Volume VI

Issue : 10: May 15, 2008

• U.S. Court Sets Formula for Online Music Royalties
• Court Issues Split Decision In Lucent Microsoft Patent Row
• Manitoba Teen Charged with Impersonating Teacher on Facebook
• Amazon Sues New York State over Requirement to Collect Sales Tax
• Apple Settles Canadian iPod Class Actions
• Social Networking Websites Effective Tools of Communications in Emergencies
• Court Rules No Likelihood of Confusion with Use of Competitors Trademarks in Metatags
• Bell Canada Hit with Privacy Complaint over Deep Packet Inspection
• Plaintiffs Facebook Use Undermines Her Litigation Position
• Ontario Court Issues Decision on E Discovery Citing the Sedona Principles

Home > Volume VI > Issue 10: May 15, 2008 > Bell Canada Hit with Privacy Complaint over Deep Packet Inspection

Bell Canada Hit with Privacy Complaint over Deep Packet Inspection

Bell Canada (“Bell”) has been accused of violating the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (“ PIPEDA”). The Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic (“CIPPIC”), a University of Ottawa legal clinic specializing in Internet and other technology-related law, has claimed that Bell has failed to obtain the consent of its Internet customers before implementing its deep-packet inspection technology (“DPI”). The use of DPI allows Bell to determine the ways in which subscribers are using their connection.

Bell has argued that the use of DPI is necessary to find and limit the use of “peer-to-peer applications such as BitTorrent,” which is congesting its network. However, CIPPIC argued that Bell has failed to prove that its actions were necessary for quality control purposes, since it never offered proof to demonstrate that its network was congested.

In addition, the Canadian Association of Internet Providers (“CAIP”), which represents fifty-five Internet service providers renting portions of Bell’s network, has also filed a complaint with the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (“CRTC”). It claims that Bell has been invading users’ privacy and that its traffic shaping was causing its members to lose customers and incur unneeded costs. It requested an urgent interim cease-and-desist order until the practice could be fully investigated. The CRTC denied this request for an interim order, but has initiated a process to dispose of CAIP's application on a final basis.

For a copy of the legislation (PIPEDA), visit:

http://www.privcom.gc.ca/legislation/02_06_01_01_e.asp

For a copy of the CRTC’s decision, visit:

http://www.crtc.gc.ca/archive/ENG/Decisions/2008/dt2008-39.htm

For additional information, visit:

http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008/05/12/tech-bell.html