Photo by Braňo ()

Shannon Flynn is a Guest Writer and the Managing Editor of ReHack Magazine.

Over two years have passed since the SARS-CoV-2 virus, better known today as COVID-19, made its first appearance in the city of Wuhan, China. In those two years, the virus has circled the globe, killing more than five million people —a number that has climbed with the spread of the new, highly transmissible Omicron variant. Treatments and vaccines have emerged, but the challenge now lies in ensuring everyone has equal access to these measures.

The biggest challenge is getting supplies to low-income countries that need them the most— places where are vaccinated but have high population densities that can contribute to community spread. In response, some countries are asking the World Trade Organization (WTO) to waive the intellectual property (IP) laws that cover the COVID-19 vaccines and treatments.

Is this a good idea or an enormous mistake? How can IP waivers help manage the Omicron strain?

The Risk of Omicron

We’ve made our way through most of the Greek alphabet as new COVID-19 variants emerge and either spread or vanish. Why did Omicron become a variant of concern so quickly?

Early evidence suggests Omicron may be more transmissible than previous incarnations of the virus, making it spread faster than Delta and other variants. In mid-December 2021, researchers in Hong Kong found that the Omicron variant 70 times more quickly than the Delta variant. They believed those characteristics might contribute to its comparatively more efficient spread.

Studies show Omicron is more infectious, even among vaccinated and boosted individuals. It was also thought that this variant caused milder infections. However, this may be due to the low vaccination rate in South Africa, where it was first observed. , most South Africans have already been exposed to the COVID-19 virus and developed some level of immunity.

Both and released statements claiming their vaccines are effective against Omicron after a third booster dose, but most boosters are available only in high-income countries. While over is fully vaccinated, there isn’t much information on how many individuals received a third booster shot and from where.

Furthermore, in April 2021, the World Health Organization (WHO) stated that went to individuals in high-income countries. The challenge is getting the vaccine to low-income countries with very low vaccination rates.

IP Protection or Waivers

What do COVID-19 and the Omicron variant have to do with intellectual property rights and waivers? In October 2020, representatives from India and South Africa the WTO.

The 2020 Proposal

The 2020 proposal to the WTO waives parts of the TRIPS Agreement, intellectual property rights.

A part of the proposal read: “Many countries, especially developing countries, may face institutional and legal difficulties when using flexibilities available in the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement).”

People have TRIPS Agreement could cause cumbersome barriers to vaccine access. The 2020 proposal requested “a waiver from the implementation, application and enforcement of Sections 1, 4, 5 and 7 of Part II of the TRIPS Agreement in relation to prevention, containment or treatment of COVID-19.”

The parties behind the proposal wished for the waivers to remain active until global widespread access to the vaccine was possible.

The 2021 Revised Proposal

to the WTO in May 2021. It includes representation from several countries beyond India and South Africa. The newer document discusses growing concerns associated with emerging variants and how they make the need for global vaccine distribution and production even more urgent. The proposal’s authors also note that the original text’s scope was too broad. The revised proposal focuses exclusively on “health products and technologies.”

The revised proposal asks for a “practical and flexible duration” regarding the waiver length. The authors request an initial term of at least three years from the decision date. After that, the General Council—the WTO’s highest decision-making body—could review whether the exceptional circumstances that originally justified the waiver were still present and if it was appropriate to set an ending date.

What Would the TRIPS Waiver Do?

TRIPS has been the . However, it’s important to clarify that a waiver would not be an instant and all-encompassing solution for improving vaccine access. It will theoretically pave the way for increased production of vaccines and related health technologies in more countries.

However, it takes time and in countries with few or none. The waived intellectual property rights would let parties utilize the vaccine technology without penalties but affected nations and the people living there would not benefit immediately.

Some people also argue that waiving the IP rights for everyone who needs them. That’s because there would be a larger number of parties trying to buy raw materials, driving up the associated prices.

Additionally, it takes vaccine production capacity. That’s on top of the up to $1 billion required to build the factory. Even once manufacturers get up and running, additional complications, such as new variants and the uncertainties surrounding vaccine durability, could make things more difficult for those making COVID-19 vaccines for the first time.

A potential alternative is for the international community for research and development (R&D) and manufacturing on each continent. The WHO is working on one for South Africa associated with COVID-19 vaccines.

Managing Omicron

As we move into 2022, it’s becoming increasingly apparent that , similar to the influenza virus. This means that there will probably be a continuous demand for new and updated vaccines and booster shots moving forward. Getting your annual COVID-19 shot may become as common as getting your yearly flu shot.

