BULLETIN DE DROIT ET TECHNOLOGIE LAW & TECHNOLOGY NEWSLETTER 01/08 // v5.

1

PROFITING FROM PEER PRODUCTION
23 27

contents
4
The University of Ottawa Law & Technology Journal (UOLTJ) / Revue de Droit et technologie de l’Université d’Ottawa (RDTUO)

16
uOttawa Faculty of Law 75 Louis Pasteur Street Ottawa, ON, CANADA K1N 6N5 Printed in Canada

18
BULLETIN DE DROIT ET TECHNOLOGIE LAW & TECHNOLOGY NEWSLETTER 01/08 // v5.1

The Open Access Law Program / Le programme Libre accès . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Creative Commons Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

6 The EDGE Network on the Emerging Dynamic Global Economies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Littering the Information Superhighway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 CIPPIC – The Year in Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Law Students Go Jump Street . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..................9 Profiting from peer production / Profiter de la production par les pairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 On the Identity Trail heads towards home stretch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Concentration in Law & Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 The Laws of Robotics, with Professor Ian Kerr / Les lois de la robotique, avec le professeur Ian Kerr . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Digital Music with Professor Jeremy de Beer / Musique numérique, avec le professeur Jeremy de Beer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC) / Clinique d’intérêt public et de politique d’Internet du Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Technology Law Internship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Option in Law and Technology/ L’option en Droit et technologie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

19

Conférence commémorative Deirdre G. Martin en matière de droit relatif au respect de la vie privée / Deirdre G. Martin Memorial Lecture in Privacy Law . . . . . . . 22 The Law & Technology Student Society (LTSS) / l’Association des étudiants/étudiantes en droit et technologie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 The Epidemic of Lost and Stolen Data / L’épidémie de pertes et de vols de données . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 The Privacy Network (TPN) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Technology Law Speaker Series / Série de conférences en droit des technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Le déterminisme génétique? / Genetic Determinism and Discrimination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Faculty news

28 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

uOttawa Law & Technology Program uOttawa Programme de Droit et Technologie www.commonlaw.uottawa.ca/tech

WELCOME BIENVENUE
Our law school yet again received more applications than any other in Canada, and many applicants tell us that they chose, and often applied only to, the University of Ottawa because of our Law & Technology program. It is true that the program has grown by leaps and bounds, and the accomplishments of the last few years are extraordinary by any standard. The only public interest, internet and technology law clinic in Canada (CIPPIC), unique technology law internships, and a world-class Faculty that is truly second to none. Cette année encore, notre faculté de droit a reçu plus de demandes d’admission que toutes les autres au Canada, et bon nombre de candidats déclarent avoir fait une demande à l’Université d’Ottawa (certains disent, en fait, n’avoir fait aucune autre demande ailleurs) en raison du programme de Droit et technologie. Il est vrai que notre programme a connu une croissance spectaculaire et que nos réalisations des dernières années sont extraordinaires à bien des égards. En effet, nous avons en outre mis sur pied la seule clinique d’intérêt public et de politique d’Internet du Canada (CIPPIC), organisé des stages exclusifs en droit des technologies et réuni un corps professoral de renommée mondiale.

TECHLAW // 01/08 // v5.1 1

In the following pages, you will read about some of the events organized by the program, including the speakers who have visited our law school, in particular as part of our Torys Technology Law Speaker Series, which is always very well attended. We were honoured by the visit of the Chief Justice of Canada, the Rt Hon. Beverly McLachlin and two of the colleagues, Justices Fish and Rothstein. Justice Rothstein delivered a keynote address at a major international conference on privacy and the Internet, Revealed_I, which marked the end of Professor Ian Kerr’s (Canada Research Chair in Ethics, Law & Technology) 5-year project, On The Identity Trail. Our technology law Faculty, the largest in the country, has continued to blog actively and to contribute in myriad ways to policy debates, from privacy protection (or absence thereof) to consumer protection in online transactions. Professor Michael Geist (Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law) has continued to play a key part on several fronts, including identity theft and copyright reform. We were also very happy that Professor Teresa Scassa joined our Faculty to teach intellectual property and technology law courses in both English and French and to pursue a very active research agenda. The Common Law Section also celebrates two major anniversaries this year: 50 years for the Common Law Section and 30 years of common law en français. Our technology law program is an essential component of our success, a program that is both bilingual and bijural. A perfectly natural outcome for Canada’s law school. Finally, we have just selected the architects who will work with us to build a much-needed extension to Fauteux Hall and complete renovation of the Brian Dickson Library. The new building will reflect our core values: sustainable development, high faculty-student interaction and interactive learning, and the very latest technology to help our students learn, work together and study. More on this shortly. // Acting Dean Daniel Gervais

Professor Gervais is a member of the Law & Technology group and the Acting Dean of the Common Law Section of the Facutly of Law. His latest book, Intellectual Property, Trade & Development, was published in 2007 by Oxford University Press.

Les pages qui suivent traitent de certaines activités organisées par l’équipe du Programme. Il y est notamment question de notre série de conférences Torys sur le droit des technologies, toujours très courue. Nous avons, jusqu’ici, eu l’honneur d’y recevoir la juge en chef du Canada, la très honorable Beverly McLachlin, ainsi que deux de ses collègues, MM. les juges Fish et Rothstein. M. le juge Rothstein a d’ailleurs prononcé une allocution privilégiée lors d’un important congrès international sur la confidentialité et l’Internet, « Revealed_I », qui marquait la conclusion d’un projet quinquennal du professeur Ian Kerr (Chaire de recherche du Canada en éthique, en droit et en technologie), intitulé « On The Identity Trail ». Les professeurs de Droit et technologie ont continué d’alimenter leurs blogues et ont contribué de diverses façons à des débats d’orientation de politique sur divers sujets, allant de la protection de la vie privée (ou de l’absence d’une telle protection) à la protection de la confidentialité des transactions effectuées en ligne par les consommateurs. Le professeur Michael Geist (Chaire de recherche du Canada en droit d’Internet et du commerce électronique) a continué de jouer un rôle fondamental à plusieurs égards, notamment dans les domaine du vol d’identité et de la réforme du droit d’auteur. Nous somme également très heureux de l’arrivée, au sein de notre corps professoral, de la professeure Teresa Scassa, qui enseigne, en anglais et en français, dans les domaines de la propriété intellectuelle et du droit des technologies, en plus de s’investir dans d’imposants projets de recherche. La Section « Common Law » célèbre également cette année deux anniversaires d’importance, soit les 50 ans d’existence de notre Section de common law et les 30 ans d’enseignement de la common law en français. Notre programme de Droit et technologie, de par sa nature bilingue et bijuridique, constitue une composante essentielle de notre succès. Il s’agit là d’un aboutissement tout à fait naturel pour la « Faculté de droit du Canada ». Enfin, nous venons d’arrêter le choix des architectes qui travailleront avec nous à la construction d’une très nécessaire annexe au pavillon Fauteux, de même qu’à l’achèvement de la rénovation de la bibliothèque Brian Dickson. La nouvelle annexe reflétera nos valeurs fondamentales : développement durable, interaction soutenue entre étudiants et membres du corps professoral et apprentissage interactif, et technologie de pointe pour aider nos étudiants à apprendre, à travailler ensemble et à étudier. D’autres nouvelles à ce sujet suivront prochainement. // Daniel Gervais, doyen par intérim

Le Professeur Daniel Gervais est un membre du Groupe de Droit & Technologie et le Doyen par Intérim de la Faculté de Droit. Son dernier livre, “Intellectual Property, Trade & Development” a été publié en 2007 par l’éditeur “Oxford University Press”.

2 TECHLAW //

TECHLAW: MAGAZINE THE LAW & TECHNOLOGY
VOLUME 5, ISSUE 1
uOttawa Faculty of Law 75 Louis Pasteur Street Ottawa, ON, CANADA K1N 6N5 Editor: Andy Kaplan-Myrth Publisher: University of Ottawa,Law & Technology Program The University of Ottawa Technology Law Newsletter is published seasonally by the University of Ottawa’s Faculty of Law. The opinions expressed in this newsletter are solely those of the contributors and are not necessarily those of the editor, sponsors, the University of Ottawa or its employees. Some Rights Reserved. This newsletter is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs-NonCommercial Licence. To view a copy of this licence, visit: creativecommons.org/ licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/ca Comments: Readers are invited to submit their comments and suggestions to the Editor. This newsletter is available free-of-charge online at http://www.commonlaw. uottawa.ca/tech. To unsubscribe to this newsletter, send an email to techlaw@uottawa.ca. If you were forwarded the newsletter by a friend and would like to subscribe, send an email to the same address. Disclaimer: This newsletter is for informational purposes only. It is not intended to be a complete statement of the law, nor is it intended to provide legal advice. No person should act or rely upon the information in this newsletter without seeking professional legal consultation.

TECHLAW:ET TECHNOLOGIE BULLETIN DE DROIT
VOLUME 5, NUMÉRO 1
Faculté de droit, Université d’Ottawa 57, rue Louis-Pasteur Ottawa ON K1N 6N5 CANADA Rédaction : Andy Kaplan-Myrth Publication : Université d’Ottawa, Programme de droit et technologie Le Bulletin de droit et technologie de l’Université d’Ottawa est publié de façon saisonnière par la Faculté de droit de l’Université d’Ottawa. Les opinions exprimées dans ce bulletin reflètent la pensée des auteurs seulement et pas nécessairement celle de la rédaction, des commanditaires, de l’Université d’Ottawa ou de son personnel. Certains droits réservés. Ce bulletin fait l’objet d’une licence Creative Commons de style attribution – pas de travaux dérivés – utilisation non commerciale. La licence est publiée à l’adresse creativecommons.org/licenses/ by-nc-nd/2.5/ca. Commentaires : La rédaction serait heureuse de recevoir les commentaires et suggestions des lecteurs et lectrices. Ce bulletin est offert gratuitement en ligne à l’adresse http://www.commonlaw. uottawa.ca/tech. Si vous désirez vous désabonner de ce bulletin, veuillez envoyer un message électronique à techlaw@uottawa.ca. Si vous avez reçu ce bulletin par l’intermédiaire d’un ami ou d’une amie et que vous aimeriez vous y abonner, veuillez envoyer un message électronique à la même adresse. Avertissement : Ce bulletin cherche uniquement à vous renseigner et non à vous fournir un exposé complet de l’état du droit ou un avis juridique. Nous déconseillons à quiconque d’agir en se fiant sur les renseignements publiés dans ce bulletin et sans obtenir une opinion juridique professionnelle.

LA FACULTÉ DE DROIT ET TECHNOLOGIE / LAW & TECHNOLOGY FACULTY
Jane Bailey Jennifer Chandler Jeremy deBeer Karen Eltis Daniel Gervais Chaire de recherche universitaire sur le droit de la propriété intellectuelle; le professeur Oslers en droit de la technologie; doyen intérimaire de la Section de common law / University Research Chair in Intellectual Property; Osler Professor of Law; Acting Dean of Common Law Michael Geist Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law / Chaire de recherche du Canada en droit d’Internet et du commerce électronique Mistrale Goudreau Elizabeth Judge Ian Kerr Canada Research Chair in Ethics, Law & Technology / Chaire de recherche du Canada en éthique, droit et technologie Andy Kaplan-Myrth Manager / Gestionnaire Marina Pavlovic Teresa Scassa Chaire de recherche du Canada en droit de l’information / Canada Research Chair in Information Law Val Steeves Cross-appointment: Department of Criminology

Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC) / Clinique d’intérêt public et de politique d’internet du Canada
David Fewer Staff Counsel / Avocat-conseil Philippa Lawson Director / Directrice

TECHLAW // 01/08 // v5.1 3

THE

OPEN ACCESS LAW PROGRAM
The Open Access Law Program, launched in June 2005, is a part of the Science Commons Scholar’s Copyright Project, http://sciencecommons.org/ projects/publishing/index.html, which is working to support open access to scholarly research in a wide range of disciplines in science and social science, including law. The Scholar’s Copyright Project aims to increase access to knowledge by reducing the technological, economic, and legal barriers that have traditionally restricted access to scholarship. The Open Access Law Program, of which Open Access Law Canada is a part, specifically promotes open access to legal scholarship.

Open access provides free public access to scholarly literature and promotes the dissemination of this scholarship, which benefits the author, the law review, and the public. Some of the benefits of open access for scholarly publication are to permit quick dissemination of scholarship, to increase access to research for educational purposes, to increase awareness of research among the public, to allow authors to receive com ments and feedback in a timely manner, and to facilitate global scholarly conversations. Open access for legal scholarship enhances the profile of the law review, with increased citation and visibility, and raises awareness of the institution hosting the law review. Law reviews that join the Open Access Law Canada program promise to take the least restrictive licence consistent with the law reviews’ needs, to send the authors an electronic copy of the final version of their article, and to provide public access to the law review’s standard publishing contract so authors can consult the publication agreement before submitting their articles. Law reviews are not required to set up an online archive of articles or publish online. They just need to agree that the authors can post electronic copies of their articles to scholarly websites so people can access the articles even if they don’t have a subscription to a legal database. The Open Access Law Canada program provides a number of resources to encourage open access archiving, which are available

through the websites for Open Access Law Canada, http://www.openaccesslawcanada.ca (in English), and Libre accès au droit Canada, http://www.libreaccesaudroitcanada.ca (en Français). The resources include a Canadian Model Publishing Agreement, which has been specifically tailored to Canadian law, and is available as a template for law reviews to adopt. //

Open access for legal scholarship enhances the profile of the law review, with increased citation and visibility, and raises awareness of the institution hosting the law review.
Professor Elizabeth Judge is project leader for Open Access Law Canada, http://www.openaccesslawcanada.ca/, an initiative launched this year to assist Canadian law reviews to move to an open access publication model, which permits authors to archive their law review articles in publicly accessible scholarly websites.

