Internet Law

Commentary Follow-up

2004-12-06T23:02:00.000-05:00

In the article “Take-down notices set to bite”, the author writes about the new law dealing with copyright in Australia. The laws are designed to create harmonization between the U.S. and Australian copyright laws. However based on the results of the American laws, the Australian government should not so readily pursue this course. The principle behind the copyright law is sound, in that ISPs have the technical ability to cut the access of users who plagiarize. However, if the ISPs need not actively patrol for copyright infringements, then the Australian system would need to rely on copyright holders. They would need to seek out and report violations of copyright law, as is the current U.S. system. But the U.S. system is flawed if in fact ISPs are flooded with take-down notices. How is the ISP to decide what is plagiarism and what is the furtherance of an idea? How is the ISP to decide what should be considered fair-dealing? ISPs should not have to take on the role of policing the internet, or adopt the quasi-judicial function of determining what is, and is not a copyright infringement. This is not their area of expertise. Often times, governments look to ISPs to implement technical measures because ISPs have the knowledge and expertise to do so. By extension, ISPs should not be required to take on role outside of their traditional roles. Governmental agencies should determine what an infringement is; ISPs should build into the architecture some means to affect the laws.

The take-down law does have the benefit of not providing a “safe harbour” for ISPs who either profit from the copyright infringement, or for ISPs who know about an infringement and do not take steps to end it. In these instances, copyright owners can rightfully bring an action against the ISP.

COMMENTARY

2004-12-02T13:44:00.000-05:00

Take Down notices set to bite

http://aunoticeandtakedown.notlong.com/

This article deals with the fact that in Australia Internet Service Providers will be able to retain access to ‘safe harbour’ rules that will limit the liability they have for the breaches of copyright that their customers take part in. This comes under new laws that are designed to seal the Free Trade Agreement with the US. The copyright amendment bill that is supposed to come into force January 1st will align Australia’s property laws with US laws. The bill that they are proposing is a technical one, it will not involve any change in policy.
With this the ISPs will not be expected to scan their network for infringing material but they are required make any infringements known and put a stop to them. As of now ISPs are being quite cautious because they are not completely sure how this new system will work. The most important aspect that the ISPs understand and will be briefed on, is how the take-downs will work and as well the impact on the safe harbour provisions.
Also, there is some concern by the US that this new proposal will not be able to properly protect against these copyright infringements in the Australian context. There is also some speculation about whether the computer industry will be able to comply with these new procedures by the new year. Many believe that it is unreasonable that this will occur.
There are also many concerns about finding a flexible procedure that will work for the Australian system. But know of this will be known until it is able to be brought before parliament. Overall, there is a positive outlook for these new procedures because their government has been very attentive and receptive to the concerns of the industry.
Copyright has become a very important and serious issue in the growing technological era. The internet provides a very easy way for users to access almost anything they want. Many of these items are under some type of copyright and are being illegally obtained. The article here refers to just one instance of an attempt to put regulations in place that can stop this and place a punishment on those that are violating these regulations. A lot of work must still be done but counties are getting closer to putting a stop to the infringement of copyright that is taking place around the world.

Commentary

2004-11-29T20:58:00.000-05:00

Numbers don't crunch against downloading
http://geistp2pmythspartone.notlong.com

This article deals with the issue of file sharing and the effect that peer-to-peer companies have on the music industry. Members of the Canadian music industry have begun to lobby in order to have the government reform Canada’s copyright legislation. The main argument is that ‘music downloading has devastated the industry”. The government has responded by placing the onus on ISPs despite that the government previous stated that the ISPs were not responsible for the actions that their subscribers took part in. ISPs were not happy to hear this because they cannot track everyone, it should ultimately fall on the individual taking part in the downloading. Also, there was an attempt to bring the copyright issue back into the spotlight, but there were three issues that were lost among the many claims of damage due to music downloading. The first one dealt with the fact that the side effects of industry-supported copyright reforms were not dealt with. As well, by emphasizing copyright reform, the industry failed to focus sufficient attention on government for Canadian music. The final issue was that the industry has failed to make the case that music downloading is significantly harmful to Canadian artists.It is hard to tell the actual financial impact from music downloading but Statistics Canada has stated that the financial impact has been greatly exaggerated. In fact, it has been said the there are other factors that have brought down CD sales other then music downloading. For instance, the growth of DVD sales has been significantly large in the last 4 years and therefore the shelf size for CDs has begun to shrink. As well, U.S. census data has revealed that people are not listening to as much music as they used to. The data suggests that people are spending more time on cell phones, playing videogames etc. Although it cannot be proved one hundred percent that music downloading is the main factor in the decline of CD sales there are still many steps that can be taken to prevent it. For example, one can disrupt file sharing or make it cheaper to legally download music. These are only some suggestions that can help the music industry each their goal. If the music industry truly feels that illegal file sharing on the internet is causes them loses then they should continue to fight for regulation that can help them achieve their goal.

Ineffectiveness of Copyright Law

2004-11-25T22:38:00.000-05:00

What features of the Internet and new information communication technologies raise questions about the effectiveness of copyright law in protecting the interests of copyright owners?
Copyright law is no longer effective in protecting the interests of copyright owners. New information communication mediums, including the internet, have made the passing of ideas quick and easy. While copyright laws still govern what material can be communicated over these mediums, the anonymity that users of the new technologies enjoy, make it increasingly difficult to enforce the laws. This anonymity is largest impediment for effective enforcement of copyright laws. A prime example is the current dispute between the music industry and ISPs. At times, over 850 million songs are shared over the internet, without consent from copyright owners. In order for the music industry to protect it’s copyright, it needs to track down who is creating and sharing the music files. In order to put a name and address with an IP address, the music industry is relying on ISPs to provide the information. However, ISPs are expectedly concerned about releasing client information, stating that its clients have an expectation of privacy. Further, users of file sharing software, such as Kazaa, often use aliases when signed on, making it that much more difficult to identify them.
Another feature of the Internet as an information communication technology, is the ease of access it provide. Users can access the internet 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. It’s inexpensive. File sharing has become free, quick and easy for many people, with just a few clicks to get the process started. As more people become Internet users, there will be more anonymous contact between individuals. This will lead to more information communication.

