A 9th Circuit court in California ruled in favour of a class action against Facebook last year, finding that the internet giant’s business practice of tracking users even when signed out violated Californian privacy law and the federal Wiretap Act. Facebook appealed the latter portion to the Supreme Court, on the grounds that they were not an eavsedropper on the communications in question but a party to them. The Supreme Court declined to even hear this appeal, signaling we remain in an exciting and uncertain time with regards to online privacy law.
UK anti-trust probes Facebook practices
Hello Class,
I was compelled by a short article in today’s Vancouver Sun about how the UK’s competition regulator has begun investigating Facebook’s practices. While looking further into this issue, I encountered a report posted in SIlicon Angle by MARIA DEUTSCHER.
In summary, Facebook is being investigated over its alleged anti-trust practices. One concern by the UK’s competition regulator is that Facebook’s collection of user data provides an unfair advantage over competitors, such as other social media networks and online advertisement platforms. Facebook’s Marketplace is one possible area the competition regulator is set to focus on as smaller online advertisement platforms may have access to less information relative to Facebook. The European Commission has also received complaints from rival firms and in response sent a questionaire to inquire on ” the importance of customer data to their business and how their access to information compares with that of Facebook.”
Personally, I wonder how much impact these findings will have to Facebook’s practices outside of the UK and Europe. As we have seen from France and Australia’s response to Google’s access to news sources without proper compensation to appropriate news media outlets, other jurisdictions may be looking to see how successful the UK/EU are in perhaps imposing change to Facebook’s practices. Whether Canada or US competition regulators choose to act after UK/EU have reached its verdict is another story.
https://siliconangle.com/2021/03/19/report-facebook-face-uk-antitrust-probe-within-months/
Presentation: Privacy and Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing
LAW424 – Privacy_and_DTC_Genetic_Testing
Hi everyone, please find my presentation attached. I have also provided an approximate transcript below for easy reference, but please see the notes on the slides for any citations. I hope you will find it interesting!
“Hello everyone, today I will be telling you about privacy law in relation to genetic information. I was inspired by the reading in the syllabus about Lie Detection and Brain Privacy in the Criminal Justice System. It got me wondering – are there other bodily privacy issues we should be thinking about, beyond basic privacy within one’s own home? In my opinion, genetic privacy is also an important conversation to be having. I will be focusing on what legal protection genetic information has in Canada, particularly with respect to direct-to-consumer genetic testing companies.
First, you might be wondering why someone might undergo genetic testing. There are three main types of reasons that people may undergo a test: (1) to learn more about their health, for example to determine their risk of developing certain conditions; (2) to learn more about their ancestry or verify biological familial relationship; (3) to learn information recreationally, e.g. about your hair type or personality traits. It is also important to understand that genetic tests can sometimes be recommended by a physician to understand disease predisposition or potential response to medication, which would be under the first category — “health.” Genetic testing is also available from commercial companies, and that can be for any of the three reasons I mentioned, although there have been examples of companies being forced to stop providing health-related analyses due to concerns that they had failed to prove their accuracy. What these companies provide is called “direct-to-consumer” genetic testing.
Before I move on, I also want to acknowledge that there is a related conversation about so-called “ancestry tests” which is not the focus of this presentation but which I think is also important to mention. Essentially, it has been argued that the concept of being able to delineate someone as “25% x, 3% y, etc.” promotes racial essentialism. I also am not a geneticist and unable to speak to the accuracy of direct-to-consumer test results that may claim to tell you about your athletic aptitude or other qualities. So, I will not be talking about the accuracy of ancestry tests or whether ancestry is quantifiable in a way that it even can be accurate – I will just be focusing on how the genetic information can be used in the context of privacy.
In British Columbia, there are several relevant pieces of legislation. First, there is the Genetic Non-Discrimination Act (GNDA), which is federal and aims to prevent discrimination on the basis of genetic information or refusal to provide genetic information. There is also the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA), which is federal and applies to “organizations that collect, use, or disclose personal information in the course of commercial activities.” Finally, there is the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA), which is provincial and similar to PIPEDA, and applies to “private sector organizations in British Columbia.” Please also note that I will not be speaking about the Privacy Act, since it deals with personal information held by federal government organizations and it is beyond the scope of this presentation.
The Genetic Non-Discrimination Act came into force in 2017 through Bill S-201 which was constitutionally challenged but eventually upheld by the Supreme Court. It is a short statute so I recommend reading it yourself as well, but to sum it up, it stipulates that employers, life insurance providers, or any other relevant persons, are not allowed to force you to take a genetic test or share results of one as a condition of working for them/providing coverage/etc. No one may deny you service on the basis of the results of genetic tests. It also provides an exception for healthcare practitioners and researchers, so it really is about protecting citizens from discriminatory practices, especially from employers or insurance providers, rather than restricting scientific or health-related pursuits. Bill S-201 also added “genetic characteristics” to the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination under s. 3(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act. Importantly, no one may use your genetic test results in any way without your written consent — this means that not only would a direct-to-consumer genetic testing company need your consent to collect your genetic information, they may not use or disclose it without written, voluntary consent.
