Slaw

3D keeps coming (and going). It's here now in the movies and threatens to poke itself (John-Candy-like) out of our TVs. It was there for a while about sixty years ago also at the movies and in the glories of Viewmaster. And just before the turn of the century before this one, stereographs or stereograms were popular, those almost double photographs that were viewed through a device that look rather like a small library card catalogue drawer.

Well stereographs have been brought back, this time by the New York Public Library, and thanks to the "miracles of modern science" you're able to see them with their pairs of pics nearly conjoined in pretty much 3D splendour. Stereogranimator lets you create animated GIFs (pronounced "jifs") or anaglyphs from the library's stock of old stereograph images.

The trick is to align the two photographs such that the animation flicks back and forth between them so rapidly that you lose a sense of motion and instead see three dimensions. You can find the latest efforts from the rest of the world on the site, observing that most people do a lousy job of it: the results flicker like jumping jack flash in a truly annoying way. An anaglyph would be easier on the eye, but then you'd have to have a pair of 3D glasses at the ready—which you might. (Instructions here on how to make your own 3D glasses, if you'd like to turn this into a winter weekend project with the kids.)

I've tried my hand at making depth, using the waterfall picture that you see below (click on the image to enlarge). And I've tucked the animated GIF result away below the fold so that Slaw's front page doesn't strobe like a broken neon sign.

Click on image to enlarge.

Now, prepare to be amazed . . . in a mild and gentle way:

GIF made with the NYPL Labs Stereogranimator

This is a post in a series appearing each Friday, setting out some articles, videos, podcasts and the like that contributors at Slaw are enjoying and that you might find interesting. The articles tend to be longer than blog posts and shorter than books, just right for that stolen half hour on the weekend. It’s also likely that most of them won’t be about law — just right for etc.

Please let us have your recommendations for what we and our readers might like.

Polyvore – A fashion shopper's playground, where users get to clip their favourite products from across the web and present them to others. There's a page as well where you can drag and drop separates to form the ensemble of your (momentary) dreams. This is perhaps the consumer's equivalent of Scrooge McDuck's bathing in currency. The bag is Prada.

MIT Technology Review (India) – The Mystery Behind Anesthesia – Courtney Humphries – "Mapping how our neural circuits change under the influence of anesthesia could shed light on one of neuroscience's most perplexing riddles: consciousness."

BBC News Magazine – Arctic Canada caught on 1919 silent film – Hudson Bay Company – This silent film, "The Romance of the Far Fur Country," made to mark the 250th anniversary of the Hudson Bay Company (in 1919) has been restored and digitized.

New York Times – The World's Most Exclusive Condominium – Frank Jacobs – And by condominium I mean a piece of territory shared, as it were, between two sovereign nations. The article talks about Pheasant Island between France and Spain, and then goes on to tell Canada how it and Denmark should solve their problem over Hans Island. Thanks.

Charlie Rose – The Brain Series – Charlie Rose – In more than a dozen hour-long videos, this TV interviewer leads panels of experts in an exploration of your favourite organ. Highly recommended.

Slate Magazine – Pearl clutching: how the phrase became a feminist blog cliché – Torie Bosch – "The phrase pearl clutching, which means being shocked by something once-salacious that should now be seen as commonplace, like sex, is ubiquitous on blog posts, especially in media geared towards women." I hadn't known.

The Inky Fool – The Fifty Most Quoted Lines of Poetry – M.H. Forsyth – #49: Full fathom five thy father lies. Which makes you wonder what a piece of work is man. If nothing else, this list will propel you out of your own pat rote rimes and into something… better.

YouTube – How Money is Made (1920) – (posted by Brain Pickings) – Another silent film from Canada, this one about the Royal Canadian Mint. "Do you remember biting that alleged half-dollar you took in change from the banana-man? Or dropping it on the table?"

McSweeney's – In Which I Fix
My Girlfriend’s Grandparents’ WiFi and Am Hailed as a Conquering Hero – Mike Lacher – A winter fable in which the Warrior takes on the Router and (very unlike me in similar circumstances) wins.

NPR – Sweet, Sour, Salty, Bitter … and Umami – Robert Krulwich – Listen to the tale of the discovery—and re-discovery—of umami, the fifth taste.

