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

The quality of Canadian internet access continues to decline in comparison to that of other countries.  See, for example, previous Slaw posts here and here.   This while high speed access is more increasingly considered crucial for the economy,  competitiveness and innovation – even to the extent that many feel that the internet is a fundamental human right.  

The Canadian government talked about a digital strategy in its recent throne speech, but so far we don’t know what that translates to.

Contrast that with what is happening in the US.   The US FCC just announced an aggressive plan to upgrade internet access and speed.  The FCC says “Like electricity a century ago, broadband is a foundation for economic growth, job creation, global competitiveness and a better way of life.”

And Google plans to build trial locations to bring fiber to the home in at least 1 US city with speeds of 1 gigabit per second.  (That’s over 200 times faster than we get at home now.)   Google draws parallels to the space race.

University of Waterloo president David Johnston is quoted in a CBC article saying:   

For the London Free Press – September 21, 2009

Read this on Canoe

ONLINE ACCOUNTABILITY: It does not shield against civil or criminal wrongdoing

At its inception, the Internet was thought to be an unregulated medium. Online anonymity ensured that Net users could publish anything they desired without fear of repercussions.

But over time, courts have replied with an growing list of legal precedents limiting the anonymity of individuals who engage in unlawful behaviour online.

The issue came to the forefront recently with a decision of the New York State Supreme Court, which ordered Google and its Blogger.com subsidiary to release the name of the blogger who posted defaming comments directed at model Liskula Cohen.

The blog, entitled Skanks of NYC, posted malicious comments about Cohen’s appearance and other aspects of her personal life. Cohen wanted to sue to seek personal damages for defamation, but the identity of the blogger was unknown. Cohen brought an action to obtain the identity of the anonymous blogger from Google.

The blogger attempted to argue that the statements were hyperbole, which in the United States, at least, is protected speech and not actionable. They also contended that Internet blogs serve as a “modern day forum” for conveying personal opinions and that in this context any writings cannot be viewed as “factual assertions.”

In ordering the release of the blogger’s identity, the court held that “protection of the right to communicate anonymously must be balanced against the need to assure that those persons who choose to abuse the opportunities presented by this medium can be made to answer for such transgressions.”

Though the ruling received considerable media attention, the decision was not novel. In Canada, there have been numerous instances where courts have required Internet service providers to release the identity of an individual if evidence can be produced that the accused has committed illegal or actionable behaviour.

For example, in the Ontario case of Irwin Toy v. Doe in 2000, the court recognized some protection of online anonymity, finding the release of identity “should not be automatic upon the issuance of the statement of claim.”

The court noted both safety and public policy grounds for protecting the privacy of Internet users. In this case, the plaintiff was able to show grounds for a defamation case and the request was granted.

In cases where child pornography or other serious crimes are alleged, the decision to release personal information is relatively straightforward. The right of the offender to privacy is outweighed by the societal interest in preventing this behaviour.

In civil actions or lesser criminal matters, courts appear inclined to afford some degree of anonymity to the user unless a prima facie case can be argued for disclosure. In doing so, courts appear to recognize anonymity as an important right if not abused.

Individuals may find it both helpful and rewarding to post messages and seek advice about a variety of personal topics without fear of having their identity connected with their writings.

The anonymity offered by the Internet does not, however, serve as a shield against accountability for civil or criminal wrongdoing.

I received an email yesterday from the publisher of the Shelly Palmer blog pointing out a post entitled Senator Ted “Tubes” Stevens Indictment is Appropriate Metaphor for U.S. Communication Power Shift .  It uses Senator Ted “Tubes” Steven’s famous remarks to focus on the question of how tech savvy our political leaders are.  As the post points out, its scary that “Tubes” is the Vice Chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and a member of the Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Innovation. 

The post states:

Taken together, I started to wonder how would our current presidential candidates describe the Internet and its associated technology? Do they have a firm grasp on the issues surrounding our telecommunications future? Do they know what the technical limitations of the medium are? Is either candidate ready to lead us past the information age into the age of cloud computing, reduction mapping and explosive data?

