Children’s Privacy Threatened by Play Websites and Social Networking

Attention: News and Business Editors
November 4, 2008
Children’s Privacy Threatened by Play Websites and Social Networking
(OTTAWA)— The Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC) today released a report, “All in the Data Family: Children’s Privacy Online”, calling for amendments to the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) that would prohibit collection, use, and disclosure of the personal information of children under 13 in Canada.
PIAC counsel John Lawford noted that many apparently kid-friendly websites and social networking sites routinely use personal information of even young children for behavioural marketing and market research: “There quite simply are no special rules for use of kids’ personal information in Canada. Right now, Internet play websites like Neopets, Webkinz and social networking sites like Facebook use kids’ personal information for profit but are not making it clear that this is their business model.” The report concludes that such personal information collection, use and disclosure for children under 13 violates privacy in all cases and should be explicitly made illegal under Canada’s privacy laws.
The report also calls for prohibition of disclosure of personal information of children aged 13 to 15 to any other entity, including marketers. The report goes on to recommend that disclosure of personal information collected by websites only be allowed for information collected from children aged 16-18, and then only with the opt-in consent of the teenager and the explicit consent of the teen’s parent or guardian.
The report also recommends that personal information collected from children no longer be retained by websites once the child reaches age 18, unless the newly adult child explicitly consents to the website carrying this information forward. “This recommendation is a `get out of marketing jail free card’ for when kids become adults – so that any profile the website or other marketers have created about them won’t typecast them in adulthood,” said Lawford. “Kids will have control when they start their adult life without the marketing baggage they collected just to play online or socialize with friends.”
The report also calls for increased enforcement of these new children’s privacy rules via fines and other new powers for the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada as well as specific rules governing the social networking sites, such as requiring these sites to opt children into the highest possible privacy settings on the website by default and to restrict access to children’s profiles from the general internet and by adults from within the social networking site.
PIAC’s report is based upon research with focus groups of children in Toronto aged 11-17 who use the Internet for play and for social networking.
Full text of the report:

All in the Data Family: Children’s Privacy Online
Download File: children_final_small_fixed.pdf [size: 0.81 mb]

For more information, please contact:
John Lawford
Counsel
Public Interest Advocacy Centre
ONE Nicholas Street, Suite 1204
Ottawa, ON K1N 7B7
(613) 562-4002×25 (Tel)
(613) 562- 0007 (Fax)

Are You Sure You Want to Continue? Consumer Authentication at the Crossroads

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Attention: News and Business Editors
October 23, 2008
(OTTAWA)—The Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC) today released “’Are You Sure You Want to Continue?’: Consumer Authentication at the Crossroads,” a report that calls for a major overhaul to Industry Canada’s “Authentication Principles”. The report laments the Authentication Principles’ failure to provide Canadian consumers with adequate protection when using the Internet to conduct business transactions such as online banking. The report offers a host of recommendations aimed at protecting the security and privacy of consumers who use electronic authentication to access finances or to shop online.
“Banks and retailers are not adequately protecting consumers who use their services online,” said John Lawford, Counsel for PIAC. “There is more they can do to reduce fraud and increase online security with little effort by upgrading their customer authentication systems but they have not been held to any real standard by these voluntary principles.”
The report notes that consumers are becoming increasingly wary of growing security and privacy risks, such as phishing, that are threatening the way they conduct online retail and banking transactions. In order to ensure consumer safety and confidence in online commerce, the report urges a greater role in the regulatory process be played by both the federal and provincial governments, and recommends that much stricter authentication regulations be applied to financial institutions under the Bank Act and other federal financial legislation.
To adequately protect consumers’ privacy while online, PIAC suggests the Authentication Principles be amended to include direct references to the standards of the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) and that consumers be given more choice in how to protect their privacy, such as the ability to decide which personal information will be used for authenticating them during an online transaction.
The report warns that consumer liability should also not be increased by new authentication and that contracts issued by banks and retailers make the provider of the payment system responsible for losses due to authentication failures, fraud and hacking. The report calls for consumer education about authentication coupled with disclosure requirements for banks and retailers to ensure consumers are told of problems with authentication systems.
Finally, the report suggests that a federal regulatory body, such as the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions of Canada, be instructed to audit the authentication systems of financial institutions, in order that industry standards and the new Authentication Principles and legislation are followed, and that a similar audit system should occur at the provincial level to oversee retail authentication systems.
For more information, please contact:
John Lawford
Counsel
Public Interest Advocacy Centre
ONE Nichloas Street, Suite 1204
Ottawa, ON K1N 7B7
(613) 562-4002×25
(613) 562- 0007 (Fax)
Full text of the report:
 
