Or we could just call it SkyNet.

Everybody - thanks, I like a lively discussion. If you are interested, I wrote an article for the IAPP (International Association of Privacy Professionals) examining the decision: https://iapp.org/news/a/canada...

This is an important decision for both Canada and the US. The current government has two bills (proposed laws) in front of Parliamentary committees this week where, over the consistent objections of the Canadian privacy community, they planned to _expand_ warrantless searches. And then this decision comes along - thank heavens - and our Supreme Court says that there has to be a subpoena, or a reasonable law, before the right to anonymity - get that, the right to anonymity!- can be overridden. The 'reasonable' law bit is a shot directed right at the current government. The Senate committee dealing with one of these bills has already said it will have to review their approval of the bill. No one thinks that the police won't have some kind of lawful access - but reasonable for us has always meant with judicial oversight, and transparency - and that there is accountability for making these requests for personal information. This decision is important for Canadians, because it pulls us back from the surveillance state our current government has been building.

At the minimum, it is going to make the True North a great place for Americans to host their data - we have the competitive advantage when it comes to privacy. If we are really lucky, it may remind the US about this fantastic document, something inspiring to the whole world, called the Bill of Rights, and which recent US governments have been happy to ignore. Perhaps your neighbour to the north can remind you of what you were always supposed to be about...

This has provoke a rambling response from me; I am hoping as I write this that it makes sense, and is useful as interpretation of what is an interesting relationship between lawyers and techies. I am a lawyer, and practiced law for over ten years before leaving to become -- a consultant. (No jokes, puleeze -- I've heard them all). Now I advise legal organizations on implementing technology. (And if you wonder why I left, I will tell you why at the bottom of this note; it will make more sense then.)

I agree with the comment that techies don't often understand legal issues; their view is quaintly, what _ought to be_ rather than _what is_. I also feel that while techies often profess cynicism, they really are idealists; how else could open source really work? Idealism and the law collide (I can personally attest to this); law is really the art of the doable.

But more importantly, techies are guilty of the same thing that people in business generally are: they aren't proactive. (I feel comfortable in saying this, as I advised a lot of smaller developers). No one wants to go see a lawyer, to write up one's licence agreement properly, or to ensure that the bases are covered to avoid liability with the things that are said and done on the internet, or to protect one's intellectual property properly. This costs money. And more often than not, it is this "penny wise, pound foolishness" that brought most litigants to my door to sue someone: they simply had not spent the money to retain a lawyer to protect themselves adequately at the start, or did it on the cheap by "using" the same lawyer as the prospetive investor (who is going to protect their client's interests, not the developer's), or they went to a generalist (read: cheap lawyer) who was not equipped to deal with software-related issues. Worst of all is the client who thinks that they are a lawyer: they copy the text of agreements others have drafted without understanding why it is there. Old saying: If you act for yourself, you have a fool for a lawyer and a fool for a client.

Techies, and laypeople in general, have a tendency to not be proactive. The consequence is that they hate lawyers. Why? Because the problem that they initially created by not getting legal advice, is now transferred to the lawyer, who may or may not be able to rescue the client from the consequences. The law, as someone else here has pointed out, does not always keep pace with technology. And it always costs more money to fix than to do right from the beginning.

Lawyers are also disliked because they have a tendency to mystify their profession with jargon, which creates a barrier for understanding. Lawyers are like shaman; feared and hated for their power, their incantations which can cause the system to help them or harm them. Does this sound familiar?

As to what techies should do about lawyers:

I always believed that a lawyer was not only his/her client's advocate, but also a teacher about the law, to help demysify it. A lawyer as well has a duty to engage his/her client in an ethical conversation regarding the matter that the lawyer had been asked to deal with. If you want that, and are not getting that, then become an educated consumer -- go find someone who understands your business, and the way you go about it.

Techies are sadly lacking in knowledge about alternative dispute resolution (ADR). After a few years of litigating disputes that involved technology, and watching what judges did with them, I became a fervent believer in ADR. You get to pick a specialist as a judge, you can do it online or by videoconference, and it is a lot friendlier and more in keeping with the philosophy of the open source movement. By simply including ADR clauses in their contracts, techies could design a far more effective means to resolve disputes which makes sense and is more responsive to the changing technology. Why wait for the governments to draw up the rules of the game--any contract is the law between the parties who agree to it.

However, the sad truth is that when technology-based businesses grew beyond a certain point, they all go to the bigger firms which promote the same old viewpoints; staying with a sole practitioner doesn't give them the same reputation as going with the bigger law firms. So, after being abandoned by yet one more techie whom I had weened along, investing more time in them than I had billed, I became frustrated with legal practice, and I jumped when the opportunity presented itself.

Moral of the story: (1) Find a lawyer that understands you and your business, and explains as they go along. (2) Stick with them; loyalty is a two-way street.