PIPEDA and PIPA have been deemed substantially similar, so generally if a private company is subject to PIPA it will be exempt from PIPEDA with regard to “the collection, use or disclosure of personal information that occurs within the province.” Also, businesses that operate in Canada are subject to PIPEDA even if they are based extraterritorially. Finally, federally regulated organizations are subject to PIPEDA (e.g. banks, telecom companies, or radio and tv broadcasters). What you can take away from this is that there is fairly broad application, so if you make use of a “direct-to-consumer” genetic test, the company that provided it is likely subject to either PIPEDA or PIPA.
So, what protection do PIPEDA and PIPA provide for genetic information? According to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, “genetic information” is considered personal information under PIPEDA and PIPA. The protections regarding personal information therefore also apply to genetic information. Since PIPEDA and PIPA have been deemed substantially similar, I will be talking about the relevant protection as if it comes from one piece of legislation. Both pieces of legislation include 10 principles of privacy, which are listed on the slide. I will give a brief description of each as described in BC government resources, but please note that the full requirements are more detailed:
1. Accountability – Companies must be responsible for all personal information in their control and ensure compliance with all ten principles. This includes designating a privacy officer and developing policies for handling personal information.
2. Identifying Purposes – Before or at the time of collecting information, they must identify the purpose for collecting the information and how it will be used.
3. Consent – Obtain consent from the individual whose personal info is being collected, used, or disclosed, with limited exceptions such as lack of mental capacity.
4. Limiting Collection – Collection must be limited to what a reasonable person would deem appropriate for the purpose, which was identified under Principle 2.
5. Limiting Use, Disclosure, and Retention – Companies can only use or disclose personal information for purposes that a reasonable person would deem appropriate. It can only be kept as long as required to serve those purposes.
6. Accuracy – Companies must make reasonable efforts to ensure that the personal information collected is accurate and complete.
7. Safeguards – Companies must have reasonable safeguards to protect personal information, and the security level should be related to how sensitive that information is.
8. Openness – Companies must have readily and publicly available information about their policies and practices, including the contact information of the privacy officer.
9. Individual Access – You are entitled to an explanation of how your personal information has been used, and if your request is refused you are entitled to a response that includes the legal reason(s) why.
10. Challenging Compliance (aka Provide Recourse) – Companies must have complaint handling procedures regarding the above principles and inform complainants of their avenues of recourse.
I have bolded some of the most relevant ones on the slide. Of course, what is “important” depends on what you are concerned about — if you are concerned about data breaches, number 7 will be most important to you. If you are concerned about your information being used for a purpose you don’t know about, then numbers 2, 3 and 9 might be most important to you.
Overall, remember that your main protections are your ability to give consent, and how a court construes what is “reasonable” or the “reasonable person.” So, before you give your genetic information to a Direct-to-Consumer genetic testing company, remember you have every right to ask them the purpose of collecting (since other principles also depend on the “purpose”), what safeguards it will have against data breaches, and to refuse to allow them to share your test results to third parties such as marketers or pharmaceutical companies. And, you have the ability to withdraw your consent at any time — though from a logistics standpoint, it is probably more convenient to refrain from giving your genetic information in the first place.
Thank you for listening to my presentation and I hope you found it interesting!”
Short Survey – Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing
Hi everyone! Next week I will be posting my presentation on privacy in the context of direct-to-consumer genetic testing. In anticipation of that I’m hoping you will take a minute to answer this three-question multiple choice survey — https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/XJLG9BY. Thank you!
Drawbacks of Automated Web Content Moderation
DoorDash Spent $5.5 Million To Advertise Their $1 Million Charity Donation
byu/bubblydeadpan innottheonion
This is a little bit of a throwback to the week of the Super Bowl but I thought that this event was a little too juicy to pass up writing on for a post. For their Super Bowl ad, DoorDash spent $5.5 million and bragged about raising $1 million afterwards. A small news site, Broke Ass Stuart, reported the story and it was subsequently posted on reddit.
The reddit thread was suddenly brigaded – meaning that every single comment that a user was making received a large number of reports. As /u/Kezika, one of the moderators explained, “if x number of reports, automatically remove” and the thread is getting absolutely bombarded with reports. Like almost every parent comment in here is hitting the report threshold within a few minutes of being made.”
A bot farm was being used to report the comments on this post to stifle discussion and this raises the question of who is responsible for the brigading? Was it a group of random internet trolls trying to get a kick and stir some controversy? Was it DoorDash themselves trying to stifle discussion on the news? And what does it mean if corporations with significant financial resources can brigade to stifle discussion?
