I want to thank you for coming out to the first installment for this year of the Law and Debt Institute's End-Ment Speaker Series. My name is Rob Curry. I'm the director of the Institute for those of you who don't know me. We do this on an occasional basis throughout every year. We bring in speakers both local and national, and sometimes international, in order to facilitate dialogue about law and technology related matters. Today we've got a great speaker and a great topic. Our speaker has cautioned me not to go on and on introducing her, even though I could. So I will just say a few great points. McAlfair Murray is originally from the bustling community of Beaverton, Ontario. He's a graduate of the U of T Law School and went from there to the Crown Law Office of the Ministry of the Attorney General in Fort Ontario and was there for 22 years, by mistake. Over the course of those 22 years, she became one of the leading criminal lawyers in Canada, has gone from place to place educating criminal law adherents, flight judges, and lawyers, and is well respected for it. But a year and a half ago, I'm going to say she made the leap to the other side of the yard. I'm not going to make any comments about good, bad, evil, good, any of that sort of thing. She's now on the other side of the divide with the defense practice at the firm stock was in Ontario in Toronto. So without any further ado, I'd like to introduce McAlfair Murray. Thanks very much. Thanks, Rob, for the very kind over-the-top introduction. I'm really delighted to be here to be speaking about this issue of technology and criminal investigations. We've seen a significant increase in the use of technology in criminal investigations and in prosecutions in the last number of years. And indeed, I don't think it would be an overstatement to suggest that it is today the rare criminal trial that doesn't have some form of technology in some fashion inextricably linked to it, either in the way that the crown is prosecuting the case, the defense are defending it with the use of technology, what's going on in the courtroom, and certainly the evidentiary platform that comes before the court and how it's been developed by the police, which raises all kinds of fascinating constitutional issues. We live in a world of technology and I don't need to tell anyone in this room that we all use it. We play with it, we work with it, and we can't live without it. And we've seen it seep into our lives so much so that there are actually significant statistical databases out there now about the use of technology throughout the world and I'm just going to quickly go through some of those statistics. We learned actually earlier this year in January that there were 10 billion devices in the world connected to the Internet and in fact that number is estimated to increase to 50 billion by the year 2020, which is to me a remarkable statistic and you kind of wonder well how can it so far exceed the population of the world and I think the answer to that is there's so many devices on the Internet, people have multiple devices at a time. Think about and certainly I know the young people in the room probably have more than one device. We've got our ORC, how I included myself in that young person category. But you know we have our iPhones, we have our computers, we have our iPads and so on. It's not unusual for people to have three, four, five devices at a time that are all Internet accessible. And we now communicate on electronic devices and that's just the reality. Whether we're Skyping, we're emailing, we're text messaging, we're Twittering, we're Instagramming. The reality is that we have moved not completely away but somewhat away from the world of verbal communications and into the world of telecommunications and communicating with one another in the written form and largely through acronyms. And we've seen a number of other statistical developments in this environment. For instance, one billion people, I find that incredible, one billion people are actually on Facebook. Think about that number, it's a staggering one and I think it makes Mark Zuckerberg very, very happy. In 2012, look at the statistics up on the screen in terms of Twitter users and what's being sent every two and a half days in tweets. Again, just a staggering number, what did we do without tweeting? How did we ever communicate with each other? I mean, how did we know what you were doing every second of every day? How did we know you're off to class now? There's critically important information. How did people convey that before Twitter? And then, of course, these every 60-second statistics are the most staggering, without a doubt. Look at the hours of video that are uploaded to YouTube in a 60-second period. Over 200 million messages are sent by email every 60 seconds in the world, incredible. Google receives over 2 million search queries in a 60-second period in the world. These are, again, just incredible stats and it demonstrates, I think, and informs as to why it is that technology has become so inextricably linked with criminal investigations. Police are embedded in the technology community. They are embedded in an undercover way in the technology community and in seizing and searching devices. And I'm going to get into that. But before I do, I just thought I'd mentioned Riley in California and the sister case of worry. Because if you haven't had a really fun time reading a case lately, I really do commend this particular judgment to you because it is just such a treat to read, especially when you think about the fact that five U.S. Supreme Court judges were born just before or during World War II. And they're talking about cell phone technology. And they get it. They get the privacy issues engaged with the technology. But I love the stat coming right out of the judgment. I mean, did you know that 90 percent of adult Americans are carrying a cell phone? Three-quarters of smartphone users are within five feet of them. And then, of course, 12 percent are using them in the shower. Now, I don't know if anybody wants to discuss that statistic here in a public format. I don't know what people are doing with their iPhones or smartphones in the shower. I really can't imagine. But if, you know, maybe to others that 12 percent stat, one out of just slightly over one in ten and a hundred people or one in ten have their showers in the phone with them and are using them. Odd, I think. But in any event, it shows how tethered we are to our technology these days. So how has this impacted criminal investigations? We've seen an evolution in the way the crime is committed. And that's no secret. We're actually seeing crimes, old crimes being committed in new ways.  That's not happening in a boiler room anymore. That's actually happening on the internet now real time. And it's being facilitated by the internet because these fraudulent entities can actually set up websites that look like real websites. That look like, you know, sitting in Toronto, Canada. There's a big office building that actually is owned by a company where 300 employees look and it's beautiful and glossy. And that website looks real. And in fact, that is a post office box when the person from Australia can't get them back on the phone after they've sent $100,000 and decide to fly over and find the building and find it's actually not a building at all. The internet's facilitating that kind of thing and it's made for certain investigative challenges. Child pornography is another obvious area where crime has evolved with the use of technology and the trafficking in child misery around the world has increased as a result of the internet and what can be sent anonymously on the internet. We have new crime and here in this community I don't need to remind anyone about the obviously the catastrophic events that can result from cyberbullying being the home of Retea Parsons and this kind of new crime that we're experiencing as a result of the use of technology. And other forms of crime. The Parliament is currently in the process of addressing through Bill C-13 which I'll return to close to the end of my chat. How are the police investigating in this new world of technology? There's a significant and obvious shift in how they're going about their work. They clearly have an unprecedented window into people's lives, a window that they didn't have before because people are now communicating in permanent electronic records. Used to be that part six of the criminal code was, and that is the electronic surveillance part of the criminal code, was all looked toward intercepting private communications in the form of oral communications by way of planting probes in residences or private locations, motor vehicles and so on or intercepting phone lines, hard land lines. And today the police are much more inclined to be looking to that part of the criminal code in order to intercept private communications but ones that are already committed to a permanent electronic record because of the way people communicate. Seizing their email communications, seizing their chats with others in certain environments that could be considered private. So there's evolving investigative techniques that are being used. Police are constantly online in an undercover capacity. You have old male police officers who are posing as young, beautiful teenage girls actually pulling in the men, often men, online who are looking for young teenage girls and this is the new undercover work that the police are involved in. They can now pass themselves off online undercover in a way that they could have never passed themselves off in the past and we see a host of that kind of activity going on. We also see the police using the community through the use of technology in new ways to solve crime or at least just taking advantage of the technology that's already being used out there. And we saw an example of this in the tragic events in Moncton, New Brunswick back earlier this year. We saw it during the Stanley Cup riot and in fact I have a little clip of that one that I want to show to you. It's just come up on the screen here. The use of technology in criminal investigations is so impressive. What they can do now is stitch together and this is a Vancouver police image. They asked the community to come together, give them their photos just before the riot broke out and they did that and they actually stitched together well over 100 photos to come up with this incredibly clear image and when you actually come in on this image you can start to see faces with unbelievable clarity because of what the public provided to the police in the wake of the actual riot and then the police asked, go in and see if you recognize anybody and if you do, Facebook tagged them for us. Would you mind? And so that is precisely what the public did and if you look at this image and it's full glory