls, and with that label comes a whole consortium of negative connotations. What is a patent troll? The image that appears in most people’s minds is a person who acquires many, many patents and sits in wait, under the bridge, ready to unfairly pounce on anyone who attempts to cross. Read the rest of this entry »

SCC: ISPs are not “Broadcasters”

In a short ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada today (Reference re Broadcasting Act, 2012 SCC 4), it was held that Canadian Internet Service Providers are not “broadcasters” under the Broadcasting Act, S.C. 1991, c. 11, and therefore not subject to broadcasting regulations.

The Court upheld the Federal Court of Appeal ruling (2010 FCA 178) which answered a question by way of reference from the CRTC:

Do retail Internet service providers (“ISPs”) carry on, in whole or in part, “broadcasting undertakings” subject to the Broadcasting Act when, in their role as ISPs, they provide access through the Internet to “broadcasting” requested by end-users?

Read the rest of this entry »

Ontario Court of Appeal Recognizes Tort of “Invasion of Seclusion”

In its recent ruling in Jones v Tsige, the Ontario Court of Appeal formally confirmed the existence of an actionable cause for invasion of seclusion. While the tort of appropriation of personality has long been recognized in Ontario, this appellate decision is the first in the province to give an unequivocal right of action based on breach of privacy. The court surveyed the relevant common law and statutory landscape in Ontario, other provinces, US, and Commonwealth, as well as Charter jurisprudence with respect to the protection of privacy rights. It concluded that “[r]ecognition of such a cause of action would amount to an incremental step that is consistent with the role of this court to develop the common law in a manner consistent with the changing needs of society”.

Read the rest of this entry »

Is SOPA Dead?

The story of the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and its sister act, Protect IP Act (PIPA) has been an intriguing and increasingly polarizing one. As Sarit wrote a few days ago, the increasing pressure from tech companies has forced the White House to come out against certain provisions, such as the DNS blocking provision in SOPA and other measures that would “tamper” with the underlying security measures of internet infrastructure. Read the rest of this entry »

SOPA and PIPA: The White House Changes Its Stance

The explosion in major names denouncing  SOPA and PIPA (including giants of the internet like Google, Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, and the Wikimedia foundation, who are all considering an unprecedented ‘blackout’ on January 18th) now has a new supporter in the name of the White House and the Obama administration.  Read the rest of this entry »

The Phone Book in Your Pocket

In an age where the phone book has nigh become obsolete, Public Safety Minister Vic Toews has used it to analogize the federal government’s proposed lawful access legislation. His analogy was a response to serious privacy concerns over the proposed legislation, raised by the likes of Privacy Commissioners at both the federal and provincial levels. Lisa Austin, associate law professor at the University of Toronto, has responded in kind with an op-ed piece in the Globe and Mail. She looks at how this legislation will expand the government’s ability to get access to private internet data without judicial oversight. Are the privacy issues with our telephone usage really the same as the privacy issues with our internet use? Read Prof Austin’s article here.

The End of the Internet?

Tension between the interests of copyright holders and the accessibility and openness of the Internet is not a new phenomenon – Napster anyone? However, a potentially game-changing new development in online intellectual property and copyright law is currently making its way through the United Stages legislature. The Stop Online Piracy Act, or SOPA, was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives in October of this year. The Act was given hearing in front of the House Judiciary Committee on November 16, 2011; its counterpart in the Senate, the PROTECT-IP Act, was introduced in May of this year and has since been passed. Read the rest of this entry »

Who Gets Burned When the Dragon Stirs? – Ramifications of Stricter Patent Protection in China

Jameson Berkow in The National Post recently voiced a concern not unfamiliar to those who have seen the cover of any Economist magazine in the past eight years – the dangers of China’s evolving economy, in particular their approach to patent protection.

The article argues that, “China … has intentionally maintained a lax intellectual property enforcement regime for decades, waiting until its internal invention industry had become strong enough to warrant something more robust.” Read the rest of this entry »