Many readers will recall that nearly one year ago, the U.S. government launched
a global takedown of Megaupload.com, with arrests of the leading
executives in New Zealand and the execution of search warrants in nine
countries. Canada was among the list of participating countries as the
action included seizure of Megaupload.com servers located here. While
the failed attempt
(thus far) to extradite Megaupload mogul Kim Dotcom to the U.S. has
attracted the lion share of attention, the U.S. government has quietly
been working to obtain access to all the data stored on seized computers
in other jurisdictions.
Last week, an Ontario court rejected
a request to send mirror-imaged copies of 32 computer servers to
authorities in the U.S., indicating that a more refined order is needed.
Megaupload did not contest the seizure of the computers. It did argue,
however, "that there is an enormous volume of information on the servers
and that sending mirror image copies of all of this data would be
overly broad, particularly in light of the scantiness of the evidence
connecting these servers to the crimes alleged by the American
prosecutors." The company added that the volume of data on the 32
servers was equivalent to 100 laptop computers and that a review of the
content by the court was appropriate.
In response, the judge asked the two parties to refine the proposed
order by limiting what is disclosed to what is relevant to the case. The
conclusion states:
the appropriate balance of the state interest in gathering evidence
and privacy interests in information can be struck by an order that the
servers be brought before the court pursuant to s.15 (2) so that the
court can make an order refining what is to be sent. By this, I do not
mean that at this stage the servers must physically be delivered to the
courthouse. The application for a sending order is adjourned without a
fixed return date, returnable on 7 days’ notice. If counsel are unable
to agree as to how the scope of relevant material is to be defined then
the matter may be brought back before a judge of this court for
determination of that issue.copyright, megaupload, privacy Slashdot, Digg, Del.icio.us, Newsfeeder, Reddit, StumbleUpon, TwitterTagsShareWednesday January 16, 2013 |
|
Canada's anti-spam legislation was back in the news last week as the
government unveiled revised regulations that may allow for the law to
finally take effect next year. Canada is one of the only developed
economies in the world without an anti-spam law and lengthy delays have
created considerable uncertainty.
My weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) notes that calls for Canadian anti-spam legislation date back to 2005, when a
national task force recommended enacting laws to target spam, spyware,
and other online harms (I was a member of the task force). The
government passed the anti-spam law in December 2010, with many
expecting a quick introduction of the accompanying regulations that
would allow the law to take effect. After business groups criticized
draft regulations released in June 2011, however, the government hit the
pause button, leaving the law in limbo.
Read More ...
Critics used the delay to spread fear about "job losses" and
"regulatory red tape", yet the reality is that the battle over the
anti-spam battle boils down largely to a single issue: whether
businesses should be required to obtain explicit, opt-in consumer
consent before sending electronic commercial messages. The law says
they should and much of the intense lobbying for new exceptions is
premised on avoiding this requirement.
The new law unquestionably sets a high bar for consent. It envisions
a marketing framework where consumers reassert some measure of
control over their email in-boxes by opting-in to commercial
messages, rather than being required to opt-out. Moreover, the
law establishes email form requirements to simplify opting-out of
future messages should consumers change their minds and backs the
new framework with stiff penalties for violations the law.
While an opt-in consent system should be relatively uncontroversial
- businesses benefit by sending messages to consumers who clearly
want to receive them - the vociferous criticism makes it plain that
many marketing organizations fear that if Canadians are asked
directly for their email marketing consent, many will decline.
Given those fears, Industry Minister Christian Paradis faced
considerable lobbying pressure to water down the law through the
regulatory process. Earlier this month, he caved to some
demands by introducing a host of new exceptions that limit the
effectiveness of the opt-in model.
For example, the regulations include a broad new exception for third
party referrals that will allow businesses to send commercial
electronic messages without consent based merely on a referral from
a third party. This issue was hotly debated when the law was being
drafted and, at the time, the government rejected claims that such
an exception was warranted.
The new regulations also include an expansive definition for a
"personal relationships" exception that is likely to be used by
organizations to send unsolicited commercial messages based on
limited contact. The flexible definition of personal relationship
may open the door to claims that Facebook "likes" or similar social
media contact is sufficient to constitute a personal relationship.
