What are Internet cached webpages? 

When search engines such as Google, Yahoo, and Bing crawl a website, they take a snapshot of what the site looks like at that time. This “snapshot” is known as a cached webpage and it’s stored by the search engine. The cached webpage is what the search engine then uses to determine whether the site matches a user’s specific query.

When a user clicks on the cached webpage, they will be taken to the version of the webpage that was online when the site was last crawled and not the current version. The cached webpage can be accessed when the current version of the site is unavailable due to Internet congestion, a slow website, or the webpage has recently been removed.

How can you deal with Internet cached webpages?

It is very difficult to remove a cached webpage from a search engine if you’re not the webmaster of the website. If you’re not the webmaster and you’d like a cached page removed from Google, Yahoo or Bing, you have three options:

1. You can contact the site administrator and ask them to take the steps necessary to have the cached webpage removed from the search engine in question. Google typically responds to such requests from webmasters within 2-3 hours and Yahoo typically responds in 5 hours;
2. You can seek a court order or other legal document to have certain content removed from the website/cached webpage; or
3. You can just wait until the search engine crawls the site again and updates its cached webpages. This option can take the longest amount of time to see results since it might be 1-2 months before the site is crawled again.

Google offers an additional tool to have a cached webpage removed by a party who does not own the webpage in question. My understanding is that this process will only work for HTML pages and will not work for PDFs or .doc files):

1. The webpage must be have been updated since the cached version;
2. Go to (http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=1663691) and click on Google Public URL Removal Tool;
3. Sign in to Google;
4. Then it will prompt you for the URL you’d like removed;
5. Click Continue;
6. Type a word that appears on the out-of-date cached version of the page but not anywhere on the live version. Its better to use single words and not phrases; and
7. Click Remove cache.

Given the technical nature of this topic, and fact that I’m not a techie, I’d recommend that you work with a technology professional and not rely on this post. That being said I hope this helps and at least provides you with some general information to get you started.

I’m delighted to let you know about a cool feature on Pitblado’s new website called the “Whiteboard Sessions”, which are vlogs (or video blogs). We’ve just posted a 3 minute vlog of mine entitled “Are you a spammer?“, wherein I discuss:  

• highlights of the new law
• why you should care 
• an overview of the rules  
• penalties for non-compliance; and
• proactive tips to help comply with the law

To watch “Are you a spammer?” please click here>>

If you know of other similar articles that can help business professionals to better manage their social media activities, please share by posting a Comment below. Thanks! And thanks to my colleague, Mark Wallace, for the head’s up about the Accountingweb article.

If your answer is “no” you’re wrong. Sorry, but it was a trick question. Whether your organization admits it or not, it is in the social media world.  Clients, prospective clients, employees and even competitors are almost certainly engaging in conversations about your organization on Facebook and LinkedIn. The question is whether you’re a part (or even aware) of those conversations. The second question is what are you going to do to shape those conversations, to the extent that you can?

The reality is that Canadian employees, for example, are blogging, tweeting and accessing social networking websites with increasing frequency. And the result is increased legal risks for Canadian businesses. These risks include disgruntled employees intentionally revealing trade secrets, defaming supervisors, harassing co-workers, or posting negative information about their employers’ business. There are even additional threats resulting from loyal employees who inadvertently disclose information online that runs afoul of privacy and competition laws. These threats won’t go away if your company has its head in the sand regarding social media.

One important step to dealing with and leveraging social media is to implement a social media policy within your organization. Doing so won’t address every potential headache related to social media, but it will help to manage online discussions that are occurring during and after work hours by your own employees. And since some of the greatest risks I’ve mentioned above stem from your employees, my best advice is to implement a social media policy. Key components in a social media policy should include:

• defining the scope of prohibited activities;
• clarifying to whom the policy applies;
• addressing how infringing content should be removed from social media sites;
• spelling out who, when and how monitoring of social media sites occurs; and
• advising of penalties and enforcement of the policy.

