Common Law Students with Disabilities: Accommodation Concerns, Insights, and Recommendations June 2013 The Centre for Equity and Human Rights (CEHR), & the Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa,

Common Law Students with Disabilities:
Accommodation Concerns, Insights, and Recommendations
June 2013
The Centre for Equity and Human Rights (CEHR), a Student Federation service, is attentive to ensure that
differences among students are not treated in ways that produce direct or indirect forms of
discrimination. Our work predominantly entails matters related to the Ontario Human Rights Code. Our
Commitment to students requires that CEHR works in full compliance with the spirit and intent of the
Ontario Human Rights Commission and provisions of the Ontario Human Rights Code.
Purpose:
The Centre demonstrates its strong commitment to the betterment of our campus by our resolve to
engage in information sharing in hope to prevent human rights complaints on campus. Upon receipt of
comparable complaints within a department and/or an identified potential systemic concern (for
example: identified policy, procedure, or normative practice leaving a group of individuals at a
disadvantage), CEHR normatively informs numerous persons in authority including Deans, Vice Deans,
and/or Program Directors in hope that the identified potential barriers will be examined and redressed if
warranted.
The purpose of this document is to inform the Faculty of Law, Common Law Section, of students’
expressed concerns regarding their experience of navigating their disability related accommodation
requests and associated appeals. The vast majority of CEHR formal or informal cases occurring within
the Common Law section of the Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, are reported to pertain to the
prohibited ground disability.
It is our hope that, after reading this document, the Faculty of Law, Common Law Section will examine
their accommodation practices, policies, procedures and verify the expressed concerns as outlined
below and address promptly identified barriers if justified.
The Duty to Accommodate Students with Disabilities
Post-secondary institutions including law schools and bar admission programs have an obligation to
provide appropriate accommodation for students who have disabilities.1
The Ontario Human Rights
1
Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC), Guidelines on Accessible Education (September 2004), in “Scope of
Application”, under “Duty to accommodate disability”, available online at www.ohrc.on.ca2
Commission “reaffirms the right of students with disabilities to full participation and integration [within
an accessible post-secondary] education system”.
2
In order to “face the same duties and requirements as everyone else with dignity and without
impediment”, the provision of the appropriate accommodations ensures that students with disabilities
have equal opportunities in their educational settings.
3
Identified Barriers:
Case management has led the Centre to identify several recurring barriers in Common Law students’
allegations of discrimination: Accommodation Process; Examinations Committee Appeal Decisions –
Contextual Consideration of Accommodation Complaints; and Rejection of Consultation Requests with
Upper Management.
Accommodation Process:
The Ontario Human Rights Commission states that, “Information [note: including medical information]
should be disclosed to the accommodation provider only as it pertains to the need for accommodation
and any restrictions or limitations. Documentation supporting the need for a particular accommodation
should be provided only to those who need to be aware of the information. […] Disclosure to faculty or
staff of the post-secondary institution should be on a need-to-know basis only, and at the choice of the
student.”4
The Centre advances that confidentiality of medical information is an important consideration for the
Faculty of Law if undertaking an examination of the Common Law Section accommodation process.
Access Services has the objective of ensuring optimal learning conditions to provide a student who has a
disability or a bona fide medical condition with an equal opportunity to demonstrate their academic
mastery and competencies and ultimately achieve their academic and professional goals.
Normative practice dictates that University of Ottawa students, who have a disability and require
accommodations measures, register with Access Services. Once registered with Access Services, a
Learning Specialist obtains pertinent confidential medical documentation delineating functional
limitations. Based on medical documentation the Learning Specialist develops an individualized
accommodation plan, in collaboration with the student. The accommodation plan describes appropriate
adaptive measures and supports needed, to ensure that the student is provided with an equal
opportunity to succeed within the academic setting. It is our understanding that throughout this
2
OHRC, The Opportunity to Succeed: Achieving Barrier-free Education for Students with Disabilities Consultation
Report, (October 2003) under “Human rights law and policy in Ontario”, available online at www.ohrc.on.ca
3
OHRC, Policy and Guidelines on Disability and the Duty to Accommodate (March 2001), under “4.1.3 Integration
and full participation” and “4.3 Most appropriate accommodation”, available online at www.ohrc.on.ca
4
OHRC, The Opportunity to Succeed, under “Post-secondary education” 3
process, as per best practices identified by the Ontario Human Rights Commission,5
Access Services
adheres to the provision of accommodation with dignity, which includes the individual’s own
participation in the process. Access Services safeguards all confidential medical documentation
(including diagnosis) leading to the identification and development of needed adaptive measures. Solely
information pertaining to a student’s adaptive measures and supports is shared with the individual or
service providing the accommodation (not one’s diagnosis).
Distinctively the University of Ottawa’s Common Law Section manages accommodations in a somewhat
different fashion. From our understanding, students who have documented disabilities and seek
accommodations are required to meet with the Faculty’s Equity and Academic Success Manager (the
“Manager”). In reading the Common Law Section Student Services website, one understands that while
students may choose to or not to register with Access Services, all students seeking accommodations
should meet with the Manager.6
Case management informs our Centre that this practice can incite
