1st writing assignment

The first writing assignment is simply a case note about R. v. Spencer, 2014 SCC 43.
Two pages, single spaced.
The objective is to get you writing. You are to provide a synopsis of the case: the facts, the issues, the results. Why is this decision significant?
Please email me an electronic copy no later than  2:30 p.m., Wednesday, 3 February 2016.

Writing a Paper/Mind Map

To follow up yesterday's class, especially for those who couldn't attend, here are links to articles about "how to write a paper". Since none of these concepts are novel, these represent a nice articulation of what I was talking about:

http://www.temple.edu/lawschool/dpost/guidelines.html

 

http://www.lclark.edu/live/files/5595

 
In terms of preparing a mind map, you can likely "google" the topic and find many links. Here is one that I think useful:

https://www.adelaide.edu.au/writingcentre/learning_guides/learningGuide_mindMapping.pdf

Getting Class Text

I have send a request to order more texts.

Since I have no sense of when or how many will be ordered, I would suggest that you think in terms of a "workaround". I am informed that the easiest way to obtain the book is to order it through the York University library as opposed to the Law School library.

Law 3040X.03: Syllabus

The course syllabus is available at:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0ByA6jrSBkCDJWV9XaHN5VDJBdUk/view?usp=sharing

Please note that reading assignments are to prepare for the following week.

Reading Assignment: 27 Jan 2016

Class reading assignment for 27 January 2016

Jordan Fine, "Leaving Dumb Phones Behind: A Commentary on the Warrantless Searches of Smartphone Data Granted in R. v. Fearon"
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0ByA6jrSBkCDJVXlHZlJJX01Ud1U/view?usp=sharing

Cyber Shaming Scams

It seems there is a scam similar to the "revenge porn" scam that we talked about in class - An organization who has found a glitch in the CanLii system that allows them to find out personal information about people involved in court cases. While this information, as we know, is typically public, some of the family law cases (think New Brunswick v G(J) from State and Citizen) are being broadcast to the public, so we know the identity of "G(J)." The company is then advertising a service o the sidebar that charges people to get the information removed. Apparently CanLii is looking into the problem, and has implemented a verification program that distinguishes between humans and computers. This raises huge problems about the exploitation of personal information and, as in revenge porn, we know there often is not a viable solution. Once the information is displayed, there's no telling who has acquired the information, even if it gets removed.

Find the article here:


http://business.financialpost.com/2014/03/29/how-cyber-shame-scams-are-playing-on-our-privacy-fears-and-scaling-up/?__lsa=6ed8-951c

Privacy Concerns on the Proposed Election Law Reform Act, Bill C-23

Several experts on privacy issues have raised their concerns on the Conservatives' election law reform bill C-23. Colin Bennett, a political science professor at the University of Victoria, said the proposed bill lacked the basic measures to protect voters' personal information.

The biggest concern is on the collection and use of voter information by political parties. Currently, political parties are subject to the Canada Elections Act, which protects voters' names and addresses. However, parties collect far more information than those. Because political parties are not subject to PIPEDA, the collection and use of voter information are not protected by any law. As a result, parties are able to enter the data into their own databases, and use it in any way they want. Citizens, however, would have no right to know what their information is used for, and have no right to correct it if it is inaccurate.

 Access the article here.