Techdirt has a story where an individual received 34 credit cards belonging to others with his new card. The individual claims he had a great deal of difficulty getting anyone at Amex to deal with the issue. He was told at one time just to cut them up.

This illustrates 2 issues.

First – as we have seen many times before, a prompt and proper response to any alleged privacy breach is crucial. Every person in every business that has customer contact must be trained to spot privacy issues, and immediately bring them to the attention of the business’s privacy officer.

Second – what should be the proper response when something like credit cards or documents with personal information is sent to the wrong person? Is telling them to cut them up or shred them sufficient? Or should they request they be returned? At least if they are returned, the business will know exactly what was sent.

In either case, how would the business ever know if the material was actually destroyed, or that copies were not made?

Read the Techdirt post

David Canton – for the London Free Press – January 28, 2006

Read this on Canoe

Wikipedia.org is an online encyclopedia. It differs from traditional encyclopedias in that the entries are created by users rather than corporate writers and editors.

So, how can something created by so many people, in the absence of a central authority, ever be accurate?

A study recently published in the British journal Nature concluded that Wikipedia has a level of accuracy only slightly lower than that of Encyclopedia Britannica. It showed that, on average, there are 2.92 mistakes per article for Encyclopedia Britannica and 3.86 for Wikipedia.

Wikipedia was launched in January 2001. Founders Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger wanted to create “an international collaborative free-content encyclopedia on the Internet” where the content was created by the users. To accomplish this, they decided to use “wiki” technology.

Wiki technology is the brainchild of Ward Cunningham. Cunningham launched the first wiki based site, the WikiWikiWeb on March 25, 1995. Wiki means “quick” in Hawaiian. As for the wiki technology, Cunningham says, “I chose wiki-wiki as an alliterative substitute for ‘quick’ and, thereby, avoided naming this stuff quick-web.”

Many web-based reference sites now use this technology.

So what exactly is “wiki technology”? Basically, it’s a simpler way of creating HTML pages combined with a recording system that tracks each individual change. This allows a page to be constantly updated while preserving the previous versions.

It is this concept that lies at the heart of wikipedia. It is also Wikipedia’s greatest weakness. An enormous amount of trust must be placed in Wikipedia’s users. And we all know how trustworthy the Internet can be.

This trust was put to the test in 2005.

In May, the biography of John Siegenthaler Sr. was edited to suggest that he had been involved in the Kennedy assassinations. The edits were posted by an individual who was playing a prank on a co-worker. There was no truth in the allegations and Siegenthaler — who had worked on Robert Kennedy’s campaign — was outspoken in his desire to have the entry removed. However, it wasn’t until September that the entry was corrected.

In December, it was reported that Adam Curry, a former MTV VJ and key player in the podcasting phenomenon, had anonymously edited the Wikipedia entry on podcasting. Certain paragraphs were reworded to enhance Curry’s role and diminish that of other key developers of the technology.

When he was confronted with this information, Curry first claimed that he was unfamiliar with the Wikipedia system of editing and later apologized for making the edits.

Also in December, reports emerged that Wikipedia founder Wales had edited his own bio roughly 18 times. The edits had the effect of downplaying the contribution of Sanger, with whom Wales had had a falling out.

When he was asked about the edits, Wales insisted that they were only meant to provide a more rounded picture of the early days of Wikipedia and to correct some factual errors.

With all of this controversy, it is natural that people began to question the general accuracy of Wikipedia. The release of the accuracy study was certainly helpful to Wikipedia.

To address this issue, Wikipedia has implemented a time-delay system, where popular entries are reviewed before being posted to the website. It will be interesting to see if this provides the proper balance to end up with the right kind and amount of editorial control — without requiring the kind of central gatekeeping that would render the concept useless.

David Canton – for the London Free Press – January 28, 2006

Read this on Canoe

Wikipedia.org is an online encyclopedia. It differs from traditional encyclopedias in that the entries are created by users rather than corporate writers and editors.

So, how can something created by so many people, in the absence of a central authority, ever be accurate?

A study recently published in the British journal Nature concluded that Wikipedia has a level of accuracy only slightly lower than that of Encyclopedia Britannica. It showed that, on average, there are 2.92 mistakes per article for Encyclopedia Britannica and 3.86 for Wikipedia.

Wikipedia was launched in January 2001. Founders Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger wanted to create “an international collaborative free-content encyclopedia on the Internet” where the content was created by the users. To accomplish this, they decided to use “wiki” technology.