The context of the post is the US presidential election – but its something we in Canada and indeed every country should ask ourselves.  To take it one step farther, we should ask if in addition to the technical issues, our elected officials understand the related social issues, and the expectations and understanding of a younger generation that has grown up knowing nothing but the Internet and the tools and opportunities it brings.

While Stevens’ “Tubes” remarks refers to pipes, the equivalent electronic metaphor might be vacuum tube politicians in a microchip age.

For example, there are many things in recent Canadian copyright bills that suggest the answer to those questions is no – and that no seems to be accross party lines.

Its all kind of scary if you ask me.

For the London Free Press – July 14, 2008

Read this on Canoe

For 16 days in November 2004, customers of Inform Cycle Ltd. were shocked and embarrassed to find unexpected content on what they believed to be Inform Cycle’s website.

Inform Cycle’s actual site was at informcycle.ca. A month prior, a disgruntled former employee of Inform Cycle had purchased the domain name InformCycle.com. He had hoped this “.ca” to “.com” variation would be enough to wreak havoc with Inform Cycle’s customers and owners.

The former employee, now employed with a competitor, initially set up the Web domain to redirect users to his current employer’s website.

On Nov. 7, 2004, the former employee changed the forwarding address for InformCycle.com to a pornographic website. He then left for vacation in Costa Rica.

In a decision by the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench released last month, the former employee was ordered to pay Inform Cycle $15,000, including aggravated and punitive damages.

Inform Cycle brought the action against its former employee citing the torts of passing off and defamation.

Passing off is about a misrepresentation that creates a public belief that the party at risk was associated with the action. It’s essentially a form of trade-mark infringement, usually found in cases in which a business leads customers to believe they are selling a better-known competitor’s product.

In this case, through his actions, the former employee tried to make it appear as though Inform Cycle was supporting a porn website. Obviously, the owners of the company were upset by being associated with this content. Without being able to disclose any financial evidence of direct loss of sales, the judge put this loss at $5,000.

Inform Cycle also argued that the former employee’s actions were a defamation of the company’s character. The decision states that the worldwide extent of the defamation over the Internet and the absence of any public apology on the part of the former employee exacerbated the company’s loss.

Though a company does not have a character in the general sense, it nonetheless has a reputation which the court felt deserving of compensation. This loss was put at a further $5,000.

Lastly, the court considered aggravated and punitive damages. Though a corporation can endure defamation of character, it is unable to suffer mental distress or hurt feelings and consequently cannot be compensated for aggravated damages. However, the malicious and oppressive conduct of this defendant so offended the “court’s sense of decency” that the judge awarded punitive damages of $5,000. It was an important deterrent to ensure such a grievous action was not replicated.

The courts recognize that the use of the Internet as a tool for committing such torts has the potential for wider damage than print media. With the assistance of the Internet and e-mail, damage to a character can potentially reach millions within seconds

Slaw has a post that has a quote from a just released Supreme Court of Canada case where the decision refers to blogging.  The context is a libel case where the judge talks about the “astounding quantity and variety of commentaries on issues of public interest, ranging from political debate in the House of Commons, to newspaper editorials, to comedians’ satire, to a high school student’s blog.”

I’m going to write an article that comments on this and ties it into the Streisand effect, but for now:

take a look at the Slaw post

For the London Free Press – June 2, 2008

Read this on Canoe

Check out the video

A common refrain when talking about people contributing to online pursuits such as writing Wikipedia articles is, “Where do people find the time?”

Author, consultant and New York University professor Clay Shirky, (shirky.com) says that time comes from the “cognitive surplus” that the sitcom has been hiding.

He explains this concept in a fascinating presentation that can be found by searching his name on blip.tv.

Shirky believes the social phenomenon known as “spare time” is being transformed and used for the creation of useful social outputs as the generation that spent hours every evening idly watching TV becomes extinct.