Purpose of PIPEDA

2004-11-22T22:30:00.000-05:00

Is the statement of statutory purpose in section 3 of PIPEDA an appropriate approach to privacy protection?

Purpose

3. The purpose of this Part is to establish, in an era in which technology increasingly facilitates the circulation and exchange of information, rules to govern the collection, use and disclosure of personal information in a manner that recognizes the right of privacy of individuals with respect to their personal information and the need of organizations to collect, use or disclose personal information for purposes that a reasonable person would consider appropriate in the circumstances.

The statutory purpose in section 3 of PIPEDA is an appropriate approach to privacy protection. The statement is broad enough to encompass the two major sides of the privacy debate; the privacy rights of the individuals and the needs of the industry and government. The term “need of organizations” is broad enough as well to include both government and private institutions. Technology advances further on a daily basis, and in order to participate in the use of these advancements, we often times need to share pieces of our personal information. Many times if we are not forthcoming with our personal information, we cannot use the services offered by new technologies. So how can we protect our rights over our own personal information? PIPEDA can help protect us. In the purpose statement, it is recognized that “technology increasingly facilitates the circulation and exchange of information.” If the legislation can provide rules that govern how organizations collect, use and disclose our personal information in our ever advancing technological era, then we have another tool for privacy protection; a tool which can balance organizational expertise with the knowledge of the average citizen. The purpose of PIPEDA balances this form of protection, with the need of industry and government to access and sometimes share the information. Technology advancements have made for anonymity in many financial arrangements. Much of the risk taken in these relationships are with large institutions dealing with private individuals. These institutions must be provided a means of protecting their investments, and a minimum method of doing so is identity confirmation. Institutions should rightly be permitted to collect some personal information of customers, and disclose the information for legitimate purposes (ie. Credit worthiness).

Commentary

2004-11-22T19:42:00.001-05:00

FORCES JOIN IN BATTLE AGAINST JUNK MAIL
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/503059.html

In today’s society email has become a dominant means for people to send mail and contact one another. Within the email world has come junk mail or Spam. The idea of junk email has become an important issue all over the world. Many countries have already begun to take shape and become institutionalized; this is because many people in no matter what context are effect by junk email. In Israel, Spam has become a serious problem. It has been said that 65 per cent of email sent in Israel is Spam. Therefore, a non-profit organization has been set up in the hope to unite Israel’s Internet users against junk mail and to “lobby for a Knesset initiative to enforce restrictions on disseminators of junk mail.” Within the last few months, Israel has been trying to come up with ways to regulate this problem. They found that technological solutions do not work and the best solution would be a legislative one. For Instance, a bill against junk email has been sponsored by attorney Haim Ravia and MK Roman Bronfman. With this bill they would create a database of users who do not want junk mail. Any Internet users would be able to join at no cost. If this bill were to be passed it would prohibit sending junk email and set penalties for those who violate them.
Israel is not the only country taking the necessary steps to place regulation on junk email. The United States already has legislation against junk email and has already begun to punish those who violate it. It is expected that the new anti-Spam organization in Israel will be involved in a lot of work, but it will be worth it if their efforts result in success. Spam has become a serious problem and countries should all move to implement regulations of their own to stop/control the problem

follow-up to response question

2004-11-15T19:37:00.000-05:00

How Important is privacy as a "value" in Canadian society?

Privacy seems to be a very important value in Canadian society. As Peter has stated in his response, privacy is much different but not less important then it was 25 years ago. I fully agree with what he is saying. He mentioned that there are three key differences in privacy today, technology, democracy and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Technology is an important issue when dealing with privacy. This is because it has become a great issue in today’s society when dealing with privacy on the Internet. The problem with this is that employers are often worried about what their employees are doing/sending on their computers and are looking for a way to monitor this. But that therefore leads into the issue as to whether that would be a violation of privacy. With the Internet being fairly new invention there are not many laws and regulations to deal with this. As the Morgan article indicates, the Canadian Courts have not yet even begun to deal with this issue, but some say that if the employer sees fit he can look into his employees internet. Many Canadians would not agree with this because privacy is an important aspect of their life that they do not want taken away. Since privacy is a very important aspect of our lives as Canadians, it is hard to have an aspect of our lives that is not fully protected. Canadians are used to having many fundamental rights and freedoms that are guaranteed as part of their citizenship. But as Peter mentioned in his response, these rights are not absolute and that is completely true when dealing with the Internet, there are exceptions that always come with everything. The privacy of Canadians needs to be valued and protected the best that it can.

Peter's posts

2004-11-09T22:53:00.000-05:00

Hi guys, I just wanted to let you know that some of my posts are under Tom's name, until tonight I had been having trouble accessing our blog. I sent Tom my work and he posted it (I only did 3 of the 5 postings). Thanks again Tom for your help. I think I've finally got the blog figured out so no more confusion.

Peter.

Question Response

2004-11-09T22:40:00.000-05:00

Posted November 9th, 04. By: Peter Gillich
How important is privacy as a "value" in Canadian society?

Article by Charles Morgan can be found on WebCT on the reading list for 08/11.

