In casual talks with employers and managers around the city the predominate feeling is that if an employee or potential employee has a blog, facebook, twitter stream, or any other online presence the it is the employers right to know. While no one would admit to actively hunting these resources out the reactions did indicate a certain “right to know” attitude. The reality is that some employers are doing extensive searches of current and potential employees online habits. A recent Deloitte survey found that 30% of employers were informally monitoring social networking sites for employee’s habits. People have even been dismissed for content they have posted online. A quick search for “Fired for blogging” will give you an easy dozen links to choose for with related stories.

Now on the flip side many employees will argue that their online actions are none of their employers business. According to the same Deloitte survey 53% of employees think that their social networking habits are none of their employers business. Even though over 70% understand it is easy to damage their employer’s reputation online. I think the reasons for this is quite obvious and do not warrant an in-depth discussion. Employees do not want to be held accountable at their employment for things they do off the company time. The basic social contract of mutual financial success, that is I perform a set of duties to assist the company in being profitable and am justly paid for those services, is the underlying principal of this. For many people the employee/employer relationship ends there and unless the employees external actions prevent or inhibit that process, what the employee does is their business.
So where do you stand? Where does the employee/employer relationship end? At what point do you feel the employer is overstepping its bounds of intruding into your personal life? Leave your comments below. I would love to hear from employers and employees alike on this.

These two group are based out of the United States and are attempting to project their influence throughout the world by pressuring the worlds most powerful nation, who in turn are pressuring their trading partners. In this case, the true north strong and free.

Case in point: A recent Reuters story was published that accuses Canada of being one of the worst copyright infringers on the planet. Placing it in the top 10 and asking the U.S. Trade Representative’s office to place Canada and two other countries on a trade watch list. Now when you consider who published the report that the article was based on, it should fall under speculation. The International Intellectual Property Alliance is a lobby group comprised of – according to their own website – American based industry groups covering the spectrum of music, movies, and software.

So in summary –to be as clear as possible – an American industry association that is comprised of American companies is accusing just about everyone else of lax copyright laws. However, this is to protect the content producers [music, writing, video, etc], right? Wrong!

While the government argument to justify a copyright reform bill includes a point that businesses want it. The reality is much different and only a small select group of companies, which are based outside of Canada, will benefit from theses changes. In fact, some of the largest companies in Canada and a number who operate internationally have come out against the government’s stance. The list of companies includes: Google, Yahoo! Canada, Rogers, Tucows, Telus, and many of the industry associations they are members of.

These companies would effectively become the police and watch dogs for the music and movie industry, since they will have to monitor networks and develop technological measures to protect the content of another industry. This is not their place or job and it should not be thrust upon them. Instead, they argue for a more balanced copyright reform. Some of their major points are an ISP safe harbor, private copying, expanded fair dealing, rational and effective enforcement, among others.

This kind of balance still provides the tools content providers need to chase down infringers while allowing customers flexibility to use the materials they obtain legally. The question remains, will the government listen to these companies or bow further to American pressure and threats? Make sure your voice is heard and write your MP today, join the Facebook group to get more information about this very important issue, and ensure your rights are protected.

A hot topic that will have many punches thrown over this session will most likely be the highly debated and controversial copyright reform bill. A bill that would mimic the highly disliked DMCA bill in the USA. The bill that was suppose to be tabled in the fall session but was delayed when sudden and vocal opposition was demonstrated by the very people who would be effected by this proposed law change, the voters!

A lot of the organization behind this opposition comes in the form of a Facebook group. Started by Dr. Michael Geist, law professor and Canada Research Chair of Internet and E-commerce Law at the University of Ottawa, the Facebook group “Fair Copyright for Canada” has attracted the attention of 37000 users and resulted in national news coverage by CBC’s The Hour and The National.

While all that might be old news to some readers, a new development was the creation of local chapters that started quietly over the Christmas break. Just this past week The Fair Copyright for Canada group went public with its announcement of local chapters spanning 13 cities. I was delighted to be asked to start the Halifax Chapter and welcome anyone in the Halifax area to join. You are also encouraged to start your own campus or city chapter if one is not already in existence. Just contact Dr. Geist through the national Facebook group.