Do you rank attending law firm social events right down there on the popularity scale below having a root canal? If so, you’ll identify with a young lawyer in one of my seminars. He’d been told to attend a cocktail party being given by his practice group. Here’s how the evening went: “I had to work late, so when I rushed up to the boardroom, it was full of people at least 20 years older than me. I knew no one, and everyone else seemed to know everyone.” Another lawyer shot back: “Think yourself lucky. At our client event, I was the youngest, I knew no one—and I was the only woman in the room.”

First things first: law is a business of relationships. It follows that to develop business, you have to develop relationships. Much of this relationship-building takes place at events where you’re expected to start up conversations with people you don’t know.

Young lawyers are expected to “work the room” at firm events—but no one teaches them how. If they consequently avoid events like the plague, they become senior lawyers who find themselves tongue-tied at firm events. That’s a great example to the younger lawyers in the room!

The first thing is to remember that working a room is exactly that…work. It may be a social event, but you’re not there to kick up your heels and let down your hair. You’re there to work. So, just as you wouldn’t dream of going to a client meeting unprepared, you should never go unprepared to a work-related event.

Probably the most important information you need is who will be there. Who do you want/need to meet? What can you find out about them beforehand? What do you want to ask them? If your firm has a marketing department, they can help you with this. If not, a quick Google search should turn up major facts and possibly recent news.

Ideally, there should be a strategy meeting of the lawyers attending the event. If you have a marketing department, they should set up this meeting and bring any information on the guests. The lawyers should then strategize about who should meet whom, who should be introduced to whom, and what questions to ask whom. It’s more effective to work in teams of older/younger lawyers or lawyers from Practice Area A and Practice Area B.

Above all, lawyers attending the event should understand what the firm’s interest is in inviting the guests on the list. Relationship-building consists of making connections, deepening existing relationships, and maintaining long-standing relationships. At a minimum, you should know who on the guest list is a client and who is not—yet. Your marketing department can help by creating differently coloured nametags for clients.
The other thing to understand is that your goal is not necessarily to come away from the event with a piece of business; it’s to make contacts and have a reason to follow up with them. Since relationships are long-term, this event is part of a continuum that needs to be kept going.

Small, practical details make a big difference in overcoming that sinking feeling as you enter the room. Arrive early so you can start up conversations with people entering the room after you, rather than walking into a full room where everyone is already talking. Act like a host; it makes it easier to circulate and be at ease yourself when you’re trying to make other people comfortable. As you circulate, join groups of three to five people, or someone who’s alone. Two people are more likely to be having a conversation where an interruption would be intrusive. Put your nametag on your right side so that people shaking your hand can see it clearly.

Starting up the first conversation is a lot like delivering your first line onstage. If you can remember your first line, you’re off. Nametags can often give you your first topic of conversation. Maybe you know someone else in their organization, or maybe your research turned up some information about the organization. Keeping up with the news is important for anyone who regularly attends events: you’ll be very glad you invested the time when you meet someone whose company or parent just purchased another, or was purchased.

Whatever the topic of conversation, listen twice as much as you talk. The more opportunity you give the other person to talk, the greater an impression you’ll make. You develop a relationship by listening to the other person until you’ve found a point where you think you can help.

Once you’re into a conversation, if it didn’t begin with business you need to steer it in that direction. Ask about the type of business and their role. Ask about any changes, issues or problems that affect their business: what could they be headed for, and what might they need from you as a result? Find the problem—even when clients don’t know they have one. You aren’t looking to solve the problem right now; you’re looking for a reason to follow up.
In the final analysis, what people will remember is not what was said—after all, less than 20 percent of information is transmitted through words—but how it felt to be talking to you, the emotional imprint of the conversation. As long as you keep the spotlight on others and make them feel like stars, the emotional imprint of your conversation is immense.

Opening a conversation is only half of the skill needed for working a room; the other half is closing a conversation gracefully so that you can move on. I’ll talk about that in my next column.

Despite anecdotal evidence of jurors misbehaving when using the Internet and social media (for instance, the recent article on Slaw English Court Jails Juror Who Used Internet Search), a recent survey of members of the U.S. federal judiciary reveals that the problem appears less widespread than many assume.

The Federal Judicial Center was asked by a committee of the policy-making Judicial Conference of the United States to survey federal judges on the issue (response rate was 53%).

The results, based on the responses of 508 responding judges, indicate that detected social media use by jurors is infrequent, and that most judges have taken steps to ensure jurors do not use social media in the courtroom. The most common strategy is incorporating social media use into jury instructions (…) Also common are the practice of reminding jurors on a regular basis not to use social media to communicate during trial or deliberations, explaining the reasons behind the ban on social media, and confiscating electronic devices in the courtroom. Judges admit that it is difficult to police jurors.