you will see there are hundreds of bubbles, Facebook bubbles over people's heads just like this one for poor Josh Ming. Now I'm not suggesting Josh Ming, whoever he is, was involved in criminal wrongdoing that day but if he was, I think it's a safe bet that the police were probably going to get him because what they could do then, because one of his friends clearly decided that they do the police a great service and Facebook tagged him. There you go. There's Josh Ming and there's his Facebook profile. Kind of easy for the police to figure out who he is, where he is, what he's about and to come knocking if they wanted to do so. So the police are using, they're using technology, they're using the public through the means of technology in order to solve crime and identify those believed to be involved in crime these days. I just want to get back to the other slide. Alt-Tab. Alt-Tab and click it from the bottom. Oh, I see. Right here? Yeah. Okay. Ah, I got it. Okay, thank you. So that's the world we're living in and the reality is we all know, it's no surprise to anybody in this room that we leave a digital trail everywhere we go. This is huge business for some companies. And you can see up on the screen here that there are some private data mining companies who are actually boasting these kinds of statistics for that many internet users in the world. Huge business. And how do they collect 1500 data points in relation to 500 million active consumers around the world and leave an electronic trail every single time we get on the internet? And there's virtually no way of avoiding that. It's called metadata. We all know that metadata is data about data. It gives information about who's communicating with who, when, for how long and so on. It's quite simply not benign data, no matter what some may suggest. It's not benign. If you look at the statistical research that's been done and you look at all kinds of studies that have especially been done by MIT, you're going to see that they have discovered that just four data points, leave alone 1500 data points, four are going to give you with 95% accuracy the actual identity of the owner of a phone. And in fact they've recently determined that sexual orientation can be determined simply by a few points of metadata. This raises real issues about privacy in this new world of technology and how it is that we can protect our privacy. The law enforcement know that there is a gold mine in this technology. They're well aware of it and in case we have any doubt about that, we can just look at the statistics that have been released in the very recent past by the Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association where they have suggested that over a million requests are put in from state actors every year for certain information as it relates to telecommunication of their clients. Some of those requests are going to be urgent requests done without any prior authorization. Some until the very recent past with the Spencer judgment which I'll come to in the Supreme Court of Canada would have been for just customer name address information and some requests are going to be to penetrate even more detailed information but over a million a year think about our population in Canada and think about that statistic against our population. Law enforcement love this world of technology that we're living in and it has made their jobs much easier and it's made it easier because people are using the technology and they're using it not very smartly quite often. Being a former prosecutor I can tell you that in a lot of gun cases that you prosecute for whatever reason guys like to take pictures of themselves with their guns. Thank you. Leave it on their cell phone device and there it is. The privacy question is whether the cell phone device has to be seized and searched with prior judicial authorization which we'll get into but the reality is it's there and at some point maybe people might wake up a bit but this is the world we're living in and this is the conundrum for people given that technology keeps a record everywhere. So that's the question has privacy been overtaken and do we really have privacy in this world of technology that we're living in? Mark Zuckerberg the founder of Facebook made a very controversial statement just a few years back where he said privacy is no longer a social norm. Interestingly enough he made that statement just before he bought up his four neighbor's properties around his house for millions and millions and millions of dollars because clearly for him privacy is a social norm and he'd like to keep it that way but he questions that in the world of technology and Scott McNeely in charge of Sun Microsystems made a similarly controversial statement back a little bit previously about ten years ago actually just previous to Zuckerberg saying you have zero privacy get over it. I mean is that true and it really begs the question whether we're living in this world of Orwellian despair is there any hope for privacy as we go forward and I'm going to suggest that given what we've been seeing evolve from our Supreme Court of Canada in the recent past and in this world of technology as they are starting to come to grips with it that they are fighting back and that they do have a vision of privacy even in this new world and they're not prepared to give over to these rather fatalistic statements by the likes of Zuckerberg or McNeely or even George Orwell. So Section 8 of the Charter is where all this action is happening and we know all too well what Section 8 what the right is in Section 8 in terms of keeping us secure against unreasonable search or seizure but what does that mean in this context and we learned in 1984 the very simple proposition out of Hunter and Sodom that if you have a reasonable expectation of privacy then the state needs prior judicial authorization before they can interfere with that expectation of privacy barring warrantless search doctrine being operative and the warrantless search doctrines tend to be or the most commonly resorted to ones tend to be these up on the screen so if there's consent there's no need for prior judicial authorization if something's been abandoned like garbage out at the curbside not on the property so there's a territorial privacy issue but at the curbside you've given up your privacy interest in it exigent circumstances are always going to overtake the privacy interest where they're sufficiently exigent where the police haven't triggered the exigency sufficient to allow for an interference with a privacy interest without prior judicial authorization but for the most part unless one of these warrantless search doctrines are operative prior judicial authorization is needed where there's a reasonable expectation of privacy but when is there a reasonable expectation of privacy is the question and the court has grappled with that concept over the years we all know the Edwards judgment from 1996 where the court spoke of the subject of privacy interest of the individual as objectively informed by the totality of circumstances so if an individual has a subject of privacy interest it is objectively reasonable in the circumstances at play then there is a reasonable expectation of privacy the person becomes cloaked in section 8 charter protection and barring a warrantless search doctrine or prior judicial authorization the state interference without privacy interest will trigger a section 8 breach but is that simplistic analysis coming out of Edwards that took root in 1996 and served us well I think served individuals Canadians well for so many years does it work in this day and age to ask do you have a subject of privacy interest as objectively reasonable in the circumstances does it work in the age of technology and I think what we're learning from our Supreme Court of Canada is that it has to be a much more nuanced much more complex analysis that gone are the days of the Mr. Edwards who was an individual charged in relation to a drug and weapons related matter he had stored some of his things at his girlfriend's apartment and out of that factual scenario where territorial privacy not informational privacy but territorial privacy is at play you get this analysis but does it work in the context of informational privacy and we've recently seen in the Spencer judgment in the Supreme Court of Canada was just released earlier this year in June of 2014 that it does have to be more nuanced that it's not just about those factors that we have to really ask ourselves and I'll return to this theme but what do we as a democratic nation deserve and want in terms of our privacy interest so when we're looking at a case like Spencer Mr. Spencer was charged and ultimately convicted of trafficking in child pornography a lot of these technology cases sadly and disturbingly arise in the child pornography context he was concerned he was section eight concerned because what happened was information came into the possession of the police that a certain IP address internet protocol address which is three digits period three digits period three digits it's just a number that that address was associated with child pornography the police through public means were able to determine where that address was associated to and which service provider go to the service provider and make what's at the time called a law enforcement request an LER the acronym for it and that law enforcement request was as simple as tell us the name in the address associated with whoever it is that belongs to this IP address that simple so all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada and the question is is a name and an address privacy protected does it deserve section eight charter protection and if we think about it through an Edwards lens that simplistic sort of can you have a subjective privacy interest in your name well I don't think anybody's name in this room is a secret you're given a name for the precise reason that we can all address each other by name that's that's the whole point of having a name same thing with your address you take mail at your address you entertain visitors at your address you know people come up and knock on your door your address tends not to be private but Supreme Court of Canada said when assessing all of the jurisprudence that came before on this point because it was quite divided around the country ultimately said that misses the mark that's not what it's really about it's about ensuring that we as Canadians can maintain a sphere of privacy despite the advances in technology and this isn't just about a name and address this is about a name and address that is going to tell us something about what that name does on the internet and it is the connection of those two concepts that for the Supreme Court of Canada was the concern and therefore the privacy interest was engaged