News

CIPPIC joined the BC Civil Liberties Association, Dr. Christopher Parsons and Privacy International in writing to Canada's two primary national security oversight bodies, SIRC and the CSE Commissioner. Drawing on an analysis of human rights transparency obligations, the letter notes recent efforts by these two bodies to examine cross-border data sharing arrangements entered into by the two agencies they oversee, CSIS and CSE, respectively. It then poses a few questions regarding the oversight bodies' respective abilities to find out about and assess information sharing arrangements, and regarding the processes by which information-sharing arrangements are formed. The letter constitutes the Canadian instance of an international campaign that sent comparable requests to national security oversight bodies in over 40 countries around the world. The objective is to gain a clearer picture of international data flows between national security agencies, and to establish a dialogue with national security oversight bodies on this matter. Read the letter here: https://cippic.ca/uploads/20170913-LT_re_intel_sharing_agreements-CA.pdf

CIPPIC has joined with dozens of civil society groups across North America to call on Canada, the United States and Mexico to call upon the United States, Mexico and Canada "to meaningfully reform trade negotiation processes to make them more transparent, inclusive and accountable".  

NAFTA intellectual property and digital trade negotiations could potentially overhaul the normative approach of all three counties to these important areas of law.  Such discussions should actively seek civil society participation, not curtail it.  The August 18^th joint letter, penned by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, specifically calls for:

• public release of text proposals by governments before negotiations, with clear processes established for members of the public to comment on them;
• consolidated versions of negotiating texts published between negotiating rounds;
• locations and times of key meetings announced well ahead of time; and
• the establishment of consultative trade groups that are broadly representative of both business and public interest stakeholders with a commitment to conducting deliberations openly.

A letter was sent today on behalf of coalition comprised of 83 leading organizations and experts from Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States to their respective governments in reaction to renewed state calls for measures that would effectively weaken encryption. The letter responds to a ministerial meeting of the five governments' respective security officials hosted in Ottawa earlier this week, where possibilities for facilitating increased state access to encrypted data were discussed.

The ministerial occurred under the auspices of the 'Five Eyes' - a surveillance partnership between intelligence agencies within the five countries, including Canada's Communications Security Establishment (CSE). It generated a joint Communique, which presented encryption as a serious barrier to public safety efforts and an impediment to state agencies wishing to access the content of some communications for investigative reasons.

The coalition letter, which was organized by Access Now, CIPPIC, and researchers from Citizen Lab, called on the Five Eye governments to "respect the right to use and develop strong encryption" while urging broader public participation in future discussions such as the one that occurred earlier this week. Strong and uncompromised encryption has never been more important, as it protects our most sensitive data, our increasingly critical online interactions, even the integrity of our elections.

In a 4-3 decision, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in Douez v Facebook, Inc. 2017 SCC 33, that Facebook’s efforts in its terms of service to require Canadians to pursue grievances with Facebook in California courts instead of Canadian courts is unenforceable.

The case involved a class action against Facebook alleging violations of BC's Privacy Act. The class action could not proceed, however, as Facebook argued that its terms of service require disputes to be resolved in California courts and under California law. Historically, the Supreme Court of Canada's jurisprudence favoured enforcement of these “forum selection clauses” on the rationale that holding sophisticated commercial parties to their jurisdictional choices advances the underlying principles that private international law seeks to achieve.