4 TECHLAW //

LE PROGRAMME

LIBRE ACCÈS
Lancé en juin 2005, dans le cadre du projet de droit d’auteur sur l’héritage scientifique commun, http://sciencecommons.org/ projects/publishing/ index.html, le programme Libre accès au droit Canada cherche à promouvoir le libre accès à la recherche érudite dans une grande diversité de champs des sciences et des sciences sociales, y compris le droit. Le projet de droit d’auteur sur la recherche érudite (Scholar’s Copyright Project) veut faciliter l’accès au savoir en éliminant les obstacles technologiques, économiques et juridiques qui, traditionnellement, ont limité l’accès aux travaux érudits. Le programme Libre accès au droit, dont fait partie le projet Libre accès au droit Canada, préconise plus particulièrement le libre accès à la recherche savante en droit.
Le libre accès est l’accès public gratuit aux travaux d’érudition. Il favorise la diffusion des recherches, ce qui est avantageux pour l’auteur, les revues juridiques et le grand public. Certaines retombées positives sont la diffusion rapide de la recherche, un plus vaste accès à la recherche à des fins éducatives, une plus grande sensibilisation du public à la recherche, l’obtention plus simultanée de commentaires et d’observations sur la recherche et la facilitation des échanges entre universitaires dans le monde. Le libre accès à la recherche érudite en droit rehausse le profil des revues juridiques, qui sont ainsi plus fréquemment citées et plus visibles. Par ricochet, l’établissement qui en assure la publication se fait mieux connaître. Les revues de droit qui participent au programme Libre accès au droit Canada s’engagent à utiliser une licence aussi peu restrictive que possible en tenant compte des besoins de la revue, à fournir aux auteurs une copie électronique de la version finale de leur article et à offrir un accès public au contrat type de publication de leur revue afin que les auteurs puissent consulter l’entente de publication avant de soumettre un article. Les revues de droit n’ont aucune obligation de tenir des archives électro niques des articles ou de publier les articles en ligne. Il leur suffit de permettre aux auteurs de publier leurs articles sur des sites Web savants afin de les rendre accessibles aux personnes qui ne sont pas abonnées à des bases de données juridiques. Le programme Libre accès au droit Canada fournit des ressources diverses sur ses sites Web, en anglais à l’adresse http://www. openaccesslawcanada.ca et en français à l’adresse http://www. libreaccesaudroitcanada.ca pour encourager l’archivage en libre accès. Parmi ces ressources, il y a un modèle canadien d’entente de publication, conçu dans l’optique particulière du droit canadien. Ce modèle est mis à la disposition des revues de droit qui aimeraient s’en inspirer et l’adopter. // Professeure Elizabeth Judge est la directrice du projet Libre accès au droit Canada, http://www.libreaccesaudroitcanada.ca, mis en œuvre cette année pour aider les revues de droit canadiennes à faire le passage vers le modèle de la publication en libre accès, lequel permet à l’auteure ou auteur [auteur] d’archiver ses articles parus dans une revue juridique sur des sites Web accessibles au grand public.

Le libre accès à la recherche érudite en droit rehausse le profil des revues juridiques, qui sont ainsi plus fréquemment citées et plus visibles.

TECHLAW // 01/08 // v5.1 5

LAW STUDENTS GO JUMP STREET
One of the most important benefits of the internet is the ease with which information can be shared among users, whether those users are professional artists, audiences, or users who also generate creative works. The internet is built for sharing, but creative works online are subject to the same copyright laws that restrict sharing offline. This is where Creative Commons licences come in. An organization based in San Francisco, Creative Commons provides copyright licences that allow authors and artists to retain ownership and control of their creative works while allowing those works to be used more freely than would otherwise be possible. By licensing a work under a Creative Commons licence, authors and artists can say “Some Rights Reserved” instead of “All Rights Reserved”, restoring balance and moderation to the dynamic of copyright. While the original Creative Commons licences were drafted in the US and reflect American law, they have been “ported” to 34 countries around the world, with 9 more currently in the drafting stage. Creative Commons Canada, based here in the Law & Technology group, created the first international ports of the licences when we released the Canadian licences in 2004. Creative Commons Canada is working on the newest version of the CC licences, version 3.0, and has other projects in the works including a large initiative that will make public domain works in Canada much easier to identify. Last year, Andy Kaplan-Myrth of the Law & Technology group worked with a student, Kathleen Simmons, to produce the Podcasting Legal Guide for Canada, a resource requested by the podcasting community to help them navigate Copyright law and internet broadcasting in Canada.

Members of Law & Technology Students Association (LTSS) went back to high school this last spring. In partnership with the Ontario Public Legal Education Initiative (OPLEI), the group visited Hillcrest High School to talk with grade 11 students about Facebook and potential privacy risks posed by social networking sites. //

The EDGE Network on the Emerging Dynamic Global Economies
The EDGE Network on the Emerging Dynamic Global Economies is a Canadian-based, international partnership of people working on interdisciplinary issues relating to emerging economies. Professor Jeremy de Beer leads the research theme on technology and intellectual property. He and his collaborators, including uOttawa doctoral candidate Lihong Li, are working on an important project, “Strategies to Implement the World Intellectual Property Organization’s Development Agenda.” This work, funded by the International Develop ment Research Centre and the EDGE Network, involves a team of experts from around the world who are looking at ways to make a concrete contribution to the reform of international intellectual property law and policy. We are rethinking old policies and questioning the effectiveness of existing rules. Through this international collaborative project, Professor de Beer and his team are committed to understanding and influencing the relationship between intellectual property and access to knowledge, and ensuring that the WIPO Development Agenda is as effective as possible in practice. //

By licensing a work under a Creative Commons licence, authors and artists can say “Some Rights Reserved” instead of “All Rights Reserved”
Together with Marcus Bornfreund in Toronto and Tina Piper at McGill University in Montreal, Andy takes every opportunity he is given to tell people about CC licences and encourage people to use them. //

We are rethinking old policies and questioning the effectiveness of existing rules.

6 TECHLAW //

Littering the

INFORMATION SUPERHIGHWAY
The study of technology law is inherently a forward-looking process. Consumers are encouraged to consider present technology obsolete as they too, look forward to future developments. Rarely are the complete lifecycles taken into account when the devices of years past are overshadowed byglittering technologies lurking just around the corner. In the process, old equipment is routinely moved into closets, under beds, to China or wherever it will stay out of sight. This past spring, a group of law students started taking a closer look at what happens to all this high tech trash. Ashley Deathe and Jeremy Hessing-Lewis, two third year common law students, organized The Integrated Circuit: A Symposium on Electronic Waste in Canada in search of some answers. The project was the first partnership between the Law & Technology Students Association (LTSS) and the Environmental Law Students Association (ELSA) and brought together electronics manufacturers, recyclers and the consumers stuck in between. The keynote address was given by Elizabeth Grossman, author of High Tech Trash: Digital Devices, Hidden Toxics, and Human Health. The symposium was accompanied by a successful e-waste drive collecting a large amount of used electronics from students and staff alike. The event attracted regional and campus wide media attention. The success prompted both student societies to plan on making it an annual event. //

TECHLAW // 01/08 // v5.1 7

CIPPIC

– The Year in Review

The start of a new academic year brings with it an opportunity for CIPPIC to review its accomplishments over the past year. And it has been an extremely busy year.
On the advocacy front, CIPPIC participated in two court proceedings. In Lawson v. Accusearch Inc., 2007 FC 125, CIPPIC sought judicial review of a decision of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada not to investigate a complaint that an American data broker was violating Canadian privacy law. CIPPIC successfully argued that the company, despite being located in the United States, nonetheless enjoyed sufficient real and substantial connections to Canada for the Commissioner to assert her investigative jurisdiction.

In Dell Computer Corp. v. Union des consommateurs, 2007 SCC 34, CIPPIC intervened at the Supreme Court of Canada to argue that an arbitration clause in the terms and conditions of an e-commerce website should not, as a matter of public order in Quebec civil law, deny consumers recourse to class actions. In a decision strongly favouring private ordering and freedom of contract, the Court held otherwise. The decision suggests that the courts will not intervene in consumer contracts on fairness considerations, and that consumer advocates should instead turn to legislatures to address fairness issues in consumer contracts. Outside of the courtroom, CIPPIC was equally busy. CIPPIC was, once again, occupied with copyright advocacy involving work with musicians, artists, software designers and documentary filmmakers to assist them in voicing their concerns on copyright policy. Our work with documentary filmmakers has led to more work on developing best practices for fair dealing with copyrighted work. Other projects include participation in Canadian stakeholder consultations with respect to the WIPO Broadcasters Treaty, participating before a Parliamentary Committee reviewing Canada’s federal private section privacy law, and the drafting and release of a Report on Digital Rights Management and Consumer Privacy. This latter report was funded by a grant under the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada’s Grants and Contributions Program. CIPPIC’s 2007 summer internship program was, again, a great success. Janet Lo (uOttawa), Candice Skelton (Queen’s), Philippe Shink (UNB) and Shaun Gluckman (McGill) worked on a variety of projects and cases during their twelve week stint at CIPPIC. Matthew Lui (Queen’s) joined CIPPIC as a volunteer intern for four weeks, and numerous other students volunteered throughout the summer. Summer students’ projects and case files included: • investigating and preparing complaints to the Privacy Commissioner; • advising clients and assisting other organizations on matters involving privacy rights, copyright and trademark law; • preparing a submission to a Senate Committee on Bill C-31 (Elections Act reform); • attending and reporting on Parliamentary Committee meetings on Identity Theft; • investigating cases of alleged misleading advertising and unjust discrimination under the Telecommunications Act;

• preparing advocacy materials on consumer copyright issues; and • preparing applications to the Competition Bureau and Privacy Commissioner of Canada regarding the Google-DoubleClick merger. The summer also saw the departure of one articling student, Tara Berish, who was called to the bar of Ontario and has now joined the Justice Department, and the arrival of another, Jocelyn Cleary, a recent graduate of the law school at the University of Windsor. Both positions were funded through CIPPIC’s selection as one of six Ontario public interest organizations to receive funding for an articling student under the Law Foundation of Ontario’s “Public Interest Articling Fellowship” program. The 2007-08 academic year promises to be, again, extremely busy. CIPPIC received a $50,000 grant under the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada’s Grants and Contributions Program to study online privacy threats. CIPPIC is currently researching technological and regulatory issues and will report on it findings in the spring of 2008. Projects involving fair consumer contracting practices and identity theft research continue. CIPPIC’s copyright advocacy also continues – once again, rumours of pending copyright legislation are reverberating around Ottawa. CIPPIC, as always, looks forward to advancing the public interest in these policy debates. //

8 TECHLAW //

The University of Ottawa Law & Technology Journal UOLTJ
The University of Ottawa Law & Technology Journal (UOLTJ) published two issues last year, continuing its tradition of featuring interdisciplinary law and technology scholarship by an international roster of authors. A special issue devoted to privacy, anonymity, and identity had eleven contributions from Canadian and US authors tackling subjects such as anonymity in behavioural research, children’s online privacy, the right to privacy and terrorism law in Canada, racial profiling, privacy in virtual communities, privacy classifications, and cyber-security for online user information without privacy erosion. The second issue considered internet content regulation in Australia, commercialization of university research, a comparison of Canadian and European internet jurisdiction principles, the law of the hyperlink, Canadian copyright and P2P sharing, TRIPS and climate change, patent law and non-coding DNA, and electronic commerce norms. This year, the Journal includes articles on open access law, cybercrime, privacy under civil law, and Fichte and copyright theory.

TECHLAW // 01/08 // v5.1 9

The Journal is an open access, bilingual, peer-reviewed academic journal, with Professor Elizabeth Judge serving as Editor-in-Chief and Professor Marina Pavlovic as the Managing Editor. The Journal publishes scholarship on the intersection of law with established or emerging technologies in any field, such as computer, internet and e-commerce law; privacy; intellectual property; technology and ethics; communications, entertainment, and social media; natural sciences; traditional knowledge; evidence; cybercrime; security; and e-government. The Journal’s contributors so far hail from Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, China, Australia, Belgium, Finland, and Germany, and from a range of disciplines, including law, psychology, philosophy, sociology, communications, computer sciences, engineering, and cryptography. Since its inception in 2003, the UOLTJ has been distinguished by its commitment to advancing the free public accessibility of legal information and legal scholarship. The Journal is listed as a member of the Directory of Open Access Journals and the Open Access Law program and the Journal’s full content is freely available online on the Journal’s website, www.uoltj.ca (in English) and www.rdtuo.ca (en français).

The Journal also has an innovative educational aspect. All of the Journal’s student Assistant Editors receive intensive specialized training in law and technology research through a 3-credit law course, the Technology Law Journal Internship. This course, unique in Canada, and offered to both undergraduate and graduate law students, combines three components of advanced legal research and methodology instruction; an intensive introduction to law review editing, legal publication, and the Journal’s open access citation style; and exposure to law and technology scholarship and the open access movement. //

Revue de Droit et technologie de l’Université d’Ottawa (RDTUO)
Deux numéros de la Revue de Droit et technologie de l’Université d’Ottawa (RDTUO) ont été publiés l’an dernier. Fidèle à la tradition, cette revue publie toujours des articles interdisciplinaires spécialisés en matière de droit et de technologie, en provenance d’auteurs du monde entier. Dans le cadre de notre numéro spécial ayant pour thème principal la protection de la vie privée, de l’anonymat et de l’identité, nous avons reçu onze contributions d’auteurs canadiens et américains, traitant de sujets comme l’anonymat dans la recherche sur le comportement, la sécurité des enfants sur Internet, le droit à la vie privée dans le contexte de la loi sur le terrorisme au Canada, le profilage racial, la confidentialité dans les communautés virtuelles, la classification des notions de confidentialité et la cybersécurité des renseignements personnels des utilisateurs de l’Internet sans perte de protection. Notre deuxième numéro abordait diverses thématiques, notamment les règlements quant aux contenus Internet en Australie, la commercialisation des recherches universitaires, une comparaison des principes juridictionnels canadiens et européens en matière d’Internet, le droit en matière d’hyperlien, les droits d’auteur et le partage poste-à-poste au Canada, les ADPIC et les changements climatiques, le droit des brevets et les brins d’ADN non codants, et les normes du commerce électronique. Cette année, le magazine comporte des articles sur le libre accès au droit, sur le cybercrime, sur la protection de la vie privée en vertu des lois civiles et sur la théorie de Fichte et les droits d’auteur. La Revue est une publication bilingue en libre accès, dont les articles sont révisés par son comité de lecture constitué de pairs. La professeure Elizabeth Judge en est la rédactrice en chef et la professeure Marina Pavlovic, l’éditrice. La Revue publie des articles spécialisés portant sur la convergence du droit et de technologies diverses, établies ou nouvelles, dans tous domaines : droit de l’informatique, de l’Internet et du commerce électronique; protection de la vie privée; propriété intellectuelle; technologie et éthique; communications, industrie du divertissement et médias sociaux; sciences naturelles; savoir traditionnel; preuve; cybercrime; sécurité et gouvernance électronique. Les auteurs qui ont contribué au magazine jusqu’ici proviennent du Canada, des États-Unis, du Royaume-Uni, de la Chine, de l’Australie, de la Belgique, de la Finlande et de l’Allemagne, et œuvrent dans une variété de disciplines, notamment le droit, la psychologie, la philosophie, la sociologie, les communications, l’informatique, le génie et la cryptographie. Depuis sa fondation en 2003, la RDTUO s’est distinguée par son engagement à favoriser le libre accès à la documentation et à l’expertise juridique. La Revue est inscrite au Répertoire des publications scientifiques gratuites et au programme « Libre accès au droit », et son contenu intégral peut être consulté librement à l’adresse www.rdtuo.ca pour la version française, et à l’adresse www.uoltj.ca pour la version anglaise. La Revue comporte également un aspect éducatif novateur. Tous les étudiants adjoints à la rédaction reçoivent une formation poussée en recherche en droit et technologie dans le cadre d’un cours de trois crédits, le stage de la Revue de droit et technologie. Ce cours, exclusif dans tout le Canada et ouvert aux étudiants de premier et de deuxième cycle, comporte trois volets : recherche et de méthodologie juridiques approfondies; introduction intensive au travail de révision et de publication d’un périodique juridique spécialisé et au style de citation en libre accès; familiarisation avec les mécanismes de recherche en droit et technologie et au mouvement de libre accès. //