Only 30 of the 508 judges who responded reported instances of detected social media use by jurors during trials or deliberations.

I wouldn't be surprised to find out that the situation is similar in Canada.

Maybe all the fuss over Juror (Mis)Behavior in the Information Age is exaggerated. Of course, it is also possible that a lot of the illicit juror tweeting, Google searching, LinkedIn'ing and Facebooking may very well escape the attention of judges. Most judges find out about juror misuse of Net media from tattling by other jurors or lawyers (perhaps lawyers who feel they are losing the case?).

Site news for those who read Slaw only via RSS or email

1. Comment Watch:

In the last week there were 33 comments. You might be particularly interested in these:

• the eight comments on Simon Fodden's "Apple's New iBooks Author" discussing the EULA required by that software
• the thoughtful exchange on Jamie Maclaren's column, "A Pay or Play Proposition for Access to Justice."
• the enthusiastic comments on Ruth Bird's column, "Professional Associations and Why They Matter"

You can subscribe to the comments on Slaw either as a separate matter (RSS, email) or as part of a subscription combining posts and comments (RSS, email).

2. SlawTips

This week's tips on SlawTips are:

• Wednesday: Research: Dig Deep

You’ll find a brief excerpt of this week’s tips on Slaw, but the links above will take you to the full versions, along with 100 more tips. Advice you can use — short and to the point — every Tuesday, Wednesday & Thursday.

You can get to SlawTips at either tips.slaw.ca or slawtips.ca and you can subscribe by RSS or email. You can also follow SlawTips on Twitter: @slawtips

3. Maritime Law Book Selected Summaries

This week's Maritime Law Book case summaries are in precis on Slaw and full at cases.slaw.ca.

• Alberta Teachers' Association v. Information and Privacy Commissioner (Alta.) et al. 2011 SCC 61 [Judicial review]
• R. v. Spencer (M.D.) 2011 SKCA 144 [Search and seizure]
• Reference Re Securities Act 2011 SCC 66 [Double aspect doctrine]
• R. v. Rudge (D.) 2011 ONCA 791 [Criminal procedure]
• R. v. MacIntosh (E.F.) 2011 NSCA 111 [Delay and due process]
• Labatt Brewing Co. et al. v. St. John's (City) 2011 NLCA 75 [Property tax valuation]
• Girao v. Zarek Taylor Grossman Hanrahan LLP 2011 FC 1070 [Barristers and solicitors duty of integrity]
• R. v. Bambrick (R.) 2011 NLCA 79 [Sentencing]
• Anderson et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) 2011 NLCA 82 [Class actions]

Thus far, 195 summaries in total are available on cases.slaw.ca. You can subscribe to MLB-Slaw Selected Case Summaries via RSS or email.

I was writing a comment in response to Melanie Bueckert who pointed out that Manitoba is reviewing their law society library services, much like Nova Scotia when I realized the comment was longer than my usual Slaw post. I hope that Slaw readers will indulge me with their attention to issues facing law society libraries, especially in less populated jurisdictions.

Let me preface this post/comment by sharing that I have never worked in a law society library. As a law firm librarian, I rely on law society libraries, locally and in other jurisdictions, their services and collections, to supplement and augment what my team and I provide to our lawyers.

Melanie, Thank you for pointing to the Manitoba situation. I found portions of the linked document disturbing:

The major agenda item was a discussion about the way lawyers do research and the impact of that on how we will provide library resources in the future. We started by talking about why we are in the library business at all. The basic conclusion was that libraries are a tool to enhance lawyer competence which is part of the mandate of the Law Society. We talked about what has changed since Benchers last looked a libraries (2003) and, in particular, at the amazing progress of CanLII, the Law Society-owned virtual library. CanLII is hugely important in this discussion. Not because it is free, or because it holds a huge collection of cases (over one million), or because it has all Canadian statutes with point-in-time searching, or even because it has a powerful search engine.

It is unique and special because we own it. While there are many excellent commercial on-line research products, the most popular ones all have a major flaw. They are owned by American parents and the Canadian product will continue only as long as they feel it is commercially viable. When you buy books you own them. If it is a series like, say the Canadian Criminal Cases, and the publisher stops publishing the books, at least you own the books you already have. If, however, an on-line publisher goes out of business, you have been essentially “renting” the service and the day it shuts down you have absolutely nothing.

