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
Am honoured to have been asked to moderate this debate on Net Neutrality tomorrow in Room 104 of the Allard School of Law. The speakers will be Tom Struble, Counsel at R Street in Institute in Washington, DC, and Ian Bell, internet entrepreneur.
Hope to see you there.
Jon
Last course, we touched on what should be the role of search engines (private entities) in showing links on the results pages. Not only the search engines designed algorithms to provide the more relevant information based on their own “editing choice”, but they tend to personalize the results based on the user’s profile. I wonder how a democratic discourse could be guaranteed on the Internet. I have only done preliminary researches and my thoughts about it are not clearly structured. However, I decided to share it with you; and you might want to contribute.
The United States has given the protection of freedom of expression to results pages. For what I understand, the American courts considered that private entities express their opinions through the search engines. The search results are opinions. Those opinions are protected speech under the First Amendment – freedom of expression rights. E.g.: Search King Inc. v. Google Technology, Kinderstart.com LLC et al. v. Google Inc., Jian Zhang et al. v. Baidu.com Inc.
One of my concerns is that the listener/reader right are not considered.
The Canadian freedom of expression right, pursuant, Edmonton Journal v. Alberta (Attorney General), [1989] and R. v. National Post, [2010], seems to include the right to receive and access information if it is justified by the public interest.
In January 2016, the Office of the Privacy Commissioner (OPC) of Canada launched a public consultation on the online reputation. OPC received 28 written propositions. Two years later, January 26, 2018, OPC released it draft “Position Paper on Online Reputation” (the “Proposition”) (https://www.priv.gc.ca/en/about-the-opc/what-we-do/consultations/consultation-on-online-reputation/pos_or_201801/#fn15-rf). The Proposition relies on the opinion that search engines are subjected to PIPEDA and that PIPEDA provides a “de-indexing right”. The search engines would have to evaluate the merits of a Canadian request to de-index a result on: a case-by-case basis, the materiality impact on the individual’s interests, and balance the public interest in the information. And then, if concluded in favour of de-indexation, remove the link (not the content) to a search result when a name is searched from Canada by using geo-identifying technologies. It is an important power that is given to private entities; which is determining public interest and balancing fundamental rights for Canadian without or little government oversight. (A recurrent theme in our course’s discussions: powers given to private entities vs our government).
The following avenues of reflection, in my view, would merit further examination:
Note about the Proposition: The Proposition relies on the opinion that search engines are subjected to PIPEDA because the search engines “collects, uses or discloses [personal information] in the course of commercial activities” (paragraph 4(1)(a)). The “commercial activities”, in the OPC opinion, in those circumstances are rooted in their ability to sell advertising space; and the use takes the form of putting personal information when a search request is made under an individual’s name – creating a “profile of the most relevant information”. In the OPC’s opinion, PIPEDA provides a “de-indexing right”:
Note: On June 2017, the Europeen “Commission fines Google 2.42 billion euro for abusing dominance as search engine by gibing illegal advantage to own comparison shopping service” http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-17-1784_en.htm
Here they are. A post facto remix of slides for my improvised talk today. Laura & Claudio’s as delivered.
Back to Part 3 of broadcasting policy next week. Am also extending “Question of the Week” to two so that we can get a bit deeper into Canadian Content before you answer.
Jon
Canadian Content regulation has for decades been a prime focus in any debate about our communications system. In the digital media age, the issue is still present but sometimes feels like it is covered up by the overwhelming changes and innovations bred through the mostly unregulated and seemingly more urgent issues of social media today. So though we may feel it’s still important to define and understand the long term strategies, advantages and cost of supporting Canadian creative endeavours, WHAT ABOUT FAKE NEWS? WHAT ABOUT PRIVACY? AND BIG DATA? AND A.I.? AND MONOPOLY? AND NET NEUTRALITY? AND…? AND…? AND COULD THE CANUCKS REALLY NOT GET ANY DRAFT PICKS FOR THOMAS VANEK?
You get the idea. Canadian Content, both conceptually and practically seems to be off the front pages of our minds. Are we (the public) negligent in seemingly letting it slide from urgent view? Is it as important as it was? Is it important?
