There have been a few incidents where public officials have claimed privacy laws prevented them from disclosing information in emergency situations. The reality is privacy laws have exceptions that allow disclosure of personal information in emergency situations or where there is a compelling public interest.

David Fraser has a post worth reading that explains this in more detail.

David summarizes it by saying (and rightly so): Here is the moral of this story: Whenever common sense or humanity seem to bump up against privacy laws, take a close look at the law and its exceptions. You will probably find that the drafters have designed the laws to accommodate common sense and humanity.

Read David’s post

Copyright issues in Canada continue to get interesting, and attract more attention and input than ever before.

Anyone interested in the topic should follow the RSS feeds of Michael Geist’s blog, and Howard Knopf’s blog. I tend to agree with the positions they take on the subject.

Currently noteworthy is an expectation of a new copyright bill with the next 6 weeks, Canada’s appearance once again on the USTR Special 301 report, and Howard being “uninvited” from speaking at a copyright conference this week apparently because of his copyright views.

The 40,000 foot level issue is the need to address the fair dealing and other issues modern technology, culture and society require. Many interest groups from disparate sectors have spoken out in favour of broader, more realistic user rights. Against that is the traditional entertainment industry lobby groups, mostly based in the US, that seem to want strong copyright protection no matter what the cost or consequences.

For the London Free Press – April 28, 2008

Read this on Canoe

Fraud affects business as well as individuals.

An Environics survey commissioned for the Competition Bureau of Canada revealed that Canadians lost more than $450 million to mass-marketing frauds committed by mail, phone and Internet in 2007.

It’s estimated that 95 per cent of people who are victims of mass-marketing fraud do not report it.

The Canadian Competition Bureau recently launched the Fraud Awareness for Commercial Targets, or FACT, campaign. This is an outreach and educational initiative that provides businesses and not-for-profit groups with the tools to avoid becoming victims of fraud.

Information to help organizations recognize and prevent fraud can be found on the bureau’s website at www.competitionbureau.gc.ca.

Examples of fraud vary. A common scam which targets many businesses is the issuance of fake invoices and fraudulent telemarketing pitches for office supplies. In other situations, office supplies that were never ordered are delivered or goods are paid for but never received.

By placing two to three strategic phone calls, fraudsters can glean enough information to make a business’s employee believe that a business relationship has been established. The merchandise delivered is usually poor quality and very expensive. Generally, there is no way to return the merchandise. Those who refuse to pay often get harassing calls from collection agencies and pay the bill to avoid damaging their business reputation.

Another common scam is the sending of an invoice for an appearance in a directory when applying for a trade-mark. It is done in a way that suggests it is part of the trademark application process. This is so common that the Canadian Intellectual Property Office includes a warning about it on their trademark approval invoices, along with a customer service number to confirm the legitimacy of the invoice.

The FACT Program urges employers to protect their organizations by training staff to offer responses like these:

- I need to see an offer in writing first.

- Send me a copy of our order.

- We only pay with evidence of a signed authorization.

- I need to consult my manager before making any decision.

- I cannot accept a shipment without written proof that we’ve ordered it.

- I’m not interested. Remove us from your contact list.

Businesses and consumers are encouraged not to make business arrangements over the phone and to hang up if the company soliciting business appears not to be legitimate.

This problem is not unique to Canada. At the international level, a Fraud Prevention Forum has been adopted. Thirty countries form ICPEN, the International Consumer Protection and Enforcement Network, which hosted Fraud Prevention Month activities.

Building on a previous co-operation agreement between Canada and the United States called the OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development), the competition bureau this month signed a co-operation arrangement with the U.S. Postal Inspection Service in Washington. The goal is to improve competition law enforcement to fight mass-marketing fraud and other deceptive marketing practices with a cross-border component.

David Fraser has a post entitled The irony of privacy enhancing technologies. That refers to technologies that, for example, mask people’s identities when caught on video.

The ironic part, as David rightly points out, is that one aspect of privacy is to protect people’s sensibilities about unwanted intrusions. If we still know we are being watched, how do we know and trust that these technologies are being used, and used properly?

Indeed, just thinking you are being watched results in anticipatory conformity.

The irony is that more privacy enhancement technology might lead to more surveillance because of the thought that the privacy angle is covered.

Given where we are headed with technology and new uses for it that will either directly or tangentally affect privacy, privacy enhancing technologies are useful and necessary. But that’s only part of the equation. Its necessary to make the public aware that PET’s are being used, and in a way that the public actually trusts they will be used as advertised.

In many tangental instances (eg Google streetscape), the privacy issues can be dealt with, and should not kill the product or service itself.

When surveillance of individuals is the direct goal, we must not fall into the trap of becoming comfortable with it because of PET’s or other reasons. We must ask the fundamental question about whether it is really necessary or useful in the first place. “Because we can” is never the right reason to do anything.

Read David’s post

Michael Geist’s article in yesterday’s Star is worth a read. Michael talks about the second thoughts various governments are having to proposals (called the “three strikes” or “graduated response” policy) that would have ISP’s terminate subscribers for repeated file sharing activities.

Michael is absolutely right that such a policy would be a bad idea, for reasons he explains in his article. Those of you who read my Free Press article from yesterday won’t be surprised that I agree with Michael – I took the same position, albeit based on a different fact situation.

The bottom line is that ISP’s and web hosts should not be required to police their users or provide some sort of judicial oversight over user activity.

