Due diligence or pre-crime?

The film Minority Report deals with the idea that pattern recognition, when applied to various behavioural indices, can be used to predict when someone is about to commit a crime–but the twist is that there is still an element of choice, a quantum of uncertainty, such that the actor can choose not to act. All well and good for the justice system and the power of the state against the individual, but what about in the private world of Human Resources departments?

This fascinating article in Datamation discusses data mining companies that makes use of publicly available information from sites like Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and personal blogs to compile personality profiles of individuals and rate them under categories like “drugs and drug lingo” and “demonstrating potentially violent behaviour,” thereby presumably allowing HR departments to engage in any necessary preemptive damage control. Is this a reasonable part of due diligence and risk management, legitimately allowing companies to take potentially punitive steps to protect themselves from loose canons–or is this punishing people who have not–and may never–actually commit wrongdoing?

US led effort to regulate the internet through domain names

According a recent Toronto Star article, the US Senate is in the process of reviewing legislation which would force Internet Service Providers to block access to certain domain names in an effort to enforce its own domestic laws on the internet. The legislation dubbed the “Great Firewall of America” would amount to a very significant step towards regulating the content of the internet. Potential privacy, freedom of information and other concerns abound. Given the broad powers being considered by the legislation the proposal will doubtless prove controversial. Judge for yourself.

Streaming music providers priced out of the market?

A recent piece in the Globe highlighted the challenges inherent in finding a sweet spot for allocating revenue. For streaming music providers like Pandora, it simply doesn’t make business sense to provide their services in Canada; in addition to the fees demanded by SOCAN for compensating songwriters and publishers, Re:Sound, which represents performers and recording companies, is also seeking a significant slice of the pie–45% of gross revenues or higher. Other streaming music providers are undeterred–though, rather than cutting into their margin, they acknowledge that the charges would simply be reflected in the pricing offered to consumers, fewer of whom would presumably sign up for a more expensive service.

Eric Schmidt interviewed on Google and privacy

It’s not entirely serious but last night’s Colbert Report interview with Google CEO Eric Schmidt condenses his position in a short and entertaining segment. He discusses his comment that children should consider a name change to erase their youthful indiscretions, Google’s approach to China, and whether Google is engaged in data mining.

Access Copyright proposes costly new licencing scheme

In a recent article for the Toronto Star Michael Geist reported that Access Copyright is proposing a new licencing scheme to cover copying and course packs at post secondary institutions. Access Copyright is a copyright collective licences copying and course packs across the country. The proposal would see the fee set at $45 per university student, which represents a substantial increase over current fees. Geist finds the proposal surprising considering “the myriad of ways teachers and students access materials that fall outside the Access Copyright licence” and wonders if the proposal will cause universities to forget the collective altogether and consider individually licenced materials where needed.

US court allows suit for video game addiction despite EULA

A Hawaiian court is allowing a man to sue for mental harm caused by video game addiction. The End User License Agreement (EULA) contained clauses limiting liability and requiring that suits be brought in Texas. However, the court held that this did not prevent the man for suing in Hawaii for physical harm (including mental harm in some circumstances) arising from the gross negligence of the game manufacturer.