Are you a spammer? (Video)

February 28, 2012

You are saying to yourself, “of course not, our organization plays by the rules and only sends electronic messages to people who want to receive them.”  But did you know that there’s new legislation that was passed in Parliament late last year?  Canada’s Anti-Spam Law is expected to come into force soon. Have you prepared for its implementation? To learn more please watch this short video –  click here>>


Are you a spammer? What you need to know about Canada’s new anti-spam law

July 7, 2011

Tired of reading? How about a video to help you learn about Canada’s new anti-spam law?

I’m delighted to let you know about a cool feature on Pitblado’s new website called the “Whiteboard Sessions”, which are vlogs (or video blogs). We’ve just posted a 3 minute vlog of mine entitled “Are you a spammer?“, wherein I discuss:  

  • highlights of the new law
  • why you should care 
  • an overview of the rules  
  • penalties for non-compliance; and
  • proactive tips to help comply with the law

To watch “Are you a spammer?” please click here>>


Spam, anti-spam – is it getting better, is it getting worse?

June 14, 2011

CJOB|680′s Geoff Currier recently asked me to participate in his live radio program called “The Nighthawk”. Geoff and callers raised a number of issues: “Spam, anti-spam legislation – is it getting better, is it getting worse, what do we know about how bad spam is in our computers right now?”  To hear the answer to this and other questions please listen to the live broadcast recording here>>

Thanks to Geoff Currier and CJOB|680 for the invitation to participate in the program.


Anti-Spam Bill passed in House of Commons

December 1, 2009

Bill C-27, commonly referred to as the “Anti-Spam Bill”, passed third reading in the House of Commons yesterday and has been referred to the Senate. I originally posted about the Anti-Spam Bill being introduced back in April, so don’t count on speedy passage through the Senate.

(Hat tip to @privacylawyer David Fraser for the heads-up!)


I don’t want ANY spam! Misconceptions and marketing research

November 4, 2009

I’d like to dispel a misconception about Bill C-27, An Act to Promote the Efficiency and Adaptability of the Canadian Economy by Regulating Certain Activities that Discourage Reliance on Electronic Means of Carrying Out Commercial Activities (the “Anti-Spam Bill”), which is working its way right now through the Parliamentary Committee process. When passed, the Anti-Spam Bill will provide much-needed relief from insidious electronic Spam like phishing and spyware. There is, however, an unfortunate misconception that the Anti-Spam Bill might create “loopholes” for spammers.

As originally drafted, the Anti-Spam Bill didn’t clearly define which types of electronic communication would be subject to regulation. While spyware and phishing would clearly be outlawed, questions arose as to whether other decidedly non-Spam and legitimate activities could possibly be caught within the scope of regulation. That’s because the Anti-Spam Bill was drafted to regulate “commercial activity”. Unfortunately, it didn’t clearly explain what this term meant. Here’s where the misconception comes in.

Some think “marketing research” is the same thing as telemarketing. In reality, the two activities have very little in common. Legitimate marketing research organizations do not try to sell products or services (in fact, if they are members of Canada’s Marketing Research and Intelligence Association (the “MRIA”), they are bound by a professional code of conduct which expressly prohibits such activities). Maybe you’ve heard of “mugging” (marketing under the guise of research) and “sugging” (selling under the guise of research). Let’s be clear: legitimate marketing research organizations do neither. If someone is trying to sell you something under the guise of a survey, they are not conducting legitimate marketing research. Nevertheless, comparisons of online marketing research to telemarketing abound, even though the Anti-Spam Bill will regulate online activity, not telephone calls.

Polls tell us that Canadians support the Anti-Spam Bill. How do we know this?  Because members of the MRIA were able to conduct marketing research, quite likely, using an online survey. These surveys are fuel for polls that provide valuable and timely information to Canadian decision-makers. What’s more, online surveys are quick and convenient for participants. I have the privilege of serving as the MRIA’s legal counsel, and am also a member, so I ‘ve seen marketing research activities first hand and know the value they provide to Canadians.

My understanding and reading of the Anti-Spam Bill is that online marketing research is not intended to be caught by the law. But that’s the problem: given the ambiguity of the Anti-Spam Bill, it’s impossible to definitively say that online marketing research would not be regulated. Ambiguity leads to uncertainty, which is good for no one. The Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, for instance, has been criticized for being far too subjective. We should learn from this experience and cut as much ambiguity as possible from the Anti-Spam Bill. That’s why the Anti-Spam Bill should be clarified to ensure it’s clear that it won’t apply to online marketing research. Doing so would not create loopholes, as some have argued; it would simply ensure that online marketing research is not lumped into the annoying Spam that everyone wants to ban. Bringing clarity to the Anti-Spam Bill would also be consistent with the actions of other countries that have already created specific exemptions for marketing research in their anti-spam laws. 

The bottom line is that no one likes Spam, except perhaps for these guys from Monty Python. Parliament still has an opportunity to clarify misconceptions and introduce a strong, effective law. Marketing research isn’t Spam, however, and the Anti-Spam Bill should clearly reflect this fact.


Government introduces anti-spam legislation

April 24, 2009

The Government of Canada announced today the introduction of anti-spam legislation called the Electronic Commerce Protection Act (“ECPA”) that “aims to boost confidence in online commerce by protecting the privacy and personal security concerns that are associated with spam, counterfeit websites and spyware.”

According to the government’s News Release, the ECPA would allow businesses and individuals to initiate civil actions against anyone who violates the law.  The ECPA deals with unsolicited text messages, or “cellphone spam”, as a form of “unsolicited commercial electronic message”.

It would establish a regulatory enforcement regime that would enable the CRTC to impose penalties of up to $1 million for individuals and $10 million in all other cases.  The Competition Bureau would use a penalty regime already provided for in the Competition Act, and the federal Privacy Commissioner‘s powers to cooperate and exchange information with her counterparts would be expanded in respect of the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act.

The ECPA is nearly 70 pages long.  Stay tuned to this blog.  As soon as I’ve been able to digest the content I’ll post again on how the ECPA is likely going to affect Canadian businesses, especially those enaged in online marketing.


Timely questions for those seeking to run the nation

February 5, 2009

questionTimely questions for those seeking to run the nation: technology, intellectual property should be on politicians’ agendas

My December 7, 2005 column in the Winnipeg Free Press poses potential technology and privacy questions to the candidates in the upcoming federal election.


Fight spam

February 5, 2009

angerFight spam: “Don’t try, don’t buy and don’t reply”

My June 1, 2005 column in the Winnipeg Free Press talks about the National Task Force on Spam, established by Industry Canada.