Columns

Government Should Lift Veil on ACTA Secrecy

My weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) focuses on the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), which was shrouded in secrecy until a leaked summary of the agreement appeared on the Internet last month, and which has sparked widespread opposition as Canadians worry about the prospect of a trade deal that could lead to invasive searches of personal computers and increased surveillance of online activities. Last week, Canadian negotiators huddled with representatives from countries such as the United States, European Union, and Japan at the U.S. Mission in Geneva to continue the negotiations.

While documents obtained under the Access to Information Act reveal internal ACTA discussions as early as 2006, the trade negotiations only came to the Canadian public's attention last fall when International Trade Minister David Emerson revealed the government's intention to participate in the negotiations. Since the announcement, the Canadian government has been among the most secretive of all ACTA negotiating partners. The Department of Foreign Affairs conducted a public consultation on the treaty in April; however, the government revealed little about either the timing or substance of the agreement. By comparison, Australia launched a public consultation on the treaty before committing to participate in the ACTA talks.

Fears about the ACTA have spilled into the political arena as NDP MP Charlie Angus last week voiced concerns about its effects during Question Period in the House of Commons and Toronto-area Liberal MP Bob Rae blogged that it "augurs a ridiculously intrusive national and international apparatus to police practices that are as common as eating and breathing." With another round of talks set for next month in Japan, the government should use the opportunity to pressure its trading partners to lift the veil of ACTA secrecy. Trade negotiators may prefer to remain outside of the spotlight, yet greater transparency is desperately needed.

June 9, 2008 — 7 comments — Columns

Digital Advocacy Comes to Parliament Hill

Last week, hundreds of Canadians descended on Parliament Hill in Ottawa for a public rally in support of net neutrality, a contentious issue that focuses on the need for Internet service providers (ISPs) to treat all content and applications in an equal, non-discriminatory manner. The event succeeded in attracting politicians from two major political parties, labour leaders, independent ISPs, and individuals concerned with the Internet in Canada. My weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, Ottawa Citizen version, Vancouver Sun version, homepage version) notes that while it is tempting to view the rally as an anomaly, it is more accurately seen as just the latest in a series of advocacy actions around the world that illustrate both how digital issues are rapidly moving into the policy mainstream and how the Internet can be used to mobilize offline advocacy.

June 3, 2008 — 4 comments — Columns

Canadians Stuck With Analog Rights in a Digital World

My weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, Ottawa Citizen version, Vancouver Sun version, homepage version) notes that earlier this month, some fans of the NBC television programs American Gladiators and Medium found themselves unable to digitally record the shows on their personal computers. The reason for the blocked recordings raises important technical and legal questions about the rights of consumers to "time shift" television programs in the digital era. The blocked recordings affected people that record television programs on their personal computers using the Microsoft Windows Vista Media Centre. Most people are unaware that Microsoft has inserted a feature that allows a broadcaster or content owner to stop the digital recording of a show by triggering a "broadcast flag" that specifies its preference that the show not be recorded. When the user tries to record it, Microsoft’s software recognizes the flag and issues a warning that the program cannot be recorded.

May 28, 2008 — 10 comments — Columns

Ten More Questions for Industry Minister Prentice

Last fall, as Industry Minister Jim Prentice was preparing to introduce new copyright legislation, I wrote an article in the Hill Times posing ten questions to Prentice about the forthcoming bill. Many of the questions – which focused on issues such as flexibility in implementing international copyright treaties, concern about the bill from the privacy community, fears about the impact of the law on security research, and doubts about the constitutionality of the proposal – remain unanswered. Yet the six-month copyright delay has raised many more questions, including the following ten, which appear in this week's Hill Times (Hill Times version (sub req), homepage version):

1. Days before you were scheduled to introduce the copyright bill, you claimed that Canadian business executives were anxious for copyright reform. In February 2008, however, the Business Coalition for Balanced Copyright, which features a who’s who of Canadian business (Telus, Rogers, Cogeco, SaskTel, MTS Allstream, Google, Yahoo, Retail Council of Canada, and Canadian Association of Broadcasters) spoke out against U.S.-style copyright legislation and in favour of an expanded fair dealing provision. Why is Canada's Industry Minister prepared to ignore the concerns of Canadian business?

2. In recent months countries such as New Zealand and Israel have enacted wide ranging copyright reforms that have either rejected the U.S. approach or included significant flexibility to preserve the copyright balance. Why are those countries able to strike a balance in the face of U.S. pressure, yet Canada appears ready to cave to U.S. insistence that it follow its much-criticized model?

May 26, 2008 — 9 comments — Columns

Senate Spam Bill Important First Step After Years of Inaction

The Canadian government's lack of action against spam has been one of the most puzzling policy failures in recent years. While addressing a problem that has grown from a mere nuisance to a costly scourge that raises criminal concerns would seem like a no-brainer, successive Industry Ministers have failed to prioritize the issue. The need for Canadian anti-spam legislation was the unanimous recommendation of the 2005 National Task Force on Spam, which included members from the Internet, marketing, and consumer communities (I was a member of the task force). The final report, which was received with approval from the current Conservative (then Liberal) Minister David Emerson, noted that Canada was quickly becoming one of the only Western countries to neglect the issue and was at risk of developing into a haven for spammers seeking refuge in countries with lax anti-spam regulations.

While a government-backed anti-spam bill is still nowhere to be seen, my weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) focuses on the fact that earlier this month Senator Yoine Goldstein quietly stepped into the policy void by introducing the Anti-Spam Act (ASA). Modeled after widely lauded Australian anti-spam legislation, the ASA is the most comprehensive Canadian anti-spam proposal floated to date and even if it languishes in the Senate (private member's bill rarely become law) it promises to place additional pressure on the government to reveal its own anti-spam plan.

May 19, 2008 — 3 comments — Columns