said by OhPlease :
It is not.
Show me a link to this law, or an article about it.
You are right. It isn't a law. But this should wake people up to ask their ISP's, hosting provider, and who ever else about retention periods.
So far we have seen Start Communications lower their retention from 1 year to 3 months. They recognized there is a potential for abuse by vultures (like Voltage, as an example), or other reason to tighten their retention policy for the better.
In an update to the "blog post" that Karl links to up above, The person who runs pogowasright.org nails it again here:
Judge grants new adjournment in TekSavvy illegal downloading case
This case should also make all Canadian ISPs take a longer, harder look at their data retention. Law enforcement and companies like Voltage want long retention periods, but why should ISPs retain data for long periods if such retention is not necessary for processing of the subscribers bills or account and only increases the risk that data may be hacked or used for other purposes against the subscriber?
Start Communications did just this. Other ISP's choose to ignore it. However, PIPEDA (your privacy laws) do outline a general criteria which half (if not most) of these smaller ISP's are not following.
Bigger issue here than meets the eye if one were to get the ball rolling with PrivCom and the CRTC.
And finaly from the same link, »www.pogowasright.org/?p=32685:
Supporting the right of subscribers to privacy protection from frivolous or erroneous lawsuits does not equate with condoning piracy. It merely recognizes that before ISPs turn over subscribers details, there should be solid evidence supporting allegations of copyright infringement by the subscriber.
One need not toss away their "safe harbour" for this, as stated. A case in point would be when bOINGbOING.net's Canadian hosting provider got a cease and desist for copyrighted material being hosted and an order to "take down". The provider took the time to look it over and said it had no merit so chose to ignore it. Nothing came of it, except everyone mocking the copyright holder.
Mind you in this case, with someone running to get a court order, it is a bit different. But like the bOINGbOING.net's Canadian hosting provider, ISP's can look at the over-all merit of the request and oppose it w/o any recourse. "Safe Harbour", in Canada, doesn't mean you have to toss up your hands and not oppose it, as TSI chose to do.
But I guess they must have reasons for doing this that we are all not aware of.