 

Are You Sure You Want to Continue? Consumer Authentication at the Crossroads
Download File: authentication_final.pdf [size: 0.6 mb]

Consumer Group Report Reveals High-interest Borrowing Pitfalls

For immediate release
Attention News/Business/Banking/Student News Editors
Consumer Group Report Reveals High-interest Borrowing Pitfalls
Not Ready for Prime Time: Canadians In the Sub-Prime, High-interest Lending
(OTTAWA)—A report released today by the Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC), “Not Ready for Prime Time”, sets out some key findings of its research in the field of high-interest lending which includes payday loans and subprime mortgages. Among others, it pinpoints the early misuse of credit in consumers’ financial lives as a main factor in causing them to resort to high cost borrowing later in life, as evidenced by the outcome of focus groups conducted in Edmonton, Toronto and Vancouver. Somewhat surprisingly, one of the chief credit problems for focus group participants arose with student loans, particularly when the education for which it was undertaken was not finished.
“We have a program designed to better the life prospects of Canadians that, if the focus group results are borne out in the general population, may be a contributing factor to low financial status. That result would be exactly the opposite of what is intended,” said Esteban Uribe, the PIAC researcher who wrote the report.
The report notes the accepted view that the differences in the Canadian and American mortgage markets make a repetition of the recent events in the United States unlikely. At the same time, the report sets out concerns that, through financial vehicles such as securitization, risks of default appear to be increasingly transferred to investors and borrower households, possibly without their full understanding of the same.
The report makes specific recommendations for early consumer education, and stresses the need for transparency and better consumer awareness of the consequences of high cost transactions. It suggests that each province should independently review lending practices and control interest rates through public hearings not only to accord with the intent of the federal government reform to decriminalize usury in these transactions, but also with a view to protect the interests of users from onerous and abusive terms.
The Report is available at:
 
 

 
 
Contact:
Michael Janigan
Executive Director and General Counsel
Public Interest Advocacy Centre
(613) 562-4002×26
Fax No. 613 562-0007
Esteban Uribe
Research
Public Interest Advocacy Centre
(613) 562-4002×26

National Do Not Call List-How to Make it Work For You

National Do Not Call List-How to Make it Work For You
Now that you are on the National Do Not Call List, you need to know how to make it work for you. The following documents will help to guide you on your way to avoiding many telemarketing calls:

• The Rules [pdf file: 0.07mb]
• The Exemptions and What To Do About Them [pdf file: 0.07mb]
• How to Make a Complaint [pdf file: 0.07mb]
• Things You May Not Know [pdf file: 0.06mb]

 

National Do Not Call List—Get on the List!

Is there any way I can prevent annoying telemarketing calls?
Yes, there is. The CRTC (Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission) is set to launch the National Do Not Call List. You can get on the list starting on September 30, 2008.
I’ve heard about the DNCL—what is it, exactly?
The National Do Not Call List is a free service designed to assist Canadians by reducing the number of telemarketing calls they receive.
If I’m on the DNCL, I won’t hear from telemarketers anymore?
Not quite! Some telemarketing calls are exempt from the National Do Not Call List, such as those from charities, political parties, and companies that you do business with. However, telemarketers that are subject to the rules of the National Do Not Call List will stop calling you 31 days after you are on the list.
How does it work?
It’s easy: register your telephone number(s) with the National Do Not Call List by telephone or on the Internet and you will be removed from many telemarketers’ call lists within 31 days of your registration.
Okay, it sounds great! How do I register?
You can register online at www.LNNTE-DNCL.gc.ca , or by telephone at (toll-free): 1-866-580-DNCL (1-866-580-3625). Persons who are deaf or hard of hearing may call (toll free): 1-888-DNCL-TTY (1-888-362-5889).
There are other websites that offer to put people on the DNCL. Are they safe?
Absolutely NOT! Only trust the official CRTC and DNCL websites for the service listed here—they are completely safe. All other websites that offer this service or demand a fee may be fraudulent or lead to increased telemarketing calls. Registration is easy and free at the DNCL website or by calling the DNCL’s toll-free number.
I’d like more information before I register.
 