10 TECHLAW //

Profiting from peer production
1

Jeremy De Beer

Viacom’s billion-dollar lawsuit against YouTube1 has generated a lot of buzz in the legal and high-tech communities. Pundits around the world have weighed in on YouTube’s potential liabilities, though ultimately it will be the American courts that settle those issues. Since the list of plaintiffs has grown to include Britain’s Football Association Premier League, the U.S. National Music Publishers Association and others seeking certification as a class action, the prospect for settlements satisfactory to all parties is slim.
Viacom International Inc. et. al. v. YouTube Inc. et. al., Civil Action No. 1:07-cv-02103 (LLS) (FM) (S.D.N.Y).

TECHLAW // 01/08 // v5.1 11

The odds are that YouTube would lose a Canadian lawsuit like this. How would things play out north of the border?
While the courts consider the case, it is worthwhile to reflect on the broader consequences of this kind of litigation for the networked information economy. At the end of the day, lawsuits like this are only good for lawyers. Consumers, creators and content owners would be far better off to focus on streamlining licensing solutions rather than stubbornly litigating disagreements. Let me first say a few words about the case itself and the U.S. legal environment. YouTube is being sued for direct and indirect copyright infringement. Viacom alleges that YouTube directly reproduces, performs and distributes its copyright-protected content. It also alleges that YouTube is secondarily liable for users’ infringements on three grounds: contributory, vicarious and inducing copyright infringement. If no settlement is reached, the outcome of this case will depend mainly on the application of the safe harbour system under the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA).2 Pursuant to § 512 a firm hosting allegedly infringing material at the direction of its user is not liable for infringement if it complies with ‘notice-and-takedown’ procedures. But to get immunity, the host can’t know about the infringement or even be aware of circumstances from which infringement is apparent. Moreover, the host can’t receive financial benefits directly from the infringement in a situation where it has the right and ability to control its user’s activity. There’s much debate about what all that means, and little precedent to go on. Opinion divided on YouTube’s prospects for a successful defence in the U.S..

The situation is even more uncertain in Canada. But the odds are that YouTube would lose a Canadian lawsuit like this. How would things play out north of the border? In Canada, firms’ potential liabilities are determined by different principles than in the U.S.. There are, however, some similarities. Canadian copyright law, like American law, grants exclusive reproduction and performance/communication rights for audio, visual and audio-visual content. It isn’t clear how other aspects of the Canadian Copyright Act might apply here, including provisions pertaining to distribution rights, adaptation rights, synchronization rights and so on. But it is safe to say that in both jurisdictions there are a number of different grounds on which a prima facie case for direct infringement could be made. That is, it is likely that YouTube could be held liable for its own infringing activities, including reproducing and communicating copyright-protected works. The key differences between Canada and the U.S. boil down to the nuances of indirect infringement—liability for other people’s infringements—and applicable defences. Canadian law imposes liability for authorizing acts of infringement, but not for simply contributing to, benefiting from or inducing them.

PROFITER DE LA PRODUCTION PAR LES PAIRS
La poursuite d’un milliard de dollars intentée par Viacom contre YouTube a suscité une grande effervescence dans le monde juridique comme dans l’univers de la technologie de pointe. Les sommités du monde entier se sont prononcées quant aux possibles responsabilités de YouTube, bien que le règlement du différend revienne ultimement aux tribunaux américains. Les perspectives de règlements satisfaisants pour toutes les parties sont amoindries par l’ajout, à la liste des plaignants, de la « Football Association Premier League » britan nique, de l’« U.S. National Music Publishers Association » et d’autres organismes cherchant à exercer un recours collectif. À l’heure où les tribunaux étudient cette affaire, il est opportun de réfléchir aux conséquences plus étendues de tels litiges sur l’économie de l’information en réseau. Tout compte fait, des poursuites de ce genre ne profitent qu’aux avocats. Il serait plus avantageux pour les consommateurs, pour les créateurs et pour les propriétaires de contenu de viser des solutions de rationalisation en matière d’octroi de licences plutôt que de s’acharner à vouloir régler leurs différends devant les tribunaux. Dans cet article, Jeremy de Beer après avoir envisagé la tournure que prendrait, au Canada, une poursuite comme celle qui oppose Viacom à YouTube, se penche sur les économies engendrées par la production par les pairs. Les entreprises se rendent compte qu’il y beaucoup d’argent en jeu et prennent en marche le train des contenus produits par des pairs. Le chevauchement de l’économie com mer ciale et de l’économie de partage engendre son lot de tensions. On distingue difficilement les contenus piratés de ceux qui sont fournis par des pairs. C’est une tâche ardue que d’effectuer un tri dans un tel éventail de contenus. Qui plus est, comme de nombreuses entreprises œuvrant dans ce domaine souffrent d’une certaine forme de schizophrénie, l’économie de l’information en réseau comporte toute une gamme d’intérêts qui se recoupent. Le professeur de Beer conclut qu’une bonne option pour les entreprises qui

Jeremy De Beer

s’intéressent à la production entre pairs consiste à envisager les possibilités d’octroi de licences, y compris incluant d’éventuelles mégatransactions entre les magnats de l’industrie, des licences générales collectives et des initiatives comme les « Creative Commons ». Ces stratégies nécessitent des concessions de part et d’autre du litige entourant les droits d’auteurs, mais ces concessions se révéleront très avantageuses, puisqu’elles réduiront substantiellement les dommages collatéraux pour ceux qui choisissent de souscrire à une économie parallèle de partage. À long terme, c’est sans doute l’intérêt public qui en tirerait le plus d’avantages. // Professeur Jeremy de Beer est membre du groupe Droit et technologie. Il donne le cours de Musique numérisée, dont la description figure dans cette revue. Son étude sur l’obtention de licences pour les œuvres orphelines, pour le compte de la Commission du droit d’auteur du Canada sera publiée prochainement.

12 TECHLAW //

Australian law is also different than American law, in that it too incorporates the concept of authorization. Yet, despite the legal diffe rences, the Federal Court of Australia and the U.S. Supreme Court reached roughly similar conclusions about liability for indirect infringement in the Kazaa and Grokster cases respectively.3 It does not follow, however, that a Canadian court would reach the same result. The leading Canadian case on liability for authorizing infringement is CCH v. LSUC.4 In it the Chief Justice of Canada, writing for a unanimous Supreme Court, explicitly rejected the principles of Australian law upon which the Kazaa decision was based, saying: “The [Australian] approach to authorization shifts the balance in copyright too far in favour of the owner’s rights and unnecessarily interferes with the proper use of copyrighted works for the good of society as a whole.” To be held liable based on conventional principles of Canadian copy right law the alleged authorizer must sanction, countenance and approve the infringement. And even if a defendant could be said to authorize users’ activities, courts must presume they do so only insofar as it is in accordance with the law. One way YouTube’s users might act legally is by making fair uses of copyrightprotected content. In this respect, Canadian law is less forgiving than American law. Most notably, there is no clearly established parody defence in Canada. Nevertheless, the distinction between ‘fair use’ in the U.S. and ‘fair dealing’ in Canada isn’t particularly important to the outcome of this case, given that much of the content on YouTube falls outside the scope of this defence. Yes, there is ample non-infringing content, but there is also much material that is clearly illegal. Moreover, firms that actually host or transmit copyright-infringing content are treated differently from firms that merely contribute to or induce infringement. Perhaps surprisingly, hosts and intermediaries are less likely to be liable, due to the availability of safe harbour provisions in the

intellectual property laws of most countries. If this seems anomalous, consider Columbia law professor Tim Wu’s analogy. Wu explains that if the internet were a red-light district, Napster, Kazaa and Grokster would be the pimps while YouTube would be the hotel. A Canadian safe harbour for hosts and transmitters is found in paragraph 2.4(1)(b) of the Copyright Act. It provides that persons who only supply “the means of telecommunication necessary for another person to so communicate” are not themselves parties to the communication. The leading case on this point is SOCAN v. CAIP, 5 in which the Supreme Court of Canada considered whether internet service providers were liable to pay a tariff (SOCAN’s Tariff 22) for the online communication of musical works. The Court held they were not. An intermediary falls within the safe harbour so long as it “confines itself to providing ‘a conduit’ for information communicated by others.” The use of techniques to improve the efficiency of communications, such as caching, does not affect intermediaries’ legal liability. Unlike the U.S. provision, however, the Canadian safe harbour does not apply to activities other than communication. A service provider or host might still be liable for reproductions that occur when content is cached. (Canadian broadcasters have litigated and lobbied unsuccessfully against a copyright tariff requiring payments for ephemeral reproductions.) Or, a service provider or host might be held to authorize the infringing acts of its customers. SOCAN v. CAIP also dealt with that question. The Court found that “when massive amounts of non-copyrighted material are accessible to the end user, it is not possible to impute … an authority to download copyrighted material as opposed to noncopyrighted material.” However, Justice’s Binnie’s obiter dicta suggests that copyright liability may exist if a service provider has notice of infringing material on its system and “fails to take remedial action.”

What sort of remedial action might be required? Well, the Court hinted that upon notice of infringing content, the host might be required to “take it down.” Canadian legislators might have adopted a different approach. In 2005, Bill C-60 was introduced to reform parts of Canadian copyright law. Though the Bill died before passing into law, it would have established a ‘notice-and-notice’ system. That means a firm notified of alleged infringement could have escaped liability by forwarding the notice to its customer. Though less strict than a ‘notice-and-takedown’ or ‘noticeand-termination’ regime, it has been reported to be nonetheless effective. The Bill also would have immunized network services from all liability for caching, including communications and reproductions. The U.S. litigation against YouTube should provoke Canadians to ask another question when designing legislative reforms: What exactly is a network service? Bill C-60 would have provided a safe harbour for firms “providing services related to the operation of the Internet or other digital network.” A firm that “provides digital memory in which another person stores a work or other subject-matter” would have also been protected. But would this have covered YouTube? Should it have? Yale law professor Yochai Benkler observes that a networked rather than industrial information economy “holds great practical promise: as a dimension of individual freedom; as a platform for better democratic participation; as a medium to foster a more critical and self-reflective culture; and … as a mechanism to achieve improvements in human development everywhere.”6 Lawrence Lessig treats this ‘second economy’ as distinct from and complementary to the traditional one based on quid pro quo transactions. 7 Yet there seems to be increasing convergence between the two economies. Commercial entities are scrambling to capitalize on the sharing economy.

Wu explains that if the internet were a red-light district, Napster, Kazaa and Grokster would be the pimps while YouTube would be the Hotel.
2 3 4 5 6

17 U.S.C. § 512. Universal Music Australia Pty Ltd. v Sharman License Holdings Ltd., [2005] FCA 1242; Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc et al. v. Grokster, Ltd et al., 545 U.S. 913, 125 S. Ct. 2764 (2005). CCH Canadian Ltd. v. Law Society of Upper Canada, 2004 SCC 13. Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada v. Canadian Assn. of Internet Providers, 2004 SCC 45. Yochai Benkler, The Wealth of Networks (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2006) at 2.

TECHLAW // 01/08 // v5.1 13

An empirical study commissioned by the European Union concluded that open-source software is worth €12 billion per annum to the European economy
Two famous examples include the US$580 million purchase of MySpace by News Corporation and Google’s acquisition of YouTube for US$1.65 billion. On a related note, an empirical study commissioned by the European Union concluded that opensource software is worth €12 billion per annum to the European economy.8 Firms are realizing that there are big bucks at stake and jumping aboard the bandwagon of peerproduced content. The overlap of the commercial and sharing economies has caused tensions. There is no bright line between pirated and peer-produced content. Some of the material available on sites such as YouTube is blatantly copyright infringing and directly competes with copyright owners’ offerings on their websites, at digital download retailers and through television broadcasts or DVD video recordings. Other material incorporates copyrightprotected content into legitimate derivate works, such as music or video mashups or soundtracks added to home movies. And still more material is genuinely creative in the very strictest sense of the word, as is the case with many independent films, music videos or other works produced by professionals and amateurs alike. Separating this spectrum of content is not an easy task. It doesn’t help matters that many of the firms operating in this environment suffer from a sort of schizophrenia. News Cor poration owns MySpace. Viacom has relied on the same safe harbours that protect YouTube to operate its own video-sharing sites, iFilm and AtomFilms. Sony is trying to protect its interests in music, film, television and video games, while at the same time Universal Music has sued Sony-owned Grouper.com. Consumers have become creators, and consequently, intellectual

7 8

Lawrence Lessig, “On the Economies of Culture” Lessig Blog (28 September 2006), online: Lessig Blog <http://www.lessig.org/blog/archives/003550.shtml>. Rishab Aiyer Ghosh, “Economic impact of open source software on innovation and the competitiveness of the Information and Communications Technology (ICT) sector in the EU” (20 November 2006), online: EUROPA European Commission <http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/ict/policy/doc/2006-11-20-flossimpact.pdf>.