students to coordinate their accommodations solely with the Faculty of Law, and as such provide
detailed medical documentation directly to the Faculty. Further, even though students are duly
registered with Access Services they may still provide additional medical documentation directly to the
Faculty, whereas normative practices would suggest continued involvement of Access Services to clarify
requests as needed. Certainly, the guidelines do not convey to students the important role Access
Services can play in the accommodation process.
In principle, the idea of having one Office within the Faculty of Law, whose objective is to coordinate
accommodations via specialized personnel, is sound. However, the decision to accept or deny a request
for accommodation including for example the request for deferrals, extensions, or excused absences can
necessitate that the Manager bring forth students’ requests to the attention of the Assistant Dean,
Academic Affairs. Though the Faculty has the responsibility to approve or deny leave of absence
requests, case management informs our Centre that at times confidential medical documentation
unrelated to a student’s accommodation plan was requested and in certain cases was shared with the
Assistant Dean, Academic Affairs. The additional medical information requested may not be pertinent
to the duty to accommodate the student where adaptive measures and supports are already identified
by Access Services.
Another concern brought to the Centre’s attention is that a student’s medical documentation is often
placed in their academic file. To the contrary and as noted above, Access Services Learning Specialists or
the student exclusively provides information pertaining to the student’s adaptive measures and
supports to the attention of the individual or service providing the accommodation (no diagnosis
provided and substantive documentation is secured). Further, a student registered with Access Services
can rest assured that their confidential medical documentation will be appropriately housed within this
service (not within their academic file).
5
OHRC, Guidelines on Accessible Education, under “Principles of accommodation”
6
University of Ottawa Faculty of Law, Common Law Section, “Long term disability or medical condition”, last
modified December 15th, 2009, http://www.commonlaw.uottawa.ca/en/student-services/equity-and-academicsuccess/long-term-disability-or-medical-condition.html4
As such, past cases demonstrate that accommodation requests brought to the attention of the Assistant
Dean, Academic Assistant, can lead this authority to: request additional medical documentation without
delineating the need for specific accommodation related information; deny sought accommodations by
simply stating that medical documentation provided is not sufficient regardless of a student being
registered in the above-noted service or services (Equity and Academic Success Service; Access Services)
where medical documentation is appropriately housed; or deny sought accommodations without
seeking further clarification. Each of these practices can lead to medical disclosures that are not
relatable to a student’s accommodation including providing one’s diagnosis.
Unfortunately, some still regard academic accommodations as lowering standards or favouritism. Case
management informs CEHR that this is especially the case for students with invisible disabilities. A
Faculty’s access to confidential medical documentation, especially if it is placed in a student’s academic
file, can lead to perceived or real bias and discrimination. The Commission notes that students with
disabilities continue to face negative attitudes and stereotypes in the post-secondary system.7
Lack of
knowledge about and sensitivity to disability issues on the part of individuals in a position of authority,
professors, staff and students can make it difficult for students with disabilities to access educational
services equally. Students expressed to CEHR feeling that the need to either navigate and/or continually
justify their accommodation needs led to tangible difficulties with coordination and communication with
the appropriate decisional authorities when postulating their accommodation requests.
The Centre respectfully advances that the Common Law Section’s long term accommodation procedures
as practiced should be revised as there is a potential to mistakenly associate the request for
accommodation with further disclosure of unrelated medical information. In fact, the Centre would
advance that within her role as Manager, Jessica Simon should have the authority to assess the validity
of a students’ request for accommodation based on medical documentation provided to her or
information provided by Access Services, and, in accordance with the identified adaptive needs,
coordinate with professors or advance the request for deferrals, extensions, and excused absence for
Faculty approval. Noting that it is the Manager that strikes an accommodation agreement on behalf of
the students, the Manager’s expertise should inform the Faculty of a valid request leaving the Faculty to
accept or deny the request. In our opinion, this student-identified procedural limitation needs to be
redressed.
In addition, it would be important to ensure students’ academic files do not contain confidential medical
documentation or any other accommodation related information, whether students in question are
registered with Access Services or not.
Case management also informs our Centre of the importance for all professorial and administrative staff
to know to refer students to the Equity and Academic Success Manager whenever they express difficulty
meeting program requirements for medical reasons. Whenever professors or staff members are
concerned with a student’s expressed well-being, this concern should be shared with the student along
with a referral to the Manager. University of Ottawa Regulation 9.5 (Justification of absence from an
examination or of late submission of assignments) ensures students are not penalized when unable to
7
OHRC, Guidelines on Accessible Education, in “Principles of accommodation”, under “Step 2: Removing barriers”5
complete examinations or assignments namely due to medical conditions. It is also important that
students are informed of options available to them to ensure they are not held to continue meeting
their academic obligations when their health prevents them from doing so.
As such, the Centre recommends all students seeking adaptive measures be referred to register with
Access Services and that confidential medical documentation including their diagnosis is appropriately
