For the London Free Press – May 10, 2010

Read this on Canoe

Judge finds that electronic method of signing notices is valid

In September 2009, London police implemented a new system that allows officers to issue Provincial Offence Notices electronically.

This system requires the police officer to log into a computer and enter certain information such as date, name, address, charging statute, charging section and signature. The ticket is then printed on a mobile printer and provided to the offender.

This electronic system was the subject of a recent Ontario Superior Court of Justice decision in the Corporation of the City of London v. Brian Caza, Michael Gorlick and Chelsea O’Donoghue.

On March 11, the City of London brought an application before Madame Justice Morissette in London, seeking an order to set aside the decision of justice of the peace Jacob Bruinewood on Jan. 5 to quash three certificates of offences and an order to enter convictions for the offences.

On Nov. 18, 2009, Const. Cory Rowsell of London police served three certificates of offence on three different individuals with respect to separate offences.

London police had implemented the new system at that time, and as a result, the electronic device used by Rowsell to issue the tickets affixed an e-signature in the signature box on behalf of the constable.

The tickets were filed on Nov. 24 and remained in the possession of the court administration throughout the statutorily imposed 15-day period.

On Jan. 5, upon examining the tickets, Bruinewood quashed all three tickets on the basis that there was no “signature of the provincial offence officer.” As a result, the City of London brought an application before Morissette.

In her reasons for decision, Morissette noted that under the Provincial Offences Act (POA), a certificate of offence may be completed and signed electronically in accordance with the regulations.

“The operation of Ontario Regulation 497/94 made under the POA provides statutory authority for tickets issued pursuant to the POA to be generated and signed electronically,” Morissette noted in her decision.

Morissette ultimately held that “the electronic signature of the police officer affixed to the certificate of offence is presumed to be correctly affixed in accordance with the officer’s official duties pursuant to the POA, and its regulation”.

The court made an order for certiorari quashing the three decisions of Bruinewood and an order for mandamus directing Bruinewood to enter convictions for all three offences.

This result is not surprising, and reflects the intent of the regulation that an electronic signature on a ticket, provided it is generated in a reasonably reliable manner, is the equivalent of a handwritten signature. But it is always good to see statutes and court decisions that support advances in technology and the efficiencies and advantages they bring.

There are many reasons why paywalls are a bad idea – here’s one that happened to me.

A reporter for a specialty magazine interviewed me recently about some pending legislation.  The article was to be published now – so I checked the website.  The site shows an image of the front page of the current edition – which has the article at the very top of the page.    Beside that image is a list of articles from the publication.

But when I click on it – it just gives me a message saying I need to be a subscriber or registered as a guest.  Normally, I would stop there and not bother – but since I was interviewed for the article, I decide its worth the pain of registering as a guest.   So I answer all their questions (none of them were privacy invasive – but a pain to do) and get signed up.

So I log on and click on the article link – only to get a message saying:

“You do not have sufficient permission to view the article requested. To gain full access to all articles please click here to take advantage of our low introductory offer.”

I guess they don’t want people to actually read their publication.  How many people that find them online are actually going to buy a subscription?

By insisting that people buy subscriptions to see even a small part of their publication, they prevent casual readers from seeing it at all.     Assuming I liked the article, I would have mentioned it on my blog and linked to it, bringing more attention to their publication.

And yes, I realize  that the attention I would bring is not in itself significant (I’m not Techdirt or Boing Boing), but every bit helps, and every bit adds up.

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

The Canadian Privacy Commissioner posted a link to a short test to see how you fare in minimizing the risk of ID theft that is on a website managed by the Australian Privacy Commissioner.

This was created for Privacy Awareness Week, which is an annual promotion by the Asia Pacific Privacy Authorities (APPA) forum which includes the Privacy Commissioners of British Columbia and Canada.

It looks at things such as what’s in your wallet, online shopping, and credit/debit card use.

It’s worth spending the couple of minutes it takes to complete.   My challenge to you is to act on at least one thing you could do better.

For the London Free Press – Mar 3, 2010

Read this on Canoe

General public, especially Muslims, likely unintended target of move by U.K. police to monitor customers’ web travels

Internet cafes in the United Kingdom are the latest victims of privacy invasive counter terrorism measures. Scotland Yard recently asked Internet cafe owners to monitor customers’ use of public computers. The authorities are encouraging owners to check activity on their computers and keep an eye on any suspicious activity.

Yet police say it’s not about asking Internet cafe owners to spy on their customers.

These measures seem unreasonable and privacy invasive, and are likely to be ineffective.

This is similar to monitoring calls on a public phone, it has been pointed out.

Surely a criminal or terrorist using an Internet cafe would be savvy enough to hide their tracks.

Unfortunately, the general public will likely be the unintended victims of this initiative, similar to the suspicions raised against average people taking photographs in public places.

As Simon Davies, director of U.K.-based Privacy International, has said, “What you’re going to end up with is a lot of people reporting Muslims in Internet cafes.”

Police have stated that Internet cafes often have been used by terrorists and other criminals in order to evade police surveillance. The police noted that the men behind the plot to blow up U.S.-bound passenger jets with liquid explosives secreted into soft drink containers used an Internet cafe to plan their attack.

Posters and computer desktop images of Scotland Yard’s logo are being distributed to Internet cafes. They are sternly worded, warning customers against viewing “inappropriate or offensive content,” and stating “breaching the above will result in the user’s Internet access being terminated immediately and, where appropriate, the police being informed.”

This latest initiative can be seen as an extension of the suspicious attitude the UK police have against public photography. There are many reports that average people with cameras often are accused of suspicious activity, just for taking photographs.

In response to public outrage at police searching people’s cameras, Scotland Yard posted the following note on their website under “Photography Advice:”

“Officers have the power to view digital images contained in mobile telephones or cameras carried by a person searched under S43 of the Terrorism Act 2000 to discover whether the images constitute evidence that the person is involved in terrorism. Officers also have the power to seize and retain any article found during the search which the officer reasonably suspects may constitute evidence that the person is a terrorist. This includes any mobile telephone or camera containing such evidence.”

The official suspicion about photographers seems ironic in a nation having a massive number of surveillance cameras to watch the public’s every move.

One has to wonder whether the invasion of privacy, and the air of suspicion and fear such measures foster, is worth it, and whether these measures do anything at all to increase public safety, or are mere security theatre.