Industry groups had asked the government to pre-approve existing
consents obtained under PIPEDA, the private sector privacy law,
arguing that obtaining new consumer consents will be
disruptive. The government rightly rejected those requests,
however, since the PIPEDA consents will often have been implied from
consumer activity and not based on an actual, informed consent.
Those businesses concerned by the new consent standards may find
comfort in the assurance that some requirements are unlikely to take
effect until 2017. The law features a lengthy transition
period that will allow businesses to rely on their existing consents
for three years after the legislation takes effect. Assuming the
regulations are finalized in 2013 and the law becomes operational in
2014, businesses will have been given seven years to ask Canadian
consumers if they consent to the use of their personal information
for marketing purposes.
paradis, privacy, spam Slashdot, Digg, Del.icio.us, Newsfeeder, Reddit, StumbleUpon, TwitterTagsShareTuesday January 15, 2013 |
|
View
|
|
In a world where data now moves effortlessly between computers on the
Internet without regard for geographic borders, is the appearance of a
website on a computer screen sufficient for a court to claim that a
trademark has been used in the country? Is the use of a computer server
enough to assert jurisdiction over a non-resident? My weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) notes that two recent
cross-border cases - one Canadian and one U.S. which both pitted a U.S.
company against a Canadian individual - found that it is.
The Canadian case involved a trade-mark dispute over the mark VRBO.
Martin Hrdlicka, a Toronto resident, registered the mark in Canada in
2009. Just over a year later, Homeaway.com, a U.S. company that owns the
popular VRBO.com site, sought to expunge the trade-mark on the grounds
that Hrdlicka was not entitled to register the mark and had no intent to
use it.
Homeaway.com's legal challenge was that the company had no operations in
Canada, though many Canadians may have accessed its U.S.-based website.
Trade-mark law requires some use of the mark in Canada, yet the "use"
in this case was largely confined to the availability of the VRBO
website on computer screens.
Read More ...
While the Supreme Court of Canada has emphasized the need for actual
use connected to Canada, the Federal Court broke new ground by
ruling that "a trade-mark which appears on a computer screen website
in Canada, regardless where the information may have originated from
or be stored, constitutes for Trade-Marks Act purposes, use and
advertising in Canada."
The December decision has already generated fierce criticism within
the Canadian intellectual property community, which fears that
foreign rights holders could challenge the validity of hundreds of
Canadian trade-marks on the grounds that the marks were used before
registration on the Internet.
The U.S.
decision similarly raises concerns about overly aggressive
claims based primarily on computer usage. The case involved Jackie
Deiter, a Fort Erie, Ontario resident who worked for the Canadian
subsidiary of MacDermid Inc., a Connecticut-based chemical company.
Deiter lost her job in April 2011, but just before her termination,
she transferred some company files from the company email account
(stored on a computer server in Connecticut) to her personal
account, which was based in Canada. At issue in the case was whether
a Connecticut court could assert jurisdiction over Deiter.
A lower court ruled it could not, concluding that Deiter had
insufficient connections to the state. Late last month, an appellate
court overruled that decision, finding that Deiter may have
physically used computers in Canada (she emailed the documents from
a Canadian-based work computer to a Canadian-based personal
computer), but the fact that the company computer server was based
in Connecticut was enough to meet the jurisdictional requirement.
The Deiter case is sure to raise concerns since the case implies
that mere use of a computer server in the United States may be
sufficient grounds for a U.S. court to assert jurisdiction over
foreign residents. Given the widespread use of U.S.-based Internet
services, it opens the door to many more cases against foreigners
before U.S. courts.
Both the Homeaway.com and Deiter cases involved unsympathetic
litigants - the court sensed that Hrdlicka had registered the VRBO
mark with the hope of selling it for a profit, while Deiter
transferred confidential documents to a personal computer in
violation of company policy - yet the long-term implications of
these decisions is that courts on both sides of the border
apparently stand ready to use the Internet to expand traditional
notions of jurisdictional rules.
deiter, homeaway.com, jurisdiction, trademark, vrbo Slashdot, Digg, Del.icio.us, Newsfeeder, Reddit, StumbleUpon, TwitterTagsShareWednesday January 09, 2013 |
|
View
|
|
Industry Canada unveiled long-awaited revised anti-spam regulations on Friday for the Canadian Anti-Spam Law.