The momentum of this group continues to grow with coverage on Computer World Magazine’s site and on local newscasts across the country. This is an important step in bringing the concerns of the public to the MP’s who will eventually vote on this issue. Any stakeholders, who have a desire to see a balanced copyright reform bill put before the House of Commons, or an unbalanced bill defeated, are asked to get involved and ensure that your concerns are heard. Through these Facebook groups we will be making available the necessary information about who to contact, how to get involved, any rallies, and most importantly how this will effect you.

This development is also notable for demonstrating the impact that social networking sites can have on an organization. Although that is another topic. So please get involved, learn how this can affect you, and most importantly stand up for your rights.

For years the wireless network carriers that provide your cell phone service have had a restrictive hold on what devices could be used with their services. Today marks the final major player to reverse that practice and customers in the US win. But what about Canada?

It seems that wireless providers in the Great White North are less inclined to provide the same openness to their customers. The big three here – Bell, Telus, and Rogers – still require that customers use only the devices and software that they provide. Even when you consider that two of them use the same technology (CDMA), they do not easily allow, if at all, the ability to take your phone from one carrier to the other. Instead, you are required to sign a new contract for a subsidized phone in order to switch companies. So the question remains when will Canadian companies follow the American lead. Not only do they seem disinterested but the Canadian Government’s department of Industry also lacks any definitive position on the topic. In fact, the Minster of Industry lacked any requirement of an open network policy for bids in the upcoming Canadian wireless spectrum auction. A requirement that is part of the same auction that is ongoing in the US.

For a government that seems so determined that align its self with the American draconian DMCA it has missed the boat on a pro-consumer move of open wireless networks. Which is also a policy of the Americans. So who looses should we not adopt this policy – either though industry or government regulation – why we the customers do!

An open network policy would allow consumers the choice to use any device, phone, or software on their wireless provider. Therefore, instead of being tied into contracts and restrictive choices of phones you would be able to take any technological compatible piece of equipment to any provider. The caveat to this is you may have to pay full price for the phone to avoid the contract requirement since the carrier’s subsidize the phones through those contracts.

The Canadian wireless providers face three issues and mounting public pressure to fix them.
1) Open networks – allow the customers the choice to use any device, phone, or software they wish with their connection.
2) Service plans/pricing – currently there is no reasonable data plans for mobile devices and most plans have minutes, bandwidth transfer, or content restrictions. Unlimited – if even available – plans are priced well out of the affordability of the average Canadian.
3) Competition – With only two major CDMA and one GSM carrier there is little to no choice for service. Increased competition is necessary.

As for the iPhone, the AT&T move will have no effect. Customers will still need to sign a two year contract to get their iPhone. That said, in two years I predict a surge of iPhone users fleeing AT&T for other carriers.

There has been a fairly loud laugh and a collective head shaking as intelligent people attempt to understand how a U.S. firm feels that not only is the content of their site the property of the owner – and it is – but the HTML code that allows your browser to view it is also property of the owner. Not only is it their property but you are forbid from viewing it [the HTML]. In addition, this firm attempts to prevent you from linking to them, or referring to them, without permission. The firm Inventor-Link is represented by the law firm Dozier Internet Law – and I assume advised by them – who have recently attempted to prevent another site from posting one of their take down letters, citing it as intellectual property. A letter from a firm who think that is possible is likely neither intellectual nor property but most likely, a document filled with such verbose legalese that it only attempts to scare and confuse the target into submission.

All these two firms are demonstrating is a general misunderstanding of internet technology and I hate to point it out, the law.

To the first point I will simply state that in order view a web page a browser must make a temporary copy [cache] of the information in order to display it to the viewer (if you are uncomfortable with this do not post anything online as this is simply how it works). If viewing the HTML is violation then certainly copying is as well. To the second point I will remind everyone that it is a long standing legal precedent that you are free to link to, cite appropriately, and criticize properly, any site you wish. Such as I am now. How either firm figures this is helping them is beyond me.

As they are written now the Facebook terms state

By posting User Content to any part of the Site, you automatically grant, and you represent and warrant that you have the right to grant, to the Company an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, publicly perform, publicly display, reformat, translate, excerpt (in whole or in part) and distribute such User Content for any purpose on or in connection with the Site or the promotion thereof, to prepare derivative works of, or incorporate into other works, such User Content, and to grant and authorize sublicenses of the foregoing.

