BULLETIN DE DROIT ET TECHNOLOGIE

LAW & TECHNOLOGY NEWSLETTER

01/08 // v5.1

PROFITING FROM
PEER PRODUCTION

23 27
contents

The Open Access Law Program /

4 16 18
Le programme Libre accès . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 BULLETIN DE DROIT ET TECHNOLOGIE
Creative Commons Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
LAW & TECHNOLOGY NEWSLETTER
Law Students Go Jump Street . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 01/08 // v5.1
The EDGE Network on the Emerging Dynamic Global Economies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Littering the Information Superhighway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
uOttawa Faculty of Law
CIPPIC – The Year in Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 75 Louis Pasteur Street
The University of Ottawa Law & Technology Journal (UOLTJ) / Ottawa, ON, CANADA K1N 6N5
Revue de Droit et technologie de l’Université d’Ottawa (RDTUO) ..................9 Printed in Canada
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
The Option in Law and Technology/
L’option en Droit et technologie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Faculty news . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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 anniver-
saries 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.
2 TECHLAW //
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’orienta-
tion 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 consom-
mateurs. 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 réno-
vation de la bibliothèque Brian Dickson. La nouvelle annexe
reflétera nos valeurs fondamentales : développement durable, interac-
tion 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”.
TECHLAW:
THE LAW & TECHNOLOGY MAGAZINE
TECHLAW:
BULLETIN DE DROIT ET TECHNOLOGIE
VOLUME 5, ISSUE 1 VOLUME 5, NUMÉRO 1

uOttawa Faculty of Law Faculté de droit, Université d’Ottawa

75 Louis Pasteur Street 57, rue Louis-Pasteur
Ottawa, ON, CANADA K1N 6N5 Ottawa ON K1N 6N5 CANADA

Editor: Andy Kaplan-Myrth Rédaction : Andy Kaplan-Myrth

Publisher: University of Ottawa,Law & Technology Program Publication : Université d’Ottawa, Programme de droit et technologie

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.
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 Mistrale Goudreau Canadian Internet
Jennifer Chandler Elizabeth Judge
Jeremy deBeer Ian Kerr
Policy and Public Interest
Karen Eltis Canada Research Chair in Ethics, Clinic (CIPPIC) / Clinique
Daniel Gervais Law & Technology / d’intérêt public et de
Chaire de recherche universitaire sur le droit Chaire de recherche du Canada
de la propriété intellectuelle; le professeur en éthique, droit et technologie
politique d’internet
Oslers en droit de la technologie; doyen Andy Kaplan-Myrth du Canada
intérimaire de la Section de common law / Manager / Gestionnaire
University Research Chair Marina Pavlovic David Fewer
in Intellectual Property; Teresa Scassa Staff Counsel / Avocat-conseil
Osler Professor of Law; Chaire de recherche du Canada Philippa Lawson
Acting Dean of Common Law en droit de l’information / Director / Directrice
Michael Geist Canada Research Chair in Information Law
Canada Research Chair in Internet Val Steeves
and E-commerce Law / Cross-appointment:
Chaire de recherche du Canada Department of Criminology
en droit d’Internet et du
commerce électronique

