Ethics committee talks social media without Del Mastro

I had a few committee meetings to choose from while I was in Ottawa last week, and attending the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics meeting on Tuesday made sense. And not just because it was hearing witnesses on a study of the privacy issues around social media.

I was hoping to see Conservative ethics committee member Dean Del Mastro, who has been keeping a low profile and allowing Pierre Poilievre to speak for him. Alas, Dean was a no-show. Disapointing to those hoping for a show, but perhaps a blessing for those looking for some substantive debate on what is a rather important topic as well. And we did get that; there was none of the partisan sniping that we hear of when committee hearings actually do get coverage. Instead, everyone was asking reasonable questions designed to get useful answers, not just score points or push a message. At one point, Liberal Scott Andrews even followed-up on a line of questioning when Conservative Blaine Calkins ran out of time.

There were three witnesses invited to testify: Sara Grimes, an assistant professor in the faculty of information at the University of Toronto; Tamir Israel, a staff lawyer with the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic at the University of Ottawa; and Adam Kardash, a managing director and head of access privacy with law firm Heenan Blakie. While Kardash emphasized he was testifying on his own behalf only, it did later come out that he has represented social media giants such as Facebook.

Grimes spends her time studying social networks for children and the practices of social networking sites with regard to children, and in her introductory remarks she called for a new approach that would shift from trying to protect young people from the risks of social networking to empowering them to make better decisions. Some sites ban anyone under 13, but that's too easy to get around. Too much data is also being collected on children and their online activities and being used for marketing purposes, without the informed consent of the children or their parents. She called for the development of more kid-friendly user agreements in language they can understand, and regulation to control the collection and use of data of children collected online. She also made the point that social network creating kid-friendly walled-gardens for young people won't work; she wants to give companies guidelines that balance risk with responsibility and education.

Israel said users feel like they've lost all control of their data as more and more of it is being collected and used, raising alarm about the rise of data brokers such as Acxiom, which harvest and sell detailed profiles of individuals based on their publicly-available Internet activities, from brand preferences to medical conditions. MPs from all parties would come back to the data broker issue and express surprise and concern. Kardash cautioned these businesses are mainly in the U.S. where laws are different and they probably aren`t interested in Canada, while Israel called for regulation and the creation of a central place where you can learn what brokers have info on you, and then find out what it is. Speaking about privacy settings for social media sites, Israel called for the requirement of privacy by default, rather than open by default or whatever works best for the site's business model by default. He also called for PIPEDA and the privacy commissioner to be given some power beyond the ability to name and shame offenders, which he feels isn't sufficient deterrent.

Unsurprisingly given what we later learned about his client list, Kardash disagreed with Israel on that point. He feels PIPEDA is working just fine, thanks and is still doing a strong job of safeguarding our online privacy even as new technologies have been developed since it was drafted. He said PIPEDA needs to stay technology-neutral so you're not redrafting it every time something new is invented online or it will be obsolete before it's enacted; technology is evolving too quickly. He called for more industry self-regulation rather than supplementing PIPEDA with more regulations, and said the privacy commissioner's ability to "name and shame" offenders is more than a sufficient deterrent to would-be privacy offenders.

As we got into the rounds of questioning from the MPs, Charlie Angus from the NDP got Kardash for favouring self-regulation over tougher enforcement, and chided him for not disclosing his relationship with Facebook and other major social media companies, which he has represented with Heenan Blakie. He did insist though that he loves Facebook and his wife claims' he's addicted (Twitter, not so much). He added we're in the age of big data, and with the increase in data mining activities (companies gathering our personal data and using it to sell and market to us) there needs to be regulation.

Conservative Blaine Calkins said he used to be a data base administrator, so he understands how this information can be gathered and the prospect of data brokers such as Acxiom "frankly has me terrified." He also spoke about the long and complicated user agreements that we all agree to, usually without reading or understanding, before we use a social networking service. He wondered if it shouldn't be made possible to modify the agreement, picking some elements to accept and some to regret. I found that interesting, but it would probably have a negative impact on the business model of the service provider. There would have to be a corresponding reduction in service level.


