When you put out the trash, don't expect a constitutional right to privacy of the contents.
The Supreme Court of Canada unanimously ruled Thursday that police can sift through garbage if it has been set out at the edge of your property for municipal collection because "abandoned" goods do not trigger Charter of Rights and Freedoms protection.
Broadband is cheaper in many other countries than in the United States.
"You have a pretty uncompetitive market by European standards," said Tim Johnson, the chief analyst at Point-Topic, a London consulting firm.
Other countries have lower costs for the same reasons their DSL service is faster. Dense urban areas reduce some of the cost of building networks. In addition, governments in some countries subsidized fiber networks.
But the big difference between the United States and most other countries is competition.
"Now hold on there," you might say to me. Since I wrote that many countries don't have cable systems and the bulk of broadband is run by way of DSL through existing phone wires, how can there be competition? Aren't those owned by monopoly phone companies?
True enough. But most big countries have devised a system to create competition by forcing the phone companies to share their lines and facilities with rival Internet providers.
Not surprisingly, the phone companies hate this idea, often called unbundling, and tend to drag their feet when it is introduced. So it requires rather diligent regulators to force the telcos to play fair. And the effect of this scheme depends a lot on details of what equipment is shared and at what prices.
Britain has gone the furthest, forcing BT Group to split off a unit that operates the actual network and sells to various voice and Internet providers, including its own telephone service, on an equal basis.
The United States was early with this sort of approach, requiring telephone companies to allow rival Internet service providers to sell DSL service using their networks. The way these rules were written, however, meant the wholesale cost was so high that providers like AOL and Earthlink couldn't offer a better deal than the telcos themselves.
And the plan was largely abandoned in 2003 by the Federal Communications Commission on the theory that the country is better served by encouraging competition
The whole idea of privacy has become a joke. On one hand we have consumers who will give away their personal details to random Web sites (as well as to Mrs. Sikiratu Seki Adam, "a widow to Late Saheed Baba Adams") at the drop of a virtual hat, and on the other we have businesses losing personally identifiable information and transaction data with wild abandon … yes, I'm talking about you Heartland Payment Systems. (Heartland lost data on more than 100 million transactions although it is hardly alone - check out the data loss database at the Open Security Foundation).
This widespread carelessness has compromised the privacy of tens of millions of consumers and businesses. While carelessness is the cause, what has allowed it to go unchecked are a number of factors: The Internet making transactions easier and faster; the systems we use on the Internet (particularly Windows PCs) being as secure as the First Little Pig's house of straw; organizations not taking security seriously enough; naive consumers; and inadequate regulation of the companies that hold private data.
What got me thinking about this privacy void was a letter my wife received from Nordstrom Bank yesterday. My wife has a Nordstrom credit card and the company sent us, for what seems like the 1,000th time, its latest privacy policy.
This version was one page of small text that more or less says what every other privacy notice from financial services companies say (we average about one of these "revised" policies every couple of weeks).
In April 2008, the blogosphere was abuzz with news that someone was auctioning then-candidate Barack Obama's half-eaten breakfast on eBay, along with silverware purported to contain his DNA.
This episode led some to speculate that the DNA of one or both of the presidential candidates would be surreptitiously analysed and their genetic information broadcast before the election for all to examine.
Although this scenario did not take place during this election cycle, it is well within the realm of technological possibility. Every day, we shed millions of cells during ordinary activities - licking envelopes, blowing our nose, combing hair.
These cells may seem to be mere human detritus, but our biological trash could be a gold mine for information prospectors looking for clues to our health or ancestry. And as an investigation in the latest issue of New Scientist magazine found, there already is a vibrant industry offering covert DNA tests to confirm infidelity and parentage.
We have reached this point through technological advances in laboratory genetic analysis, dramatically reduced costs for the analysis and an almost complete absence of rules governing the legal status of "abandoned DNA."
Hundreds of medical records kept by a longtime Acton family doctor who abruptly closed his practice last year are about to be destroyed, leaving patients without crucial information and exposing a gap in state law about who owns abandoned medical records.
On April 8, a Lynn storage company is scheduled to discard the records and auction the equipment left by Dr. Ronald T. Moody, who was evicted from his office last September as state regulators pursued him, saying he was practicing without a license. Many of Moody's former patients have no idea that their records are slated for destruction: None has been notified, nor does the law require such notice.
"We throw people's lives away on a daily basis, and, believe me, we go out of our way to try and find someone" to salvage belongings, said Jim Appleyard, owner of the storage company that was hired by Moody's former landlord to clean out the office and store the items for six months, as required by law.
But the idea of dumping hundreds of patients' files without them knowing about it bothered Appleyard. Unable to find Moody, he contacted the state Board of Registration in Medicine and pleaded to take the dozens of boxes of records. The board regulates doctors and administers rules governing medical records of physicians in private and group practices.