Because we own CanLII, we know it is a secure collection and that, Benchers agreed, is very liberating. It enabled us to explore library services in a whole new way.

Benchers noted that in today’s environment, paper libraries are not much utilized. We have already closed the libraries in Brandon, Dauphin and The Pas. We already provide free on-line access for lawyers practising outside of Winnipeg to Carswell’s LawSource in addition to CanLII. Thanks to the hard work of LDRC, the Winnipeg court house is already WiFi equipped. As the discussion continued, a vision for the future of libraries emerged. It looked something like this:

1. Continue to enthusiastically support CanLII and offer training to assist lawyers to take advantage of its amazing potential;
2. Over time, stop maintaining our paper collection;
3. Keep the historic collections and some texts and up-to-date technology in our libraries;
4. Train people on other free on-line research tools that are available;
5. Continue to provide free access for out-of-Winnipeg lawyers to LawSource as long as it is required to ensure access to adequate research materials.

Over the next few months we will be developing a business plan to implement this vision."

I LOVE CanLII. It should absolutly be fervently supported by the bar and bench in Canada. As this document states, it is OURS.

CanLII + free online research tools do not and cannot make for a competent complete, reasoned, and effective path to answer a legal research. Law society libraries could decide to discontinue purchasing print reports and statutes in favour of CanLII, but that is no more than a potentially useful cost saving collection development measure.

Would anyone suggest that free internet sources could replace their favourite text? Closing law society libraries, or reducing them to ineffectiveness through budget restraints, will put more money into the pockets of legal publishers as individual lawyers are forced to grow their individual collections. This in turn will increase the cost of legal services to the population.

Why would you hire a lawyer if you could answer your own question with CanLII and Google. Richard Susskind, do you have any comments???

Globalization takes its toll. This time the toll is to be paid by Americans who want to use works that had, according to US law at the time, entered the public domain but that have been removed from that status and place back under copyright by a 1994 act of the US Congress in order to bring that country into line with the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works. As you might imagine, a number of disappointed users sued the US government, arguing that according to the intent of the Copyright and Patent Clause of the American constitution once a work was in the public domain it could not be withdrawn from it. Last week the case was ruled on by the US Supreme Court in a 6-2 decision, Golan v. Holder, No. 10-545 [PDF]. Justice Ginsburg, writing for the majority, ruled that the law in question:

does not transgress constitutional limitations on Congress’ authority. Neither the Copyright and Patent Clause nor the First Amendment, we hold, makes the public domain, in any and all cases, a territory that works may never exit.

As always, the SCOTUSblog is an excellent source for material surrounding the decision. To learn more about the musician, Lawrence Golan, who challenged the law, take a look at a couple of articles on the issue in The Chronicle: 1, 2.

The works affected in 1994, judged to number in the millions, are largely works by non-Americans that, as foreign works, were not as protected by copyright as were native works. The "recaptured" works included music by Prokofiev, Shostakovich, and Stravinsky; and:

books by H.G. Wells, Virginia Woolf, and C.S. Lewis; films by Alfred Hitchcock, Federico Fellini, and Jean Renoir; and artwork by M.C. Escher and Pablo Picasso.

Canada ratified the Berne Convention in 1931, signed it in 1948, and acceded to current forms in 1970 and 1998.

Last year I told you about the plan to release a voluntary national standard for mentally healthy workplaces. The standard aims to help Canadian employers support the psychological health and safety of their employees by providing them with the necessary guidelines and tools to achieve measurable improvements in psychological health and safety in the workplace. A draft of the standard was released on November 1, 2011 without much coverage and a consultation period followed which ended January 6, 2012. The final Standard is expected to be published in late summer 2012.

Unfortunately, since the consultation period is over, the draft of the standard is no longer available online. You can still obtain a copy by calling the CSA Standards or any of their partners championing the development of the Standard.

Luckily, Cheryl A. Edwards and Shane Todd from Heenan Blaikie LLP have prepared a very in-depth analysis of the proposed Standard and you can view it here.

According to the Mental Health Commission of Canada, mental illnesses and mental health issues are the leading cause of short- and long- term disability in the country. The cost of dealing with these issues is in the range of $51 billion per year, with almost $20 billion of that amount coming from workplace losses.

Thus, it will be interesting to see how the government, advocacy groups, associations like the CSA, mental health agencies and private sector will assist employers with solutions, resources and tools to deal with this important issue.

