Feed aggregator

Copyright: Canada’s Notice-and-Notice Provisions

IPBlog (Calgary) - 1 hour 21 min ago
By Richard Stobbe The made-in-Canada notice-and-notice provisions are coming in January, 2015.  You may recall that in June 2012 the Copyright Modernization Act was passed by Parliament. Portions of the new copyright law came into force in November 2012, while the so-called notice-and-notice procedures were held back, to give the government time ...

Update: PIPA Revived

IPBlog (Calgary) - 1 hour 21 min ago
By Richard Stobbe As a follow-up to our earlier post (PIPA on Death's Door), Alberta's Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA) has been resuscitated. The Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) has granted a six-month reprieve, to allow the Government of Alberta to pass amendments to PIPA. An amended bill was tabled in ...

CASL 2.0: The Computer Program Provisions (Part 3)

IPBlog (Calgary) - 1 hour 21 min ago
- By Richard Stobbe The CRTC has released guidelines on the implementation of the incoming computer-program provisions of Canada's Anti-Spam Law (CASL). Software vendors should review the  CASL Requirements for Installing Computer Programs for guidance on installing software on other people's computer systems. Remember, the start-date of January 15, 2015 is less than ...

Indirect Patent Infringement in the US

IPBlog (Calgary) - 1 hour 21 min ago
By Richard Stobbe In a recent decision in the US (Riverbed Technology, Inc. v. Silver Peak Systems, Inc.), a company was found liable for indirect patent infringement even though the infringing features of its product were disabled when the product was sold. In the post-sale period, customers enabled the infringing features.  This was ...

The Troubles with Patent Inventorship

IPBlog (Calgary) - 1 hour 21 min ago
By Richard Stobbe Determining inventorship is answering the question: who contributed enough to an invention to be named as an "inventor" on the patent application? It's critical, as reviewed by my colleague Shohini Bagchee in her article Whose Invention Is It Anyway? – Some Thoughts on Patent Inventorship and Ownership. Although the US case ...

Two Privacy Class Actions: Facebook and Apple (Part 2)

IPBlog (Calgary) - 1 hour 21 min ago
- By Richard Stobbe In Part 1, we looked at the B.C. decision in Douez v. Facebook, Inc. Another proposed privacy class action was heard in the B.C. court a few months later: Ladas v. Apple Inc., 2014 BCSC 1821 (CanLII). This was a claim by a representative plaintiff, Ms. Ladas, alleging that ...

Two Privacy Class Actions: Facebook and Apple

IPBlog (Calgary) - 1 hour 21 min ago
- By Richard Stobbe Two privacy class actions earlier this year have pitted technology giants Facebook Inc. and Apple Inc. against Canadian consumers who allege privacy violations. The two cases resulted in very different outcomes. First, the Facebook decision: In Douez v. Facebook, Inc., 2014 BCSC 953 (CanLII), the court looked at two ...

CASL 2.0: The Computer Program Provisions (Part 2)

IPBlog (Calgary) - 1 hour 21 min ago
- By Richard Stobbe In Part 1 we looked at some basic concepts. In Part 2, we look at "enhanced disclosure" requirements. If the computer program that is to be installed performs one or more of the functions listed below, the person who seeks express consent must disclose additional information. This disclosure must ...

Alberta Privacy Law Update: PIPA on Death’s Door

IPBlog (Calgary) - 1 hour 21 min ago
By Richard Stobbe About a year ago on November 15, 2013, Alberta's Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA) was declared invalid on constitutional grounds. The Supreme Court of Canada (SCC), in its wisdom, deferred the effect of this order for a 1 year period, to permit the Alberta legislature to revisit and amend the legislation ...

CASL 2.0: The Computer Program Provisions (Part 1)

IPBlog (Calgary) - 1 hour 21 min ago
- By Richard Stobbe It's mid-October. Like many businesses in Canada, you may be weary of hearing about CASL compliance. Hopefully that weariness is due to all the hard work you did 3 months ago to bring your organization into compliance for the July 1st start-date. If you're a software vendor, then you ...

Drafting IT Agreements: Oct. 14-15

IPBlog (Calgary) - Wed, 2014/11/26 - 14:00
- By Richard Stobbe I will be speaking next week at the 10th Essentials of Commercial Contracts Course in Calgary, Alberta (Download PDF) on the subject of IT contracting. This session will discuss key considerations in IT licensing and service agreements including: Key clauses in IT agreements and common mistakes Various models for licensing software Overlap ...