under section eight of the charter and it is the court saying essentially that in this age of technology we need to be more nuanced we need to be more careful about how we approach these issues to understand the technology and to understand ultimately as a democratic nation what is at risk and so the court in Spencer but also in other cases dealing with technology in the last few years has started to come to grips with both the quantitative and qualitative differences in technology in iPhones, in computers, in iPads all of these technological devices we use and their potential to tell the state something about the individual because after all a cell phone in today's day and age for the most part certainly an iPhone certainly a smart phone is not just a phone it's a library it is a photo library it might have every single photo near and dear to your family's life on it it is going to have messages on it it's going to have text messages on it it's going to have email communications on it and on and on and on and it's not simply good enough to just call that a phone now because it isn't just a phone we saw in the VU judgment last year the Supreme Court of Canada come to grips with this through the unanimous judgment of Justice Cromwell and in VU the issue was as follows Mr. well there was a grow up big surprise in Vancouver in a residential address and the police went in with a warrant the warrant had on it among other things on the shopping list on the face of it that the police could search for and seize any documentation relating to essentially ownership and control that's what ultimately the cops are wanting because that's how they're going to determine who's responsible for the grow up the cops go in they haven't asked on the face of the warrant and haven't received authorization to seize any electronic devices so they go in and they at lo and behold they find a computer in fact they find a couple of computers and they also find a cell phone and on one of those computers Mr. VU had the great misfortune of having some information that clearly identified him including a resume and I guess he was looking for other lines of employment as well so he took issue with this in the trial court and actually had great success in the trial court in suggesting that well there wasn't a computer on the face of the warrant and therefore it's breached my Section 8 interest the issue though was one of plain view because we all know that on the face of a warrant as long as the police are lawfully positioned in the home which they were in this case they can seize anything that is in plain view not VU plain view in relation to what it is that they're investigating as long as it's related to that investigation and in this case that was the crown's position well you know what the computer was there this had this relevant information on it it's clearly like a document related to possession and control and we could take it and the court says no that's not going to work in this age of technology and it's not going to work in this age of technology because computers are quite simply different and we're not going to treat them like other things computers are different because A they store an immense and I think that probably is an understatement but an immense amount of information they're also different because they store information that the user doesn't even know they're storing so what's in the cache of a computer every search that you've done unless you're deleting your searches and frankly even if you're deleting your searches they're probably there to a creative and productive and motivated investigator forensic computer investigator after the fact you try to delete a file on a computer it's not deleted it's going to sit in the residual area of the computer and it's going to sit there for the rest of time unless that space is needed on the computer you can't really delete from a computer which is precisely why as a defense lawyer you know I've learned from all my previous life and work as a prosecutor that I would never tell a client to take their computer to get it fixed if your computer has a problem just okay the computer is done go get a new one don't get rid of the computer into the basement done so you everything is going to be there is the operative assumption for the rest of time and then finally what is the location of a computer the spin court can has recognized I think in a fairly sophisticated analysis that the location of computer is so unpredictable it's not just the physical device it's whatever the physical device is connected to and what a gold mine for the police is that the cloud if the computer is connected to it that is also information that's accessible to law enforcement whatever you have access to buy your computer and wherever you've stored your information whatever that cloud is wherever that cloud is is also going to be on essentially that computer when the police go into it so the court has said we're not going to treat computers like filing cabinets because they aren't like filing cabinets we're not going to treat them just like photo albums because they're not like that they are different and they are deserving of different rules and we're starting to see this evolution of new rules come out of the Supreme Court of Canada so in view the answer was while the police could take the computer and the electronic devices from the home and store them in some police facility serving the integrity of the possible evidence on the device they had to go and get separate authorization to enter the device which begs the question what does that authorization look like and the police are now really struggling with trying to determine how to apply for warrants in order to enter these electronic devices in a way that's going to comply with technological demands including whether or not they should have protocols about how the search goes down in what way it goes down in view there was a suggestion that protocols are not constitutionally required but they might be a good idea when usually when the Supreme Court of Canada says not constitutionally required but might be a good idea that's a hint in terms of how the jurisprudence is going to evolve and I think law enforcement would be wise to be going down that path now coming back to Riley for a moment I just thought I'd point out that our court a much younger and more vibrant court than the US Supreme Court is completely in sync with the US Supreme Court so we're just as Cromwell on the previous slide in view said these are all of the differences between electronic devices and other things that the police are dealing with and seizing in Riley I thought Chief Justice Roberts really made a very interesting and gripping statement here when he was commenting on the prosecutor's position in Riley that a cell phone seized incident to arrest is materially indistinguishable from searches of other kinds of physical items like for instance address books and so on and the Chief Justice said well that was like saying a ride on horseback is materially indistinguishable from a flight to the moon both are ways of getting from point A to point B but little else justifies lumping them together and this is definitely an instance where both Supreme Courts seem to have come together in terms of their thinking on that issue Morelli really started the ball rolling in this area of technology from the Supreme Court of Canada so in 2010 and you know I think historically it's very interesting to observe that this is the first important technology case from the Supreme Court of Canada and I think it caught everybody off guard and you know that to be the case because look how many Attorney General interveners there were in Morelli, zero, nobody saw this coming it looked like a standard CP child pornography case it looked like it was just going to be run in the mill it was going to be looking into what the grounds were for an information to obtain a search warrant related to a computer maybe a few kind of interesting but old hat 24-2 issues whatever Morelli comes out in the legal world from a technology perspective was really shaken because the first few paragraphs of Morelli tell the story it's Justice Fish and he says clearly and loudly that it's difficult to imagine a search that is more extensive or invasive than a search essentially of a private computer and I think we could debate about whether there's more invasive searches I've always thought Mr. Greff who was the subject of a body cavity search at an airport might take some issue with whether or not it's you know difficult to imagine a more invasive search than of a computer he might have chosen his computer given the choice to be searched but in any event it is a demonstration and I think a very clear demonstration that the Supreme Court of Canada is prepared to protect technology that they are concerned with technology and they're concerned with where this is all going to take us in terms of our privacy interest if we don't get on top of it and we have seen this statement restated by the court since Morelli in a number of judgments including the cold judgment which I will come to so what's this done to the Plain View Doctrine I've discussed VU and the new approach under VU I just wanted to very quickly advert to the FIERON judgment which will be coming out of the Supreme Court of Canada coming to a home near you very soon and FIERON is going to tell the story in terms of whether we're going to have a new search incident to arrest doctrine in the context of searching cell devices so the search incident to arrest doctrine is as old as the hills in this country we know it well it is a doctrine that says that when an individual is lawfully arrested that they can be searched and things in and around the immediate vicinity of the individual can be searched as long as there is essentially a nexus between the purpose of the arrest it is lawful the lawful arrest I should be clear and the purpose of the search please don't need reasonable grounds to believe that what they're searching is going to yield evidence of the crime they can simply search it as long as there is a nexus that nexus has to be attached to some form of evidence that might inform what they've been arrested for or it could inform safety concerns for public or police safety in the context of that arrest but that's in essence the doctrine fast forward into the world of technology we now live in and individuals who are getting arrested not surprisingly have cell phone devices on them all the time now that's just the reality one of the first things I learned when I went into defense work over a year ago now is to tell a client who's going to turn themselves in don't go in with any devices on your body do you understand do you leave your cell phone at home leave your blackberry at home leave your ipad everything don't go near