14 TECHLAW //

It doesn’t help matters that many of the firms operating in this environment suffer from a sort of schizophrenia. News Corporation owns MySpace... The networked information economy involves a web of overlapping interests.
property rights-holders. Many professional artists and producers endorse their fans’ social media networks. The networked information eco nomy involves a web of overlapping interests. So what can the YouTube case teach us about legal strategies for profiting from peer-produced content in this complex environment? And by ‘profit,’ I mean both direct and indirect financial returns as well as social, cultural and democratic gains achievable through systems of peer-production. The cutting-edge business literature refers to several alternative market strategies that may be preferential to costly legal battles. Authors of a recent study on managerial approaches reveal that a firm’s attitude toward consumer innovation can be either positive or negative while its actions can be either active or passive.9 Differentiating on these two axes, the authors classify firms into four categories, depending on whether they discourage, resist, encourage or enable creative consumers. Firms that discourage creativity have a negative attitude, which they assert only passively. Resisting firms, by contrast, share a negative attitude but take active steps to restrain consumer creativity. A positive attitude differentiates firms that encourage or enable consumer creativity, but only enablers act overtly to facilitate consumers’ behaviour. The best business models involve cooperation between incumbent copyrights-holders, innovative entrepreneurs and independent peer producers. For instance, The BBC actively enables consumer creativity through its ‘Creative Archive’ project. Bands like the Barenaked Ladies are also building success by embracing peer-production. They have enabled fan remixes by selling the raw tracks behind their recordings, encouraged fans to capture and share concerts and released music videos incorporating social media celebrities. There is no single strategy that suits all firms dealing with peer-produced content. Nevertheless, the models being implemented by the likes of the Barenaked Ladies and the BBC offer significant and generally underappreciated benefits to all stakeholders.
9

Discou raging or resisting consumers’ creativity can be ineffective and, in some cases, counter productive. Even merely encouraging consumer creativity, as opposed to enabling it, may leave revenue-generating opportunities untapped. Obviously, one of the primary challenges firms face is to balance competing sentiments and strategies. The typical tension is between the publicity viral marketing provides and the control needed to monetize momentum. One of the advantages of most countries’ safe harbour provisions is that they allow copyright owners some of the best of both worlds. Content owners can tolerate certain uses of their works while prohibiting others. When consumers’ behaviour becomes cause for discomfort, copyright owners can complain. Unfortunately, many firms find it difficult to take advantage of the flexibilities offered under safe harbour schemes. For large corporate copyrights-holders, notifications might be ineffective. Though the specifically identified infringing work may be removed, another copy of the same work may reappear within days or hours. The giant game of whack-a-mole can be tedious and costly. Recipients of such notifications might also find it onerous to comply with their legal obligations. Though automation might help, where value judgments are appropriate, automation can be highly problematic. Given the lack of judicial or quasi-judicial oversight, unsubstantiated notifications might result in the unwarranted removal of non-infringing content. A better option, therefore, is to embrace licensing possibilities. Options include megadeals between powerhouse players, voluntary collective blanket licenses and initiatives like the Creative Commons. For mainstream music, movies and television programs posted in their entirety, large-scale agreements might

be reached with conglomerates representing multiple subsidiary labels, studios or networks. Another way to deal with such content might be collective blanket licensing, either on a voluntary or compulsory basis. Collective blanket licensing could also work well to enable the creation of a wide range of derivative works. For many other creative works, individual creators might enter into express agreements; though the host or provider will normally stipulate take-it-or-leave-it licensing terms through clickwrap contracts. In some circumstances, Creative Commons or similar licenses might be appropriate. These strategies require concessions from both sides of the copyright debate. Rightsholders will be required to relax legal and technological control over their creations and tolerate certain uses of their intellectual property. Distributors will have to accept the legitimacy of copyright concerns and perhaps pay for activities that should arguably be free. These trade-offs among private parties are, however, worth the price. In this way, creators of all sorts will experience increased profits, distributors and other intermediaries will be able to build innovative business models and society will benefit from a more democratic and participatory culture. Perhaps most importantly, this strategy for capitalizing on creative consumers in the traditional economy will minimize collateral damage upon those who wish to participate in the parallel sharing economy. And, in the long term, the public interest will perhaps be the greatest beneficiary of all. // Professor Jeremy de Beer is a member of the Law & Technology group. He teaches Digital Music, profiled elsewhere in this magazine. His study of orphan works licensing at the Copyright Board of Canada will be published soon.

Bands like the Barenaked Ladies are also building success by embracing peer-production. They have enabled fan remixes and released music videos incorporating social media celebrities.

Pierre R. Berthon et al., “When Customers Get Clever: Managerial Approaches to Dealing with Creative Consumers” (2007) 50 Business Horizons 39 at 44-45.

TECHLAW // 01/08 // v5.1 15

on the IDENTITY TRAIL heads towards home stretch
Four years ago, a team of around a dozen privacy experts based at uOttawa and elsewhere received one of the largest-ever grants from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council to study the impact of identification technologies on our identities, and on our ability to remain anonymous. Directed by Ian Kerr, Canada Research Chair in Ethics, Law and Technology, On the Identity Trail (www.idtrail.org) has brought together researchers from North American and European academic, public, private, and not-for-profit sectors. With the goal of developing an interdisciplinary dialogue and getting academic results out in plain language to policy makers and the broader public, the team has undertaken three different approaches to issues of privacy, anonymity and identity. The first is a social science and humanities perspective, the second addresses legal and policy questions, and the third explores the technologies themselves. During the past four years, ID Trail has quadrupled to more than 50 researchers, including a distinguished array of aca demics, practitioners and members of public interest organizations, as well as dozens of graduate and undergraduate students from various dis ciplines and universities. Together, they have produced dozens of peer-reviewed academic articles, three special journal issues and a series of online educational resources for children and adults. They have also participated in more than 100 presentations at numerous conferences and community events. After four years of creative and groundbreaking research, funding for the project will come to an end in March, 2008. To celebrate and disseminate some of their remaining research outcomes, the members of ID Trail hosted a major, multi-disciplinary conference on October 26-27th, 2007 at the University of Ottawa. This event, the third major conference of the project, was entitled The Revealed “I”: A conference on privacy and identity. It featured speakers from across Canada, the United States and Europe and brought together policy makers, academics, public interest and civil rights advocates, and technologists for a two day discussion on the nature, value and place of anonymity, identity and authentication in our net worked society. The Revealed “I” conference and a previous international workshop held in Bologna, Italy, were also the basis for a scholarly book, Anonymity, Privacy and Identity in a Networked Society: Lessons from the Identity Trail, the first book published by Oxford University Press to be licensed under a Creative Commons licence, allowing anybody to share the content for non-commercial purposes. This book follows The Contours of Privacy (Cambridge Scholars Publishing) as the second book to be published by ID Trail, both making a global contribution to the literature on privacy, surveillance, identity and authentication.

Ian Kerr and Cynthia Aoki

The Revealed “I” conference was preceded by a day long student conference, The Student “I”: A student conference on privacy and identity , on October 25 th, 2007. Graduate and undergraduate students from around the world presented their own peerreviewed research on project related themes. Three students from ID Trail were selected to present their work: Cynthia Aoki, Jennifer Barrigar and Katie Black. Cynthia’s presentation investigated the legal and ethical implications of memory dampening drugs on identity, recently proposed by some as a form of therapy for post traumatic distress disorder. Katie’s presentation examined the implementation of Canada’s No-Fly List and its effects on privacy and broader issues of social justice. Jennifer presented on the use of reputation systems in online dating environments and their perpetuation of gendered inequality. Even though the project itself will come to an end next March, all of the researchers associated with the project will continue to contribute their knowledge, expertise, and passion in further understanding the impact of privacy, anonymity and identity on today’s networked society. //

16 TECHLAW //

LL.M. EN DROIT ET TECHNOLOGIE
Par l’entremise du groupe de droit et technologie, la Faculté de droit de l’Université d’Ottawa offre un programme exclusif de maîtrise en droit (LL.M.) avec concentration en droit et technologie. Cette concentration comporte des cours spécialisés, des expériences pratiques et la possibilité de réaliser des recherches de deuxième cycle novatrices, en anglais comme en français. L’Université d’Ottawa étant située dans la capitale canadienne des technologies, ce programme joue un rôle clé dans la formation de juristes spécialisés en droit des technologies, qui exercent maintenant leur profession dans toutes les sphères du droit des technologies.

CONCENTRATION IN LAW & TECHNOLOGY
Through the Law & Technology group, the University of Ottawa Faculty of Law offers a unique LL.M. with a Concentration in Law & Technology. The Concentration offers specialized courses, practical experience and the opportunity to conduct innovative graduate level research in English and French. From its location in Canada’s technology capital, the program has been instrumental in producing technology law practitioners who now occupy all facets of the technology law fields.

Corps Professoral
Il s’agit du plus important corps professoral dans le domaine du droit des technologies au Canada. Vous aurez pour professeurs des spécialistes reconnus sur la scène nationale et internationale dans des domaines novateurs comme la propriété littéraire et artistique, les marques de commerce, les brevets, le droit de l’Internet, le commerce électronique, le droit à la vie privée, la cybersécurité, la cybercriminalité, la déontologie de l’information, la gouvernance de l’Internet et la justice sociale.

Faculty
The largest Canadian law faculty dedicated to technology law issues. Learn from recognized national and international experts in the innovative areas of: Copyright; Trademark; Patent; Internet Law; E-Commerce; Privacy; Open Source; Cyber-security; Cybercrime; Biotech nology, Information Ethics; Internet Governance; and Social Justice.

Modules
• Programme d’études : Le programme comporte deux séminaires d’études supérieures spécialisés, Techno-théorie et Techno-régulation, un mémoire ou un projet de recherche en droit des technologies, un stage, de même que des cours au choix dans les domaines de la médiatique, de la propriété intellectuelle et du commerce électronique. • Stages : auprès de cabinets juridiques d’importance, d’entreprises spécialisées dans la technologie, des services gouvernementaux d’élaboration des politiques ou de groupes d’intérêt public. • Clinique d’intérêt public et de politique d’Internet du Canada : bénévolat ou stage à la CIPPIC, la clinique juridique canadienne de pointe en matière de droit des technologies. • Revue de droit et technologie de l’Université d’Ottawa : bénévolat ou stage à la RDTUO, périodique spécialisé en droit des technologies. • Colloques internationaux, série de conférences bimensuelles et séminaires spéciaux.

Modules
• Curriculum: The curriculum includes two specialized graduate seminars, Technopolicy and Techno pru dence , a research paper or technology law project, internship, and elective courses from the areas of new media, intellectual property and e-commerce. • Internships: With leading Canadian law firms, technology companies, government policy departments or public interest groups. • Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic: Volunteer or intern at CIPPIC, Canada’s foremost technology law clinic. • University of Ottawa Law & Technology Journal: Volunteer or intern at the UOLTJ, an academic law review specializing in law and technology jurisprudence. • International Conferences, Bi-weekly Speaker Series and Special Lectures.

Admission
Pour être admissibles au programme de maîtrise en droit, les candidats doivent détenir un diplôme de droit de premier cycle d’une université canadienne, obtenu avec une moyenne satisfaisante, ou un diplôme de droit équivalent, obtenu à l’étranger, moyennant des résultats jugés comparables. Pour plus de renseignements, veuillez communiquer avec le bureau des Études supérieures de la Faculté de droit : adresse Internet : http://www.llmlld.uottawa.ca/fra/maitrise/admission.htm/ courriel : llmlld@uottawa.ca téléphone : 613-562-5774 télécopieur : 613-562-5341 //

Admission
In order to be considered for admission to the Master of Laws program, applicants must have an undergraduate law degree from a Canadian university with a satisfactory average or an equivalent foreign law degree with comparable results. For more information please contact the Faculty of Law Graduate Studies office: Internet: http://www.llmlld.uottawa.ca/eng/master/admission.htm Email: llmlld@uottawa.ca Telephone: 613.562.5774 Fax: 613.562.5341 //

TECHLAW // 01/08 // v5.1 17

THE LAWS OF ROBOTICS, WITH PROFESSOR IAN KERR
1. a robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. 2. a robot must obey orders given to it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the first law. 3. a robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the first or second law. isaac asimov (runaround, 1941)
we are entering an age of advanced robotics and automation. by the time that students enrolled in this course become established in their legal careers, it is anticipated that robots will be our surgeons and our domestic servants. other complex services once offered by human beings will be completely automated; these automated systems will become the proxy for human decision-making. how do law and technology structure and constrain our possible future worlds? what laws or ethical rules ought to govern a society enmeshed in human-computer interaction? and how will these various codes enable and disable the possibility of achieving what is good, what is right and what is just? the aim of this course is to interrogate these questions through an exploration of the state of the art of robot and automation technologies and their introduction into society. we will consider the ethical and legal significance of robots in the workplace, the market and at home. through a critique of existing and soon to be proposed ethical and legislative frameworks, we will contemplate the interrelationship between ethics, law and technology by thinking about the general goals of artificial intelligence, whether and how robots ought to be programmed, how automated systems ought to resolve conflicting rules and norms, and about the broader social implications of boarding this strange mothership. //

LES LOIS DE LA ROBOTIQUE, AVEC LE PROFESSEUR IAN KERR
1. un robot ne peut ni porter atteinte à un être humain ni, restant passif, laisser cet être humain exposé au danger. 2. un robot doit obéir aux ordres donnés par les êtres humains, sauf si de tels ordres sont en contradiction avec la Première Loi. 3. un robot doit protéger son existence dans la mesure où cette protection n’entre pas en contradiction avec la Première ou la Deuxième Loi. isaac asimov (cercle vicieux,
1941) (source : les robots, isaac asimov, éditions j’ai lu, traduction de pierre billon, 1967)
nous entrons actuellement dans une ère de robotique et d’automatisation de pointe. nous prévoyons qu’au moment où les étudiants inscrits à ce cours auront entrepris leur carrière juridique, des robots nous serviront de chirurgiens et d’aides domestiques. d’autres services complexes traditionnellement fournis par des humains seront entièrement automatisés; ces systèmes automatisés deviendront les intermédiaires des prises de décision des humains. comment le droit et la technologie structurent-ils et limitentils nos univers futurs éventuels? quelles lois et quelles règles éthiques devraient régir une société où domine l’interaction entre l’être humain et l’ordinateur? et comment ces codes divers permettront-ils ou entraveront-ils la réalisation de ce qui est bon, de ce qui est bien et ce de qui est juste? ce cours a pour objectif d’examiner ces questions par une exploration de la robotique et des technologies d’automa tisation de pointe, et de leur avènement dans la société. nous nous pencherons sur le sens éthique et juridique de la présence de robots en milieu de travail, sur le marché et à la maison. par une critique des cadres éthiques et législatifs existants et en voie d’être proposés, nous considérerons les interrelations entre l’éthique, le droit et la technologie en analysant les objectifs généraux de l’intelligence artificielle, en se demandant si et comment les robots devraient être programmés, en évaluant comment les systèmes automatisés devraient résoudre les contradictions entre les règlements et les normes, et en s’attardant aux implications sociales plus importantes que risque d’engendrer l’adoption de ce curieux mode de vie. //

