David Canton – For the London Free Press – June 17, 2006

Read this on Canoe

It’s no surprise that those fighting in court do not always act in a rational manner.

Software using game theory has been used to resolve litigious issues in a way that results in better results for both sides.

Game theory is a branch of applied mathematics, or the application of mathematical techniques to other areas. Game theory studies how people interact in a strategic manner with others, then tests the utility, or potential beneficial or harmful effects, of the outcomes produced by these interactions.

The television reality show Survivor is a study in game theory. Papers have been published about how the contestants use different strategies, such as the popular “alliance,” and how these can help or hinder their success.

The study of strategic interactions is highly complex, as one must account not only for actions and words, but how their possible strategies are perceived by others and, in turn, how to react to potential strategic responses.

In real life situations people do not always act rationally to maximize personal gain. In the case of a recently separated couple, for example, where tensions and emotions may be running high, each party may be more interested in hurting their ex rather than benefiting themselves.

Alternatively, each side may calculate that they will get more if they go after their partner’s prized possessions. Often, it comes down to the financial value of their property, but the reality is that most people have attachments to certain items that go beyond money.

The television reality show Survivor is a study in game theory.

Researchers in Australia have used game theory to develop a software program called Family Winner that is designed to produce a fairer outcome for couples dividing property. In creating the software, John Zeleznikow and Emilia Bellucci focused on creating a system where each party gets more of what they actually want.

The program sounds quite simple in theory. Each party gets a certain number of points. They are then told to assign points to items based on how much they want each item. The more they value the property, the more points they award to that particular item.

The parties also assign a number to their preferences for dealing with certain property, such as whether they feel the matrimonial home should be sold or not. The program begins with the simplest decision — the item with the greatest difference in value to each party.

In reality, the program is complex. It takes into account a hierarchy of issues based on how much each side values each issue or item, and self-adjusts based on who got what. In other words, if the program mathematically determines that you lose an item of value to you, you receive compensation on other items of value.

Last year, the software was tested in a study of 50 couples and the outcomes were evaluated by Victoria Legal Aid. It turns out that each party was much more likely to end up with more of what they wanted. The study concluded each party received 70 to 80 per cent of their original list.

The creators are hopeful that this software proves as effective in practice as it did in the test run. They envision the software being adjusted for use in all sorts of disputes, such as building disputes or industrial conflicts.

Taking the emotions or politics out of the equation may lead to results that allow each party to get more of what they really want.

I’ve commented before on how the entertainent industry (music and movies) in general does not seem to get it when it comes to copyright issues, and its customers. They try to enforce copyright and restrict our ability to consume their product in a sort sighted way that is in denial of consumer desires and behaviour. They focus on a narrow vision of how they make money, rather than taking a broader approach.

A couple of recent Techdirt articles on this topic are worth a look.

The first refers to an exchange between John Perry Barlow, formerly of the Gratefull Dead, now with the EFF, and Dan Glickman of the MPAA. It shows that the MPAA is so entrenched in its position that they refuse to pay attention to evidence that they might be wrong.

The second is about the RIAA sending letters to kids who post videos on YouTube of themselves dancing, because they have not licensed the music to do that. Wouldn’t that be a great ad for the music and the artist that created it?

Read the Barlow/Glickman post

Read the RIAA/YouTube post

David Fraser has a post in his Canadian Privacy Law Blog (THE source for privacy issues) about metadata in digital photos. Like David, I know digital photos often contain technical data about the photo, but did not know that they can contain a thumbnail of the original photo.

So how is this a privacy issue? It means that one can see the original photo as well as the edited one that is published. That can cause all kinds of issues if the published photo was edited to remove people that don’t want to be there, if it was edited to hide the identity of a person, or it was edited to remove identifying information such as a license plate number, address, or credit card number.

Read David’s post for more detail, and a link to a site that shows samples of edited photos and the metadata thumbnails.

So if you publish any photos – check to make sure it does not contain the original thumbnail.

