Toronto Electricians and Electrical Contractors

Digital Identification Must Be Designed for Privacy and Equity With growing frequency, the digital world calls for verification of our digital identities. Designed poorly, digital identification can invade our privacy and aggravate existing social inequalities. So privacy and equity must be foremost in discussions about how to design digital identification. Many factors contribute to one's identity; degrees, morals, hobbies, schools, occupations, social status, personal expression, etc. The way these are expressed looks different depending on the context. Sometimes, identity is presented in the form of paper documentation. Other times, it’s an account online. Ever since people have been creating online accounts for various services and activities, the concept of the online identity has warped and been reshaped. In recent years, many people are discussing the idea of a “ self-sovereign identity (SSI)” that lets you share your identity freely, confirm it digitally, and manage

New Federal Court Rulings Find Geofence Warrants Unconstitutional Two federal magistrate judges in three separate opinions  have ruled that a geofence warrant violates the Fourth Amendment’s probable cause and particularity requirements. Two of these rulings, from the federal district court in Chicago, were recently unsealed and provide a detailed constitutional analysis that closely aligns with arguments EFF and others have been making against geofence warrants for the last couple years. Geofence warrants, also known as reverse location searches, are a relatively new investigative technique used by law enforcement to try to identify a suspect. Unlike ordinary warrants for electronic records that identify the suspect in advance of the search, geofence warrants essentially work backwards by scooping up the location data from every device that happened to be in a geographic area during a specific period of time in the past. The warrants therefore allow the government to exam

California’s Assembly May Do Nothing to Help on Broadband—Thanks to Big ISPs As the final hours of the California legislative session tick down, it appears that the California Assembly may decide to not move forward on S.B. 1130 or any other legislative deal to start addressing the digital divide this year. There has been broad support for legislation to close the digital divide: from rural and urban representatives in the California Senate, from small businesses and consumer advocates, and from the governor’s office. But big Internet Service Providers (ISPs) oppose any and all such plans, from boosting local communities’ ability to bond finance fiber, to extending financing for infrastructure to areas that the major ISPs have ignored through a tiny fee that the ISPs already pay. In fact, they have opposed virtually every idea that would challenge their slow, non-broadband Internet monopoly profits just as strongly as every effort to connect the completely unserved. And that oppo

One database to rule them all: The invisible content cartel that undermines the freedom of expression online Every year, millions of images, videos and posts that allegedly contain terrorist or violent extremist content are removed from social media platforms like YouTube, Facebook, or Twitter. A key force behind these takedowns is the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism (GIFCT), an industry-led initiative that seeks to “prevent terrorists and violent extremists from exploiting digital platforms.” And unfortunately, GIFCT has the potential to have a massive (and disproportionate) negative impact on the freedom of expression of certain communities. Social media platforms have long struggled with the problem of extremist or violent content on their platforms. Platforms may have an intrinsic interest in offering their users an online environment free from unpleasant content, which is why most social media platforms’ terms of service contain a variety of speech provisions.

One database to rule them all: The invisible content cartel that undermines the freedom of expression online Every year, millions of images, videos and posts that allegedly contain terrorist or violent extremist content are removed from social media platforms like YouTube, Facebook, or Twitter. A key force behind these takedowns is the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism (GIFCT), an industry-led initiative that seeks to “prevent terrorists and violent extremists from exploiting digital platforms.” And unfortunately, GIFCT has the potential to have a massive (and disproportionate) negative impact on the freedom of expression of certain communities. Social media platforms have long struggled with the problem of extremist or violent content on their platforms. Platforms may have an intrinsic interest in offering their users an online environment free from unpleasant content, which is why most social media platforms’ terms of service contain a variety of speech provisions.

Voter Advocacy Orgs Sue Trump Administration for Executive Order Threatening Social Media Censorship Unconstitutional Ploy Attempts to Coerce Companies to Curate Speech to Favor the President San Francisco – The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has joined forces with Protect Democracy and Cooley LLP to represent five advocacy organizations suing President Trump and others in his administration for an unconstitutional executive order threatening their ability to receive accurate information free from government censorship. The plaintiffs are Common Cause , Free Press , Maplight , Rock the Vote , and Voto Latino . “Our clients want to make sure that voting information found online is accurate, and they want social media companies to take proactive steps against misinformation,” said David Greene, EFF's Civil Liberties Director. “Social media platforms have the right to curate content however they like—whether it is about voting or not—but President Trump’s executive o

Our EU Policy Principles: User Controls As the EU is gearing up for a major reform of key Internet regulation, we are introducing the principles that will guide our policy work surrounding the Digital Services Act (DSA). We believe the DSA is a key opportunity to change the Internet for the better; to question the paradigm of capturing users’ attention that shapes our online environments so fundamentally, and to restore users’ autonomy and control. In this post, we introduce policy principles that aim to strengthen users' informational self-determination and thereby promote healthier online communities that allow for deliberative discourse. A Chance to Reinvent Platform Regulation  In a few months, the European Commission will introduce its much anticipated proposal for the Digital Services Act , the most significant reform of European platform regulation in two decades. The Act, which will modernize the backbone of the EU’s Internet legislation—the e-Commerce Directive —wi

Throwing Out the FTC's Suit Against Qualcomm Moves Antitrust Law in the Wrong Direction The government bestows temporary monopolies in the form of patents to promote future innovation and economic growth. Antitrust law empowers the government to break up monopolies when their power is so great and their conduct is so corrosive of competition that they can dictate market outcomes without worrying about their rivals. In theory, patent and antitrust law serve the same goals—promoting economic and technological development—but in practice, they often butt heads. The relationship between antitrust and patent law is especially thorny when it comes to “standards-essential patents” or “SEPs.” These are patents that cover technologies considered “essential” for implementing standards—agreed-upon rules and protocols that allow different manufacturers’ devices to communicate with each other using shared network infrastructure. Some technology standards become standards by achieving wides

California: Tell Your Senators That Ill-Conceived “Immunity Passports” Won’t Help Us Californians should not be forced to present their smartphones to enter public places. But that’s exactly what A.B. 2004 would do, by directing the state to set up a blockchain-based system for “immunity passports” : a verified health credential that shows the results of someone’s last COVID-19 test, and uses those to grant access to public places. By claiming that blockchain technology is part of a unique solution to the public health crisis we’re in, AB 2004 is opportunism at its worst. We are proud to stand with Mozilla and the American Civil Liberties Union’s California Center for Advocacy and Policy in opposing this bill. We encourage you to tell your senator to oppose it, too. Take Action Tell Your Senator: Immunity Passports Are a Bad Idea While the latest version of A.B. 2004 steps back from previous plans to create a pilot program for immunity passports, it’s still written to push a h

If Privacy Dies in VR, It Dies in Real Life If you aren’t an enthusiast, chances are you haven’t used a Virtual Reality (VR) or Augmented Reality (AR) headset. The hype around this technology, however, is nearly inescapable. We’re not just talking about dancing with lightsabers ; there’s been a lot of talk about how VR/AR will revolutionize entertainment , education , and even activism . EFF has long been interested in the potential of this technology , and has even developed our own VR experience, Spot the Surveillance , which places users on a street corner amidst police spying technologies.  It’s easy to be swept up in the excitement of a new technology, but utopian visions must not veil the emerging ethical and legal concerns in VR/AR. The devices are new, but the tech giants behind them aren’t. Any VR/AR headset you use today is likely made by a handful of corporate giants—Sony, Microsoft, HTC, and Facebook. As such, this budding industry has inherited a lot of issues f