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

Microsoft has just formally launched a new gesture based controller for the Xbox called Kinect (formerly known as Natal) to go on sale November 4.  And a new, more compact version of the X-box.

So what has this got to do with the office?

For now, this device can only be used with an Xbox – but there is no reason that the same technology could not be used with a PC for a Minority Report like interface.  Indeed, there is evidence that Microsoft has this in mind.

For now, here are some ideas for how business might use the Kinect and Xbox – such as a way to turn a slide show into a more interesting event.

For the London Free Press – May 31, 2010

Read this on Canoe

You’ll have to act fast to protect your brand

The country of Colombia is making its .co domain names available to those with no connection to the South American country. 

Typically, country level domains (such as .ca in Canada) can only be obtained by people within that country, or having some connection to the country. 

However, the Colombian government has recognized that the letters “co” are recognized the world over to mean company and/or corporation and has decided to cash in. 

Colombia is not the first country to do this. 

Anyone can pick up a .to domain name (Tonga) or a .cc domain name (Cocos Islands). A big success story is .tv, which brings a big annual income to the small island nation of Tuvalu. 

It is expected that first-time domain purchasers or those who have had to settle for sub-par domain names in the past will be first customers in line for .co. 

So how do you go about getting a .co domain name? 

The plan starts with a comprehensive “sunrise” period for trademark holders, a “landrush” period for those interested in names of high commercial value and finally “general availability.” 

Global sunrise began on April 23 and continues through June 10. Trademark holders within valid jurisdictions can apply for exact match domain names. 

To apply for a domain name during sunrise, you need to submit evidence of ownership of a trademark of national effect from any country in the world. In other words, if you have a Canadian trademark for “widget”, and it is not already taken, you can get widget.co in priority to others. 

Landrush will be held from June 21 through July 10. Anyone can apply for a domain name during this time. Single applications will be awarded at the end of the landrush and matching applications will be resolved at auction. 

Finally, general availability will begin on July 20 on a first-come, first-served basis. 

Details are at http://www.cointernet.co/. 

The operators of .co are advertising strong rights protections for brand owners. More specifically, .co will implement many of the rights protection mechanisms proposed by ICANN’s implementation recommendation team to safeguard the rights of brand owners around the world. 

Some of the key rights protection mechanisms and other protections announced by the .co registry include: 

• An IP clearinghouse to help brand owners secure their brands in .co during the sunrise process in an efficient and effective manner. 
• A policy to rapidly take down domains in cases where phishing, pharming, malware or other significant criminal and/or security threats have been established, including serial cyber-squatting. 
• A list of specially protected marks offering added protection to leading brands that the global consulting firm of Deloitte has independently identified as having made significant efforts to protect and enforce their trademarks in the domain name space. 

It would be worthwhile considering whether a .co domain name might be useful for your business. If so, take advantage of the process to attempt to obtain it before someone else does.

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

I thought for my first post on the shiny new Slaw format, I should talk about a shiny new object.  Over a million iPads have been sold so far. Many comments about the iPad can be found on Slaw, including my thoughts that the iPad will be the disruptive tipping point that will define the category. This kind of device will fundamentally change how we consume information.

Several competing products are expected to be on the market within the next few months, some of which will address some of the iPad’s missing features. Of course, fans will say that the missing features is a feature as they allow the iPad to perform what it does very well.  I’ve seen one close up, and it is indeed impressive.

I’m convinced that while an iPad is not a laptop replacement it may be a good alternative to a laptop, especially as a portable companion to one’s main computer.  For me, its not if I will get an iPad or a competing device, its when.   I’m impatiently holding on for a few months to see how the competition shakes out.

These 2 articles are worth a read.

A Gizmodo post entitled: The iPad Is Such A Great Travel Computer That I’m Selling My Laptop 

This post entitled: 5 Great Excuses to Buy an iPad for Your Business

UPDATE: And if not for a business tool – make a iPad controlled video blimp.

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

The Canadian government announced a consultation on the future of Canada’s digital economy at the Canada 3.0 conference this week. I encourage readers to add their thoughts to the consultation process – which is open for the next 60 days.

It is summarized as:

Digital technologies are critical to every aspect of our economy and society. That is why a strategy for the digital economy is needed to ensure that Canada is positioned to benefit from the opportunities that it presents.

All Canadians have a role to play in helping shape Canada’s digital future. Your perspectives, suggestions, ideas and submissions will be important inputs in the creation of our digital strategy. We appreciate your interest and participation.

This consultation, and the main message of the Canada 3.0 conference, is about building a digital media strategy for Canada so that by our 150th anniversary in 2017 everyone in Canada will be digitally connected. That’s both in the sense of connectivity, and how we use digital tools and media to work, learn, play, communicate,and manage our health.  The organizers are calling this the “Moonshot”.

The sentiment is that while Canada used to be a digital leader, we are falling behind.  And that the future of our country and economy depends on the aggressive adoption of new technology

Of course, this is an issue that is easy to state – but not so easy to do something about.  Questions include the roles of government vs business.  And differences in attitude and perspective of old vs new media. 