Canadian Copyright Law: A Consumer White Paper

CANADIAN COPYRIGHT LAW: A Consumer White Paper
Download File: consumers_copyright_white_paper_en.pdf [size: 0.08 mb]

Executive Summary Introduction

We are a coalition of consumer advocates. We have come together to advocate for copyright laws that serve the interests of Canada and of Canadians. Copyright law is designed to balance the interests of creators with the interests of the public. Copyright grants creators exclusive rights in their works as a reward for creativity that also serves as an incentive for the creation of new works. These rights are not absolute, but limited in nature, scope and time. These limits are essential to copyright’s greater design, for it is at the limits of copyright owners’ rights that important consumer interests come into play. From a consumer’s perspective, copyright’s current balance is far from perfect. In fact, many consumer dealings with copyrighted content – ordinary dealings, like copying digital music onto a portable device, or using the digital video recorders sold by cable companies – technically infringe copyright. In these and many other cases, the law is simply out of step with reality. Simple, uncontroversial amendments to the Copyright Act can fix many of these failings. Unfortunately, copyright policy makers are not focusing on consumer interests. Instead, recent proposals to amend the Copyright Act focus on expanding rights holder’s interests at Canadian consumer’s expense. We call on Canada’s law-makers to accommodate consumer interests in any revision to the Copyright Act currently under consideration. Additionally, we call on lawmakers to revise the Copyright Act to address important consumer concerns that are not yet under consideration at all.

Anti-Circumvention Laws

Canadian lawmaker’s push to bring Canada into line with the WIPO Internet Treaties could have very serious consequences for Canadian consumers. We believe that there is no reason to add anti-circumvention protection to Canadian copyright law. We believe this for several reasons:

1. No justification. The case had not been made that Canada needs anti-circumvention legislation. In fact, Canadian cultural industries are flourishing in the absence of anticircumvention legislation.
2. Redundant. Anti-circumvention legislation is redundant: copyright law already provides penalties for copyright infringement and there is no need for a second layer of protection that penalizes substantially the same behaviour as copyright;
3. DRM does not work. Technological tools like DRM do not work. Corporations invest millions of dollars into developing DRM systems that are broken within hours or days of being released.
4. Technological threats. Anti-circumvention laws do not improve on copyright law’s existing disincentives to infringe copyright. Anti-circumvention laws do, however, threaten other values that are important to consumers, such as competitive markets, privacy, and security. The U.S. anti-circumvention law (known as the DMCA) serves as a stark example of this and is a failure.
5. Anti-circumvention laws are government intervention. Our markets don’t need government intervention. Government should instead take a neutral stance, working to ensure a level competitive playing field that benefits consumers rather than privileging particular business models.

If Canadian lawmakers choose to legislate anti-circumvention laws, they must take great care to minimize the negative impact those laws will have on Canadians. We believe that any Canadian anti-circumvention law must respect the following conditions:

1. No new “access” right. Laws should tie circumvention liability to an intent to infringe copyright; Canadians should not be liable for accessing content and should enjoy an unfettered right to do so.
2. Non-infringing circumvention. Consumers should be allowed to circumvent technological measures, like DRM, providing that their access to the underlying content does not infringe copyright.
3. Legal tools, devices and services. Anti-circumvention legislation should not prevent people from developing, selling and using tools, devices and services for circumventing technological measures for legal reasons.
4. Protect legitimate expectations. Laws should preserve rights and expectations that consumers have under copyright, such as the right to make copies and backups of works that they own.
5. Protect privacy. Anti-circumvention laws should not protect technologies that do not respect privacy rights. Consumers should retain the right to enjoy works privately and access to content must not be conditional on the surrender of consumer privacy.
6. Do not protect spyware. Removing unwanted and illegal technology such as spyware should not be a violation of anti-circumvention laws.
7. Protect the public domain. It should always be legal to circumvent DRM in order to access works that are no longer protected by copyright and exist in the public domain.
8. Prohibit misuse. Any Canadian anti-circumvention law should be balanced by the creation of specific competitive protections for Canadians and the creation of liability for “copyright misuse.”

