Category: Uncategorized

Information Roundup – 23 January 2010

Here are some recent tweets within the domain.

If you are an HR practitioner, please follow Hicks Morley’s new legislative updates blog. It’s quite a smart niche for a blog in my (non-objective) view – focusing on statutory changes related to human resources law.

Cheers!

Dan

danmichaluk

That’s you!

  1. RT @slaw_dot_ca Hot News, Hot Legal Topic http://bit.ly/bPogUJ 16 minutes ago via TweetMeme

  2. RT @slaw_dot_ca Social media risks — Slaw http://bit.ly/d4A8vz Agree with these sentiments. 31 minutes ago via TweetMeme

  3. Law enforcement benefits from inadvertently hearing lawyer’s telephone call http://bit.ly/bAzZ7s about 16 hours ago via Feeddler

  4. RT @marciahofmann: New paper on the myths and fallacies of “personally identifiable information” in consumer privacy. http://bit.ly/aHZQew about 22 hours ago via TweetDeck

  5. RT @slaw_dot_ca Tips & Myths of Web Usability — Slaw http://bit.ly/asAOWO June 21, 2010 3:03:20 PM via TweetMeme

  6. Narrow ruling in American employer text message audit case http://wp.me/p6aAc-15u June 20, 2010 9:34:25 PM via web

  7. Happy international surfing day! June 20, 2010 4:35:41 PM via TweetDeck

  8. Receipt of unsolicited e-mail not a “collection” under privacy statute http://wp.me/p6aAc-15g June 19, 2010 9:57:11 PM via web

  9. One day into 3 day weekend solo. Learning 1: if my wife leaves me I will quickly OD on frozen pizza. June 18, 2010 9:09:45 PM via web

  10. RT @slaw_dot_ca What’s intrusive? — Slaw http://bit.ly/drR5zP by@privacylawyer June 18, 2010 8:56:42 PM via TweetMeme

  11. Started the work day with a nice surf. I could get used to this. June 18, 2010 8:12:44 AM via web

  12. RT @slaw_dot_ca Today’s CLA judgement big, but just how big to be determined — Slaw http://bit.ly/cR9fLk June 17, 2010 10:59:35 PM via TweetMeme

  13. RT @slaw_dot_ca U.S. Supreme Court Overturns 9th Circuit in Privacy Case http://bit.ly/dmEpCe June 17, 2010 8:35:00 PM via TweetMeme

  14. Media has come up short in the last three SCC cases. Hmmm. June 17, 2010 10:01:38 AM via web

  15. SCC allows appeal of decision recognizing constitutional right to public interest (FOI) override http://bit.ly/caxbIo June 17, 2010 10:01:15 AM via web

  16. NYTimes: The Boring Speech Policy http://nyti.ms/b7HwXU [On Obama leadership. So witty!] June 17, 2010 4:47:02 AM via NYT Editors’ Choice

  17. Big, big FOI case due out of the SCC tomorrow http://bit.ly/cMctLr June 16, 2010 9:03:33 PM via TweetDeck

  18. Exxon Valdez changed game on drug, alcohol testing http://tgam.ca/PuY (via @globeandmail) June 15, 2010 10:11:27 PM via mobile web

  19. RT @slaw_dot_ca CanLII Keyword Gems http://bit.ly/bWz3Z3 June 15, 2010 9:33:44 PM via TweetMeme

  20. Desert island privacy cases for employment lawyers http://wp.me/p6aAc-14I June 15, 2010 7:49:52 PM via web

  21. RT @slaw_dot_ca Notarizing Electronic Documents http://bit.ly/aXvrFW June 15, 2010 7:05:14 PM via TweetMeme

  22. Article on cloud based services adoption in Cdn higher ed http://tinyurl.com/26x2voj via @complexed [Strange comment on PQ, but helpful.] June 15, 2010 6:54:57 PM via TweetDeck

  23. NYTimes: Styles of Judging: The Rhetoric and the Reality http://nyti.ms/9ggnzt June 14, 2010 9:34:07 PM via NYT Editors’ Choice