The thought behind Shirky’s analysis becomes clearer from an historical illustration. In the post-Industrial Revolution 18th century, society used gin to soothe the fear of idle time. Once people realized drinking gin was not a valuable use of time, the modern social welfare state was born.

In the post-Second World War era, society used TV to fill a similar void.

The activities which people generally participate in to fill time spent away from work, household chores and other responsibilities, have changed drastically over the last 50 years.

His point is that it takes time for a cognitive surplus to be seen as an asset, not a crisis. In other words, it takes time for people to experiment to discover how to manage free time. Once they do, it transforms society.

Society has now begun to fill the void with a new social phenomenon — “the architecture of participation” — best illustrated by the creation of Wikipedia by thousands of individuals without monetary compensation.

Shirky terms the superfluous time facing society as the “cognitive surplus.” Though this surplus has existed for years, only now is society slowly becoming aware of the advantages for growth, knowledge and education that can be created when the cognitive surplus is actively engaged. And of course, the Internet has made all this possible.

Shirky points out that perhaps as society realizes that idly watching TV is not a valuable use of time, the potential impact that Wikipedia and its Internet counterparts present will become more apparent, and we will be able to harness the advantages and generate valuable social outputs. Generally, society views doing something as better than doing nothing, especially when doing something can create positive productivity.

He is not suggesting that everyone should or will abandon pure entertainment pursuits such as TV. To put his theory into perspective, Shirky works out that the creation of Wikipedia has taken about 100 million hours of human thought. That’s a minor amount of time compared to the staggering one trillion hours that are spent watching TV worldwide each year.

That time has the potential to create 10,000 Wikipedia projects a year. The cognitive surplus is so enormous that even the smallest change can generate huge ramifications for society.

Shirky’s closing anecdote perhaps best captures his thinking. Even four year olds are aware of this new social phenomenon and are aware that “a screen that ships without a mouse ships broken.” If four year olds realize that media is no longer only a mindless one-way activity, shouldn’t the rest of us?

It takes time for a cognitive surplus to be seen as an asset, not a crisis.

The CRTC just announced that they will be having a public hearing in early 2009 about broadcasting and the new media environment. The CRTC regulates traditional broadcasters. In 1999 the CRTC decided that it would not deal with the internet.

From their press release:

In 1999, the Commission examined new media services that deliver broadcasting content over the Internet and concluded that regulation was not necessary to achieve the objectives of the Broadcasting Act.The Commission issued an Exemption Order for these services, observing that:

there was no discernible impact on conventional radio and television audiences attributed to new media services
market forces were providing for a Canadian presence on the Internet, which was supported by a strong demand for Canadian content, and
there was no evidence that the Internet had impacted the traditional broadcasters’ advertising revenues.
In 2007, the Commission issued a similar Exemption Order for broadcasting services that are received through cellphones, personal digital assistants (PDAs) and other mobile devices.

The CRTC has decided it is time to take a closer look.

From their press release:

The Commission has a responsibility to ensure that the broadcasting system is in a position to achieve the objectives of the Broadcasting Act, today as well as in the future, said Konrad von Finckenstein, Q.C., Chairman of the CRTC. New digital technologies and platforms are creating opportunities for the broadcast of professionally-produced Canadian content that simply didn’t exist a few years ago. Our intention is not to regulate new media, but rather to gain a better understanding of this environment and, if necessary, to propose measures that would support the continued achievement of the Broadcasting Act’s objectives.

Take a look at their press release and a speech from the chair for more details.

A web site has been set up to take public comments until June 15. It already has several comments, most of which are adamant that the CRTC keeps its hands off, or complain about ISP services.

Read the press release

Read the chair’s speech

Look at or make a comment

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.

For the London Free Press – March 3, 2008

Read this on Canoe

File-sharing programs are being installed on personal computers both in the home and at the office.

A recent incident in Newfoundland involving the file-sharing program Limewire on a government consultant’s computer shows how this type of software can lead to security and privacy breaches.

Limewire is but one example of file-sharing, or peer-to-peer (P2P) software that makes it easy to find and download things stored on other people’s computers. Most people think of the software just in the context of music or video, but they can be used to transfer any kind of file.