The regulations are in draft form and comments can be submitted to the
government until February 3rd. Given the intense lobbying by business
groups to water down the legislation passed in 2010 and the initial draft 2011 regulations,
it comes as little surprise to find that the proposed regulations
include several significant loopholes and exceptions that undermine the
effectiveness of the law. The key new regulations include:
third party referrals: the regulations include a broad new
exception for third party referrals that will allow businesses to send
commercial electronic messages without consent based merely on a
referral from a third party. This issue was hotly debated when the bill
was being drafted and, at the time, the government rejected claims that
such an exception was warranted. In the face of intense lobbying,
however, the opt-in approach to electronic marketing is being dropped
and replaced by a system that allows for unsolicited commercial
electronic messages based on third party referrals.
Read More ...
personal relationships: the 2011 draft regulations featured a
fairly restrictive definition for the personal relationship
exception that allows for commercial messaging without consent where
there is a family or personal relationship. The new definition is
far broader and is likely to be used by many organizations based on
limited contact. The regulation defines personal relationship as:
those individuals have had direct, voluntary, two-way
communications and it would be reasonable to conclude that the
relationship is personal taking into consideration all relevant
factors such as the sharing of interests, experiences, opinions
and information evidenced in the communications, the frequency of
communication, the length of time since the parties communicated
and if the parties have met in person
legal or juridical obligations: the new regulations exclude
commercial emails that either satisfy legal or juridical
obligations, enforce legal rights, or provide notice of an existing
or pending right.
computer programs: the new regulations include two new
definitions for computer programs that are excluded from the scope
of requirements in the law to obtain express consent when installing
those programs. The new definitions cover efforts by telecom
providers to install programs to "prevent activities that the
telecommunications service provider reasonably believes are in
contravention of an Act of Parliament and which present an imminent
risk to the security of its network" or a program installed "for the
purpose of updating or upgrading the network, by or on behalf of the
telecommunications service provider who owns or operates the network
on the computer systems that constitute all or part of the network."
business-to-business exceptions: the new regulations expand
the scope of business-to-business communications to alleviate
concerns they would be caught by the Act.
While the third party referral and personal relationship regulations
will raise particular concern, the government did reject efforts to
grandfather consents obtained under PIPEDA, the private sector
privacy law. While marketing groups argued that obtaining new
consents would be disruptive, the reality is that the anti-spam law
creates tougher consent requirements (explicit opt-in consent vs.
implied opt-out consent in some instances) and relying on the
weaker, implied PIPEDA consents would be inappropriate.
Moreover, the law already features a lengthy transition period that
will allow businesses to rely on their existing consents for three
years after the legislation takes effect. In other words, despite
the fear mongering about the anti-spam legislation, current customer
lists will be exempted from the new consent requirements until 2017
(assuming the law does not take effect until 2014). Since the law
was passed in 2010, seven years is surely enough time for businesses
to ask Canadian consumers if they consent to the use of their
personal information for marketing purposes.
anti-spam law, casl, regulations Slashdot, Digg, Del.icio.us, Newsfeeder, Reddit, StumbleUpon, TwitterTagsShareMonday January 07, 2013 |
|
View
|
|
Given that few would have predicted that Internet protests last year
would have led to the defeat or delay of legislation in the United
States (the Stop Online Piracy Act) and Canada (Internet surveillance
legislation) as well as spell the end for the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade
Agreement in Europe, a new round of predictions for what lies ahead
amounts to little more than guesswork. With that caveat in mind, my weekly technology law column (homepage version, Toronto Star version) provides a month-by-month look at what 2013 may have in
store for technology law and policy.
January. The government opens the New Year by releasing proposed
anti-spam regulations with promise that the long-delayed law will take
effect by 2014. The regulations leave no one satisfied as they water
down the law with a host of new exceptions and exclusions that limit
requirements for businesses to obtain consent before sending unsolicited
marketing materials.
Read More ...
February. The Canadian Radio-television and
Telecommunications Commission conducts a high profile hearing on the
creation of a binding wireless code of conduct. The resulting code
extends far beyond the initial expectations of the major carriers
with new transparency requirements, restrictions on contractual
terms, and obligations to unlock cellphones once a contract has
concluded.
March. Thousands of Canadians begin receiving letters
alleging copyright infringement from file sharing activities with
demands to settle the claims for $1,500. Rights holders do not
sue those that refuse to settle, however, effectively acknowledging
that a court would be unlikely to award much more than the $100
minimum now found in the Copyright Act.