housed within this service. As well, CEHR recommends that the Faculty of Law, Common Law Section
institutes and communicates to staff and faculty confidentiality guidelines with respect to students with
disabilities, as well as directives on the importance to connect students to the Manager should it
become apparent that their health prevents them from meeting requirements.
Examinations Committee Appeal Decisions and other Committees – Contextual Consideration of
Accommodation Complaints
The Ontario Human Rights Commission states that the prevention and removal of barriers means
persons with disabilities should be able to access their environment and face the same duties and
requirements as everyone else with dignity and without impediment. 8
The Commission also
recommends prompt resolutions to disputes, should they arise.
9
However, case management informs the Centre that the Examinations Committee decisions often
demonstrate an unwillingness to contextualize appeals based on the infringement of disability-related
adaptive measures within a human rights scope. The Centre respectfully advances that the
Examinations Committee often offers little consideration of disability issues imbedded within disability
related appeals brought before it. Further, it is our observation that the majority of the Common Law
Section’s Examinations Committee’s unfavourable decisions in these matters are redressed by the
Senate Appeal Committee when brought at this higher level of appeal.
Similarly, the Student Appeal Centre, a Student Federation service, shares:
“From the Student Appeal Centre perspective we found that many situations which would be handled
informally in other faculties, including the Droit Civil Section, could not be resolved in a similar manner in
the Common Law Section. As a result, students must go through the Examinations Committee for
consideration engaging them in a long and formal process. The decisions rendered by the Examinations
Committee often provide very little or no grounds. Furthermore, we have seen students whose appeals
were denied despite submitting valid medical documentation within the deadlines prescribed by
university regulations. In one case, the Committee requested medical documentation even though no
medical grounds were claimed by the student. In another, academic regulations were imposed strictly
without mention of the student's medical documentation. This lack of consideration forces students to
appeal to the Senate Appeals Committee, should they want their matter resolved, hence delaying the
process even further.”
8
OHRC, Policy on Disability, under “4.1.3 Integration and full participation”
9
OHRC, Guidelines on accessible education, in “Accommodation process” under “Dispute resolution”6
Mireille Gervais, Director, Student Appeal Centre, SFUO, statement provided May 26th, 2013
In agreement with the Student Appeal Centre, the Centre has found that the Common Law Section
appeal process is cumbersome for students with disabilities who often bear the burden of providing
unnecessary additional medical documentation despite being registered with the Faculty’s Equity and
Academic Success Service and/or Access Services. In addition, the Examinations Committee often
appears to discount pertinent accommodation related information when students are advancing
disability related appeals. Seeing as the Examinations Committee rejected all disability-related appeals
witnessed by our Centre, and that the majority of the appeals were granted at least in part when
brought to the Senate Appeals Committee, our Centre is concerned that some of the Examinations
Committee’s members might regard academic accommodations as lowering standards.
The Commission informs us that dispute resolution procedures for accommodation requests should
comply with the Code.10 The Centre is of the opinion that refusal to consider the lack of provision of
accommodation during an appeal process can perpetuate the experience of discrimination. As such, it is
important that all Common Law Section committees with decisional powers (namely the Examinations
or the Readmission Committee) consider pertinent disability related complaints within the scope of a
student appeal. Without fair consideration, decisions rendered by Committees can in and of themselves
leave the University proper liable. Case management also informs us that expulsion/readmission
policies can also be rigidly applied without taking into account a student’s individual circumstances.
As such, the Centre recommends that the Faculty of Law, Common Law Section examine appeal related
practices and develop and implement where warranted a fair dispute resolution procedure that ensures
compliance with the Code and the Commission’s Disability Policy, as well as the Opportunity to Succeed
consultation report and Guidelines on accessible education.
Rejection of Consultation Requests with Upper Management
The Common Law Section had recently announced the appointment of Nathalie Des Rosiers as Dean of
the Faculty of Law, Common Law Section, effective July 1, 2013.
In light of this new appointment, it is our hope that the Common Law Section will welcome the
opportunity to consult with students with disabilities including their representatives upon request.
CEHR strongly believes that it is to our advantage to work together to redress tangible identified
barriers. Students report that the refusal to grant accommodations, or the application of academic
regulations without consideration of their disability-related needs, can have considerable implications
for their academic life and financial situation.
10 OHRC, The Opportunity to Succeed, in “Appendix A: Summary of actions required” under “Post-Secondary
Institutions”7
Though not intentionally, past refusals of requests to meet a student with a disability to discuss their
concerns can indicate a disinterest in considering the perspectives and concerns of students with
disabilities.
CEHR recommends that at all levels, the Faculty of Law, Common Law Section examines the broader
context in which discrimination can occur including redressing the practice to deny meeting with a
student to discuss their disability related concerns if warranted.
In Conclusion:
CEHR will continue to demonstrate our strong commitment to the betterment of our campus by our
resolve to engage in fruitful discussions to advance our concerns, many of which are shared with the
Student Appeal Centre.
It is our hope that the Common Law Section will examine the practices, policies, procedures identified as
being problematic by students with disabilities, and do that which is necessary to redress all verified
concerns where necessary.