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 knowl-
edge 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 agree-
ment 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 aux personnes qui ne sont pas abonnées à Professeure Elizabeth Judge est la directrice
travaux d’érudition. Il favorise la diffusion des bases de données juridiques. du projet Libre accès au droit Canada,
des recherches, ce qui est avantageux pour Le programme Libre accès au droit http://www.libreaccesaudroitcanada.ca, mis
l’auteur, les revues juridiques et le grand Canada fournit des ressources diverses sur en œuvre cette année pour aider les revues de
public. Certaines retombées positives sont la ses sites Web, en anglais à l’adresse droit canadiennes à faire le passage vers le
diffusion rapide de la recherche, un plus http://www. openaccesslawcanada.ca et en modèle de la publication en libre accès, lequel
vaste accès à la recherche à des fins éduca- français à l’adresse http://www. libreacce- permet à l’auteure ou auteur [auteur]
tives, une plus grande sensibilisation du saudroitcanada.ca pour encourager l’archivage d’archiver ses articles parus dans une revue
public à la recherche, l’obtention plus simul- en libre accès. Parmi ces ressources, il y a un juridique sur des sites Web accessibles au
tanée de commentaires et d’observations sur modèle canadien d’entente de publication, grand public.
la recherche et la facilitation des échanges conçu dans l’optique particulière du droit
entre universitaires dans le monde. Le libre canadien. Ce modèle est mis à la disposition
accès à la recherche érudite en droit des revues de droit qui aimeraient s’en
rehausse le profil des revues juridiques, qui inspirer et l’adopter. //
sont ainsi plus fréquemment citées et plus
visibles. Par ricochet, l’établissement qui en
assure la publication se fait mieux connaître. Le libre accès à la
Les revues de droit qui participent au
programme Libre accès au droit Canada recherche érudite en
s’engagent à utiliser une licence aussi peu
restrictive que possible en tenant compte
des besoins de la revue, à fournir aux
droit rehausse le profil
auteurs une copie électronique de la version
finale de leur article et à offrir un accès
des revues juridiques,
public au contrat type de publication de leur
revue afin que les auteurs puissent consulter
qui sont ainsi plus
l’entente de publication avant de soumettre
un article. Les revues de droit n’ont aucune
fréquemment citées
obligation de tenir des archives électro -
niques des articles ou de publier les articles et plus visibles.
en ligne. Il leur suffit de permettre aux
auteurs de publier leurs articles sur des sites
Web savants afin de les rendre accessibles

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


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 navi-
gate Copyright law and internet broadcasting in Canada.
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. //
6 TECHLAW //
LAW
STUDENTS
GO JUMP
STREET
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 intellec-
tual 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. //
We are rethinking old policies and
questioning the effectiveness of
existing rules.
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, organ-
ized The Integrated Circuit: A Symposium on Electronic Waste in
Canada in search of some answers. The project was the first partner-
ship 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 atten-
tion. 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 advo-
cates 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 devel-
oping best practices for fair dealing with copyrighted work. Other
projects include participation in Canadian stakeholder consulta-
tions 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 meet-
ings 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 posi-
tions 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 schol-
arship 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 informa-
tion 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).
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 théma-
tiques, 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’au-
teur 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
10 TECHLAW //
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 compo-
nents 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. //
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 tradi-
tionnel; 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’exper-
tise 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 publi-
cation 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. //
Profiting
from peer Jeremy De Beer

production
Viacom’s billion-dollar lawsuit against YouTube1 has gene-
rated 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.