  24. RT @kevinokeefe: There’s no overnight business development success in blogging ~ from RLHB http://bit.ly/aDLvIz June 13, 2010 7:32:11 PM via TweetDeck

  25. Google News experiments with human control, promotes a new serendipity with Editors’ Picks http://shar.es/mkJRl June 12, 2010 9:56:29 PM via mobile web

  26. @pulat Congrats on the JD Pulat! June 12, 2010 7:24:12 PM via TweetDeck in reply to pulat

  27. NYTimes: Mind Over Mass Media http://nyti.ms/dgu3Qg June 11, 2010 9:34:29 PM via NYT Editors’ Choice

  28. RT @RossRunkel: Mesothelioma: Employer had duty to protect employee’s family http://tinyurl.com/29hg8e2 June 11, 2010 7:42:35 PM via TweetDeck

  29. @hicksmorley has launched a legislative update blog for human resources issues at http://www.humanresourceslegislativeupdate.com/ June 11, 2010 4:14:15 PM via web

  30. RT @slaw_dot_ca SCC upholds publication ban without commenting on publication and the internet http://bit.ly/9LyLcr June 11, 2010 3:54:45 PM via TweetMeme

  31. Sky http://twitpic.com/1vn3x8 June 10, 2010 6:17:12 PM via Twitpic

  32. Thanks for the RTs @yosie23 and @granastein. Appreciated! June 10, 2010 4:50:46 PM via web

  33. Please check out the Ryerson Law Research Centre’s “Digital Rights Rountable” – June 18th – http://bit.ly/cs3QYc June 10, 2010 4:48:50 PM via web

  34. …and published this C-29 – PIPEDA update http://bit.ly/aCMLN5 Need to get back to work! June 9, 2010 10:13:43 PM via Feeddler

  35. Today’s presentation on developing social media policies http://bit.ly/db9GvL June 9, 2010 10:12:05 PM via Feeddler

  36. RT @slaw_dot_ca @DavidCanton on LSUC new file retention and destruction guide — Slaw http://bit.ly/a8wgkX June 9, 2010 2:18:16 PM via TweetMeme

  37. Inside the security fence at Deerhurst for municipal sector conference. Sleepy here, for now I guess. June 9, 2010 7:55:52 AM via TweetDeck

  38. RT @slaw_dot_ca Appeal court writes a chapter on proportionality — Slaw http://bit.ly/aSrtKZ June 8, 2010 4:40:51 PM via TweetMeme

  39. Climbed a tree today for the first time in a long while. June 7, 2010 8:07:12 PM via TweetDeck

  40. RT @managementlaw: Procedural Protection in Comtempt Proceedings http://bit.ly/ccddnF June 6, 2010 7:24:44 PM via TweetDeck

  41. RT @stevewerby: Should selection process for public university presidents be private? I think so. http://bit.ly/ap4kWQ (via @sectorprivate) 6:16 PM Jun 6th via TweetDeck

  42. Took 5 hours to produce a bulletin in C-29 (PIPEDA amendment) and C-28 (FISA). PIPEDA amendments more fundamental than I had thought. 11:03 AM Jun 6th via TweetDeck

  43. The rise and fall of Carly Fiorina: an ethical case study. – Entrepreneur.com http://shar.es/mwXIf [thx @hirecentrix] 10:12 PM Jun 5th via mobile web

  44. RT @AntoninPribetic: The Trial Warrior Blog: Selected Internet Law Bibliography http://bit.ly/cdMS9f [Bro in law on the list.] 9:36 PM Jun 5th via TweetDeck

  45. Spoliation remedy granted in favour of bereaved dog owner http://wp.me/p6aAc-13W 9:45 PM Jun 4th via TweetDeck

  46. RT @slaw_dot_ca Privacy Breach Notification — Federal Amendments http://bit.ly/9AFaOc 7:26 AM Jun 4th via TweetMeme

  47. RT @BIHigherEdNews: How anxious parents affect colleges, students’ experience – USA Today http://bit.ly/a8mExP 5:17 AM Jun 3rd via TweetDeck

  48. RT @bccla: CBC on Access to Information Act s. 69 – Where information goes to die: http://bit.ly/bwUlCb 10:15 PM Jun 2nd via TweetDeck