Privacy Commissioner stresses significance of online reputation and business accountability in digital age.

Privacy Commissioner stresses significance of online reputation and business accountability in digital age

Annual report tells tales of rental laptops that spied on users, the response to a teen smeared by a social network imposter and a dating site that left sensitive health data vulnerable.
Ottawa, June 6, 2013 — Privacy Commissioner Jennifer Stoddart today released the Office of the Privacy Commissioner’s (OPC) annual report on the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) for 2012, which details investigations affecting individual online reputation and the growing importance of organizational accountability.  This is the Commissioner’s last PIPEDA annual report before the end of her mandate and it underlines the need for changes to the law to bring it up to speed with today’s rapidly changing, digitally driven times.
“As in previous years, our annual report outlines some significant achievements as investigations led to improved privacy practices among businesses,” said Commissioner Stoddart. “Such changes, however, often came only after long investigative and follow-up processes, and therefore at significant costs. Canadians would be better served by a law that motivates organizations to put privacy considerations up front, rather than the current situation where we’re left to trigger a mop-up after privacy is violated.”

Leering laptops

The report details the outcome of a Commissioner-initiated complaint against a Canadian franchisee of rent-to-own company Aaron’s Inc. “Detective Mode” software was installed onto its rented laptops, enabling the collection of data, including key strokes, screen shots and web cam photos without user knowledge.
While installing the software was intended to recover lost or stolen laptops, the OPC found that the extreme measure wasn’t justified, given the egregious and disproportionate loss of privacy for its clients. The franchisee agreed to delete what the software collected, and the company committed to never again using this type of tool.   

Facebook fakery

This year’s report also includes the story of a teen whose reputation was imperiled by a fake Facebook account being set up in her name. She was not a Facebook member, but many of her real life friends were. They “friended” the impostor account and then received a barrage of inappropriate comments.
The teen’s mother complained to the OPC and demanded Facebook delete the account.  Upon determining the account was indeed a fake, the company promptly deleted it.  The teen’s reputation though remained at risk as those who had been “friended” by the account were not notified of it being a fake.   As a result following negotiations with the OPC, Facebook agreed to implement a new process moving forward to help non-users notify individuals “friended” by imposter accounts.

