OTTAWA — Canada’s privacy watchdog says Internet phenomenon Facebook breaches the law by keeping users’ personal information indefinitely — even after members close their accounts.

Privacy Commissioner Jennifer Stoddart says the popular social networking site should hang on to the data only for as long as truly necessary.

In a report Thursday, Stoddart urged Facebook to remedy the problem, one of several serious privacy shortfalls she discovered.

Facebook, which has nearly 12 million Canadian users, allows people to keep in touch with friends and family by updating their personal pages with fresh messages and photos.

Stoddart said although Facebook provides information about its privacy practices, it is often confusing or incomplete.

“It’s clear that privacy issues are top of mind for Facebook, and yet we found serious privacy gaps in the way the site operates,” Stoddart said in a statement.

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 computer servers.

Stoddart wants Facebook to wipe the information in deactivated accounts after a reasonable length of time.

The report also raises concerns about the sharing of users’ personal information with the almost one million third-party developers around the globe who create Facebook applications such as games and quizzes.

Facebook lacks proper safeguards to prevent these developers from seeing users’ profile information, the investigation found.

Stoddart calls for more transparency to ensure the site’s Canadian users have knowledge they need to make meaningful decisions about how widely they share personal information.

The privacy commissioner will review Facebook’s actions after 30 days to gauge progress. She can take the case to the Federal Court of Canada to have her recommendations enforced.

She launched a probe of Facebook in response to a complaint last year from the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic.

The clinic, based at the University of Ottawa’s law faculty, alleged numerous violations by the high-profile site.

The Full Report can be found Here:

http://www.priv.gc.ca/cf-dc/2009/2009_008_0716_e.cfm

By ALEX MINDLIN
Published: November 30, 2008

Canadian Internet users are far more likely than Americans to use a social networking Web site, according to September figures released by the research firm comScore. That number is consistent with Canadians’ generally heavy use of sophisticated Internet features like online video. “We joke that it’s because of those long winter nights up there,” said Andrew Lipsman, a senior analyst at comScore.

But it also reflects the broader truth that the popularity of such Web sites, and which services are at the top, can vary sharply in neighboring countries.

“One site may catch on in a certain country, and another may catch on elsewhere,” said Mr. Lipsman. “Often it’s whichever one gained prominence in the early phase of the game.”

For example, Google’s Orkut service, which has a third of Facebook’s traffic in the United States, is the dominant social networking site in both India and Brazil. ALEX MINDLIN

*Includes countries with a total Internet population of at least 10 million unique visitors in September 2008.

**Excludes traffic from public computers, such as Internet cafes or access from mobile phones/PDAs.

“For Internet users in Brazil, social networking continues to flourish as a hugely popular activity,” said Alex Banks, managing director of Latin America for comScore. “One likely reason for social networking’s success in Brazil is that its concept of online community closely aligns with the culture in Brazil, which is also centered on a strong sense of community and social activity.”

Numbers Via Comscore

by Jeffrey D. Neuburger, November 13, 2008

Linking to content is the essence of the online experience — it’s the “Web” in the World Wide Web. But there’s a lot of legal gray area around linking, and surprisingly few court rulings providing guidance as to the circumstances when linking could result in liability.

A court in Canada has now weighed in on the question of liability under Canadian law for linking to an article that contains statements alleged to be defamatory. On the facts of the case, the court ruled that linking to an article containing defamatory statements does not, by itself, constitute defamation. As in the case mentioned in my last post, the litigation arose out of an election-related controversy.

Crookes Versus the World

The individual plaintiff in Crookes v. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. (B.C. Sup. Ct. Aug. 29, 2008) is Wayne Crookes, a Vancouver businessman who was involved with the Green Party of Canada in 2004. Crookes’s involvement in and supposed “takeover” of the party was the subject of three articles on the Canadian-based Open Politics website and another on the (apparently now defunct) usgovernetics website. Claiming that the articles were defamatory, Crookes filed a lawsuit against Michael Pilling, the Canadian editor of the Open Politics site.