Moderna has it won’t be enforcing its patent rights to its COVID-19 vaccine during the pandemic. However, that may change in a couple of years if and when the WHO declares the pandemic is over and the virus has become endemic.

As discussed earlier, waiving IP rights won’t remove all the barriers that currently prohibit worldwide vaccine production. When the virus reaches the endemic stage, it could lessen the incentive to set up the necessary facilities. Right now, Moderna and Pfizer are vaccines to combat Omicron, even though they both claim that their vaccines—with three doses—are effective against the new variant.

The post How IP Waivers Can Help Manage the Omicron Strain appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Photo by on

Shannon Flynn is a Guest Writer and the Managing Editor of Rehack Magazine

Although facial recognition may have begun as a useful tool for the masses, as with many things, it has become something that can be used against them. When paired with artificial intelligence, facial recognition software can sort through millions of photos to identify a single face or even a fragment of one.

The problem lies in the sourcing of these photos. Why is AI-driven facial recognition problematic, and what regulations and restrictions are in place in Canada to prevent its abuse?

The Problem With Clearview

Clearview is probably one of the best-known facial recognition programs in the world. Its AI is designed to detect and prevent crimes. By itself, this doesn’t sound like a bad thing. Ideally, AI programs can sort through many times the data a human worker could manage, finding collections and identifying people easily even with partial images to work with.

The problem does not lie in the algorithm itself, but rather in where it sources the images it sorts through. Clearview’s AI crawls the internet and can access, download, and store any image uploaded to social media. That means Clearview considers anything posted on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, or other sites to be fair game. The company has also been accused of using to train the AI’s algorithm.

Many social media companies, including Google, Facebook, and Twitter, have of utilizing user images without authorization. It is important to note that this isn’t user authorization, but rather authorization of the social media program. Instagram’s terms of service include a to use anything individuals post on their site — but that doesn’t allow AI programs like Clearview to swoop in and take what they need.

Even under the best circumstances, allowing a program like Clearview to sort through social media imagery — even in public posts — could be considered a violation of privacy. The average user should not have to worry that corporations or government entities are watching everything they post online. Indeed, there is an in favor of stronger consumer protections where data gathering is concerned.

Regulations and Restrictions

In June 2021, the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (OPC) submitted a special report to Parliament about the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) and their use of facial recognition technology. Again, Clearview AI was in the crosshairs for improper use of private user data scraped from various social media sites across the internet.

Billions of people, both in Canada and around the world, have suddenly found themselves in a “,” as the report states, without even the courtesy of due process.

As a result of this report, new policy guidelines have been drafted that clarify when and where the use of facial recognition technologies is appropriate. These guidelines focus on four key points: accuracy, data minimization, accountability, and transparency. Accuracy is one of the biggest concerns because AI-powered facial recognition technologies tend to be a lot less accurate than human detectives completing the same task. Law enforcement officials shouldn’t take any matches discovered by facial recognition at face value, and should always double-check the results before making an arrest or pursuing legal action.

Data minimization ensures large swaths of the population are not included in a search. It also helps reduce the impact of a data breach if one happens, which grows more common every year. Accountability is essential so everyone involved knows what data is being collected and how. This key component also includes information security.

Finally, transparency helps keep innocent people out of digital lineups simply for sharing a certain demographic with an assailant.

Looking Toward the Future

It may seem as if an individual’s information is fair game because it’s available on a public post, but this is not the case. Facial recognition technologies can be valuable for preventing and detecting crime, but only if those in power are not allowed to abuse it.

The new policy guidelines being embraced in Canada are just one piece of the puzzle. Every government that utilizes facial recognition should follow suit by embracing key tactics like accountability, transparency, accuracy, and data minimization to ensure the technologies are used properly.

The a fine line between tyranny and law enforcement should not be crossed, regardless of how easily one could click a button and find the “bad guy.”

The post Regulations and Restrictions for AI Facial Recognition Tech in Canada appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Photo by Tuur Tisseghem ()

Shannon Flynn is a Guest Writer and the Managing Editor of Rehack Magazine.

It is easy to overlook the relationship between physical security and intellectual property (IP). Just as video surveillance can help deter or provide evidence of people stealing physical property, it can do the same for IP. Cameras let companies monitor employee actions, protect data centres, or watch printers that may process sensitive documents.

Cameras can be a helpful tool, but they also raise a few concerns about liability. With that in mind, here are five facts about liability for video surveillance that you should know.