Information on singles with STDs unprotected

The report also details our investigation into complaints by members of a dating web site for people with sexually transmitted diseases called PositiveSingles.com.  They alleged that, unbeknownst to them, their profiles, including personal information detailing their individual health status, were stored in a database accessible by a wider network of affiliated sites.
The investigation concluded that PositiveSingles and its parent company, SuccessfulMatch, failed to openly and clearly explain to prospective members how and to whom their personal information would be visible and disclosed. SuccessfulMatch then made changes to the web site to make its information handling practices more transparent, including informing prospective members of the broad visibility of profiles at the point of registration.
Overall, 2012 saw 220 complaints accepted by the OPC, down from 281 the previous year. The OPC also completed 145 formal investigations in 2012, marking a 21-percent increase from the year before, while also realising a 12-percent reduction in the time it took to resolve formal investigations.

About the OPC

The Privacy Commissioner of Canada is mandated by Parliament to act as an ombudsman and guardian of privacy in Canada. The Commissioner enforces two federal laws for the protection of personal information: the Privacy Act, which applies to the federal public sector; and the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA), which applies to organizations engaged in commercial activities in the Atlantic provinces, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and the Territories. Quebec, Alberta and British Columbia each has its own law covering the private sector. Even in these provinces, PIPEDA continues to apply to the federally regulated private sector and to personal information in interprovincial and international transactions.

- 30 -

For more information (media only), please contact:
Scott Hutchinson
Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
 

News ReleaseData protection authorities urge Google to address Google Glass concerns Privacy Commissioner of Canada

News Release

Data protection authorities urge Google to address Google Glass concerns

Ottawa, June 18, 2013 — Privacy Commissioner of Canada Jennifer Stoddart and 36 of her  provincial and international counterparts have issued a joint letter urging Google Inc. to respond to questions and concerns related to Google Glass, the company’s new Internet-connected glasses.
“Google Glass raises significant privacy issues and it is disappointing that Google has not engaged more meaningfully with data protection authorities about this technology.  We are urging Google to take part in a real dialogue with us about Google Glass,” says Commissioner Stoddart.
The letter is as follows:
Mr. Larry Page
Chief Executive Officer
Google Inc.
1600 Amphitheatre Parkway
Mountain View, California
USA   94043
Dear Mr. Page:
We are writing to you as data protection authorities to raise questions from a privacy perspective about the development of Google Glass, a type of wearable computing in the form of glasses¹, which is currently in beta testing and not yet available to the general public.
As you have undoubtedly noticed, Google Glass has been the subject of many articles that have raised concerns about the obvious, and perhaps less obvious, privacy implications of a device that can be worn by an individual and used to film and record audio of other people.  Fears of ubiquitous surveillance of individuals by other individuals, whether through such recordings or through other applications currently being developed, have been raised.  Questions about Google’s collection of such data and what it means in terms of Google’s revamped privacy policy have also started to appear.
As you may recall, data protection authorities have long emphasized the need for organizations to build privacy into the development of products and services before they are launched.  Many of us have also encouraged organizations to consult in a meaningful way with our respective offices.
To date, what information we have about Google Glass, how it operates, how it could be used, and how Google might make use of the data collected via Glass largely comes from media reports, which contain a great deal of speculation, as well as Google’s own publicizing of the device.
For example, our understanding is that during the beta testing of the product, Google has put in place extensive guidelines for software developers to follow in building applications for Glass².  These limits appear to be largely related to advertising within Glass.  If this is indeed the case, we think this is a positive first step in identifying privacy issues, but it is only a first step and the only one we are aware of.
We understand that other companies are developing similar products, but you are a leader in this area, the first to test your product “in the wild” so to speak, and the first to confront the ethical issues that such a product entails. To date, however, most of the data protection authorities listed below have not been approached by your company to discuss any of these issues in detail. 
For our part, we would strongly urge Google to engage in a real dialogue with data protection authorities about Glass.   
The questions we would like to raise include:

• How does Google Glass comply with data protection laws?
• What are the privacy safeguards Google and application developers are putting in place?
• What information does Google collect via Glass and what information is shared with third parties, including application developers?
• How does Google intend to use this information?
• While we understand that Google has decided not to include facial recognition in Glass, how does Google intend to address the specific issues around facial recognition in the future?
• Is Google doing anything about the broader social and ethical issues raised by such a product, for example, the surreptitious collection of information about other individuals?
• Has Google undertaken any privacy risk assessment the outcomes of which it would be willing to share?
• Would Google be willing to demonstrate the device to our offices and allow any interested data protection authorities to test it?