Copyright Reform

In addition to the threat posed by anti-circumvention laws, here are many facets of copyright law that run counter to the interests of Canadian consumers and do not reflect the realities of the Canadian marketplace. Canada needs to bring current copyright law into step with the ways consumers use copyrighted materials. Here are our recommendations:

1. Clarify the legality of time, space, and format shifting. Copyright laws that outlaw these practices threaten consumers and are out of step with today’s marketplace and with reasonable consumer practices.
2. Fix fair dealing. Expand fair dealing rights to include other uses of content like parody, digital sampling and other transformative uses. Subsume the requirement to provide the source and author when a work is used for purposes of criticism, review, or news summary into the general fairness analysis.
3. Legalize back-ups. Protect consumers’ right to protect their investments by making back-up copies of legal, purchased content.
4. Protect the public domain. Reduce copyright terms, or keep them to the minimum needed to meet Canada’s international obligations.
5. Rationalize statutory damages. Require plaintiffs to prove damages against consumers, public institutions, museums, libraries, archives, schools, colleges and universities. Restrict the application of statutory damages to cases of commercial infringement, where they are warranted and actually serve the public interest.
6. Abolish crown copyright. The public should enjoy free and unrestricted access to works produced with public funds.
7. Consumer commissioned photographs. Copyright ownership of commissioned photographs should stay in consumers’ hands. Doing otherwise frustrates consumers’ legitimate expectations.
8. Protect copyright and consumers against unfair terms. Restrict rights holders’ ability to undermine copyright’s public policy objectives through the use of contractual terms that limit consumers’ rights, including the ability to undertake security, interoperability and reverse engineering research, to make reasonable use of content (time-shifting, space-shifting), to make private copies for personal use, and to re-sell content.
9. Preserve consumers’ digital rights. The Copyright Act affords rights-holders only limited rights. It has never been an infringement of copyright law for a consumer to simply read a book, or to listen to music in the privacy of one’s own home. By the same token, ephemeral electronic copies, or “RAM copies”, should be treated the same way.
10. Monetize P2P. Efforts to shut down peer to peer networks have failed. We should find ways to transform P2P networks into legitimate music distribution and compensation vehicles to benefit Canadian music creators and their fans. It is time the Canadian government showed some leadership and undertook active study of this option.

Conclusion

We are concerned that proposals to change Canada’s copyright laws do not represent the interests of Canadian consumers. These proposed changes remove many rights that consumers have traditionally enjoyed and fail to address obvious changes that would benefit consumers and creators. We are advocating on behalf of consumers for laws that do three things:

1. Do No Harm. Changes to Canada’s copyright laws must be guided by this principle. We must not enact changes that harm consumer welfare and threaten education, freedom of expression, privacy and security. We do not want laws that harm small business, stifle innovation, or that cost Canadians millions of dollars.
2. Laws Based on Reality, Not Rhetoric. The Canadian government must consult experts on education, security, privacy, small business, and consumer groups before enacting legislation. Our copyright laws should be based on the facts, not on rhetoric.
3. Canadian Law Must Serve Canadians. Statistics Canada reports that our copyright royalty deficit – the amount of royalties generated by Canadians abroad compared with royalties earned by foreign performers in Canada – has grown dramatically in recent years. For every $1 earned by Canadian performers outside the country, $5 flows out of the country. Proposals for longer and stronger copyright will increase the flow of dollars out of Canada, rather than foster Canadian creativity. It is important that we address this trade imbalance and focus on the needs of Canadian creators and consumers rather than the self-interested demands of a limited group of rights holders. Where changes to copyright laws are needed, Canada must adopt laws that serve Canadian interests first. Pressure from American interests and proposals must be rejected.