the police with your electronic devices because they can clearly seize them that's not the debate the debate is whether they can search them without prior judicial authorization and Fearon will resolve this debate there is divided jurisprudence in this country on the issue of whether the historical search incident to arrest doctrine applies or whether we need to tweak that doctrine for purposes of electronic devices my bet and I actually don't typically bet on Supreme Court of Canada cases because I'm often wrong but on this one I really really think that the Crown is going to probably not succeed in their position on this that the cell phone device seized incident to arrest is deserving of the same treatment as everything else seized incident to arrest I think there is going to be a requirement for prior judicial authorization to get into the device I do think there's probably some reasonable debate to be had in terms of whether the police can take a cursory look at the device at the time of arrest but my prediction is that probably we're going to come out with a rule that is specific to the world of technology and one that very much aligns itself with what we've seen in view in these new rules that have evolved in terms of coal I think this some might suggest and I don't think unreasonably is perhaps the high watermark of where the Supreme Court of Canada has been in this new world of technology simply because of the facts that underlay this judgment again of Justice Fish of the Supreme Court so Mr. Cole as you may know was a high school teacher and he was issued a laptop through his employment so it wasn't his laptop it was the board's laptop and he was also bound by certain contractual agreements which is a fascinating area in this evolving jurisprudence in terms of how much the contract plays into informing the privacy interest so he's got these contracts and they include things like you can use your laptop for your own personal things but bear in mind that essentially the information on the laptop can be accessed at any point that's in a nutshell it's a little more complex than that but in a nutshell I think that covers it and when it comes to Mr. Cole's computer true to what the authorized user agreement said his laptop information was accessed at one point by someone cleaning up the school's electronic information because there was something going wrong in the system and everybody's information was being looked at and what the problem was and lo and behold Mr. Cole has child pornography Mr. Cole the teacher has child pornography on his school computer and oh by the way it was actually child pornography of a student in the school okay so I think those are pretty interesting facts to assess the privacy interest against and yet despite all of that and that backdrop Mr. Cole was found to have a privacy interest in his computer and we saw this statement of Justice Fishes come out of Cole that his personal use of his work-issued laptop generated information that is meaningful intimate and organically connected to his biographical core now that's a big statement in my view against this factual backdrop we all know about information connected to a biographical core that's language that the court in Cole has taken from the 1993 judgment of the Supreme Court in Plant again a marijuana grow operation Mr. Plant had the perfect name for that case I think his name actually was enough to get the warrant in that case sufficient grounds but you know the court's actually up the ante here we're no longer talking about information connected to a biographical core we're talking about being organically connected to the biographical core and in this context and so I think the point is the lesson arising out of Cole is very much that the court's serious about this technology that they are pushing back on these attempts by law enforcement to penetrate this sphere of privacy that the court is giving a generous interpretation to and they're prepared to apply Section 8 in a way that historically might not have been done if you apply a true Edwards analysis to those Cole facts I'm not sure we would have ended up where we are in Cole today just that standard did Mr. Cole really have a subject of privacy interest in that computer it's a school computer the court was prepared to accept that he did but was it objectively reasonable or is this more about the normative approach to Section 8 of the charter and I think we're starting to see in the jurisprudence the evolution of this concept of a value laden approach to Section 8 of the charter who do we want to be as a country what do we want to be as a country how does privacy intersect with that and so the richest discussion of that and I'm going to give you a slide in just a minute is actually most recently in Spencer but I think we're moving toward and some might even say back to this normative approach early in the 90s Justice Laffer Ray who I consider to be one of the greatest visionaries when it comes to Section 8 of the charter and who we owe a huge debt of gratitude in the early days in terms of the evolution of this area of the law I think predicted that we were going to ultimately get into these issues and he was supportive of approaching the Section 8 of the charter in a flexible way in an open and broad way and in one that ensured that we maintained our free and democratic society and so we can see Justice Laffer Ray in the Wong judgment and Wong I'll remind you is the case is I'm sure you know where you have the individual who's rented out the hotel room it's essentially running a gaming operation from the hotel room and there's a real issue about whether or not even though you're inviting others to come into a hotel room that's being used as a gaming operation whether or not there's a privacy interest in that hotel room and ultimately Chief Justice Laffer and Justice McLaughlin then was they hook up together in the majority judgment to find there wasn't one but Justice Laffer Ray on his own here talked about and this is in 1990 remember talked about keeping pace with technological developments and making sure that we have an approach to Section 8 of the charter that is going to take appropriate care of the advancements in technology as they come up and back then he's talking about a very rudimentary camera that had been installed in a hotel room almost 25 years ago but we saw this theme start to come up again in Tessling where Justice Binney called it and Tessling is the floor case forward looking infrared technology was used in order to again look to heat emanations from a roof in the context of a grow-up investigation and Justice Binney talked about the expectation of privacy being a normative concept and it's not simply a factual inquiry it's not just simply a descriptive standard it's something where we have to determine who we are and what we want to be Justice Binney again and Patrick revisits this concept and Patrick is the garbage case where the garbage is left out at the curbside and the issue is whether or not the police by reaching into the territorial privacy of the individual and quite literally the police had to reach across the property line to pick up those bags of garbage and haul them away whether or not Mr. Patrick had a privacy interest in the territory in that airspace that they reached into to grab the bags that had been left at the curbside but technically on his property and whether or not he had a privacy interest in the information yielded from the garbage and ultimately the court decided that he had abandoned the garbage and he didn't have a privacy interest but nonetheless there's a beautiful discussion in Patrick by Justice Binney about what sectionated the charter is about and being concerned with the long-term consequences of judgments from the court and how they're approaching the privacy analysis so again moving a little bit away from that rigid Edward's analysis that theme of subject of privacy interests as objectively assessed with the constellation of factors and to this almost second analysis after you go through all of that asking yourself about does this fit with who we want to be, what we want to be and then we have Ward and Justice Doherty decides Ward in the Ontario Court of Appeal just back a few years ago and it raised the Spencer issue it is the customer name address case and it was probably the most significant one before the Supreme Court of Canada determined the issue in Spencer and here Justice Doherty made certain observations about value judgments how he interpreted what Justice Binney was saying in Patrick and indeed in Tessling what he meant by a normative approach and how we should now be approaching sectionated the charter in this world of technology and ultimately he decides that really sectionate should engage in the analysis this whole issue, this whole question about what we want to be in contemporary Canadian society bearing in mind all of these advances in technology and with that analysis he is clear that we have to move on from Edwards we have to be true to Edwards but we have to really look at this second step even after we emerge from an Edwards analysis and Justice Cromwell and Spencer picks it up he agrees with Justice Doherty, he applies Ward and gets to the ultimate conclusion which is really foundational in terms of where we're at today I think sectionated the charter in terms of technology that you can actually have anonymity it is a constitutionally protected interest and it's anonymity in public spaces public spaces on the internet that you have a constitutional right to that and that's new and in my view that's a seismic shift in the law and it's an important shift in the law because it creates all manner of interesting investigative challenges for the police in terms of how they approach their work I think this is just the beginning of a wave we're going to see all kinds of issues now arise out of other forms of investigative work in the area of technology think about the undercover police officer who's online speaking to somebody the officer is anonymous the individual he or she is speaking with is hoping to be anonymous, wanting to be anonymous is there a penetration of their constitutionally protected right to privacy in that environment and I think we're going to see this as the beginning of a new concept I think there's, especially for younger people in the room all kinds of work to be had there no worries you're going to be gainfully employed for a very long time and what Justice Cromwell ultimately looking at the bottom of the screen has said in Spencer is that this is a significant privacy interest it's not just a privacy interest it's a significant one, the right to anonymity why am I having trouble with that word today somebody else say it for me next time in the technological environment and that it is important to our ability to