Read Michael’s column

For the London Free Press – April 21, 2008

Read this on Canoe

A recent court of appeal ruling found that Craigslist — a popular venue which provides an electronic forum for those who want to buy, sell or rent housing or other goods and services — should be treated like an Internet service provider and should not be liable for material posted by third parties.

That decision is sensible, and should be the norm for sites that provide for content added by others. That is similar to the concept that phone companies and Internet service providers should not be liable for their customers’ messages and conversations.

Craigslist came under scrutiny when the Chicago Lawyer’s Committee for Civil Rights sued Craigslist, arguing the Internet classified ads company violated the Fair Housing Act by publishing discriminatory housing posting.

Under American law, section 360(4)(a) of the Fair Housing Act forbids discrimination on account of race, religion, sex, or family status when selling or renting housing. This prohibition is accompanied by a ban on ads that state a preference with respect to any of the protected classes, essentially making it illegal to print or publish any type of notice or ad for the sale or rental of a dwelling that indicates a preference for race, colour, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin.

The Chicago Lawyer’s Committee noted offensive comments in notices for the sale or rental of homes on Craigslist, including comments like “no minorities” or “no children.”

The matter was recently appealed to the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeal. The key issue in the appeal was whether the site could be liable for allowing customers to post discriminatory housing ads. The lower court decision was upheld. The court found Craigslist should be treated like an Internet service provider and should not be liable for materials posted by third parties.

The judge considered whether Craigslist should hire staff to vet postings, but concluded this would be expensive and futile. Vetting would result in posting delays that defeat the purpose of Craigslist.

Each month, more than 30 million notices are posted to the system. Fewer than 30 people, all based in California, operate the system that offers classifieds in 450 cities. It would be necessary to add staff, indirectly increasing consumer costs, to handle the sort of editorial review the committee demanded.

In addition, whether something is inappropriate or offensive is a judgment call.

One of the ads cited contained the phrase, “Catholic church and beautiful Buddhist temple within one block,” which the committee viewed as a signal of religious preference.

Craigslist viewed it as an objective description of a neighborhood that would help people zero in on properties attractive to them. Craigslist noted it is no more exclusionary than assuming an ad reading “elementary school within five minutes” would indicate a landlord would refuse to rent to childless couples. It is not reasonable to expect such companies to exercise something akin to judicial oversight.

The Blue Jeans cable president’s response to a Monster Cable cease and desist letter has been getting a lot of attention in the blogosphere. Seems that Monster Cable sent Blue Jeans cable a letter alleging that Blue Jeans cable designs offended their IP rights.

Turns out that the Blue Jeans president was a litigation lawyer in a previous life. His response is a long winded rant detailing why he thinks Monster’s claims are invalid, and the hurdles Monster will have to overcome to prove their case. Its an amusing read and good introduction to design patent basics.

Read his response.

David Fraser points to an article that says the London England police are about to be tracked so their supervisors know where they are at all times. The police officers don’t like been tracked, though, as it has an element of “big brother”. How ironic for a country that is probably the most surveilled in the world.

Read David’s post for more details

For the London Free Press – April 14, 2008

Read this on Canoe

Facebook, blogs and other social media have made everyone a publisher. Anyone can post their thoughts for the world to see.

But a recent criminal prosecution over comments made on Facebook is a reminder that if one is not careful, that personal expression could result in criminal or civil liability.

On Facebook and other sites that link “friends” together, people often forget that — depending on your privacy settings — your information may be seen by more than just your network of friends. Complete strangers might be able to read messages you believe to be personal.

Within many communities, online or offline, there can be a tendency to embellish information people post about themselves. Some may adjust their age, while others may exaggerate their accomplishments or travels. There are also those who may overstate their emotions or use posts to vent about things that have upset them throughout the day. If you take your venting too far, it could get you into trouble.

In a recent Ontario case, a York Region man was charged with two counts of threatening to cause death because of postings he had made on Facebook. The Children’s Aid Society had removed the man’s son from the custody of the man and his wife due to concerns they would not be able to properly care for the child.

In a series of messages posted online between September and November 2007, the man made statements that were considered threatening by both CAS staff and the police. A CAS employee discovered the messages when she happened to search Facebook for references to her employer.

The trial judge determined the man did not intend to carry out his threatened action and therefore he was found not guilty of the offence. However, the judge also acknowledged that hospital staff, CAS staff and police had acted reasonably in treating the matter in a necessary and appropriate manner.

While most people would not go so far as to post threatening comments, we should remember to temper our thoughts when publishing them in any online forum. Venting is fine, but don’t cross the line into territory that could be considered threatening or defamatory. Doing so can open one up to criminal or civil liability. And that comment that seemed like a good idea at the time may be just embarrassing later.

One reason it is so easy to cross the line is the speed at which we can post information. We can publish our thoughts for the world to see within minutes or seconds. Unlike mailing a letter to the editor, that process does not give us the time to reflect and consider whether it really is a good idea to say something.

So next time you feel the need to vent or complain online, write it, but hold off actually publishing it for a while. Perhaps the exercise of just writing it will give you enough satisfaction. And the wisdom gained over a night’s sleep might result in changing your mind about how you word it, or indeed if you want to publish it at all.

The Google maps images for the London area are out of date and lo-res. Someone commented recently that Google finally added hi-res images. But it seems that while Google Earth images of London are hi-res, Google map images are not. They seem to be out of date as well. And the hi-res images stop at the London city limits.

So Google, if you are listening, we would like recent hi-res images on both earth and maps for London and surrounding area.