As a society we have a long standing commitment to protecting fundamental rights and freedoms . Freedom of speech, freedom of association and religion are just a few of the many rights and freedoms that we as Canadians are guaranteed. A person’s right to privacy however, is a relatively recent addition to the list of rights and freedoms we consider to be fundamental. In the Hunter v. Southam Inc case the Supreme Court of Canada stated that one of the main objectives of Section 8 of the Charter is "to protect individuals from unjustified State intrusions upon their privacy".
Today an individuals concept of privacy is likely to be very different then it was 25 years ago.
That is not to say that people twenty years ago did not value their privacy because surely they did, I mean that 25 years ago the societal, technological and the legal landscape was very different. In the McGill Law Journal paper three key differences exist today that have greatly influenced our perpectives on privacy; technology, democracy and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms have all impacted how seriously we value our privacy. I think our society has always considered privacy to be an important value, as Justice La Forest J. wrote in a judgement "grounded in man’s physical and moral autonomy, privacy is essential for the well being of the individual. For this reason alone, it is worthy of Constitutional protection…" Only now in modern times, we seem to value privacy more then ever.
It is not surprising though, that consistant with the rest of the rights we are guaranteed under the Charter, that our right to privacy and autonomy is not absolute. As a society we acknowledge that there are circumstances where it is legitimate to violate a persons privacy in the name of some greater societal good. So we value privacy more today then we did 25 years ago, but like all of our rights there are exceptions.

Commentary Follow-Up

2004-11-08T21:31:00.000-05:00

Commentary Follow-Up.

CRTC must consider musicians’ rights in radio hearings: recording industry
The article chosen by R. Hoffman dealt with CRTC hearings on the issue of satellite radio. The debate rages between the copyright privileges of musicians, and the ability of Canadians to access this new technology. Hoffman states that with a good portion of the Western world already turning to this new technology, that Canadians will want access to it as well. She states that Canada should be able to overcome the problem of piracy as other countries have, in order to allow its citizens to access satellite radio. However it seems more that we cannot overcome the problem, only overlook it. Hoffman, as well supports this view where she states, “the pirating of music is going to continue to happen so matter what you do”.

Michael Geist had it right when he commented that the recording industry is pushing its copyright demands too far. This position is supported by the recent SCC decision, which held that the music industry was not entitled to royalties/compensation by ISPs. Further support of this mentality in Canada comes from the 2003 Copyright Board of Canada that downloading music via P2P applications was legal (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20040630-3950.html). Graham Henderson, president of the Canadian Recording Industry Association, would like the CRTC to demand that satellite providers put in place technology to prevent broad theft of music by listeners. He would like the CRTC to impose a standard on the satellite radio industry, higher than that currently placed on ISPs and traditional radio. Any person can copy music from a radio, simply by pressing a button, and thereby build up the “massive…libraries of music” that Henderson was concerned about. There are no regulations requiring radio stations to put in place technology to prevent this copying of music, and simply because the music is provided digitally via satellite, there should not be a different standard. The vast majority of music copying is for personal use, and Canadians already pay a tariff on all recordable media to partly compensate the recording industry for lost revenue.

Technology is growing, and Canadians need to have access to compete with other Western countries. With new technology development, there will always be the potential for new criminal behaviours or misuse. Canadians cannot afford to be left behind because we are applying standards that are not applicable in other countries. While we need to recognize the need to regulate criminal behaviours via new technology, music copyright is not where we should be focussing our efforts.

Qiestion Follow-up

2004-11-08T20:32:00.000-05:00

Question Response: Defamation

Posted by Peter Gillich: November 8, 2004

Do the Bhalieda and Barrick cases demonstrate that existing legal rules can be adapted to the Internet, or do they demonstrate the need to develop new rules?
The Internet is a global mechanism that does not recognize traditional borders. The uniquely vast nature of the Internet raises several legal issues. In the cases of Bahlieda and Barrick the issue is defamation, the issue being that the Internet is a relatively new arena for the tort of defamation, only recently have the courts been forced to examine how libel and slander apply to the Internet.
In the Bahlieda case the Superior Court of Justice in Ontario was faced with the question of whether or not placing material on the Internet constitutes a broadcast. Justice Pierce concluded that placing materials on the Internet did constitute a broadcast. Never the less she dismissed the case on the basis that Bahlieda failed to deliver a notice of claim within the prescribed limitation date of six weeks or date of discovery.
Mrs. Bahlieda appealed to the Ontario Court of Appeal where the appeal was allowed. However, the Ontario Court of Appeal disagreed with Justice Pierce’s conclusion that material placed on the Internet is a broadcast.
In the Barrick case it is determined that material posted on the Internet by Mr. Lopehandia aggressively criticizing Barrick did constitute slander and libel.
In both the Barrick and the Bahlieda cases the plaintiffs were awarded compensation, however it remains unclear whether placing material on the Internet is considered a broadcast. In the Bahlieda case the appellant and the defendant both had expert testimony arguing both sides of the issue. This inability to reach a consensus suggests to me that existing laws cannot be adapted to the Internet. The Internet is too large and too boundless to be regulated by current laws. One of the reasons the Appeals Court disagreed that the Internet material constitutes a broadcast was that Sec. 6 of the Libel and Slander Act applies only to "broadcasts from a station in Ontario". Wording such as this is clearly outdated and cannot apply to the Internet. Either existing laws need to be restructured to accommodate new technologies or entirely new laws need to be created.

2004-11-04T18:00:00.000-05:00

hey sorry i forget to add the URL
http://criaonsatelliteradio.notlong.com/

commentary

2004-11-04T17:57:00.000-05:00

The issue at hand in this article is whether or not Canada should accept three bids for satellite radio. This ‘striking new radio technology’ has already become quite popular in both the United States and Europe. The CRTC is holding hearings on this issue and the main concern is the issue of Canadian content. Satellite would offer radio without boarders and many are concerned Canadian artists are not going to receive the same support the get now on Canadian radio stations. Another main issue raised in this article is by Graham Henderson, president of the Canadian Recording Industry Association, is the issue of outsiders being able to pirate music. This is a very big concern but with the internet already being a means to pirate music it is hard to make this the main argument against this new technology. A good point raised by Henderson is that the CRTC should demand that technology be put in place to prevent broad theft of music by listeners building massive digital libraries of music before they give out any licences. Also, Michael Geist, a professor at the University of Ottawa, gives a slightly different view on this issue. He feels that copyright is only designed to offer some protection and that the recording industry is beginning to over-tip the balance that copyright should provide.
It is going to be a struggle for the CRTC to deny giving out the licences to the three bidders. With a good portion of the Western world already turning to this new technology it seems that Canada will have to allow it at some point. Satellite will change the way that people not only listen to the radio but to their music and Canadians are going to want to be a part of this new growing technology.
Music theft exists all over the world, not just in Canada. If other countries are able to overcome this problem and allow satellite radio then Canada should be able to as well. The pirating of music is going to continue to happen no matter what you do, but it is a good idea for the CRTC to place some technology and regulations to prevent this act as much as possible.

response question follow-up

2004-11-01T22:40:00.000-05:00

Hacking - do the pros now rule?