Michael Geist

Some time later, Jon Newton, founder of digital news website p2pnet.com, wrote about the litigation on his website, including hyperlinks to the allegedly defamatory articles on the Open Politics and “usgovernetics” websites. Crookes responded by suing Newton as well. As will be discussed further below, Crookes also sued not only the Wikimedia Foundation but also Yahoo, Google and Domains by Proxy Inc., a domain name registrar, and numerous other parties for various actions (hosting, providing search results, etc.) relating to alleged defamatory articles and postings about Crookes.

Another Crookes target was widely respected Internet law authority Prof. Michael Geist. Crookes sued Prof. Geist for including a link to Newton’s p2pnet site on his own website.

No Publication, No Liability

Crookes’s underlying lawsuit against Pilling is awaiting trial, as are the cases against most of the other defendants mentioned above. However, in the case against Newton for linking to Pilling’s articles, the court conducted a “summary trial” (a proceeding without a jury,) and ruled in favor of Newton, finding that creating a hyperlink to a defamatory statement does not, by itself, constitute a “publication” of the defamation.

“Publication,” the communication of a defamatory statement to a third party, is a necessary element that must be shown to maintain a claim of defamation under Canadian law. (This is also the case under U.S. law.) In considering whether Newton’s links to the articles constituted a “publication,” the court drew an analogy to a footnote in a print publication, stating: “Where a footnote leads a reader to further material, that does not make the author who provided the footnote a publisher of what the reader finds when the footnote is followed.” The fact that a reader can access the source more easily via a hyperlink than via a footnote in a print publication makes no difference, the court concluded:

Although a hyperlink provides immediate access to material published on another website, this does not amount to republication of the content on the originating site. This is especially so as a reader may or may not follow the hyperlinks provided.

The court also considered the entire context of Newton’s links, noting that Newton had not published any defamatory content about Crookes on his p2pnet site nor did he reproduce any of the content from the articles Crookes claimed to be defamatory. Newton also made no comment on the nature of the articles to which he was linking. Consequently, merely providing links to defamatory content, the court concluded, did not make Newton liable for any defamation in the articles to which he linked.

Be Careful How You Link

Note well that the court did not say that there can never be any liability for linking to defamatory content:

I do not wish to be misunderstood. It is not my decision that hyperlinking can never make a person liable for the contents of the remote site. For example, if Mr. Newton had written ‘the truth about Wayne Crookes is found here’ and ‘here‘ is hyperlinked to the specific defamatory words, this might lead to a different conclusion.

So the ruling is fact-specific. Had Newton endorsed the statements in the linked articles, or added his own “color commentary” to them, the result might have been different.

By the way, the issue of whether the original statements in the articles to which Newton linked were, in fact, defamatory has not yet been decided; the trial in Crookes’s lawsuit against Pillings of Open Politics, originally scheduled for October, has been adjourned.

What Result Under U.S. Law?

If Crooke’s lawsuit had been brought in the U.S. under U.S. law, it might have been resolved in Newton’s favor under the provisions of the Communications Decency Act of 1996. Section 230 of the Act says that providers and users of an “interactive service” cannot be held liable “as a publisher or speaker” for “information provided by another information content provider.” Although there does not appear to be any opinion in the U.S. presenting precisely the same facts as those in Crookes v. Wikimedia Foundation, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act has been interpreted very broadly to protect both providers and users of interactive services from liability for defamation and other torts for “information” provided by third parties.

Canadian Court Used as Guidance in U.S.

One reason to care about the ruling of a Canadian court is that a U.S. court might look to a Canadian ruling for guidance on an issue where there is no binding rule under U.S. law. Canada is our close neighbor both geographically and legally — both legal systems have their origins in the English common law system — and it is not unusual to find courts in each system citing one another’s rulings in subjects, such as libel and slander, where there is a common legal heritage.

Wayne Crookes

An example of that can be found in the Crookes v. Wikimedia Foundation ruling itself, where the court quotes extensively from another Canadian court ruling that, in turn, references several rulings of U.S. courts on an issue of defamation liability. So, if a court ruled that a similar lawsuit was not governed by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, it might look to the reasoning in Crookes v. Wikimedia Foundation to decide on the issue of linking as publication.