Carol Todd on Bill C-13: “What Happened to Democracy?”

Michael Geist Law RSS Feed - Wed, 2014/11/26 - 10:00

The Senate Committee on Justice and Human Rights continues its study later today on Bill C-13, the cyber-bullying/lawful access bill that has already passed the House of Commons and seems certain to clear the Senate shortly. I appeared before the committee last week, but one person who will not appear is Carol Todd, the mother of cyber-bullying victim Amanda Todd. Ms. Todd wrote to me yesterday to express her dismay at the committee process with Conservative Senators mischaracterizing her views and the committee declining to offer her an invitation to appear, likely due to her criticisms of the privacy-related provisions in the bill.

Ms. Todd did appear before the House of Commons committee studying Bill C-13, telling Members of Parliament:

“While I applaud the efforts of all of you in crafting the extortion, revenge, porn, and cyberbullying sections of Bill C-13, I am concerned about some of the other unrelated provisions that have been added to the bill in the name of Amanda, Rehtaeh, and all of the children lost to cyberbullying attacks.

I don’t want to see our children victimized again by losing privacy rights. I am troubled by some of these provisions condoning the sharing of the privacy information of Canadians without proper legal process. We are Canadians with strong civil rights and values. A warrant should be required before any Canadian’s personal information is turned over to anyone, including government authorities. We should also be holding our telecommunication companies and Internet providers responsible for mishandling our private and personal information. We should not have to choose between our privacy and our safety.

We should not have to sacrifice our children’s privacy rights to make them safe from cyberbullying, sextortion and revenge pornography.”

The comments generated considerable media attention as it pointed to the divide even among cyberbullying victims about legislation that the lumps together provisions designed to address cyberbullying with lawful access rules with serious implications for the privacy of Canadians.

Since her testimony, the government has tried to downplay her concerns. Justice Minister Peter MacKay told the committee that he met with Ms. Todd and that “she came away with a much better sense of comfort and confidence in what the government was attempting to do.” When I raised Ms. Todd’s views during my Senate appearance, Senator Denise Batters responded that she had since “clarified her views on the bill.”

Yet the reality is that Ms. Todd is more troubled than ever with the government’s approach. In October, she wrote to me hours after the bill passed the House of Commons:

“I was stunned at how the government is going to push it forward considering the discussion and what was said at the hearings last spring.” 

As the Senate hearings continue, she has now expressed surprise and disappointment that she has been excluded from the process, noting that the government does not want her voice to be included and asking “what happened to democracy?”

What happened is that the government no longer wants to hear from one of the country’s most prominent voices on cyberbullying given her concerns that “we should not have to choose between our privacy and our safety.”

The post Carol Todd on Bill C-13: “What Happened to Democracy?” appeared first on Michael Geist.

Why Uber Has a Canadian Privacy Problem

Michael Geist Law RSS Feed - Mon, 2014/11/24 - 10:37

The mounting battle between Uber, the popular app-based car service, and the incumbent taxi industry has featured court dates in Toronto, undercover sting operations in Ottawa, and a marketing campaign designed to stoke fear among potential Uber customers. As Uber enters a growing number of Canadian cities, the ensuing regulatory fight is typically pitched as a contest between a popular, disruptive online service and a staid taxi industry intent on keeping new competitors out of the market.

My weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) notes that if the issue was only a question of choosing between a longstanding regulated industry and a disruptive technology, the outcome would not be in doubt. The popularity of a convenient, well-priced alternative, when contrasted with frustration over a regulated market that artificially limits competition to maintain pricing, is unsurprisingly going to generate enormous public support and will not be regulated out of existence.

While the Uber regulatory battles have focused on whether it constitutes a taxi service subject to local rules, last week a new concern attracted attention: privacy. Regardless of whether it is a taxi service or a technological intermediary, it is clear that Uber collects an enormous amount of sensitive, geo-locational information about its users.  In addition to payment data, the company accumulates a record of where its customers travel, how long they stay at their destinations, and even where they are located in real-time when using the Uber service.

Reports indicate that the company has coined the term “God View” for its ability to track user movements. The God View enables it to simultaneously view all Uber cars and all customers waiting for a ride in an entire city. When those mesh – the Uber customer enters an Uber car – they company can track movements along city streets.  Uber says that use of the information is strictly limited, yet it would appear that company executives have accessed the data to develop portfolios on some of its users.