2004-11-01T22:32:00.000-05:00

Hacking - do the pros now rule?
http://news.com.com/2008-1082_3-5429687.html
This article is a question and answer type commentary between CNETAsia and Robert Graham, chief scientist of security company Internet Security Systems. Graham states that hackers are changing. He states that hackers used to be primarily kids hacking just to show they can do it. Now however, hackers motives seem to have changed. There are opportunities for hackers to profit from their activities. Further, hackers seem to be moving into a type of internet gang affiliations. Graham points to two groups in particular, Netsky and Bagle, as groups of hackers who seem to hate each other, and try to outhack the other group. There are significant security risks if the once virtually harmless hacker, coordinates efforts with other hackers, and have the added incentive of potential profit making.
The background and environment that hackers grow up in and are influenced by has changed. Kids are exposed to computers and the Internet at all educational levels, and almost always in the home as well. Kids are exposed to new technologies, and are often better at using the equipment than their parents. High school graduates have a higher degree of computer savvy, then the graduates of a decade earlier. So as these kids playing computer hacking games in high school grow older, there are new “pro” hackers entering the field, and more so than in years past. What Graham sees, is that hackers in the past would simply download a hacker program, and see what they can do with it, whereas today, hackers are more likely to develop there own programs. This makes security programs less effective in that they normally are responsive to new forms of attack, rather than pre-emptively blocking potentially new avenues of attack. Graham also states that even the “bread-and-butter” defence of firewalls have become increasingly less reliable, particularly because they have become too complex for the average user. Often times, when we enter or adjust our firewall settings, we leave small holes behind. These holes are compared by Graham as robbers entering a bank through unlocked doors. IPS (intrusion-prevention systems), are replacing firewalls in that they “are able to look for attacks coming in the open doors.”
Finally, Graham discusses the next great security threat, VoIP. Voice over Internet Protocol is unproven in the security for the users. “VoIP is completely insecure.” The lack of encryption and authentication at the protocol level, leaves open the door for hackers. Imagine the telemarketing potential of PC to phone systems. One case mentioned in the article, had the FBI arrest a suspect who had thousands of machines under his control used to forward spam. How much more difficult would it be to use the machine for VoIP misuse?
With the rapid expansion of technology development and use, we need to be more diligent in protecting ourselves, our children, and our systems. The simple use of firewalls and filters is quickly becoming ineffective. As hackers improve their skills, we need to rely more on regulatory agencies to control the criminals facilitating the crime.

Question Response

2004-10-27T23:32:00.000-04:00

Should Canada sign and ratify the Additional Protocol to the Convention in cybercrime, dealing with the criminalization of racist and xenophobic acts committed through computer systems?

I believe that the Canadian government should sign and ratify the Additional Protocol to the Convention on Cybercrime. The Internet provides a viable avenue for promoters of hate and xenophobic sentiment to advance their message. Exposure to such hateful sentiment has been deemed a violation of the fundamental human right from discrimination by virtue of The Canadian Human Rights Act, Section 13(1). Though this piece of legislation outlines criminalization of the promotion of such “hate messages” by means of “the facilities of a telecommunication”, which might be differentiated from the medium of the “computer systems”, I see the inhibition of the specific type of message as important, and not the means by which it is transmitted. Considering the Internet outside the scope of telecommunications is to be bogged down in the semantics of defining communications systems, and for the purposes of the Convention the prevention of the propagation of hate is what is ultimately important. Furthermore, the real issues in ratification of the protocol are the definitional as to what constitutes “racist or xenophobic acts” and how they might relate to freedom of expression concerns.
There is a tactful role which criminal law enforcement must play in the implementation of such a Convention. This is because it involves the restriction of certain freedoms such as that of speech and of assembly and association. Law enforcement officials must weight these rights against interests of a democratic society, which for the purposes of the convention involves the protection of morals and the rights of others. The convention aids in the implementation of these prescribed legal restrictions, by clearly defining what constitutes racist or xenophobic acts. It defines them in terms of racist and xenophobic threat, insult and the denial, gross misrepresentation, approval or justification of genocide or crimes against humanity. It also provides guidelines as to the dissemination of racist and xenophobic material in a computer system that is to be criminalized, as well as outlining what constitutes aiding and abetting to the crime of the promotion of such material in the context of such systems.
Because of the particularity to which it the convention illustrates the protocol for the implementation of restrictions in the complicated technological context in which it arises, it should necessarily be ratified. The criminalization that these restrictions on freedom of expression and assembly imply should be implemented in the interest of the protection of human right from discrimination. The detail of the convention is necessary to ensure that such freedoms are restricted only to the degree prescribed by law, therefore the convention itself is of the utmost relevance as documented protocol, and should be signed by the Canadian government.

commentary follow-up

2004-10-25T19:27:00.000-04:00

With regards to the issue of a government policy regarding internet gambling, I completely agree with what Stephen said in his commentary of this issue. I feel that a policy such as this one should be in place especially in regards to children. As the article stated, children as young as 11 were setting up accounts with online gambling services. This has become quite a serious issue, as Stephen pointed out, one that the government needs to get under control. That is why a policy for internet gambling would be a very efficient way. It also seems that gambling is a serious issue involving adults as well. Gambling leads to credit card fraud as well as addiction and in debtedness. Even though many adults willing sign onto these sites, they do not always realize how much they are really spending and spend more then they can pay back.
It has been found by the NCH, that the are levels of accessibility of these sites for children is unacceptable, as Stephen mentioned, a policy seems very important when looking at the study by the NCH and seeing just how many minors can obtain access to these sites. The idea of age verification software seems to be a very reliable solution. Hopefully, with the implantation of policy and verification software the problem can some day be eliminated, if not right away. It seems that it is the responsibility of not only the gambling industry, but all those entities that take part in the industry of gambling to take responsibility and work together to solve the problem at hand.

