3D printer revolution

Posted on by
Reply

Today’s Slaw post:

3D printing has become a popular topic lately.  While 3D printers that print objects similar to how ink jet printers print words have been around for many years, the cost has come down dramatically, and will continue to come down. 

3-D printers are a disruptive technology, and as with any disruptive technology, the law will have to react to issues that come with it.  Possible issues include intellectual property, product liability, and use for criminal purposes.

There has been a lot of negative press lately about using 3D printing to create plastic guns.  To me that says more about the US gun culture than 3D printing.  Like most technologies, 3D printers can be used for good and evil.  And like most new technologies, it will take a while for the real uses to emerge.

Home 3D printers are now available, but we are a long way from having one in every house.  They are becoming accessible though – the office supply chain Staples recently announced it will provide 3-D printing services at its stores in Belgium and the Netherlands. Here are some examples of what a basic 3D printer can do.

3D printers have been a boon to engineers and architects, who have used rapid prototyping techniques for many years.  This article talks about how Ford uses 3D printing to create prototype metal parts such as transmission parts and brake rotors.

3D printing is being used to manufacture parts with complex shapes.   This new more fuel efficient jet engine uses 3D printed metal nozzles that are lighter in weight due to an advanced design producible only on 3D printers.

3D printing also has intriguing medical possibilities.  3D printed body parts – using live tissue – is a real possibility.  And it has been used to create relatively inexpensive replacement hands.  This video about the Robohand is well worth the 10 minute investment.

http://harrisonpensa.com/lawyers/david-canton 

 

Wearable computing – Legal Issues?

Posted on by
Reply

Today’s Slaw post

What do readers think about wearable computing?  Is it cool or creepy? Where is the technology headed? What legal or other issues might arise from it?

I’m thinking about this because I find the intersection of technology and law interesting, and I’ve been asked to speak about it this fall.  Google Glass privacy concerns is a popular topic today, especially around the issue of the ability to record and save images and video, and what might happen with all that.  In addition to Google Glass we are seeing the debut of the smartwatch.  The Pebble was a very successful kickstarter project, and there are rumours about an upcoming Apple smartwatch.  There are also fitness products such as the Fitbit and the Nike Fuelband.

Wearable computing has been around for a long time – perhaps dating back to an abacus worn around someone’s neck.  One of the first consumer electronic wearable computers was the calculator watch that first appeared in the 1970′s.

Wearable computers are however becoming more than a standalone device.  These devices are laden with sensors, connected to significant computing power, and connected to the internet.  Which raises all sorts of possibilities for the collection, storage and sharing of many kinds of data.  And not just from 1 person – but from everyone.  Combine that with the internet of things, and we also have the ability to be in constant contact with and have remote control over our stuff – such as our cars, homes, and appliances.

And how long will it be before devices get implanted to correct things like vision problems which are connected?  Or we have the medical equivalent of a “black box” that records and transmits our vital signs?

http://harrisonpensa.com/lawyers/david-canton

Holistic strategy is better for privacy laws

Posted on by
Reply

For the London Free Press – May 6, 2013 – Read this at lfpress.com

There has been controversy in the United States in the last few weeks about their patchwork of privacy laws in contrast to the holistic approach favoured by Canada and the European Union. This matters as commerce and cloud services become more borderless.

The U.S. approach to privacy has been to enact laws that apply to narrow areas as problems are perceived, rather than to look at privacy as a broader subject to regulate.

For example, in 1988 the United States Congress passed the Video Privacy and Protection Act to prevent wrongful disclosure of videotape rental or sale records. Though such laws may be effective in the short term, they have a narrow focus, fail to address future technology and leave gaps. And the process to change existing laws is typically glacier slow.

Some privacy regulation is the U.S, isn’t based on privacy laws at all, but on regulatory action and class-action lawsuits based on notions such as the breach of a company’s privacy policy. In other words, the wrong was a breach of a privacy promise, not a breach of a legal privacy requirement.

In contrast, the Canadian and European model deals with privacy on a holistic basis. The holistic approach allows for existing privacy laws to adapt to new technologies rather than having to create new privacy laws in response to new technologies.

In any given Canadian province there are likely no more than two privacy statutes that apply to the private sector.

One applies to personal information generally, and there’s often a separate one that applies to medical records. This is a far more stable, all-encompassing and technology-neutral approach to privacy issues than the U.S. model.

Peter Fleischer, global privacy counsel at Google, recently commented on this issue and his desire to see the United States enact better privacy laws. He notes not a single country has followed the U.S. model.

Fleischer praises European privacy laws for their simplicity and warns if changes aren’t made to the U.S. approach “privacy will prove a serious roadblock to any such future trade back (with the European Union), as long as some people in Europe can argue that the U.S. has not-effective privacy laws.”

