For the London Free Press – June 30, 2008

Read this on Canoe

Best wishes to all those with the Amabile choirs who have just left for the Czech Republic.  (My son is in one of the choirs.)  The Amabile web site says:

From June 27 to July 13, 2008, the renowned and award-winning Amabile Boys and Men’s Choirs of London, Canada are on a two-week European tour. First on the agenda: the 2nd International Boys and Men’s Choral Festival in the Czech Republic which Amabile is co-hosting with the Czech Boys Choir, Boni Pueri. Six hundred male singers, ages 9 to 79, and 100 staff from seven countries immersed in a week of rehearsals, concerts, leadership activities and friendship, culminating in a massed concert in Dvorak Hall in the Rudolfinum of Prague, broadcast live around the world by Vltava Radio in the Czech Republic.

The Amabile boys and men continue their second week with a cultural and musical tour of Austria and Germany with three additional performances. They sing at the United Nations offices in Vienna, and also perform in the Golden Hall of the Musikverein in Vienna as guests of the the 2008 Summa Cum Laude International Youth Music Festival hosted by VIA MUSICA. Amabile’s final concert is in Ulm, Germany.

Fair Copyright fo Canada has launched a line of apparel, mugs, buttons, etc to promote their cause – ie the fight against bill C-61.

One of the reasons this is noteworthy is that it is another use of a Web 2.0 tool to promote a cause. The items are sold on CafePress.com, which is a site where one can design and sell their own custom products using print on demand technology.

Take a look

David Fraser has 2 posts on his Canadian Privacy Law Blog that together emphasize that to be effective, an organization’s privacy officer must have support at the highest levels of the organization, and must be able to influence various areas within the organization.

The first is a study that found that 87% of data breaches are the result of incompetence and carelessness.

The second is a study that shows there is a large disconnect between marketing departments and those charged with overseeing privacy compliance. It showed that if you ask privacy executives and marketing executives about limitations on sharing personal information, the privacy executives thought they were doing far less sharing than the marketing executives did.

One scary aspect of this is that it suggests that while privacy policies are well intentioned – internal compliance with them can sometimes be questionable.

For the London Free Press – June 23, 2008

Read this on Canoe

On June 12, the federal government introduced Bill C-61, an Act to Amend the Copyright Act. A hailstorm of critical comment followed within hours.

This bill amends the Copyright Act in various ways. The government states that it is a “balanced approach to truly benefit Canadians . . . (that) will bring it into line with advances in technology and current international standards.”

But the bill is flawed and should not be passed in its current state.

It purports to grant user rights for things like time-shifting and format-shifting of audio and video for consumers. Those provisions contain so many caveats that one has to question their effectiveness. They may, in fact, take away from rights we have under the current Copyright Act, as interpreted by the Supreme Court of Canada.

It also makes it illegal to break “digital locks” that control how we can use music and video. Digital locks are also sometimes referred to as TPM (technological protection measures) or DRM (digital rights management). Ottawa claims an international treaty requires us to pass such a provision, but many people disagree.

The provisions regarding digital locks are based on provisions of the American Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). This act hasn’t worked well, giving rise to innovation chill and frivolous lawsuits. Indeed, the Canadian bill has been criticized by U.S. sources, who say it’s a mistake to follow the DMCA.

The digital lock provisions will trump user rights for time- and format-shifting. That, in essence, lets creators draft their own copyright law that takes away any user rights we have been given by legislation or the courts.

The bill’s language is quite confusing, which does not lead to clarity of interpretation. That is not good in any statute, but especially in a statute that needs to bring clarity to what ordinary Canadians can do on a daily basis.

Ottawa is right that copyright laws need to balance the needs and interests of both creators and users. The proposed legislation does not, in my view, strike the right balance or reflect the reality of technology and consumer behavior in the 21st century.

Canada had an opportunity to set an example for what 21st-century copyright should be but, instead, has subscribed to the traditional views of certain entertainment industry proponents.

But even the entertainment industry is not unanimous in its viewpoints. Many different groups and organizations have publicly opposed the type of provisions found in this bill.