18 TECHLAW //

Digital Music, with Professor Jeremy de Beer
de Beer’s Digital Music course is a unique multi-national and multi-disciplinary survey of the global digital music scene. Together the class canvasses aspects of the law in Canada, the States, Europe, Australia, Asia and Africa. As well as having a cross-continental scope, we analyze timely issues through many different lenses, by taking into account legal, com mercial, techno logical and social pers pec tives. The overarching objective is to think broadly about the policies affecting the future of digital music and, ultimately, the creation and consumption of our own culture. //

TECHNOLOGY LAW INTERNSHIP
The internship provides students with the opportunity to spend one day per week in a technology law environment. Through readings, observation, and work assignments, students will gain insight into daily practice and policy issues for lawyers working in the technology law field. This popular course is available to both undergraduate and graduate students as an elective course and students are assigned a grade of satisfactory / non-satisfactory. The Technology Law Internship program has spanned four cities – Ottawa, Montreal, Toronto, and Washington, DC. With more than two dozen internship partners, students have the opportunity to intern at major law firms, business, governmental and nongovernmental organizations, CIPPIC and the University of Ottawa Law & Technology Journal. //

Musique numérique, avec le professeur Jeremy de Beer
Le cours « Musique numérique » du professeur de Beer comporte un tour d’horizon multinational et pluridisciplinaire de la scène mondiale en matière de musique numérique. Les étudiants examineront ensemble diverses facettes de la loi au Canada, aux États-Unis, en Europe, en Australie, en Asie et en Afrique. Tout en procédant à une comparaison de ce qui se fait sur les différents continents, nous analysons des questions d’actualité sous un certain nombre de points de vue, en fonction de leurs aspects juridiques, commerciaux, technologiques et sociaux. L’objectif général consiste à susciter une réflexion d’ensemble quant aux politiques qui auront des répercussions sur l’avenir de la musique numérique et, conséquemment, sur la création et la consommation de notre propre culture. //

STAGES EN DROIT DES TECHNOLOGIES
Le stage permet à l’étudiant ou à l’étudiante de passer une journée par semaine dans un milieu spécialisé en droit des technologies et d’acquérir ainsi, par le biais de lectures, d’observations et de tâches qui lui sont confiées, une expérience de la pratique et des questions de politiques auxquelles font face quotidiennement les juristes œuvrant dans le domaine du droit des technologies. Ce cours optionnel populaire est offert aux étudiants de premier cycle et aux études supérieures. La note attribuée est exprimée de la façon suivante : satisfaisant/ non satisfaisant. Le programme de stages en droit des technologies est réalisable dans quatre villes : Ottawa, Montréal, Toronto et Washington, DC. Grâce à la collaboration de plus de vingt-quatre partenaires, ces stages peuvent s’effectuer auprès de grands cabinets, d’entreprises, d’organismes gouvernementaux et non gouvernementaux, de la CIPPIC et de la Revue de droit et technologie de l’Université d’Ottawa. //

The Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC) was established in fall of 2003 at the University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law, Common Law Section. CIPPIC seeks to ensure balance in policy and law-making processes on issues that arise as a result of new technologies. Upper year law students work under the supervision of the Clinic director on projects and cases involving the intersection of law, technology and the public interest. CIPPIC Summer Fellowship Program is now open to Canadian law students who have completed at least two years of law school. For more information and current news visit: http://www.cippic.ca // La Clinique d’intérêt public et de politique d’Internet du Canada a été mise en place à la section de common law de l’Université d’Ottawa à l’automne 2003. La CIPPIC s’efforce d’assurer un équilibre entre la politique et les processus législatifs liés aux questions que soulèvent les nouvelles technologies. Guidés par la directrice générale de la CIPPIC, les étudiants et les étudiantes des cours supérieurs collaborent à des projets et des dossiers qui soulèvent des questions à l’intersection du droit, de la technologie et de l’intérêt public. Le programme des bourses de recherche d’été de la CIPPIC est maintenant offert aux étudiants et étudiantes du Canada qui ont terminé au moins deux années d’études en droit. Pour obtenir plus de renseignements et des nouvelles récentes, consultez le site Web : http://www.cippic.ca //

TECHLAW // 01/08 // v5.1 19

THE OPTION IN LAW AND TECHNOLOGY
You don’t have to specialize in Law & Technology to take L&T courses – in fact, courses like Introduction to Intellectual Property are recommended for any students planning to enter the practice of law. But some LL.B. students take lots of Law & Technology courses and want to receive formal recognition of their specialization. For these students, the Faculty of Law offers the “Option in Law & Technology”. To qualify for the Option in Law & Technology, students must complete 18 credits in the field, including Intro to IP and one of our Internships. The Major Paper requirement must also be completed in either one of the Option courses or in a Directed Research course. A list of requirements for the Option is available at the Academic Affairs office. To get more information or to register for the LL.B. with Option in Law and Technology, please speak with an Academic Affairs officer. //

L’OPTION EN DROIT ET TECHNOLOGIE

Il n’est pas nécessaire de vous spécialiser en Droit et technologie pour suivre des cours de D & T. En fait, des cours comme « Introduction à la propriété intellectuelle » sont recommandés à tout étudiant envisageant la pratique du droit. Toutefois, certains étudiants du baccalauréat en droit suivent de nombreux cours en Droit et technologie et veulent se voir reconnaître officiellement cette spécialisation. La Faculté de droit offre donc à ces étudiants l’« option en Droit et technologie ». Pour se voir reconnaître l’option en Droit et technologie, les étudiants doivent obtenir 18 crédits de cours dans ce domaine, dont le cours d’« Introduction à la propriété intellectuelle », de même que l’un de nos stages. Leur mémoire de recherche doit également être rédigé dans le cadre de l’un des cours de l’option ou d’un cours de recherche dirigée. Veuillez vous adresser au bureau des Affaires académiques pour obtenir la liste des exigences liées à l’option. Pour obtenir des renseignements complémentaires ou pour vous inscrire au L.L.B. avec option en Droit et technologie, veuillez vous adresser à un responsable des Affaires académiques. //

20 TECHLAW //

TECHLAW // 01/08 // v5.1 21

Conférence commémorative Deirdre G. Martin en matière de droit relatif au respect de la vie privée
Le Groupe de Droit et technologie aura l’honneur de tenir, d’ici quelques semaines, la première Conférence annuelle Deirdre G. Martin en matière de droit relatif au respect de la vie privée. Cette conférence verra le jour grâce à la générosité des collègues de Deirdre G. Martin, à la division des affaires juridiques du Bureau d’assurance du Canada. Mme Martin (1978) est décédée le 21 juin 2006, des suites d’une brève maladie. Mère de trois enfants qu’elle affectionnait, avocate éminente et passionnée, fille et sœur dévouée, amie attentive de nombreuses personnes, elle a, par son départ, créé un grand vide chez tous ceux qui la côtoyaient. Ses confrères et consoeurs d’études se souviennent avec nostalgie du charme contagieux de son sourire. Mme Martin a occupé le poste de conseillère juridique principale au Bureau d’assurance du Canada de 1998 à 2006. Elle œuvrait comme spécialiste de l’application de la loi fédérale et des lois provinciales de l’Alberta et de la Colombie-Britannique en matière de protection de la vie privée et d’assurance multirisque. Mme Martin était une conférencière douée qui prenait grand plaisir à faire des présentations sur la mise en œuvre de ces lois. De 2001 à 2004, elle a animé, dans tout le Canada, des séminaires de formation auxquels ont participé plus de deux mille personnes, employés de sociétés d’assurance multirisque, courtiers indépendants et experts en sinistres. Le groupe de Droit et technologie est très heureux d’accueillir la professeure Anita L. Allen de la Faculté de droit de l’Université de Pennsylvanie, qui prononcera cette première Conférence commémorative Deirdre G. Martin. La professeure Allen (également connue sous le nom de Allen-Castellitto) est une éminente spécialiste en matière de droit relatif à la protection de la vie privée et d’éthique contemporaine. Elle a rédigé plusieurs ouvrages sur le droit à protection de la vie privée, dont Why Privacy Isn’t Everything: Feminist Reflections on Personal Accountability. La professeure Allen prononcera la Conférence commémorative Deirdre G. Martin le 26 février 2008. //

Deirdre G. Martin Memorial Lecture in Privacy Law
The Law & Technology Group is honoured to host later this year the first annual Deirdre G. Martin Memorial Lecture in Privacy Law. The Deirdre G. Martin Memorial Lecture was established thanks to the generosity of her colleagues at the Insurance Bureau of Canada’s Legal Division. Ms. Martin (‘78) passed away on June 21, 2006 after a short illness. She was a loving mother of three children, a passionate and excellent lawyer, a dedicated daughter and sister, and a caring friend to many people, each of whom feels her loss deeply. Her law school friends remember her charming and infectious smile—it will be sadly missed. Ms. Martin was Senior Counsel with the Insurance Bureau of Canada from 1998 until 2006. She was an expert on the application of the federal, Alberta, and British Columbia privacy laws to the property and casualty insurance industry. Ms. Martin was a gifted speaker who enjoyed making presentations on the implementation of these privacy laws. Between 2001 and 2004, she conducted training seminars across Canada to over two thousand people from P&C insurance companies, independent brokers, and claims adjusters. The Law & Technology Group is thrilled that Professor Anita Allen of the University of Pennsylvania Law School will deliver the inaugural Deirdre Martin Memorial Lecture. Anita L. Allen (aka Allen-Castellitto) is a leading expert on privacy law and contemporary ethics. She is the author of several books on privacy law including Why Privacy Isn’t Everything: Feminist Reflections on Personal Accountability. Professor Allen will deliver the Deirdre G. Martin Memorial Lecture on February 26, 2008. //

The Law&Technology Student Society (LTSS)
The Law & Technology Student Society (LTSS) is a University of Ottawa student-run organization for law students interested in law and technology. The LTSS actively promotes technology law to students as an area of practice and provides opportunities for students to participate in law and technology related initiatives. http://www.ltss.ca //

l’Association des étudiants/ étudiantes en droit et technologie
l’Association des étudiants/étudiantes en droit et technologie (AEDT) est une organisation gérée par des étudiants et les étudiantes s’intéressant au droit des technologies, à l’intention des étudiants de ce domaine. L ’AEDT travaille activement à promouvoir la pratique du droit des technologies et à offrir à la population étudiante des occasions diverses de se renseigner en la matière. http://www.ltss.ca //

22 TECHLAW //

The EPIDEMIC of Lost and Stolen Data:
Are Custodians of Data Liable in Negligence for Breaches of Data Security?
Jennifer A. Chandler*
* Professor Chandler’s full length article on this topic is forthcoming in Volume 23(2) of the Banking and Finance Law Review. Professor Chandler gratefully acknowledges Borden Ladner Gervais LLP’s support for her research assistant David Quayat through its Research Fellowship Program in the preparation of the full length article. Unfortunately the choice of the term “epidemic” to describe the problem of data security breaches at major data custodians such as banks, large retailers and government agencies is not an overstatement. The informal tallies maintained by websites such as “The Privacy Rights Clearinghouse” 1 necessarily understate the problem as they are limited to those data breaches that are publicly known and which affect Americans. Nonetheless, it paints an impressive picture of over 160 million records of sensitive personal information lost or stolen since 2005. Canadians are also clearly affected. In January, 2007, TJX Companies Inc. announced a security breach affecting millions of records in Canada, the United Kingdom, Ireland, the United States and Puerto Rico. In the same month, Talvest Mutual Funds announced the loss of 470,000 Canadian client records. Undoubtedly the losses are higher given that some breaches are not disclosed, and some data custodians may be unaware that they have taken place. The primary concern associated with the compromise of this data is that it can be used for identity fraud. In some cases, identity thieves drain existing accounts or make fraudulent credit card purchases. In others, the thieves open new service accounts or obtain new credit in the victim’s name. This can ruin a victim’s credit rating and expose him or her to harassment from collections agencies. In a smaller number of cases, victims such as law enforcement personnel, have expressed the fear that the compromise of personal information such as home addresses exposes them to the risk of physical danger. The economic harm caused by widespread fraud is not visited solely upon the people whose data is misused. Where the losses are absorbed by banks or by the merchants who accept the fraudulent credit card purchases, the costs are passed on broadly through higher prices. This problem has begun to attract the attention of legislators, academics and class action lawyers. There is a growing body of decided cases in the United States dealing with civil liability for breaches of data security, and multiple actions are pending in both Canada and the United States. These lawsuits have been brought on behalf of various kinds of plaintiffs. First, the people whose data has been compromised have sought to recover the costs of monitoring or repairing their credit or of obtaining identity theft insurance. Merchants who suffer credit card chargebacks as a result of fraudulent purchases made using compromised credit cards have claimed these losses. Financial institutions have attempted to recover the costs associated with responding with mass cancellation and reissuing of payment cards. The plaintiffs have argued that the defendants (including major retailers, financial institutions, universities and government) have been careless in

In a smaller number of cases, victims such as law enforcement personnel, have expressed the fear that the compromise of personal information such as home addresses exposes them to the risk of physical danger.
1

Privacy Rights Clearinghouse www.privacyrights.org/ar/chrondatabreaches.htm.