We are aware that these questions relate to issues that fall squarely within our purview as data protection commissioners, as well as to other broader, ethical issues that arise from wearable computing.  Nevertheless, we feel it is important for us to raise all of these concerns.  We would be very interested in hearing about the privacy implications of this new product and the steps you are taking to ensure that, as you move forward with Google Glass, individuals’ privacy rights are respected around the world.  We look forward to responses to these questions and to a meeting to discuss the privacy issues raised by Google Glass.
Sincerely,
Original signed by
Jennifer Stoddart
Privacy Commissioner of Canada
Original signed by
Jacob Kohnstamm
Chairman of the Article 29 Working Party, on behalf of the members of the Article 29 Working Party
Original signed by
Timothy Pilgrim
Privacy Commissioner of Australia
Original signed by
Marie Shroff
Privacy Commissioner, New Zealand
Original signed by
Alfonso Oñate Laborde
Secretary for Data Protection, Federal Institute for Access to Information and Data Protection, Mexico
Original signed by
Rivki Dvash
Head of the Israeli Law, Information and Technology Authority
Original signed by
Hanspeter Thür
Swiss Federal Data Protection and Information Commissioner
Original signed by
Jill Clayton
Information and Privacy Commissioner of Alberta
Original signed by
Jean Chartier
President, Commission d’accès à l’information du Québec
Original signed by
Elizabeth Denham
Information and Privacy Commissioner of British Columbia

[1] Google Glass includes an embedded camera, microphone and GPS, with access to the Internet.  The Android Operating System powers Google Glass, and third-party applications are currently being built for Glass.  To access Glass, a user needs a Google account.

[2] https://developers.google.com/glass/overview

Message from Facebook's White Hat Program

Message from Facebook's White Hat Program






At Facebook, we take people’s privacy seriously, and we strive to protect people’s information to the very best of our ability. We implement many safeguards, hire the brightest engineers and train them to ensure we have only high-quality code behind the scenes of your Facebook experiences. We even have teams that focus exclusively on preventing and fixing privacy-related technical issues before they affect you.






Even with a strong team, no company can ensure 100% prevention of bugs, and in rare cases we don’t discover a problem until it has already affected a person’s account. This is one of the reasons we also have a White Hat program to collaborate with external security researchers and help us ensure that we maintain the highest security standards for our users.






We recently received a report to our White Hat program regarding a bug that may have allowed some of a person’s contact information (email or phone number) to be accessed by people who either had some contact information about that person or some connection to them.






Describing what caused the bug can get pretty technical, but we want to explain how it happened. When people upload their contact lists or address books to Facebook, we try to match that data with the contact information of other people on Facebook in order to generate friend recommendations. For example, we don’t want to recommend that people invite contacts to join Facebook if those contacts are already on Facebook; instead, we want to recommend that they invite those contacts to be their friends on Facebook.






Because of the bug, some of the information used to make friend recommendations and reduce the number of invitations we send was inadvertently stored in association with people’s contact information as part of their account on Facebook. As a result, if a person went to download an archive of their Facebook account through our Download Your Information (DYI) tool, they may have been provided with additional email addresses or telephone numbers for their contacts or people with whom they have some connection. This contact information was provided by other people on Facebook and was not necessarily accurate, but was inadvertently included with the contacts of the person using the DYI tool.






After review and confirmation of the bug by our security team, we immediately disabled the DYI tool to fix the problem and were able to turn the tool back on the next day once we were satisfied that the problem had been fixed.






We've concluded that approximately 6 million Facebook users had email addresses or telephone numbers shared. There were other email addresses or telephone numbers included in the downloads, but they were not connected to any Facebook users or even names of individuals. For almost all of the email addresses or telephone numbers impacted, each individual email address or telephone number was only included in a download once or twice. This means, in almost all cases, an email address or telephone number was only exposed to one person. Additionally, no other types of personal or financial information were included and only people on Facebook – not developers or advertisers – have access to the DYI tool.






We currently have no evidence that this bug has been exploited maliciously and we have not received complaints from users or seen anomalous behavior on the tool or site to suggest wrongdoing. Although the practical impact of this bug is likely to be minimal since any email address or phone number that was shared was shared with people who already had some of that contact information anyway, or who had some connection to one another, it's still something we're upset and embarrassed by, and we'll work doubly hard to make sure nothing like this happens again. Your trust is the most important asset we have, and we are committed to improving our safety procedures and keeping your information safe and secure.