flourish essentially the individual flourishing in a democratic society so where does it leave law enforcement it leaves them with a lot of uncertainty I think and it leaves them with a lot of work to do all of these cases combined I think lead to a conclusion that law enforcement would be well advised when dealing with technology and we'll see what Thearon says it's not going to be much longer I think we're going to see it pretty soon but they'd be well advised to use prior judicial authorization I sometimes wonder from a practical perspective how protective that is for the individual you know perhaps this is just putting my old hat on but you know law enforcement thinks that the sky fell when Vu was decided when the court said oh computers are different electronic devices are different and therefore you know you can take them you can secure the integrity of them but you have to get a warrant before you enter them but the warrant is going to be obtained and you know there's no question the grounds are there when you have a computer device in a location to be searched and you're looking for documents that have already been authorized to be seized chances are that computer at least there's going to be credibly based probability which is the threshold that they have to rise to in order to get prior judicial authorization it's going to be met so it really begs the question what is the point well the point is Hunter in Southern says you need prior judicial authorization to go in and that's important and we have to stay true to that but at the end of the day it's a ton of work for law enforcement and to what end I think the answer to the what end is ultimately going to be search protocols I think they're coming I don't think there's any question about it because if we're looking for one document related to possession and control for instance and you're entering a computer that has we all know if you printed everything out on that computer every single thing it is going to like they'll exceed the height of this building if you stacked it all up it's probably going to be twenty of these buildings protocols are coming and the court is going to be addressing that issue they have to be because it can't be that law enforcement can just go in and search everywhere for one document there has to be a meaningful way to limit that intrusion into that technological space to be more defined and careful in terms of what it is that they're searching for where does it leave parliament I think it leaves them with a lot of work to do right now parts six and fifteen of the criminal code are wholly inadequate to the task and I say with respect a ridiculous labyrinth of provisions these are only the sections that relate to things that you can get in order to get at technology there's all kinds of other as we know search provisions but within part six it's like a grand bag of potential sections in order to get at private communications through electronic surveillance but none of them are up to the task really of seizing email communications of seizing text message communications there is more time spent debating in law enforcement what the right criminal code provision is are we under part fifteen of the criminal code or under part six of the criminal code is this a private communication if it's a private communication is it one that has already crystallized in a form where it is sitting somewhere and can just be seized just like the old letter could be seized or does it have you know is it a real time communication we saw the court recently debate this in the last couple of years where a general warrant was used in order to get prospective what was thought to be prospective text messaging on a go forward basis and whether or not that was appropriate or whether it had to be a wire tap authorization the reality is parliament has to tackle this to the ground and they need to consolidate some of these provisions and they need to give a more meaningful approach even within part fifteen of the criminal code 487 it's your old standard warrant but you can seize computer data under 2.1 and 2.2 but you can also get it under 487.01 a general warrant and on and on and on they need to really provide more user friendly provisions and they need to be provisions that accommodate what information it is that the police are after so if we look at C13 and we all know C13 has in part the bill that is proposing the new cyber bullying provisions and that it would appear this government is quite keen on pursuing it also has all of these new provisions I mean I can barely count as high as these provisions but this is the idea they're all going to be inserted into part 15 of the criminal code and what I find very interesting every time I look at bill C13 is how many of those are driven by reasonable grounds to suspect threshold as opposed to a reasonable grounds to believe threshold and a lot of them are in relation to things like metadata and so on and again metadata is not really benign information and it begs the question is this going to be found to be institutionally appropriate or constitutionally up to the task in terms of the jurisprudence and certainly in terms of the way of the authorities that have been coming out of the Supreme Court of Canada in the last few years if it is in fact a passes and is proclaimed in force so that's really what I thought I would cover my hour this afternoon and I thought that we could just open it up to questions, comments have a bit of a dialogue about some of these issues and really feel free so let me jump in just to say that McAllister got on a plane at 430 so I'm going to say 10, 12 minutes or so for questions and she has to get into a cab and get out to our airport I don't know so yeah, we'll say 10, 12 minutes I'm happy I'm interested in your comment and assessment of the gombok case, the digital recording ammeter case where they went all over the map at least the majority did in terms of saying that there's no privacy interest and that there's a licensing agreement with Calgary Power and in the end the police can do what they want with the RAs so I found it actually a very interesting decision so the majority judgment of justice Deschamps speaking for four of them I thought was fascinating and I think it's a very important one I mentioned this contract situation and how it's informing section 8 in this context these days and I think gombok is the really the beginning of a very rich discussion on that issue because as Justice Deschamps said for the majority the is actually a regulation it's actually a legislation in the gombok decision so she's looking at that and she says well look, this is one of the factors that we're going to look at but it doesn't inform the privacy analysis in a dispositive way but rather becomes one of the things that we look at in this totality of circumstances and ultimately finds bearing in mind those totality of circumstances that there's no privacy or no interest I thought it was interest because Justice Abela in the minority judgment said no the legislation or the regulation at issue in gombok which is one that essentially says if you don't want us to share this information you need to tell us essentially, like who, I can't find a regulation that's what younger lawyers are for in my office find me the right regulations I mean, what member of the public knows what the regulation says really so, but she said Justice Abela, well, you know what that's dispositive of the privacy analysis and I thought that was very interesting when just a couple of years later we see in coal the court commenting on the AUP in that case, the authorized user agreement that was operative and saying essentially just one of many factors to consider so I think that ultimately how gombok has been applied by the court is through the lens of Justice Deschamps majority judgment for the plurality and I think that what we're going to see go forward is this is just one of the considerations in Spencer look at those contractual provisions that were in place, I mean really it's stunning look at them even in ward and yet they don't drive the privacy analysis at the end of the day and I think that's the court just taking a very common sense approach in this age of technology I mean really seriously show of hands how many people read before they click that I agree I usually forget the I agree and I just I click and then it goes no you forgot to click the I agree okay okay I agree so you know I think but we have one very good that's impressive actually okay you do too but really do you have much of a choice I guess is the other question it's another I think very practical approach by the court because you know what telecommunication provider isn't putting into their contracts these days that they're going to cooperate with the police if the police come knocking or indeed if their service is being used for improper purposes like child pornography that they're not going to go knocking on the police store and there's a very good reason for that the telecommunication provider is facilitating the commission of a criminal offense and indeed it is a crime for them to have on their service child pornography so they have to cooperate in these circumstances whether it's the police initiating that cooperation or them coming back over so you know under the under pipita I think they they technically are out from under the usual pains and constraints of pipita they can cooperate the question is how the police get at it constitutionally and how they get at it constitutionally I think is with prior judicial authorization post Spencer that's the end of it so while it would be lawful under pipita to give it even without a warrant it's not charter compliant for the police to take it essentially that's how I see Spencer shaking out and I think the genesis of that discussion is in Gaumbach general idea yeah I think it's a very interesting question and I wouldn't at all be surprised to see that and I think that actually it could happen and the reason for that is you know again the police thought oh my god you know the sky is falling post view but the reality is we look at stats can from 2010 over 79% of resonances today have a computer that is connected to the internet so if that's the case that is more than what we call reasonable grounds to believe credibility based probability that you're going to come across an electronic device in that location so again it sort of begs those practical issues about I get it like there should be prior judicial authorization and for it's going to happen so for me where is the where is the room for movement in the world of protocols and I think they're coming hi no no you can't so you need reasonable grounds to believe in relation to the specific crime and you have to be looking for evidence related to that crime but we learned in a case called Jones in