April. Canada and the European Union conclude a comprehensive
trade agreement as the Canadian government caves to European
pressure on pharmaceutical patent reform. The changes are expected
to add billions to provincial health care costs.
May. Industry Minister Christian Paradis unveils the
long-awaited digital economy strategy with a plan to make Canada a
global leader that can boast of universal, affordable access to
high-speed Internet services. (just kidding - the proverbial Penske
file will remain unfinished in 2013).
June. The copyright world gathers in Geneva as the World
Intellectual Property Organization concludes negotiations on a
treaty to enhance access for the visually impaired. The U.S. and
E.U. offer continued resistance to the treaty with Canada largely
silent throughout the diplomatic talks.
July. The government hits the reset button with prorogation
and a cabinet shuffle. The change effectively kills both Bill C-12
(privacy reform) and C-30 (Internet surveillance).
August. The CRTC announces plans to revisit the issue of new
media regulation during a fall hearing. Despite ongoing pressure for
regulation of online video services such as Netflix, the Commission
retains the exemption for the regulation of new media services.
September. Industry Canada moves forward with its
overdue spectrum auction. The auction rules frustrate incumbents and
new entrants alike, with both claiming that they are unable to amass
sufficient spectrum to offer new, competitive wireless services.
October. The deadline for concluding the Trans Pacific
Partnership negotiations comes and goes without an agreement.
Participating countries, including Canada, maintain there has been
"good progress" in the talks, but leaks suggest a growing divide
over U.S. demands related to intellectual property and investor
protections.
November. The University of Toronto and Western University,
the first two Canadian universities to sign an agreement with Access
Copyright in 2011, announce that they will not be renewing those
licences as of 2014. The universities cite reliance on fair dealing
as the reason for the decision.
December. The Supreme Court of Canada releases its decision
in United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 401 v. Alberta
(Attorney General), a case involving the constitutionality of
privacy legislation that was argued before the court in June 2013.
The court upholds the constitutionality of the Alberta privacy
legislation, but sends a clear message that there are instances
where privacy protections must be limited to avoid impeding free
speech rights.
2013 preview, tech law Slashdot, Digg, Del.icio.us, Newsfeeder, Reddit, StumbleUpon, TwitterTagsShareThursday January 03, 2013 |
|
View
|
|
|
The Canadian Institutes of Health Research have launched a new open access policy
that took effect on January 1st. The new policy requires CIHR funded
researchers to make their peer-reviewed publications freely available
within 12 months of publication. Moreover, researchers are now required
to deposit certain data immediately upon publication of the research
results. The new policy forces CIHR-funded researchers to publish in
open access journals or ensure that their journal of choice will allow
for open access post-publication.cihr, open access Slashdot, Digg, Del.icio.us, Newsfeeder, Reddit, StumbleUpon, TwitterTagsShareWednesday January 02, 2013 |
|
|
Wallace McLean has posted his annual celebration
of public domain day, listing dozens of authors whose work entered into
the public domain in Canada on New Year's Day. Notable names this year
include Nobel Prize winners William Faulkner and Herman Hesse as well
as poet e.e. cummings. The list is particularly notable this year as
Canada is participating in the Trans Pacific Partnership negotiations,
which include U.S. proposals
to extend the term of copyright in Canada to life of the author plus 70
years (from the current life plus 50). If adopted, the change would
mean that no new works would enter the Canadian public domain for two
decades.copyright, public domain Slashdot, Digg, Del.icio.us, Newsfeeder, Reddit, StumbleUpon, TwitterTagsShareWednesday January 02, 2013 |
|
From the remarkable battle over the Stop Online Piracy Act to the
massive public backlash against Internet surveillance in Canada, law and
technology issues garnered headlines all year long. A look back at 2012
from A to Z:
A is for Astral, the Canadian broadcasting giant that was to be sold to
Bell Media for over $3 billion. The CRTC blocked the sale on the grounds
that the companies failed to demonstrate the transaction was in the
public interest.
B is for Jean-Pierre Blais, the newly appointed chair of the Canadian
Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission. Blais surprised the
industry by adopting a strong pro-consumer approach during his first
months on the job.
C is for the Copyright Modernization Act, the copyright reform bill that received royal assent in June 2012.
D is for Dean Del Mastro, the Peterborough Member of Parliament who raised the spectre of regulating online anonymity.