1
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 conse-
quences 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 indu-
cing copyright infringement.
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 organi-
smes 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 avan-
tageux pour les consommateurs, pour les
créateurs et pour les propriétaires de contenu
de viser des solutions de rationalisation en
12 TECHLAW //
If no settlement is reached, the outcome
of this case will depend mainly on the appli-
cation 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 infringe-
ment 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..
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 engen-
drées 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
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 perform-
ance/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 con-
tributing to, benefiting from or inducing them.
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’indus-
trie, 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.
 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 inter-
feres 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 copyright-
protected 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 interme-
diaries are less likely to be liable, due to the
availability of safe harbour provisions in the
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
17 U.S.C. § 512.
3
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).
4
CCH Canadian Ltd. v. Law Society of Upper Canada, 2004 SCC 13.
5
Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada v. Canadian Assn. of Internet Providers, 2004 SCC 45.
6
Yochai Benkler, The Wealth of Networks (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2006) at 2.
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 telecommuni-
cation 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 liti-
gated 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 ques-
tion. 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 non-
copyrighted 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 ‘notice-
and-termination’ regime, it has been
reported to be nonetheless effective. The Bill
also would have immunized network services
from all liability for caching, including commu-
nications 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 oper-
ation 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 indi-
vidual 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 complemen-
tary 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 scram-
bling to capitalize on the sharing economy.
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 open-
source 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 peer-
produced 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 copy-
right owners’ offerings on their websites, at
digital download retailers and through televi-
sion broadcasts or DVD video recordings.
Other material incorporates copyright-
protected 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
Lawrence Lessig, “On the Economies of Culture” Lessig Blog (28 September 2006), online: Lessig Blog <http://www.lessig.org/blog/archives/003550.shtml>.
8
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 envi-
ronment? And by ‘profit,’ I mean both direct
and indirect financial returns as well as
social, cultural and democratic gains achiev-
able 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 mana-
gerial 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 coope-
ration 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 underap-
preciated benefits to all stakeholders.
9
Pierre R. Berthon et al., “When Customers Get Clever: Managerial Approaches to Dealing with Creative Consumers” (2007) 50 Business Horizons 39 at 44-45.
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 appro-
priate, 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 mega-
deals 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
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.
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 deriva-
tive 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. Rights-
holders 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 Copy-
right Board of Canada will be published soon.
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 else-
where 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.
16 TECHLAW //
Ian Kerr and Cynthia Aoki
After four years of creative and ground-
breaking research, funding for the project
will come to an end in March, 2008. To cele-
brate 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, iden-
tity and authentication.
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 peer-
reviewed 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 damp-
ening drugs on identity, recently proposed
by some as a form of therapy for post trau-
matic 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. //