SOME SOURCES:
Broadcasting Act
3(1) It is hereby declared as the broadcasting policy for Canada that
(f) each broadcasting undertaking shall make maximum use, and in no case less than predominant use, of Canadian creative and other resources in the creation and presentation of programming, unless the nature of the service provided by the undertaking, such as specialized content or format or the use of languages other than French and English, renders that use impracticable, in which case the undertaking shall make the greatest practicable use of those resources;
(l) the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, as the national public broadcaster, should provide radio and television services incorporating a wide range of programming that informs, enlightens and entertains;
(m) the programming provided by the Corporation should(i) be predominantly and distinctively Canadian,
(t) distribution undertakings(i) should give priority to the carriage of Canadian programming services and, in particular, to the carriage of local Canadian stations,
Television Broadcasting Regulations
Canadian Programs
4 (1) [Repealed, SOR/94-220, s. 2]
(2) For the purposes of this section,
ethnic programming period means that portion of the broadcast year during which a licensee broadcasts ethnic programs; (période de programmation à caractère ethnique)
evening ethnic programming period means that portion of the evening broadcast period during which a licensee broadcasts ethnic programs; (période de programmation à caractère ethnique en soirée)
evening broadcast period means the total time devoted to broadcasting between six o’clock in the afternoon and midnight during each broadcast year. (période de radiodiffusion en soirée)
(3) For the purposes of this section, the time devoted to the broadcasting of a program includes any time devoted to advertising material that is inserted
(b) in breaks within the program; or
(c) between the end of the program and the beginning of the following program.
(4) Subsections (6), (7), (9) and (10) do not apply to the licensee of an ethnic station.
(5) Subsections (6) and (7) do not apply to the licensee of a remote station.
(6) [Repealed, SOR/2017-160, s. 18]
(7) Subject to subsection (10),
(a) a licensee holding a public licence shall devote not less than 60 per cent of the evening broadcast period to the broadcasting of Canadian programs; and
(b) a licensee holding a private licence shall devote not less than 50 per cent of the evening broadcast period to the broadcasting of Canadian programs.
(8) Except where authorized by a condition of licence designed to enhance the quality or diversity of Canadian programs, the licensee of an ethnic station or of a remote station shall devote not less than
(a) 60 per cent of the broadcast year and of any six month period specified in a condition of licence to the broadcasting of Canadian programs; and
(b) 50 per cent of the evening broadcast period to the broadcasting of Canadian programs.
(9) Where a licensee is authorized by a condition of licence to devote less than 60 per cent of the ethnic programming period to the broadcasting of Canadian programs and does so, subsection (6) applies to that part of the broadcast year and of any six month period specified in a condition of licence during which the licensee is not broadcasting ethnic programs.
(10) Where a licensee is authorized by a condition of licence to devote less than the required percentage referred to in subsection (7) to the broadcasting of Canadian programs during the evening ethnic programming period and does so, subsection (7) applies only to that portion of the evening broadcast period during which ethnic programs are not broadcast.
(11) Where, in the calculation of the time devoted by a licensee to Canadian programs that are broadcast during a broadcast day, inequities arise among licensees because their stations are located in different time zones, the Commission may vary the application of this section in order that licensees receive equitable treatment in the calculation of their Canadian programs.
Also click through to see…
A pretty amazing archive of stories about Canadian Content can be found here…
More in class tomorrow…
Jon
Hi everyone,
With the latest Florida mass shooting I, like most of you, have witnessed the outcry and response to this act of gun violence on social media.
My post today is based on the following article: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/feb/21/florida-students-have-turned-social-media-into-a-weapon-for-good
The article states that the Florida students have turned social media into a weapon for good. They are using social media to spread the word on the need to end gun violence and to have stricter gun laws. Social media was even hailed as providing the trapped students the tool to warn others in the school about the shooter during the tragic event and to call for help from the outside world when emergency phone operators were unable to take their calls.
However, on the other hand there are those that argue that in reality social media is not an effective tool to combat gun violence because it leads people to share what has happened without actually doing anything about it. It is even argued that social media makes people believe they are making an effort because they are discussing what is happening and making posts for change but again are not actually making any change.
In addition, in this same article there is a question of whether social media can do more harm then good for there are rumors being spread that the Florida student activists are just paid actors. Also, soon after the shooting pro- Russian gun bots flooded twitter , the bots are able to respond quickly to breaking news because they’re ultimately controlled by humans and or the bots jump on existing hashtags to take control of the conversation and amplify a message. These pro gun groups are spreading misinformation about the shooter such as making him seem related to Islamic extremist groups or a local white nationalist group. Research displayed that twitter also had an increase in similar postings after other mass shootings in the US such as the Las Vegas shooting last year.