Read David’s post

Micro Persuasion has a post entitled How to Monitor Your Brand Online that has a link to a site with a list of tools that allow you to do that. Micro Persuasion is a blog by PR guru Steve Rubel – I saw him give an interesting presentation on web 2.0 marketing at the recent Mesh conference.

Its a good idea to keep on top of where your brand or trade-mark is found. You can see what others say about you, where your material is referred to, and locate others that may try to use your brand for their own advantage (aka passing off).

You can also use these tools to keep an eye on your competition.

Its a long list – pick a couple to start with and try them.

Read the Micro Persuasion post

David Canton – For the London Free Press – June 10, 2006

Read this on Canoe

Radio frequency identification is used in various technologies that use radio waves to identify people or objects. RFID has practical applications that can be of benefit to consumers, businesses and government, but also raises privacy concerns when its use enables parties to obtain personally identifiable information.

Many of us have already used RFID technology for things such as opening parking garage gates, office building locks or to buy gas.

A group of businesses and consumer advocates have recently developed a guideline designed to promote consumer privacy in the implementation of RFID.

An RFID tag is a small object that can be attached or incorporated into a product, animal or person. RFID tags contain microchips and antennas to receive and respond to radio-frequency queries from an RFID transceiver. The reader can be mere inches or several feet away, depending on the technology used.

RFID can be used to keep track of objects, or people, providing services or as an internal component of a product or device. RFID systems can be used just about anywhere, from clothing tags to missiles to pet tags to food — anywhere a unique identification system is needed.

For example, RFID systems are being used in some hospitals to track a patient’s location and to keep track of the location of doctors, nurses and expensive equipment. RFID tags can also be injected in animals – or even people — through a syringe. In the future, it is expected that RFID will be attached to consumer products in order to track the products from manufacturer to a store and right to the consumer’s home.

RFID raises privacy concerns, particularly when its use enables parties to obtain personally identifiable information, such as a person’s location, what products a person has, what services a person uses, or many other possibilities.

Representatives from various consumer groups and businesses, including Microsoft and IBM, under the leadership of the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT), recently undertook an extensive analysis of RFID and developed guidelines on use of the technology in an effort to address privacy concerns and reduce concerns about using it.

The CDT guidelines are based upon three general principles that can be applied to allay privacy concerns on RFID technology.

The first principle is that of technology neutrality. This principle states that RFID technology in and of itself does not pose threats to privacy, but rather that privacy breaches occur when RFID technology is deployed in an irresponsible way that does not promote privacy protection.

The second principle urges the concept of privacy and security as primary design requirements. It states that privacy and security must be addressed as part of the initial design of the technology, rather than retrofitting RFID systems to respond to privacy and security concerns.

The third principle relates to consumer transparency. It says there should be no secret RFID tags or readers and that use of the technology should be as transparent as possible. Notice to consumers is an essential element of this, but the guidelines go further to say that notice must be supplemented by thoughtful, robust implementation of responsible information practices. Consumers should be given clear, conspicuous and concise notice when information is collected through an RFID system.

While RFID technology may benefit the consumer, the businessperson and the government alike, privacy and security are essential issues that must be addressed. Even the perception that privacy problems exist with the technology will make it hard to implement the technology in consumer applications.

Digg points to a UK web site that has photos of destroyed speed cameras.

While I certainly don’t support vandalism, there is a message here. We don’t like being watched. Its not because we are necessarily doing anything wrong – its just uncomfortable.

Read the Digg post

Look at theweb site

The upcoming copyright reform bill is going to get interesting. This is an issue that affects everyone, as it relates not just to isses affecting creators, but to all of us who consume music, video, art, books, etc.

The last few weeks have seen a number of groups send open letters to the government all essentially around the same theme – anti DRM, and pro fair use. And these are coming from not just the “pro user zealots”, but from the creators themselves. Both the quantity and quality (if its fair to use that term for people) of the individuals behind these is impressive.

The latest is from a group of art professionals.

In addition to the breath of fresh air this is adding to copyright issues, it is an indication of the collaborative and community concepts that is one of the cornerstones of the web 2.0 concept. The Internet is being used by groups of like minded people to get their views heard. And it may be lessening the influence of established organizations that purport to represent industry groups, but in reality probably represent only the views of a few powerful members clinging to inflexible historical positions.

Read Michael Geist’s thoughts on the latest group

Go to the Appropriation Art site

The New York Times has an article entitled What Netflix Could Teach Hollywood that is a good read on many levels, including consumer behaviour, new business models, and Hollywood thinking.

It illustrates the long tail theory, ie that there is money to be made selling/renting fewer copies of less popular material. In other words, there is consumer demand beyond the relatively small number of the most recent and popular releases available at traditional stores.

Also illustrates the web 2.0 concept of mass consumer input. Older or seemingly obscure titles can become popular based on consumer ratings and recomendations.

Some claim that the Netflix model is ultimately doomed because the mailing of physical DVD’s will rapidly be supplanted by downloads and content on demand. Of course Netflix is working on providing that form of distribution itself. The other impediment to that in the short term is that Hollywood has granted exclusive rights to much of its digital content to TV networks, thus making mass downloading for the sheer number of titles available from Netflix (which, after all, is one important key to its success), difficult if not impossible in the short term. Another example of short term and misplaced thinking by the entertainment industry.

Read the New York Times article

Boing Boing reported on Saturday that it received a letter from the lawyers for the company having the broadcast rights for the upcoming world cup. The letter basically said we will be watching you to make sure you don’t show any unauthorized images or video.

Boing Boing of course posted the letter, and commented how stupid it was. For one thing, its not as if Boing Boing has a habit of talking about sports events. (I wonder who else got the letter?) The blogosphere was full of comments about how the lawyer should have known better, and how bad it made them look. I have written before about how one should always consider what effect any kind of nasty letter will have if the receiver decides to make it public. It can often bring more publicity to something you want to suppress.

On the other hand, was it, as others have suggested, a brilliant ploy by the lawyer? After all, it resulted in huge publicity, including a mention in the Times, a national UK newspaper. So now millions of people have heard the message that the owner of the broadcast rights will be watching for violations.

If that is the case – it may or may not have the desired effect. It may be looked at by some as more of a challenge than a warning.

Read the Boing Boing post

Read the comments on Real Lawyers Have Blogs

David Canton – For the London Free Press – June 3, 2006

Read this on Canoe

The federal privacy commissioner released her report to Parliament this week on privacy law issues for 2005 arising from the federal Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA).

One noteworthy element is a more aggressive stance taken by the commissioner, Jennifer Stoddart, against organizations that are the subject of privacy complaints her staff determines to be well founded. Transgressors must now state the corrective measures they will take and when they will be completed.

The commissioner has taken transgressors to court if they refuse to comply. This is a welcome approach to those who believe PIPEDA is not tough enough.

This issue will be more fully explored in the government’s review of the legislation that is to take place this year.

Current challenges to privacy include cross-border outsourcing, new technologies, and government desires for more intrusive communications monitoring.

The commissioner’s office is also determined to do more self-initiated privacy audits, rather than waiting for a formal complaint to be lodged.

I talked with Stoddart following the release of the report.

She said Canadians should all be aware of the privacy implications in the world around us. We all have choices to make that can affect how our privacy is protected and we can and should be vigilant and insist that others respect our privacy rights.

The commissioner said the biggest challenge to privacy is apathy. We often are too eager, for example, to give out personal information for a contest to win a prize.

She feels for the most part Canadian businesses are trying to comply with privacy laws and co-operate with her department when privacy issues are raised.

The report talks about the challenges of new technology. Business and government are more receptive to considering privacy issues when implementing or developing new technology, she said, but there is still a long way to go. Unfortunately, for some technologies, it may be too late, as privacy abuses are already happening. Digital rights management for music may be an example of that.

One of my privacy pet peeves is the printing of debit and credit card numbers on both customer and merchant copies of debit or credit card receipts. The commissioner advised that they have received complaints on this issue, some of which have been settled.

She believes the biggest issue is the need to replace old technology with newer devices that blank out the numbers on receipts.

The privacy commissioner’s full report is available at www.privcom.gc.ca.