Michael Stahl writes an interesting article entitled Tide is turning on IT outsourcing.

Outsourcing is generally done because it is perceived to be cheaper, faster, or better.

The article refers to several studies that show that in reality, a signficant % of outsourcing deals fail, are renegotiated, or are brought back in house.

Any business considering outsourcing needs to think the costs and benefits through very carefully.

Read Michael’s article

(You may have to click on “news”, then “publications”)

Windows XP N is the new version of Windows that the EU anti-trust regulators forced Microsoft to create after fining them $600 million. The concern was that Microsoft was gaining an unfair advantage over other media player software.

It basically removes Window media player from Windows.

CNN runs an article saying that so far, none of the computer manufacturers or distributors want it. It will be interesting to see what the consumer reaction is.

Was the EU action perhaps totally futile, or totally unnecessary?

Read the CNN article

The US Supreme Court decided that peer to peer file sharing service/software providers can be sued for copyright violations of users. It comes down to the intent of the provider, which is to be gleaned from its instructions and advertising material, and what steps it took to try to limit unauthorized copying.

The matter now goes back to the lower courts to determine whether in this instance that was the case.

I have not read the decision in detail, but in practice there is a lot of gray area here. So does this mean that if I provide software that will share any file, and if I make sure I say that it is only to be used to swap authorized files, I’m not liable if users use it for other things?

Read a Wired article

Read the decision

DAVID CANTON – For the London Free Press – June 25, 2005

Read this on Canoe

Individuals who enjoy downloading music for free off the Internet will be pleased to learn record labels were dealt another blow in their attempt to eliminate online music swapping — this time in the Federal Court of Appeal. But the issue is not over yet.

In the highly anticipated decision of BMG Canada Inc. v. John Doe, the Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the Canadian Recording Industry Association’s appeal of a March 2004 Federal Court ruling.

This case arose as an application to compel Internet service providers to disclose the identities of numerous users who were allegedly involved in a large volume of music file-sharing over the Internet. The plaintiffs claimed each of these unidentified defendants had in excess of 1,000 songs on their home computers and used file-sharing programs to share those files with others. The plaintiffs could not identify these Internet users because they operate the software under pseudonyms.

(more…)

Wired – in an article entitled Driving Big Brother - reports that the NHTSA will release new rules for automobile black boxes this summer. I have blogged before about this issue as they have controversial privacy ramifications.

The report says they will not require all cars to have them, but will mandate 29 things they must record. From the privacy angle, they will require owners manuals to disclose that they are present, and the reason. To me that is only part of the privacy issue. The more thorny issue is what use is made of the data.

The Wired article includes a link to technical information about the 29 items.

Read the Wired article

Read earlier posts I have made on this topic

Canada’s expected copyright reform bill is now available. While it is too soon to sort out all the ramifications, early indications are that it favours the music industry over consumers. Consumer groups may need to continue to lobby the government to soften the reforms.

For an early indication of the nature of the changes, take a look at Prof. Geists’s views.

Read the bill

Read Michael Geist’s initial thoughts

DAVID CANTON – For the London Free Press – June 18, 2005

Read this on Canoe

The availability of our private information on the Internet has increased the debate over the right to publicity. Search engines providing personal information have caused people to become worried, and somewhat paranoid, about disclosing personal information.

Privacy principles say that if someone discloses personal information, the receiver of that information should keep that information private.

On the other side of the debate is the argument that there should be no obligation on receivers of personal information to keep that information private. Instead, we should simply punish those who misuse the information.

(more…)

Some of us have speculated that at some point a court will decide that an unintended release of data might be considered negligence, and thus find liability. In other words, that in the right situation (right situation legally – wrong situation from any other point of view) a judge may find that the information release would not have happened if the entity had appropriate security in place.

The threshold for negligence in such a situation is not clear – so it may not be tested unless the breach is blatant.

Techdirt reports that the FTC just fined a US company for revealing private data, saying that inadequate data security can be an unfair business practice. It’s only a matter of time before we see this theory tested – probably in a class action suit.

Read the Techdirt post

ITBusiness.ca has an article about a student competition for a $20,000 prize. To win, students in their final year of study in a Canadian technology or engineering program must submit a project in the area of information computing and telecommunications technologies.

The article is worth a look if you are in that position.

Read the ITBusiness.ca article

We have heard about many instances lately where personal information has been lost or stolen. There is another privacy risk worth mentioning – the risk of bad data. A basic privacy principle is that one has the right to correct any errors in information anyone has about you. A practical problem is that we may never know until we have a problem that this has happened.

David Fraser has a post in his PIPEDA and Canadian Privacy Law blog about this issue that is worth a look.

Read David Fraser’s post