Fortunately, the fact that comments were being deleted only added fuel to the fire and made the post even more controversial, elevating its status and awareness as a story, but it begs us, as users of sites like reddit, to question whether automatic moderation policies are being implemented effectively and whether they can act to stifle speech.
Interestingly, there was another minor mishap on Twitter this week where if you used the word “Memphis” at all, you would get automatically banned from the website. This is almost definitely an error, but is just another example of where automatic content moderation can go wrong.
Presentation: Internet Censorship of Sexually Explicit Content (link to slides)
Hi all! Here is the link to our presentation:
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1IG0ifbfRI81MOaesaPF6oaJAT1O1c_EK-cfGA7EpRZw/edit?usp=sharing
I have also inserted a pdf version for ease of use: Comm law – censorship presentation
Hellen & Saska
Presentation: Cyberbullying, Regulation and Accountability
Hello everyone!
I’ve attached my powerpoint presentation on Cyberbullying, Regulation and Accountability. Due to problems with file size, I’ve split my presentation into 3 Parts. My sincerest apologies for the inconvenience caused.
Vanessa’s Presentation on Cyberbullying Part 1
Vanessa’s Presentation on Cyberbullying Part 2
Vanessa’s Presentation on Cyberbullying Part 3
I chose to research and present on this topic because amidst COVID, cases of cyberbullying have spiked in Canada, the US, Britain and Australia. And with new developments in the laws surrounding online safety, I wanted to become part of the conversation.
I remember opening the local newspaper one morning and reading about Amanda Todd. I was about the same age as Amanda and so her video describing her experiences really impacted me. Fast-forward approximately eight years and cyberbullying has only intensified across the globe.
This makes me wonder, what needs to be done in order to make the internet a safe space for adults and children? Who needs to be held accountable? Are our school systems doing enough to teach kids from a young age what is and is not safe to post? If we’re teaching children not to talk to strangers in the real world, why aren’t we having the same conversations about not talking to strangers on the internet? Are internet service providers and social media platforms doing their part in regulating and removing harmful content? I aim to discuss some of these big questions in my presentation and also provide some food for thought. I’d love to hear some of your thoughts as well!
Bibliography
Allison Harris, “Personal Injury… 1st Case under Nova Scotia’s Intimate Images and Cyber-protection Act Results in Damages of $85,000,” 14 June 2020 [https://www.mdwlaw.ca/personal-injury-1st-case-under-nova-scotias-intimate-images-and-cyber-protection-act-results-in-damages-of-85000/] Accessed February 2021
Amy Judd, “Amanda Todd’s accused cyberbully extradited to Canada to face charges” Global News, 5 February 2021 [https://globalnews.ca/news/7622978/amanda-todds-accused-cyberbully-extradited-canada/] Accessed 10 March 2021
Anne Longfield, “Response to Government’s Online Harms Announcement” 15 December 2020
Asha Barbaschow, “Google joins call for clarification on much of Australia’s ‘rushed’ Online Safety Bill,” ZDNet, 2 March 2021 [https://www.zdnet.com/article/google-joins-call-for-clarification-on-much-of-australias-rushed-online-safety-bill/] Accessed 13 March 2021
“Cyberbullying: What is it and how to stop it,” UNICEF [https://www.unicef.org/end-violence/how-to-stop-cyberbullying] Access February 2021
Dorothy L. Espelage, Jun Sung Hong and Alberto Valido, “Cyberbullying in the United States” in Anna Costanza, Catherine Blaya and David P. Farrington, ed, International Perspectives on Cyberbullying (Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan, 2018) 65
Elizabeth Chiu, “The Legacy of Rehtaeh Parsons,” CBC News, 6 April 2018 [https://newsinteractives.cbc.ca/longform/five-years-gone] Accessed February 2021
Gillian Kerr, William Main, Charlotte-Anne Malischewski and Pippa Leslie, “The Tort of Internet Harassment: A New Tort With An Extraordinary Remedy,” 10 February 2021 [https://www.mondaq.com/canada/it-and-internet/1034872/the-tort-of-internet-harassment-a-new-tort-with-an-extraordinary-remedy] Accessed February 2021
Jacqueline Gibson, “Australia: How will the Online Safety Act changes affect my business?” 17 February 2021 [https://www.mondaq.com/australia/security/1037230/how-will-the-online-safety-act-changes-affect-my-business] Accessed February 2021
Jada Nagumo and Rurika Imahashi, “Hana Kimura’s death fuels debate over how to stop cyberbullying” Asia Nikkei, 16 June 2020 [https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/Asia-Insight/Hana-Kimura-s-death-fuels-debate-over-how-to-stop-cyberbullying] Accessed 12 March 2021
Jimmy Singh, “Australia’s Proposed New Online Trolling Laws: Labelled Toughest in the World” 26 December 2020 [https://www.criminaldefencelawyers.com.au/blog/australias-proposed-new-online-trolling-laws-labelled-toughest-in-the-world/] Accessed February 2021