  49. With I-Pad, and without new suit. 7:55 PM Jun 2nd via TweetDeck

  50. RT @slaw_dot_ca Beware the common law duty to retain a record — Slaw http://bit.ly/dgSaqy 11:06 PM Jun 1st via TweetMeme

  51. Witness quotes M. Twain in prep today: “If you tell the truth, you don’t have to remember anything.” Good witness. 10:26 PM Jun 1st via TweetDeck

  52. RT @@jordan_law21: 43% of in-house counsel turn to blogs as a primary source of news: http://bit.ly/aaowSU [Helpful Jordan thx!] 4:56 PM Jun 1st via mobile web

  53. Reforming search & seizure http://bit.ly/bxQe4t 8:42 PM May 31st via web

  54. On my way to the airport just in time for the t-storms. Deja vu from last Thursday. North Bay, keep a light on for me please! 4:27 PM May 31st via web

  55. RT @slaw_dot_ca Should accountants have ‘privilege’? — Slaw http://bit.ly/cjf1yB 1:01 PM May 31st via TweetMeme

  56. Ontario government to consider Anti-SLAPP legislation http://bit.ly/agRsZr 10:43 AM May 31st via web

  57. OCA – negligent infliction of mental suffering damages not available in employment context – last Friday’s Ayotte: http://bit.ly/9ENW9y 6:53 AM May 31st via web

  58. My beer buddies http://twitpic.com/1sklmi 5:13 PM May 30th via Twitpic

  59. RT @wiselaw Legal battle erupts over black box http://bit.ly/c7j5Fr [Cool case. My blog post here http://wp.me/p6aAc-XY] 2:41 PM May 29th via web

  60. The dangers of hearing matters in chambers http://bit.ly/cGdXVu 9:25 PM May 28th via web

Narrow ruling in American employer text message audit case

Last Friday, June 17th, the Supreme Court of the United States allowed an appeal of a much discussed workplace privacy case – Quon v. Arch Wireless.

The Court’s decision is of limited authority because it assumed that the employee had a reasonable expectation of privacy in text messages sent and received from his employer-issued device. Having made this assumption, the Court held that the employer’s search was lawful because it was motivated by a legitimate work-related purpose and was not excessive in scope.

I’ll leave the commentary on this American case to the American commentators and have included some links below. For Canadian employers, my view is much like that of Philip Gordon of Littler Mendelson, who uses Quon to warn employers about heavy reliance on the “no expectation of privacy” view. See this article for my rationale.

Case Report – Receipt of unsolicited e-mail not a “collection” under privacy statute

On May 14th, the Information and Privacy Commissioner/Ontario dismissed a privacy complaint by a university professor who alleged his university had improperly collected and used his personal e-mails for disciplinary purposes.

The complainant sent e-mails about a weekly event series from his personal account to a list of over 1000 individuals. The emails apparently contained statements that encouraged recipients to “send to friends.” The e-mails were received by one or more University administrators, who forwarded them to other administrators for “operational purposes.” The University ultimately imposed discipline on the complainant based on the content of the e-mails.

The investigator held that the University did not collect the unsolicited e-mails. He reasoned that the use of the terms “obtained and compiled” elsewhere in the Act indicate that the legislature contemplated means of coming into custody or control of personal information other than collection. He also reasoned that the requirement to give notice of collection suggests that collection requires something more active than demonstrated by the University.

Regarding the allegation of improper use, the Investigator held that the e-mails were used by the University for a purpose consistent with the purpose for which they were obtained or compiled:

In this case, the e-mails were obtained by the University on an unsolicited basis. In order to administer its operations effectively, a University is required to review and address correspondence, including e-mails that are received on an unsolicited basis. Based on the information before me, the University compiled the e-mails for the purpose of addressing issues related to the operation of the University. Accordingly, I am satisfied that the University obtained or compiled the e-mails for the purpose of the effective administration of the University.

The finding about unsolicited receipt of personal information is based on an interpretation of FIPPA, but is of relatively broad significance given the parts of FIPPA relied upon by the investigator are neither technical nor unique. The decision also raises a notable jurisdictional issue about records that are obtained for a non-employment related purpose and subsequently used for an employment-related purpose and FIPPA’s employment-related records exclusion.

University of Ottawa (Re), 2010 CanLII 30187 (ON I.P.C.)

Desert island privacy cases for employment lawyers

I presented at the Law Society of Upper Canada’s “Six Minute Employment Lawyer” conference today. It was a very good honour to be invited to this successful and long-running program. Thanks to the LSUC and also to Co-Chairs Christine Thomlinson (see her firm’s blog here) and Malcom McKillop.

I managed to catch a few presentations from other more senior members of our bar. Other blawgers were also well-represented. It was nice to see Michael Fitzgibbon, Stuart Rudner and Omar HaRedeye, albeit briefly. Omar, if you have a Twitter stream of the event, please link it in a comment below.

I did a presentation called “Desert island cases for employment lawyers.” If you like case lists, check out the slides below. Slides with notes are over at SlideShare.

Developing Your Social Media Policies

I presented “Developing Your Social Media Policies” today at a conference of the Association of Municipal Managers Clerks and Treasurers. It was nice to present together with two officials from the City of Barrie, who highlighted the City’s very progressive (and slick-looking) Facebook Fan page initiative, which you can check out here.

I’ve spoken lots on the subject of workplace law and social media lately, but today was more about policy, and specifically, how to use it to both empower employees and take control of how they speak about matters of corporate interest. Slides are below. Enjoy!

Federal Government Introduces Legislation to Create PIPEDA 2.0

This is the title of a client update that we published today, co-authored by me and my colleague Paul Broad. Here’s our conclusion section on the significance of Bill c-29 to our clients:

Many of the proposed substantive amendments to PIPEDA are changes that would be welcome to organizations regulated by the Act as they clarify ambiguities and address practical issues not contemplated by the original legislation.

Some may argue that PIPEDA has been a “paper tiger” since it came into force. Very few organizations subject to the Act have been compelled to answer a PIPEDA complaint, and far fewer have had to respond to a PIPEDA application in the Federal Court. Some have compared PIPEDA’s status to that of provincial and federal human rights legislation, but it has not given rise to nearly the same impact nor has it been the source of the same degree of operational risk.

Bills C-29 and C-28 could change this. Though the administrative procedure for handling PIPEDA complaints would largely remain the same – indeed, the Commissioner would actually be granted a greater discretion to decline to deal with complaints – the new data breach reporting and notification duties could cause organizations to engage with individuals about matters regulated by PIPEDA in a manner that many have not yet done. This engagement would come with the significant costs of notification. Even more significantly, it would come post-breach, when organizations are vulnerable and large groups of individuals are upset.

Organizations should think about engaging with individuals proactively, before a breach occurs. This includes implementing systems and processes that would allow them to confidently answer the questions that might be asked by individuals who are notified of a data breach. Organizations who can answer those questions may be able to disarm aggravated individuals and avoid, or at least reduce, the chance of irreconcilable conflict.

For the full update, click here.

Information Roundup – 28 May 2010

Here are some recent tweets within the domain you may find of interest:

It’s been slow going for me here lately, and I apologize for that. Slow blogging and tweeting, ’cause I have a rule that I’ll actually read what I tweet and I’ve been quite busy with some really rewarding files.

The PIPEDA changes are the big news, though I wonder more and more how relevant the statute is if you’re not Facebook and not in the telecom or banking sectors. The Google Apps tweet is interesting too, and I recently had a chance to look a little into Microsoft’s competing Live@Edu product. Seems like the educational institution market for cloud services is real and the battle is well underway.

Hope you’re enjoying the summer!

Dan

Managing illegitimate employee expression

I spoke at our client conference today on “managing illegitimate employee expression.” The presentation below starts with the public versus private conduct material I’ve presented on frequently of late, then moves to a topic called “when their expression becomes yours” (on how to structure corporate social media programs) and a topic called “expression by outsiders” (on managing illegal communications targeted at employees and attacking the employer’s own repuation). I hope these are helpful.