Question Follow-up

2004-10-25T16:59:00.000-04:00

Posted October 25, 2004 By: Peter Gillich
Question Response Follow-Up:
Should Canada or the province of Ontario introduce a law requiring public libraries to use filtering software as a means of protecting children in libraries from accessing inappropriate Internet material? In his question response Tom answered "yes" to this question, and I agree. There should be a law, either federal or provincial requiring libraries to use filters.
Tom briefly mentioned the role of parents in protecting their children from obscene or inappropriate Internet materials. Parents are the first lines of defense but as we discussed in class, parents are not able to supervise their children 24 hours a day and whether it’s in school or in a library, children can access the Internet from outside their home. A filtering system in libraries would simply assist in preventing children from seeing or reading unsuitable material.
In the U.S. v. Library Association Supreme Court case, the Supreme Court ruled that the Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA) was not unconstitutional. In coming to this decision the Supreme Court examined the societal role libraries play, which is one of "facilitating learning and cultural enrichment". (U.S. v. Library Assc.) Critics of the CIPA claim that it "constitutes a content based restriction on access to a public forum.." the Supreme Court rebuts this claim on the basis that libraries do not provide Internet access in order to create a public forum for Web publishers to express themselves. (U.S. v. Library Assc.) Tom cited a similar passage and I agree with this argument and the decision of the Supreme Court.
Tom mentions the use of passwords in disabling a filter, I think the use of passwords would help quell some of the concerns surrounding the constitutionality of the law. Adults could simply approach the librarian and request the password, this enables visual confirmation of a persons age.
In conclusion I firmly believe that libraries should be required to use filtering software. The objective of protecting children from inappropriate material is incredibly important and far outweighs the exaggerated concerns that such a law would be unconstitutional. People’s right to view material or express ideas inappropriate to children is not being taken away all together, a law like this is simply stating that a library is not an appropriate environment for such things. Furthermore if a library were to institute a password system where adults could remove filters, then I see no basis for claiming that the law is unconstitutional.

Question Response

2004-10-21T21:01:00.000-04:00

Should Canada or the province of Ontario introduce a law requiring public libraries to use filtering software as a means of protecting children in libraries from accessing in appropriate Internet material?
The short answer is “Yes”. While I do not discount the parental role in protecting children from viewing inappropriate Internet material, in order to allow our children to grow with some degree of independence, we need to let them grow at some point independently of direct parental supervision. During this time is when we need to have systems in place to ensure our children are not viewing inappropriate material.
Libraries’ traditional mission has been to facilitate learning and cultural enrichment (U.S. v American Library Assn., Inc.). Further stated in the syllabus of this case, Internet access in public libraries is provided to facilitate research, learning, and recreational pursuits by furnishing materials of requisite and appropriate quality. “The decisions by most libraries to exclude pornography from their print collections are not subjected to heightened scrutiny; it would make little sense to treat libraries’ judgements to block online pornography any differently.” Filtering is a simple and comprehensive method of ensuring our children from accessing material like pornography or hate speech (Internet Service in Public Libraries - A Matter of Trust). Internet filters are also simple to disable, only requiring authorized personnel to enter the password. This would remove the potential over inclusiveness - blocking of useful sites.
In many aspects of the media and communication mediums in our society, we have systems in place to ensure children are unable to access unsuitable material. We have age restrictions for alcohol consumption or the purchasing of sexual explicit materials. Granted, there are means to circumvent the rules, however that cannot stop us from trying. This level of child protection must now be extended to the Internet, as the newest method of communication and source of information. Libraries are a societal tool provided by the state. The state is the agent that the people use in part for our protection. The state can easily provide and implement the use of filters in our libraries, which would not impede the quest for research or recreation.

Commentary

2004-10-21T15:48:00.000-04:00

Site reference: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/10/19/gambling_bill/

This story involves the United Kingdom’s government policy regarding internet gambling with the proposal of a new Bill which will affect all aspects of the gambling industry. The primary issue revolves around child access to internet gambling, which has been shown to be a significant problem. I children’s charity by the name of NCH has found that children as young as eleven years old are able to set up gambling accounts. There is also the secondary issue of gambling addiction, as well as credit card fraud with the use of online gambling services, which has been dealt with by preventative measures undertaken by two main credit card companies, American Express and Citygroup.
With regards to the primary concern of child access to internet based gambling, an NCH study found that only eleven out of thirty-seven gambling sites were able to stop a sixteen year old from using their services. Such levels of accessibility are altogether unacceptable, and should be dealt with from a policy point government policy standpoint, though the article did not specify what the UK’s exact policy initiative was towards the problem. The NCH’s advisor, John Carr urged gambling companies install age verification software, a code architecture based solution to the problem. I feel that such software should be standardized through public policy with regards to the licensing schemes of internet gambling sites. The British minister of gambling Andrew Macintosh argued that the onus was not entirely on the gambling industry, and that the Banking sector should “take some responsibility too”. I would agree with the minister, and argue that more than just “some responsibility” should be taken by banks, and that they might be required by law to do whatever is reasonably in their power to stop the problem from occurring.

