CAUCE

#C27 - Bill Passes Without Copyright Spyware Provision

Michael Geist has a nice synopsis of what transpired in committee.

#C27 - Bill C-27 Passes Committee Review

#C27 - Anti-spam Bill C-27, ECPA passed committee review and was referred back to the Canadian House of Commons, intact, at 17:30 yesterday. It will be voted upon in the coming days, and then passed to the senate for two readings and votes, a commiteee review, and a final vote. Word has it C-27 will become law by the end of the year.

CAUCE congratulates and thanks the members of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology for their hard work and considered deliberations.

http://parlvu.parl.gc.ca/parlvu/asx/playlist.aspx?files=/2009/2009-10/00014b0e.wmv

Here is how it played out as spoken by Michael Chong, Chair, Standing Committee on Industry Science & Technology:

MP3

I will call another question — shall the short title of the bill carry? The short title of the bill is carried.

Shall the title of the bill carry? The title of the bill is carried.

Shall the bill as amended carry? The bill as amended is carried.

Shall the chair report the bill as amended to the house? I'll report the bill amended to the house at my earliest opportunity.

Shall I ask the clerk of the committee to order a reprint of the bill as amended for use in the house at report stage? I will instruct the clerk to reprint the bill as amended.

Thank-you very much for your cooperation, this meeting is adjourned.

#C27 RT @BrianMasseMP Masse demands consumer protection

"we are on the side of the consumer, most assuredly" 

- Tony Clement (Minister of Industry)

Digital Copyright Canada posted a release from NDP Industry Critic Brian Masse (Windsor West) about his intervention during Question Period in the House of Commons. Mr. Masse is a member of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science & Technology (INDU) reviewing Bill C-27, the Electronic Commerce Protection Act

What follows are the official transcripts

Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, the government introduced anti-spam legislation, Bill C-27, and now it is at risk of being weakened.

Both the Liberals and the Bloc have left consumers wondering as they cave to the corporate lobby and move motions that are against the public interest.

Now the government has an amendment on the table that would allow serious violations of individual privacy, as private companies would get access to Canadians' personal computers.

Why does the minister believe personal privacy is not an issue and that computers can be invaded by others? Why is he softening on spam? Will the minister stand up for Internet users or sell them out to the spammers and the fraudsters?

Hon. Tony Clement (Minister of Industry, CPC):
Actually, Mr. Speaker, I think the amendment the hon. member is referring to is off the table.

The hon. member, the NDP caucus and the Conservative caucus have been collaborating very well on the anti-spam legislation, despite the efforts of the Liberals and the Bloc to cave in to corporate interests.

We see this legislation as consumer legislation to protect the consumer against some of the ne'er do wells involved in the Internet. I appreciate the backing of the hon. member's party as we continue to make sure this legislation comes through and is successful for Canadians.

Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, I hope the amendment will be removed on Monday.

I hope the minister will also take my advice on the recent decision of the CRTC yesterday on Internet traffic management practices. It is a blow to the future of digital innovation in Canada. The principle of net neutrality must be a cornerstone of the innovation agenda, not a tombstone.

South of the border the FCC is taking clear steps toward ensuring net neutrality. The CRTC decision will protect the monopolists rather than the innovators.

Will the minister and his cabinet stand up for the competition, consumers and net neutrality and overturn the CRTC decision, just as they did for the land line market decision that took place three or four years ago?

Hon. Tony Clement (Minister of Industry, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his advice, as always. Indeed, we are studying the CRTC decision very closely.

Most observers have seen it to be an appropriate balance between the interests of the consumers and also the ability of the providers to provide the services we expect on the Internet, but I am watching those providers very closely. I do not want to see a situation where consumers are put at risk in terms of their access to the Internet.

This will be ongoing, but we are on the side of the consumer, most assuredly.

Blog-roll - C-27 Articles by CAUCE, Elsewhere

Consumers Cautiously Optimistic about the Future - Spamtacular

Bill C-27: Historic Canadian Anti-spam Legislation Battered, But Still Unbeaten - CircleID

Why do we need an opt-in spam law? - Spamresource

Canada's anti-spam/spyware/malware Bill C-27 - UPDATE - Deliverability.com

A stream of CAUCE & C-27 updates can also be found on

Twitter

Facebook

LinkedIn

C-27 Update : Standing Commitee Meeting October 21

A lot of key clauses were passed with amendments we presume we have seen - although some are not on the draft we have on-hand, and none were read aloud during the proceedings, so things may have changed.

That said:

• Grandfather clause: 2 years (up from 18 months) (senders can contact recipients with whom they have an existing business relationship at the time of the adoption of the law) up to 2 years.
• Unsubscribe: 10 business days (CANSPAM coherent)
• Private right of action (CAUCE clause) - passed
• Statutory damages is where the committee got hung up, and the adoption of the rest of the clauses was postponed until Monday

So far, so good. We are cautiously optimistic.

The Financial Advisors Association of Canada are Clairvoyant

Mr. Greg Pollock, Advocis' president and CEO can apparently sense when someone needs the services of a financial adviser, and is fighting on behalf of consumers. Lucky us.

 Anti-spam law restricts freedom to conduct legitimate business, says Advocis

"(Proposed Canadian anti-spam bill C-27) will mean that financial advisors and planners will have more difficulty reaching out to potential (emphasis ours - ed.) clients who are interested in receiving information and advice on important financial issues"

 One wonders how a financial advisor can be so prescient as to know when a potential client absolutely needs to be contacted (but yet, so many of them have done so poorly managing their client portfolios over the past year).

Besides which, PIPEDA has long dictated an opt-in régime in Canada, and this doesn't appear to be negatively impacting the ability of businesses to do business. C-27 does not change that.

The Advocis article goes on to say:

"The government has an important and difficult task at hand but it can't lose focus on the goals of the legislation. Without question, Canadians need protection against fraud, phishing, misleading advertising and bulk spam emails. But consumers also need access to advice offered by financial advisors and planners," says Pollock. 

There is no "but" here. We are delighted Advocis recognize that consumers need protection against online fraud and phishing. So do the Anti-phishing Working Group, an industry consortium of experts and law enforcement. If people have no money to invest due to fraudulent losses, they won't need a financial advisor to help them get their money back, they will need a law to go after the perpetrators.

The APWG says, in the Q1/Q2 2009 report:

• Phishing malware reports are up 585% in the first half of 2009
• Banking trojan/password?stealing crimeware infections detected increased during more than 186 percent between Q4, 2008 and Q2, 2009
• Canada ranks fourth or third hosting phishing sites in the first half of this year

Finally, as we have repeatedly noted, numerous experienced online marketers with a lot at stake have reviewed bill C-27 and do not see how it impedes their business in any way, and are actively supporting passage into law.

[ Sign the CAUCE online petition to support Canada's antispam bill C-27
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/SupportC27/ ]

Sign the online petition in support of Canada's anti-spam bill C-27!

Sign the CAUCE online petition to support Canada's antispam bill C-27
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/SupportC27/

C-27 Update - Re-post: Liberals To Drop Controversial Copyright Lobby Spyware Amendments

Michael Geist reports that the Liberal members of the standing committee currently reviewing Canada's anti-spam bill C-27 have reversed course.

http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/4476/125/

[ Sign the CAUCE online petition to support Canada's antispam bill C-27
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/SupportC27/ ]

Follow C-27 Updates on CAUCE Twitter, and sign our Twitter Petitions

Lots of activity in the twitersphere: http://twitter.com/#search?q=c-27

CAUCE live and kicking on Twitter / Linkedin / and Facebook - follow us!

[ Sign the CAUCE online petition to support Canada's antispam bill C-27
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/SupportC27/ ]

C-27 UPDATE - re-post: Conservatives Reverse on Watering Down Anti-Spam Bill

Michael Geist notes things look much better after today's Committee meeting:

The Conservatives reversed course on plans to water down Bill C-27 in an aborted clause-by-clause meeting today that promises another 48 hours of intense lobbying on the anti-spam bill.  Parliamentary Secretary Mike Lake opened this afternoon's meeting by putting the Government's proposed changes into the public record. Most notably, the Conservatives have dropped their support for exceptions for survey and marketing companies (a huge loophole), self-regulated organizations such as the Law Society of Upper Canada, and third party referrals.  This brings the bill much closer to its original incarnation with some minor tweaking and clarifications.

[ Sign the CAUCE online petition to support Canada's antispam bill C-27
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/SupportC27/ ]