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 tech-
nology law fields.
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
• Curriculum: The curriculum includes two specialized grad-
uate 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
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 //
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 spéciali-
sés en droit des technologies, qui exercent maintenant leur
profession dans toutes les sphères du droit des technologies.
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.
Modules
• Programme d’études : Le programme comporte deux sémi-
naires 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.
Admission
Pour être admissibles au programme de maîtrise en droit, les candi-
dats 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 //
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 technolo-
gies 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 interrelation-
ship 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 implica-
tions of boarding this strange mothership. //
18 TECHLAW //
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’auto-
matisation 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 limitent-
ils 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’attar-
dant aux implications sociales plus importantes que risque
d’engendrer l’adoption de ce curieux mode de vie. //
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
TECHNOLOGY
policies affecting the future of digital
music and, ultimately, the creation and
LAW INTERNSHIP
consumption of our own culture. // 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
Musique numérique, avec le daily practice and policy issues for lawyers working in the tech-
professeur Jeremy de Beer nology law field. This popular course is available to both
undergraduate and graduate students as an elective course and
Le cours « Musique numérique » du professeur de Beer comporte un tour students are assigned a grade of satisfactory / non-satisfactory.
d’horizon multinational et pluridisciplinaire de la scène mondiale en matière The Technology Law Internship program has spanned four
de musique numérique. Les étudiants examineront ensemble diverses cities – Ottawa, Montreal, Toronto, and Washington, DC. With more
facettes de la loi au Canada, aux États-Unis, en Europe, en Australie, en Asie than two dozen internship partners, students have the opportunity
et en Afrique. Tout en procédant à une comparaison de ce qui se fait sur les to intern at major law firms, business, governmental and non-
différents continents, nous analysons des questions d’actualité sous un governmental organizations, CIPPIC and the University of Ottawa
certain nombre de points de vue, en fonction de leurs aspects juridiques, Law & Technology Journal. //
commerciaux, technologiques et sociaux. L’objectif général consiste à
susciter une réflexion d’ensemble quant aux politiques qui auront des réper-
cussions 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
The Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic œuvrant dans le domaine du droit des technologies. Ce cours
(CIPPIC) was established in fall of 2003 at the University of optionnel populaire est offert aux étudiants de premier cycle et aux
Ottawa, Faculty of Law, Common Law Section. CIPPIC seeks to études supérieures. La note attribuée est exprimée de la façon suiv-
ensure balance in policy and law-making processes on issues ante : satisfaisant/ non satisfaisant.
that arise as a result of new technologies. Upper year law Le programme de stages en droit des technologies est réalisable
students work under the supervision of the Clinic director on dans quatre villes : Ottawa, Montréal, Toronto et Washington, DC.
projects and cases involving the intersection of law, technology Grâce à la collaboration de plus de vingt-quatre partenaires, ces stages
and the public interest. CIPPIC Summer Fellowship peuvent s’effectuer auprès de grands cabinets, d’entreprises, d’orga-
Program is now open to Canadian law students who have nismes gouvernementaux et non gouvernementaux, de la CIPPIC et
completed at least two years of law school. For more informa- de la Revue de droit et technologie de l’Université d’Ottawa. //
tion 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 légis-
latifs 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 recom-
mandés 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 respon-
sable 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’as-
surance 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 commé-
morative 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 protec-
tion 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. //
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 //
22 TECHLAW //
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 prop-
erty 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. //
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 //
 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 govern-
ment 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,
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.
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 phys-
ical 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 secu-
rity, 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 reis-
suing of payment cards. The plaintiffs have
argued that the defendants (including major
retailers, financial institutions, universities
and government) have been careless in
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 recep-
tive 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 tica-
tion, 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 mecha-
nisms 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
2005 Mich. App. LEXIS 353 (Mich. C.A.).
3
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 qual-
ifier le problème d’atteinte à la sécurité des
renseignements personnels chez les princi-
paux 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 //
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 serv-
ices 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 defen-
dant data custodian. Even where the identity
theft involved the specific infor mation
known to have been stolen from the defen-
dant 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 addi-
tion, this data can also be stolen from the
Privacy Rights Clearinghousei » minimisent
nécessaire ment la portée du problème,
puisqu’ils ne font état que des bris de sécu-
rité de notoriété publique dont ont été
victimes des Américains. Néanmoins, ce site
brosse un impressionnant portrait de la situa-
tion, puisqu’il fait état de la perte ou du vol
de plus de 160 millions de dossiers de ren-
seignements 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
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 trea-
surer’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 institu-
tions 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
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 utili-
sés 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’atten-
tion 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 recover-
able 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 proce-
dure 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 reason-
ably 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 incen-
tive 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
Board of Governors of Seneca College of Applied Arts & Technology v. Bhadauria, [1981] 2 S.C.R. 181.
5
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 Etats-
Unis. Les plaignants invoquent la négligence
des défendeurs (y compris des géants du
commerce de détail, des institutions finan-
cières, 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
Privacy Rights Clearinghouse www.privacyrights.org/ar/chrondatabreaches.htm.
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 jurisdic-
tion 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 inade-
quate 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
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
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.
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 ques-
tions de responsabilité liées au vol d’identité
et à la protection des données.
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 initi-
ated 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 facili-
tating collaboration among those
who work in privacy positions
within the corporate sector,
academic institutions, and
public sector agencies.
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 busi-
ness, consumers and regulators.
The Privacy Network operates a commu-
nity based self-service information and
research portal at www.theprivacynet-
work.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 collabora-
tively or enhance and grow existing solutions,
tools and best practices. //
26 TECHLAW //
Technology
Law SPEAKER
SERIES
Thanks to a generous donation by Torys
LLP in September 2002 and matched by
the Ontario Research Network for E-
Commerce (Ornec), the Faculty of Law
introduced the Torys LLP Technology
Speaker Series . Since that time, the
Series has brought national and interna-
tional 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
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. //
LE DÉTERMINISME
GÉNÉTIQUE?
La discrimination légitimée
et les répercussions des tests
individuels pour le public
Professeure Karen Eltis

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 trans-
cendent 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 géné-
tique 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 diffi-
cultés, cet article propose une approche
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 rami-
fications 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 mécanis-
mes de droits humains axés sur l’individu.
En voici un exemple. En 2005, un psychia-
tre a suscité une énorme controverse (pour ne
pas dire la fureur) à Montréal lorsqu’il a
déclaré, lors d’une émission-débat radio-
phonique, 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 simi-
laire, 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 ashké-
nazes; 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

1
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).