the Ontario Court of Appeal back a few years ago which has really been applied I think coast to coast since Jones that where the police so in Jones for instance they've got a warrant to seize a computer to search a that relates to an online fraud essentially and it's exactly your scenario they come and they're allowed to look for certain documents relative to that fraud they come across to help pornography and they actually got crowned advice it was back a number of years ago and the crown said well it's the plain view doctrine you're lawfully positioned vis-a-vis that computer you can keep searching you came across it innocently go for it fill your boots definitely the Ontario Court of Appeal said no you can't do that once they came across the child pornography they did it was engaged in a bona fide a search as it related to the fraud that they were investigating so it was fine to come across the actual child pornography but the minute they did they had to freeze that computer go back and get judicial authorization to continue searching it now for this new purpose the child pornography investigation so to answer your question it has to be very focused warrant in the first instance but it doesn't mean that they're precluded from you know investigating what they come across they just have to get further authorization to do it because the plain view doctrine is actually a doctrine that is essentially one informed by the fact of what you've legitimately found when you're looking at it but you can't continue to search for that thing under the doctrine how do you think the the 20 search doctrine is things like that are going to come up against the encryption where people are purposely making documents like any evidence that is being searched for impossible when they're impossible to obtain our password and in most cases cannot be decided even by the best of your reasons so would that be considered an evidence of how there's a real debate about that firstly I have to say working in the area of search and electronic surveillance for a long time with the province of Ontario it was virtually never a circumstance where that happened one of the only pieces of technology that's really really tough is actually blackberry rim technology and it's only in relation to a very small category of that other than that you know what everything is breakable but will it evolve to that point maybe and I think that's going to beg really interesting issues about self-incrimination because if the only way to get behind it is to get the password or you know I've debated in the past what about computers that can only be opened up with the thumbprint can you get a general warrant to take the individual's thumb and place it on and we've done it it's happened but there are real self-incrimination issues embedded in those questions so you just hope that the police if that's the side of the fence that you're on can stay ahead of the technology and if you're on the other side maybe you hope the opposite and sometimes I'm not sure where I am these days in my new world but this question of whether you can get a warrant that covers the computers or the cell phones that happen in the house what do you think Boo says about how much you have to stay in that initial warrant to go into the house about ultimately above the cell phones like or the computers certainly you know there's probably going to be computers and cell phones in the house multiple devices but does Boo require a second warrant once you get those and if not what's required in that first question what do they have to say in the ITO like how much and what's the best practice they have oh my gosh I think that is such a tough question because historically a warrant is directed at a location that's a whole concept of warrants so we are going to search a location but the location is going to sometimes be relative to information so ISP it's for information related to X but in a house situation the location is 123 E Street but the way that the court and I think this really is what you're referring to and I'm of multiple minds on it the court of view has treated the computer like a location and the contents of the computer like information so if 123 E Street is your location what's the computer then it has to be a thing that's being seized from the location but it doesn't fit with our historical conceptualization of how we approach those things so you're getting a warrant to get into 123 E Street and then a warrant to get into the like and then to seize the computer and then another warrant to get into the computer because now your computer becomes your location back at the police station and I think that to answer the question all the best you can do if you want to do it in one warrant and this is kind of really putting on my old hat but I think what you'd have to do is really invent a new form five like warrant under the criminal code so you'd have to say 123 is my location the thing to be seized is the computer and then after in possession of the computer these are the things that are to be looked for in the computer and then if you're getting into protocols and these are the terms and conditions and there is some support in the jurisprudence for warrants that can like even historical type location warrants, 487 warrants for terms and conditions so classic ones are like the media kind of warrants so we see that in cases like New Brunswick we see a discussion in the jurisprudence in all those CBC cases in the early 90's about what are the right terms and conditions when you're searching a media organization to minimize the impact on privilege within the organization and so on so you could term and condition up a regular warrant but I just say I'm yeah I think a second warrant would probably be the easiest way to do it but you'd have to be clear in your ITO that we're getting the computers out we want them on our shopping list on our original warrant and then we'll be seeking further authorization to search once they're out I mean that would be the historical kind of historically consistent approach I guess do you have any other thoughts on that no I think that's my thought I mean I'm crown obviously but that's been my that's been my reading of the one that I just said some resistance from the police on that point but I don't think I guess everything's not crystal clear yet I mean I could see a rationale for yes doing a very detailed explanation of the ITO of what you're going to do with the cell phone when you get it and maybe if it is a more complex investigation maybe there's part six you know what you're going to get when you get into the house so you can speak to those things in a comprehensive way on that first initial warrant on the takedown date so there might be some room to do it in those type of cases but generally I think like on the door kicks you probably want to do the second one yeah well for sure it's the safest way I mean you know we've all certainly my former life a million conversations with police officers saying look like you know what why risk it you might as well yeah we'll work with an abundance of caution here especially the more important the investigation gets so we're not leaving there I'm afraid because of the class coming in shortly so I would ask you to join me and thank you Michele for sharing some great


Dylan to be progressive soccer These are some soccer drills for kids soccer drills for players of any age really To improve your first touch Your passing your control your confidence on the ball and your Sharpness you may have saw a video I released recently where I did similar drills with a 14 year old girl Here I'm training with a 10 year old boy as you can see it doesn't matter the age and guys It doesn't matter so much about the drill. It's the way you approach the drill You can have the most simple drill, but if you approach it with intensity and quality You're going to get something out of it. So when you're sending me any messages acts asking me What drill should I do? I don't really care so much It's more how you do it approach everything you do with intensity with quality with the desire to improve And you're going to get something out of it So I'll take you through these touch drills first one we did was inside the foot here is outside of the foot passing drill Focus on the movement in between. Don't just side skip. Don't just jog from cone to cone I want that quick sharp lateral movement getting lower the ground Bending the knees when you change direction here. We did a combination of the two so passing With one foot at a time, but on one side. I'm using inside on the other side I'm using outside of the foot So really developing that confidence using the outside of the foot. I love that touch I've talked about it before I'll keep talking about it and you'll see the progression in my own technique as well as the players that I train Really developing that outside of the foot pass In the beginning, it's gonna be awkward for you You're gonna have to learn how to flex your foot most people don't even have the ability the strength the mobility to flex their foot And pass for the outside of the foot But the more you practice the more it'll come the more confidence you will get Next we moved into some two-touch drills here. I'm receiving with the outside of the foot With a touch heavy enough to get past the cone, but not so heavy that I lose possession So really focusing on the quality of that first touch making the weight of that first touch perfect When you're playing in games when you're playing in matches training It's not good enough just to touch your to have your first touch go in the direction that you want really focus on getting that precise Weight so the ball travels exactly where you need to so you can play a pass first time or you can play a Pass for your second touch. You can release a shot quickly. You can dribble past the defender You can get past the defender with your first touch. So it's not good enough just to have a first touch What are you doing with the first touch? Where does it go? What is the specific weight paying attention to those? Details receiving the ball in different ways as you can see there's a hundred different ways You could do these little touch drills with two simple cones and realistically you don't even need a cone But the cone are good guides to make sure that your weight of touch is proper and your movement is Sharp enough you're moving from side to side So after these touch drills going into some more aerial stuff but again Focus on the quality of your technique the quality of your passing but also the quality in the way that you move We're always focused on what we do with the ball I want you to focus on what you do with your body How do you move is your movement getting sharper each time not just the quality of your touch is your technique? Is the quality