In fact, the result in Crookes v. Wikimedia Foundation is generally consistent with the result a U.S. court might reach applying Section 230: An online service provider or user is liable for its own statements, but not for the statements of others.

Getting Sued in Canada

Another reason to care about a ruling by a Canadian court is that a U.S. website operator or other service provider might well get sued in Canada by a Canadian plaintiff for allegedly defamatory statements made online, and either be forced to respond in a Canadian court or risk an adverse judgment. In fact, that’s what happened here. Not only has Crookes sued the Wikimedia Foundation, it has also sued Google and Yahoo and other service providers on the grounds that they are responsible for various defamatory statements and articles about Crookes.

Canada does not have a law equivalent to Section 230 that provides a safe harbor from liability for these entities. In that respect, the results in the Crookes litigations against service providers may be critical to the development of Internet liability law in Canada.

Does a Canadian court have the power to hear a defamation lawsuit brought against the operator of a U.S.-based web service provider? In other words, does the Canadian court have jurisdiction in such a case? In Crookes v. Yahoo Inc., a Canadian appeals court upheld the dismissal of Crookes’s claims against Yahoo for lack of jurisdiction, finding that Yahoo has no physical presence in Canada and that Crookes failed to show that allegedly defamatory statements about him posted on the GPC-Members newsgroup hosted by Yahoo had been read by anyone in Canada.

But other rulings by Canadian courts, such as the 2005 ruling in Bangoura v. Washington Post involving a defamation lawsuit brought in Canada against the Washington Post, suggest that a Canadian court would be willing to exercise jurisdiction over a U.S. website operator or other service provider under the right circumstances. That has happened in Australia, in Dow Jones v. Gutnick, where the Australian High Court upheld the exercise of jurisdiction over the Dow Jones Corp. for an online article that allegedly defamed an Australian businessman. (It is unclear whether the other U.S.-based defendants sued by Crookes have, like Yahoo, moved to dismiss on jurisdictional grounds, although Google has an office in Canada which might preclude it from making a motion similar to Yahoo’s.)

One Final Note

Let us suppose that Crookes succeeded in obtaining a judgment against a U.S.-based service provider and sought to enforce that judgment in the U.S. Would a judgment rendered by a court in Canada be enforced by a U.S. court? A U.S. court might reject such a judgment on the basis that the First Amendment affords the speech of U.S. citizens greater protection than does the law of many other nations. To the extent that a judgment issued by a foreign court might violate the First Amendment rights of a U.S.-based defendant, a U.S. court might find that it is against public policy to enforce it. That important issue has been touched on in several U.S. cases but has not yet been answered.

Jeffrey D. Neuburger is a partner in the New York office of Proskauer Rose LLP, and co-chair of the Technology, Media and Communications Practice Group. His practice focuses on technology and media-related business transactions and counseling of clients in the utilization of new media. He is an adjunct professor at Fordham University School of Law teaching E-Commerce Law and the co-author of two books, “Doing Business on the Internet” and “Emerging Technologies and the Law.” He also co-writes the New Media & Technology Law Blog.

After years of banning access to blogs, YouTube and Facebook, it seems the federal government has figured out that maybe that Internet thing isn’t so bad after all. In fact, it might even be useful.

At the annual Government in Technology (GTEC) conference, taking place at the Westin Hotel in downtown Ottawa, federal officials took the wraps off the government’s internal version of the popular online encyclopedia, Wikipedia, which it calls GCpedia.

The service will allow federal employees to post, comment and edit articles placed on GCpedia by their peers.

By doing so, the federal government hopes it can make its processes and decision-making much more transparent. It also allows departments to share information better and catalogue policy developments or new services.

For example, information about climate change policies could be posted and commented on by scientists and bureaucrats from National Resources Canada (NRCan), Environment Canada and Industry Canada. The concept may help break down walls between government departments that have traditionally been stingy when it comes to sharing information.

“This way, not one person owns the information,” said Brian MacLeod, chief information management architect, Canadian public sector, with Open Text Corp. “GCpedia proves that they (government) get it and they are using the tools available.”

