Columns

Net Neutrality is Back but is Bernier Listening?

My weekly Law Bytes column (Toronto Star version, homepage version ) discusses the renewed net neutrality concerns in Canada in light of comments from Videotron President Robert Depatie promoting the establishment of a new Internet transmission tariff that would require content creators of all sizes to fork over millions of dollars for the right to transmit content to ISP subscribers. I note that there is mounting evidence that content and application discrimination is already here. In Canada, the Depatie remarks join a handful of examples that include Telus' 2005 decision during a labour dispute to block access to a website that supported its union (blocking hundreds of additional websites in the process), Shaw Cable's ten dollar surcharge for "premium" Internet telephony service (which generated a complaint to the CRTC from Vonage, a leading Internet telephony provider), and Rogers' decision to limit bandwidth for legitimate peer-to-peer software applications (without full public disclosure of the practice).

While opponents of network neutrality legislation argue that a competitive marketplace removes the need for government intervention, the reality is that the market for broadband services in Canada is at best an oligopoly. Most Canadians have limited choice, with consumers in urban areas choosing between indistinguishable cable and telephone Internet packages, while Canadians in rural communities are often left with no broadband options at all.

In light of the current environment, a recent Canadian telecommunications policy review directly addressed the network neutrality issue.

November 6, 2006 — 5 comments — Columns

Government Docs Highlight Lawful Access Strategy

My weekly Law Bytes column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) reports on government documents obtained under the Access to Information Act that provide some insight into how officials view, and have managed, Internet surveillance legislation. It uncovers a clear recognition of the negative public reaction to the lawful access proposals, a divide-and-conquer strategy for managing that reaction, and lingering internal doubts about the effectiveness of Canadian privacy legislation to address Internet privacy threats.

The negative public reaction is no secret to anyone who has followed the issue through the media. Indeed, a Department of Justice memorandum drafted just after the last federal election acknowledges that "although the public generally responds positively to the idea of 'getting tough on crime', proposals to introduce new investigative tools raise concerns about the surveillance powers of the state and the public’s underlying anxiety is heightened by the media and statements of privacy and civil liberties advocates." The memorandum continues by noting that "in the past, media coverage (albeit based on inaccurate and misleading interpretations) was highly critical and alarmist. Almost all stakeholders indicated generally that the lawful access proposals seemed to be moving ahead without the government having provided a convincing justification for the new measures."

With internal discussion focusing on public anxiety and critical media coverage, the issue may be well be viewed as a political liability that is best avoided by a minority government.

Should lawful access legislation be reintroduced, officials will be armed with detailed analysis of how stakeholder groups are likely to react.

October 30, 2006 — Comments are Disabled — Columns

Time To Cast A Vote Against E-Voting

My weekly Law Bytes column (Toronto Star version, homepage version ) discusses the upcoming municipal elections in Ontario and the growing use of electronic voting machines and Internet voting. For example, several Ontario municipalities, including Markham and Peterborough, now offer Internet-based voting, enabling local residents to vote without leaving their homes. Closer examination of electronic and Internet voting reveals some significant dangers that should not be overlooked, however.

Democracy depends upon a fair, accurate, and transparent electoral process with outcomes that can be independently verified. Conventional voting accomplishes many of these goals – private polling stations enable citizens to cast their votes anonymously, election day scrutineers offer independent oversight, and paper-based ballots provide a verifiable outcome that can be re-counted if necessary.

While technology may someday allow us to replicate these essential features online, many of them are currently absent from Internet voting, which is subject to any number of possible disruptions, including denial of service attacks that shut down the election process, hacks into the election system, or the insertion of computer viruses that tamper with election results.

Electronic voting machines are similarly prone to error.

October 23, 2006 — 9 comments — Columns

Does YouTube Deal Foreshadow Licensed P2P?

My weekly Law Bytes column (Toronto Star version, homepage version , BBC version ) examines the parallels between YouTube and Napster, asking whether the YouTube – Google deal might foreshadow licensed peer-to-peer systems. While some media companies, including Time Warner, speculated publicly late last week about possible lawsuits, it is […]

October 16, 2006 — 3 comments — Columns

The Parallel Politics of the Environment and Copyright

The Hill Times this week features my special op-ed (Hill Times version, homepage version) on the parallels between the environment and copyright as mainstream political issues. The similarities start with language – environmental advocates speak of protecting the environment and sustainable resources, while copyright advocates focus on the need to […]

October 9, 2006 — 3 comments — Columns