No one knows more detailed personal information about you than your Facebook friends. So do we need new privacy laws to protect you from violations perpetrated by other individuals? Read more>>

One of the big issues in the case related to whether or not the Charter applies to universities.  The University argued that the Charter only applies to government institutions and did not apply in this particular case because the University is not part of the government and was engaged in regulating its own internal affairs when disciplining the students.  Earlier court decisions have left open the possibility that the Charter might apply to subordinate bodies created and supported by the government, including “many forms of delegated legislation, regulations, orders in council, possibly municipal by-laws, and by-laws and regulations of other creatures of Parliament and the legislatures”.  In this particular case, the court declared that “the University is not a Charter free zone”.  As a result, and considering the particular facts of this case, the court ruled that the students’ Charter rights were infringed by the manner in which they were sanctioned for their online behavior.  A University spokesman has indicated that its legal staff will review the decision to determine whether there will be an appeal.

ComputerWorld is reporting today that an IT staffing firm has accused one of its former employees of violating her non-compete undertaking through her conduct on LinkedIn. I’m not aware of any similar lawsuit to date in Canada so it’ll be interesting to see how this particular case evolves in the U.S. This case and others that I’ve previously noted highlight the blurring line between online and offline worlds. Businesses should consider whether or not, and to what extent, they should try to enforce such restrictive covenants in the social networking world. Stay tuned…

Yours truly was interviewed by Canadian Business Online for this article and, as you’ll see, I comment that I’m not aware of whether, or to what extent, the big banks and credit card companies are using personal information that’s publicly available on social networking websites to determine credit worthiness.  That being said, in the insurance industry “using information from social-networking sites has already become commonplace”. The message that I’d take from this article is that Canadians’ understanding of privacy, and the ground rules for managing publicly available personal information that we willingly post online, is rapidly evolving.  

Read the Canadian Business Online article here>.

There’s still plenty of  “grey areas” in Internet law. Hopefully, the Supreme Court of Canada will provide more definitive guidance for legal practitioners and website operators in the growing area of online reputation management. In the meantime, website operators should seek legal advice prior to hyperlinking to any potentially defamatory materials on the Internet.

I’ve previously commented on social networking websites and employer-employee relationships.  This BBC report is just one more example of a situation which may have been prevented with better employee training and a clear social networking policy.  Common sense should, and typically does, guide employees in determining what to post online. Yet, if an Israeli soldier can’t think twice before posting the details of a planned operation it’s easy to see how some employees of Canadian businesses – perhaps yours - unintentionally post valuable corporate information online.

This really is the kind of personal information that identity thieves love so the OPC article is a useful read. In fact, businesses whose employees create accounts on their behalf would be well-advised to have employees read the OPC article.

The identities of the teachers have been widely reported. Now the question is: Could the teachers sue the students for violating their privacy?

Read more>>

To prove defamation, a claimant must demonstrate that a defendant “published” defamatory words. Currently in Canada it’s clear that a person who posts defamatory comments about another person or business on a discussion board can be liable for defamation.  It’s also clear, as I’ve mentioned in a previous post, that a person or business may be liable in certain circumstances if they hyperlink to defamatory content on another website.  But what about defamatory comments made by others on your website? The answer is less than clear, primarily because of two generally competing public policy views. One view is that website operators should not be liable for defamatory content posted on their discussion boards because the task of monitoring is too onerous for most businesses; and that website operators aren’t “publishing” the defamatory content but are merely “distributing” (which generally doesn’t attract liability for defamation). The other view is that website operators should be liable because the potential for instantaneous and severe damage to claimant’s reputations caused by online defamation should compel website operators to monitor, and be responsible for, their discussion boards.

After American courts struggled with these competing public policy views, the U.S. Congress passed legislation granting immunity to businesses that operate website discussion boards, regardless of the level of control that website operators may have regarding posted comments.  The case of Finkel v. Facebook is a recent example of the immunity that can be provided to U.S. based companies. There is no similar “immunity” legislation in Canada, and the specific issue has not yet come before a Canadian court.  Of course, each case is decided on its own facts, and one would anticipate that key factors a Canadian court would consider would be a website’s Terms of Use, the degree of control and content monitoring by a website operator, and any actions a website operator took (or didn’t take) in response to a notice from a third party regarding defamatory comments.