Mr. MacLeod was speaking at the conference yesterday about the benefits of collaborative Internet technologies, which are called Web 2.0 technologies. He said to understand the benefits of new social networking technologies, all a person has to do is look at e-mail.

Most messages could easily be posted in a blog, or as short “yes” or “no” responses. Attachments could be shared on a GCpedia-like website, as opposed to blasting it to an entire mailing list, he said.

The worst part about sharing information through e-mail is that most of it gets deleted.

“As people engage in the community, you are capturing it,” said Mr. Macleod. “You can record all of the dialogue, know how it evolved. All of the changes and all of the opinions. You acknowledge that these people exist and you can connect with them.”

Mr. Macleod said adopting Web 2.0 applications will also help the government appeal to younger people, a priority for the aging federal public service.

“When you talk about Generation Y, this is how they think,” said Mr. Macleod. “The culture is changing as a result of all these new technologies coming forward.”

Services such as Napster, Facebook, Myspace and Google were all created by people in their 20s and underscore the “I want it now” mentality of today’s youth.

The federal government is lagging behind other countries that have actively pursued collaborative technologies. In the United States, soldiers are allowed to post blogs allowing their families, friends and casual observers to follow what the soldier is up to on a daily basis. Federal health officials post updates on YouTube, letting people know about disease outbreaks. Ontario has used Second Life, an online virtual world, to recruit new public servants.

GCpedia emerged from an obscure National Resources Canada initiative called the NRCan Wiki. The department created the Wiki a year ago to better network its 5,000 employees. To date more than 1,900 are actively using the service.

“It’s not just about gathering information, it’s about collaborating,” said Marj Akerley, chief information officer of NRCan. “Anyone coast to coast can contribute, we don’t have to have meetings where we all get together and brainstorm.”

Ms. Akerley said the NRCan Wiki worked so well that Treasury Board decided to use it as a template for a government wide version, which they called the GCpedia.

Still, it may be a while before GCpedia, or something like it, is opened up to all Canadians to allow them to comment and debate on federal government policies and initiatives.

“We have to walk before we run,” Ms. Akerley said. “It is a culture change. People are very risk-averse within the government of Canada.”

kNow Note:  Thanks for the tip Brigitte

By Nate Anderson | Published: October 20, 2008 – 11:49AM CT

Rural Canadians in New Brunswick, the sorts of folks who have to suffer in silence with dial-up or satellite Internet service, are being discriminated against. That’s the charge made by Progressive Conservative candidate Jack Carr, who is fighting for a spot in the local assembly representing New Maryland-Sunbury West. With two weeks to go before the November 3 election, Carr has filed a complaint with the New Brunswick Human Rights Commission over the lack of high-speed broadband available to some rural residents.

Bald-faced PR move? Probably. The New Brunswick government has already committed to getting everyone in the province access to broadband by 2010, satellite Internet is available (though costly and latency-prone) now, and Canada has had no cases establishing broadband access as a “human right.”

New Brunswick’s provincial Human Rights Act spells out 14 areas in which a complaint can be brought—race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, place of origin, age, physical or mental disability, marital status, sexual orientation, sex, social condition, and political belief. The law notes that “ignorance, forgetfulness, or contempt of the rights of others are often the causes of public miseries and social disadvantage,” and what could cause more misery than using dial-up, right?

Jack Carr cares
about YOUR Internet!

Carr is apparently targeting the “place of origin” rule with his complaint, arguing that slow Internet and high prices are discrimination against more rural residents of his riding. Newspapers in Canada have begun to pick up the story, which has spawned the inevitable comment-section arguments about the idea of broadband as a human right. Those who have read Ars forum discussions on the issue already know how these will play out:

• Someone tells rural residents they should just move to the city or suck it up
• Someone else notes argues that living in the sticks should not cut one off from the premier communications tool of our era
• A third poster points out that satellite is available, and don’t “cry me a river” about the lag and price
• A fourth describes how she personally installed a point-to-point microwave link at her remote cabin and wonders why the rest of you idiots can’t do the same?

