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

To call a smart-phone a phone is really a misnomer. We need to think of them as computers with internet connections that we carry around in our pockets.

Why is this an important distinction? From a legal perspective, that changes the perspective tremendously. Consider Connie Crosby’s Slaw post “Digital Wallets on Their Way” , and the comment on the post musing about privacy and the warrant-less search of cellphones that is being debated in various jurisdictions.

The privacy aspects of a phone that just makes phone calls without retaining any information, and the consideration of whether law enforcement needs a warrant to look at it – are much different than for the devices we have now. Legislators and courts need to consider that looking at a person’s phone may be the equivalent of walking into their house and looking at their bank statements, credit card bills, reading material, photo albums, and mail, and while they are there, nosing around on their computer to see all the files, email and whatever else is there including the sites they visit.

Considerering just the phone aspect for the moment, they track and save data on not only what calls you made, to who, and for how long – but also where you were when you made the call.

Other information that might reside on our cell phones include personal and confidential information such as banking information, health information, where we have been and when, and records of communications on various platforms that are meant to be private. Also consider that for many it is not only personal use, but also business use that will contain personal and confidential information of others.

And while you can make phone calls on smartphones, consider the other devices that they replace, and other things that they do:

Digital wallet, GPS, map, tracking device, camera, video camera, email client, social media client, phone directory, calendar, note pad, to do list, grocery list, book reader, magazine reader, newspaper reader, web browser, clock, alarm clock, file storage, dictation device, music player, video player, video game player, radio, video-phone, TV, dictionary, encyclopedia, research assistant, comparison shopper, calculator, wi-fi hot spot, bar code scanner, ephemeris, music composer, video / music editor, cookbook, translator, metronome, flashlight, level, … and the list goes on.

For the London Free Press – November 28, 2011 – Read this on Canoe

Social media blurs the lines between the personal and work life of employees, and employers are faced with the difficult task of regulating its use in and out of the workplace.

Social media can be beneficial for a business. It can be used for advertising, marketing, networking and keeping in touch with customers. On the other hand, it can be detrimental to a business if employees use social media to criticize their employers, customers or the products they sell.

Over a year ago, a Best Buy employee in Missouri was almost fired for making a video that portrayed an electronics store employee trying to convince someone to buy a phone other than an iPhone.

The video didn’t identify Best Buy, but the employee was suspended and almost fired because Best Buy found the video was “openly disparaging of our employees, our customers and our vendor partners.”

In September, a Starbucks barista from California was fired after he made a video of himself singing. In the song, called The Starbucks Rant Song, he makes fun of customers, products and the company.

Three months after it was posted on YouTube, Starbucks found out about it and fired him. Even though the barista said the video was just an attempt at satire, his lyrics were certainly a criticism of his employer.

In these two situations, both videos were made outside of the workplace. The question is whether they cross a line that allows an employer to do something about it.

The American National Labor Relations Board released a report on the outcome of investigations into cases involving use of social media. The board took the position regardless of whether there is a social media policy, an employer “can’t discipline employees who discuss workplace responsibilities and performance together online, even if the online conversation includes swearing or insults.”

It also states if a business does have a policy, they should “make sure it does not try to control what employees can say and cannot say about the company. If it does, you can be in trouble with the NLRB.”

That perspective rings true in Canada as well. But that’s not to say employees have free reign to say whatever they want on personal social media channels. If an employee discloses an employer’s confidential information in a tweet, the employer would have cause for concern no different than if the employee said it in a work e-mail.

But if the employee is criticizing his or her employer, or stating a personal opinion that might be different than management’s — the employer’s best response may be to do nothing.

A good way to reduce chances of misuse of social media is to have a social media policy that sets expectations. A tool to create a social media policy can be found at policytool.net.

There is proposed legislation in the US that would give broad rights to block entire web sites based on mere allegations that a small part of it might have some infringing content.   The legislation is backed by the entertainment industry as an anti-piracy measure.  There is a groundswell of opposition against the legislation, but it is still very possible that it could become law.

Mike Masnick of Techdirt has a great article explaining in detail what the problem is.

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

The trend to more invasive surveillance and control by North American governments (indeed, by many countries that we consider civilized democracies), or their granting of too much control to others is disturbing. Too many things are making creeping (and sometimes creepy) inroads into privacy rights, along with the usual specious “if you’ve got nothing to hide… ” argument. Too many things are tending towards shoot first, ask questions later. And governments are too eager to look to ISP’s and others who run the internet pipes to control what flows through.

Some examples:

The proposed US SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) that is being loudly opposed. It has been characterised as net censorship, an attempt to regulate the internet, and breaking the internet as we know it. It could result in entire web sites being taken down based merely on an allegation that one post or comment infringes copyright.

The proposed Canadian Lawful Access legislation that would allow much more invasive internet information to be given to authorities without warrants. This resulted in a lengthy letter by the Privacy Commissioner to the Ministers responsible.

The increasing use of license plate cameras by police, such as in the Washington DC area. In its simplest, most privacy friendly form, car mounted or fixed cameras read car license plates and flag any that are contained in a database of stolen or suspect vehicles. No record is kept of any plates other than those of interest. But it has come to light that some of the systems store the details of every single plate that they capture, and retain that for long periods of time.