1. Video liability laws vary widely

Like many legal restrictions, video liability laws vary widely based on jurisdiction. For example, the state of Georgia permits video surveillance in both private and public settings so long as the cameras are in plain sight. In contrast, Canada requires you for covert surveillance to record in private places without people knowing.

If you are considering installing cameras in any setting outside your home, you should look at your specific area’s laws. What may be legal in one place could trigger serious legal issues in another. Knowing what you can and cannot do can help protect your IP while staying within your legal rights.

2. Installing cameras can limit liability

While installing a video surveillance system may appear to increase your liability, the opposite can be true in some cases. People in some situations, such as property owners leasing to tenants, may to provide some amount of protection. Installing cameras may arguably demonstrate that you are taking steps to do so, which may limit your liability if something happens.

Similarly, someone in charge of protecting a company’s IP may have a legal obligation to take reasonable steps towards that goal. It is worth noting that there is little precedent to demonstrate what precisely that duty entails outside of the person’s contract.

Some affected people may feel that installing cameras alone is likely not enough to remove all liability should a privacy breach occur. However, installing a video surveillance system can be a valuable part of a larger strategy and, along with other protections like data encryption and network access controls, may help limit liability in these situations.

3. Video with audio carries more liability

Not all forms of video surveillance carry equal weight in the eyes of the law. Most notably, cameras that capture audio as well as video are subject to stricter regulations since they must comply with audio surveillance laws as well. Employers , like protecting company IP, to install these systems. Depending on local laws, some amount of consent may be required as well. For example, in Canada, without the consent of those speaking or legal authority, like a warrant. You may be able to get permission to record audio, but you may have to appeal to local authorities.

Given these varying regulations, you may want to avoid video with audio, but if you think it’s necessary, be sure to check local laws first.

4. Recording without foreknowledge is sometimes permissible

It may seem like a given that you must let people know that you are recording them. While this seems like a reasonable expectation, some laws allow people in some contexts to set up video surveillance without anyone knowing.

For example, in Pennsylvania, people can without your knowledge. The same is true in many places, as public areas do not carry the same expectation of privacy as private property. Protecting your IP by setting up video cameras in the workplace is different. Organizations in Ontario that they are under video surveillance.

Laws aside, it may be best to let people know if you are installing cameras in an area out of respect for their privacy. If you are in public, regulations may be a bit more open, but remember that what constitutes a private place can vary based on jurisdiction.

5. Fake cameras can still create liability

The mere presence of cameras can deter crime since they make people feel like they are being watched, hence, discouraging them from taking suspicious actions. Given the potential for deterrence, some people may consider installing fake cameras to dissuade IP theft while avoiding surveillance-related liability. People may not realize that fake cameras may still create liability.

The presence of cameras, even if fake, can foster a sense of security, and if those feelings are false, it can create liability. People have for installing fake cameras when criminal actions took place. If you’re debating between fake and real cameras, remember that some amount of liability could arise either way.

Understand your liability before implementing video surveillance

Video surveillance can help secure your IP, but it can also establish some legal liabilities. Considering these consequences, make sure to inform yourself of your local laws before installing any cameras. Understanding relevant laws in your jurisdiction can help protect you against legal action.

The post 5 Liability Facts About Video Surveillance appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Shannon Flynn is a Guest Writer and the Managing Editor of Rehack Magazine.

You may subscribe to the idea that after you craft something, creatively or professionally, it is automatically yours by right. That is not always the case; at the heart of legal ownership is intellectual property rights. IP is thrown around a lot in business, especially as it relates to software development and creative projects. But how do IP rights apply to software? In this article, I will explore what software engineers and developers need to know to protect their work in both the U.S. and Canada.

Deconstructing Intellectual Property Rights

Intellectual property rights can be broken down into four different types. Copyright protection covers many creative works, including computer programs, databases, technical drawings, and mobile applications. Developers should also consider acquiring software patents and trade secrets. Trademarks may also apply to protect the company’s names, symbols, and brand assets.

Ultimately, intellectual property rights refer to an intangible form of ownership over a creation or finished product (in this case, a software application). Patents, copyrights, trade secrets, and trademarks each offer a specific kind of protection for software.

Software Patents

In the United States, patents offer creators exclusive monopoly to manage an invention. Patent holders are free to produce, use and sell the item as they see fit. The trade-off is that they must describe their product in full detail to the U.S. Patent Office, which publishes this information publicly.

Unfortunately, “there is no legal or conclusive definition for a software patent.” This is because does not allow for the patenting of abstract ideas.