This agreement gives Facebook a blanket license to use, reuse, and even sell your creative work to third parties, use in advertising, and many other possible uses.

I contacted Facebook regarding these terms and was responded to by they very helpful Zack. In his correspondence with me he stated

While it is highly unlikely that Facebook will ever use material you upload to site, this previous clause states that Facebook retains license to do so. This license does not affect ownership or copyright privileges for material uploaded to the site.

While he never states that Facebook will not use my or your content and this is just a legal protection, he suggests it is quite possible they could use my content, it is just unlikely. However, he is right. Their terms do not negate your rights to your material. It just gives them free reign to use it as they will, without having to obtain your permission.

Since it was obvious this was their stance and they were not moving from it I considered their potential over-reaching of their terms of use. With these blanket rights a writer like myself looses all value and control over their work to a blanket license transfer. It’s akin to making a movie, releasing it, but giving permission to theaters to hand out free DVD’s of that movie regardless of a ticket purchase.

Given this I also investigated other opinions and in a recent CNet podcast the Buzz Out Loud crew stated that this is typical of all online sites such as MySpace, Friendster, etc. Thanks to the investigations of Matthew Gillard I come to find out that the Blogger – arguably the largest blogging site – terms of service state

Google claims no ownership or control over any Content submitted, posted or displayed by you on or through Google services.

This forward thinking usage agreement helps users retain full control over their content and retains any value it might have.

So what why should you care. Well if you are a creative type, you feel that the pictures you take, video’s you edit, stories you write, have potential value then you could be at risk of having your content reused without your permission or remuneration. This is how the current terms work within Facebook and I for one am not comfortable with it. This is something we all have to consider when posting any content to sites like Facebook. What are implications of uploading? Who has access to see? Who is my content being shared with? Is someone else using my content for direct or indirect profit?

Something for you to consider, as such I have removed my blog content from Facebook. Readers can view it at www.christophermercer.net

BTW that earlier comment about Facebook selling user data. I have found no basis for that accusation, fact is that personal data is protected under the same terms of use.

The argument most often put forward by those organizations is that they need to protect the intellectual property of their members. Whether it be a song; a movie, a book, a photograph, or a painting, it was the art form that was being protected. The unique combinations of words, or melody, or paint on a canvas, was what was being protected. I have no argument with this. As a writer I feel I should be fairly compensated for my work and when a person uses my works – for which an economic value is attached – then I should be fairly compensated or they would have infringed on my rights and I have a recourse to take against them. The recourse comes in the way of copyright laws. If I can prove infringement of my rights to gain economic value for my writings then I can take action. This is the basic premise of why the MPAA and RIAA want to use DRM and lobbied for laws such as the DMCA. They want more ways in which to protect the economic rights of their members.

With new technology comes new risks and in 1998 when the DMCA was drafted and passed into law few people expected the far reaching effects. However, the law placed the power in the hands of copyright owners and their representatives. With a online world where most people are anonymous and the emergence of digital content new challenges were faced. The result was instead of proving that an infringement took place and going after the infringer directly these lobby groups had power to just notice the digital content provider or host of suspected infringement and they had to take down the material in question. So now instead of proving that you stole that shirt from the store, you were assumed guilty until you proved you did not take the shirt. This is the real world analogy to how the DMCA can be used and often is.

So the result has been that the MPAA and RIAA have set up brokerage houses for out of court settlement of copyright violation of their works. Why pay tens of thousands of dollars defending yourself in court when you can pay thousands of dollars and settle. The problem with this is you admit a crime you may have not committed based on your financial ability to defend your self. Such was the case of a woman who was sued a few years back by the RIAA for downloading songs to her computer, the problem with the case was she never owned a computer and it was eventually tossed out.

Considering all this and argument that it is the IP they are protecting, then why are we being charged full value for each copy of a movie or song? Consider the converse. If I have purchased a DVD and I want a digital copy to play on the my laptop so I don’t have to carry the disk around I can purchase it from an online retailer like iTunes but I can’t – legally – make a copy of it myself. I have purchased the IP already and subsequent purchases should be just for the new form of media. If I own a record then getting the CD version should only cost me the cost of the media not a full repurchase of IP contained within or if I scratch a DVD a replacement should only cost me the media cost.