Process for the Nomination and Selection of Consumer Group Directors of the Commissioner for Complaints for Telecommunications Services (CCTS)

(Veuillez cliquer ici pour lire la version française [pdf file: 0.03mb](Processus de mise en candidature et de sélection des directeurs du Commissaire aux plaintes relatives aux services de télécommunications (CPRST) nommés par les groupes de consommateurs) )
(English version in PDF [pdf file: 0.03mb](Process for the Nomination and Selection of Consumer Group Directors of the Commissioner for Complaints for Telecommunications Services (CCTS)) )
March 11, 2008
Background
The Telecommunications Policy Review Panel, Final Report 2006 recommended the creation of an independent ombudsman for telecommunications services (including landline telephone, cellphone and Internet services). The Governor in Council responded to this recommendation and issued Order requiring the CRTC to report to the Governor in Council on consumer complaints, Order in Council P.C. 2007-533, 4 April 2007 (the Order). The Order stated that all telecommunications service providers (TSPs) should participate in and contribute to the financing of an independent telecommunications consumer agency that would, among other things, resolve complaints from individual and small business retail customers. The Order also stated that the consumer agency should be an integral component of a deregulated telecommunications market. In addition, the Order stated that the consumer agency’s structure and mandate would be approved by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC).
In CRTC Telecom Decision 2007-130, Establishment of an independent telecommunications consumer agency (20 December 2007), the CRTC ordered Canada’s major telephone, cellphone and Internet services providers to create such a complaints body.
In that Decision, the CRTC required the member telephone, cellphone and Internet companies to permit two directors on their Board to be chosen from those nominated by Canadian “consumer groups”. The direction of the Commission, found at para. 50 of the Decision, reads as follows:
50. [. . .] The Commission notes, however, that there is currently no process in place for the nomination and appointment of the two consumer-group-appointed directors. The Commission considers that the Consumer Groups active in this proceeding should establish a transparent process for the nomination and appointment of the consumer-group-appointed directors. [Emphasis added.]
Therefore, the CRTC expects Canadian consumer groups to self-identify and self-organize this transparent process to elect the two consumer group directors contemplated by the decision. This document describes how the consumer groups that will choose the directors are identified, how they will vote for directors and what the duties of those two directors will be.
What is a “consumer group” for the purposes of the CCTS Scheme?
Decision 2007-130 requires the consumer-group-appointed directors to be appointed through a “transparent” process by Canadian “consumer groups” – a term that is not defined by the CRTC. However, the CRTC tasked the Consumer Groups that made submissions in the Telecom Public Notice 2007-16 (the proceeding leading to Decision 2007-130) with identifying and notifying other “consumer groups” who might have an interest in appointing consumer directors to CCTS.
The CRTC also asked the Consumer Groups to outline and set up the transparent consumer group appointed director nomination and selection procedure but to ensure that the other “consumer groups” identified also have the chance to nominate and vote for consumer group directors.
The present document defines “consumer group” and principles for selection of a “consumer representative”, based on those established by the Commonwealth Consumer Affairs Advisory Council of Australia and used by the consumer groups that select consumer group members of the Australian Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO) Council. The definition and principles are also informed by Consumers International’s definition of a consumer group.
‘“Consumer group” for the purpose of the CCTS consumer-group-appointed director nomination and selection process is a group (not an individual):
(a)whose mission includes advancing the interests of consumers (or of a particular class of consumers);
(b)that, due to its activities, membership or other relevant factors is publicly recognized as playing a legitimate role in advancing the interests of consumers; and
(c)that is not-for-profit, non-partisan, independent of government and industry, and that receives no sponsorship or financial support from any commercial interest that is directed to a telecommunications objective of the donor or recipient, and that does not receive significant general or charitable support from any corporation.