The Human Rights Commission appears unlikely to act on Carr’s complaint, and local Liberal politicians are incensed that he’s making an issue of rural broadband connectivity after years of Conservative control of local government.

But the fact that Carr thinks such a complaint might help him in November (or, for the less cynical among us, that it might help get rural residents some better broadband) shows just how potent the broadband issue has become. In less than a decade, high-speed Internet access has progressed from a luxury to (something approaching) a necessity or at least a public utility like water and sewage. We’ve seen this in numerous US cases, too, where towns and cities across the country have attempted to roll out their own utility-style broadband model with the goal of universal service and low costs. Most recently, we covered the saga of Monticello, Minnesota, which just won a court battle to install a city-owned fiber-to-the-home network after explicitly comparing it to other public utilities.

Calling it a “human right” seems a bit silly and likely to trivialize real human rights problems, but a sense of the Internet as a necessary social resource appears to be growing. And, while such an idea may seem strange or frivolous to some, it has a long pedigree in developed countries, where telephone service is generally made available to everyone in the country, no matter their location.

Is it just a matter of time before broadband gains similar public support?

Further reading:

• New Brunswick Human Rights Commission
• The CBC’s recent story on the complaint
• The Daily Gleaner also has coverage

May 22, 2008 11:28

The concept of a new global culture is part of a report done by IDC Canada and commissioned by Nortel in which 2,400 working adults in 17 nations were asked about the technology they use.

The report provides a glimpse of a new kind of person, who crosses all borders and all cultures and is driven by tech.

Sixteen per cent fall into the super-connected category. These people use at least seven devices  — i.e., a laptop, cell phone, desktop computer, GPS unit — and they use at least nine applications, such as Facebook, Skype, Second Life, blogs or Twitter.

Is this sounding like your life?

Another 36 per cent are just a few steps behind the super-connected. For over a year now, Nortel has taken the marketing position that the world is moving to hyper connectivity. They wanted IDC to do some research and John Roese, Nortel’s CTO, says the results show it’s happening even faster than expected.

Most of the super-connected are in China, with high numbers also found in the United States and Russia. Canada — which likes to think of itself as a wired nation — tied for last place with the United Arab Emirates in terms of how much we actually use the technology.

Most of the super-users are under the age of 35 and the study says that as the next generation — one that grew up with tech — enters the workplace, they’ll want all the tools they know and love.

Thirty-five per cent of those questioned feel technology helps them balance work and home life; 21 per cent said it makes the balance more difficult.

Overall, the study concluded that the technology is blurring the line between work and home. IDC senior VP Vito Marbrucco told me there is no indication that we have reached the limit on how much technology we can handle.

What this means for employers is that they have to look hard at implementing the latest telecomm tech or they may find potential new employees looking elsewhere.

Is this just marketing hype? IDC stands by the credibility of the study, but the survey certainly plays to Nortel’s strengths. The report goes as far as suggesting companies need to buy what Nortel is offering in order to be successful.

At the same time the report is a quick and direct summary of many of the key issues now swirling in the tech world, for both users and for companies.

September 11, 2008 02:49

The kids are back at school and the laptops, cellphones, iPods, MSN, text messaging and every other form of technology are all  getting a real workout from the younger generation.

A feeling for just how important technology is to young people comes via a survey done by a group of high school students in Ottawa. Under the guidance of teacher Robin McAteer at Sir Robert Borden High School, students devised, executed and tallied a survey of their peers.

Here are some survey highlights:

• Seventy-three per cent of teens own their own computer; 63 per cent own a cellphone; 41 per cent a web cam; 86 per cent an MP3 player.

• On the Internet, the top five daily activities — and they are done in almost equal amounts — are: e-mail, instant messaging, music, social networking sites and work.

• On average, kids spend close to three hours a day on the Internet.

• Eighty per cent of them use social networking sites and share a lot of personal information but they still feel safe; 37 per cent of them have 200 or more friends on their social networking site.

• Most teens feel “pretty safe” on the Internet and see it as a social, friendly, entertaining place to go.

You can check out the full report at cyberbully.pbwiki.com.