However, software patents can be obtained for systems, methods, algorithms, techniques, display presentations, UI features, and similar mechanics. They must be presented as new ideas with practical use and they must be “non-obvious.”

Copyright Protection

Copyright is probably the most important intellectual property protection for software.

Copyright protection complements patent protection. While patents protect the inner workings of a software application, as well as novel ideas and concepts, copyright protection extends to the manifestation of those ideas. It for literary, artistic, dramatic, or musical works. In other words, it covers the source code, creative elements, and UI and visual elements.

For example, consider if someone creates an application that allows users to rent out items they own to members of their local community. The underlying code and deployment of that application are protected under copyright law, along with the unique UI elements, visuals, and content. However, the idea itself, a rental app, can be copied by others without repercussions, so long as they do not use the same source code and content.

Trade Secrets

A trade secret refers to any medium discovered and maintained by the original owner that remains private and usually provides a competitive advantage. It can include but is not limited to formulas, recipes, patterns, devices, compounds, tools, processes, and mechanisms. There is no federal trade secrets law or statute in Canada. Instead, Canadian trade secret laws are or civil law.

There is no time limit on trade secrets, as they can be kept private forever. The only exception is if another party discovers them on their own, which is possible. Because they are hidden, trade secrets may only be stolen as opposed to being infringed upon.

Cybersecurity events pose a major risk as trade secrets may be stolen or required as collateral by the attackers. Not protecting trade secrets and intellectual property when working with other parties can have serious consequences, like the case with Aerojet Rocketdyne Holdings Inc. and its efense.

With software, trade secrets are kind of tricky. They might include proprietary code and the inner workings or ideas behind it. But if those ideas can be gleaned through reverse engineering, or someone independently discovers them, there is no legal redress.

Trademarks

Trademarks are designed to related to a business or venture. They are “concerned with a company’s need to identify its goods or services among its customers and potential customers.”

Trademarks protect a company’s name, domain, images, and product design elements. They must be registered to activate the legal protections. Some popular trademarks include Nike’s iconic check, Coca-Cola’s logo, and Disney’s Mickey ears.

In the software world, Microsoft’s Windows logo is an excellent example.

Open Source and IP

In the software development world, things can get confusing because of a few different practices. For example, open-source software and agreements can be difficult to navigate. Many open-source projects on depositories, , allow a community of creators to participate.

“When you tap into GitHub [...], you’re free to access any of the files hosted on the platform, and you can even use the content as you wish. You can download the code and use the resulting software, study it to better your own projects, or build upon and improve it to make the existing project better.”

However, releasing an open-source project does not necessarily forfeit intellectual property rights. There are different licenses to choose from, and the permissions granted to umbrella users must be followed closely. They must abide by licensing rules, or they .

Author versus Owner

When it comes to software, the author of various elements like code or visuals isn’t necessarily the legal owner entitled to intellectual property rights. This is a particular concern for employer-employee relationships, where developers work at a large company with dozens or even hundreds of others.

Unless it is otherwise stated, the employer owns what is . Even independent contractors must abide by a legally-binding contract unless they’ve negotiated rights ownership.

Section 13(1) of the "author of a work” is the first owner of the “copyright therein.” In addition, Section 13(3) of the Act stipulates that any works created under a "contract of service" by employees are owned by the employer.

Protecting Your Work

The best way to protect your work, secure intellectual property rights, and lockdown trade secrets, where applicable, is to make sure you understand these concepts and how they apply to your project. If you’re working on a software application by yourself or with a small team, it will be your responsibility to protect your content and systems.

If you’re working for an employer, they likely already have protections in place, and you need to understand where you fit in. For instance, you probably do not own the rights to the content or code you are creating.

The post Intellectual Property of Software: Laws and Protections for Developers appeared first on IPOsgoode.

This data contains personal information specific to each user. Without proper protection, social media companies may mishandle, lose, or leak the data to cybercriminals. Social media companies already widely – and legally – mine customer data for profit-boosting details or sell their information to third parties. To increase protection, governments often develop and enforce stricter regulations.

However, not all countries keep up with consumers’ wants and needs. For example, or protection regulations. Companies in China must obtain consent to interact with their users’ data. However, government officials often block access to sites or monitor how residents use them, raising surveillance concerns. Data privacy rules are further complicated as they vary across platforms.

Social Media Privacy Rules

Registration for any social media site initially requires you to accept their terms and conditions. These conditions detail how the platform will use your data, including your interactions and preferences. Even if your account is “private”, to your information.