This is a rapidly emerging area of law, and businesses should consult a lawyer with relevant expertise to assist in drafting adequate Terms of Use and to discuss potential risks prior to launching, or continuing to host, a website discussion board.

A key hurdle that claimants must prove in defamation lawsuits is that defendants “published” defamatory words. Internet defamation is no different, and in the Crookes case, the court concluded that providing a hyperlink does not necessarily equal the “publishing” of defamatory content. If a website simply provides a hyperlink, or describes a hyperlink’s content in a neutral manner, then according to the court in Crookes, the hyperlink is not adopting the offending words as its own and is not indirectly “publishing” them. However, if the linking website endorses the content of the hyperlink material or encourages the reader to click the hyperlink to the website that contains defamatory material, the defendant may be just as liable for defamation as the original author of the offending material.

The Crookes case provides useful guidance, but businesses should be reminded that each Internet defamation case will turn on its own specific facts, and factors that will be considered include the wording, tone and placement of hyperlinks. To help minimize the risk of being sued for the publication of defamatory comments, business owners should seek legal advice prior to hyperlinking to any potentially defamatory materials on the Internet.

The debate surrounding the “lawful access” legislation stems from real challenges affecting Canada’s law enforcement agencies and their need for access to personal information in the course of investigations. What is concerning, however, is the prospect of warrantless searches without judicial oversight. As a citizen in a free and democratic society, it troubles me to see any legislative initiative that could lead to investigations without appropriate checks and balances.  Privacy and security don’t need to be mutually exclusive. Let’s hope that through the upcoming Parliamentary Hearings on the “lawful access” legislation we see a balance emerge between privacy and security in such a way that empowers law enforcement agencies while preserving the judicial oversight that Canadians have come to rightfully expect in our society.

It seems that website operators are being increasingly asked, or ordered, to reveal the identity of  anonymous commentators or bloggers, many of whom have likely presumed that their identity would never be disclosed. However, Northwestern University law professor and First Amendment scholar Martin Redish tells the Daily Herald, “[a]ssume a worst-case scenario”. “Proceed on the assumption that your identity can be revealed.”

Americans are very fond of their First Amendment right to free speech (in Canada we call it Freedom of Expression). However, this right does not protect writers whose comments are defamatory. As I’ve said before, this is a rapidly emerging area of law and it’s becoming increasingly important to stay on top of developments.

BBC News

Phishing involves identity thieves attempting to obtain personal information, such as user names, passwords and financial information, by pretending to be trustworthy organizations in need of such data.

Coincidentally, the Privacy Commissioner of Canada released her annual report today, which stresses the importance of making informed choices when sharing personal information online. The Privacy Commissioner reminds Canadians that there is a risk that unguarded personal information could be exploited by identity thieves. The Hotmail phishing attack, as well as the Privacy Commissioner’s annual report, should also remind businesses to remain vigilant in protecting their brands – or online reputations – from being damaged by identity thieves that use phishing attacks to exploit the well-earned trust that such businesses have built with their customers.

The Lawyers Weekly

“On the heels of a recent New York state court decision that ordered Google Inc. to reveal the identity of an anonymous blogger in a defamation suit, a Winnipeg business lawyer has asked the California-based online search engine giant to do the same and out a blogger on behalf of an Ottawa-area resident. Brian Bowman, a partner with Pitblado LLP in Winnipeg who specializes in privacy, access to information, online reputation management, intellectual property and technology matters, says that his client was defamed on a site appearing on Google-operated blogspot.com (also known as Blogger.com).”

“The New York court decision and the Canadian case raise “one of the fundamental legal questions of our time over the appropriate balance between legitimate, anonymous Internet speech versus the right for people to protect their reputations,” says Bowman, who expects more of these situations will emerge in the near future.”

