Google Wins Decade Old Fair Use Case

GOOGLE LLC v. ORACLE AMERICA, INC. is surprisingly elaborate considering that fair use doctrine is already settled. We think that Google could have won even without the fair use doctrine. Snippets of code must matter to deserve copyright protection.

In Canada, Google would have lost under fair use doctrine, because commercial use always negates fair use under the Canadian Copyright Act. Canada doesn’t have much say on Any monetization in Canada will put you under the economic copyright regime, so you’ll need a licence. However, even though Google has business in Canada, it is safe to say that any significant tech-related lawsuit will be brought under US and California law in 99% of the cases.


Ontario Human Rights Code On Psychometric Tests At Hiring


En Ontario, administrer des tests psychologiques avant l’embauche est considéré une violation de la vie privée et un motif valable de plainte pour discrimination. Le fait de ne pas être dotés d’une codification équivalente au Québec ne veut pas dire que ces arguments ne se plaident pas ici. L’Ontario est d’ores et déjà une juridiction aux lois très étoffés et qui donne toujours plus d’information et de ressources à ses citoyens en matière d’accès à la justice.

http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/iv-human-rights-issues-all-stages-employment/6-requesting-job-related-sensitive-information

Quelques surlignés:

Au tout début de la page, on conseille aux employeurs de porter une attention particulière à la liste qui énumère les documents de nature confidentielle (dont les tests psychologiques), et de s’assurer d’avoir fait une offre d’emploi valable avant d’administrer de tels tests.

Sous la rubrique c) on discute de ces tests, mais je trouve intéressante aussi la partie b) pour des précautions relatives aux tests médicaux.

En ce qui concerne les tests psychométriques:

“Tests should be tailored to actual job duties.” = doivent être adaptés (faits sur mesure) pour les tâches de l’emploi

“Avoid testing that seeks to assess personal interests, attitudes and values. If these tests are legitimately needed to assess ability to perform a job, use them with great care to make sure they do not favour certain cultures or genders. Many such tests are outdated and may have been created based on stereotypes or biases relating to Code grounds.”

il faut éviter d’évaluer les intérêts personnels, attitudes et (surprise) VALEURS personnelles. Plusieurs de ces tests datent d’un certain temps qui les rend incompatibles avec les sensibilités d’aujourd’hui, ou ils sont carrément bourrés de stéréotypes qui peuvent constituer des motifs de discrimination suivant le Human Rights Code (équivalent de la Charte des droits et libertés)

“Even if a test is fair, an employer will need to put in place measures to minimize the impact of unintentional bias on the part of persons scoring candidates’ answers. One option is to have more than one person score each candidate.”

même si le test n’est pas discriminatoire (selon la bonne foi de l’employeur), l’employeur doit mettre en place des mesures de sécurité afin de minimiser l’impact de préjugés non-intentionnels de la part des personnes qui évaluent le candidat (les 3rd parties)

Subsection 23(2) of the Code prohibits the use of an employment application form or a written or oral inquiry that directly or indirectly classifies an applicant on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination. This also applies to psychological profiles and testing. The validity of behavioural testing as a tool to predict on-the-job performance may be subject to a complaint under the Code.

Doing Away With Section 230 Is A Good Idea

Removing section 230 will reshape social media as we know it, but not in a bad way. What will rather happen is the return of social media to it’s origins. If there is a great reset that is not a total and utter wishful thinking (like the One we’ve heard so much about), it would be to stop shielding tech giants from liability. This is the reset I am dreaming of.

Social media should be limited to allowing communications between people who actually know each other. The whole public component of “look at me, fostering narcissistic exhibitionism, is designed for the purpose of giving away personal identifiers to the police for free and encouraging others to do the same.

Removing section 230 won’t affect most talking head channels, because those are based on personal opinion and not really using any kind of content other than news for which there is already copyright exceptions, just like there are already extensive generated-user-content safe-harbors, as well. There is little that will actually change other than removing the toxicity of social media that keeps wasting everyone’s time for the sake of creating profit for tech giants.

I don’t see the point of conversing with fake accounts and bots that foment hate speech, or having a staggering amount of government accounts to generate a staggering amount of state activity on the outskirts of the constitution. This impressive heap of state activity gets mixed up with an even more impressive pile of gross memes and outright poison.

The moment Twitter decides to flag or suspend a government account, or moderate “election information” Twitter itself engages in a state action. Not only should twitter/FB NOT get a free pass from liability, but they must also respond to violations of the 1st Amendment because they are meddling in state-related matters. If their policies contradict the constitution, they are unconstitutional and therefore null and void, or as we say in French nulles de nullité absolue.

You want to play government, you have to respect the constitution. From that perspective, the “good faith” exception in section 230 is a total joke / a caricature meme in its own right. You don’t get to roll out a government agenda and hide behind a private company status. How clever! Yeah, except when it shows.

I have deliberately closed all my social media accounts for over 5 years now and still my only remedy against time disappearing into a hopeless black hole three galaxies away from here is to unplug the modem from the electricity on a daily basis and airplane mode.

Twitter is a harmful addiction, it is designed to be addictive, it is toxic. Even when you try to get away, someone will pull you into it. Once you’re in, next thing you know the day is gone, time has vanished and nobody can bring it back for all the money in the world. My time, my identifiers.

Congress, take down that wall section 230!