Question Follow Up

2004-10-18T18:40:00.000-04:00

http://www.cla.ca/issues/opl_board_apr_14_2003.htm

I would also tend to agree with Lessig that the 1996 Communications Decency Act1996 Communications Decency Act1996 Communications Decency Act1996 Communications Decency act is a “law of extraordinary stupidity”, the not exactly for the reasons that he outlines. True, the judgment of what is construed as indecent should not be put in the hands of the state (i.e. Congress), but the aim of the protection of the innocence of children should hardly be labeled as “stupidity”. This issue of balancing individual freedoms with the protection of children has been dealt with heavily by the Ottawa Public Library board with regards to internet filtering in public libraries.
As the primary issue of library filtering denotes restricted access to web content, it is important that such restrictions remain within the ambit of Canadian charter rights to intellectual freedom and privacy. On the other hand, children are deemed as “special members” of society whose interests, and innocence, should be protected from inappropriate web material. Proposals for filtering schemes must act in conjunction with personal freedoms as well as public interest for the safety of children. Proposals for technological filtering of content fall into two categories. Those involving exclusionary and inclusionary software based schemes. Exclusionary software limits access to sites based on keywords associated with inappropriate material. From this arises the issue of overblocking of web content, as terms such as “Superbowl XXX” will be flagged as pornographic, and restricted as such. Similarly, web sites, which do in fact contain inappropriate material, may not be restricted because as a result of not exhibiting such keywords. Inclusionary software on the other hand, selects sites which can be accessed from a catalogue, and blocks others accordingly. Though it is argued that a library patron can request that a legitimate site be unblocked, it is argued that the knowledge of such legitimate content might never be known under an Inclusionary system. Cataloguing of websites is also problematic, and though it is proposed that Web sites might be required to rate their content, it is illogical to assume that they would do so in such a way that would limit access to their site. Other universalized technological filters have been proposed, such as screen protectors which limit, without completely blocking, children's inadvertent views of inappropriate material. It has also been proposed that libraries ought to filter Internet terminals only in children's sections of libraries, thus allowing adults unrestricted access. However, the overall consensus on the issue is that the best form of filtering is one in which parents play a supervisory role, as the judgment of the appropriateness of material ultimately falls on them with regards to their child. As physical supervision is time consuming and impractical, it is argued that a technological scheme should be implemented in which appropriateness is parentally determined.
The Ottawa public library has instituted such a policy through their “Online Internet Booking System”. It requires that users enter their library card number to book time on one of the library's Internet stations. This will inform the system as to what level of access should be permitted in accordance with what a child's parents have deemed as appropriate. It is absurd for congress to have put forth a federal policy initiative, and not present a unified standard as to the level of implementation across all states (or in our case, provinces), which in this case, is a certain level or standard of decency. I would propose that the level of decency should be set by the individual parents of children in their supervisory capacity, and that this parental standard should be the unifying guideline by which states implement internet filtering. I think that the U.S. Congress should use the Ottawa Public Library’s policy of parentally controlled filtering as a model for their own policy initiative, thus reducing its apparent stupidity.

Commentary Follow-up

2004-10-18T17:39:00.000-04:00

Commentary Follow-Up: Posted By Peter Gillich, October 18, 2004

The article chosen by Tom ("Medical milestone or privacy invasion") deals with the issue of an emerging technology that involves having a microchip implanted into your arm that contains vital medical information. A scanner is then used to read and relay the chip’s information to a medical professional. As Tom pointed out in his commentary the microchip technology has many beneficial uses. Paramedics and Doctors could provide more efficient treatment if they were able to easily access medical information by simply scanning a microchip implant. In an emergency situation where a patient were disabled or unable to convey information about themselves the chip would provide paramedics or doctors with potentially life saving information far faster then it could otherwise be obtained.
Tom points out that the microchips could also help combat the fraudulent use of health cards. Identity theft and the fraudulent use of credit cards and other forms of identification are a growing problem all over the world. With credit cards, all it takes for a thief to access your credit card information is a scanner that reads the information in the magnetic strip. As Tom points out the relatively low cost of the scanners used to access information in the microchips are virtually no deterrent to a criminal. Information could be extracted from these chips as easily as it is with credit cards today, so in terms of helping to combat the fraudulent use of health cards the benefit may be negligible.
Tom addresses the obvious privacy concerns that medical data chip creates, namely that people who have no business accessing a person’s personal medical information could very well do so. Furthermore, the possibility of the technology being used for tracking purposes raises even more privacy concerns. As Tom appropriately points out the potential for such a technology to be misused is great, and frankly the thought of having a miniscule chip in my arm or leg that can be used to track my movement is a very unnerving thought. However at the same time it is clear how such a tracking technology could be used very effectively in tracking parolees.
I agree with Tom in that we should not deprive ourselves of the benefits of new technologies such as the medical data chip simply because there are security concerns. That is not to diminish the seriousness of those concerns because I too share them. The development of the technology should be closely monitored.

Commentary

2004-10-14T21:09:00.000-04:00

http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/news/editorial/9909509.htm

“Medical milestone or privacy invasion?” The Food and Drug Administration approved this week a computer chip made by Applied Digital Solutions, the size of a grain of rice, for implantation into a patient’s arm. The chip would contain information about the patient’s medical history, which would be released when a scanner passes over it. The technology used is similar to that used by pet owners. There are many advantages to the chip. The technology has the potential to increase the level of care provided by medical institutions. Emergency rooms, in particular, could easily improve speed of care if the ambulance was provided with a scanner. Doctors would have the necessary medical history to provide the patients with the immediate attention many of them need. As well, the chip, if used in a nation where there is universal health care, could contain health card information. This would be an asset in the battle against fraudulent use of health cards, as there is more difficulty in duplicating or sharing a microchip than a health card. The chip can also have a dual purpose, as it can be used to track user movements. Scott Silverman, CEO of Applied, states that this use of the chip would enhance security efforts for tracking employees of nuclear facilities. The tracking features could also be of use in tracking missing persons, particularly the infirmed or children, or tracking parolees.