E is for the European Parliament, which voted overwhelmingly to reject
the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement after hundreds of thousands of
Europeans protested against it.
F is for FreeDominion.com, an online chat site that defeated a claim of
copyright infringement involving the posting of portions of newspaper
articles.
G is for GeoCoder, a small Ottawa company that created a crowd-sourced
database of Canadian postal codes. Canada Post objected to the database,
filing a copyright infringement lawsuit.
H is for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, which seized
bodog.com, a domain name owned by Canadian online gambling tycoon Calvin
Ayre.
I is for Industry Minister Christian Paradis, who failed to unveil a
digital economy strategy, despite a commitment to do so by year-end.
J is for Jones v. Tsige, a landmark Ontario Court of Appeal decision that recognized a new tort for invasion of privacy.
K is for Keatley Surveying v. Teranet, a proposed class action lawsuit involving copyright claims over land surveys.
L is for levies on microSD cards. After a copyright collective asked the
Copyright Board of Canada to impose new fees on the cards, the
government issued a regulation effectively blocking the request.
M is for McMaster University, one of several Canadian universities that were hit by security breaches.
N is for Nexopia, a Canadian social media service that was found to have
violated privacy laws following a lengthy investigation by the Privacy
Commissioner of Canada.
O is for an open textbook initiative launched by the British Columbia
government that will support the creation of dozens of new freely
available online textbooks.
P is for the constitutionality of privacy legislation, which was thrown
into doubt in United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 401 v. Alberta
(Attorney General), an Alberta Court of Appeal decision.
Q is for the Queen v. Cole, in which the Supreme Court confirmed that privacy rights survive in the workplace.
R is for Rogers v. SOCAN, one of five copyright cases released by the
Supreme Court in July 2012 that shook up the Canadian copyright
landscape.
S is for the Stop Online Piracy Act, the controversial U.S. legislation
that sparked global protests including a Wikipedia blackout.
T is for TellVicEverything, the grassroots Twitter campaign protesting against Canadian Internet surveillance legislation.
U is for Untied.com, a gripe site about United Airlines run by Jeremy
Cooperstock, a McGill professor. United demanded that Cooperstock take
the site down due to trademark and copyright claims.
V is for Voltage Pictures, which launched proceedings to obtain personal
information on thousands of Canadian Internet users alleged to have
downloaded its films.
W is for a wireless code of conduct, which the major wireless carriers
asked the CRTC to establish after several provinces moved to create
provincial codes.
X is for dot-xbox, one of thousands of proposed new domain name extensions.
Y is for Yelp, the review site that hosted criticisms of an Ottawa
restaurant that ultimately led to a criminal libel conviction after the
restaurant owner sought revenge for the negative review.
Z is for Judge Russell Zinn, a federal court judge who confirmed that
the patent for Viagra was invalid days after the Supreme Court voided
the patent for failing to provide sufficient disclosure. 2012, a to z review, technology law Slashdot, Digg, Del.icio.us, Newsfeeder, Reddit, StumbleUpon, TwitterTagsShareThursday December 27, 2012 |
|
The UK government has announced plans to introduce a wide range of copyright exceptions.
The plan includes a new private copying right that will permit personal
copying of content onto any medium (including personal cloud storage)
for personal use. The personal copying right will not require further
payment or a levy system. Canada enacted a similar reform this year,
though the levy remains for copying of sound recordings onto some media.
The UK reforms will also include a fair dealing exception for
non-commercial use of materials in teaching. The summary of UK reforms
include:
Read More ...
- Private copying - to permit people to copy digital content
they have bought onto any medium or device that they own, but
strictly for their own personal use such as transferring their
music collection or eBooks to their tablet, phone or to a
private cloud;
- Education - to simplify copyright licensing for the
education sector and make it easier for teachers to use
copyright materials on interactive whiteboards and similar
technology in classrooms and provide access to copyright works
over secure networks to support the growing demand for
distance learning handouts for students;
- Quotation and news reporting - to create a more general
permission for quotation of copyright works for any purpose,
as long as the use of a particular quotation is “fair dealing”
and its source is acknowledged;
- Parody, caricature and pastiche - to allow limited copying
on a fair dealing basis which would allow genuine parody, but
prohibit copying disguised as parody;
- Research and private study - to allow sound recordings,
films and broadcasts to be copied for non-commercial research
and private study purposes without permission from the
copyright holder. This includes both user copying and library
copying;
- Data analytics for non-commercial research - to allow
non-commercial researchers to use computers to study published
research results and other data without copyright law
interfering;
- Access for people with disabilities - to allow people with
disabilities the right to obtain copyright works in accessible
formats where a suitable one is not already on the market;
- Archiving and preservation - to allow museums, galleries,
libraries and archives to preserve any type of copyright work
that is in their permanent collection which cannot readily be
replaced; and
- Public administration - to widen existing exceptions to
enable more public bodies to share proactively third party
information online, which would reflect the existing position
in relation to the use of paper copies.