La Cour suprême renverse le Renvoi sur la discrimination génétique

Dans Coalition canadienne pour l’équité génétique c. Procureure ghttps://www.canlii.org/fr/ca/csc/doc/2020/2020csc17/2020csc17.htmlénérale du Québec, et al., 2020 CSC 17, la Cour suprême renverse 5 juges de la Cour d’appel du Québec et confirme que les tests génétiques sont de compétence fédérale.

Le jugement de la Cour d’appel était effectivement surprenant, car il est difficilement conciliable d’avoir 300 pages d’articles 487.XXX dans le Code criminel régissant le type de mandats nécessaires pour procéder des tests génétiques, simplement pour donner carte blanche aux sociétés privées. Si la police a besoin d’un mandat, il serait absurde de permettre aux assureurs et aux compagnies privées de procéder à des tests génétiques sans consentement et d’utiliser les données personnelles issues de tels tests sans consentement.

Aussi, les données personnelles ne sont pas encore reconnues comme étant de la “propriété privée” ou ni même des biens intangibles quelconques, pour pouvoir tomber sous la compétence de 92(13) Loi constitutionnelle 1867. Le jour qu’elles le seront, le public aura encore plus de contrôle (pas moins comme semble raisonner la Cour d’appel) sur ces données, car le public pourra les commercialiser, par opposition à maintenant, où ce ne sont que les compagnies privées qui commercialisent les données qu’elles collectent sur les individus, la plupart du temps en opérant des transferts “transfrontaliers” même lorsque les données sont collectés dans un but soi-disant provincial.

Donc, la loi fédérale sur la protection des données (PIPEDA) trouvera application dans presque 100% des cas, du simple fait que la conservation, communication et utilisation post-collecte des données personnelles (et/ou les inférences découlant de ces données) se font via des chemins qui dépassent les limites des provinces.

Finalement, la santé aussi est une compétence partagée. Même hors pandémie, sans l’argent du fédéral, il serait quasi impossible aux provinces de maintenir un système de santé publique (déjà une formule en extinction, car la plupart des Canadiens n’ont pas accès à un médecin de famille). Donc, tout ce qui entoure les tests génétiques ne pourra jamais devenir une compétence provinciale exclusive.

Featured post

Published
Categorized as Litigation

Cubicles Are Back, 9 to 5 is Dead, And Privacy Protection Is In ICU

Staggered shifts, driving alone to work (like a cowboy), no more open space offices… Not only were spaces not “stimulating creativity”, they were recipes for distraction and potential harassment claims. It is a relief to take a break from office proximity, breathing in each other’s faces, sneezing on each other’s hair, invading one another’s personal space, have someone snoop up on ya under pretext to access the shredder… 19th century is officially out of fashion.

For example, from now on, you have to buy individual staplers (or maybe even cars) to all employees you want physically at the office, limit the use of paper, disinfect bathrooms every 2 hours, check temperature, imagine how much that will cost.

The way online exams are being administered around the world right now, requiring 2 cameras filming exam-takers, full screen access by proctors, and 3 videos per student to document what exactly happened during each individual exam sitting, should be a fair example (tip of the iceberg) of how remote work in this profession is about to unroll. Say hello to technical issues.

It is kind of obvious that the remote office may remain the only viable office

After having spent at least two weeks rearranging my physical office space, you know those two decisive walls that the whole world suddenly has access to, I’ve spent half of past week with Adobe, Google, and other usual friends remotely accessing my computer to fix bugs, because new tech issues arise every time you update an app. I’ve learned so much about my own OS just by observing tech support do stuff inside. For hours. At times, we fight for mouse control, because I have more efficient ways to access certain features. If something messes up, we retrieve downgraded versions from TimeMachine and start over again. Time travel has its own way to reveal stuff you had completely forgotten about. And then a whole afternoon is gone. You still have to work past midnight to catch up on actual work.

Tech issues are the new normal. Everybody is learning.

Unless it is beginner luck, technical issues on remote platforms are the norm rather than an exception. It is important to give options for technical support whenever you require people to work or sit an exam remotely.

Exams are guaranteed to be filled with bugs

How many equipment checks and simulations did you perform before rolling out your actual event or exam? If the answer is none, then you can safely postpone and start over.

Simulated exams act weird, too

I was on Emond’s platform this week to answer two sets of 220 questions, barrister exam went perfectly fine, solicitor on the other hand was a mild disaster… You can’t answer 220 questions without a break, so after a 100 questions, you stop the timer and do lunch or lie down and stare in space to recollect your brain. After I returned from break, I logged back into the system to find that 25 of my answers were completely lost, from Q105 where I left off I was sent back to Q80 and what’s even freakier, the timer was running the whole time while I was logged out. Never seen anything like this before. I literally cried for 30 seconds while contacting support. This wasn’t even a real exam.

Bugs are not intentional, but they’re likely to occur. If there are none, fantastic.

I managed to complete the simulated solicitor exam. I could go quite rapidly through the 25 lost questions, because I had already worked with the facts and deliberated on the answers. Another detail I terribly missed is a highlighter tool. Without one you stare at the facts and commit to memory all the facts and complex interactions.

Surprisingly I passed both, what is even more surprising is that I performed better at solicitor, the exam that made me suffer the most, and I was certain to fail. My brain feels as if it ran a marathon.

You may ignore data, but data won’t ignore you

Do you even know how many apps share your clients confidential information with 3rd party apps, simply because you were too lazy to opt out in the thousand different ways you were supposed to? It is likely you didn’t know you had to opt out, because it is not common knowledge. Did you buy work phones and work computers for all your remote employees? If not you may stumble upon some PIPEDA issues such as inadvertent sharing of confidential information.