The “cloud” has come to mean the storing and accessing of data (including programs) over the internet rather than on on our device (computer, phone or otherwise). The official definition of the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology is: “Cloud computing is a model for enabling convenient, on-demand network access to a shared pool of […] Read More
Hello! I have been exploring articles on the subject of privacy concerns, data collection and in particular Apple’s soon-to-be-released App Tracking Transparency features. Apple’s new feature will require apps to get the explicit permission of users before tracking their data. I have attached several articles and a brochure to this post.
I was shocked to learn from Apple’s Day in the Life of Your Data brochure, that even a father and daughter’s trip to the park could be tracked so closely by companies around the world. What I find to be quite unsettling is that this personal information (interests, location, etc.) is passed onto data brokers and released to companies that have no direct connection with the father or daughter.
In a 2018 Sunday Times article, Maria Fasli tracks her digital footprint for a day. Life becomes in a certain sense more convenient with our compass cards tracking our route to work, our air fare providers sharing hotel suggestions and our supermarket loyalty cards leading to a better in-shop experience. But I think the problem lies not in users having a digital footprint but how a lot of the data is unknowingly collected and distributed without permission. The lack of transparency is the real problem here. There is hope that Apple’s new feature will allow regular users (like me) to control what social media companies and apps learn about us.
Several questions remain to be answered: how will this realistically affect the app or social media experience for users? One of its greatest critics, Facebook, has questioned Apple’s true motives for rolling out this new feature. And while Apple’s feature is a step in the right direction, it may not be sufficient to protect the privacy of app and social media users. Instead, is it time for privacy laws like the EU’s GDPR to be implemented in the US as Apple’s CEO Tim Cooke has suggested?
I just listened to an interesting episode of 99% Invisible podcast about Enron email corpus (You’ve got Enron mail). Apparently sometime around 2000 a mass group of Enron emails were released to the public (which included some private emails of employees). This corpus of some 600, 000 emails was then used by researchers to study communication among real people and many technologies we use today (Siri, spam filters, etc) are based on those. The podcast hosts also explore some interesting questions like whether they should have been released at all (apparently a privacy concerns were not a big thing then) and what happens when so much of our technology today is based on the writing of the employees of a fallen energy company.
I hope everyone had a restful weekend! As I was browsing the news tab of Google (ironically) I came across an article that may be of interest. Australia is planning on introducing a new law which would force Google and Facebook inc to pay media companies for the right to use its content. While I can’t speak for the class, I personally rely on both print and digital media and do not necessarily have a preference for news sources other than that the source must reputable. This article was featured in the Financial Post 2 days ago. The subject is particularly fascinating as it juxtaposes the common theme of government censorship when discussing internet regulation. I have a few friends in media and having discussed the issue of the dying platform of print media, I find it refreshing to see that a government would stand up for the rights of media companies. This occurred after French news corporations reached a content-payment deal with Google for 3 years. I have attached the news article for anyone interested. See you all on Tuesday!
I found this to be an interesting video/article regarding censorship by YouTube and social media platforms of content posted in support of jailed Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny.
Not a particularly novel story (of content-hosting platforms caving to political pressure) but I would be interested to hear what justifications are provided by these companies for their behaviour.
Also, here’s the documentary published by Navalny on Putin’s $1 billion+ estate two days after his arrest. The video has absolutely blown up in Russia and the EU:
I found this article in this morning’s Vancouver Sun. I personally find cybersecurity a prevailing issue that seems underemphasized in the public sphere unless a significant data breach has occurred. One that stands out is the privacy breach of personal health records of millions of Canadians that Lifelabs failed to protect in 2019. According to Michael Pickup, the auditor general’s report, management shortcomings are:
• policies and standards lacked specific guidelines for identifying and managing IT assets for the purpose of managing cybersecurity risks;
• cybersecurity roles and responsibilities were not clearly established, including those for managing IT assets; and
• inventories of IT assets and maps of organizational communication and data flows were incomplete and inaccurate
A cyberattack occurs every 39 seconds and data breaches exposed 8.4 billion records globally in the first four months of 2020. On a positive note, the auditor’s findings did exclude the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Citizen’s services from these shortcomings.
Enclosed are links to the report and an article hosted by ‘Vancouver is Awesome’ webpage for anyone who is interested.
The BC Supreme Court ruled yesterday in Giustra v. Twitter, Inc., 2021 BCSC 54 that the court has (and will exercise) jurisdiction in a defamation lawsuit against California-based Twitter by a BC plaintiff. The ruling provides encouragement for Canadian plaintiffs attempting to hold U.S.-based internet platforms responsible for content accessed by Canadians.
As per the CBC article below:
West Vancouver billionaire Frank Giustra has been given the go-ahead to sue Twitter in a B.C. courtroom over the social media giant’s publication of a series of tweets tying him to baseless conspiracy theories involving pedophile rings and Bill and Hillary Clinton.
In a ruling released Thursday, Justice Elliott Myers found that Giustra’s history and presence in British Columbia, combined with the possibility the tweets may have been seen by as many as 500,000 B.C. Twitter users, meant a B.C. court should have jurisdiction over the case.
Note: The CBC article seems to conflate the court’s finding of territorial competence with its decision to exercise jurisdiction under the forum non conveniens analysis.
An interesting part of the court’s analysis is the court’s rejection of Twitter’s argument of forum non conveniens, in which the court distinguishes the facts of the present case from the leading case regarding jurisdiction over internet defamation (Haaretz.com v. Goldhar, 2018 SCC 28). In Haaretz, the ONSC was found to have jurisdiction simpliciter but Ontario was ruled to be forum non conveniens (in favour of an Israeli court).
Communications Law