We have already notified our regulators in the US, Canada and Europe, and we are in the process of notifying affected users via email.






We appreciate the security researcher's report to our White Hat program, and have paid out a bug bounty to thank him for his efforts.

Those are the new colours of Stephen Harper's plane.

What's more Canadian than red, white an...ahem blue?



Those are the new colours of Stephen Harper's plane.

As explained by the Toronto Star, the Royal Canadian Air Force CC-150 Polaris — the plane that transports the prime minister, the governor general, dignitaries and sometimes military personnel — has finally gotten its new paint job.



The new design includes Canadian symbols like the national flag, Canada’s coat of arms, and the RCAF logo.

Phrases from the national anthem — “True North Strong and Free” and “Une épopée des plus brilliants exploits” — appear in italicized script under the cockpit window.

The words, “Government of Canada, Gouvernement du Canada,” separated by a small maple leaf, appear along the fuselage above the passenger windows.




The makeover has been debated for some time.

In 2011, CBC reported that the prime minister and defence minister were involved in a "tug-of-war" about changing the jet's colour from it's traditional military grey. The defence department argued that anything but grey would be too visible "whenever the passenger jet is sent on troop and cargo missions to risky locales."

But alas, the PMO gets what it wants.

The estimated price tag for the repaint was about $50,000.

W

Some have suggested that this is another example of the Tories trying to re-brand Canada as Conservative.

"The colours of the plane, the whole detailing is clearly patterned on the Conservative Party," NDP leader Thomas Mulcair told reporters on Friday morning.

"I can tell you this, that when we form government in 2015 we will not be painting that plane orange."

Last year, Liberal MP Carolyn Bennett suggested that there's been a pattern to this.

"It's the branding of the websites and how blue is everywhere now and all this subliminal messaging," she told the Huffington Post.

"I mean to the point that they have gotten rid of all the red and green lights at Christmas time and we have blue and orange lights. What's with blue and orange Christmas lights all over Parliament Hill? There has been a serious effort in rebranding Canada blue."

And remember, earlier this year when, on a photograph to promote Economic Action Plan 2013, Ontario’s commuter trains was conveniently changed from green to Conservative Party blue.

Could Mulcair and Bennett actually be on to something?

Harper will be on his red, white and blue plane next week, when he travels to Europe for stops in London, Paris, Dublin and to the G8 summit in Northern Ireland.

The Supreme Court of Canada will announce Thursday whether it will hear an appeal in Toronto Mayor Rob Ford’s conflict-of-interest case.

The Supreme Court of Canada will announce Thursday whether it will hear an appeal in Toronto Mayor Rob Ford’s conflict-of-interest case.


Clayton Ruby, the lawyer who led the charge against Mr. Ford in the case that nearly ousted him from office, filed his leave to appeal in mid-March, arguing that a lower-court ruling hinged on a technicality and the matter is of “national importance.”










The conflict-of-interest case centred on a vote in February of last year by Mr. Ford to let himself off the hook for failing to repay $3,150 in improper donations to the Rob Ford Football Foundation, which provides football equipment for underprivileged high schools. An earlier investigation by the city’s integrity commissioner found the donations came from lobbyists and a corporation doing business with the city and recommended Mr. Ford be asked to repay the money himself. Council agreed, voting to impose the penalty in August, 2010, a few months before Mr. Ford swept to the city’s top job.Mr. Ruby, who represented Paul Magder, the citizen who filed the conflict complaint against the mayor, said at the time he was compelled to seek leave to appeal because “holding politicians to account is a matter of importance to all Canadians.”


In November, an Ontario Superior Court judge ordered the mayor removed from office, ruling Mr. Ford violated the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act by speaking to and voting on the item.


The Ontario Divisional Court overturned that ruling in January. A three-judge panel ruled council did not have the authority to ask the mayor to pay back the funds.


Mr. Ruby admitted in March that having such an application heard by the Supreme Court is a long shot – about 70 are taken each year out of approximately 1,000 applications.