Read the full story here.

While the OPC’s Facebook investigation should be a “must read” for all Facebook users, it also provides some insightful information for Canadian organizations regulated by PIPEDA. The lessons that can be learned from the investigation can be applied by Canadian businesses regardless of whether their activities are online or offline. 

Despite the fact that “[i]t’s clear that privacy issues are top of mind for Facebook…” federal Privacy Commissioner Jennifer Stoddart says that the OPC has found “serious privacy gaps in the way the site operates”. According to Stoddart, in order to comply with Canadian privacy law, Facebook must take greater responsibility for the personal information in its care.  An overarching concern of the OPC was that, although Facebook provides information about its privacy practices, it is often confusing or incomplete. For example, the “account settings” page describes how to deactivate accounts, but not how to delete them, which actually removes personal data from Facebook’s servers. The OPC recommends more transparency, to ensure that the social networking site’s nearly 12 million Canadian users have the information they need to make meaningful decisions about how widely they share personal information.

The investigation also raised significant concerns around the sharing of users’ personal information with third-party developers creating Facebook applications such as games and quizzes. (There are more than 950,000 developers in some 180 countries.) Facebook lacks adequate safeguards to effectively restrict these outside developers from accessing profile information, the investigation found. The report recommended a number of changes, including technological measures to ensure that developers can only access the user information actually required to run a specific application, and also to prevent the disclosure of personal information of any of the user’s friends who are not themselves signing up for an application.

The investigation also found that Facebook has a policy of indefinitely keeping the personal information of people who have deactivated their accounts, which is a violation of PIPEDA. The law requires organizations to retain personal information only for as long as is necessary to meet appropriate purposes. Recommendations to Facebook included the adoption of a retention policy whereby personal information in deactivated accounts is deleted after a reasonable length of time.

Click here to read the OPC’s News Release, here for the full investigation report and here to read a helpful backgrounder.  If you’d like to read more about Facebook, please click on the Facebook link under this blog’s Tags (below).

As I’ve previously discussed, Social networking websites such as MySpace and Facebook are provoking new questions about the appropriate boundaries in employee-employer relationships. This is evident in a United States Federal Court case coming to a head in New Jersey. The case pertains to the conduct of a manager who logged into a private social networking website and observed employees slandering company supervisors and customers. Those same employees were later dismissed. The case exemplifies a rapidly expanding “grey area” between an employee’s work life and personal social life. It begs the question, at what point does a “private” comment to friend made outside of the office constitute defamation, and at what point are such comments simply banter between individuals?  Of course, the answer is, it all depends on the facts. 

For an interesting discussion on the matter, check out Myrth on a Blog, a personal journal of law, technology and social media.

The posting of a YouTube video of a woman throwing a tantrum at the Hong Kong International Airport should serve as a reminder to Canadian businesses that employees these days can (and do) easily record and post videos online from their mobile phones.

The three minute video shows a Cathay Pacific customer yelling and flailing her limbs as she lies on the floor after missing her flight from Hong Kong to San Francisco. I’ve been upset at missing a flight before, but the woman in this video takes things to an entirely new level. The video has drawn over five millions views and nearly 21,000 comments, which has resulted in some incredibly cruel and objectionable online commentary about the woman. Since the release of the video, Cathay Pacific has disciplined the gate worker who recorded the video on his mobile phone (although the video was posted on YouTube by a third party) and the company has issued a formal apology to the woman.

The video is noteworthy because it demonstrates the power of new technologies such as YouTube and the corresponding risks to Canadian businesses. Had the video been recorded by an employee of a Canadian business, subject to Canadian privacy laws, the potential privacy complaint and/or lawsuit by the woman in the video could have been substantial. 

Canadian businesses should be reminded of the need to protect against the dissemination of this type of video through employee privacy training and the adoption and enforcement of privacy policies and procedures.

Canadian businesses don’t need to look too far to find examples where more effective employee privacy training may have mitigated, or even prevented, privacy complaints.