This bill also should be considered in the context of the recent revelation that Canada is about to become part of a proposed anti-counterfeiting trade agreement (ACTA) with several other countries.

ACTA has troubling provisions, including those that would allow border guards to search mp3 players and laptops and impose sanctions for what they believe is unauthorized copyrighted material.

In my view, neither Bill C-61 nor the ACTA should become law as they now exist. What is needed is a truly unbiased review of the various issues and interests in the context of the modern world.

For more information, look at the articles under Copyright in the tag cloud of my blog at www.canton. elegal.ca.

For further detailed criticism, analysis and links to various commentaries, see Prof. Michael Geist’s blog at www.michaelgeist.ca.

If anyone is wondering what the fuss is all about over bill C-61, its worth taking a look at Michael’s series of posts entitled A Week in the Life of the Canadian DMCA.. The posts describe activities that we all might do from time to time, and how those activities are illegal under this bill. It shows how out of touch with reality the bill is.

This link is to post # 2

For the London Free Press – June 16, 2008

Read this on Canoe

Ontario information and privacy commissioner Anne Cavoukian has expressed concern for the tainted image of privacy laws in Canada.

In her 2007 annual report, available at www.ipc.on.ca, Cavoukian challenges the belief that privacy laws are to blame for many tragedies in which it is alleged release of relevant information would have saved the day.

Cavoukian very firmly states that privacy laws are not the problem; the problem is the misinterpretation and the misapplication of privacy laws. She has even gone so far as to publicize her opinion in the Washington Post and the National Post.

Cavoukian uses the Virginia Tech massacre and the events that unfolded before and during the tragedy as an example of the prevalence of the public’s misconceptions about privacy laws.

The massacre took place April 16, 2007, on the campus of Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. Thirty-three people, including the gunman, died and many others were wounded in two separate attacks by a student who had previously been diagnosed with a mental illness.

Cavoukian accuses the media of sensationalizing the school shooting by alleging that privacy laws and restrictions on the release of private information to the university and health officials were to blame.

Cavoukian says that the problem in the Virginia Tech tragedy was not the mere existence of privacy laws, but public officials’ lack of understanding of the appropriate application of those laws.

While Cavoukian emphasizes the importance of privacy laws in protecting personal information, she also acknowledges that this protection is not absolute and is subject to exceptions in extreme situations.

In a fact sheet issued in 2005 titled Disclosure of Information Permitted in Emergency or Other Urgent Circumstances, Cavoukian sets out situations in which disclosure of personal information is permitted under Ontario’s privacy laws.

These include, for example, a situation in which the health or safety of an individual or the public is at stake or it is necessary to eliminate or reduce significant risk of harm to an individual or a group ,or it is necessary to allow contact with close relatives or friends of an injured or dead person.

In her report, Cavoukian challenges the public to ask questions every time they’re told they can’t have information because of privacy laws. She urges people to ask which law prohibits the release of the information, why it is prohibited and whether there are instances when the information may be released.

Cavoukian stresses the importance of privacy laws and the fact that they are an integral part of our society and are especially important in allowing us to realize liberty and freedom.

She concludes her report by noting, “privacy is too important to our social fabric to let it come under attack on the basis of false accusations.”

The press and blogosphere has been all over yesterday’s introduction of the copyright bill. The vast majority of the comments are negative, and rightly so. I don’t recall ever seeing so much commentary on legislation so quickly – it hasn’t even been 24 hours yet.

I’ll have more to say about this soon – but for now, take a look at Michael’s post, and his 3 posts below that with his comments and links to various comments and articles.

Slaw.ca posted a good article recently entitled Revisiting the Paperlesss Office that contains some history on the topic, and some tips for reducing paper.

It comments that we have the technology and tools to do it – what we need is a change of mindset. I agree with that sentiment. I use less paper than most lawyers – but I can still do better.

In addition to saving paper, most of the tools used to save paper also increase productivity.

Read the article

Inside CRM has an article entitled 50 Ways to Take Back Control of Your Personal Data that is a good list of best practices to protect personal information. Many of the references contain details relevant only to those that live in the U.S., but the theories apply anywhere.

As we might say in a contract, these apply to Canada, mutatis mutandis.

Read the 50 Ways article