RFID - What is it? What Legal Issues might arise?

We've recently been talking about RFID tags in class, and I finally decided to find some information so that I know better how these tags might affect mankind.

What is it?
RFID technology is the next logical step after the Universal Product Code
(UPC) that appears on virtually all consumer products. The UPC can tell the
scanner that an item is a 15-ounce bag of Lay’s Potato Chips and sells for
$2.99. The store’s inventory of chips is then reduced by one. RFID technology
can determine where and when the potato chips were made, which
batch it was from, and when it was shipped. It can then serve as a tracking
method that is much more sophisticated than mere inventory data.


The spread of RFID technology has raised privacy concerns, especially regarding its potential to track the movements of individuals. RFID tags can be included in items without public knowledge, and items with RFIDs can be tracked when they leave the store. Personal information is readily available online or in databases due to public records and other sources.
Consumers have little or no control in suppressing or editing most of it. For example, paying just $26 for each person, the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer
Rights obtained the social security numbers and home addresses of CIA Director George Tenet,
Attorney General John Ashcroft, and Presidential Chief Political Advisor Karl Rove.12 Information about almost anyone can be acquired if data about these high profile figures are so easily accessible.

Legal Regulation of Internet Activity (Canada Laws)

Consumer Protection
Most jurisdictions have laws designed to protect consumers from unethical business
conduct, and these laws can be applicable online. There are numerous regulations
surrounding product design and packaging that vary from one country to another. There
are also regulations dealing with licenses required to sell, certifications needed to
deliver a service, mandatory contractual terms (regardless of what you say in your
website agreement), periods in which a customer can change their mind
without liability, and so on. In addition, there are often voluntary standards that are
ignored only at great risk. Businesses should be familiar with all applicable regulations
and legislative requirements in the jurisdictions where they conduct business, as well as
all applicable voluntary standards.

Fair Competition
In Canada, the most significant legislation in this regard is the Competition Act that
regulates acceptable advertising and promotion. The Competition Act prohibits false or
misleading advertising and this applies to websites as it does to other media.

Contests and Promotions
Contests and giveaways are subject to legal regulation. The Competition Act focuses
on disclosure of such things as the value of prizes, odds of winning and geographic
areas. Prizes must be distributed promptly, and winners must be chosen randomly or
on the basis of skill. The Criminal Code of Canada may require a skill-testing question.
A license from the province in which you are located may also be required.

Google supplemental results

According to Google's FAQ page, supplemental results are part of Google's auxiliary index (main results are drawn from the main index) and pages, which appear on the supplemental listing, have "fewer restrictions" than those that appear on the main results page. They further say that the inclusion of sites on the main or supplemental index is purely automated and does not affect page rank at all.

In truth however, pages that appear on the main index will almost always show up first in a search. Supplemental search results will only show up if there are very few or no results at all in the main index. Plenty of older web sites also tend to populate the supplemental results page. Needless to say the supplemental results page is not where you want your site to end up. Ironically several people have emailed Google asking that their sites be included in the supplemental index!

Legal issues with Blogs

I've always wondered - if one were to make disparaging comments about competitors in a blog, who would be responsible?

Much will depend on whether the company actively encourages its employees to blog (whether for marketing purposes or otherwise). If they do (or are seen to do so), usual tortious principles would seemingly apply and there would be a credible argument to the effect that comments made by an employee on such a blog falls within the scope of his or her employer's authority. Although not directly analogous, it is worth noting (not least given that the application of the law of defamation to modern technology has been steadfastly applied by reference to tradtional principles) that, unlike some American law, there is no fetter under English law in differentiating between slander and libel. As such, employers have been held liable for the rashly uttered words of their employees, notwithstanding that such words were not spoken at the employer's discretion. Thus, employers who encourage 'unsupervised' blogging are effectively leaving matters at the discretion of their employees and could arguably be considered liable for the outcome.

It would therefore be advisable that any company promoting blogging has a comprehensive policy governing use and content. Even then, however, a general prohibition on the publication of defamatory material is unlikely to suffice to exclude liability. Indeed, established case law would suggest that an employer can be liable for even unauthorised publication of allegations by an employee when that publication occurred incidentally to the performance of an authorised act. In such circumstances, the fact that the employee chose an improper method of performing his 'duty' is nothing to the point. It is not hard to see such logic applied to blogs where the employer has encouraged legitimate discussion of rival businesses.

Conflicts in Cyber Space

Disputes occur - whether in real life, or in the online "virtual" world. The question arises - What court or other tribunal may and should resolve a particular controversy?

First, the plaintiff and the defendant in a cyberspace dispute often reside in different countries. Indeed, the defendant's only contact with the jurisdiction in which the plaintiff is inclined to bring suit is likely to consist of having made his or her website available to computer users there. Second, speed is often especially important in resolving Internet-related controversies. The slow pace of most court proceedings is ill suited to such controversies -- creating unusually strong incentives for the identification or creation of alternative fora. Third, many cyberspace disputes raise novel issues of substantive law and of technology -- issues that frequently perplex courts of general jurisdiction. Thus, the pressure for finding some alternative (more specialized or more flexible) forum for resolving such disputes increases.