Fleischer provides the example of Uruguay that has looked to Spain. as opposed to the U.S., when drafting its recent privacy laws.

In the long run, the holistic approach is a far better and more effective model to protect privacy interests. The holistic approach makes it easier for businesses to understand their obligations and comply, easier for individuals to know where they stand, has less risk of leaving privacy gaps, and makes it easier to deal internationally when other countries require privacy protection as a condition of personal information crossing borders.

As the world continues to emerge from the global economic crisis and the trend toward global integration continues, Canada’s holistic privacy framework will help us take advantage of global opportunities while a less-effective framework could damage U.S. efforts.

http://harrisonpensa.com/lawyers/david-canton

Deloitte TMT Predictions

Posted on by
Reply

Todays’ Slaw post

I just heard Duncan Stewart speak about the Deloitte 2013 TMT predictions at an event held by the London Economic Development Corporation.  A couple of things have been mentioned on Slaw before.  Here are some more things to ponder.

As we start to rely on more data in the cloud, carrier promises for uptime guarantees will be as important as the volume of data on our plans.

The hype over voice and gesture control for PCs and TVs is overblown.  A remote control has an error rate of about 2 per 10,000 uses.  Voice and gesture error rates are currently about 1,000 times higher.  So until that improves dramatically, people will tend to just give up and use a remote.

There is a looming wireless spectrum shortage.  As we get more portable devices downloading and streaming more images and video, speeds will slow dramatically.  In some places in the US it is a problem already, and actual speeds are nowhere near theoretical speeds.  And when demand is greater than supply, price becomes an issue.

The post PC era notion is overblown.  The total install base of PCs is far more than phones and tablets.  Creation is easier on a PC.  And its about the screen size, especially for gaming and video.   2/3 of net traffic is from PCs.  There are also privacy and cultural reasons not to use sensitive stuff in public - like doing your banking on your phone with someone beside you – or looking up medical symptoms.

Phablets not doomed because of their size.  Many people don’t use their phones for voice that much. Phablet sales will be bigger than many think.

What’s ahead for inclusion in their 2014 predictions?  MOOCs.

http://harrisonpensa.com/lawyers/david-canton

What’s in a name?

Posted on by
Reply

Today’s Slaw post:

We are always naming things – businesses, brands, trade-marks, domain names, and children.  But what makes a good or valuable name?  Naming anything can be a personal or emotional thing – but it is part science.

Take a brand name or trade-mark, for example.  The first choice of many for their business or product name is one that describes their business or product.  But that does nothing to distinguish that business or product from the competition.  Much better to have one that is unique and memorable, rather than descriptive.

Over the past decade it has become more important to adopt names that are internet and social media friendly.  It is often important to make sure that the name is available as a domain name or twitter handle.  Or at the very least that the obvious domain name or social media name that people would associate with it is not a competitor, or a site that you would not want people to associate or confuse you with.

A memorable or obvious domain name can of course be quite valuable on its own.  For domain names the most valuable ones are generic – like beer.com.  This infographic shows some factors that can increase or decrease the value of a domain name.

Social media has influenced baby names.  Parents have actually saddled children with names like hashtag and tweet.

Are we doing children a favour if we give them names that are available as domain names or social media handles?  Or at least names that are not common so they don’t get buried in search results with all the other John Smiths of the world?  (Google searches can get interesting when, for example, your last name can mean a corner pilaster, a flag corner, one of many cities, a territorial subdivision or township, and is used as the name of companies making loudspeakers,  auto racing parts, and wine barrels.)  Or are things going to change so rapidly that by the time they can take advantage of that it won’t matter?

Perhaps the Shakespeare quote “What’s in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as  sweet.” only applies these days if you can first find the rose on the net or social media.

http://harrisonpensa.com/lawyers/david-canton

 

Medical update touchscreen away

Posted on by
Reply

For the London Free Press – April 22, 2013 – Read this at lfpress.come-shift

Imagine a portable medical diagnostic scanner that can detect hundreds of illnesses and ailments in a matter of seconds without requiring a blood or tissue sample. Sound like science fiction? Something reminiscent of a Star Trek Tricorder? It may be closer than you think.

We are on the brink of major advancements in medical technology. With the rapid progression of smartphone and portable device technologies, the ability to diagnose, monitor and treat medical problems will soon be at our fingertips.

Smartphones and tablets are already being used by health professionals to record and store patient data. For example, neurologists can test attention, memory, reaction time, and problem solving by having their patients use an interactive application displayed on a tablet.

Sensory Technologies Inc. has developed smartphone software that enables personal support workers, who make home visits, to maintain a constant communication link with a nurse who can give instructions based on real-time patient data.