Wiki technology is the brainchild of Ward Cunningham. Cunningham launched the first wiki based site, the WikiWikiWeb on March 25, 1995. Wiki means “quick” in Hawaiian. As for the wiki technology, Cunningham says, “I chose wiki-wiki as an alliterative substitute for ‘quick’ and, thereby, avoided naming this stuff quick-web.”

Many web-based reference sites now use this technology.

So what exactly is “wiki technology”? Basically, it’s a simpler way of creating HTML pages combined with a recording system that tracks each individual change. This allows a page to be constantly updated while preserving the previous versions.

It is this concept that lies at the heart of wikipedia. It is also Wikipedia’s greatest weakness. An enormous amount of trust must be placed in Wikipedia’s users. And we all know how trustworthy the Internet can be.

This trust was put to the test in 2005.

In May, the biography of John Siegenthaler Sr. was edited to suggest that he had been involved in the Kennedy assassinations. The edits were posted by an individual who was playing a prank on a co-worker. There was no truth in the allegations and Siegenthaler — who had worked on Robert Kennedy’s campaign — was outspoken in his desire to have the entry removed. However, it wasn’t until September that the entry was corrected.

In December, it was reported that Adam Curry, a former MTV VJ and key player in the podcasting phenomenon, had anonymously edited the Wikipedia entry on podcasting. Certain paragraphs were reworded to enhance Curry’s role and diminish that of other key developers of the technology.

When he was confronted with this information, Curry first claimed that he was unfamiliar with the Wikipedia system of editing and later apologized for making the edits.

Also in December, reports emerged that Wikipedia founder Wales had edited his own bio roughly 18 times. The edits had the effect of downplaying the contribution of Sanger, with whom Wales had had a falling out.

When he was asked about the edits, Wales insisted that they were only meant to provide a more rounded picture of the early days of Wikipedia and to correct some factual errors.

With all of this controversy, it is natural that people began to question the general accuracy of Wikipedia. The release of the accuracy study was certainly helpful to Wikipedia.

To address this issue, Wikipedia has implemented a time-delay system, where popular entries are reviewed before being posted to the website. It will be interesting to see if this provides the proper balance to end up with the right kind and amount of editorial control — without requiring the kind of central gatekeeping that would render the concept useless.

A US court held that Google’s practice of caching web pages so they are available in searches is not a copyright violation, and amounts to fair use.

Such caching is common practice for search tools, so the judgment makes sense from a practical view.

In Canada, the proposed (but dead for now in light of the election) Bill C-60 Copyright reform bill contained provisions to allow caching by search engines.

The judgment is a good read for its discussion both on the law, and on the mechanics of caching.

Read the judgment

I have not commented on the RIM – NTP lawsuit before, mainly because it’s been out there in the press on a regular basis. But something has been bothering me about the situation.

If I understand it right, the lawsuit is all about RIM violating NTP patents. The US patent office has given preliminary indications that it will invalidate some or all of those patents. The court does not seem to want to wait for the patent office to give its final decision.

It would seem logical to me that the patent office decision is critical to the outcome of the lawsuit.

So why wouldn’t the patent office speed up and prioritise its decision, and the court slow down its process, and the 2 communicate their timing to co-ordinate it all?

Read an engadget post

There has been some buzz recently over the US government’s requests to several major seach engines to reveal certain information about search habits. Some search engines have released some information, but have stated that the information does not contain any information about individuals. Google is resisting giving any information.

That has lead to articles about the search trails we leave behind, and how to limit those trails.

The Canadian Privacy Law Blog and Techdirt each point to some interesting material on the subject.

Read a post of David Fraser’s

Read another post of David Fraser’s

Read a Techdirt post

So how will the new government view tech issues? Only time will tell – especially with a minority government – but here are some things to watch for.

Bill C-60 – the copyright reform bill – died with the election call. It contained many controversial items that were pro-entertainment industry, and lacked the balance that the Supreme Court has said is the right approach to copyright. It will be interesting to see what gets re-introduced, and whether the defeat of Sam Bulte amid the entertainment industry influence controversy is interpreted as a call for a broader copyright perspective.

The issue of private music copying/downloading and the audio recording media levy is next on the copyright reform radar.

The government needs to listen to all points of view on these issues – not just the entertainment industry view.

Bill C-74, the Modernization of Investigative Techniques Act, aka “Lawful Access” (or “Awful Access” by critics) died as well. It would have given easier access by law enforcement to Internet communications. Many think it tipped the balance too far away from privacy, and goes much farther than is needed for law enforcement.

Read a comment about Bulte by Michael Geist

Read a comment about Bulte by Techdirt

David Canton – for the London Free Press – January 21, 2006

Read this on Canoe

The proliferation of technological devices such as computers, cellphones and MP3 players has created a new environmental concern.