Calkins didn't have a chance to ask about the role of parents vs. that of regulation, so Liberal Scott Andrews put that question. Grimes said we need to find  the best way to welcome young people into this social media world they've been born into; it has a ton of benefits that must be balanced with the risks. There needs to be regulation because it can't all be left to parents; there's so much to learn. Even some cyber-nanny software, she notes, is used for data collection and mining. 


Andrews followed-up by asking if we have ages at which you're allowed to drink and smoke, should there be an age limit for social media? Grimes noted its a tricky comparison, as drinking has a proven negative developmental impact on youth. She likened the web to a city, with much of it as public space. We don't ban kids from the public park, but we don't let them into bars. 


The NDP's Charmaine Borg asked if the privacy commissioner should have the power to impose sanctions when organizations routinely change the privacy settings users have agreed to, and don't do a good job of informing them, or change the user interface to avoid existing regulations. Israel said this is definitely a problem to address, but noted social media is also rapidly evolving. He called for a process that allows the privacy commissioner to adapt the principles of the privacy law to the evolving reality on the ground. Kardash again downplayed the problem, noting most companies usually work out deals with the privacy commissioner to avoid the prospect of public naming.


I found the back and forth interesting, even if it seemed to do not too much more than scratch the surface of some of these issues. And it was refreshing to see a complete lack of partisanship as MPs seemed genuinely interested in learning more about the issues at hand. Of course, that could also be because this is an opposition-backed study of little interest to the Prime Minister's Office. And any amendments to PIPEDA are likely to be written by the government without regard to this testimony. So interesting information, but unlikely to impact policy. Which may explain the lack of partisanship.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Politicians and the people, minus the media

Certainly there are issues to be raised with many of the answers Stephen Harper gave when his YouTube video "conservation with Canadians" last night. I'm sure others will raise those issues; perhaps I will too later.

One thing that occurred to me though, as I read the Harper interview transcript, and reflect back on the online town halls that Michael Ignatieff did with Canadians earlier this year, and that's the one glaring thing that was missing from all of them.

What we got in each of those forums were questions from Canadians on a wide-range of policy issues. Foreign affairs, the role of parliament and prorogation, drug policy, climate change, child care, post secondary education, the list goes on.

What didn't we get? Questions on the horse race. On polling. On electoral gamesmanship. No "will you force an election" or political "whose is bigger" questions. To judge by nearly every press conference I've seen with Harper and Ignatieff, with nearly every pundit panel on the political talk shows, with most analysis pieces from the columnists, you'd think electoral chicken and the horse race is the issue of most concern to Canadians.

When Canadians get the chance to question their political leaders directly though, that's not what we get. We get questions on issues of policy that are important to them for a rainbow of reasons.

Both the Facebook townhall and the YouTube Q&A formats are obviously imperfect. No opportunity for follow-up, to follow a line of questioning, to really question an answer. Obviously such experiments, while well intentioned and useful, are never going to replace the role of the traditional media.

The media would be wise, though, to take a lesson from the questions that Canadians put to the leaders in these forums. After all, the Canadians asking those questions are their readers, viewers and listeners as well. And they should be just as interested in what they're concerned about as the leaders are.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Another Facebook message from Stephane

Stephane Dion has posted another video where he answers questions from his "Facebook friends."

You know something has gone mainstream when it begins to cross over into the corporate world, and that certainly seems to be happening with social networking. At two major technology conferences I've attended over the past few months (IBM's PartnerWorld and SAP's Sapphire) social networking was a major topic of conversation.

Both companies, and many others, are developing social tools to help their customers and partners communicate and collaborate, and it has the potential to radically change the way business is done.

IBM's CEO said in the end social networking, like the Internet, will be about business. This will be particularly true as today's teens, the IM/MySpace/Facebook generation, begin to enter the workforce. They'll expect to be able to use the social networking tools they've grown up with in the business world, and companies that don't adapt won't be able to attract the top talent.