GENETIC DETERMINISM
AND DISCRIMINATION:
A Call to Re-Orient Prevailing Human Rights
Discourse to Better Comport with the Public
Implications of Individual Genetic Testing
Professor Karen Eltis

“Privacy Abstract:
Genetic testing can not only provide infor-
could haplessly be used to make general
assumptions about entire ethic or gender
considerations no mation about diseases but also respecting
their prevalence in ethnic, gender or other
groups. In this manner, genetic information
can directly influence identity impacting
longer arise out of vulnerable populations. While offering the
promise of significant therapeutic benefits
and perhaps even reframing conceptions of
group rights and dimensions of self-identi-
particular individual and serving to highlight our commonality,
genetic information also raises a number of
fication, thus importing constitutional scrutiny
on questions of dignity and discrimination
problems; rather, sensitive human rights issues touching on
identity and the perception thereof, as well
in particular. Is there a risk of collective
stigmatization deriving from discrete testing
they express associal
the possibility of discrimination and
stigma. Moreover, the stoicism with
of self-identified individuals? Would such
stigmatization impinge on individual dignity
conflicts affecting which the public tends to greet such data is
of particular relevance to its eventual impact
by the exogenous imposition of ethnic or
gender/sexual identity? If so what norms can
everyone.”i on rights in the genomics age. It stands to
reason that the results of individual screenings
most adequately respond if and when indivi-
dual and group interests diverge? //

i
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 » mani-
feste des Juifs) servent uniquement à
alimenter le racisme3.
Enfin, même l’ancien président de
l’Université Harvard a été invité à démis-
sionner 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 exception-
nelle de renseignements personnels,
justifiant donc un traitement normatif
distinct, la discussion s’est faite presque
exclusivement dans le contexte des assur-
ances et de l’emploi ou, plus précisément,
dans la perspective des individus soumis au
criblage génétique.
Mais qu’en est-il des personnes appar-
tenant à que ce la Cour suprême du Canada
appelle « les groupes historiquement
vulnérables? ». Chose étonnante, les réper-
cussions 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 préoccu-
pations personnelles – et, il va sans dire, le
contexte étroit de l’assurance et de l’emploi.
Les exemples précités relativement à l’intelli-
gence présumée de certaines cohortes
démontrent bien, de fait, comment les résul-
tats de tests individuels peuvent servir à tirer
des conclusions générales sur l’ensemble
d’un groupe ethnique ou sexuel.
Les ramifications publiques de l’informa-
tion 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 prédis-
pose à la violence et que ce comportement
est indépendant de leur volonté.
S’il est vrai que « [TRADUCTION] le préju-
dice 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’indi-
vidu, […] 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 probléma-
tique 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 béné-
fiques pour la santé du sujet, semble peu
pertinent dans ce contexte, car même si l’in-
dividu 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’indi-
vidu 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 présomp-
tion 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.

2
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).
3
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.
4
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 univo-
ques. 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 géné-
tique, 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 manip-
ulations . 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 inten-
tion 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.
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 reso-
lution, 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 Jane Bailey
Jane Bailey is an assistant professor at the University of Ottawa
Faculty of Law. She currently teaches in the areas of cyber-
feminism, contracts and civil procedure and has also taught
regulation of internet communications. Her research focuses on
the intersections between law, equality, privacy and tech-
nology, 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. //
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 vaccina-
tion 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 multi-
disciplinary 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 coun-
tries 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 peer-
produced 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 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. //
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 articu-
lating a public interest perspective in government policy development and
law-making processes. //
32 TECHLAW //
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 forth-
coming 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. //
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). //
 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 interdis-
ciplinary 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). //
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 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, nanotech-
nology, 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. //
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). //
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. //
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 determina-
tion 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 tech-
nologie 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. //