Hi everyone,
Please take a look at my presentation on user data tracking, cookies, and the PIPEDA.
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1x_WZuMUC6tXI2MUTVf1jy4iZaQPyhXCi/edit?usp=sharing
Thanks!
Harold
Hi everyone,
Please take a look at my presentation on user data tracking, cookies, and the PIPEDA.
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1x_WZuMUC6tXI2MUTVf1jy4iZaQPyhXCi/edit?usp=sharing
Thanks!
Harold
If you have time this is a video that I watched which informed some of my thoughts on what exactly it means for a project to be Canadian so feel free to check that out!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojm74VGsZBU&t=215s&ab_channel=EveryFrameaPainting
Link to Presentation (Download and open in Powerpoint for Audio)
https://www.dropbox.com/s/n8hkonr93tra84u/Canadian%20Content%20Presentation.pptx?dl=0
Hi Y’all,
Please see our presentation at the following link on cancel culture.
Suggested opening it in Powerpoint!
Kindly,
Cheryl
& Kim
& Marshall
& Rasheed.
Hi everyone!
Trends in Online Defamation – T Hunt S Arbor
Above is the link to my and Trevor’s group presentation; there is audio embedded in each slide (grey icon), but I think you may need to download the presentation to make it work. Our topic was an overview of online defamation.
We would recommend reading Crookes v Newton (2011 SCC 47):
N owns and operates a website in British Columbia containing commentary about various issues, including free speech and the Internet. One of the articles he posted on it contained shallow and deep hyperlinks to other websites, which in turn contained information about C. C sued N on the basis that two of the hyperlinks he created connected to defamatory material, and that by using those hyperlinks, N was publishing the defamatory information. At trial, the judge concluded that the mere creation of a hyperlink in a website does not lead to a presumption that someone actually used the hyperlink to access the impugned words. The judge agreed that hyperlinks were analogous to footnotes since they only refer to another source without repeating it. Since there was no repetition, there was no publication. Furthermore, in the absence of evidence that anyone other than C used the links and read the words to which they linked, there could not be a finding of publication. A majority of the Court of Appeal upheld the decision, finding that while some words in an article may suggest that a particular hyperlink is an encouragement or invitation to view the impugned site, there was no such encouragement or invitation in this case. In addition, the number of “hits” on the article itself was an insufficient basis for drawing an inference in this case that a third party had read the defamatory words. The dissenting judge held that there was publication. The fact that N’s website had been viewed 1,788 times made it unlikely that no one had followed the hyperlinks and read the impugned article. Furthermore, the context of the article suggested that readers were encouraged or invited to click on the links.
If you are curious about the privacy/copyright case mentioned (Duchess of Sussex v Associated Press), it is linked below.
Samantha & Trevor
New AI technology “Riley” is a crisis contact simulator that can be a counsellor training tool, to assist with suicide prevention simulating real life conversations:
https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Wellness/suicide-prevention-boost-artificial-intelligence-exclusive/story?id=76541481
AI is changing the ways of aesthetic procedures in the future with 3D modelling:
New technology will help anticipate potential risk to diabetes with an algorithm:
Hi everyone! Rhys and I did a project on Super Bowl commercials and why we don’t get to see the American ones in Canada.
The link to the Google slides presentation with voiceovers is here.
Please feel free to reach out to Rhys or I if you have any questions or would like to discuss the topic. We really enjoyed learning about it!
Thanks!
Governments are growing more concerned with large online social media and content platforms in the wake of Camridge Analytica and the general penumbra of misinformation and disinformation. Facebook co-founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg testified before a US senate committee in 2018 and refused to appear before a similar investigation in the UK. The senate committee subpoenaed him, along with the CEOs of Twitter and Google, forcing appearances before congress due to start this Thursday.
In an opening statement today, Zuckerberg proposed a compromise between previous “all-or-nothing” approaches. Rather than deciding as a rule whether to hold platforms liable for user content, Zuckerberg suggested platforms should demonstrate a certain level of precautions in order to be granted freedom from liability.
This model sounds promising in its ability to hold platforms accountable to a reasonable degree without making their general platforms too risky to maintain. It does, however, sound rather cynical in context of Facebook’s historical approach to privacy and moderation in general, and Zuckerberg’s previous statements in particular. We’ll need to keep an eye on further testimony as it unfolds.
https://www.theverge.com/2021/3/24/22348238/zuckerberg-dorsey-pichai-section-230-hearing-misinformation