Anyway, back in the political world of today it will be interesting to see how social networking impacts the next election. The blogsphere was still relatively immature in Canada last campaign, but it doesn't look to be the next frontier any longer.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Free speech, the school yard and cyberspace

You may have read or heard about this story, particularly if you live in the Toronto area. It generated quite a bit of water cooler debate with my work colleagues on Friday:

Are teens crossing the line with online insults?
By ANTHONY REINHART and CAROLINE ALPHONSO AND RACHEL DELAZZER
From Saturday's Globe and Mail

Kicked out of school over online insults against a vice-principal, Brad Parsons, the face of free expression's latest fight, took his place in the sun outside his Toronto high school yesterday.

Brad, 16, was suspended from Birchmount Park Collegiate this week for starting an online chat group, on a website called Facebook, where students were invited to register their dislike of the vice-principal. Four students who actually posted the derogatory comments were also given the boot.

(more)

As I see it, there are a couple of different issues here. First of all, the free speech vs. libel issue. Without knowing exactly what was said by these students in the online forum, it is difficult to know if it crossed the legal line and constitutes libel.

But here's the bottom line question for me: if the incident did not take place on school property, or on a school-sanctioned field trip, then why is the school stepping-in here and meting out discipline? What is their authority to police what students do, no matter how distasteful, off school property on their own time? Isn't this really a matter for the parents?

Now, if school computers were used that's another matter, but there's no indication that was the case. Also, if the remarks were indeed libelous or criminal, then the school can avail itself of the legal remedies available in the justice system. But I fail to see what authority the school has here to suspend these students. If they don't wish to pursue legal remedies, punishment is up to the parents.

I'm not a parent, so perhaps I see things differently. A colleague at work is a parent and she agreed with the school's decision to suspend the students. Frankly, were I a parent I'd resent the school's intrusion. I'd feel it's my responsibility to teach my child right from wrong here, and punish if necessary.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Woe is Joe, our Facebook foe?

Catching-up on the news I've missed whilst away, I hear that Joe Comuzzi was kicked-out of the Liberal caucus after saying he'll be voting for the Harper budget. Hard to have any sympathy for Joe, the budget is the grand-daddy of confidence votes and if you don't vote with your party on it, see ya later. Like it or lump it, that's our political system.

Anyway, I noticed today that Joe Comuzzi is the latest MP to get on Facebook. Only six friends so far, but one is Conservative blogging poobah Stephen Taylor.

And not only that, Joe has created his own group called, I kid you not, "Kicking Me Out Of Caucus Is Unfair!" Yes, woe is Joe.

He has also somehow found 74 members to join his little group. I really wonder how many are Liberals though, as quite a few are easily recognizable as Conservatives. And I'm pretty sure the majority of the members are Conservatives.

How do I know? Check the "related groups" section. These are set automatically based on the most common groups that members of this group are also members of. The top five for Joe's group?

1. Conservative Party of Canada
2. This Facebook group is unfair (anti-Dion)
3. Blogging Tories
4. Stephen Harper Fan Club
5. CPC Energy

Which says clearly a majority of the group members are Conservative supporters.

Actually, I have to wonder, is this even the real Joe Comuzzi? His group co-admin, after all, describes himself as "a conservative political junkie from Hamilton, Ontario currently residing in Toronto." He's not a member of the Parliamentary network, which requires verification by a parl.gc.ca e-mail address, like most MPs on Facebook are.

Also, would you use a photo for your group that makes you look like a crazyman?

Makes one wonder...

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Dion's Facebook video message

Stephane Dion posted a fun little video shout-out on his Facebook profile this morning saying hello to all his Facebook friends (1505 friends so far, and counting.)

He's sitting at his desk at his computer with his Facebook friends list on the monitor in the background, and while it's a bit fuzzy I think that may be my profile there near the top of the screen. Freaky deaky, as my sister would say. Anyway, way to reach out with the pipes and tubes and what not.

P.S. For all those talking of alleged internal Liberal troubles or rivalries lately, let me remind you that it's all good... :)

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers