I noticed an interesting juxtaposition of articles in the business section of Monday’s Toronto Star. Both articles look at the issues of government and the internet.
Michael Geist looked at Bell Sympatico’s changes to Section 7 of its user agreement. The clause advises subscribers that
your Service Providers have the right to monitor the Services electronically from time to time and to disclose any information as necessary to satisfy any law, regulation or other governmental request, to operate the Website or any of the Services properly, ensure compliance with the Terms of Use or to protect itself or its users in accordance with the Privacy Policies.
Contrast this clause
vis a vis my
Monday posting titled
Harassment. That service provider has different language:
XXX may limit in any way, modify or refuse, all or part of the Services or your access to the Services without notice or liability if there is a breach or suspected breach of these Terms and Conditions or of XXX’s Service Policies or where XXX deems such limit, refusal or modification may be advisable to protect itself, its customers or its network. Without restricting the generality of this discretion, XXX may limit the amount of data transfer you are permitted or the hours you are able to access the Services in any manner with any Internet plan, and may limit the amount of storage and memory available to you. XXX is not obligated to, but may monitor your use of the Services electronically from time to time, and may use and disclose any information obtained from such monitoring as necessary to identify violations of or enforce these Terms and Conditions or XXX’s Service Policies, to satisfy any law, regulation or other governmental request, to operate or improve the Services, to protect itself, or its customers or its network.
Different approaches – but I think both result in the same impact for customers. As Geist summarizes:
The gist of the column is that regardless of the motivations for the change – whether harmless drafting amendments, lawful access, or network neutrality – the public and media reaction demonstrates how increased Internet surveillance is a political and business minefield that invariably stirs up vociferous opposition.
Geist suggests that Canadians want their ISPs not only to protect their data, but to actively support their privacy interests as well. I’ll accept that. But does that include ISPs actively defending client rights versus the government? Is there research that suggests that a majority of Canadians are more trusting of their ISP than their government to look after their security interests? Hard data that suggests, in the wake of domestic terror threats, that Canadians want ISPs to block lawful access to records by security services (by lawful access, I mean monitoring practices that are determined by parliament and/or the courts to conform with our national laws).
The second article on page C3 of Monday’s Star was celebrating Taiwan’s leading e-government initiative. The story was actually a week old piece that ran originally in the New York Times on June 26 [sure makes you think of the advertisements for 680News: If you read about it, it’s history, if you hear it, it’s news. Of course, what do you call it when 680News reads a story from the morning papers – is that an audio book? But I digress…].
The article says
To speed up delivery of these services, about one million citizens now have identification cards with chips inside that, when scanned, instantly provide personal data.
What does this imply for privacy rights for Taiwanese citizens? We have seen national resistance to Canadians getting passports or modern ID that would permit easier border control. Will Canadians be more accepting of a personal chip card to allow better delivery of e-government.
As Geist concludes:
Internet use has become an integral part of daily life, serving as the foundation for daily communication, commerce, education and entertainment for millions of Canadians.
We need to identify risks and challenges presented by such pervasive internet use. Solutions are also needed that provide reasonable boundaries for government and private citizens, safeguarding all the freedoms that define our democratic society.