A case in point was the high profile finding by the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (OPC) against TJX Companies Inc., the parent company of HomeSense and Winners. The OPC noted that the massive data breach was caused by inadequate encryption software which didn’t protect the company’s wireless network. New software had apparently been purchased by the company a year prior, but employees of TJX had not installed the programming on a timely basis.

In 2008 a laptop computer containing the personal information of over 800 customers was stolen from the office of a bank employee. The computer was left unmonitored and unsecured in an area of the office that was easily accessible to the public. In the resulting finding, the OPC stressed the importance of procedural safeguards and the need to periodically re-educate employees on privacy policies and procedures.

Another example occurred when a bank’s customer learned that his personal banking information was found in a recycling bin. Two employees who were cleaning out the desk of a former employee had placed the documents in the recycling bin, rather than ensuring the information was shredded. This situation (and many others) may very well have been prevented had the respective employees been better educated in the area of privacy.

Canada’s Privacy Commissioner, Jennifer Stoddart, recently gave a speech which addressed the importance of employee privacy training. In her remarks, Stoddart cited research from 2007 that reported that only one-third of Canadian businesses polled had conducted employee privacy training. Furthermore, Stoddart demonstrated that over half of the complaints received by the OPC could have been prevented had there been adequate employee privacy training.

Pro-active businesses are hearing the message loud and clear. Privacy training is an essential feature of employee training especially in this era of rapid technological advancements. This type of training should help to prevent unnecessary headaches such as privacy complaints and lawsuits. .

Therefore, the question remains, what would happen if one of your employees recorded a video of an irate customer and then uploaded the video on YouTube. The answer is, it’s best not to find out.

(Cross-posted to slaw.ca)

The Lawyers Weekly

The “first wave” of privacy laws (such as the federal Privacy Act) were introduced decades ago to protect the privacy of individuals in respect of public sector government bodies. The “second wave” of privacy laws (such as PIPEDA) were introduced more recently to protect the privacy of individuals in respect of private sector businesses.  Arguably, the only missing link in this chain of privacy protection, and what could be the focus of a “third wave” of privacy laws, is protecting individuals from violations of privacy by other individuals in the non-commercial sphere.  My goal with the article was not to promote a “third wave” of privacy laws, but rather to engage Canadians in a debate about whether such laws are required. 

I hope you click here to read the full article! 

I also encourage you to share your thoughts on whether – in the era of Facebook and Twitter – the status quo is sufficient or whether a “third wave” of privacy laws are needed.

In general, the defamation (written and spoken) of a business occurs when a party lowers the reputation of a business in the estimation of other members of society or an industry.  Since a business doesn’t have “feelings”, defamation cases related to businesses focus on the damage to a business’ reputation or goodwill due to the comments of another party.   The following court cases are worth checking out, both of which confirm that a business can be defamed and, as a result, is entitled to receive monetary compensation.

In Barrick Gold v. Lopehandia, the defendant was found liable for a massive online defamation campaign initiated by the defendant against the plaintiff.  The defendant had posted comments on gold and mineral investor related online forums defaming the plaintiff.  The Ontario Court of Appeal noted that Internet defamation is different than traditional written forms of defamation since online defamation, or “cyber libel”, is often taken at face value, and is capable of instantly reaching an unlimited number of persons around the globe.  The plaintiff corporation was awarded $75,000 in general damages for damage to its reputation and goodwill, $50,000 in punitive damages, and a permanent injunction to prevent further postings.

In WeGo Kayaking Ltd. et al v. Sewid, the British Columbia Supreme Court awarded $250,000 in general damages to the plaintiff corporation in relation to “review” comments posted online that incorrectly and intentionally classified the plaintiff as a “bad” tour company.

Defamation doesn’t just happen to individuals.  These cases serve as a reminder to businesses that they are capable of being defamed and, as a result, should diligently protect their online reputations.

