Columns

Canadian Universities Too Closed Minded on Open Access

This week is International Open Access Week with universities around the world taking stock of the emergence of open access as a critical part of research and innovation. The basic principle behind open access is to facilitate public access to research, particularly research funded by taxpayers. This can be achieved by publishing in an open access journal or by simply posting a copy of the research online.

In recent years, many countries have implemented legislative mandates that require researchers who accept public grants to make their published research results freely available online within a reasonable time period. While Canada has lagged, a growing number of funding agencies, including the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Canadian Cancer Society, and Genome Canada have adopted open access policies.

The result is unprecedented public access to cutting-edge research. There are now more than 4,000 peer-reviewed open access academic journals worldwide and more than 30 million articles freely available through Scientific Commons. An estimated 20 percent of the world’s medical literature is openly accessible within two years of first publication. Nearly ten percent is immediately available. Moreover, there is budding momentum behind open educational resources, or open access teaching materials. A growing number of governments foresee significant benefits – both economic and pedagogical – behind developing open educational resources that could supplement or replace conventional textbooks.

Notwithstanding the success stories, my weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) argues that two major barriers remain.

October 19, 2009 — 6 comments — Columns

Do-Not-Call List Undermined By Loopholes in the Law

This month marks the one-year anniversary of the launch of Canada's do-not-call list. Over the past 12 months, millions of Canadians have registered their numbers on the list and filed hundreds of thousands of complaints with the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, which is tasked with enforcing the law. While the CRTC has found itself subject to considerable criticism for investigating only a small percentage of complaints and levying just a handful of fines for do-not-call violations, my weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) notes that a review of tens of thousands of complaints obtained under the Access to Information Act reveals a potentially bigger problem.

Many of Canada's best-known companies have been the target of frequent complaints, yet are not subject to investigation due to the large number of exceptions found in the law. This has led to genuine dismay, with many people using a comment section in the complaint form to register their disappointment with the do-not-call list.

Working together with University of Ottawa students Sean Murtha and Frances Munn, I recently reviewed more than 60,000 complaints released by the CRTC. The complaints were lodged in late 2008 and early 2009 using the do-not-call list's Internet-based complaints mechanism. In each case, the complaint included all relevant information with the exception of the complainant's name and telephone number, which were excluded for privacy reasons. There were hundreds of complaints about automated calls promising cruise vacations or lawncare services. But the undisputed leader among reputable companies was Bell Canada, which alone was the subject of nearly one thousand complaints. In fact, the wireless sector had the distinction of taking the top three spots with Rogers and Telus ranking second and third respectively. There were also hundreds of complaints against Canada's top financial institutions and retailers including RBC, CIBC, Scotiabank, TD Canada Trust, and Sears.

October 13, 2009 — 23 comments — Columns

Lobbyist Pressure Focused on Watering Down Anti-Spam Bill

The introduction last spring of Bill C-27 – the Electronic Commerce Protection Act – represented the culmination of years of effort to address concerns that Canada is rapidly emerging as a spam haven. Industry Minister Tony Clement’s anti-spam bill has steadily made its way through the legislative process, with the Standing Committee on Industry likely to conduct its final "clause by clause" review over the next two weeks.

Although support for anti-spam legislation would seemingly be uncontroversial, my weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) notes that various business groups have mounted a spirited attack against the bill, claiming requirements to obtain to user consent before sending commercial email will create new barriers to doing business online. The Conservative MPs on the committee have remained supportive of the bill, yet Liberal MPs have expressed growing concern about some of the bill’s provisions.

A close examination reveals that the bill sets reasonable limits for online marketing consistent with laws found in countries such as Australia, New Zealand, and Japan. In fact, there are four major caveats to the consent requirement.

October 5, 2009 — 11 comments — Columns

Van Loan’s Misleading Claims: Case for Lawful Access Not Closed

The push for new Internet surveillance capabilities – dubbed the "lawful access" initiative – dates back to 1999, when government officials began crafting proposals to institute new surveillance technologies within Canadian networks along with additional legal powers to access surveillance and subscriber information. Over the past decade, lawful access has stalled despite public consultations, bills that have died on the order paper, and even a promise from former public safety minister Stockwell Day to avoid mandatory disclosure of personal information without court oversight. Last June, current Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan tabled the latest lawful access legislative package. Much like its predecessors, the bill establishes new surveillance requirements for Internet service providers. In an about-face from the Day commitment however, it also features mandatory disclosure of customer information, including name, address, IP address, and email address upon request and without court oversight.

My weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, Ottawa Citizen version, homepage version) notes that lawful access has long faced at least two significant barriers. The first involves ISP costs associated with installing new equipment and responding to disclosure requests. The government has attempted to address those concerns by promising to help pay the bills. It plans to provide some funding for new equipment and, in a little noticed provision, has opened the door to paying ISPs for providing customer name and address information to law enforcement authorities.

September 29, 2009 — 38 comments — Columns

CIRA Should Give Out Domains, Not Door Prizes

CIRA, the agency that administers the dot-ca domain name, holds its annual general meeting in Toronto today. Attendees will vie for door prizes and hear from executives about the growing number of Canadian domain name registrations, the robust financial health of the organization, and a small list of corporate by-law amendments. Yet as CIRA moves into its second decade, my weekly technology law column (homepage version, Toronto Star version) argues the promise of a leading Internet voice in Canada and an active, engaged membership is gradually fading away.

Engaging Canadians was viewed as a top priority during the organization’s early years (I was a board member from 2001-06). Meetings were held in communities across the country in an effort to educate Canadians on the dot-ca and to encourage participation in Internet governance issues. The annual general meeting was webcast to ensure all Canadians could attend, even if only virtually. While CIRA never managed to become a household name – many registrants simply want their website or email to work without regard for bigger policy issues – it could count on hundreds of Canadians to vote for the board of directors, participate in consultations, and show their interest in how Canada’s domain name space should be managed.

Today, most of that interest and energy has disappeared. CIRA has been largely absent from the public policy issues of the day and few members show much interest in its governance. This year, only three people were able to muster the necessary 20 indications of member support in order to appear on a board of director ballot. In fact, one member became so frustrated with CIRA’s support for election debate that he created his own site at ciratalk.ca. Perhaps the greatest failure, however, has been the stagnation in parlaying the organization’s financial success into a bigger contribution to the Canadian Internet landscape. Rather than focusing on Canada’s domain name registration statistics, where Canada ranks in the middle of the pack as compared with other developed countries, it is worth considering how it has fallen behind other country-code domain names in allocating resources toward Internet public interest initiatives.

September 22, 2009 — 4 comments — Columns