Kathleen Ann Ruane, “How Broad a Shield? A Brief Overview of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act” Congressional Research Service, 21 February 2018
Melissa Davey, “Trolls and social media platforms face huge fines in Australia for failing to remove abuse material” The Guardian, 22 December 2020 [https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/dec/23/coalition-bill-would-block-online-platforms-still-hosting-harmful-content-24-hours-after-takedown-notices] Accessed February 2021
National Children’s Bureau, “Online bullying and the Law” 17 April 2017 [https://www.anti-bullyingalliance.org.uk/tools-information/all-about-bullying/online-bullying/cyberbullying-and-law] Accessed February 2021
Pallett Valo LLP, “Canada: Caplan v. Atas – The New Tort of Harassment In Internet Communications,” 8 February 2021
[https://www.mondaq.com/canada/discrimination-disability-sexual-harassment/1034096/caplan-v-atas–the-new-tort-of-harassment-in-internet-communications] Accessed February 2021
Paul Fletcher, “New legislation to protect Australians against harmful online abuse,” 23 December 2020
“Recommendations by the Scientific Committee on preventing and addressing school bullying and cyberbullying,” United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organization, 5 November 2020
Research Division, Public Safety Canada, “Info Sheet: Cyberbullying,” 19 November 2018 [https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/2015-r038/index-en.aspx] Accessed February 2021
Sonia Hickey and Ugur Nedim, “Federal government seeks greater control over online content to deter cyberbullying” 28 December 2020 [https://www.mondaq.com/australia/social-media/1020376/federal-government-seeks-greater-control-over-online-content-to-deter-cyberbullying] Accessed February 2021
“UK leads the way in a ‘new age of accountability’ for social media” 15 December 2020 [https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-leads-the-way-in-a-new-age-of-accountability-for-social-media] Accessed February 2021
Cyberbullying, Regulation and Accountability
Hello everyone!
My name is Vanessa. I am presenting on the topic of cyberbullying. Due to COVID, there’s been a rise in internet use for children and adults who are working, learning and socializing from home. As a result, there’s also been a spike in cyberbullying across different countries.
Please take a look at these two links below that I found to be very insightful. The first link is a clip from Carol Todd’s recent interview with The Morning Show. The second link is a very short speech by Anoushka from London, UK, giving insight into what it feels like to be the family of someone who is cyberbullied and the effects that it can have on mental health.
My presentation will be posted shortly after.
https://globalnews.ca/news/7407693/amanda-todd-cyberbullying/
Rogers agrees to buy Shaw in a deal valued at $26 billion
Hi everyone,
https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/rogers-signs-deal-buy-shaw-1.5949825
Some recent news here. Rogers Communications has agreed to buy Shaw Communications in a deal valued at $26 billion, which would make Rogers the 2nd largest cell operator in Canada behind BCE Inc., overtaking Telus. Currently, the deal is waiting on 2/3rds majority shareholder approval. Also, the deal will be scrutinized by the Competition Bureau of Canada; the Ministry of Innovation, Science, and Economic Development; and the CRTC.
Rogers said it will invest $2.5 billion in the development of 5G networks over the next 5 years in Western Canada and create a $1 billion fund for improving the connection to high-speed internet in rural, remote, and Indigenous communities. The two companies also said this merger will create $1 billion in synergies.
The Minister of Innovation, François-Philippe Champagne, said the review will focus on “affordability, competition, and innovation”. Surely, the CRTC will be looking to Canada’s telecommunications policy, especially ss. 7(b), (c), and (g) of the Telecommunications Act, when it will review this deal. Hopefully, this won’t lead to an increase in Canada’s already high prices!
ONSC strikes down law targeting election misinformation
Davies J of the ONSC has ruled in favour of a Charter s. 2(b) challenge to s. 91 of the Canada Election Act. That provision made it an offence to make or publish certain false statements about political and public figures with the intention of affecting election results. Examples of statements captured by the provision are accusations of a criminal record, or alleged dishonesty regarding citizenship or qualifications.
The Privy Council Office has acknowledged the decision but it’s unclear whether the decision will be appealed.
Online free speech is an early frontier of law. Another development to watch is Heritage Minister Steven Guilbeault’s work on legislation targeting hate on social media.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/elections-misinformation-court-free-speech-1.5948463
https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2021/2021onsc1224/2021onsc1224.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAOQ1YtMTktMDA2MjczODAAAAAAAQ&resultIndex=1