In fact, Uber blogged in 2012 about “Rides of Glory”, which it characterized as “anyone who took a ride between 10pm and 4am on a Friday or Saturday night, and then took a second ride from within 1/10th of a mile of the previous nights’ drop-off point 4-6 hours later.” The blog posting identified which cities had the largest number of such rides.

Canadian Uber users can be forgiven for wondering whether the company takes their privacy rights seriously since it does not even have a Canada-specific privacy policy. The Uber website features three privacy policies: one for the United States, one for South Korea, and a global catch-all policy for users in 48 other countries. That approach effectively lumps Canadians into a privacy policy shared by users everywhere from Beirut to Beijing to Bogota.

The policy identifies certain privacy rights (and seeks to bring global users under a European Union privacy umbrella), but does nothing to ensure that it is fully compliant with Canadian privacy law standards. Interestingly, the company does have a Canada-specific user agreement, so the company’s legal rights are designed to comply with Canadian law.

Geo-location privacy is frequently invoked within the context of online marketing, with some concerned about the prospect of being “followed” as they walk down a city street, receiving coupons or real-time offers from nearby stores. Yet the Uber situation provides an important reminder that geo-locational privacy issues extend far beyond just marketing as they allow for tracking and inferences about user behaviour that is not otherwise publicly available.

Providing locational information is a trade-off that many are prepared to make, particularly if backed by privacy rules that safeguard misuse and provide some measure of oversight. In the case of Uber, the failure to develop Canada-specific protections raises serious questions about whether the company sees itself as outside the scope of more than just local taxi regulations.

The post Why Uber Has a Canadian Privacy Problem appeared first on Michael Geist.

Why Uber Has a Canadian Privacy Problem

Michael Geist Law RSS Feed - Mon, 2014/11/24 - 10:35

Appeared in the Toronto Star on November 22, 2014 as Why Uber has a Canadian Privacy Problem

The mounting battle between Uber, the popular app-based car service, and the incumbent taxi industry has featured court dates in Toronto, undercover sting operations in Ottawa, and a marketing campaign designed to stoke fear among potential Uber customers. As Uber enters a growing number of Canadian cities, the ensuing regulatory fight is typically pitched as a contest between a popular, disruptive online service and a staid taxi industry intent on keeping new competitors out of the market.

If the issue was only a question of choosing between a longstanding regulated industry and a disruptive technology, the outcome would not be in doubt. The popularity of a convenient, well-priced alternative, when contrasted with frustration over a regulated market that artificially limits competition to maintain pricing, is unsurprisingly going to generate enormous public support and will not be regulated out of existence.

While the Uber regulatory battles have focused on whether it constitutes a taxi service subject to local rules, last week a new concern attracted attention: privacy. Regardless of whether it is a taxi service or a technological intermediary, it is clear that Uber collects an enormous amount of sensitive, geo-locational information about its users.  In addition to payment data, the company accumulates a record of where its customers travel, how long they stay at their destinations, and even where they are located in real-time when using the Uber service.

Reports indicate that the company has coined the term “God View” for its ability to track user movements. The God View enables it to simultaneously view all Uber cars and all customers waiting for a ride in an entire city. When those mesh – the Uber customer enters an Uber car – they company can track movements along city streets.  Uber says that use of the information is strictly limited, yet it would appear that company executives have accessed the data to develop portfolios on some of its users.

In fact, Uber blogged in 2012 about “Rides of Glory”, which it characterized as “anyone who took a ride between 10pm and 4am on a Friday or Saturday night, and then took a second ride from within 1/10th of a mile of the previous nights’ drop-off point 4-6 hours later.” The blog posting identified which cities had the largest number of such rides.

Canadian Uber users can be forgiven for wondering whether the company takes their privacy rights seriously since it does not even have a Canada-specific privacy policy. The Uber website features three privacy policies: one for the United States, one for South Korea, and a global catch-all policy for users in 48 other countries. That approach effectively lumps Canadians into a privacy policy shared by users everywhere from Beirut to Beijing to Bogota.

The policy identifies certain privacy rights (and seeks to bring global users under a European Union privacy umbrella), but does nothing to ensure that it is fully compliant with Canadian privacy law standards. Interestingly, the company does have a Canada-specific user agreement, so the company’s legal rights are designed to comply with Canadian law.

Geo-location privacy is frequently invoked within the context of online marketing, with some concerned about the prospect of being “followed” as they walk down a city street, receiving coupons or real-time offers from nearby stores. Yet the Uber situation provides an important reminder that geo-locational privacy issues extend far beyond just marketing as they allow for tracking and inferences about user behaviour that is not otherwise publicly available.