Some thoughts about the conference and this issue from a couple of people I know that were there are here and here.

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.

A CBS report earlier this week talked about the information that is contained on photocopier hard drives, and how it is there for the taking on used machines.   Many people don’t realize that when photocopiers changed from analogue to digital technology several years ago, they work by storing print and copy jobs on internal hard drives.  

That’s why, for example, when you make 10 photocopies, it scans the original only once, then prints the 10 copies.

Those hard drives store a vast history of whatever documents have been copied, printed, scanned, or received or sent by fax on the machine.

So when one gets rid of a photocopier, those documents, and whatever confidential, sensitive, or personal information is on them, goes with it.   It is important to deal with that so the information cannot be published or get into the wrong hands.

So what should organizations do?

If you are throwing out an old copier that you own, the most effective thing is to remove the hard drive and destroy the platters within it.  Destruction to the “smithereen” level is required.

If you are selling the copier, or if it is going back to a copier company as a trade-in, or at the end of its lease, talk to the copier company.   The most reliable option is retrieving the hard drive before it leaves your premises and destroying it – with the understanding that it will require a new one to be used.

If that’s not practical, hire someone to wipe the drive before it leaves, or get written assurances from the copier company that they will wipe it immediately – preferably before it leaves your premises.

Keep in mind that merely “deleting” files from and memory device is not enough.  That still leaves the actual files there.  

Also that this issue is not just for photocopiers.   It applies to any digital device with memory – such as cell phones, jumpdrives, and that new iPad.   Almost everything is digital, and a computer these days.

For more detail on this issue, see an article I wrote  a while back,  this “secure destruction fact sheet” by the Ontario Privacy Commssioner, and these “Guidelines for media sanitation” by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, which was based on work funded by the US Department of Homeland Security.  (Both of those are pdf files.)

The National Post ran a story yesterday after a JP refused to allow defence counsel to use his laptop in the courtroom, on the basis that it violated a rule against electronic recording devices.  The trial was adjourned because his notes were on it, and he could not proceed without it.

The tech law community is collectively scratching its heads about this for many reasons.   Some judges and lawyers understand the advantages of and encourage tech in the courtroom, but others, as the article quotes Mr. Justice Thomas Granger:   “look on computers with disdain, clinging to ancient courtroom traditions.”

In my view, even if counsel was to record the proceedings for his/her own use – what’s the harm in that?    As I’ve said before, “because we’ve always done it that way” is never a good answer.

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

We have not heard much about this lately, partly because a summary judgment in 2007 stated that Novell owned the Unix code.   A jury confirmed last week that SCO had not acquired the copyright to Unix from Novell in an asset purchase agreement.

The significance of this to the world at large is that Linux was derived from Unix.  SCO launched a long standing battle claiming it owned Unix, and thus had rights to certain code within Linux, and thus the right to be compensated for Linux use. 

Apparently, SCO is not yet giving up though – there is some suggestion that it might continue the fight, however futile it might be.

For more details, see this Groklaw post.

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

Omar wrote recently about the Tory’s iPhone app.   And some individuals, such as Michael Geist and Jim Carroll have created iPhone apps.  They essentially provide an iPhone friendly way to consume one’s web site, blogs, twitter, etc.

There is another point of view that says to forget that kind of iPhone app - and just make your web site or blog phone friendly.  This point of view essentially says that people don’t want to download an app for every site they want to go to.  And not everyone has an iPhone.

My blog, for instance, is readable on a mobile device, but leaves a lot of white space that is easy to get lost in.   I added a plugin this morning to test it out, which makes it easier to read on a phone.  Its not perfect, and leaves off a couple of things I’d like to have, but it is certainly easier to use. 

Any new web page or redesign should be done with mobile consumption in mind. 

What do Slaw readers think – go for the iPhone app, or focus on mobile friendly?

The iPad will start shipping in a few weeks.  While it is perhaps the first to market, the standard to which all others will be compared, and will no doubt sell in large numbers - it is by no means the only option.   I’ve read estimates of 50 to 100 similar devices in the works. 

More news on the HP slate is on engadget today.   From what I have seen so far, I would prefer that – or something similar based on the Windows Phone 7 OS (I have not seen anything about that – but its a logical way to go) to the iPad.

IMHO these devices are revolutionary and will fundamentally change the way we consume what is now traditional print media.   They will be pervasive within fairly short order.   Why has this not been done before?   Its a matter of getting a device with sufficient computing power, battery life, light weight, and useability - at a low enough  price point.

This will become far more than just virtually flipping newspaper or magazine pages.  See this Wired video for what we might expect.

And I suspect we will find them useful for business, as well as personal use.

I’m holding off for a bit to see how the various devices perform -  hopefully I will have one by the end of the year.

UPDATE:  Here’s an eWeek article I just found that delves into this in more detail.