copyright, exceptions, uk Slashdot, Digg, Del.icio.us, Newsfeeder, Reddit, StumbleUpon, TwitterTagsShareThursday December 20, 2012 |
|
View
|
|
Several months ago in a speech to the Economic Club of Canada,
Industry Minister Christian Paradis promised to unveil a Canadian
digital economy strategy by the end of the year. Unless there is a
late December surprise, however, 2012 will end in the same manner as
every other year - with Canada as one of the only developed
economies without a clear plan for success in the online
environment.
The digital economy strategy file - dubbed the Penske file due to
years of "work" with no results - now stands an unequivocal failure.
Despite a public consultation on the issue and numerous models to
emulate, the government has puzzlingly been unable to develop a
coherent vision for Canada’s digital future.
The government could have pointed to any number of developments -
copyright reform, anti-spam legislation, research tax credit
changes, a pro-consumer approach at the Canadian Radio-television
and Telecommunications Commission, the forthcoming spectrum auction,
and reversal of the hated Internet billing dispute - as evidence
that it has been active on the issue. Yet without a clear map for
the future, the efforts are understandably perceived to be a policy
mish-mash without a clear target.
How to fix the digital economy strategy mess in a fiscal environment
where there is little, if any, money available to pay for it?
My weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) points to a tax-free digital economy strategy that would have six components.
Read More ...
First, a Canadian digital economy strategy needs a single,
compelling objective. The obvious choice would be universal,
affordable access to computers and high-speed Internet access by
2015. The government need not foot the entire bill. Rather, it
could bring together the private sector along with provincial
governments to establish a program with private sector commitments
for inexpensive access and computing equipment for low-income
Canadians.
Second, the government must finish what it started on the
legislative front. Anti-spam legislation received royal assent in
2010, but it has still not taken effect as Industry Canada has
delayed introducing the necessary regulations for the past year and
a half. Similarly, Bill C-12, a privacy reform bill that
addresses recommendations dating back to 2006 has languished in the
House of Commons. The government should put these initiatives back
on the agenda with a commitment to having the laws operational
within six months.
Third, foreign investment restrictions in both the
telecommunications and broadcasting sectors should be dropped in an
effort to foster a more competitive marketplace. The potential entry
of new deep-pocketed competitors within the Canadian economy will
serve consumers well and force the incumbents to compete more
aggressively.
Fourth, the existing multi-billion dollar public expenditures on
research and cultural subsidies should be used to promote greater
openness and digital access. Many countries have adopted mandatory
open access policies for taxpayer-funded research, an approach that
leverages research investment by making the results more readily
accessible to businesses and the general public. Moreover, cultural
subsidies in areas such as book publishing should be linked more
directly to ensuring access to electronic versions of publications
in local libraries.
Fifth, the government should replicate its public interest,
consumer-focused model now found at the CRTC at similarly placed
administrative agencies and tribunals. The Copyright Board of
Canada, which has developed a reputation for being inaccessible to
all but a few copyright collectives and industry stakeholders,
should be re-examined and the Privacy Commissioner of Canada should
be given the enforcement tools necessary to fulfill her mandate.
Sixth, there should be a commitment to allocate a portion of the
proceeds from the forthcoming spectrum auction toward digital
economy issues. Many Canadians need access to digital training or
literacy skills. Programs funded through the billions generated by
the auction would better position Canadian workers in the digital
economy, while ensuring that taxpayers are not hit with the bill.
des, digital economy strategy, paradis Slashdot, Digg, Del.icio.us, Newsfeeder, Reddit, StumbleUpon, TwitterTagsShareTuesday December 18, 2012 |
|
View
|
|
|