Amid the failure of the RCMP’s specialized corporate crime unit to notch a single major corporate criminal conviction, Canada’s largest securities regulator has forged ahead to create a serious offences unit of its own to handle complex criminal cases destined for the courts, the National Post has learned. Sources confirmed that the Ontario Securities Commission (OSC) has partnered principally with the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP), and is currently in discussions with Metro Toronto police and the RCMP, to establish a new unit that will investigate and prosecute boiler room operations, such as fraud and market manipulation and other illegal activities, many of which are associated with organized crime.

Amid the failure of the RCMP’s specialized corporate crime unit to notch a single major corporate criminal conviction, Canada’s largest securities regulator has forged ahead to create a serious offences unit of its own to handle complex criminal cases destined for the courts, the National Post has learned.
Sources confirmed that the Ontario Securities Commission (OSC) has partnered principally with the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP), and is currently in discussions with Metro Toronto police and the RCMP, to establish a new unit that will investigate and prosecute boiler room operations, such as fraud and market manipulation and other illegal activities, many of which are associated with organized crime.



The OSC has hived off a group of 20 staff members, many of these former police officers and ex-Crown prosecutors, to create the serious offences unit. This group, eight of which have received special constable status from the OPP, operates on a separate floor with a computer network walled off from the rest of the regulator’s staff to preserve the proper chain of command and evidence. The members, who just completed a weeklong training session, have assorted weapons in their arsenal to pursue miscreants, including the ability to employ search warrants, wiretapping and undercover surveillance, which are allowed by the Criminal Code as part of their work in conjunction with the police.
“We recognize the serious harm that those involved in securities fraud offences perpetrate against retail investors,” Tom Atkinson, director of enforcement at the OSC told the Post in an email. “As such, we’re focused on bringing more cases before the Ontario Court of Justice where sanctions, including fines and jail sentences, are expected to have a greater deterrent effect.”
Added a source familiar with the discussions, who asked not to be named: “There’s a perception that there are cases that are not being treated criminally and are not being handled criminally and this shows they are prepared to do it.”
The OSC, which has jurisdiction over the Toronto Stock Exchange and the TSX Venture Exchange, is the dominant securities watchdog in Canada and its decisions affect most of the country’s mutual funds, pension funds and brokerages. However, the OSC, like most of the other 12 provincial and territorial securities regulators, has long faced criticisms for its poor track record of enforcement, especially on major cases, such as insider trading.

The creation of the RCMP’s Integrated Market Enforcement Teams (IMETs) a decade ago has done little to change that, especially in the wake of failed high-profile prosecutions against former executives of Nortel Networks Corp. and Royal Group Technologies Ltd. In fact, a U.S. academic described Canada as “a first-world country with second-world capital markets and third-world enforcement.”
In the unlikely event of a national securities regulator, and continued criticism about the lack of robust and timely enforcement, OSC chair and CEO Howard Wetston said recently the watchdog would “intensify its enforcement program and explore other ways to protect investors.” To that end, the OSC has been focusing on market manipulation and fraud. These types of fraudulent stock schemes may not be as high-profile, but they are among the most prevalent, causing significant damage to investors and compromising the reputation and integrity of Canada’s capital markets.
“We need to up our game in terms of deterrence. We don’t feel the administrative process is effective or appropriate in many of these cases,” said a securities official who asked not to be named.”
Traditionally, these stock fraud cases have been handled at tribunal hearings inside provincial securities regulators. However, the possible penalties are more lenient than those that can be imposed by a judge. As a result, the OSC is trying to move these cases into the courts where jail terms can be meted out.
“Part of the strategy is to put more people in jail,” said the source.
Mr. Atkinson said that there are plans to eventually create a specialized unit within the OSC to tackle insider trading, which has proven much harder to successfully prosecute. It has long been a private complaint of securities regulators across Canada that Crown attorneys and court judges do not take a severe enough view of corporate crime. The serious offences unit, in collaboration with various police forces, is an attempt to change that attitude.
“We want to leverage our expertise in the area of securities with law enforcement to ensure that criminal behaviour is dealt with in the appropriate criminal forum,” said Mr. Atkinson.
The move by the OSC comes at a time when the RCMP has created a financial crimes unit as part of a wider re-engineering of the national police force currently under way across the country. The newly constructed unit is comprised of the Commercial Crime unit, IMETs and the Proceeds of Crime unit, which mostly deals with drug-related offences. The RCMP already shares a joint intelligence unit at the OSC and those investigators will be folded into the OSC’s new serious crime unit.