If there is any question of whether a group so qualifies, a majority of the Consumer Groups (who participated in PN 2007-16) shall determine the matter. After the determination of the first full list of “consumer groups” for the purposes of the first election of consumer group directors, the power of determining if the definition of “consumer group” is met in the future shall fall to the then members of the consumer groups by a simple majority vote.
Qualifications of Nominees
Once qualified consumer groups are selected, qualified nominees must be nominated in accordance with the process detailed below. Appointments must be made on merit. However, in order to stand as a nominee, nominees further must demonstrate the following:
-expertise in consumer affairs;
-links to relevant consumer organizations;
-capacity and willingness to consult with relevant consumer organizations;
-knowledge of, or the ability to acquire knowledge of, telecom related consumer issues.
Process for Nomination
A. Voting consumer group members
In order to invite and qualify the “consumer groups” mentioned above into the nomination and election process, the Consumer Groups presently are undertaking the following steps::
1.All “Consumer Groups” who participated in PN 2007-16 are being made aware of the requirements of Decision 2007-130 and the opportunity to take the role of Consumer Group founders of the nomination and election process.
2.All consumer groups that participated in any CRTC proceedings in the last 3 years have been identified by the CRTC and are being contacted by the Consumer Groups;
3.Any other consumer group that responds to this public invitation by March 25, 2008, and has the qualifications of “consumer group” noted above is being solicited to join the initial identified voting consumer groups by posting of this notice on the public websites of the Consumer Groups.
Once this group of voting consumer groups is closed (March 28, 2008) it will be closed for the period of the election but new members may join in the future for future elections.
B. Nomination by voting members:
Once the voting consumer groups are selected, they may nominate one candidate for consumer group director of the CCTS by
1.Each voting member may nominate one candidate.
2.Each voting member is required to do an initial vetting of the candidate for interest, availability, accommodation issues and qualification for the position (consumer or other public interest experience).
3.Each voting member nominating must provide a short biography of the candidate with the nomination.
A complete slate of candidates will be compiled from these nominations and circulated the week of March 31, 2008. The voting consumer groups will determine whether the nominees meet the nomination qualifications above. Any objection by a consumer group to the admissibility of a nominee will be decided by voting consumer groups by way of a simple majority vote by the end of the week of March 31, that is 4 April 2008.
C. Voting:
The final voting process for candidates will take place, via electronic mail, on Wednesday, April 9, 2008. Any run-off voting as required would take place April 14, 2008. Voting will proceed as follows:
1.Each voting member consumer group may make up to three selections. Candidate ranked number 1 gets 5 points, ranked number 2 gets 3 points, number 3 gets one point.
2.Winners are the two with the most points. If there is a tie for second, or a three-way or more tie for first or second, then there will be a run-off election with one vote per group per position not yet decided.
3.CRTC staff will take the votes by e-mail at the address: philippe.kent@crtc.gc.ca.
4.CRTC will inform the voting consumer groups of the successful candidate.
5.The consumer group that proposed the successful nominee will then immediately advise the candidate and ensure that the candidate is content with taking the position.
6.If a successful candidate refuses to serve after election, the second (or third) placed candidate and so on will be acclaimed as director.
7.Any future election shall follow the timetable set by the CCTS Board according to the above rules or such other rules as the voting consumer groups may from time to time determine.
Timeline
March 10th and 17th week: posting on websites inviting nominations and applications for voting status
Mar. 25th: closing of applications for consumer group voting status;
March 28th: decision on voting organizations; send list to voting members (and CRTC and CCTS) of candidates with biographies and list of voting organizations to all voting organizations
March 31st week: Nominations and closing of nominations (closing deadline: April 3rd)
April 9, 2008: Voting Apr. 9th; April 10th votes tallied
April 14th: run-off voting as required
April 15th:: name directors (and terms – if different, longer term goes to person with higher number of point in the vote(s))