McAteer says young people live their lives on the Internet and their parents, for the most part, work on the Internet. Yet there is no doubt, she adds, that there is a digital gap between generations: 68 per cent of surveyed teens said they never or seldom talk to parents about the Internet.

Her advice is to get involved and the best way to do that is to admit to your kids that you are not the savviest person online, and that they teach you about what they do.

You might be amazed at how much your kids want to be your guide to the Internet. It may be a time when technology opens up a whole new real-life conversation between you and your children.

Press Release Source: HP Canada

Generational Divide: Age Matters When It Comes to Small Business Owners’ Attitudes Toward Office Technology

Friday October 3, 7:00 am ET

<< New research from HP Canada uncovers generational differences among small business owners when it comes to how they learn about, purchase and use office technology >>

MISSISSAUGA, ON, Oct. 3 /CNW/ – Forget the instruction manual. Generation Y entrepreneurs prefer to take a “do it yourself” attitude when learning how to use new technology. This is just one of the generational differences among small business owners uncovered in new research released today by HP Canada.

ADVERTISEMENT

click here

When it comes to learning how to use technology, 46 per cent of entrepreneurs under the age of 30 (Gen Y) are most likely to “just try to figure it out themselves.” On the other hand, small business owners aged 62 years and over (Veterans) prefer to read a manual or talk to friends or family; only 26 per cent of this group say they learn how to use new technology on their own.

“HP’s survey unveils some interesting differences – and similarities – among small business owners based on age,” said Dr. Linda Duxbury, professor, Carleton University School of Business, Ottawa. “From how they learn about technology to what technologies are considered critical, each generation is motivated by different factors in terms of how they view technology. Vendors selling to this market must be cognizant of these differences in order to be successful in meeting the needs of these customers.”

The results of the survey, which was conducted by Ipsos Reid for HP Canada, did unveil some similarities between generations. According to the survey, 63 per cent of small business owners say they are very “confident” that they are using the right type of computer (desktop, laptop, workstation, etc.) for their business. When it comes to purchasing new technology, 94 per cent said speed is an important feature when it comes to making technology purchasing decisions, ahead of a product’s security features (88 per cent) and energy efficiency (75 per cent).

“HP is committed to providing small business customers with the technology, services and online resources that help them be as successful and capable as any competitor, big or small,” said Jean-Paul Desmarais, senior marketing manager, Business Printing, HP Canada. “We commissioned this research as a way to gain insight into whether age matters when it comes to our customers’ attitudes toward how they learn about, purchase and use technology in their businesses. The results show that there are some distinct differences in attitude based on age.”

The following are the top five generational differences uncovered by the survey. For the survey, generations are defined as the following: Gen Y (under age 30); Gen X (aged 30 to 42); Baby Boomers (aged 42 to 61); and Veterans (age 62 or older).

   1. Perception of “critical technology” for their business

   ———————————————————

   The results indicate that the importance of fixed computers and

printer/copiers increases according to the age of the respondent, while the

importance of laptops and handheld devices decreases with that age. Baby

Boomers and Veterans are more likely to insist that it is a priority to spend

their technology budget on desktops or PCs and printers or copiers, rather

than wireless technology.

   According to the survey, Boomers prefer traditional devices such as fixed

computers as opposed to laptop computers. Boomers (84 per cent) say that fixed

computers are critical to their business compared to just 65 per cent of Gen Y

respondents. Instead, Gen Y entrepreneurs (55 per cent) say laptops are

critical to their business, while only 46 per cent of those aged 43 and older

agree with this position.

   2. How small business owners use the Internet

   ———————————————

   When it comes to deciding which technologies to purchase, Gen X does their

homework before buying. The survey indicates that 41 per cent of Gen X conduct

research online and read online reviews. Similarly, 39 per cent of Gen X say

they use the Internet to find online marketing tools that help them develop

their own marketing collateral. Only 25 per cent of Veterans use the Internet

to find online marketing resources to help them develop their own marketing

collateral.

    3. Spending priorities when it comes to technology

    ————————————————–

   When it comes to their technology budget, the priority given to mobility

decreases with the age of the respondent. For instance, 32 per cent of Gen Y

say that mobile technology is a priority in terms of how they spend their

technology budget. In comparison, 18 per cent of Gen X, 10 per cent of Boomers

and only 8 per cent of Veterans give priority to mobile technology.

