Posting on Slaw will be light over the next little while as we let go of the legal world to take a holiday. Though there will be a few entries during the time between Christmas and New Year’s Day, things won’t get back to normal here until the second day of the new year. . . . [more]
Archive for ‘Administration of Slaw’
Browsing History – Does Knowledge of Site Administrators’ Access Give Consent to Disclosure to Law Enforcement?
A recent US decision held that a person’s browsing history on web dating sites – not just his profiles, which were clearly intended for public use – could be disclosed to police because the person had authorized the administrators of the sites to know what he was looking at. The case, People v Holmes, involved a high-profile defendant in a criminal case (the person who shot up the Colorado movie theatre – allegedly), but these cases should not turn on whether the person claiming a privacy right is sympathetic.
In a recent civil case, the British Columbia Supreme Court had to decide on the admissibility in evidence of a database of transactions under a contract, and the results of SQL analysis of the database that produced a number of Excel format spreadsheets. The people who generated the spreadsheets were available to testify in person about how they had run the queries: Animal Welfare International Inc. v. W3 International Media Ltd., 2013 BCSC 2193 (CanLII).
The opposing party submitted that the analysis done in extracting the data constituted expert evidence, and the witnesses needed to be qualified as experts . . . [more]
The electronic documents part of the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) generally operates on an opt-in basis. Thus, for example, s. 41:
A requirement under a provision of a federal law for a document to be in writing is satisfied by an electronic document if
(a) the federal law or the provision is listed in Schedule 2 or 3; and
(b) the regulations respecting the application of this section to the provision have been complied with.
To date, only the Federal Real Property and Federal Immovables Act and a small part of . . . [more]
It has been suggested to me, at a couple of levels of hearsay, that that “the US government had to implement a provision to require the financial institutions to accept electronic signatures on agreements of purchase and sale [of land] for the purposes of financing.”
Can anyone tell me what is behind this statement? I have several questions, besides this general one:
- ‘had to implement’ – meaning ‘as a condition of validity’? or ‘to make some particular policy effective’?
- ‘to require the financial institutions to accept e-signatures’ – really? Mandatory acceptance of e-signatures? *Any* e-signatures or only those with
. . . [more]
The amendments to the Defamation Act passed in the UK earlier this year will come into force on January 1, 2014. There is a draft regulation on website owners’ liability for defamatory comments posted on their sites. There is quite a back-and-forth process.
Is a scheme like this a good idea for Canada? It is a kind of ‘notice and notice’ system, in which the original poster of the allegedly defamatory statements have to identify themselves (via the website operator) for litigation by the complainant, or the statements are deleted.
[Website operators have
. . . [more]
The federal court in Illinois recently . . . [more]
When a partner leaves a law firm for another practice, what should happen to his or her email account at the original firm? Should, or must, the original firm continue to read and respond to the emails? Must it forward all or some of the emails to the former partner? Should it say how that person can now be reached? Or should it simply send an automated bounce-back message that the email account is now closed?
Not that we’re competitive or anything . . .
Today we’re taking a break, pushing the chair back from the desk — only to get it closer to the groaning board. We wish all our readers a Happy Thanksgiving.
Slaw’s regular posting will return tomorrow. . . . [more]
It has been held in a US case that allegations made in comments on blog posts are not sufficiently reliable to be used in cross-examination. In this case an expert was testifying in a product liability case that the defendant’s products had never caught fire before (as the plaintiff’s had). The plaintiff’s counsel wanted to point to a number of comments in blogs about fires in some of the same manufacturer’s products. The court denied the right to use those examples.
Is that right? How much reliability do you need? Are blog comments the cross-examiner’s Wikipedia? (It was not suggested . . . [more]
UNESCAP, the United Nations Economic Commission on the Asia-Pacific region, has been working on a regional trade agreement focusing on electronic commerce. The agreement, once made, could affect the interests of businesses in Canada and the US (and other countries in that region…).
There is a meeting in Bangkok in November to make some decisions about the document. It would be helpful for anyone who wants to influence the document to get on the record before then, in order to have a place in the conversation in the later stages.
So: I invite anyone interested to comment. Should the Canadian . . . [more]
Slaw is pleased and proud indeed to announce that Kate Simpson has joined Slaw as a columnist in the Legal Technology group.
Kate is a Knowledge Design Consultant who works with law firms from both sides of the Atlantic. With her company Tangledom, Inc., Kate works at the intersection of law, technology and design.
You can follow Kate on Twitter @tangledom.
Please welcome Kate to Slaw . . . [more]