TECHLAW // 01/08 // v5.1 23

handling sensitive data such that it has been lost or stolen. So far the plaintiffs’ claims in negligence have largely been unsuccessful, although reasonable arguments can be made both as a matter of negligence doctrine and public policy that the courts should be more receptive to these claims in appropriate cases. Negligence law deals poorly with the harms of the “information age,” failing in many cases to recognize the harms that can be done to and by information. The modern explosion of identity theft is a function of the technologies of data storage and processing, which permit the retention of large amounts of data. It also flows from the fact that modern life involves a multitude of transactions with strangers and so creates a pervasive need for individual authen tication, which has largely been done using personal information. We have a society that is heavily dependent upon and personal data and yet does not have sufficient mechanisms in place to ensure its safety. The basic problems posed for plaintiffs in negligence claims for harms flowing for breaches of data security can be summarized as follows. First, where plaintiffs have become aware of a breach of data security but have not yet suffered identity fraud, the courts have tended to find that no actual harm has been suffered. Since a negligence claim requires a showing of actual harm,
2 3

these plaintiffs fail. Plaintiffs in these cases have raised the interesting analogy of their situation to those plaintiffs in the so-called “medical monitoring cases” in which people exposed to toxins with dangerous but latent effects have sometimes succeeded in obtaining the cost of ongoing medical monitoring. This argument has been rejected by the courts. This seems unfair since the plaintiffs are being advised by the government and often by the institutions suffering the data security breaches to invest in credit-monitoring services or other forms of self protection. As a result, careless data custodians are able to shift to the plaintiffs the costs of preventing the identity fraud. Where the plaintiffs do suffer identity fraud, they encounter other difficulties. In particular, the plaintiffs find it difficult to prove that the identity theft they suffered was caused by a breach of security at the defendant data custodian. Even where the identity theft involved the specific infor mation known to have been stolen from the defendant and occurred reasonably soon after the breach of security, courts have refused to find causation. The difficulty appears to be that the infor mation used to commit identity fraud (such as names, addresses, credit card numbers, social insurance numbers) is often held by numerous data custodians, any one of whom may have mishandled it. In addition, this data can also be stolen from the

individual him or herself through spyware or phishing websites. As a result, it is difficult to tie the identity fraud to the poor security practices of the defendant. Not all plaintiffs have been unsuccessful. In Bell v. Michigan Council 25,2 the plaintiffs successfully sued the treasurer of their union for negligent handling of their personal data. The treasurer’s daughter was convicted of identity fraud after a notebook was found in her possession listing the names, social security numbers and drivers’ licenses of the plaintiffs as well as the fraudulent purchases made in their names. This case involved unusually good evidence of causation, and the plaintiffs in many other cases have found it difficult much more difficult to establish causation. It is possible that some financial institutions may be able to assist plaintiffs, at least with respect to breaches in security at retailers rather than banks. Very quickly after the public announcement of the TJX Companies Inc. security breach, a banking association began to announce publicly that its member banks had linked fraudulent credit card purchases to the security breach. 3 This willingness to make public statements may reflect the banks’ growing unhappiness over having to bear the costs of preventive measures such as canceling compromised payment cards. Even where plaintiffs are able to establish that the data security breach caused the

2005 Mich. App. LEXIS 353 (Mich. C.A.). Allan Holmes, “The TJX security breach. This one’s different. Way different.” CIO Blogs (1 February 2007), http://advice.cio.com/node/681

L’ÉPIDÉMIE de pertes et de vols de données :
les dépositaires de données sont-ils responsables de négligence en cas d’atteinte à la sécurité des données? Jennifer A. Chandler*
* L’article de la professeure Chandler sur ce sujet sera publié intégralement dans le volume 23(2) de Banking and Finance Law Review . La professeure Chandler exprime sa gratitude à Borden Ladner Gervais LLP pour le soutien financier accordé à son assistant de recherche David Quayat par le biais de son Programme de bourses de recherche. Ce soutien a en outre facilité la réalisation de l’article intégral. Le choix du terme « épidémie » pour qualifier le problème d’atteinte à la sécurité des renseignements personnels chez les principaux dépositaires de données comme les banques, les grands détaillants et les agences gouver nementales n’est malheureusement pas exagéré. En effet, les sondages informels publiés sur des sites comme celui de « The
24 TECHLAW //

Privacy Rights Clearinghousei » minimisent nécessaire ment la portée du problème, puisqu’ils ne font état que des bris de sécurité de notoriété publique dont ont été victimes des Américains. Néanmoins, ce site brosse un impressionnant portrait de la situation, puisqu’il fait état de la perte ou du vol de plus de 160 millions de dossiers de renseignements personnels sensibles depuis 2005. Ce phénomène n’épargne évidemment pas les Canadiens. En janvier 2007, The TJX Companies Inc. ont annoncé un bris de sécurité qui a eu des répercussions sur des millions de dossiers au Canada, au Royaume-Uni, en Irlande, aux États-Unis et à Puerto Rico. Durant le même mois, les Fonds communs de placement Talvest ont déclaré avoir perdu 470 000 dossiers de clients canadiens. Le nombre de dossiers

perdus est sans doute plus élevé, puisque certains bris ne sont pas révélés et qu’il peut arriver que des dépositaires ne soit pas au courant de tels incidents. La principale source d’inquiétude liée à la perte de ces données est que celles-ci peuvent être utilisées pour usurper l’identité des victimes. Les dommages économiques causés par la prolifération des fraudes ne touchent pas seulement les personnes dont les renseignements personnels ont été utilisés fraudu leuse ment. Le coût des pertes absorbées par les banques ou par les marchands qui acceptent des transactions effectuées avec des cartes de crédit volées se traduit par des hausses de prix généralisées. Le problème a commencé à attirer l’attention de législateurs, d’universitaires et d’avocats spécialisés en recours collectifs. Il

identity fraud, they may have difficulty in persuading a court that the loss is recoverable in negligence. The courts have controlled quite carefully what forms of “pure economic loss” (i.e., loss that does not flow from physical damage to person or property) may be recovered in negligence claims. Another interesting, if legalistic, problem may face plaintiffs in the Canadian lawsuits. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled years ago that where the government puts in place through legislation a comprehensive procedure to deal with a particular problem, the courts cannot develop a parallel remedy in common law. 4 As a result, a Canadian defendant could argue that plaintiffs must bring their complaint regarding inadequate data security safeguards to the Privacy Commissioner of Canada under the Personal Infor mation Protection and Electronic Documents Act.5 This Act provides a reasonably comprehensive set of data security obliga tions as well as an enforcement mechanism, and may eventually give rise to a claim for damages before the Federal Court. The difficulty facing plaintiffs is that it is unlikely that the class action mechanism is compatible with the scheme set out by the Act. As a result, the plaintiffs, whose individual losses may be fairly small, may lack the incentive to vindicate their rights by pursuing the matter alone through to the Federal Court. They may find it worthwhile only if they are able to do so via a class action that gathers together all similarly affected individuals. Plaintiffs may seek to refute the argument that they are limited to the procedures set out in the Act by noting that they are not invoking a new common law cause of action, but are simply seeking to apply an
4 5

Even where the identity theft involved the specific information known to have been stolen from the defendant and occurred reasonably soon after the breach of security, courts have refused to find causation.
established cause of action (i.e., negligence) to a new context. They may also argue that only provincial legislation can foreclose the development of a common law remedy since civil remedies fall within provincial jurisdiction under the Canadian Constitution. Since these arguments have not, to my knowledge, been tested, their success before the courts is uncertain. In sum, we are facing a real problem with significant consequences for individuals whose personal information is com pro mised as well as with considerable economic repercussions for everyone. For various reasons, data custodians seem to face inadequate incentives to maintain reasonably effective data security safeguards. As a result, the problem is unlikely to go away. Tort law has been used in the past to cause careless actors to bear the costs of their own carelessness in order to encourage a reasonable level of care to be taken. Unfortunately, the courts have so far found negligence law to be poorly-equipped to deal with the problem. We shall see if they are able to adapt the doctrines to meet the problem or whether the legislature or industry organizations will step forward. //

Professor Jennifer Chandler is a member of the Law & Technology group. Her research is currently focused on medical-legal problems as well as liability issues related to identity theft and data security.

Board of Governors of Seneca College of Applied Arts & Technology v. Bhadauria, [1981] 2 S.C.R. 181. S.C. 2000, c.5.

y a, aux Etats-Unis, un nombre croissant de procès liés à la responsabilité civile pour atteinte à la sécurité de renseignements personnels, et de nombreuses poursuites sont étalement en attente devant les tribunaux, au Canada comme aux EtatsUnis. Les plaignants invoquent la négligence des défendeurs (y compris des géants du commerce de détail, des institutions financières, des universités et des gouvernements) dans le traitement de données sensibles, ce qui, disent-ils, en a occasionné la perte ou le vol. Jusqu’ici, toutefois, les allégations de négligence émises par les plaignants ont été déboutées pour la plupart, même si l’on
i

peut faire valoir des arguments raisonnables en matière de théorie de la négligence et de politiques publiques, pour inciter les tribunaux à se montrer plus réceptifs quant à ces allégations dans certains cas. Dans cet article, la professeure Jennifer Chandler soutient que pour diverses raisons, les dépositaires de renseignements personnels seraient peu motivés à maintenir des mesures de sécurité raisonnablement efficaces en ce qui a trait à ces données. Par conséquent, le problème n’est pas près de disparaître. Dans le passé, on a déjà recouru au droit de la responsabilité délictuelle pour obliger les parties négligentes à assumer les

frais de leur propre manque de vigilance, afin de favoriser l’adoption de mesures de sécurité appropriées. Malheureusement, les tribunaux ont jusqu’ici constaté que le droit de la négligence ne comportait guère les dispo sitions nécessaires pour régler adéquatement le problème de l’atteinte à la sécurité des renseignements personnels. // La professeure Jennifer Chandler est membre du groupe Droit et technologie. Ses recherches actuelles sont axées sur les problèmes médico-légaux, de même que sur les questions de responsabilité liées au vol d’identité et à la protection des données.

Privacy Rights Clearinghouse www.privacyrights.org/ar/chrondatabreaches.htm.

TECHLAW // 01/08 // v5.1 25

The Privacy Network (TPN)
The Privacy Network (TPN) is an innovative privacy research collaboration project housed at the University of Ottawa’ Law and Technology Group and initiated by Bell Canada and Microsoft Canada. The Privacy Network’s mission is to facilitate sharing, debate and development of forward facing privacy laws, policies and especially technologies by bringing together and facilitating collaboration among those who work in privacy positions within the corporate sector, academic institutions, and public sector agencies.

Technology Law SPEAKER
SERIES
Thanks to a generous donation by Torys LLP in September 2002 and matched by the Ontario Research Network for ECommerce (Ornec), the Faculty of Law introduced the Torys LLP Technology Speaker Series . Since that time, the Series has brought national and international experts to the faculty’s distance learning multimedia room in Fauteux Hall. The Series is webcast live and all lectures are archived on the Program’s website for public access. Delivered through the school year, this is a standing-room only event attended by Ottawa-area practitioners,government personnel, industry leaders and academics. Schedule and archives are available on the Program website. //

SÉRIE DE CONFÉRENCES
The Privacy Network actively works to identify and champion the development of academic led Privacy Enhancing Technology research projects and match them with interested corporate partners. The results of the productized and commercialized privacy technology research will contribute to the development of an increased pool of informed and insightful technical tools, solutions and knowledge available for the benefit of business, consumers and regulators. The Privacy Network operates a community based self-service information and research portal at www.theprivacynetwork.org that promotes collaborative solution and application development. The Privacy Network Portal provides a useful platform for users to form Communities along a variety of privacy topics and develop and maintain Solutions and Projects within such Communities – with the intent of developing new privacy solutions collaboratively or enhance and grow existing solutions, tools and best practices. //

en droit des technologies
Grâce à une généreuse contribution du cabinet Torys, s.r.l. en septembre 2002, à laquelle s’est ajouté un montant équivalent offert par le Réseau ontarien de recherches sur le commerce électronique (RORCÉ), la Faculté de droit a mis en place la Série de conférences Torys, s.r.l., en droit des technologies. Depuis ce temps, la Faculté a accueilli, dans sa salle multimédia de Téléapprentissage du pavillon Fauteux, des spécialistes canadiens et étrangers. La série est diffusée sur le Web et toutes les conférences sont archivées sur le site Web du programme, afin d’en permettre la consultation publique. Cette activité, qui s’étend sur toute l’année universitaire, à laquelle on ne peut prendre part que debout, attire des praticiens et praticiennes, des fonctionnaires, des chefs d’industrie et des universitaires de la région d’Ottawa. On peut consulter l’horaire et les archives sur le site Web du programme. //

26 TECHLAW //

LE DÉTERMINISME
La discrimination légitimée et les répercussions des tests individuels pour le public
Professeure Karen Eltis

GÉNÉTIQUE?
En plus de véhiculer la promesse de soulager les fléaux de la maladie, la soi-disant « révolution génétique » soulève des questions épineuses concernant les droits de la personne, la vie privée, la divulgation de renseignements personnels et le sujet même du présent exposé : la discrimination génétique et la nature particulière des stigmates sociaux qui peuvent s’y rattacher.

TECHLAW // 01/08 // v5.1 27

Il est maintenant clair que certaines formes de recherche, autrement prometteuses sur le plan thérapeutique, peuvent engendrer par inadvertance des risques sociaux qui transcendent les préoccupations individuelles des personnes qui prennent part à ces études. Cela étant le cas, nous nous pencherons dans les lignes qui suivent sur le stigmate particulier lié à l’information génétique et sur ses répercussions possibles en matière des droits de la personne, au-delà du contexte de l’assurance et de l’emploi. Une telle analyse soulève les intérêts divergents possibles entre les membres déclarés de groupes historiquement vulnérables et le groupe lui-même, que le droit semble privilégier la thèse du consensus dans le contexte génétique. Face à ces difficultés, cet article propose une approche
1

originale : l’intersectionnalité dans le contexte de la génétique. Bien que ce texte n’offre qu’une première réflexion sur le sujet, son objectif immédiat consiste à étendre l’analyse pour capter les problèmes de droits de la personne engendrés par les tests génétiques réalisés sur des individus et analyser les ramifications négatives possibles des résultats de ces tests sur les groupes vulnérables. Plus précisément, il est logique de penser qu’on pourrait malencontreusement utiliser les résultats des évaluations individuelles pour formuler des hypothèses générales sur des groupes ethniques ou autres. Cela entraînerait une réévaluation des mécanismes de droits humains axés sur l’individu. En voici un exemple. En 2005, un psychiatre a suscité une énorme controverse (pour ne pas dire la fureur) à Montréal lorsqu’il a

déclaré, lors d’une émission-débat radiophonique, que les personnes de couleur étaient, de naissance – ou génétiquement – moins intelligentes1. Un point très important pour les fins de cette discussion : celui-ci a fait état de certaines études soi-disant scientifiques à l’appui de ses dires racistes répréhensibles. Adhérant à une thèse quelque peu similaire, une étude parue dans le Journal of Biosocial Science suggère non seulement qu’un groupe d’humains est plus intelligent que d’autres, mais explique le processus génétique qui, allègue-t-on, serait à la source de ce phénomène. Il s’agit des Juifs ashkénazes; le processus en question est la sélection naturelle. L’article fait état d’une douzaine de gènes pathologiques courants chez les Juifs ashkénazes et de leur rôle présumé dans ce processus de

Les personnes de couleur avaient un quotient intellectuel inférieur à la moyenne. CTV.ca News Staff, « Quebec Radio Shrink Sparks Complaints of Racism », 29 septembre 2005, à l’adresse : <http:// www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20050928/mailloux_defends_ 050928/20050928?hub=Canada> (consulté pour la dernière fois le 21 septembre 2007).