   4. What features are important when deciding to purchase new technology

   ———————————————————————–

   Gen Y (75 per cent) are more likely than Gen X (72 per cent) or Boomers

(68 per cent) to say that the technology’s footprint (size) is an important

consideration when buying technology products. Interestingly, brand is more

important to Veterans (64 per cent) than it is to Boomers (60 per cent), Gen X

(57 per cent) or Gen Y (55 per cent).

   5. How they learn to use new technology

   —————————————

   When it comes to learning how to use technology, older small business

owners are much more likely to read the manual, with 34 per cent of Veterans

admitting that they prefer to learn in this way. Only 19 per cent of Gen Y

read the manual.

“This survey brought some interesting insights into the influence age has on a small business owner’s attitudes and perceptions towards technology,” said Michael McAvoy, Director, Small and Mid-Sized Business, HP Canada. “HP is a global organization that believes simplifying technology is key when tailoring products, solutions and services to the SMB space. Our goal is to continue to provide a seamless, simple and comprehensive package to small businesses including reliable technologies, superior customer support and a global ecosystem of partners.”

About Ipsos Reid

Ipsos Reid is Canada’s market intelligence leader and the country’s leading provider of public opinion research. With operations in eight cities, Ipsos Reid employs more than 300 research professionals and support staff in Canada. The company has the biggest network of telephone call centers in Canada, as well as the largest prerecruited household and online panels. Ipsos Reid’s Canadian marketing research and public affairs practices are staffed with seasoned research consultants with extensive industry-specific backgrounds, offering the premier suite of research vehicles in Canada – including the Ipsos Trend Report, the leading source of public opinion in the country – all of which provide clients with actionable and relevant information. Ipsos Reid is an Ipsos company, a leading global survey-based market research group. To learn more, visit www.ipsos.ca.

About HP

HP, the world’s largest technology company, provides printing and personal computing products and IT services, software and solutions that simplify the technology experience for consumers and businesses. HP completed its acquisition of EDS on Aug. 26, 2008. More information about HP (NYSE: HPQ – News) is available at http://www.hp.com/.

   (1) Survey methodology: These are the findings of an Ipsos Reid poll

   conducted on behalf of HP from Sept. 3 to Sept. 10, 2008. This online

   survey of 1,000 Canadian small business owners and operators was

   conducted via the Ipsos I-Say Online Panel, Ipsos Reid’s national online

   panel. The results are based on a sample where quota sampling and

   weighting are employed to balance demographics and ensure that the

   sample’s composition reflects that of the actual Canadian population

   according to census data. Quota samples with weighting from the Ipsos

   online panel provide results that are intended to approximate a

   probability sample. An unweighted probability sample of this size, with a

   100 per cent response rate, would have an estimated margin of error of

   +/- 3.1 per centage points, 19 times out of 20.

   (C) 2008 Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. The information

   contained herein is subject to change without notice. HP shall not be

   liable for technical or editorial errors or omissions contained herein.

For further information

    Editorial contacts: Caroline Hester, HP Canada, (905) 206-4301, Caroline.hester@hp.com

    Michelle Mullins, Hill & Knowlton for HP, (416) 413-4656, michelle.mullins@hillandknowlton.ca

    Hewlett-Packard Company, 5150 Spectrum Way, Mississauga, ON, L4W 5G1, www.hp.ca

Source: HP Canada

Globalive is aiming for 1.5 million subscribers in its first three years.Globalive is aiming for 1.5 million subscribers in its first three years. (Manu Fernandez/Associated Press)

More cellphone competition is on the way as Globalive Communications Inc. is aiming to have Canada’s fourth national wireless service up and running in the second half of 2009.

The Toronto-based company made the announcement on Thursday after spending $442 million on wireless spectrum licences across the country — except Quebec — in a government auction earlier this summer. Auction participants had been under a gag order since bidding ended in late July and were prohibited from speaking to each other or from sharing their plans with the public until Thursday.

read more…