Technology advances have often challenged existing laws – which can get in the way of progress, or be inadequate to address new issues.

A book has just been published (which I have not read) entitled The Laws of Disruption that   ”explores, ten years into the Internet revolution, what has happened to social, political, and legal systems that now lag dangerously far behind.”

Laws have always lagged behind technology advances – that’s just a natural result.  But technology advances are happened much faster than ever before.   See, for example, the stats in this popular Socialnomics video.

Consider issues that arise from such things as pervasive public surveillance, Google street, access to huge amounts of information on anything and anyone, communication tools like twitter, skype, and Google voice, cloud computing, cheap terabyte drives, mobile computing, crowdsourcing, music and video sharing.   These advances, and others, challenge not only laws (such as privacy, ownership, copyright) – but business models (such as how to make money selling music when it is no longer a scarce commodity), how we govern ourselves, how we interact with each other (consider what being a “friend” now means), how we learn, and who we trust.

The challenge is to keep the current rules (legal and other) in mind when dealing with anything new – but at the same time not being blindly tied to those rules so tightly that we fail to understand the implications and issues in the context of what is different.   As I’ve commented before, precedent is context, not an operating manual.

This is a short article that Tim Hogan, a colleague of mine, wrote to explain the new Ontario ban on the use of cell phones while driving.  It explains the details, the exceptions, and points out that there is the potential for employer liability if its employees don’t comply.

For the London Free Press – October 26, 2009

Read this on Canoe

CUSTOMER SATISFACTION: It’s a lot harder to manage online when reputations can be made or smeared by campaigns that may or may not be fair

An old customer service axiom says a dissatisfied consumer will tell eight other people about their experience.

Perhaps that axiom should now say 800, 8,000 or more, given that the Internet has made sharing dissatisfaction easier than ever.

The axiom emphasizes the importance of good customer service for business owners and the danger of even a few irritated customers.

The Internet and all its tools, such as websites, blogs, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube is a double-edged sword for any entity promoting its brand.

It provides many tools to raise brand awareness and promote goods and services — but it also allows anyone to comment on a brand for all to see. Even brands selling quality goods and services will draw negative comments from someone, somewhere, even if undeserved.

Maytag learned this lesson first hand when a customer who was displeased with attempts to fix her washing machine voiced her displeasure on Twitter. She explained her complaints and asked her 1.3 million Twitter followers to join her in boycotting Maytag.

Though the company was aware of the posting and rectified the situation the next day, the damage was done — the dissatisfied customer had shared her aggravation with a very large audience.

Brands are becoming more about what people think of them, rather than what the brand owner tells people to think about them.

Where brands once could portray the image and message they wanted to represent, they now find themselves reacting to postings from bloggers and tweeters.

Recognizing this trend, tools are being introduced to let individuals comment on products more easily. Google, for instance, has introduced Sidewiki, which allows anyone to comment on anything on the Internet, whether the website owner condones their comments or not.

Sidewiki appears as an overlay on the side of the page that the Internet user is viewing. Users can make comments regarding the webpage they are viewing within the Sidewiki. For example, if the user is viewing the webpage of a restaurant they have eaten at recently, they could post a comment on their dining experience.

Such tools and the ability for anyone to comment strike fear into even the most reputable business.

Businesses are understandably concerned about a situation where even undeserved negative comments garner attention.

Reputation tools are, however, available to monitor comments posted on theInternet.

For example, Seth Godin has developed the Brands in Public website, which collects tweets, blog posts, news stories, images, videos and comments about a brand. With all the information in one place, companies can easily track what’s said about them.

Business owners should be aware of what people are saying about their products so they can respond accordingly.

Businesses generally can’t suppress negative comments — except to the extent they cross legal boundaries, such as defamation or intellectual property infringement — but they also can’t manage what they don’t know about.

That’s the title of my Slaw post for today.  It reads as follows.

The cloud computing, or software as a service model has compelling attributes – such as low cost, ease of use, and scalability. But the downside is that there are issues around the security, integrity, and longevity of both the data and the software behind it.

Google has taken a step in the right direction with its promise that any cloud application it provides will have as a prime directive the ability of the user to pack up their data and take it anywhere, including a competitor.

At least that helps solve the issue of the risk of losing data, as it makes it easier to keep a local backup.

For the London Free Press – October 19, 2009

Read this on Canoe

INTERNET CONTENT: There’s considerable debate in Canada and the United States about how much control Internet service providers should have over content

Net neutrality is a controversial topic that causes concern for Internet activists.

Net (or network) neutrality essentially means that those who control the Internet (Internet service providers, or ISPs) shouldn’t favour one person’s content over another. Think of it as a code of ethics for fair operation of the Internet.

Sounds simple enough, but it’s a complex and controversial area.

Supporters of net neutrality are far-reaching and include prominent and influential members of the Internet community.