AND DISCRIMINATION:
Professor Karen Eltis

GENETIC DETERMINISM
A Call to Re-Orient Prevailing Human Rights Discourse to Better Comport with the Public Implications of Individual Genetic Testing
“Privacy Abstract: can not only provide inforGenetic testing also respecting considerations no mation about diseases but gender or other their prevalence in ethnic, longer arise out of vulnerable populations. While offering the promise of significant therapeutic benefits and serving to highlight our commonality, particular individual genetic information also raises a number of human rights issues touching on problems; rather, sensitiveand the perception thereof, as well identity possibility of discrimination and they express as the stigma. Moreover, the stoicism with social greet such data is conflicts affecting which the public tendstotoits eventual impact of particular relevance stands to everyone.”i on rights in the genomics age. Itscreenings reason that the results of individual
i

could haplessly be used to make general assumptions about entire ethic or gender groups. In this manner, genetic information can directly influence identity impacting and perhaps even reframing conceptions of group rights and dimensions of self-identification, thus importing constitutional scrutiny on questions of dignity and discrimination in particular. Is there a risk of collective stigmatization deriving from discrete testing of self-identified individuals? Would such stigmatization impinge on individual dignity by the exogenous imposition of ethnic or gender/sexual identity? If so what norms can most adequately respond if and when individual and group interests diverge? //

Spiros Simitis, “Reviewing Privacy in an Information Society”, 135 U. PA. L. REV. 707, 709 (1987).

28 TECHLAW //

développement de l’intelligence2. Bien que cette affirmation puisse paraître flatteuse à prime abord, quiconque connaît un tant soit peu l’histoire du peuple juif saisit immédiatement que de telles allusions (au caractère exceptionnel ou au « génie » manifeste des Juifs) servent uniquement à alimenter le racisme3. Enfin, même l’ancien président de l’Université Harvard a été invité à démissionner après s’être prononcé sur la soi-disant « infériorité » des femmes en mathématiques et en sciences en raison de leur bagage génétique inné. Dans cette même veine, soulignons que les données « scientifiques » qui fondent les prétentions de ce biologiste de formation rendent ses propos particulièrement consternants. Si les débats juridiques ont été limités jusqu’ici à déterminer si l’information génétique constitue une forme exceptionnelle de renseignements personnels, justifiant donc un traitement normatif distinct, la discussion s’est faite presque exclusivement dans le contexte des assurances et de l’emploi ou, plus précisément, dans la perspective des individus soumis au criblage génétique. Mais qu’en est-il des personnes appartenant à que ce la Cour suprême du Canada appelle « les groupes historiquement vulnérables? ». Chose étonnante, les répercussions publiques de l’ethnicité et du sexe vus à travers le prisme du savoir génomique ont à peine fait l’objet d’études. Pourtant il devient de plus en plus manifeste que le risque de discrimination génétique transcende la sphère des préoccupations personnelles – et, il va sans dire, le contexte étroit de l’assurance et de l’emploi. Les exemples précités relativement à l’intelligence présumée de certaines cohortes démontrent bien, de fait, comment les résultats de tests individuels peuvent servir à tirer
2

des conclusions générales sur l’ensemble d’un groupe ethnique ou sexuel. Les ramifications publiques de l’information génétique démontrent la nécessité d’études multidisciplinaires approfondies offrant une réponse juridique éclairée, car manifestement certaines formes de recherche peuvent comporter des risques sociaux plus importants que l’éclectisme des donneuses et des donneurs de spécimens biologiques. À titre d’exemple, songeons à l’étude des prédispositions comportementales – en particulier la prédisposition à la violence – et à son intersection avec l’ethnicité et le sexe. Il va sans dire que ce genre d’études risque d’avoir des répercussions importantes sur le fonctionnement du système pénal. Déjà, aux États-Unis des condamnés à mort invoquent la défense « du mauvais sang », prétendant que leur comportement criminel est la conséquence d’un gène qui les prédispose à la violence et que ce comportement est indépendant de leur volonté. S’il est vrai que « [TRADUCTION] le préjudice résultant des tests ciblant des groupes vulnérables (ethniques ou autres) particuliers dépasse le seul individu et porte atteinte à des groupes sociaux en entier », comme le suggèrent Jin et coll. (Yale), est-ce que des mesures législatives, mêmes particulières, conçues dans le cadre de « [TRADUCTION] notre système actuel de protection des humains sujets de recherche centrée sur l’individu, […] peuvent offrir une protection adéquate » par rapport aux conséquences des tests génétiques pour le public? Mon intention est de susciter une réflexion sur ce sujet précis. Cette problématique se prête mieux à une analyse fondée sur les droits de la personne (en particulier sur la dignité) qu’à la législation spécifique ou ad hoc4. De plus, bien que le droit à la vie privée ait été qualifié comme étant l’enjeu le plus

naturel des tests génétiques inappropriés, de toute évidence, les répercussions sociales qui en résultent sont susceptibles de porter atteinte aux droits des groupes, et plus particulièrement à leur droit à l’égalité et à la dignité. C’est précisément le raisonnement fondé sur la dignité qui semble le plus en harmonie avec la protection des renseignements susceptibles d’engendrer la diffamation à l’égard d’un groupe. Pour compliquer encore les choses, il est fort plausible que les intérêts des individus appartenant à des groupes divers divergent de ceux du groupe lui-même dans le contexte génétique. Cela remet donc en question la présomption fréquente de l’intersection entre les intérêts des membres individuels et de la collectivité d’un groupe minoritaire, que le droit semble tenir pour acquis. Perçu sous cet angle, même le « critère du bienfait thérapeutique », que proposent la plupart des éthiciens qui préconisent les tests génétiques uniquement s’ils sont bénéfiques pour la santé du sujet, semble peu pertinent dans ce contexte, car même si l’individu en tire un avantage véritable, les résultats du test risquent d’encourager le développement de stéréotypes nuisibles pour le groupe avec lequel est associé l’individu assujetti au test. Pour résumer la nature du problème abordé ici : premièrement, le débat actuel sur l’information génétique est confiné presque entièrement à ses ramifications sur la santé et la vie privée; deuxièmement, le débat part habituellement de la présomption que les intérêts d’un individu et de son groupe social sont identiques, ce qui n’est pas toujours le cas; enfin, le débat semble oublier le stoïcisme avec lequel le public en général accueille les données scientifiques et l’effet unique de la science sur la culture populaire.

3

4

G. Cochran, J. Hardy et H. Harpending, « Natural History of Ashkenazi Intelligence », Journal of Biosocial Science 35, nº 5 (2006): 659-693, à l’adresse : <http://homepage.mac.com/harpend/. Public/AshkenaziIQ.jbiosocsci.pdf> (consulté pour la dernière fois le 21 septembre 2007). Voir J. A. Barondess, « Care of the Medical Ethos, with Some Comments on Research: Reflections after the Holocaust », Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 43, nº 3 (2000): 308-324. Selon Green et coll.:, « Historically, genetic information has been used to discriminate against individuals and groups, particularly Jews and other minorities. » H. Markel, « The Stigma of Disease: Implications of Genetic Screening », American Journal of Medicine 93, nº 2 (1992): 209-215. Argumentation élaborée dans K. Eltis, « Genetic Determinism and Discrimination: A call to Reorient Prevailing Human Rights Discourse to Better Comport with the Public Implications of Genetic Testing » 35 J.L. Med. & Ethics 282 (2007).

TECHLAW // 01/08 // v5.1 29

CONCLUSION
Si, à bien des égards, l’information génétique s’apparente aux autres formes de données prévisibles en matière de la santé aux fins de l’assurance et de l’emploi, ses ramifications publiques, et plus particulièrement ses répercussions dans l’esprit du public, ou l’incompréhension de questions liées à l’ethnicité et au sexe dénotent des différences fondamentales qui méritent que l’on s’y attarde davantage. Les scientifiques jouissent de la confiance qu’ont perdue les politiciens; ils revêtent leur habit blanc et du coup, leur légitimité leur est acquise, ou presque. De plus, les juristes transforment les déclarations équivoques des scientifiques en propos univoques. Le paradoxe, comme le souligne le Dr Arthur Caplan (du Centre of Bioethics Penn Medicine), est le suivant : bien que la capacité prédictive de l’information génétique, selon l’hypothèque la plus optimiste, ne soit pas à l’abri de l’erreur, la perception qu’ont les gens de leurs gènes (et de ceux d’autrui) est particulière, voire teintée de fatalisme, pour ne pas dire de stoïcisme. Bien que l’information génétique puisse éventuellement, et fort heureusement, aider à chasser les notions d’ethnicité ou de « race » simplistes et trompeuses qui sont à la source de bien des problèmes de racisme et nous amener à rejeter la terminologie raciale dichotomique, le manque de questionnement avec lequel le public tend à accepter les conclusions « scientifiques » donne lieu de craindre d’éventuelles manipulations . Les décideurs politiques en savent souvent trop peu en matière de science pour réglementer efficacement dans le domaine et le public en sait encore moins. Une préoccupation connexe : des facteurs non génétiques – comme la pauvreté – échappent à la vigilance. QUE POUVONS-NOUS ET DEVONS-NOUS FAIRE dans ce contexte? Notre intention modeste, ici, consiste simplement à éveiller l’attention générale aux ramifications sociales de la discrimination génétique – et à souscrire au besoin de repenser le débat, pour l’instant principalement centré sur les renseignements personnels, surtout dans le contexte de l’emploi et de l’assurance – comme le démontre le régime canadien. Il faut en outre veiller à ce que toute réponse éventuelle soit fondée sur les droits – tant individuels que collectifs – plutôt que sur des considérations liées exclusivement à la santé, puisque le « critère du bienfait thérapeutique », comme nous l’indiquions, pourrait ne pas toujours comporter la solution recherchée. Dans une perspective de droits de la personne, il faudrait une solution qui reconnaisse la multiplicité des intérêts en jeu, afin de stimuler une prise de décisions politiques éclairées. Les chercheuses et les chercheurs ne peuvent être tenus responsables des perceptions des facteurs génétiques chez le public, mais ils devraient être sensibles aux répercussions importantes que peut avoir leur travail sur les relations sociales (Bhopal). On entend énormément parler de la diabolisation de l’information génétique, mais l’idéalisation de l’essentialisme génétique constitue peut-être une menace encore plus criante. //

30 TECHLAW //

The Law & Technology group at the University of Ottawa prides itself in having the leading program in Canada researching the legal and social issues at the crossroads of law and technology. An important part of this mission has been assembling a group of faculty unmatched at any other law school in the country. This year, we added two professors to our ranks. Professor Marina Pavlovic, and Dr. Teresa Scassa.

Professor Jane Bailey
Jane Bailey is an assistant professor at the University of Ottawa Faculty of Law. She currently teaches in the areas of cyberfeminism, contracts and civil procedure and has also taught regulation of internet communications. Her research focuses on the intersections between law, equality, privacy and technology, including in relation to online self-exposure, hate propaganda and child pornography. Her recent publications include: “Confronting Collective Harm: Technology’s Transformative Impact on Child Pornography” (2007) 56 UNBLJ 65; and “Seizing Control?: The Experience Capture Experiments of Ringley and Mann” (2007) 9 Ethics and Information Technology (co-authored with Ian Kerr). Her forthcoming publications include: “Life in the Fishbowl: Feminist Interrogations of Webcamming” in On the Identity Trail: Anonymity, Privacy and Identity in a Networked Society, Ian Kerr, Carole Lucock and Valerie Steeves, eds.; “Framed By Section 8: Constitutional Protection of Privacy in Canada” (2008) Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice; “What’s So Cyber About It?: Reflections on Cyberfeminism’s Contribution to Legal Studies” (2007) 19 CJWL (co-authored with Adrienne Telford); “Missing Privacy through Individuation: The Treatment of Privacy in the Canadian Case Law on Hate, Obscenity and Child Pornography” (2008) 31 Dalhousie Law Journal; and “Unreliable Data, Decontextualized Sorting & Invidious Discrimination: Conceptualizing the Collective Privacy Violation of Harmful Speech Through Data Management Concepts” (2008) 31 Dalhousie Law Journal. //

Marina Pavlovic
LL.B. (Belgrade, Serbia), LL.M. (Ottawa) LL.D. (Candidate, Ottawa)
Professor Pavlovic joined the Common Law English Program in July 2007. She is currently completing her LL.D. dissertation at uOttawa, working under the supervision of Dr. Daniel Gervais. Prior to joining uOttawa as an Assistant Professor, Professor Pavlovic acted as an in-house counsel for a telecommunication company in Belgrade (Serbia); as an of-counsel with a law firm in Salzburg (Austria), where she practiced in the area of international commercial arbitration; and was a part-time professor at the Common Law Section (2004-2007). Professor Pavlovic is also the Managing Editor of the University of Ottawa Law & Technology Journal. Her teaching focus is dispute resolution, and her research interests include dispute resolution, comparative law, conflict of laws, and technology regulation and policy. //