of your movement getting better each time approach it with that mentality? You're gonna prove so much faster here We're doing a half always so right after the bounce putting that ball back into your partner's hands and As I said in the other video, it's not good enough just to pass it in their general direction Put it right in their hands so they don't even have to move their hands They don't have to reach up. They don't have to bend down. We're right in their hands every single time Here we're moving into air volley or full volley with the inside of the foot and again You could do these with any you could do outside the foot you could do with the laces But here we're just doing with the inside of the foot really focused on making flush contact So whenever I'm doing passes even ground passes I'm asking myself was that pure contact did I hit it right on the spot and you know the difference? You know the difference when you have a good pass and a passes maybe it's okay, but it didn't feel the same I want you to notice that feeling of a flush pass. How does it feel? Try to replicate that feeling every time you make a pass whether it's on the ground or in the air here We're doing a two-touch Just varying the throws sometimes to the chest sometimes to the feet Sometimes to the thighs just focusing on a quick two-touch controlling the ball Being unpredictable with your service forcing the player to stand their toes and react quickly No excuses if it comes to your head if it comes to your toes and comes to your feet You need to control the ball and that's a mentality that I have and one that I want you to have as well If someone passes me the ball whether they ping it at me a hundred miles an hour Or it's coming in nice and light if it's in my general direction in my sphere of control anywhere around my body I put it on myself. I should control it I don't care how hard it's coming in if they over hit it if they under hit it If they put it a little bit to my left or my right it doesn't matter if it's in my sphere of control I am responsible for taking care of that ball last one we did here We're just throwing it down into the ground a little bit air control pushing out of your feet controlling quickly playing that pass back


T. F. N. N. headline news update everyone Basil Chapman the host of the tiger technicians are coming up after this T. F. N. Update noontime. I'm also the whole the author of the opening called daily newsletter. Let's go to the doubt down 6325813 remember yesterday for a few days now I've been talking about this black line right on the left side chart. You can see it's called the 14 period exponential moving average on the daily chart and at 25,084 it's been the repellent for four out of the past five five five sessions and the down just cannot get above it if it does then 25957 is the level to break above that starts a leg B and that'll be positive because that'll start the Magdi turning up nicely at this point is struggling. Stochastic is only at 39% wiki chart went right down to support. I'm looking at this very closely because there again the 14 period moving average the black line right here in the wiki chart has been resistance S&P is right at this particular point also down is down six points at 2858. It hasn't even got to that level of 2868 the 14 period moving average resistance and the Magdi is trying to flatten out but it isn't successful yet. It needs to get to about the 2884 level to say hey now I've got some strength that's a lot of points up at this particular point the support at 2848 is really important on a short-term basis. The QQQ's has been impacted by the SMH's down 51 cents at 181.38. December is already a big part of this and it's really struggling and it's down 50 cents is not a big deal but it's within this pattern it's like an H pattern an arch formation if it breaks under 180 in the next few days that's negative it needs to get to 180.75 to show some strength the IWM was a little strong and yesterday announced a little weaker it's down 1.10 150.70 also stuck in a range but what's really interesting here is that gold is trading up to two and a half points it's in the lower end of the range it's trying to establish because that weekly chart remember we spoke about this on this Friday that's a close it closes underneath this weekly dash trend line support that's going to be a problem and the MACD is not very good so casting is at 16% most of very weak and if you look at the dollar the dollar hasn't moved up very much but it has been moving up look at the green candles and it's trading up a 3 cents right or three ticks right now at 98.09 I'll talk more about this in the next in the next few minutes when I come back for my Tiger technicians hour otherwise I'll see you tomorrow have a great day Vessel captain signing off 22nd of May


Despite the myriad menu of FDA-approved medications for weight loss, they've only been prescribed for about 150 obese patients. We worship medical magic bullets in this country. What gives? One of the reasons anti-obesity drugs are so highly stigmatized is that historically they've been anything but magical, and the bullets have been blanks or worse. Most weight loss drugs to date that were initially approved as safe have since been pulled from the market for unforeseen side effects that turned them into a public threat. As you may remember, it all started with DNP, a pesticide with a promise to safely melt away fat, but instead melted away people's eyesight. It was actually one of the things that led to the passage of the Landmark Food Drug and Cosmetic Act in 1938. Thanks to the internet, though, DNP has made a comeback with predictably lethal results. Then came the amphetamines. Currently, more than half a million Americans may be addicted to amphetamines like crystal meth, but the original amphetamine epidemic was generated by drug companies and doctors. By the 1960s, drug companies were churning out about 80,000 kilos a year, which is nearly enough for a weekly dose for a man, woman, and child in the United States. Billions of doses a year were prescribed for weight loss. Weight loss clinics were raking in huge profits. A dispensing diet doctor could buy 100,000 amphetamine tablets for less than $100 and turn around and sell them to patients for $12,000. At a 1970 Senate hearing, Senator Thomas Dodd, father of Dodd Frank, Senator Chris Dodd, suggested America's speed freak problem was no accidental development. He said the pharmaceutical industry's multi-hundred million dollar advertising budgets, frequently the most costly ingredient in the price of a pill, have pill by pill led, coaxed, and seduced post-World War II generations into the freaked out drug culture. I'll leave drawing the big form of parallels to the current opioid crisis as an exercise for the viewer. A minarex was a widely prescribed appetite suppressant before it was pulled for causing lung damage. 18 million Americans were on fen-fen before it was pulled from the market for causing severe damage to heart valves. Meridia was pulled for heart attacks and strokes, a complia for psychiatric side effects, including suicide, and the list goes on. The fen-fen debacle results in some of the largest litigation payouts in the industry's history, but it's all baked into the formula. If you read the journal Pharmacoeconomics and who doesn't, sure a new weight loss drug may injure and kill so many that expected litigation costs could exceed $80 million, but big pharma consultants estimate if successful the drug could bring in over $100 million, so do the math.


You are clear for launch.  You can copy that and um... Hey, welcome back. I'm Mr. Rouchoff. And when you look at nearly any region, we find that religion is part of any part of the culture of its people. This certainly is the case of the people of the Middle East and of North Africa. So in this lesson, we're going to look at the three major religions that originated in the Middle East and have had so much of influence on its culture and in fact of the cultures of the world. These religions are Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Not only do these Semitic religions come from the Middle East, we also find that all three of these religions come from one man named Abraham which has become essentially the father or the patriarch of these religions. Now the story about how each religion claims Abraham as their own starts with Abraham marrying his wife Sarah. The problem is they didn't think they could have children. So Sarah offered to Abraham her servant Hagar to have as his second wife and together Abraham and Hagar had a son named Ishmael. But then Sarah and Abraham were able to have his son of their own named Isaac. And this is where the story gets a little gritty. Sarah begins to resent Hagar and finally Abraham, in order to keep peace, takes Hagar and Ishmael into the desert where they would eventually settle in Saudi Arabia near where Mecca is today. Ishmael's descendants are by tradition Arabs of which a name by the name of Muhammad according to Muslim tradition began receiving messages from God and founded the religion of Islam. The descendants of Isaac however, remember this was the son of Abraham and Sarah were the Jews and from which we get Judaism. Now around 4 BC according to the Christian tradition one of these Jews was born in a major Jesus Nazareth who Christians believe is the son of God. So we see how connected these religions are to each other through Abraham. In fact early Muslim law citing passages of their holy text which is the Quran permitted intermarriage between Muslims, Christians and Jews and provided protections to the Jews and the Christians as they were believed to be people of the book. So let's take a closer look at each of these religions and we will look first at the oldest of these religions which is Judaism. Judaism is the world's second oldest religion that dates back over 4,000 years and largely begins when Abraham made his covenant with God. A covenant is an agreement and in this covenant Abraham agreed on behalf of all the Jewish people that they would obey God's law in return for God for offering them protection. And the law that the Jews were to follow included the 10 commandments that a man named Moses is said to have received on a mountain from God. Now among these 10 commandments are instructions not to murder, not to lie, not to commit adultery among many others. The first of these commandments is that the Jews were to have no other gods. Thus Judaism was the first monolithic religion. Monotheism comes from the two Greek words, mono which means one and theos which means God, in other words one God. The 10 commandments are also joined by other commandments in the Jews' most sacred texts, the first five books of Moses or the Torah. Joining the Torah the Jews also have the Nevaim which is the collection of the