Julianna Yau’s blog

(I double-checked this one…it really is about C-10, not net neutrality!)

CBC reports that the director of Love & Savegry suspects C-10 had a hand in his film being held at the border. To be honest, I wonder whether the title would have triggered a review based on pornography concerns alone. Although I’m very much against C-10 and am concerned about what would have happened if the footage was wrecked, I find that pinning the confiscation on C-10 is a bit of a stretch.

Today, I was also sent an invitation to the Education, Culture and the Knowledge Economy Conference hosted by The Centre for Innovation Law and Policy:

---

The Centre for Innovation Law and Policy is pleased to announce that we will be hosting an Education, Culture and the Knowledge Economy Conference on Friday, June 6, 2008.

The conference will take place at the University of Toronto, Faculty of Law, 78 Queen’s Park, Toronto, Ontario. Further details will be posted to our website at www.innovationlaw.org as available.

The conference is free of charge, and all are welcome. Advance registration is required; you may register by email to centre.ilp@utoronto.ca.

This event is sponsored by the CILP’s Microsoft Law and the Information Society Project.

Centre for Innovation Law & Policy
University of Toronto, Faculty of Law
78 Queen’s Park
Toronto, ON M5S 2C5
(t) 416-978-3724
(f) 416-978-2648
centre.ilp@utoronto.ca
www.innovationlaw.org

I told myself I wouldn’t blog today because I need my rest for the Technology in the Arts conference tomorrow, but my inbox has been crammed full of goodies today.

MCM emailed me about this great experiment upon which he’s embarking: Calm Copyright Canada. Although that sounds to be a bit of an oxymoron in the recent copyright climate, it’s something we dearly need right now. The goal to deconstruct and reconstruct was, of course, an instant hook for me. The how-to/rules posted on the site show great insight into some of the barriers in discussions on copyright, and the questions are a good starting point for discussion.

Once things quiet down for me a bit (although, at this rate, I doubt that will happen until retirement, which is at least 40 years away), I’ll participate and try to expand the deconstruction and reconstruction to copyright in general. For now, I think it’s useful for us to stick to one topic so that the experiment can begin with more focus.

Yesterday, the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada wrote about Facebook’s laxness on privacy and third-party applications. I was a bit surprised by the quality of the post, because their blog typically provides a good amount of relevant information. However, even after following the links in the post, I found it difficult to piece together (a) how the applications can “steal” your information, or (b) what the applications can steal.

It wasn’t until I followed a link from one of the BBC articles to Click’s advice for worried Facebook users that I understood what the concern is. Applications can have access to your name, networks and lists of friends, plus your selection of the following:

• Profile Picture
• Basic Info
• Personal info (activities, interests, etc.)
• Current location (what city you’re in)
• Education history
• Work history
• Profile status
• Wall
• Notes
• Groups you belong to
• Events you’re invited to
• Photos taken by you
• Photos taken of you
• Relationship status
• Online presence
• What type of relationship you’re looking for
• What sex you’re interested in
• Who you’re in a relationship with
• Religious views

This was certainly not news to me (particularly after I wrote a Primer on Privacy & Facebook, available as a PDF or OpenDocument download. Although I agree that it would be good for Facebook to more actively promote usage of their privacy settings (someone suggested that they include a privacy setting walkthrough in the post-setup activities), I more strongly believe that users need to start taking accountability for learning to use the privacy controls at their disposal.