However, there is the privacy issue. Emily Stewart, an analyst at the Health Privacy Project, states that if the privacy protections are not built in at the outset, there could be harmful consequences for patients. She feels that the chips should only contain vital medical information, thereby limiting the amount of information that is potentially available. Scanners are available from Applied for $650. The cost of the scanner is not significant enough to discourage would be information thieves. Scanners and chips are already in use in parts of Europe as smart cards for speed payments and entertainment. New technologies are continuously being developed which provide security enhancements. And hackers and thieves find a new way to circumvent the security. Are there scanners designed exclusively to extract medical information, or microchips designed to respond only to certain types of scanners? How easily can the microchips be removed once implanted? The possibility of misuse of this technology is great. The average person should not be subject to tracking of employers or government. Then there’s the question of who should be tracked, or for how long.

In the end, there are still a lot of questions as to the use of microchips. The benefits which can be gained in medical situations, or locating missing persons is great. We should continue to explore the technology, and continue to find better ways to enhance security. We should not allow ourselves to be deprived of the benefits of technology, simply because to possible misuses.

Question Response

2004-10-14T19:18:00.000-04:00

Lessig describes the 1996 Communications Decency Act as a "law of extraordinary stupidity." What reasons does he give for this position, and do you agree with him?

In this weeks reading Lessig was talking about the concept of free speech. One section dealt with the regulations of speech and what affect they have on the issue of access. Lessig does not agree with the Communication Decency Act, he even goes as far as to call it "a law of extraordinary stupidity". He feels that there are three different problems with this act. First, he feels that ‘indecency’ is not a category that Congress has the power to regulate. I agree with this first problem he addresses. Indecency can often be a difficult issue to direct. This is because that different states find different issues to be indecent. Also, what is indecent to a minor is not necessarily indecent to an adult. Therefore, how does one regulate something that is so broad. If regulations can not be put in place, then the issue arises as to whether filtering can act as a alternative to laws against obscenities on the internet. But who is to do the filtering, should it be placed on the parents to decide what their children can view or should it rely on internet service provides. This again brings up the problems, as Lessig states, of lack of accountability and being to indirect. The second issue he addresses is that of vagueness. He brings up the idea of screening out children. As well, when this law was put in place, the architecture for screening out children were relatively crude and in some cases quite expensive. This point of Lessig makes sense, because how can one successfully block out children from viewing all ‘indecent’ activities. As much as people try to shield their children from indecency and no matter how many laws the government tries to put in place, some children are still going to find ways around it. So it is almost impossible to regulate, therefore the government needs to place an act in place that more directly lays out the law and gives a clear punishment for this law that can actually be carried out. Finally, He feels that the government led to its own undoing. Again he refers to vagueness and that the definitions they were giving were too broad. They did not make any attempt to expand the scope of their defense. Overall, this act was doomed to fail from the beginning because it even though it made transmitting indecent acts on the internet a crime, it also gave a defense if people could prove that they had made an attempt to screen out children. I feel that Lessig was correct with he called this act a "law of extraordinary stupidity". If the government is ever going to find a law that can deal properly with this issue, they need to find a way to be more direct and clearly state the law they tend to enforce.

Question Response

2004-10-14T19:14:00.000-04:00

Question Follow-up

2004-10-11T21:59:00.000-04:00

By Tom Kandathil

Have Mueller, Mathiason & McKnight made out a case that there is a need to modify the existing global Internet governance regime?

The authors have brought forward a convincing case in favour of modifying the existing global Internet governance regime. Specifically, they pose the following three reasons as to why. “First, one cannot know whether a comprehensive governance regime is better or worse than what we have now unless one tries to sum the parts into a whole and assesses what … is missing or not working effectively.” “Secondly, localized regimes can be dictated by special interests, such as wealthy and well-organized industrial interests, powerful states, or some combination of the two.” “Third, even when the localized regimes are good on their own terms there may be overlaps, contradictions, or loopholes amongst them because they all evolved relatively independently of each other.”

The most pertinent of the three reasons is the second. The authors state that we are in a digitized communication-information environment, where Internet governance has a potential to encompass virtually anything that involves communication. One of the “Norms for the Global Internet” is to not allow the Global Commons to be privatized. Private entities, particularly when they control communication, are subject to the influence of others who stand to benefit through communication control. As internet use grows, more individuals rely on the information provided on it to keeps ourselves informed of daily issues. Control over the communication can allow groups to influence a growing number of people. A prime example of this is the current U.S. Presidential election, and finding which communication mediums are “Bush friendly”. The readership/viewing audience of these mediums will undoubtedly be affected by what they see.

Creating an “Internet governance regime” would help curb the likeliness of unfair influence. The regime would need to consist of all actors: “corporations and other businesses, epistemic communities, governments at all levels, and international organizations.” The diversity of the actors alone, make influence over the whole by one special interest highly unlikely. A regime made up of the actors would also help the coordinate the efforts, and possibly eliminate overlaps. This in turn raises the possibility of increased efficiency and closure of the current “loopholes”. A regime made up of actors would provide the consolidated effort to govern internet use. As it stands now, many actors have different standards. A regime can help keep it all uniform.

