Volume II

Issue : 19: October 7, 2004

• Ontario Superior Court Examines Organization and Commercial Activities under PIPEDA
• Australian Court Finds Copyright Infringement in Data Mining of .UK WHOIS Database
• Court Strikes Down Anti bootlegging Statute
• U.S. Appeals Courts Finds Websites not Places of Public accommodation Under Disability Legislation
• Ontario Court affirms Privilege Extends to Electronic File References in Pleadings
• U.S. District Court Strikes Down Statutory Amendments Made by U.S. Patriot Act
• Recent Decisions of Privacy Commissioner Review Practices of Satellite Television Provider and Contest Sponsor
• California Court Finds Misuse of Digital Millennium Copyright Act
• Ontario Court of Appeal Releases its Decision in Robertson Case Holding Database Inclusion Constituted Copyright Infringement

Home > Volume II > Issue 19: October 7, 2004 > Recent Decisions of Privacy Commissioner Review Practices of Satellite Television Provider and Contest Sponsor

Recent Decisions of Privacy Commissioner Review Practices of Satellite Television Provider and Contest Sponsor

There were two recent decisions by the Privacy Commissioner of Canada: in the first decision, an individual complained that a satellite provider, which requires its customers to keep their telephone lines continuously connected to the receiver box, was collecting and using customer information through the telephone line. The Assistant Privacy Commissioner found no evidence that the company was collecting information from the telephone connection, other than pay per view information, which was used to bill the customer, and that the continuous connection requirement was effective for preventing piracy. A reasonable person would find these purposes appropriate in the circumstances.

See: http://www.privcom.gc.ca/cf-dc/2004/cf-dc_040902_01_e.asp

In the second decision, eleven individuals complained when a company sponsor of a photography contest sent an Email to contest participants that included Email addresses in the "to" field. The company used a sub-contractor to send the Email, which used a software application that would generate a group address without individual addresses. Either the employee of the subcontractor did not correctly use the software, or the software did not function properly. The Assistant Privacy Commissioner determined that, although the company and its sub-contractor were committed to adhering to the company's privacy policy, the complainants' personal information was disclosed without their knowledge and consent, contrary to Principle 4.3 of the PIPEDA.

See: http://www.privcom.gc.ca/cf-dc/2004/cf-dc_040902_01_e.asp