Anti-spam laws: be careful what you wish for. |
 |
 |
|
Written by Chris Green
|
|
Tuesday, 12 April 2011 00:00 |
|
In the hurly-burly of trying to get ready for last Christmas, you may have missed the fact that Royal assent was quietly given to a turgid piece of federal legislation called the Fighting Internet and Wireless Spam Act. The legislation had been due to be passed a year previously but was caught up in the prorogation of Parliament (remember that boondoggle?)
The legislation is an attempt to deal with the pervasive problem of spam and there are some good provisions in it, allowing the authorities better access to internet service providers through search warrants and so forth, in order to root out the spamsters, and spelling out rules for when you can and cannot send out spam.
The legislation has some relevance for us all in business, as many of us dabble in internet marketing of some form or another, like the infamous GreenWay newsletter - which, by the way, you can sign up for just above or to the right of this blog article! All businesses need to be particularly mindful that they have the explicit consent of those to whom they send their e-mail missives, and that they have included an unsubscribe feature. If your marketing efforts are already geared towards permission-based marketing, and you have resisted the temptation to purchase bulk e-mail lists, you probably have little to fear from the new regime.
There is, however, one troubling feature of the new legislation, which is that it creates a private right of action in favour of the recipients of spam. In other words, it authorizes the spammee to sue the spammer for an award of money merely because they have been spammed. At first blush this seems silly, but innocuous enough. However, experience from south of the border has taught us that the inclusion of private rights of action in their spam legislation has created a bottom-feeding micro industry wherein people make a business out of suing anyone who sends them an unauthorized e-mail.
On a few occasions since the US enacted its Can Spam legislation in 2004 I have had occasion to counsel worried business persons who had received demand letters from a US based collection agency, alleging that they owed damages arising out of an errant e-mail the business had sent! Now these aren't Viagra merchants or other large-scale spammers, merely business people who were a bit careless with their mailing lists.
One has to wonder why the drafters of the legislation opted for a private right of action. On any realistic scale the damages which accrue from receiving a single piece of spam are minuscule, but as the Act has a full-featured set of fines and administrative penalties, did they need to build in an opportunity for vigilante justice as well?
Enforcement proceedings under the new legislation are scheduled to begin next month, so it will be interesting to monitor developments. |
A pox on all their (political) houses |
|
|
|
Written by Chris Green
|
|
Saturday, 02 April 2011 11:23 |
|
I used to be an engaged and enthusiastic student of the political game, and have even spent some time in the smoky back rooms of political campaigns, but I have to confess that this time around I've become downright grumpy over the whole charade, and bone weary of politicians trying to bribe me with my own money.
So what's the alternative?
Well I propose that we abolish elections entirely, in favour of a Citizens’ Assembly chosen in much the same way as we choose juries. In jury selection the Sheriff of the county is given a list of electors, and draws names at random to form the jury panel. These individuals are then reluctantly dragged to the court house, where a further lottery determines which "12 men strong and true" will decide the case.
BC experimented with such a citizens’ assembly when it turned its mind to electoral reform a few years ago, and I thought the process worked remarkably well. The random selection process produced a good cross-section of the population. There was a fair age and gender representation, ethnic diversity, and many individuals with good education, business and life experience became members of the assembly.
Interestingly, they managed to play well together, behave like adults and engage in sensible discussion about the issues before them. Can you imagine that happening in Parliament?
By making serving a single term as a Member of Parliament into a civic duty akin to jury duty, and by ensuring that no-one has to serve more than once, the day of the professional politician would be over, and it would be safe for us to turn on our TVs once again! |
|
Home warranty insurance |
|
|
|
Written by Janice Moore
|
|
Monday, 11 April 2011 15:33 |
|
There was a good article by Peter Simpson in Saturday’s Vancouver Sun about the province-mandated warranty on new homes. The Homeowner Protection Office (HPO) recently introduced a Residential Construction Performance Guide with the aim to help builders and home owners (and their lawyers) to sort out what should and may not be covered under the warranty. If you’re in the business of building or buying, be sure to read the article and the guide. If you recently purchased a new home covered by a new home warranty, we recommend that you invest in a thorough home inspection before the end of your first year of ownership, in order that you can trigger a claim for needed warranty work within the required timeframe. |
Quit your whining, Canadian expats! |
|
|
|
Written by Chris Green
|
|
Monday, 21 March 2011 09:03 |
|
I must say that I’m getting heartily sick of the bleating coming from some Canadians living or travelling in Japan about the quality of the assistance being rendered to them by our embassy. I’m also sick of the CBC, which seems to go out of its way to find the bleaters.
Saying that, I have every sympathy with those who find themselves caught up in this enormous disaster. It must be terrifying to have one’s life turned upside down, and I can understand the desire to get out and get back home, but realistically, what is the duty of the Canadian Government in these circumstances?
I don’t recall our Government sending “Canadian Only” buses to New Orleans to evacuate our citizens after Katrina, although I’m sure there were many Canadians caught up in that tragedy; nor did we expect the Consulate in Los Angeles to organize relief for all those Hollywood stars of Canadian origin, the last time the earth moved there.
How fair is it to criticize our embassy personnel, who after all, survived the same massive earthquake, and are coping with the same deplorable conditions, not to mention the same paucity of reliable information, as everyone else? Couldn’t get through to the embassy on the first ring? Gosh, maybe the lack of electricity or downed phone lines had more to do with it than lazy embassy staffers?! Let’s give our Government personnel the benefit of the doubt, for pity sakes. (Are you listening, CBC?)
One Canadian who was complaining loudly to the press had been making his home in Japan since 1993; another had been there for a decade, owned a home and a business there and had a Japanese wife; yet they felt that the Canadian Government had a responsibility to get them out and safely “back home” - and quickly!
This raises the larger question of what the responsibility of our Government is towards rescuing Canadians trapped abroad as a result of natural disaster or political turmoil. Frankly, I think that our Government should have a very limited role. Their chief responsibility, I think, should simply be to provide information and advice, and to foster communications between Canadians in harm’s way, and those at home. Next should come whatever assistance can reasonably be mustered to help evacuate Canadian travellers caught in the disaster du jour. Note that I said “travellers”, since I make a distinction between Canadian residents who, while travelling abroad on vacation or for business, find themselves in need of help, and “expats”, who have chosen to live and make their home in a foreign land, or those who hold a Canadian passport as a matter of convenience only. Those folk should be our lowest priority, and, if they are lucky enough to receive assistance from the Government, they should accept it with gratitude – and understanding that they are being rescued, not sent on a luxury cruise. |
|