Portable accessories may be plugged into a smartphone or tablet for medical purposes. Heart rate detectors, fitness trackers and blood glucose monitors are examples of tools that may be plugged into a smartphone to record and store health information.

Want to take a look at your unborn baby, but don’t want to book an appointment at the hospital? Simply plug MobiSante’s ultrasound wand into your smartphone, apply some ultrasound gel and get ready to see the image of your baby appear on your phone’s touchscreen.

With new medical technology, there are legal issues to be considered. The Canada Food and Drugs Act and its medical device regulations apply to any software designed for use in the diagnosis, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of a disease, disorder or abnormal physical state of a patient.

Privacy and security issues must be addressed when portable devices store confidential patient information.

Product testing and safety is another issue. Manufacturers of portable medical technologies must be cognizant of their potential liability if a device meant to treat and heal malfunctions.

Advancements in portable medical technology have the potential to reduce the costs and long waiting times associated with traditional health care. Such technologies may also increase the accuracy of medical diagnoses. Visiting a family doctor for a checkup gives only a point in time snapshot of a person’s overall health. Portable medical monitoring software will allow that same family doctor to assess a patient based on health data compiled over an extended period of time.

What was once the subject of science fiction is rapidly becoming reality. Although we do not yet have a device capable of scanning, monitoring and diagnosing a multitude of illnesses, such technology may be just around the corner.

The Qualcomm XPrize Foundation recently offered a $10 million prize for the creation of a portable hand-held device capable of diagnosing 15 diseases based on non-invasive scanning, imaging and testing. As for the name of the device — you can thank Gene Roddenberry for that one — it will be appropriately named the Tricorder.

http://harrisonpensa.com/lawyers/david-canton

Perspective is an important element of Privacy

Posted on by
Reply

Todays Slaw post:

One thing I find consistent about privacy issues is an inconsistency in approach and viewpoint.  What is and is not deemed acceptable seems to change dramatically based on several factors, including geographic location (which I suppose is really more of a cultural issue than a geographic one), whether it is about one’s own information or you are doing something with someone else’s information, and whether the party with the information is government or business.

Many times it comes down to issues of trust, understanding, surprise, and how public one wants their life to be.

An example is in this article entitled Eric Schmidt is using the same argument against drones that others use against Google Glass.

One of the most common concerns raised about Google Glass (other than looking like a nerd) is the potential for privacy invasion.  The more of these there are around, the more likely each one of us is going to be captured on the video they can take whether we like it or not. And where is all this video going to end up?  That issue has also been raised about drones.  Google’s Eric Schmidt has apparently stated that drones should be strictly regulated for privacy reasons, which seems inconsistent with their approach to Google Glass.

Perhaps one explanation for this could be that privacy in the United States is viewed differently than in Canada and other parts of the world.  In the US, privacy is not approached as a holistic discrete topic to be regulated by general principles.  Instead, it is regulated on a piecemeal basis, such as a privacy law that applies only to movie rentals.

http://harrisonpensa.com/lawyers/david-canton

Anti-spam Q&A

Posted on by
Reply

I recently presented a webinar on the anti-spam law that was hosted by Andrew Schiestel of TBK Creative.

That webinar can be viewed here.  Also see the 5 part article series I recently wrote on the topic.

A number of questions came up on the webinar that we did not have time to answer.  Some of those questions are answered below, and are also available on the TBK Creative site.

Attendee: Is this new law in effect? If not, when do you think it will be?

David: The law is not yet in effect.  We are still waiting for some regulations to be finalized.  It is not known when it will be in effect, but expectations are late 2013.

Attendee: Can you contact people as a result of info they provided on a raffle ballot or a survey?

David: That would not amount to consent unless there was an explicit, clear statement to that effect when the address was provided.

Attendee: Do opt-ins apply for “life”, unless they opt-out at a later date? Or does the two year term apply to opt-ins?

David: Opt-ins have no automatic expiry date.  The two year concept applies only to certain implied consents.

Attendee: Are there any exceptions for educational institutions? eg. Universities.

David: The Act focuses on the commercial nature of the message, not the nature of the person or entity sending it. 

Attendee: I work for a non-profit that sells training programs and learning products.  When someone buys or attends training, is there an implied permission that we can contact them about future related trainings?

David: The Act refers to the nature of the activity rather than the nature of the organization.  So if someone buys training, it is considered an “existing business relationship” for the purposes of implied consent, and the 2 year rule applies.  If they attend but have not purchased it, it is not considered an “existing business relationship”.  If the training is free, it may be that it is not of a “commercial character”, and thus not considered spam.  But what is and is not included in “commercial activity” is not clear at this point, and may be broader than one might think.

Attendee: Will the 2 years be retroactive from the law taking effect? Or only moving forward?