P2P software can be used for downloading copyrighted materials that one perhaps should not. But it also can be used to download material that the owner or creator is legitimately offering to share.

Many forget, however, that P2P software usually is configured to allow others to upload files from their own computer. Since that includes any type of file, it includes things such as spreadsheets containing personal finances, Microsoft Word documents containing personal information — and in the Newfoundland case, a database containing names, addresses, dates of birth and medical and work histories of dozens of people.

Discussions about file-sharing software usually focus on the downloading side, and the debate over the legalities of downloading music, video and software. Uploading issues are often overlooked.

The upside of these programs is that they allow computer users to share files with ease and without cost. The downside is that they often allow other computer users to access information on your personal computer with the same ease that you download new files.

This creates a significant security risk, but the answer is not necessarily to un-install any file-sharing programs you currently use.

One of the greatest risks for individuals using file-sharing programs is that their personal information could be accessed by potential identity thieves. Few people would like to have the contents of their hard drives available to the world to see.

The consequences for businesses could be wider ranging.

In the Newfoundland incident, the personal information of more than 150 people was exposed when an outside consultant installed Limewire on his computer. The information remained accessible for three weeks before a security company brought it to the Government’s attention.

For individuals, the answer is to make sure that file-uploading parameters in your P2P software are set so only specified file folders can be used to upload files from. Those file folders should contain only material that you would like to share with others.

Businesses should make its employees and consultants aware of the issue, especially where they may use home computers to work on company business occasionally. P2P software should not be installed on business computers unless it’s necessary, and upload folders should be controlled.

For the London Free Press – February 25, 2008

Read this on Canoe

If you’ve never heard of domain tasting, you’re not alone. To many looking to obtain Internet domain names, however, it’s a serious problem that is finally being addressed.

If you sign up for a new domain name, you are given a five-day grace period. Within this grace period you can cancel the domain name at no cost. This is meant to handle situations where domain name purchasers made a mistake, such as a spelling error.

This grace period has been exploited by people acquiring domain names in bulk. Through the use of software that automatically acquires domain names it is possible to test out large numbers of domain names to determine which ones have the potential to be profitable.

During the five-day grace period, click-through ads are placed on the temporarily acquired domains. If the ads generate sufficient revenue they may keep the domain names. This often occurs if the name is close to a real name, or is a logical guess at a web address. For the vast majority that have no immediate value, the domain names will be canceled within the five day grace period at no cost.

In other cases, the domain name will be allowed to lapse after five days and then be reacquired for an indefinite number of five-day periods. This practice of continually re-registering is known as kiting.

The sheer scale on which domain tasting can occur (as many as 90 per cent of new registrations can be attributed to domain tasting) makes it a problem largely due to its interference with those who want to get legitimate domain names for useful purposes.

After years of complaints, it seems that both Google and ICANN have decided to do something about the practice.

Google responded first by targeting domain tasters’ main source of revenue — advertisements placed on the temporarily registered domain names. Google recently announced it will not allow any Google AdSense ads to appear on domains that are being kited. AdSense allows domain registrants to generate web pages full of ads where no website content yet exists.

Google’s actions will undoubtedly have some impact. In the short term, domain tasters will be able to move to other platforms, unless they follow Google’s example. Some find Google’s decision to restrict the use of AdSense by domain tasters somewhat surprising, as they make money from the practice.

ICANN has looked at several potential methods of discouraging the practice of domain tasting. ICANN recently embraced the option of effectively deleting the grace period. This was accomplished by withdrawing ICANN’s waiver of ICANN’s non-refundable transaction fee to the deletion of names within the grace period.

While the fee is only 20 cents per registration, the scale of registrations should make this approach effective. In January, for example, 47,824,131 domain names were deleted. Ninety-five per cent of these deletes were by just 10 registrars. At $0.20 each, this would have cost over $9 million, significantly curtailing any chances for profit.

After years of complaints, it seems the growing problem of domain tasting may finally be solved.