Author Archives: Techtonik Legal

3D Printing Plans for Guns Back Online

Posted on by

The American media recently reported something that continues to be a major problem: 3D printing firearms or, more specifically, what to do about the fact that anyone can now purchase a 3D printer and start producing almost anything, including guns. Though it has huge potential, this relatively new technology causes a big headache for the U.S. and no doubt numerous other jurisdictions, Canada included.

The problem is what they call ghost guns (i.e., unregistered guns without so much as a serial number) and it stems from the combination of 3D printing and the online availability of plans to print gun parts. Although 3D printers are now relatively commonplace and cheap, the plans to replicate actual gun parts are another matter.

In 2015, an American court allowed the addition of 3D printing plans (for gun parts) to the “State Department’s Munitions List,” a list of things that can only be exported (or put online) with the U.S. government’s authorization. For a short while, publishing such plans online was illegal under American law. However, the ban was relatively short-lived, as litigation by one manufacturer lead the Trump administration to repeal its ban and (again) allow the online publication of such plans.

Since then, several American states have sued the federal government in an effort to get 3D printing parts blacklisted again, and get them yanked from the Web. This has led to a recent California appeals decision which concluded that the federal government had indeed the right to withdraw such plans from the Munitions List and, thus, that there is no reason for anyone at this point in time prohibiting anyone from publishing 3D printing plans for gun parts.

As one might guess, this ruling has a lot of people worried in the U.S., a jurisdiction already awash in firearms and now facing a new source of guns, this time by individuals creating firearms from the Internet, so to speak. In 2019, one third of all guns seized in the state of California were ghost guns—the problem is very real and far from being merely theoretical. Heck, we’re even starting to see this creeping-up in Canada, as demonstrated by this Alberta news story from last September.

Faced with the resurgence of this problem, many are already calling for the U.S. to legislate specifically to address the problem, and prohibit the online publishing or sharing of ghost-gun plans.

No doubt about it: 3D printing will continue to challenge how society deals with many issues, as more and more types of items become “printable,” including guns, armour and even houses. Hey, you can’t halt progress.

Eh Dude, Your Car’s Leaking. No, Not Oil: Data

Posted on by

The online magazine The Intercept recently published an interesting piece entitled YOUR CAR IS SPYING ON YOU, AND A CBP CONTRACT SHOWS THE RISKS which I highly recommend. If you didn’t know it, yes, your car does generate a lot of data and even downloads some of it from mobile devices which connect to it over time. In a sense, nowadays, a car is a sort of mobile computer, shock full of data. What may not be apparent to the layperson is that a car in this day and age generates and retains A LOT of data pretty much any time a human interacts with it.

Though the article at issue focuses on the use of your vehicle’s data by law enforcement (when investigating crime), if you ask me, the true story actually goes quite beyond that, including the use of such data by private businesses.

Surprisingly, accessing the data held by a modern-day vehicle isn’t actually this complicated—you just need the know-how and the right tool. If you’re really determined to do so, plugging into a car these days and extracting troves of data is apparently pretty straightforward. For example, in case of accident or other incident with an insured vehicle, the insurer may send an investigator armed with the right tools to download the car’s data, which can then be analyzed at leisure, including to try and find out why the insured’s claim should be denied. Almost any car on the road today includes such capabilities and functionalities akin to a plane’s black box.

The article specifically discusses one particular tool called iVe, a product by a company called Berla. The iVe toolbox includes both hardware and software components, and even has its own mobile app, so as to make things easier for investigators in the field.

This particular tool may be used to siphon all data contained in a vehicle’s circuits, for example to further an investigation either by the police or an insurer. The product then facilitates identifying, accessing and analyzing various types of information found in modern-day vehicles—you’d be surprised how much there may be. The company’s website claims its product can be used to uncover things like:

  • Geolocation data, including what roads or streets the vehicle was driven on, etc.;
  • Events which the vehicle encountered and recorded through any of its sensors;
  • Media files (content) that a user downloaded or accessed using the on-board infotainment system (music, podcasts, etc.);
  • A list of the specific mobile devices that users connected to the vehicle over time, etc.