Dr. Teresa Scassa
Canada Research Chair in Information Law
Dr. Scassa joined the Law & Technology faculty in September, 2007 and is the Canada Research Chair in Information Law. She holds undergraduate law degrees in civil and common law from McGill University, as well as an LL.M. and an S.J.D. from the University of Michigan. She taught at Dalhousie Law School for 15 years before joining the faculty of law at the University of Ottawa as a full professor in July 2007. She has taught a range of subjects including Intellectual Property, Law and Technology, Public Law, Administrative Law, and Professional Responsibility. She is a member of the Nova Scotia Barristers’ Society. She is co-editor of the Canadian Journal of Law and Technology, and co-author of the recent book Electronic Commerce and Internet Law in Canada, (CCH Canadian Ltd.). Her research and scholarship is primarily in the areas of intellectual property law, law and technology, and privacy. She has written articles on a range of topics in theses areas. //

Professor Jennifer Chandler
Professor Chandler is continuing her work looking at the manner in which courts address disputes involving technology. She is currently conducting major case studies involving vaccination and psycho-physiological measurement technologies (e.g. functional magnetic resonance imaging of the brain as well as polygraph testing). She is also completing work relating to the permissible limits of self-help in response to identity theft. Professor Chandler is also teaching a new course in medical-legal problems as well as continuing her teaching in legal philosophy for the information age and tort law. Professor Chandler recently published “The Autonomy of Technology: Do courts control technology or do they just legitimize its social acceptance?” in the Bulletin of Science Technology & Society; “Liability for Breaches of Data Security” in the Banking and Finance Law Review; “A Right to Reach an Audience: An Approach to Intermediary Bias on the Internet” in the Hofstra Law Review; and coauthored a chapter titled “Legal Challenges of Online Reputation Systems” in Ronggong Song, Larry Korba and George Yee, eds, Trust in eServices: Technologies, Practices and Challenges. //

TECHLAW // 01/08 // v5.1 31

Professor Jeremy de Beer
Professor Jeremy de Beer is currently engaged in research on intellectual property with a particular focus on international development and issues of access to knowledge. As the research theme leader in the area of technology and intellectual property with the EDGE Network on the Emerging Dynamic Global Economies he is directing a multi-national and multidisciplinary team of scholars funded by the IDRC to propose practical strategies for implementing WIPO’s Development Agenda into practice. Professor de Beer is also a member of the research team on an IDRC-funded project on African Copyright and Access to Knowledge, a nearly million-dollar 28-month investigation of the impact of copyright on access to learning materials in Africa. In several recent publications in Canada and abroad Professor de Beer has written about the rights and responsibilities of intellectual property owners, particularly in respect of biotechnological innovations. In addition to speaking on that topic in various countries around the world, he has been continuing with his research on matters of copyright law. He is the author of a soon-to-be released study of orphan works licensing at the Copyright Board of Canada. Other conference presentations and publications have analyzed the legal, economic and social implications of peerproduced digital content. This work is closely related to Professor de Beer’s unique advanced seminar on Digital Music Law, which he teaches at the University of Ottawa and elsewhere. In 2007-08, Professor de Beer is also teaching the Law of Negligence and his core course, an Introduction to Property Law. //

Professor Michael Geist
Michael Geist, Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law, has been active on a range of Internet issues including digital copyright, net neutrality, privacy, and open access. His work on digital copyright garnered widespread attention in Canada after he launched a Facebook group focused on forthcoming copyright reform. The group grew to over 37,000 members and led to the government delaying the introduction of the legislation. Professor Geist appeared in numerous media interviews and was frequently credited with leading the movement in favour of balanced copyright reform in Canada. In addition to his weekly column, which now appears in Canada in the Toronto Star, Ottawa Citizen, and The Tyee as well as in the BBC and Ynet (Israel), Professor Geist delivered dozens of lectures throughout Canada and the United States on emerging Internet issues in 2007. In the spring of 2007, he appeared before several House of Commons committees including the Standing Committee on Industry to discuss telecom reform and counterfeiting, and the Standing Committee on Public Safety to discuss counterfeiting. //

Professor Karen Eltis
Professor Karen Eltis is a member of the Faculty of Law at the University of Ottawa (Droit Civil), specializing in comparative constitutional law, new technologies/bioethics and democratic governance. She currently acts as Senior Advisor to the National Judicial Institute (on secondment) and is the immediate past Director of the Human Rights Center and of the law faculty’s bi-juridical National Program. Karen holds law degrees from McGill University, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and Columbia University School of Law Harlan Fiske Stone Scholar and served as comparative law clerk to President Aharon Barak of the Supreme Court of Israel. Prior to joining the faculty, Professor Eltis practiced law in New York, focusing primarily on international arbitration. She is a member of the New York State Bar Association’s Alternative Dispute Resolution Committee. Some of her most recent publications include: “Comparative Constitutional Law and Judging in ‘Times of Terror’” (prepared for the Federal Court of Canada), “Genetic Testing : Discrimination and the Public Implications of Individual Testing” 34 Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics Volume 3 (2007) and « La surveillance du courrier électronique en milieu du travail: le Québec succombera t-il à l’approche permissive américaine? » 51 Revue de droit McGill 475. Her current research focuses on the impact of technology on courts and judicial ethics. //

Acting Dean Daniel Gervais
In December 2007, Dean Gervais published Intellectual Property, Trade & Development (Oxford Univ. Press, 2007), which he edited and in which he wrote two chapters. The book explores the many policy overlaps between trade, economic and cultural development, intellectual property and human rights. Dean Gervais also published three book chapters in European publications dealing with intellectual property, human rights and reform of Canadian copyright law and a major article on the legal protection of electronic databases (Chicago-Kent law Journal). Dean Gervais is working on two new books and a major empirical copyright research project and has just completed a report to the Government of Canada on limitations and exceptions to copyright. In July 2007, he taught at the University of Amsterdam and participated in scholarly events in Nashville (Vanderbilt University), Columbia (University of South Carolina) and Punta del Este (Uruguay) and New York (Cardozo Law School). //

Professor Mistrale Goudreau
Mistrale Goudreau has been a member of the Quebec Bar since 1981 and is associate professor at the Civil Law Section of the University of Ottawa where she teaches courses on intellectual property, law and technology and statutory interpretation. She has been also lecturer and visiting professor at the Faculty of law of the University of Montreal, at the Faculty of Law of the University of Nantes (France), and at the Canadian Foreign Service Institute (CFSI) in Ottawa, as well as research fellow at the Max-Planck-Institut für ausländisches und internationales Patent-, Urheber- und Wettbewerbsrecht ( Munich, Germany) and consultant for the Government of Canada. In the past, Mistrale Goudreau has acted as the executive director of the Council of Canadian Law Deans and as the assistant dean for clinical and applied teaching and the vice-dean of the Civil Law Section of the University of Ottawa. She is a member of the executive committee of the editorial board of Les cahiers de propriété intellectuelle. She is the author of numerous articles on copyright, unfair competition, commercial law and civil responsibility, of a book entitled Guide juridique du droit d’auteur (Ministère de la Culture et des Communications, 1998) and she collaborated to the publication of Le droit de la propriété intellectuelle (Yvon Blais, 2006). //

David Fewer
David Fewer joined the Faculty as Legal Counsel to the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic in November, 2004. Since 1997, Mr. Fewer has practised intellectual property and technology law, first with national law firms and, since 2003, with his own firm, Fewer & Company. Prior to entering private practice, Mr. Fewer completed an LL.M. at the University of Toronto, where he wrote on intellectual property policy and the application of the Charter to copyright law. Mr. Fewer also clerked with the Federal Court of Canada, where he had the opportunity to work with a number of judges at both the Court of Appeal and Trial Division on intellectual property and related matters. He has taught and written extensively on intellectual property and technology law issues. Mr. Fewer leads advocacy on intellectual property-related matters at CIPPIC, Canada’s only technology law clinic. Mr. Fewer’s work at CIPPIC focuses on training students in effective advocacy, producing relevant online resources, and articulating a public interest perspective in government policy development and law-making processes. //

32 TECHLAW //

Professor Elizabeth F. Judge
Dr. Elizabeth F. Judge, associate professor, specializes in intellectual property, law and literature, and privacy. She is a founding editor and the Editor-in-Chief and Faculty Advisor for the University of Ottawa Law & Technology Journal, project leader for Open Access Law Canada, and the co-author of Intellectual Property: The Law in Canada. Her research focuses on interdisciplinary law and literature scholarship, especially intersections between copyright and authorship. Her current research, supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, studies eighteenth-century fan fiction of iconic fictional characters in the emerging genre of the eighteenth-century British novel, the history of copyright law, and legal and literary ideas of originality and authorship. Her recent publications include “Intellectual Property Law as an Internal Limit on Intellectual Property Rights and Autonomous Source of Liability for Intellectual Property Owners” in the Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society and “Kidnapped and Counterfeit Characters: Eighteenth-Century Fan Fiction, Copyright Law, and Custodial Interests in Fictional Characters” in Originality and Intellectual Property in the French and English Enlightenment, ed. Reginald McGinnis (Routledge, 2008). //

Philippa Lawson
Philippa Lawson is the director of Canada’s only technology law clinic, located at the University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law. Prior to starting up CIPPIC in 2003, she was Senior Counsel with the Public Interest Advocacy Centre in Ottawa, Canada, where she represented consumer groups in court and regulatory proceedings, multi-stakeholder working groups, and other policy-making forums from 1991 to 2003. Ms. Lawson is a nationally recognized public interest advocate, and has worked with Canadian and international consumer organizations since the early 1990s on many initiatives involving telecommunications, privacy and consumer protection in the online environment. She is currently a co-investigator on the SSHRC-funded “On The Identity Trail” project (see www.idtrail.org), and is the lead investigator for the research project “Legal and Policy Approaches to Identity Theft” funded by the Ontario Research Network on Electronic Commerce (ORNEC). As Director of CIPPIC, Ms. Lawson’s work focuses on training students in effective advocacy, producing relevant online resources, and ensuring that the public interest is robustly represented in government policy development and law-making processes on issues involving new technologies. Recent publications include On the Data Trail: How Detailed Information About You ends up in the Hands of Organizations with whom You have no Relationship (April 2006); Compliance with Canadian Data Protection Laws; Are Retailers Measuring Up? (April 2006), and Approaches to Security Breach Notification: A White Paper (Jan.2007). //

Andy Kaplan-Myrth
Andy Kaplan-Myrth is the Manager of the Law & Technology group. He has a background in Mathematics and holds an M.A. in Linguistics and Cognitive Science from Yale University. Andy has an interest in public policy and education about legal issues related to the internet and other technologies. After earning his LL.B. in the Law & Technology program at the University of Ottawa and articling at a national firm, Andy returned to the Faculty as the group’s Manager. Andy is also a Project Lead for Creative Commons Canada and last year co-authored the Podcasting Legal Guide for Canada with Kathleen Simmons. //

Professor Valerie Steeves
Valerie Steeves is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Criminology. One of her main areas of research is the impact of new technologies on children’s privacy. Her recent publications include two book chapters on online playgrounds: “The Watched Child: Surveillance in Three Online Playgrounds”, Proceedings of the International Conference on the Rights of the Child (Montreal: Wilson Lafleur, forthcoming 2008); and “Who’s Minding the Kids?: Online Surveillance of Tinys and Tweeneys”, coauthored with Ian Kerr, A Sociedade Vigilante: Ensaios sobre Privacidade, IdentificaÁ„o e Vigil‚ncia. Frois, Catarina (org.) (Lisboa: Imprensa de CiÍncias Sociais, 2008). She has also written about the effectiveness of the current legislative framework to protect children’s privacy in “Closing the Barn Door: The Effect of Parental Supervision on Canadian Children’s Online Privacy,” coauthored with Cheryl Webster (Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 2008) and “Broken Doors: Strategies for Drafting Privacy Policies Kids Can Understand,” coauthored with Jacquelyn Burkell and Anca Micheti ( Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada: 2007). Professor Steeves also sits on a number of committees dealing with law and technology issues, including the Canadian Standards Association Technical Committee on Privacy and the American Association for the Advancement of Science Committee on Scientific Freedom and Responsibility. //

Professor Ian Kerr
Ian Kerr is the Canada Research Chair in Ethics, Law & Technology. He holds a three way appointment in the Faculties of Law and Medicine and the Department of Philosophy at the University of Ottawa. Dr. Kerr teaches in the areas of moral philosophy and applied ethics, internet and ecommerce law, contract law and legal theory, and has published writings in academic books and journals on the ethical and legal aspects of digital copyright, automated electronic commerce, artificial intelligence, cybercrime, nanotechnology, internet regulation, ISP and intermediary liability, online defamation, pre-natal injuries and unwanted pregnancies. His current program of research includes an examination of the impact of the human-machine merger on existing regimes of regulation, and how we ought to regulate such mergers taking into account the various social and ethical issues they raise. He is co-editing, with Valerie Steeves and Carole Lucock, a book titled On the Identity Trail: Anonymity, Privacy and Identity in a Networked Society (Oxford University Press), which will articulate the themes and questions that have emerged as a result of his SSHRC project’s investigations over the past four years. Dr. Kerr recently published a book chapter on emerging health technologies in Canada Health Law and Policy, 3rd edition, as well as a two journal articles: “Seizing Control?: The Experience Capture Experiments of Ringley & Mann” in Ethics and Information Technology, with Jane Bailey, and “Emanations, Snoop Dogs and Reasonable Expectation of Privacy” in Criminal Law Quarterly, with Jena McGill. //

TECHLAW // 01/08 // v5.1 33

The Law & Technology Program at the University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law was founded in 1998 and is the leading program of its kind in Canada. Providing specialized courses, practical experience and the opportunity to conduct innovative research, the program covers both the graduate and undergraduate level.
From its location in Canada’s technology capital, the University of Ottawa Law & Technology Program acts as a central source of legal information and expertise for policy-making and judicial determination in Canada and has been instrumental in producing technology law practitioners that now occupy all facets of the technology law field. //

LAW + TECHNOLOGY
Créé en 1998, le programme de droit et technologie de la Faculté de droit de l’Université d’Ottawa est un programme d’avant-garde, unique en son genre au Canada. On y offre des cours spécialisés, des expériences pratiques et la possibilité de mener des recherches novatrices, tant au premier cycle qu’aux cycles supérieurs.
L’Université d’Ottawa est située dans la capitale canadienne des technologies et son programme de droit et technologie constitue un noyau vital sur le plan de l’information juridique et de l’expertise dans le domaine de l’élaboration de politiques et de décisions judiciaires au Canada. Ce programme a joué un rôle clé dans la formation de juristes spécialisés en droit et technologie qui exercent maintenant leur profession dans tous les domaines du droit des technologies. //

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful