Lakehead University and Gmail

I'm a few days late in posting about this issue. It's also been fairly well-discussed elsewhere so I'll be brief. Basically, Lakehead University in Thunder Bay, ON, has outsourced its email system to Gmail. An objection to this was filed by the Lakehead University Faculty Association, stating concerns about susceptibility to seizure under the USA PATRIOT ACT and the like. Earlier this month, a Canadian labour arbitrator ruled that, though the concerns were valid and he was sympathetic to the faculty association, Lakehead's plan did not violate the collective agreement. In addition, he also said that email is like "postcards" and is not completely private by its very nature.

Here's some reporting on the issue, in no particular order:

From Michael Geist's site: http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/4054/125/

From the Chronicle of Higher Education: http://chronicle.com/wiredcampus/article/3817/arbitrator-rules-that-google-e-mail-system-does-not-violate-faculty-agreement-at-canadian-campus

From the CAUT Bulletin: http://www.cautbulletin.ca/default.asp

And here is the ruling itself: http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onla/doc/2009/2009canlii24632/2009canlii24632.pdf

I wonder what will come of this decision. Will it be appealed? (Can it be appealed?) Will other universities follow suit? Will the Lakehead University Faculty Association set up an alternate email system, based in Canada, for its members ? (why not :-)?)

Andrew

Two articles of interest

For your perusal, here are a couple of articles from the past couple of days, one from Canada, one from the US, regarding federal governments and Internet snooping (for lack of a better term). There's nothing here that's particularly academic-centred but the information is relevant in a general sense.

Andrew


http://www.canada.com/Technology/Feds+give+cops+Internet+snooping+powers/1706191/story.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/17/us/17nsa.html?_r=1&emc=eta1

ALA and allied groups ask for revision of PATRIOT Act

According to an article in Library Journal, dated April 9, 2009, the American Library Association and allied organizations (booksellers, publishers, writers) have asked the United States Congress to make library and bookstore records exempt from the infamous section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act, which comes up for renewal later in 2009.  For the complete article, seehttp://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6650577.html?rssid=191.

Another article on the subject: http://www.readerprivacy.org/news.jsp?id=34

Many thanks to the wonderful Resource Shelf who reported this yesterday (and from whom I "borrowed" almost all of this :-)

Andrew

Bill proposes ISPs, Wi-Fi keep logs for police

From Feb. 19, 2009, here's a news story on a proposed Internet data retention law in the US. I can see a wide variety of implications to this if passed, not just in terms of privacy but also in regard to such things as record-keeping in an organization (there would be much more of it). There's the story plus lots of comments (of varying quality) here:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10168114-38.html


Andrew

Another PATRIOT Act Ruling

On Dcember 15, a US federal appeals court (2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals) ruled that recipients of National Security Letters should not be gagged (metaphorically) unless disclosure adversely affects “an authorized investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities.” This upholds a lower court ruling from September 2007. Seems like a good thing to me.

Here's a link to more info:

http://www.ala.org/ala/alonline/currentnews/newsarchive/2008/december2008/gagchallengeupheld.cfm

Andrew

Canada backpedals on sharing personal database with U.S.

This article goes back a couple of weeks. I missed it completely but it was just brought to my attention. It's an interesting intersection of issues: the housing of personal information of Canadians in the United States and the question of border security. There's a variety of different URLs for the article; here's one:

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics/2008/11/30/7584591-cp.html

Andrew

Privacy Commissioner of Canada ruling from August

I'm a little late in getting around to reporting on this (my plate is surprisingly full these days) and it has been blogged elsewhere but I thought I should say a few words about this ruling.

On August 7, 2008, the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada released a report of findings relating to the change of email provider for canada.com customers. The complaints alleged that canada.com did not get customer consent to disclose personal into the new US provider and did not provide adequate notice. The complainant also said that the level of protection for personal information is not comparable to that which is available in Canada. The response of the Office was that all three complaints were unfounded.

Having read through the document, I follow the arguments presented by the Privacy Commissioner. The actions of canada.com seem to follow what Canadian law requires. However, it could be said that there are deficiencies with Canadian law; for instance, it may be legal to transfer the accounts as canada.com though some customers may not like the transfer. Implementing blocking legislation would change the law in order to satisfy the customers.

I think the Commissioner did give short shrift to the implications of the USA PATRIOT Act. With the transfer of email accounts to the US-based provider, personal information of Canadian customers of canada.com is susceptible to seizure under the Act and the customers would know nothing of us. There is legislation similar to the PATRIOT Act in Canada but that's our issue to deal with. That being said, even with the implications of the PATRIOT Act, it's still legal for canada.com to transfer the email function to the US supplier.

I could go on but I will stop there. Please have a look at the document. It can be found at http://www.cippic.ca/uploads/OPC_Findings-canada.com.pdf.

Andrew