If you are looking for Christmas gift ideas, consider this Orchestra London gift pack – 4 tickets for $99.  Go here for more details, and to buy.  Choices include classical, pop, and rock.

(Disclosure – I’m on the Orchestra London board.)

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

I am attending the Dig2011 conference today. Several hundred people will be at the London Convention Centre today and tomorrow to hear about topics in 2 different streams – the digital game industry, and the web industry. (Harrison Pensa is a sponsor.)

The second day includes a mini-MBA for budding game development companies, and a high school stream with panels on the path and options leading to a successful game development career.

There are good employment opportunities in this sector. Companies in the game and software development business are having difficulty finding qualified employees. But just because one likes to play video games, or can create a spreadsheet doesn’t mean you can create a game or software.

The conference also features an exhibitor area, and a place to play the latest Canadian made games. And don’t think that “Canadian made games” connotes few or inferior products. Canada actually has a significant concentration of game developers, which create some of the most popular games.

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

Drafting proper trade-mark use descriptions when registering a trade-mark is important to get the right protection. Drafting uses can sometimes be a challenge when the wares or services the mark is used for is new and changing technology. The use description must accurately describe the wares and services the mark is used for, must stand the test of time, and must satisfy CIPO’s (Canadian Intellectual Property Office) rules on use descriptions.

Software is a good example of how things can rapidly change. If a business is selling software in the traditional manner where the user installs it on his/her computer, then from a trade-mark perspective, the software is a ware. It might be described, for example, as “Computer software for [describe function]“.

But if that software is being provided as an online service, then from a trade-mark perspective it is not a ware, it is a service. It might be described, for example, as “Online service providing [describe function]“.

Then we get to the smartphone world. If it is an app installed on a phone, it would be software. If it is coded in html5 and used through the phone’s browser, then it is a service.

Since wares and services are considered to be different things, you can get into the position where, for example, software brand X might be considered confusing with software brand X1 – but not be considered confusing with service brand X1 that provides the same function to the user.

For the London Free Press – November 7, 2011 – Read this on Canoe

The Canadian government recently introduced Bill C-12 (the Safeguarding Canadians’ Personal Information Act) that contains amendments to the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA).

The PIPEDA privacy legislation charted new territory when it was enacted a few years ago. Most of these amendments are a result of things learned since then, and have been contemplated for some time.

For example, the new bill amends the “business card exemption” to make it clear that one’s business e-mail address is not personal information.

It was a glaring error when a person’s business telephone number and physical address was deemed not to be personal information, but their business e-mail address was considered personal information.

Provisions are included to govern privacy issues when personal information is transferred during corporate mergers and acquisitions. That includes things such as customer information. This was another glaring error that needed to be corrected.

One of the controversial sections of PIPEDA was the ability (but not the obligation) to provide personal information to government authorities if they provide the custodian of the information with proof of its “lawful authority.”

The meaning of “lawful authority” has been debated over the years. Out of an abundance of caution, many organizations simply required a subpoena or court order before they would turn personal information over to police.

The proposed amendments contain a provision saying that lawful authority means something other than a subpoena or court order. But this addition is not helpful in describing what lawful authority is.

The amendments contain lengthy provisions that will, for the first time, require disclosure of privacy breaches. When enacted, these provisions will require certain breaches to be reported to either the privacy commissioner, to individuals who may be affected, or both.

Not all privacy breaches must be disclosed. The amendments list various factors to determine whether a breach is material and thus must be disclosed to the commissioner.

Factors include the sensitivity of the personal information, the number of individuals affected, and whether the breach indicates there is a systemic problem.

The test to determine whether a breach must be disclosed to individuals is slightly different, being whether “the breach creates a real risk of significant harm to the individual.”

The tests to determine when the thresholds have been reached to require disclosure to the commissioner or the public are somewhat subjective. No doubt the privacy commissioner will interpret the thresholds to be lower than some entities facing a breach would interpret it.

It will be interesting to see how the breach disclosure sections work in practice. Some entities have been very forthright about disclosing privacy breaches. They may consider it the right thing to do, or fear the headline risk if the fact there was a breach is disclosed by another source.

Of course, we may not know how many privacy breaches have not been disclosed that these sections will now require to be disclosed.

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

This actually seems to be more of a marketing campaign for Dell and Intel than a movement, but Happy IT Day to Information Technology professionals anyway.

It’s time to celebrate and recognize the efforts of all IT professionals across Canada. Let’s thank our IT heroes for the hard work and long hours they put in everyday. Show your appreciation by saying “thank you” in your own way!

Perhaps the hotel industry will need the services of some IT professionals soon in light of this New York Times article entitled IPads Change Economics, and Speed, of Hotel Wi-Fi that says that the demand on hotel Wi-Fi has increased dramatically over the last year and a half because of guests with iPads. In addition to investing in the hardware to meet the demand, hotels struggle with how to pay for it. Most guests expect it for free – or at least not at daily rates of around $13.00 per night that sone charge.