Columns

Supreme Court Confirms Privacy Survives in the Workplace

Millions of Canadians go to work each day, turn on their workplace computers, and wonder whether they have also shut off their privacy. Many employers seek to remove any reasonable expectation of privacy by telling employees that they should not expect any privacy when using workplace computers during company time.

Earlier this month, the Supreme Court of Canada grappled with the question of workplace privacy and arrived a somewhat different conclusion. My weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) notes it ruled that the workplace environment may diminish an employee’s reasonable expectation of privacy, but it does not remove the expectation altogether.

November 2, 2012 — 3 comments — Columns

CRTC Pushes Bill of Rights for Consumers

Earlier this month, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission invited the public to help create a national code of conduct for wireless companies such as Bell, Rogers, and Telus. The consultation is expected to generate widespread interest, providing frustrated consumers with an outlet for grievances on lengthy contracts, problematic terms and conditions, exorbitant roaming costs, or onerous cancellation fees.

My weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) notes the decision to embark on a national, enforceable code of conduct for wireless services supported by the wireless carriers represents a dramatic policy shift that was scarcely imaginable only a few years. Indeed, when then-Industry Minister Maxime Bernier pushed through a policy direction to the CRTC in 2006 aimed at limiting regulation by calling for “greater reliance on market forces”, consumer-focused regulations were viewed as an impossibility. Consistent with the market-led approach, the Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association introduced a voluntary code of conduct in 2009 with no expectation of government regulation.

The move toward new regulations provides a valuable lesson on the role that the provinces can play to jumpstart otherwise stagnating issues. In the case of wireless services, the introduction of provincial consumer protections geared specifically toward the wireless sector ultimately encouraged the carriers to drop their opposition to new regulation as they recognized that a uniform federal policy was preferable to the emerging piecemeal provincial framework.

October 23, 2012 — 8 comments — Columns

The CRTC’s Big Shift: From Tangible Benefits to the Public Interest

Last week’s Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications decision to reject the proposed Bell – Astral merger surprised most observers, as few predicted with much confidence that the deal would be flatly rejected. There was good reason to doubt such an outcome, given that the CRTC review of the merger transactions has historically focused on the “tangible benefits” package that often provide millions in funding for new Canadian television and radio productions.

The result was largely regulatory theatre. The purchaser would typically unveil a benefits package featuring self-interested proposals, often amend those plans at the CRTC hearing to demonstrate it was sensitive to criticisms from various groups, and the CRTC would proceed to further tweak the package to show it was not ready to rubber stamp the transaction.

My extra Toronto Star column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) notes the process generally served the companies and the tangible benefits recipients well. The merging companies were reasonably assured of getting their deal approved and the tangible benefits recipients received hundreds of millions in funding with few strings attached. â€¨â€¨The problem was that the public was missing from this process. Tough policy issues with a direct impact on the public were put off for another day as the public interest was supposedly served by trickle down benefits generated by market efficiencies or the creation of new Canadian programming.

October 22, 2012 — 5 comments — Columns

Internet Governance World Meets in Toronto Amid New Domains Controversy

The Internet governance world gathers in Toronto this week as the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), the California-based non-profit corporation charged with the principal responsibility for maintaining the Internet’s domain name system, holds one of its meetings in Canada for only the third time. My weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) notes the Toronto ICANN meeting comes at a particularly tumultuous time for the organization with mounting criticism over its process for creating new domain name extensions that could reshape the Internet.

After years of debate and discussion, ICANN last year unveiled a policy that opened the door to hundreds of new domain name extensions. While most Internet users are accustomed to the current generic (dot-com, dot-net, and dot-org) and country-code (dot-ca in Canada) extensions, ICANN’s plans will radically change the domain name landscape by creating hundreds of new extensions linked to brand names, geographic regions, and even generic words.

October 16, 2012 — 6 comments — Columns

Random Government Takedown Demands Point to Need for Policy

Given the enormous popularity of social media, establishing a foothold on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and other popular websites has become a top priority for most organizations. The same is true for the federal government, which last year released a lengthy policy document that established the rules for departmental engagement with “Web 2.0” sites and tools.

The policy document encourages officials to use the sites “as an efficient and effective additional channel to interact with the public”, noting that the Internet offers opportunities for public consultation, recruitment, collaboration, and the provision of government services.

The government acknowledges that there are risks, however. These include potential misuse of government content or the possibility of negative perceptions associated with official use. While the document establishes a myriad of rules and guidelines for use of these services, it surprisingly does not consider how to respond to the negative risks.

My weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) notes the absence of policy direction may be partially to blame for recent revelations of government department demands to Google to remove certain content from its search database or websites. The haphazard manner in which these demands have occurred demonstrate the dangers of proceeding in an ad hoc manner in which officials race to demand the removal of lawful content without uniform policies or guidelines.

October 9, 2012 — 6 comments — Columns