In practice, it seems one may even go so far as to obtain a copy of the list of contacts from mobile devices that users connected to the vehicle, the history of SMS and emails on those devices, the list of incoming and outgoing calls, the list of songs played through the on-board infotainment system, etc.

Incident which a car records may, of course, include accident-like events, but also things that the average driver may not realize are being recorded, including:

  • The speed at which the car is travelling at any given moment;
  • The changing of gears and the engine’s RPMs at any given moment;
  • Sudden acceleration or breaking;
  • The fact that the headlights were either turned on or off;
  • The opening or closing of doors; etc.

So, you were listing to PARANOID by Black Sabbath and texting your friend Mike while driving down this country road at 163 km/h, and then lost control? Yeah, your insurer can find out, for sure. In fact, almost any action taken by the human operator of the vehicle may be recorded (even more so if you plugged in your cellphone), something the average driver may not realize. The fact that this is generally not clearly disclosed to the public does play into the hands of insurers and law enforcement, as it does make their job somewhat easier when investigating incidents involving vehicles.

If it may provide some measure of comfort to you, iVe does not come cheap. The article to which we’re linking above mentions purchasing that tool for tens of thousands of dollars. At that price, your insurer (or its investigator) probably bought one, but not your next-door neighbour, even if he’s really into cars.

This is a good example of the behind-the-scene changes turning everyday objects, like cars, into electronic gizmos. If you thought a car was still just a car, you are very much mistaken it seems. In today’s world, accessing the data in that car can reveal a whole lot about you, your driving habits, including where you’ve taken that car, and how. And contrary to what some people may think, it does NOT require a whole team of CSI-like investigators merely to connect to your car.

CIPO to Try and Accelerate its Processing of Canadian Trademark Applications: About Time!

Posted on by

This week, CIPO announced several initiatives meant to try and come to grips with the massive backlog that the Trademark Office is facing, along with allowing the fast-tracking of certain applications in the future. With typical delays of 2 to 3 years to obtain a trademark registration in Canada, let’s just say that it’s not a moment too soon.

CIPO made an announcement earlier this week entitled Measures to improve timeliness in examination outlining certain changes to the way examiners process trademark applications.

Essentially, the Trademark Office will now streamline somewhat how it handles applications, including by reducing the content of some of its letters, by processing in priority those applications using the standard list of goods and services (hmm, you think?) and limiting exchanges with applicants and their agents once an argument has been made and rejected.

CIPO also adopted a new Practice Notice this week entitled Requests for expedited examination which creates a new regime for expedited examination in certain cases. Until now, all applications were normally treated the same; This will change. Applicants can now submit a request to expedite their application, along with an affidavit (a statutory declaration) explaining how the applicant qualifies for the fast-tracking of its application.

Before we all start jumping for joy, you should note that such requests for expedited examination are only available in a limited number of situations, namely:

  1. A court action is expected or underway in Canada with respect to the applicant’s trademark in association with the goods or services listed in the application;
  2. The applicant is in the process of combating counterfeit products at the Canadian border with respect to the applicant’s trademark in association with the goods or services listed in the application;
  3. The applicant requires registration of its trademark in order to protect its intellectual property rights from being severely disadvantaged on online marketplaces; or
  4. The applicant requires registration of its trademark in order to preserve its claim to priority within a defined deadline and following a request by a foreign intellectual property office. Note that in such cases, the request will need to be attached to the affidavit or statutory declaration.

Such requests may be submitted, separately from the application itself, either by mail or fax (819-953-2476), by addressing the documents to: “Request for expedited examination, c/o Deputy Director, Examination Division,” etc. Not exactly high-tech stuff, but if it gets the job done, right?

It will be interesting to see how these new rules are handled and used in practice.

So as to end on another positive note, I’ll share an anecdote with you: This week, I received a call from an examiner who elected to call rather than mail me a formal letter and ask us to amend the list of products and services in a pending application. She could just as well have had a letter prepared and sent, but she called instead. As a result, we probably cut 4 to 6 weeks from the processing of this application.