stories of the prophets as well as the Kitavim which includes books such as the Proverbs, the Psalms, and other books. Together the Torah, the Nevaim, and the Kitavim make up the Hebrew Bible which we will see in a few moments also is the Christian Old Testament. Now the two most holy sites in Judaism are the Temple Mount in the western wall or what is also known as the Kotel. Both these sites are important due to their proximity to a site where both Solomon's Temple was built in 957 and then Herod's Second Temple was built upon it beginning around 19 BC. Of these two sites the Temple Mount is the most important as it was the foundation of these two temples and is also where we find the foundation stone upon which Abraham proved his loyalty to God by being willing to sacrifice his own son. The foundation stone is located under this golden dome building that we'll discuss in a few moments. However, due to the conflicts between the Muslim Arabs and the Jews, Jews are not allowed to pray on the Temple Mount. So the next best place is the Western Wall. The Western Wall is the wall of the Second Jewish Temple that was built by Herod the Great. After the Jews rebelled against the Romans who controlled Judea at the time, they were expelled from the homeland and the temple was destroyed in 70 AD. It would be some 300 years before any Jews would be allowed back to worship at the site of the Temple. And even then they were only allowed to visit once every year. Now today however, Jews from around the world will make a pilgrimage to the Western Wall, also known as the Kotel, to pray at the Wall. Now just like we discussed in our European lessons that there are three divisions of the Christian Church, there are three major divisions in the Jewish faith. These are Orthodox, Conservative and Reformed. Orthodox Jews tend to follow the strictest adherence to the Hebrew Bible and observe the faith in the Hebrew language. While Reformed Jews put less weight behind the rituals of the faith and allow for individual interpretation and will use their own language for worship. And Conservative Jews tend to take a position between the Orthodox and their Reformed divisions of Judaism. However, there are some common practices that include the sabbat, which is the day of prayer and rest, that begins at the sunset on Friday and ends on the sunset of Saturday. Now during the sabbat, Orthodox and some Conservative Jews will go as far as not using tools or appliances during this day of rest. Now the sabbat services are usually held in synagogues led by a rabbi. Now while many Americans will assume that Hankeh is the holiest day for Jews, it's not even close. Instead, Yom Kippur, or the day of atonement, is the holiest day of the year and is observed by fasting, which means not to eat. However, refraining from eating is not just during Yom Kippur, as many Jews will only eat that which is deemed kosher. And kosher means food that complies with very specific Jewish dietary rules. This means that Jews that observe kosher will not eat foods such as seafood and pork. Now out of Judaism, we get Christianity. It is prophesized that a Messiah would deliver the Jews from their oppression. Christians believe that a Jew born in Bethlehem is this Messiah. That Jew is Jesus. Because Christianity came out of Judaism, Christians also believe in only one God, the same God as the Jews. However, Christians also believe that the Messiah Jesus is that Son of God. Christians also agree that Jesus was crucified on a cross near Jerusalem and then three days later rose from the dead to heaven. In fact, this is the core belief of Christianity. These beliefs are laid out in the 66 books of the Christian Bible, which has two parts. The Old Testament is the same as the Hebrew Bible. The New Testament tells of Jesus' life, death and resurrection, as well as the teaching of his apostles that assisted in spreading the faith. It is the work of the apostles and a man named Paul who had spread the faith around the Eastern Mediterranean and made it possible for Constantine to actually designate Christianity as the faith of the Roman Empire some 300 years later. The two holiest sites in Christianity are also the stage of the two holiest days of the faith. This is Christmas and Easter. The holiday Christmas celebrates Jesus' birth and the Church of the Deftivity is where Christians believe Jesus was actually born. Easter is the other of the holiest Christian days which celebrates the resurrection of Jesus. Also in Jerusalem, the Church of the Holy Scepticur is where Jesus was both crucified and as well as where he was laid to rest in his tomb. Once again to the east-west of the Great Schism as well as the Protestant Reformation there are three major divisions of the Christian Church. These are Catholic, Orthodox and Protestantism. There are several practices that Christians will follow. This includes baptism which can either be by immersing or by christening which is an outward expression of your faith in Christ. Another ritual is the Eucharist or Communion called the Lord's Supper which is the ritual of taking bread and wine this is sometimes grape juice as a remembrance of Jesus dying on the cross. Confessing and asking the forgiveness of one's sins praying to God and attending church services or usually on Sundays are also ways in which Christians live their faith. Now our last religion is Islam. The Muslim faith believes that a man by the name of Muhammad was greeted by an archangel by the name of Gabriel and said that he was going to be Allah Allah is simply an Arabic word for God. Now the message that Muhammad was supposed to spread is of the Quran which is the holy text of Islam and just as with the Jews and Christians Muslims only believe in one God so they also are a monotheistic religion. Now as God's messenger Muhammad passed on five pillars of faith by which every good Muslim tries to live their life. First among these is the Shahada where the declaration of faith which is there is no God but God here. We can actually see the Shahada written in Arabic script on the Saudi Arabian flag. Now every Muslim also is to give money to the poor and once a year during Ramadan they will fast each day between sunrise and sunset. Not only would they not eat, they also will not drink or smoke during daylight hours. At the end of this month long fast they celebrate the breaking of the fast in a three day celebration which is known as Eid al-Fitr. Now the third pillar is a devotion to pray five times a day pray they will face towards the holy city of Mecca. Now what is interesting is that in hotels that often have Muslim visitors you can find the Qibla either on the ceiling or inside a drawer like what is shown here. The Qibla is used to show guests which way to pray towards Mecca. Of course it shouldn't be surprising that there is actually an app for this now. The last pillar is that once in your lifetime as a good Muslim you should make a pilgrimage to Mecca. In Mecca there is the Qaba which is a building in the holiest mosque covered in a black cloth. And this actually is the real destination of the Hajj and also where Muslims are actually facing when they pray. The Qaba said to have once been rebuilt by Abraham himself is the most sacred place of Islam. Now after completing their Hajj men will be awarded the title of Hajj. Women will be called Hajjah. This lets all other Muslims know that they have completed the last pillar of the faith. Now with Mecca is the holiest site in Islam the second holiest site is Medina. Now after being told that he was going to be the messenger of God, Muhammad began telling everyone of his good news. Unfortunately they didn't believe him and ran him out of Mecca. And he fled to Medina and it would be the people of Medina who first believed Muhammad was the true prophet. Thus Medina is the second most holy place of Islam. And the third most holy city in Islam is Jerusalem. Now 10 years after Muhammad was first approached by the Angel Gabriel a wing horse by the name of Barak came to him and took him to Jerusalem. In Jerusalem Muhammad ties Barak to a wall and then goes to the foundation stone and ascends to a heaven where he meets with Jesus, Moses and Abraham. Now that might sound odd but Muslims do acknowledge Jesus but they believe that he is a prophet not the son of God. Now after Muhammad leads the prophets of Jesus Moses and Abraham in prayer Muhammad returns back to earth and takes Barak back to Mecca. It is Muhammad's night journey why Jerusalem is the third most important site of all Islam. It is also where we find the Huram-i-Sharif and the Dome of the Rock. The Dome of the Rock is built over the foundation stone and if this picture looks familiar it's because this is also the Temple Mount Judaism's most holy site. Yup and this is actually the problem that the Jews and the Arabs have. The fact is is not just a matter of that both Islam and Judaism claim the same city. It's the fact that they actually claim the same piece of ground as holy to both their religions. Now if it doesn't seem complicated enough we have to look at where Muhammad is said to have tied up Barak before he went back up to the foundation stone. Where he tied Barak is on the back of this wall. Yeah that's right that's the western wall. Not only do the Muslims claim the same area for the Temple Mount they also claim the same wall. For the Muslims this isn't the western wall this is the Al Barak Wall. Now during Muhammad's time Islam quickly spread throughout the Middle East and within 100 years of his death it moves by conquest and by marriage merchants into Central Asia across Northern Africa and even into Europe. Today Islam is the second largest religion in the world and just like Judaism and Christianity Islam also has divisions. It is between Shia and Sunni. Now there is differences in how they practice their faith but both the Shia and the Sunni read from the Quran and practice the five pillars of faith. What really separates them is the issue of who is going to take over the religion after Muhammad died. One group argued that the next leader of Islam should be a relative of Muhammad and at the time that would have been Ali who was a cousin of Muhammad. This group is known as the Shia which literally is a contraction of the Arabic phrase for friends of Ali. One group argued that one only needs to be a faithful servant of Muhammad's teachings and doesn't have to be a direct relative. This group was the Sunni. Now today we see that the Sunnis have kind of won out as 90% of the world's Muslims are Sunni and only 10% are Shia and the Shia that exists are largely found in Iran, Azerbaijan and eastern Iraq. Okay so we now have a basic understanding of the three Semitic religions in our next lesson we'll see how these differences in religion have contributed to conflict in the region but until then keep on learning.