PitbLAWg may be AWOL on January 18, 2012.
In a USA Today article “TwitPic, WordPress to go dark for online SOPA protest” Yamiche Alcindor reported that WordPress, along with other websites will not available on Wednesday January 18, 2012 to protest the proposed US legislation, Stop Online Piracy Act and the Protect Intellectual Property Act.
WordPress is the host site for PitbLAWg. If WordPress is not available then PitbLAWg will not be online for the day. However, we expect that WordPress and PitbLAWg with be back up and running on Thursday January 19th.
PitbLAWg takes no position on the proposed legislation or on the blackout. Thanks for following PitbLAWg and we hope to see you back on January 19th.
Toyota advertising case raises privacy issues
In 2009, a woman initiated a lawsuit against a Californian advertising firm and Toyota U.S.A. because of an aggressive advertising campaign that she claimed was designed to make individuals believe they were being stalked by a criminal (which, in fact, turned out to be fictitious). While the charges are now being dealt with by the Los Angeles Superior Court the case raises issues in respect of the application of privacy principles here in Canada.
In 2008, Toyota Matrix advertised the “Your Other You” campaign which targeted young males. It encouraged individuals to provide someone else’s personal information, who would then receive an invitation to a fake personality test. What really happened was, the “victim” ended up receiving numerous disturbing emails from an imaginary soccer hooligan with a pitbull named Trigger. This impersonator claimed to be on their way to the victim’s house, who had no idea it was a hoax. In order to promote the advertising campaign, a fake social networking account for the stalker was even set up.
How would a similar case play out here in Canada? Under the PIPEDA framework , there would possibly be a violation of the law because of the alleged collection, use and disclosure of personal information without consent. Further, PIPEDA’s requirement that the “identified purposes” of any collection, use or disclosure of personal information would not likely met. Finally, the reasonableness test, enshrined in PIPEDA, would probably be violated. In short, the facts pertaining to the case could put the relevant parties in the crosshairs of the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada and courts. As a result, the case should serve as a warning to advertising agencies to ensure that privacy law considerations are thoroughly canvassed with legal counsel before initiating campaigns involving personal information – especially where people are submitting friends’ data.
Choose Your Words Carefully!
Remember that email exchange you had with an individual a year ago? Now that you are in litigation with that individual, the email may be relevant.
The Manitoba Court of Queen’s Bench Rules require that any and all relevant documents must be produced in the course of litigation and the term documents includes more than you may think!
Regardless of your means of communication, it is important to remember that what you say and how you say it may be relevant to future litigation.
Here are a just a few suggestions on how you may choose your words carefully next time before you press the send button.
Are you a spammer? What you need to know about Canada’s new anti-spam law
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>>
Pitblado understands law is changing and we’re changing with it
We are very pleased to let you know that our firm, Pitblado Law, has just launched a new and innovative brand into the marketplace. Click here to learn more and check out our new website at Pitblado.com. You can even click here listen to our new radio ad currently running on CJOB|68. Stay tuned, there’s lots more coming!
Thanks again to the Pitblado Team for all your input and for helping to make the product even better!
The case against Big Brother at work
Here’s a good article in the Globe & Mail’s Report on Business about the thorny issue of workplace monitoring. As I’m quoted by the Globe & Mail, “I recognize employers have risks and obligations to manage data, but on the other hand going to a more Big Brother approach isn’t the answer. And the privacy commissioner and the courts would agree with that.” Read the full article here>
Social Media and the Workplace webinar: Watch now!
Thanks to everyone from Europe, the U.S. and across Canada who attended yesterday’s Social Media and the Workplace webinar. If you didn’t have a chance to attend, you can now watch the webinar here.
Related information on my “On the Cutting Edge” blog that may be of interest to you includes this audio link to my recent CJOB|68 radio interview with Human Resources specialist Barbara Bowes in which we discuss privacy issues in the workplace. And Philip Watts has some excellent posts on this blog that deal with the Competition Act issues raised in yesterday’s webinar including this one entitled Competition Law Compliance.
“That’s Just Not Acceptable”–Acceptable Use Policies in the Workplace
Have you caught someone at work surfing the Internet—maybe buying something, updating their Facebook page or paying a bill? Maybe that ‘someone’ was you! Have you ever stopped to think if that ‘someone’ is allowed to do this at work?
An acceptable use policy (AUP) is a written policy, enacted by an employer and agreed to by an employee, setting out the allowable workplace uses of the company’s computer systems (hardware and software) and the Internet.
AUPs are good for both employers and employees. They tell employees how to conduct themselves using the company’s computer systems. For employers and managers, it gives them a tool to act on inappropriate conduct under the AUP.
Here are some things to think about in preparing an AUP:
- I see you: An AUP should be clear about when and how use of the company’s computer systems may be monitored, as well as what communications and uses are prohibited. Employees should be reminded that if they access the company’s computer systems using a password, their communications are still subject to monitoring.
- It’s personal: An AUP should be clear about whether employees may use the system for personal use. If personal use is allowed, the AUP should set out the limits to such personal use.
- Things change: The Internet and technology are constantly changing. An AUP should state the employer has the right to unilaterally change the AUP, with notice to the employee.
- Follow through: Once developed, an AUP should be implemented and followed. It’s best practice to have each employee agree, in writing, to abide by the AUP, including an acknowledgment that a breach of the AUP may result in discipline, including termination.
While this post is not exhaustive, it should help you in figuring out what is acceptable for your workplace systems.
Monitoring employee e-mail: A privacy primer
(Previously published on Brian Bowman – On the Cutting Edge on January 4, 2010)
Since e-mail has become the dominant form of business correspondence, employers have been increasingly forced to deal with issues related to e-mail use, monitoring and access. It’s crucial that organizations stay on top of the legal landscape as it relates to e-mail monitoring, especially as it relates to privacy issues.
Unfortunately, privacy law does not offer black and white answers to the legal issues raised by e-mail monitoring practices. Instead, and like most other privacy law issues, the standard of “reasonableness” rules the day.
I recently penned an article on point (link below) with my colleague Andrew Buck (who is currently completing his Articles at Pitblado LLP) for the Canadian Bar Association’s National Privacy & Access Law section newsletter, Privacy Pages. Our article examines some of the case law and commentary that has arisen from e-mail monitoring with a view towards setting out practical solutions for the creation of “reasonable” e-mail monitoring practices. If you’re interested in reading the full article, please click on the link below.
-
Authors
-
Mark Wallace
-
Philip Watts
-
Brant Harvey
-
Caroline Kiva
-
Adam Herstein
-
Andrew Buck
-
Benjamin Hecht
-
Bradley Madison
-
Rob Giesbrecht
-
Ned Brown
-
Candace Everard Grammond
-
Lori Dobbie
-
Darryl Antel
-
Andrew Ogaranko
-
Michael Puchniak
-
Bill Gardner
-
Tracey Epp
-
Richard Buchwald
-
Ron Greasley
-
Administrator
-
Douglas G. Ward, Q.C.
-
Brian Bowman
-
Courtney Chambers
-
Bruce King
-
newmandavidg
-
Subscribe via RSS