This issue of social media or even just the Internet’s ability to manipulate the truth has been a repeated topic this semester. However, the article leaves us with this thought:
“Whether the Stoneman students will be able to maintain their authentic voices amid social media’s crisis of authenticity remains an open question. But for now, they have taken full advantage of the democratic nature of social media to push our democracy forward.”
For more information about the pro-gun bots : https://www.wired.com/story/pro-gun-russian-bots-flood-twitter-after-parkland-shooting/
Net Activism
For our upcoming presentation, Laura and I are going to address the topic of net activism in its various forms. We will define the term, explore some of the main techniques of net activism, the reactions to these techniques, and possible legal responses to the emergence of various net activism movements.
Please watch the following video debate about the value of net activism to help contextual our presentation:
Thank you,
Here they are, all in one place…
Jon
Let me start this in a perhaps unusual place. John Perry Barlow passed away on February 7 2017 at the age of 70. He was many things and could easily be nominated for any list of the most interesting, charismatic, and thoughtful people in recent memory. He possessed instant street cred for having been a lyricist for the Grateful Dead, but there was much more. He was a visionary, spokesman, and poet for the early internet. Most of all he was a protector of of the web’s potential. He was a founder of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and famously the author of “A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace”…
This week’s Question of The Week comes directly from Charlotte’s presentation last week, but Barlow’s life-work provides an interesting backdrop to answering it in the context of interests worth protecting. Perhaps this excerpt from Cindy Cohn’s announcement on the EFF’s website of Barlow’s passing captures it best:
“Barlow was sometimes held up as a straw man for a kind of naive techno-utopianism that believed that the Internet could solve all of humanity’s problems without causing any more. As someone who spent the past 27 years working with him at EFF, I can say that nothing could be further from the truth. Barlow knew that new technology could create and empower evil as much as it could create and empower good. He made a conscious decision to focus on the latter: “I knew it’s also true that a good way to invent the future is to predict it. So I predicted Utopia, hoping to give Liberty a running start before the laws of Moore and Metcalfe delivered up what Ed Snowden now correctly calls ‘turn-key totalitarianism.’”
So without further ado, here is the Question of the Week…
Sorry, there are no polls available at the moment.If you need to remind yourself of the various possibilities and their contexts, scroll down to the Week 6 slides and take a bit of time to reacquaint yourself with Charlotte’s
Jon
P.S. If you are interested in more on Barlow an excellent Obituary from The Guardian and Cindy Cohn’s announcement can both be found below…
The following article aligns with our discussion of using AI technology to create deep fakes. However, this article identifies an experiment conducted by a group of University of Chicago researchers. The experiment involves using computer algorithms to create fake Yelp restaurant evaluations. The researchers used a machine-learning technique known as deep learning to analyze letter and word patterns used in millions of existing Yelp reviews. Usually when there are mass postings of fake reviews, for example when Hilary Clinton’s book was launched, websites are able to identify it. However, with the researchers’ use of AI, Yelp’s filtering software had difficulty spotting many of the fakes. Even human test subjects were unable to tell the difference between real and fake reviews.
The researchers wanted to conduct this experiment in order to see whether it was possible for individuals to make fake reviews on a mass level in order to impact people’s use of a product, book, restaurant or anything else. This interest displays how things focused on in the media like “fake news” or “deep fakes” really can impact the research and developments in the communication field.
For now, the approach to create fake critics remains to be “crowdturfing” where mass amounts of people are paid to comment on websites. “In crowdturfing online reviews, an attacker creates a project on the Mechanical Turk site and offers to pay large numbers of people to set up accounts on Amazon, Yelp, TripAdvisor or other sites and to then post reviews intended to either raise or sink a product or service’s money-making prospects”.
From here the researchers plan on looking at ways to detect fake news – currently its difficult to create fake news with AI because computers cannot generate the “human touch” in articles however if AI can create fake reviews – anything is possible.
ARTICLE: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/could-ai-be-the-future-of-fake-news-and-product-reviews/
MEDIA, COMMUNICATIONS & NET NEUTRALITY
DIGITAL
CREATIVITY
SURVEILLANCE & PRIVACY
GAMES
Jon
Communications Law