Providing locational information is a trade-off that many are prepared to make, particularly if backed by privacy rules that safeguard misuse and provide some measure of oversight. In the case of Uber, the failure to develop Canada-specific protections raises serious questions about whether the company sees itself as outside the scope of more than just local taxi regulations.

Michael Geist holds the Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law at the University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law. He can be reached at mgeist@uottawa.ca or online at www.michaelgeist.ca.

The post Why Uber Has a Canadian Privacy Problem appeared first on Michael Geist.

How do we decide how much to reveal? (Hint: Our privacy behavior might be socially constructed.)

Freedom to Tinker - Mon, 2014/11/24 - 09:00
[Let's welcome Aylin Caliskan-Islam, a graduate student at Drexel. In this post she discusses new work that applies machine learning and natural-language processing to questions of privacy and social behavior. — Arvind Narayanan.] How do we decide how much to share online given that information can spread to millions in large social networks? Is it always our […]

The Spencer Effect: No More Warrantless Access to Subscriber Info With Five Minutes of Police Work

Michael Geist Law RSS Feed - Fri, 2014/11/21 - 10:48

The Canadian Press reports that the RCMP has abandoned some Internet-related investigations because it is unable to obtain warrantless access to subscriber information. The article is based on an internal memo expressing concern with the additional work needed to apply for a warrant in order to obtain access to subscriber information. The changes have arisen due to the Supreme Court of Canada’s Spencer decision, which held that there is a reasonable expectation of privacy in subscriber information. As a result, it is believed that most telecom and Internet providers have rightly stopped voluntary disclosures without a warrant (some have still not publicly stated their disclosure practices).

The article notes how easily subscriber information was disclosed prior to Spencer:

Prior to the court decision, the RCMP and border agency estimate, it took about five minutes to complete the less than one page of documentation needed to ask for subscriber information, and the company usually turned it over immediately or within one day. The agencies say that following the Supreme Court ruling about 10 hours are needed to complete the 10-to-20 pages of documentation for a request, and an answer can take up to 30 days.

The troubling aspect of the story is not that some investigations are being curtailed because law enforcement is now following due process and that telecom providers are requiring a warrant before disclosing subscriber information. It is that for millions of requests prior to Spencer, it took nothing more than five minutes to fill out a form with the information voluntarily released without court oversight and without notifying the affected subscriber.

Moreover, the change in practice points to how the government’s claims that Spencer does not change anything with respect to Bills C-13 and S-4 is simply not credible. Those bills rely heavily on expanding voluntary disclosure at the very time that the approach has been discredited by the courts and abandoned by the telecom and Internet providers.

If the government were serious about providing law enforcement with effective investigative tools, it would drop the emphasis on warrantless voluntary disclosure and rethink its approach to new Internet warrants. As the Privacy Commissioner of Canada argued yesterday at a Senate committee, the threshold for a metadata warrant should be raised consistent with the privacy importance of the information. Meanwhile, the government could explore a new basic subscriber information warrant that would ensure court oversight but allow for access on an expedited basis. By maintaining that Spencer has no effect on its legislative proposals, it leaves everyone unhappy: police do not get the information they need (with appropriate oversight), the public is concerned with the privacy implications of lawful access, and the government’s hand-picked Privacy Commissioner criticizes it for failing to strike the right balance.

The post The Spencer Effect: No More Warrantless Access to Subscriber Info With Five Minutes of Police Work appeared first on Michael Geist.

Little Brother middle school English curriculum materials


James Scot Brodie is a teacher at Presidio Middle School in San Francisco, where Jen Wang and I spoke last month on our tour for In Real Life; prior to my arriving, he assigned my book Little Brother to his students, and produced some curricular materials that he's generously given to me to publish.

Little Brother Portfolio | Little Brother Acronym Challenge | Little Brother Biography project

He writes,

I was thrilled when the librarian announced that Cory Doctorow was going to make an appearance at our school. As an English teacher, aspiring writer, and complete nerd -- I find author visits a nice perk to the job. The students too, like to get out of the classroom whenever they can and author visits are a rare treat. I’ve been teaching for about five years and I’ve met two authors. It then dawned on me that we seldom read the books of the authors that come to visit our school. Mainly because our closets are filled with tons of dead people. Maybe five percent of our class sets are from the living, although Mr. Gomez somehow scored 40 copies of The Fault In Our Stars (he must know someone).