Commentary follow-up

2004-10-10T15:31:00.000-04:00

Spamming is a very complex problem, and the regulatory initiatives proposed in the “” article can be construed as merely symbolic regulation, as opposed to practical regulation. Even on the surface, the holes in such spam reducing initiatives are quite prevalent. For instance, the idea of “Sender ID”, the form of caller id on messages with the purpose of increased authentification proposed by Microsoft merely gives off the appearance of progress in regulation. The fact of the matter is that spammers don't necessarily need to disguise themselves as a bank or financial institution to avoid being blocked from the average statistically based spam recipient in reaction to these safeguards, only the locations from which messages are sent. Furthermore, spammers aren't usually elusive about the nature of their messaging, as they are usually upfront about what promotional offer or commodity that is being advertised, so this initiative of email identification only really protects the recipient from scams and con-artistry, not the spammed messages.
Along this line of logic, it is not a rash assumption to conclude that the efficient spammer has many locations from which messages might be sent. As there is a large market force driving the proliferation of mass promotion, it is not illogical to assume that spammers would network with locations for untainted spam sendoff, if they haven't already. It is therefore not necessary for the spammer to disguise his intentions, it is a simple question of changing the location from which the spam is sent.
This is an example of a code-based regulatory solution to the spamming problem. The entrenchment of preventative code on individual systems within the market will seemingly only serve to temporarily slow down the flow of spamming. The pressure of the market is so great that it seems as though it will inevitably find a way to circumvent such code-based protocol for spam reduction. The potential for profit in combination with the avenue of the Internet as an infinitely viable network for mass promotion is a seemingly irreducible market pressure. If code is to inhibit spamming to a practical degree, it must be refined to a greater degree, though the likelihood of such is minimal as the resources of the market better serve market-based interests without inhibiting such highly profitable avenues. However, in the eyes of the law, spamming is perceived as a public nuisance, though not an illegal one.
The legality of the practice would also more than likely be promoted by representatives of market interests, and would push its influence on the law as the market has a tendency to do. The onus then falls on code related forms of regulation, though they must be more pro-active and anticipatory in their development, as opposed to the reactive approach presented by sender identification.

Commentary posting

2004-10-07T13:20:00.000-04:00

"Net giants adopt anti-spam system"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3706828.stm

Over the last decade the internet has undergone many changes and as we have learned through reading Lessig it has become a big part of the economic world. Companies on the net are always trying to sell their product. Some companies will do this anyway they can. In real space people often receive junk mail in their mailbox and it is usually a reasonable amount. But in cyberspace, companies have begun to send out a unreasonable amount of junk mail (spam) without a second thought. Now in the world of email spam has become a very common occurrence. One cannot open their email without finding unwanted mail from various spamming companies attempting to sell you something or sometimes trying to rip you off. The article from BBC news touches on the idea of a new anti-spam system. Big internet companies are beginning to get serious about the fight against spam. Companies such as AOL, Yahoo, Hotmail, Earthlink and Comcast are trying to force spammers to comply with new mail standards.
This idea of attempting to regulate spam has been brought up on many occasions. People often wonder what can actually be done stop the spam and if there is some way to regulate it. The five companies listed above, have come up with a technical standard referred to as Sender Policy Framework. The objective of both of these is to authenticate where an email has come from. This is because 90% of spam does not come from the same address twice. Therefore, a company that sends spam can no longer attempt to look as if they are a bank or a financial from when they are indeed not. This hopefully is the beginning of an attempt to regulate the world of spam. With these new standards in place a email that is not authenticated with not be able to be sent into one’s email account.
This is not a completely new idea, different internet companies been trying to deal with spam for some time. It was Microsoft that proposed Caller-ID (known as Sender ID) for email and it was this idea that then merged with Sender Policy framework and the two then became a single specification. Although this will be a very effective method is has not completely come into use, the creators of this standard are very optimistic that this will work to stop spam but it is unsure if the spammers will be able to find a way to get around this. It is the hope of this system that spam will drop significantly and hopefully go to zero one day. Therefore, people will one day be able to check their email without having to deal with all the spam.

2004-10-03T17:59:00.000-04:00

Question Response

2004-09-30T15:51:00.000-04:00

Why and how is commerce, according to Lessig, likely to lead to the replacement of the original Net architecture of liberty with an architecture making behviour on the Internet more regulable?

The internet was originally intended for the purposes of research, not commerce. Anonymity of use was an allowable standard. Commerce, however, has differing standards and values than those possessed by a purely research based system. An economic system requires identification of those involved in exchanges, in order to regulate such transactions. Such regulability is an intrinsic economic value as it facilitates efficiency and security. It is as a result of these economic values that commercial interests have, over the last decade or so, pushed for the establishment of closed systems whose architectures require identification for access, and consequent authentification of these electronic identities as such. An example of the requirement that access be premised upon user identification can be found in Harvard University's regulation that both users and their computers are registered. This is contrasted by Chicago University's open access format more attuned to the original Internet architecture of Liberty. Lessig sees this difference as fundamentally based on the software code which establishes the protocol through which access is granted. The web is built on a suite of protocols for the exchange of data, the basic TCP/IP suite. By this suite, the exchange of data is facilitated by identification of the relative locations sender and receiver of information through their Internet Protocol (IP) addresses. However, authentification of a given user's identity is limited through this scheme, as only the locations to and from which the information is transferred is divulged. The content of the data itself is identified only on either end of the transfer. Commercial interests have promoted “pass technology” which are central to the emerging architecture of identification in the web. One technique is the password, which at once identifies a user of a closed system by their account profile, and authenticates access by virtue of requiring a password. This technique is used by America online and Lexis. Another technique is verification through the use of a “cookie”, which is implanted on a user's hard drive through the web browser to identify the user's account information. Amazon.com uses such technology. Unless a user has his browser settings set to notify of cookie implants, this process is undergone quite unknowingly. A third technology of identification is that of digital certificates, which is a kind of web-passport. This is a user-profile, which resides on a users computer and, he/she is thus automatically (and often invisibly) authentificated by the server of a given site the user wishes to enter. This information is encrypted so that only servers with the required cryptographic technology may decode these personal profiles. Ultimately, commerce is likely to have an effect on government to require the code architectures be established in a fashion that facilitates regulation. It is a pressing economic need that that those engaging in commercial transactions be identified and that their identities as such be authentic. Government historically is known to bend to economic pressure, which is adequately represented by commercial interests. It is as a result of such pressure applied by the forces of commerce that the establishment of regulable architectures will more than likely be enforced by governmental policy influence.