In Breakroom, WeBreakTech staffers chat about the last couple of weeks in tech. What’s new? What’s broken? What are we working on? What makes us want to hurl things into traffic? Sarcasm, salty language, and strong opinions abound. _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Josh.Folland: I propose we complain about the implications of drones this week. Drones with cameras and advertising drones hassling drivers. Trevor.Pott:  I think you should start, Josh, as you are familiar with some of the regulations around this for personal and commercial use in Canada. Josh.Folland: Re: the second article, where Uber has drones advertising. I had joked on social media that if this ever happened to me, I’d get a big fisherman net or train up an eagle and get me a free drone. However, this won’t happen in Canada – at least not without companies like Uber throwing money at lobbying efforts to change the laws. Here, it’s illegal to fly a drone over a crowded area or even in the field behind your house without getting the proper requisitions from Transport Canada. Which means filling out like a 20-page proposal, from what I’ve seen. Katherine.Gorham: I’m grateful for that. The idea of advertising drones makes me grumpy. Josh.Folland: The law isn’t really going to care if you fly a drone in the field by your house, but your neighbors might. The law does care if you fly a drone over an army base or airport. Trevor.Pott:  I’d prefer no drones near me, unless they’re delivering me things. Josh.Folland: Even that will require much lobbying. As it stands now, the legislation emphatically does not allow for it. Last I heard they were trying to carve out an altitude zone to enable it but I don’t know if it got anywhere. Katherine.Gorham: There was...

Josh.Folland: Did you see this article? “Feds Walk Into A Building, Demand Everyone’s Fingerprints To Open Phones.” Katherine.Gorham: Wow. Dystopian much? Josh.Folland: Very. But I was always under the impression the law could compel you to give up your fingerprint. Trevor.Pott: Josh is correct. Josh.Folland: Them storming a building to collect them en masse is mildly frightening. (I use mildly because this sh*t just doesn’t surprise me anymore). Katherine.Gorham: They had a warrant. A super-vague warrant, to be sure, but it wasn’t totally random. Trevor.Pott: I don’t care. They eliminated the presumption of innocence for an entire building’s worth of people.That’s bulls**it. Josh.Folland:  They had a warrant to try to find evidence to get a less-stupid warrant. Katherine.Gorham: I’m not saying it was a good move. Just not a warrantless bad one. Also, what’s the data retention policy on randomly collected fingerprints? Forever? Josh.Folland: I can only imagine it goes in “your file”, yeah. Prosecutors would love if they had every person’s fingerprint forever, no?  As opposed to waiting until they get put into the system. Trevor.Pott: They collected my fingerprints at the airport when I applied for a NEXUS card, and told me they would be retained by both nations, presumably forever. Once they have that info, does anyone expect them to give it up? Katherine.Gorham: No. But I wondered if there was any specific legislation about it. Trevor.Pott: There’s lots of precedent in the UK for Law Enforcement Agencies (LEAs) to not delete fingerprints, DNA and more when they are supposed to.  I expect all members of the Five Eyes to carry equal antipathy towards their own citizens. In Canada, we have Bill C-51, which effectively hands our LEAs carte blanche to do anything they want. Katherine.Gorham: I don’t really care if...

In Breakroom, WeBreakTech staffers chat about the last couple of weeks in tech. What’s new? What’s broken? What are we working on? What makes us want to hurl things into traffic? Sarcasm, salty language, and strong opinions abound. _____________________________________________________________________________________________   Trevor.Pott: “WikiLeaks publishes cryptic UFO emails sent to Clinton campaign from former Blink 182 singer.” So. WikiLeaks. Josh.Folland: This only confirms my suspicions that politicians and celebrities are lizard people. Trevor.Pott: The WikiLeaks thing has some potential implications for real-world IT. Putting the politics aside, let’s look at what’s happened here.  Somehow, WikiLeaks got hold of a bunch of stuff they shouldn’t have. In some cases, we know the source (such as Chelsea Manning). In others, we don’t (such as the DNC leaks). But in each case, the information has been leaked not only with the intention of making information known, but with theater: the intention of causing the maximum possible amount of hype around the leaks. I think this adds a dimension to any data security discussion. We’re beyond simply “your data may go walkabout” and well into “people may use leaked data as part of a coordinated smear campaign that can hurt far more than a simple data dump.” Do we think this new approach by WikiLeaks will change the dynamics of data protection for corporations and/or governments? Josh.Folland: Is this really anything new, though? People have been digging up dirt and using it against one another forever. The mechanics of how you get said data are all that’s changing. Trevor.Pott: That’s an interesting question, and I think that goes down two paths: 1) is the danger of a leak only from the people leaking it, and 2) does timing make a leak more sensitive, and maybe there is a call for...