There are a growing number of articles that are highlighting the threat of “cyber-terrorism”.  It’s a scary topic that is surely consuming the time of government technology infrastructure professionals in the U.S. and Canada.  Some of these articles discuss the remote possibility that terrorists may perpetrate cyber-attacks against critical online government and corporate infrastructure.  Other articles discuss the very real possibility that terrorists may simply use the Internet (and the information contained online) to plan attacks in the real world. Don Cavender, a special agent and instructor with the FBI’s Computer Training Unit at Quantico, Virginia, is quoted in an excellent ZDNet article and says that “the worry right now is not so much a cyberterrorism event…but when the terrorists use the Internet to facilitate the planning of these attacks.” 

We all know that the Internet is filling up with vast amounts of data including people’s personal information, as well as corporate and government data.  The lesson that I take from all of these “cyber-terrorism” related articles is that businesses should make sure that they are working with technology professionals to secure their databases and limit the amount of personal information and corporate data available online.  Of course, there are many reasons for businesses to secure their databases and to limit what information is available online.  For example, privacy laws such as Canada’s PIPEDA regulate the safeguarding of personal information.  And, there are good business reasons to limit the availability of proprietary corporate data online.  But, if you ever wished you were Jack Bauer, then here’s your chance to fight terrorism…one corporate move at a time.

Website Terms of Use are important to read, especially if you’re then going to post information on or through the website.  If you’re a Facebook user, read its Terms of Use to determine if you actually agree to them.  If not, you may want to reconsider continuing to be a Facebook user or you may want to simply refrain from posting content that you don’t want to fall under the scope of its Terms of Use. 

If your business has a website, check to see if it has a comprehensive Terms of Use document that’s been customized accordingly. Terms of Use are vital documents for websites because they set out the ground rules regarding – among other things – the ownership of content, licence rights, use of the website by minors, user submissions/postings and intellectual property rights.  They are intended to serve as legally binding contracts between website operators and users, so they’re pretty important!

Facebook may have suffered a public relations setback last week, but for a commercial enterprise it was on the right path when it reviewed and tried to customize its Terms of Use to meet its business objectives.  All businesses that have websites should review and, if necessary, modify their Terms of Use on a regular basis.

Online shopping a risky transaction: Protect yourself from identity thieves

My November 5, 2008 column in the Winnipeg Free Press provides some tips on how to be a savvy online shopper and the benefits to online retailers of  having sercure websites and comprehensive online privacy policies.

New push to educate on online privacy: Youth can get info on important website

My July 2, 2008 column in the Winnipeg Free Press announces the Privacy Commission of Canada’s new youth privacy site, My Privacy. This is a great site for both parents and their children to view, to help youthful Internet users to be aware of the dangers of ignoring privacy settings as they’re filling out personal information on sites like Facebook and MySpace.

Facebook website not all fun and games

My June 6, 2007 column in the Winnipeg Free Press examines the effect of access to social networking sites like Facebook have in the workplace.

Identity theft, loss of privacy face people in a wired world

My February 7, 2005 column in the Winnipeg Free Press concerns identity theft and workplace surveillance.

Fight spam: “Don’t try, don’t buy and don’t reply”

My June 1, 2005 column in the Winnipeg Free Press talks about the National Task Force on Spam, established by Industry Canada.

Why employers should care about blogging

My July 5, 2006 column in the Winnipeg Free Press talks about the importance of paying attention to what your employees are saying online.

Privacy still on Canadians radar screen: poll

My August 2, 2006 column in the Winnipeg Free Press reports on a poll commissioned by the Privacy Commissioner of Canada to gauge how familiar Canadians are with their rights under PIPEDA.

Information requires safekeeping

In today’s economy, information is the most valuable corporate asset. And for this reason, businesses of all sizes should take steps to protect corporate information regardless of whether it is stored online or off-line. Whether it’s customer or supplier lists, intellectual property or employees’ personal information, it’s information that needs safekeeping. My September 6, 2006 column for the Winnipeg Free Press discusses the importance of protecting corporate information.

Identity thieves steal business reputations; privacy law audit a good place to begin prevention

In my May 4, 2005 column in the Winnipeg Free Press I talk about online reputation management.