No matter how you use social media, you should understand two applicable topics: copyright and how your relationship with a company dictates the way its representatives can collect data. Both of them will likely come up regularly as you learn more about social media privacy — or the lack thereof.

First, copyright is critical for creators and observers. A copyrighted work receives protection once the creator distributes it in a fixed format. For example, posting an original image on social media is enough to . Therefore, users can’t post any picture they find online without permission. Attributing the work is not synonymous with asking the creator for approval.

Most images used legally on the internet fall into several categories:

• Pictures the poster owns and can use how they wish.
• Rights-managed images, which allow people to purchase photos and use them per a specific license. This includes many items offered through the Creative Commons organization.
• Royalty-free images, which enable people to use the pictures in unlimited, multiple and nonexclusive ways.
• Public domain/Creative Commons Zero (CC0) images, which have no restrictions because creators waive their rights under copyright law.

Any original content posted on social media is royalty-free, but social media platforms generally offer users protection against infringement.

Instagram, for instance, provides instructions on on your copyrighted content. This protection means anything you originally create belongs to you, letting you pursue action against any violation of Instagram’s policy. Facebook, the owner of Instagram, has almost identical rules. Twitter may have some exceptions.

It is essential to protect your own data and avoid infringing on others’ original works. However, the second set of rules focuses on your relationship with the platform itself. Historically, data collection has been controversial around the world. Take Facebook, for instance. The big tech company had to clarify after countless scandals emerged. Thus, these instances sparked broader societal discussions about big tech’s growing power and its potential detriment to user privacy.

Personal Data Collection Controversies

Data protection regulation and compliance vary by country. Some territories have federal guidelines in place, like the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

The United States has no unifying federal law for cybersecurity compliance. However, the posts its own guidance, alongside each state’s own compliance rules.

Each set of regulations aims to ensure that tech companies protect consumer data and provide users with the correct rights. Unfortunately, despite these laws, data collection controversies continue to arise. Companies find loopholes and use the data in questionable ways. Facebook is notorious for attracting bad press, whether related to misinformation, social justice, or individual rights.

Another example is WhatsApp. After Facebook acquired WhatsApp, the messaging platform updated its conditions to indicate that the platforms would automatically link datasets. Facebook could then use this data for marketing purposes. The EU for violating the law and misleading users.

Facebook again found itself at the center of a data-centric legal case at the end of 2020. This time, the big tech company pursued an action against two smaller companies that it , or taking data from another source for their own use. While Facebook was not the accused, this case again raises the question of big tech’s power and responsibility.

TikTok has also received public and government backlash. After the platform grew exponentially, U.S. officials became wary of due to its Chinese ownership. They were mainly concerned about what TikTok might do with the data it gathered, raising possible national security threats to the United States. However, in September 2020, a deal split TikTok’s ownership between China and the U.S.

Moving forward, countries must re-examine how social media companies use data. Though individuals can take legal action against offending corporations in court, these companies often overpower them, meaning the government must step in. For example, �䲹�Բ��岹’s Privacy Commissioner can investigate how public and private-sector organizations handle data. They also try to resolve disputes through mediation, negotiation and reconciliation.

Changing Priorities

In the United States, the lack of an overarching federal cybersecurity compliance law has left a legal gap. The California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) is a good U.S.-based example that the government should follow. It gives a person the right to access all the information a company has about them or ask that it delete their details. Consumers can also request that companies do not sell their data to third parties or find out which categories of businesses have content about them.

Elsewhere, the GDPR has not effectively maintained these platforms as honest with users about data collection and usage as legislators may have hoped. A 2020 study of central government data protection officers in the United Kingdom found that many of them to deal with the growing number of data protection requests.

Once the GDPR came into effect, internet users were bombarded with cookie preferences windows that let them specify what data companies collected about their internet visit. Many clicked “I accept” without reading the specifics because they were impatient to view the websites in question.

Amidst all the controversies, priorities are changing. People want more security and privacy when using social media services provided by bigger companies. As the U.S. government continues to debate regulations around big tech brands, data collection will continue.

However, data collection can benefits consumers. Social media companies can curate enjoyable, personalized experiences for each user. Issues occur when companies mishandle data or overstep their boundaries. As seen with Facebook, this happens all too frequently.

Since many of the biggest social media companies are U.S.-based, calls for stricter regulation often fall on the United States, in the hopes that consumers will feel more comfortable sharing their data online.

Written by Shannon Flynn, IPilogue Contributor and law technology writer discussing topics such as AI, media, and commercial law.

The post Social Media Privacy: Legalities of Personal Data Collection appeared first on IPOsgoode.