In recent years, many Canadian home insurers have begun asking questions about dog ownership and, depending on the breed, impose policy exclusions, charge extra premiums, or decline home insurance applicants. These insurers maintain lists of breeds they consider problematic. These are not dogs that have already bitten someone (although that would be a problem) or lack training, they are breeds that are believed to have an above-average probability of inflicting a serious bite injury.

At the top of the list is the American Pit Bull Terrier and related breeds such as the American Staffordshire. These dogs are banned in Ontario and several municipalities across Canada. If your insurer underwrites dog ownership, it’s unlikely they will offer you insurance if you own this breed. Other high-risk dog breeds include the Rottweiler, Doberman, German Sheppard, Samoyed, Husky, Malamute, Chow, Akita, Wolfhound and several crossbreeds.

In the US, there are at least 75 breeds now appearing on various lists. These include breeds that many people would not suspect are a problem:

• AMERICAN BULLDOG
• AUSTRALIAN SHEPHERD
• BELGIAN SHEEPDOG
• BOSTON TERRIER
• BOXER
• BULLDOG
• FOX TERRIER
• FRENCH BULLDOG
• GOLDEN RETRIEVER
• GREAT DANE
• GREAT PYRANEES
• LABRADOR RETRIEVER
• LEONBERGER
• MASTIFF
• NEWFOUNDLAND
• PUG

If you are a responsible owner of one of these dog breeds, you may think it’s unfair of anyone to suggest that your pet is more dangerous than any other dog. The common argument is that there are “no bad dogs, just bad owners” and “all dogs are capable of inflicting a serious bite”. As a dog owner, I believe there is truth to these arguments. However, insurers make underwriting decisions based on their own claims experience, industry statistics, and actuarial assumptions. It is estimated that 460,000 Canadians are bitten by dogs every year and approximately 60 percent of victims are children. In the US, dog bite losses exceed $1 billion per year. These injuries account for approximately 1/3 of all homeowner’s insurance liability claims. Insurers have good reason to be cautious.

If you’ve been told by an insurer that your dog is considered too high a risk, shop around. There are companies that don’t have an issue with dog ownership or offer some flexibility. For example, the underwriter may approve your application if your dog has no history of aggression, is housed in a dog-run, or you are willing to accept an additional premium or policy exclusion.

You are also advised to check the liability section of your home insurance policy. Most cover liability for dog bites to specific maximums. However, if your dog bites someone, your insurance company will probably increase your premiums, exclude future dog-related claims from your coverage, or refuse to renew the policy.

Please note that my advice is not intended to replace that of a qualified insurance expert who has personally reviewed your specific benefits and insurance needs. If you want to learn more, the CBIA offers excellent insurance education articles and planning tools for lawyers at www.barinsurance.com.

Adding to David Canton's post this week, updating us on privacy and data protection developments, here is a release from our friend, Ontario's Information and Privacy Commissioner, Dr. Ann Cavoukian. And an interview with Steve Paikin at TVO.

It's NOT "just a number!" Commissioner Cavoukian warns of the ease of data linkages in an increasingly online world

TORONTO, Jan. 25, 2012 /CNW/ – Ontario's Information and Privacy Commissioner, Dr. Ann Cavoukian, says that people's perceptions of their privacy and anonymity online fall far short of reality. In fact, technology has evolved to the point that the seemingly unrelated pieces of information that people share about themselves online, may now be linked together, to create a detailed profile of an individual.

"We have reached a point where information – not only strongly-identifiable Social Insurance Numbers, but also IP addresses, licence plate numbers, and mobile devices – serve as pointers to personally-identifiable information, through an ever-expanding web of data linkages. This bears little resemblance to anonymous information," the Commissioner said.

New analytic tools and algorithms now make it possible – not only to link numbers to names – but to also combine information from multiple sources, ultimately creating an accurate profile of a personally-identifiable individual – and in the process, to reveal their online activities.

"Imagine a scenario where your 'anonymous' comments on a newspaper website or in an online chat forum, could be tracked back to you personally, simply by linking your IP address and browser data across multiple platforms," the Commissioner said.

The Commissioner's advice to consumers: As people share more and more personal information about themselves in new ways (such as personal blogs and social networking sites), they need to consider the nature of the information they share, and how their personal information might be used.

At the same time, she urges organizations that collect and use this data to offer consumers a clear, easy-to-use mechanism to opt out of the collection and use of their personal information. Better still – make privacy the default setting.