For some — particularly ISPs — it is an issue they would prefer would just go away. ISPs often take the position that a certain amount of control over delivery of Internet traffic is necessary for efficient operation of the ‘Net.

Net neutrality focuses on the concern that ISPs filter or degrade certain content in favour of other content. Proponents feel discrimination of Internet content should be prohibited.

The issue really shouldn’t be about traffic discrimination as a concept, but over when it is or is not acceptable, and how it is done.

The CRTC held hearings on Internet traffic management practices last summer. It has yet to render an opinion on the matter.

The net neutrality controversy in the United States became prominent in August 2008 when the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) ordered Comcast to stop blocking peer-to-peer applications.

Comcast went to court, arguing that the FCC could not order the company to treat Internet traffic in a specific way. That matter has yet to be heard.

FCC chairman Julius Genachowski recently proposed wide-ranging rules for regulating how ISPs and wireless carriers can handle the subscribers’ traffic.

In the past, the FCC has provided guidelines on the prohibition of blocking certain traffic and pushing for net neutrality, but this was the first time actual rules were to be enacted.

The proposal was passed, but it will be months before final rules are be created.

U.S. President Barack Obama believes “well-crafted” regulations of the Internet would encourage investment and innovation.

Net neutrality proponents agree and want to protect the equal treatment of all types of data available to users on the Internet.

The proposed formal rules would ensure that Internet carriers cannot discriminate against certain Internet traffic by blocking service. Wireless carriers will also be subject to the rules.

But Republican senators disagreed. Such critics of net neutrality maintain the negative actions of one such carrier should not lead to such far-reaching consequences for the entire marketplace.

The Republican criticism is based on the fear of stifling investment incentives as the business of ISPs becomes hampered by government directives.

Critics also argue that the FCC decision prematurely draws conclusions about the effects of net neutrality and state that the “facts do not clearly demonstrate that a problem needs to be remedied.”

Similarly, the top executive at AT&T has said that in the absence of any “compelling evidence of problems or abuse,” the company would be disappointed if Washington enacted such rules.

… at least not in the US.  Public performances of musical works are subject to copyright.  That leads to things like copyright fees being payable when a hair salon or dentist plays a CD .   The EFF reports that a US federal court ruled yesterday that  ”when a ringtone plays on a cellular telephone, even when that occurs in public, the user is exempt from copyright liability, and [the cellular carrier] is not liable either secondarily or directly”. 

Seems that ASCAP wanted public performance royalties for ringtones.

That’s the title of my Slaw post for today.  It reads as follows.

Gigaom has an article about a speech Michael Dell gave yesterday.

He had very positive things to say about Windows 7 – which officially debuts next Thursday the 22nd. I concur with that. I’ve been the test case for Windows 7 at Harrison Pensa, and have found it faster and more stable. It also has features that can make you more productive. Enough so that I often find it frustrating when using my home computer with Vista.

He doesn’t like netbooks, even though Dell makes popular models – citing their small screens and slow performance. Anecdotally I’ve heard comments from people who have them who say the same thing. Even an IT manager I know who had positive things to say about his netbook half jokingly offered to sell me his recently, saying he wanted a bigger and better one. I’ve been tempted to buy one a few times, but could never get over their limitations.

This reinforces my thoughts that November / December this year may be a good time to buy a notebook computer. On top of Windows 7 and probable aggressive pricing resulting from the economy and Christmas, notebooks with the new CULV chips are arriving. CULV chips promise long battery life, and notebooks that are a step above netbooks for not a lot more money.

The IOC is well known for its relentless control over everything relating to the Olympics.  After all, it makes its money by selling sponsorship and broadcasting/reporting rights.   That attempt to control runs headlong into the expectations and desires of athletes and fans to participate in the Olympics.

Witness this post on boing boing, reporting that the IOC has sent a takedown notice to someone who posted a photo on flickr of the exterior of the Beijing water cube.

The commenter states:  I hope that the IOC is aware that it’s about to show up in one of the most media-savvy towns in the world, and that trying to stop private citizens from posting “unauthorized” photos will be nothing short of a fool’s errand.

That’s the title of my Slaw post for today.  It reads as follows:

Industry Canada has published a new version of its Canadian Consumer Handbook. It is actually quite a good summary of things that the average consumer should know, including how to complain to a vendor, various scams to be aware of, cellphones, charities, collection agencies, fraud, digital TV, door to door sales, gift cards, misleading advertising, telemarketing and travel. It also has a long list of contact information for various organizations.

Lawyers might find it useful to share with clients having those particular issues, and as a resource for contact information.

It is being suggested that IOC concern over US border policies may have been a significant factor in Chicago not getting the 2016 Olympics. 

Canadians and the Canadian government have been critical of the new, tougher US border policies.   Perhaps another instance where the risk/reward of security procedures is out of whack – and where security theatre has trumped the actual need.