• Other than the initial posting, the communications of this process will occur via email.[FN 1] These two consumer group directors are classified by the constating documents of the CCTS as part of the four “independent director” positions. There are three “industry directors” appointed by the CCTS member companies. The remaining two “other independent directors” are chosen through a separate process described in the CCTS constating documents as modified by Decision 2007-130.
  [FN 2] In Decision 2007-130, the CRTC used the term “Consumer Groups” (Capitalized Title Case) to identify those consumer groups that made actual submissions in PN 2007-16 and that self-identified as representing the consumer interest. This distinction is retained for the purposes of this document. Those groups are: The Public Interest Advocacy Centre as counsel for the National Anti-Poverty Organization and the Consumers’ Council of Canada, the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic, L’Union des consommateurs, the ARCH Disability Law Centre (ARCH), the Canadian Association of the Deaf, the British Columbia Public Interest Advocacy Centre for BCOAPO.
  For more information or to apply for consumer group status, please contact:
  John Lawford
  Counsel
  Public Interest Advocacy Centre
  ONE Nicholas Street, Suite 1204
  Ottawa, Ontario
  K1N 7B7
  (613) 562-4002×25
  (613) 562-0007 (Fax)
  jlawford@piac.ca

Comments regarding the creation of a new framework for electronic fund transfers in Canada

While a better framework for electronic payments in Canada is urgently needed, the scope of the consultation currently held by the Department of Finance and the process it has put in place appear unlikely to lead to significant improvements.
The process must allow for real debate and must therefore provide a fairly specific basis for discussion An effective framework must be based on a set of overarching principles. It would also preferably be established by legislation. In addition, experience shows that the current Canadian Code of Practice for Consumer Debit Card Services is not a sound basis for discussion, yet the process proposed by the Department curtails debate, it is based on the current code and it is so imprecise as to scope and other issues that it is difficult for stakeholders to frame comments.
We propose eight principles on which a new framework should be based: universality, neutrality, security, accountability, transparency, liberty, enforceability and legitimacy. We note the growing complexity of the electronic payments field in Canada.
We submit that a new code should have the broadest scope and, in particular, not be limited to a subset of card-based payment mechanisms. We disagree with the view that such new code should not cover payment methods which may be partly regulated otherwise, as a number of important issues remain in fact unregulated. Regulatory underlap and gaps can be more damaging than overlap.
The rationale for risk allocation between market participants must be discussed in depth before issues such as liability and redress can be addressed.
Increased disclosure is not an adequate remedy to unconscionable contractual requirements or business practices, which should be prohibited outright.
Finally, governance issues regarding the payments universe in Canada should be considered carefully, taking heed in particular of current developments in Australia and the United Kingdom.
Read full Report:
 
 

PIAC Comments on Proposed Electronic Funds Transfer Code
Download File: piac_eft_comments_final.pdf [size: 0.34 mb]

Mobile Commerce: Making it Work for Canadians

This report focuses on use of mobile phones for Internet commercial transactions and point of sale (POS) mobile payments or m-Commerce, as the fastest growing area of e-Commerce. It does not limit itself to the state of m-commerce in Canada exclusively. In order to obtain a close reliable picture of how Canadian consumers fare in the context of m-Commerce, intensive use of international available data has been made. Due to the inherently global nature of the mobile Internet, cross-reference with mobile telecommunications indicators in the context of the OECD, and even some emerging economies, were imperative to properly assess what Canadian mobile Internet consumers should expect in terms of affordability, availability and quality, and where do they stand with respect to the industry.
Read the Report:
 

Mobile Commerce: Making it Work for Canadians
Download File: piac_mobile_commerce_final.pdf [size: 0.63 mb]

PIAC Comments on “Customer Name and Address Information Consultation”

October 18, 2007
PIAC today filed comments on the Government’s “Customer Name and Address Information Consultation” Document, otherwise known as “Lawful Access”, that is, the proposal to give police and government the power to intercept certain information from telecommunications providers such as Internet service providers and telephone companies. The initiative appears to consider allowing government to ask for certain information about, for example, personal e-mails and web surfing habits. Certain possible “safeguards” are proposed but none is subject to the level of public scrutiny that one would expect in Canada, according to PIAC, and it appears judges will have either no or only a limited role in deciding what the government and police may demand from telecommunications companies.
PIAC Comments are found here:
PIAC Comments on “Customer Name and Address Information Consultation” [pdf file: 0.04mb]