David: The various 2 year implied consent rules relate to when the activity triggering the start of the 2 year rule happens.  So for that purpose the date the Act comes into force is not relevant, and such activities occurring before the Act comes into force would apply.

Attendee: What about member associations and member lists.  As a member association, is the association responsible for communication from one member to another, or is the sender accountable?

David: The person responsible is the person sending the message (or the person on whose behalf the message is sent).  So if members email each other, the association is not responsible under the Act.

Attendee: Is “liking” or “following” someone on Facebook and Twitter a form of consent?

David: The Act’s application to social media is not totally clear.  Any messages that are received by whomever is following you ought not to be caught by the Act.  But a direct message sent from one user to another does seem to fall into the definitions.  Since consent has to be for an explicit purpose, it is unlikely that “liking” or “following” someone would suffice as consent.

Attendee: Just got a monthly report email from my MP.  Would this fall into the definition of a spam email?

David: It would probably not be considered to be commercial activity, and thus not considered spam.

Attendee: How are RSS feeds handled under this Act?  Most require a sign-up to receive them.

David: RSS feeds are not caught.  An RSS feed is just a way to follow what someone publishes.  The “sender” has no control over who receives it, and it would not be a message “…sent to an electronic address…”

Attendee: You say to get compliant consents now.  Given the uncertainty of how the law will be implemented, would it not be appropriate to wait until the regulations are published and then get the consents during the ‘grace period’ before the regulations are enforced?

David: Yes.  In the meantime, you can sort out the nature of your messages, how you got the email addresses in the first place, and how you will record consents.

Gadgets encroach on privacy

Posted on by
Reply

For the London Free Press – April 8, 2013 – Read this at lfpress.com 

Machines that become self-aware and rebel against their human creators is a popular science fiction theme. A threat more immediate than Terminator’s Skynet or BSG’s rebelling “toasters” is that of our belongings spying on us.

As technology becomes more sophisticated, it enables more intrusion into individual privacy. Our belongings increasingly generate information about us, and the Internet will make more of our belongings — such as our homes and appliances — connected and able to share that information.

The use of data tracking and collecting by cars and smartphones are good examples.

Our smartphones and the applications we use every day are collecting more and more information about us. The inclusion of “black boxes” in cars also allows this same intrusion.

Many of us have smartphones. This new terminology provides an accurate description of how powerful these devices have become. Most people are focused, and understandably excited, about the capabilities they have provided. But there is a less of a focus on the sheer amount of personal information they can provide to various third parties and what potential impact this could have in the future.

The average smartphone user would likely use their phone for e-mail, Facebook, Twitter, GPS and even personal banking. With simple access to a person’s phone, organizations would be able to obtain almost a complete profile of a person and have access to all of their personal data. Modern smartphones contain little in terms of disclosing who and where this information is held and what steps are being taken to protect it.

Personal data collection has also increased considerably in cars. Though the concept of a talking car in Knight Rider seemed to be a ridiculous idea when the show first aired, we are closer to that day than ever.

For example, some car insurance companies offer discounts to people who provide them with black-box information about their cars, such as where and when they drive and how fast they drive. Though this information can be useful assisting insurance adjusters and the police to determine liability in the event of a crash, this also can be viewed as extremely intrusive.

This is not meant to suggest technological developments should be stopped, but there does need to be a real effort to think things through. What information is collected? Is that information really needed? Is it stored on the device or somewhere else? For how long is it stored? Who has access to it? For what purpose can they use it? If others have access, is it made anonymous or tied to an individual? What choices do we as individuals have over this information?

Do we feel comfortable with cellphone providers, car manufacturers, insurance companies and police knowing our every move?

How the dissemination of this information will be controlled by the courts and balanced with individual rights will develop over time. The Ontario Court of Appeal recently held that police can access, without a warrant, a phone of a person being arrested that does not contain a passcode.

On the other hand, the Supreme Court of Canada recently ruled a wiretap warrant is needed for police to obtain access to text messages in the possession of a cell company.

Some argue this collection and sharing of information should be OK for those who have “nothing to hide”, but it is a much more complex matter than that.

www.harrisonpensa.com/lawyers/david-canton

Happy 40th Birthday to the Cell Phone

Posted on by
Reply

Today’s Slaw post

Readwrite mobile says that the very first cell phone call was placed 40 years ago today by Motorola Division Manager Martin Cooper.  It was not until many years later – March 6, 1983, that it went on sale.

phone

We now take our cellphones for granted – but what a difference a few decades make.  The original Motorola DynaTAC sold for $3,995 ($9209 in today’s dollars) was 10 inches high (plus the antenna), and weighed 1 3/4 pounds.  And of course it could only make phone calls.  The smartphones we throw in our pockets today have more computing power than a multi-million dollar, room filling supercomputer did at that time.

http://harrisonpensa.com/lawyers/david-canton