So basically organizations like the MPAA and RIAA are using DRM and laws like the DMCA to protect their economic interests and creating an system in which we have to repurchase content with each new format that is introduced. Thus removing our options to legally use it a manner that suits our needs, these are the basic principals of Fair Use in the US and Fair Dealing in Canada.

The thing they were posting about was a number and in this case a simple 16 bit hexadecimal number. So what is this magic number that would have hundreds of thousands of people posting stories to digg.com, Slashdot.org, and other social networking sites like facebook? The number is actually a key and a very important key at that. In the realm of DVD’s and HD-DVD’s having this key is like being given the master key to every house in your town. The key is the processing key for HD-DVD and in the hands of a talented programmer would allow HD-DVD movies to be played or copied to any computer, or device. Copies that could be uploaded and shared online but at 20Gb a file it is unlikely you will see that happen any time soon.

Most readers are likely thinking “so what?” and wondering why this is so noteworthy. Well it relates to the use of the DMCA to take down blogs, postings to social networking sites, and any other reproduction of that number. The Movie Producers Association of America (MPAA) have been handing out take down notices like they were candy to prevent this number from becoming available. They view it as a part of their intellectual property and thus subject to copyright. It is a part of their digital rights management (DRM) strategy, which restricts playback of HD-DVD’s to approved devices. If you are a Linux computer user, or a home theater hobbyist who wants to build their own media server, you would be prevented from have HD-DVD functionality so since these are not approved devices. E.g. there is no Linux (or Mac I believe) HD-DVD players.

So what about this revolt? About a month or so ago this key was discovered and posted on websites, subsequently the MPAA started a campaign to have those postings removed. The removals – most notably from digg.com itself – quickly became seen as attempts to censor users to protect corporate economic interests and the users were reposting the number, and links to other sites with the number faster than they could be taken down. Eventually the founder of Digg, Kevin Rose, bowed to the will of his user base and said they would stop removing postings and deal with any consequences that might result. In his words “if we lose, then what the hell, at least we died trying.”

This is a perfect example of both DRM and the DMCA at its worst. It is a tenant of copyright law that words and numbers cannot be copyrighted, they could be trademarked, but not copyrighted. It is exactly these kinds of draconian laws that the US is pressuring on other countries, and exactly the kinds of laws the current government is considering introducing as part of its copyright reform. If you reverse engineer, find a security hole, or discover a way to break encryption that is applied to copyrighted material you can be prevented form sharing that information with laws like the DMCA. This is exactly what has happened with the HD-DVD processing key and many other products such as the DeCSS code that allows DVD playback. It leaves a chilling effect on those who wish to build a better lock by understanding how to break the current one, a process often pursued in academics.

With the tragic events that have unfolded this week at Virginia Tech a lot of schools will be looking at their emergency readiness policies and communication methods. This unfortunate event has thrust to the forefront the security of our educational environments. Which, in our conversation, focused on how exactly would our institution inform us – sitting in the University Center cafeteria at the time – of a similar event transpiring somewhere else on this campus? The answer, surprisingly, would be the same way Virginia Tech informed its members. An email to all students, staff, and faculty would likely be sent. In addition, local media would be notified. But that does not help Dennis and myself sitting in the food court with no computer, no radio, and no TV nearby. It would not help a professor in the middle of a lecture and the class listening. There are so many gaping holes in this train of thought it is difficult to imagine schools not having a good look at their security procedures and policies for emergency response. Especially to something as terrifying as a rogue gunman wandering campus firing upon anything that moves.

The answer we came up with brings us back to the old days of elementary school and high school. A public announcement (PA) system! What could replace a simple system of speakers placed in each classroom connected to a central administration point? Well in an ideal technology enabled world there is the option of using a closed circuit television system with screens placed in every classroom, or at least every common area, displaying essential information. This is actually becoming common with local high schools. In the event of inclement weather, power failure, or emergency, a simple announcement would be given to the full campus including any necessary instructions. With a CCTV system, those announcements would be visually broadcast, and would avoid being unheard in noisy areas like the food court.

This of course is ideal since the cost for such an endeavor might not be justified by the reality of the environment although, it could be subsidized by advertising and used for general school information when not deployed in need to know situations. This is just one potential system, however I do feel that relaying on email as the central point of contact leaves to many openings for important information being left unseen. Especially given a worst case scenario.