The term, "Alternative Dispute Resolution" (ADR), refers to a miscellaneous collection of techniques -- most notably, arbitration, mediation, and negotiation -- that in some contexts have proven to be more efficient and arguably more fair in resolving controversies than traditional forms of litigation and adjudication. A rapidly growing group of organizations are now employing the Internet to offer ADR services -- both for "real-space" disputes and for Internet-related disputes.

• http://www.clicknsettle.com/,
• http://www.cybersettle.com/,
• http://www.disputes.org/,
• http://www.eresolution.ca/,
• http://www.i-courthouse.com/,

Once a tribunal has been selected, the next question is: what body of substantive law should be use to resolve the controversy. As previous modules have shown, the laws in force in different countries pertaining to the Internet vary considerably. Thus, the choice of law often matters. In the United States, the meta-doctrine that determines which substantive law should be applied in known as conflict of laws. In other countries it is more likely to be called "private international law". This is a notoriously unstable, shifting field of doctrine, characterized by warring principles or tests. Some of the major contending principles include the ‘the most significant relationship’ test, the ‘center of gravity’ approach, and the ‘interest’ approach.

Electronic Signature Law

Digital contracts came into being on October 1, 2000. Before this day, transactions on the internet were supposedly not legally protected in the way they are these days.

The new law made online contracts for a variety of business transactions, such as purchasing a car, buying an insurance policy, or closing a mortgage, more clearly enforceable. At the same time, it also allowed businesses to satisfy their obligation to provide legally required notices to customers by sending those notices electronically, once the consumer provides consent for such online communication. If a consumer wanted to revert to paper notices, the law permitted the business to charge a fee, as long as the fee was disclosed when the consumer first consented to electronic notice.

The law broadly authorizes electronic records and electronic signatures as legally effective. But it does not identify the technology that must be used for an electronic signature. Instead, it defines an electronic signature as an electronic "sound, symbol, or process" attached to a contract or other record which was "executed or adopted by a person with the intent to sign the record."

The E-Sign law contained some special consumer protections before businesses can send notices required by law to customers by email in place of paper notices. First, the consumer must consent or confirm a prior written consent electronically. The manner of consenting electronically must demonstrate that the consumer will be able to access the future information in the form in which it will be sent. Second, companies that send electronic notices must tell the consumer what hardware and software is needed to read them. Finally, under the federal law, businesses must continue to send paper notices for urgent matters such as utility shut-off, foreclosure, eviction, some loan default notices, and product recalls. This rule is designed to ensure that consumers do not miss critical notices because a computer problem prevented the consumer from receiving or opening the notice.

Secondlife.com - Government Regulation

For now, the rules of "Second Life" are laid out by Linden Lab and, in particular, its creator, Philip Rosedale. Punishments for everything from violence and lewd behavior to hacking and fraud include suspension, banishment, and "the cornfield," in which players must pilot a virtual tractor and watch an educational video. Like automobile drivers, players earn points for bad behavior, and the more points the more severe the punishment. But Linden Lab is a company, not a government. While it is in the interest of Linden Lab to grow the game's economy, ultimately the company is beholden to its real-world investors, many of whom have little experience or interest in the game's daily goings-on. How long will players--especially players with an economic stake in the game--allow Linden Lab to dictate what constitutes punishable activity, and what constitutes an appropriate punishment?

For now, of course, thinking about the real-world implications of "Second Life" and other games is mostly a futurists' exercise. And there's no guarantee that such games will, in fact, become the next iteration of the Web. But relative popularity doesn't moot questions of where to draw the line between game and reality. What constitutes property rights? In a game like "World of Warcraft," where the economy is closed, the answer is simple: there are no property rights. But what if someone pays real money for land, and plans to turn a real profit? Can Linden Lab summarily shut down their development? That question may soon be answered in a Pennsylvania court, where a player, Marc Bragg, is suing Linden Lab for seizing land on which he was building a virtual nightclub, putting him out $2000. Linden claims that Bragg cheated to get the land on the cheap, while Bragg claims that the punishment was overly severe and violated his property rights. If the court rules in his favor, it could set a powerful precedent for future claims against the company--and a powerful justification for an expansion of the legal system over its operations.

Whether such an extension could actually work is a different question. Graf lives in Germany, owns "property" housed on servers in California, and works with clients from around the world. Who has jurisdiction over her business? Some observers speculate that a legal doctrine that treats virtual space as real space, analogous to the way corporations are considered "persons," will eventually emerge. Such a doctrine would mean giving games like "Second Life" quasi-sovereign status, perhaps as a national or international protectorate.