In 2002, Canadians threw out about 1.7 million desktop computers, 1.9 million cellphones, two million television sets and 1.1 million VCRs.

The 2003-04 Ontario Environmental Commissioners Report noted the need to develop a program to deal with the growing amount of electronic waste.

Electronic components often contain dangerous substances such as lead, mercury, beryllium, cadmium and arsenic. When phones, VCRs and televisions are incinerated or disposed of in a landfill, these substances can contaminate the surrounding land, air and water.

Environmentally sound disposal of electronic devices is a complex procedure. Each product must be disassembled to retrieve reusable pieces and parts that pose a safety hazard. The remaining glass, metal and plastic components are then recycled according to their material type.

Because of the dangerous nature of electronic waste and the high cost of its safe disposal, some of North America’s and Europe’s electronic waste has been exported to developing countries, either for reuse or scrap.

The Basel Action Network — a Seattle-based organization focused on combating trade in toxic wastes and products — reports about 75 per cent of the exported equipment is not usable or reparable. Most simply end up being discarded or burned — thus merely exporting the problem.

The European Union has dealt with this through the Waste Electrical and Electronic Directive, which establishes requirements for the disposal of all IT and telecommunication equipment, lighting devices, vending machines and household appliances.

All EU countries are expected to enforce the directive this year through domestic electronic stewardship plans. Producers of devices affected by the directive are expected to register with the domestic authority charged with administering the program.

For household electronic waste, the EU directive holds the manufacturer responsible for the costs associated with the environmentally sound disposal of its products.

All new electronic products purchased for commercial purposes will be disposed of at the producer’s expense. Where a business is replacing old equipment, the producer of the new equipment will be responsible for the proper disposal of their customer’s old equipment.

The purchasing business will be responsible, however, where the equipment they are buying does not fulfil the same function as that which they already own. Producers may be allowed, however, to negotiate the cost for electronic waste disposal with commercial clients in their supply contracts.

Canadian politicians are considering following the EU’s lead in establishing electronic stewardship programs.

Alberta is the only province to have tackled the problem. The program — administered by the Alberta Recycling Management Authority — is funded by fees paid by sellers and manufacturers, which range from $5 to $45 a product. The fees cover the cost of collection, transportation and recycling, as well as education, research and awareness programs.

There are also initiatives to reduce the amount of hazardous materials used to manufacture electronics. They include the Sarnia-based Canadian Centre for Pollution Prevention.

In Ontario, there are a number of municipal waste-diversion programs that accept electronic waste. The province is developing an electronic stewardship program similar to Alberta’s. Waste Diversion Ontario was appointed by the environment minister in 2004 to create a provincial diversion program for electronic waste.

I have given a presentation a few times entitled Business Technology Trends where I talk about changes in technology, business models, and the law. To put it in context, I say much of the change we have seen over the last 10 years comes from the perfect storm of the Internet, ubiquitous computing, and the analog to digital conversion.

To illustrate the analog to digital point, I “borrowed” a concept from a 2002 Wired magazine that had a graphic with bar charts showing how for various technologies (eg cell phones, cameras, TV) analog sales were dropping, and digital were increasing.

This trend has been obvious since then, but two recent announcements show how far the trend has gone.

Panasonic (Matsushita Electric) will stop producing analog TV’s this year. About 30% of their current sales are analog TV’s.

Nikon will stop producing all but 1 model of film camera. 95% of their sales are for digital cameras.

Read an engadget post about Panasonic

Read an engadget post about Nikon

I don’t know whether some industries don’t understand copyright or other intellectual property laws such as trade-marks – or just don’t step outside their comfort zone and look at the big picture. Often businesses do things that are understandable first reactions, but are not consistent with customer desires or habits, or long term business interests.

This is sometimes similar to being a buggy manufacturer when the automobile first arrived. Their chances were much better if they decided they were in the transportation business and seized the opportunity – rather than deciding they were in the buggy business and resisted the change.

3 recent Techdirt posts illustrate this point.

One is about Major League Baseball’s attempts to stop certain use of stats. Raw facts or data is clearly not protected by copyright.

Another is about attempts to place incredible restrictions and control over various matters relating to the 2012 Olympics in London, England.

The latest is the refusal by many movie theatres to show a new Steven Soderbergh movie called “Bubble” because he decided to release the movie on DVD at the same time as the movie.

The techdirt posts are a good read to understand why these measures are unnecessary and short sighted.

Read the MLB post

Read the Olympic post

Read the movie post