Nevertheless, it was early September and Doctorow was set to visit on October 16. I was determined to have my students read the book, but we only had ten copies from a box on loan from the public library. Now, Doctorow is super generous with his stuff and offers a lot of material to educators and students for free via his website, so I figured I would tap into this and download the book. At the same time I didn’t want to print up 102 copies for my 3 English classes. That would take forever, cost a lot, and kill too many trees. So, long story short, this is what I did: I purchased the audio book, and two copies of the text. I read the book, making “marginal” and underlining vocabulary words, slowly sculpting it into a “teacher’s edition.” I also came up with questions for each chapter. Most the questions are simple guided questions (who, what, when, where and why), but I also made sure that each chapter has a question where the students can relate the reading to their own lives -- these inquiries were also great springboards for interesting classroom discussions. I printed up these sheets and students completed them as we listened to the audio book. This is where the second book comes into play – I used the unmarked version of the text to display on the white board at the front of the class via my ELMO projector for all the class to see. I was surprised at how huge I could get the book -- it was roughly four feet by six feet and I didn’t know this but the little orange button on the left is for focusing (a student pointed this out to me). I’ll have to say it was one of the most positive reading experiences I’ve ever had with a class. It may be psychological but the minute I projected the book on the board and hit the play button on the audio book -- students were enthralled as if watching a movie. Of course it may also have something to do with Mr. Doctorow’s book -- there is a lot in there that the modern day teenager can relate to.

The entire unit took about six weeks. Students gathered all their vocabulary/question sheets into a portfolio. I purchased card stock and brass fasteners for students to make covers for these portfolios (which they decorated themselves) and this turned out to be a great boon for students that couldn’t afford to purchase their own copies of the book, because when the big day came -- Doctorow autographed copies for his admirers. And this is how the lesson plan ended up here, Cory signed a few, thought they were cool and offered to post them. There are a couple of other activities that I’ve thrown in, but the above is the real meat and potatoes. Use them as you like, put your own personal spin on them and hopefully it will save you some time.

James Scot Brodie
English Teacher
SFUSD

Wide-ranging conversation with Portland’s KBOO about Information Doesn’t Want to Be Free


Last month, I sat down for a long conversation (MP3) with Ken Jones for the Between the Covers at Portland, Oregon's KBOO community radio station, talking about my book Information Doesn't Want to be Free. They've posted the audio so people from outside of Portland can hear it too!

Tackling Teen Substance Abuse: New Online Tools for Families Seeking Answers

Google Public Policy BLOG - Thu, 2014/11/20 - 17:12
Earlier this year, we began working with the Partnership for Drug-Free Kids to help people find helpful information about substance abuse online.  This is a guest post from their President and CEO, Steve Pasierb, describing our efforts together and the organization’s ongoing work to keep teens safe. -Ed

The Partnership for Drug-Free Kids is dedicated to reducing teen substance abuse and helping families impacted by addiction. We are the only family-focused nonprofit that provides resources and direct support to help families prevent and cope with teen drug and alcohol abuse.

The modern path to substance abuse looks very different than it did when today's parents were teens themselves. As we all know, people are spending more of their time online, across a variety of connected devices.  As a result, it’s increasingly important for our information to be accessible anytime, on the web and in mobile apps.

Thanks to a recent donation from Google, we’ve created innovative new content and tools that will help countless families find answers in the midst of a crisis, or before one ever happens.

Since beginning our work together in April, Google has funded search advertising campaigns, helped develop a mobile app with substance abuse-related information, improved our website, and plans to revamp our YouTube channel.  All of this is complemented by their ongoing efforts to fight rogue online pharmacies — Google has removed more than 7 million ads for these outfits this year alone. This work makes it harder for people to buy controlled substances online without a valid prescription, thereby reducing illicit access to these medications and reducing abuse.  
Search advertising campaigns funded by Google

Users will be able to find information about substance-abuse including: images, common slang terms, short- and long-term effects of each drug, and how to get help in our upcoming mobile app
Our national action campaign, the Medicine Abuse Project, is rallying parents, educators, health care providers, communities, and law enforcement to collectively help prevent half a million teens from abusing prescription drugs and over-the-counter cough medicine.  Thanks to invaluable partners like Google, we are able to expand our reach, sharpen our tools and help parents navigate the teen years with help at their fingertips.
Posted by Steve Pasierb, President and CEO, Partnership for Drug-Free Kids

SFLC Seeks Legal Interns for Summer 2015

SFLC News Releases - Thu, 2014/11/20 - 14:14
SFLC Seeks Legal Interns for Summer 2015
Syndicate content