So I must have had a busy December or something? I guess I was grading papers and getting drunk. ANYWAY, December brought an important privacy & computer & internet case from the Supreme Court, so before it gets way too far in the past, let’s take a look!
Don’t worry, I don’t understand the headline either. But I’ll explain. There was a HUGE development in privacy / internet circles [/checks calendar] about 3 weeks ago, that will possibly have some HUGE implications for a lot of things. Am I being vague? Seems like it! OK, let’s figure this out.
Written by this guy. This will be… fun?
Sure, everyone is talking about Facebook this month (and last month, and probably many months before that, who knows, I barely pay attention to this stuff), but did you know Google is having its own issues in April, but in the courts? Let me lexplain what’s happened.
The world is abuzz with privacy news this month. So much so that I spent a morning last week being interviewed by every CBC Radio station in British Columbia. What’s up with that? You got me, they like their privacy in BC I guess. But I’m even making it into the francophone media! So let’s dive in with all the privacy news du jour.
Well that’s good news I guess? Two very important cases came out of the Supreme Court a couple of weeks ago. And while technically they are not internet law cases, and I write a blog about internet law, they are huge privacy cases. And I teach privacy! So I guess I should read them and write about them.
Oh Supreme Court, you’ve gone and done it now.
There was a huge, huge, huge (no really it was huge) internet law case that came out of the Federal Court about a month ago. “If it was so huge, why are you only writing about it now?” you are asking me. Shut up is why.
“The Commissioner shall, within three months after the end of each financial year, submit to Parliament a report…” doesn’t sound like the basis for an exciting post on privacy in the modern technological age, yet here we are!
We’ve had two important internet law cases coming out of Ontario over the last week or so. I have spent the last couple of days trying to figure out which one to write about. After much
soul-searching drinking, I’ve decided to write about both. This is probably a mistake.
If you turn on Canada AM these days, chances are you’re gonna see some random lawyer dude who doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Or, you know, me. So here’s me this week talking about all the data that the smartphone fitness apps and wearables are collecting when you’re out there getting your ass in shape. Who owns that data? What are the legal issues surrounding it? Damned if I know. But damned if that doesn’t stop me from attempting to answer that question on national TV! Here’s some background for you.
Kudos to CTV for finally allowing their video to be embedded. It’s the internet way. Also, thanks to Bev Thompson who was a delight. I have now hit for the cycle of Canada AM hosts.
The advancement of internet legal principles is the only good thing to result from child pornography #RvSpencer
– Me, on Twitter, last Friday as I read the case
Sure, quoting yourself from Twitter is pretty dumb. And tragically, my #RvSpencer hashtag never took off. But the point still stands. Illegal activities like child pornography tend to be lightning rods for internet privacy, and the only way we can get landmark internet law cases like last Friday’s R v. Spencer case from the Supreme Court of Canada. And the Court even found a way to keep the child pornography evidence intact while guaranteeing some internet privacy rights. Win-win!