Techmeme points to an article on Read/Write Web that tells why 2007 will be a big year for RSS. IE 7, Outlook 2007, MySpace, and various other mainstream platforms will include RSS feed ability within them.

I agree with that. While its now easy to download software or plugins to get RSS feeds, its still not simple enough for many. Sometimes I’ll tell clients or potential clients about my blog, but their eyes glaze over when RSS feeds are mentioned. Or someone will tell me that they have bookmarked my blog, which tells me they have not used RSS.

The ability to obtain RSS feeds directly within a browser or other platform one commonly uses should open up blogs to a much larger community.

Read the read/writeweb article

Read the techmeme post

David Canton – For the London Free Press – October 7, 2006

Read this on Canoe

At what point do social-networking websites cross the privacy line when providing online access to personal information? A recent uproar over Facebook provides some insight.

Sites such as MySpace, Friendster and Facebook are increasingly popular. This has not been lost on potential investors and advertisers. In July 2005, Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp. bought MySpace for about US$580 million.

These sites let friends, classmates or co-workers keep in touch online. Members create interactive personal profiles detailing their interests. These profiles are made available to anyone within their social network. Members can share music, photos and video.

Launched by Harvard undergraduate student Mark Zuckerberg in February 2004, Facebook has more than nine million registered users and has been ranked as the seventh most-trafficked U.S. website.

It says it “helps people better understand the world around them by developing technologies that facilitate the spread of information through social networks.”

Part of Facebook’s appeal is its privacy restrictions. One can only gain access to the site through a recognized peer group, such as a university, high school or employer. The only profiles that can be searched are those within your user group. This differs from social network sites such as MySpace, which are open to all members of the public.

Facebook launched two new features Sept. 5: News Feed and Mini-Feed detect changes users make to their profiles, then publish these changes to those users’ contact lists.

These new features caused an uproar in the Facebook community. The company saw them as merely a user-friendly innovation. But many users felt they were an invasion of privacy, despite the fact that all the information published was already available.

Ironically, users used the new features to voice their discontent, proving just how effective the alterations can be in spreading information. Facebook was flooded with thousands of e-mails opposing the changes. Protest groups formed on the site with names such as “Students against Facebook News Feeds.”

Facebook quickly added a privacy page to let members pick what goes into News Feed and Mini-Feed, and Zuckerberg posted an online apology.

This incident illustrates a couple of noteworthy points.

First, Facebook’s prompt change and apology shows the right way to react when faced with a privacy problem. They did not try to argue about it, or otherwise duck responsibility.

Second, it seems ironic that there would be user backlash over a feature to alert others to new information they post about themselves — when the very purpose of the site is to publish information about oneself. This illustrates that privacy is about one’s control and choice over one’s information, regardless of the context.

The Stiller Centre, “Ontario’s largest life sciences commercialization facility” has just announced the Stiller Centre Prize. It is a “unique annual award offering the best and brightest young science graduates from around the world with the opportunity to develop their ideas towards viable businesses“.

The winner of the prize will be given facilities and resources at the Stiller Centre to enable the winner to turn the idea into a commercial product.

Take a look at the Big Bang Idea web site for details, the rules, and the sponsors (Harrison Pensa LLP is one of them) – or just to take a look at their explosive advertising images and YouTube video.

Go to the Big Bang Idea web site

Look at the YouTube video

Thanks to David Fraser’s Canadian Privacy Law Blog for reporting that the Belgian Privacy Commissioner has released a report saying Swift violated EU privacy laws when it provided information to US authorities. Swift is based in Belgium, and processes international bank transactions.

The Canadian privacy commissioner’s investigation into this continues.

Read David’s post for details of the Belgian decision

Read my earlier article on the topic

Thanks to Tim Feathers of the techknowledgyblog for pointing out that a US appeal court has said it is OK to search laptops without warrant or probable cause at international borders. That includes the forensic recovery of deleted files!

Many sites reported on the incident where a man was detained and questioned for writing a message on the baggie that contained items passing through airport security. Airport security was not amused.

Causes pause to reflect on issues like privacy and rights against arbitrary search, seizure and detention.

Zefrank’s video from last Friday is worth a look, as he gives a mock eulogy to “Mr. Habeas Corpus” based on the baggie incident.

Read a Boing Boing post on the baggie message detainee

Read Tim Feather’s post on border laptop searches

View Zefrank’s video eulogy for Habeas Corpus

Take a look at the Defective by Design Web site for details about what you can do to raise awareness.

Also take a look at Michael Geist’s list of things you can do.

For my views on the subject, see my recent article, and click on the “DRM” link in my tag cloud.

Protect your freedom!

Go to the Defective by design web site

Read Michael’s post

Read my article

David Canton – for the London Free Press – September 30, 2006

Read this on Canoe

A trade-mark can be a valuable asset. A recognizable brand can boost sales and make products or services more easily recognizable to customers. But if you don’t use your trade-mark, you can lose the registration.

According to the International Trade-mark Association, the average person sees or hears more than 1,500 trade-marks every day.

Success in the business world depends on presence in the marketplace — the message and the image. Trade-marks establish the wares and services of a business and its reputation.

A trade-mark provides protection to the owner by ensuring the owner has an exclusive right to use it to identify goods or wares.

If a person or enterprise has a registered trade-mark, no one else is allowed to use it for the registered wares or services. If that person or enterprise fails to use its trademark in a timely fashion, it seems only appropriate that someone else may claim rights to and make use of it.

The Trade-marks Act provides that anyone who believes another party has failed to use their trade-mark with the listed wares or services during the last three years can apply to the trademarks office to have the trade-mark expunged. If this happens, the trade-mark essentially ceases to be a registered mark and any rights that registration brings are gone. It is then available to anyone wishing to register and use it.

A trade-mark is registered only for use with the wares or services listed in its registration. Expunging it may cancel the registration of the trade-mark as a whole or for just those wares or services that it is no longer being used for.

For example, if I have Brand X registered for breakfast cereal and for a restaurant, I might lose the registration for breakfast cereal, but keep it for the restaurant. That may be the case even if I sold breakfast cereal labelled Brand X for many years, but let it lapse for the last three.

Once a proceeding to expunge a trade-mark begins, the onus is on the registrant to prove by affidavit evidence, including samples of use, that it has been used within the last three years.

An exception is if a registrant can show a good reason why they have not used the trade-mark, they will not lose their rights to it.

In a recent case, the court decided it was reasonable to conclude that a vodka distiller from an emerging nation would be unfamiliar with Canadian alcoholic distribution requirements. The distiller mistakenly held off using its trade-mark while seeking certification. The court refused to expunge the unused trade-mark.