Indigenous Digital Equity: The barriers Indigenous communities face accessing internet

I spent most of my 2L year back on my home reserve in Southern Alberta. It’s about a 45-minute drive to Lethbridge. My internet connection was a challenge when trying to listen to lectures or have a strong connection for a zoom call. Internet connectivity for Indigenous Peoples in Canada has long been difficult to implement due to many environmental and socio-economic factors such as remoteness of communities, difficulty gaining first-mile access, unreliable networks, slow speeds, expensive equipment, and high data costs.

Compared to the other infrastructure problems faced by Indigenous communities, the internet might not seem like a big problem. But COVID-19 has shown that when people don’t have equal access, they lose the same opportunities. Remote learning is now crucial to getting a quality education, but poor internet connections or a lack of a connection in the first place are holding many Indigenous children behind their peers.

A lack of internet also affects those looking for work. COVID-19 has led to many layoffs, and the internet had become one of the only reliable sources to find emplpoyment. This lack of resources is one of the reasons why unemployment is already higher in Indigenous communities than in the population at large. Even the transition to working from home means a greater need for high-speed internet, but this poses another disadvantage for rural homes that cannot access a connection to telecommute. The province says 61 percent of B.C. Indigenous communities lack access that meets the standard, although the council notes that number may count communities with just one broadband access point, meaning there is one place in town with adequate Internet, but it’s not in every home, school, or office. [1]

The geography of remote and northern Canadian communities implies transportation access problems, long cable builds, and harsh climate. Building sustainable broadband infrastructure capable of telehealth delivery in northern and remote Indigenous communities is and will continue to be costly. [2] The economic situation combined with the high cost of connectivity suggests that that many remote and northern Indigenous communities and community members may be struggling to pay the high costs of using digital technologies. At the same time, Indigenous community members and Indigenous communities have demonstrated that they are eager users of digital technologies and they will adopt them when they are affordable, reliable, and meet their needs. [3]

The UN has declared access to the internet a human right. This declaration is formed on the basis that having access to the internet means being able to exercise other fundamental human rights and freedoms (e.g. right to freedom of speech). For Indigenous people, the internet is a tool for cultural survival, acting as a hub for Indigenous languages and traditional stories. Without leaving their community, Indigenous youth and adults are able to learn skills, meet Indigenous role models, obtain a degree/diploma, access healthcare, and share their stories with the world. [4]

The inclusion of Indigenous voices on important issues can’t be accomplished if Canada doesn’t work to close the connectivity gap. The plans must be done in coordination with Indigenous governments, letting them lead any project or policy that may affect their communities or land. Without access to broadband, Indigenous peoples will continue to be left behind.

[1] Katie Hyslop, “Closing BC’s Indigenous Internet Gap” The Tyee (12 December 2019) online: https://thetyee.ca/News/2019/12/12/Closing-BC-Indigenous-Internet-Gap/

[2] O’Donnell, Susan “Digital technology adoption in remote and northern Indigenous communities in Canada.” Canadian Sociological Association 2016 Annual Conference. University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada. 2016.

[3] ibid 

[4] Emma Greenfield, “Digital Equity for Indigenous Communities” Social Connectedness (7 July 2020) online: https://www.socialconnectedness.org/digital-equity-for-indigenous-communities/

Avatar Justice and the Virtual Frontier

As a lowly 2L – only just returned (sort of) from my summer escape – my experience with law school has been overwhelmingly virtual. Obviously 1L is a challenge (regardless of what “mode of delivery” one engages in), but for me, I found that the digital interface allowed me to participate and interact in a manner that I find in-person actually doesn’t (due to my anxious tendencies and so on).

In a way, my virtual-self was liberating and – perhaps – was a more accurate representation of who I could be (in the hallowed halls of Zoom U).

[1]

This got me thinking; in our electronic age, we now have countless games and platforms that allow us to project boundless versions of ourselves out into the digital universe.  More importantly, these versions we create and share may offer the most authentic and original take of “who” we are.

So what does this have to do with a law blog you ask? Hopefully I can decode some 1s and 0s below.

At some point in the future, we will have next-next-generation Second Lifes, World of Warcrafts, and other massive multi-user platforms that begin to blur the lines of what “real” is for an individual.

Even if we aren’t already in a simulation, as Elon would has us believe, The Matrix gave us a chance to ponder what that reality would be like – and importantly – whether we would prefer to exist in the simulated world, or take our chances fighting squidy-machines outside (I can see why Cypher chose the steak).

Applying a legal lens to this scenario, the issue of proper jurisdiction quickly comes into focus: these worlds will likely  have their own law-making and systems of governance, leading to possible conflicts with the established rules on the outside.

In fact, we already see this occurring in settings such as Minecraft, where users operate realms and administer justice for wrongs that are both familiar and novel (see griefing). [2]

[3]

This opens up quite the legal quandary, namely, whether physical courts can (or should) interfere with the organization and nation-building of digital worlds.

A potential “test case” for this idea emerged in the now almost-vacant Second Life (SL) landscape: a dispute first originating within the virtual domain – concerning intellectual property rights – eventually made its way to a physical proceeding in the District Court of New York.

The avatar Amat Juris, acting for a client who claimed ownership over the use of the word “SLART” (as evidenced by a US trademark), sent another avatar, Victor Vezina, a “cease and desist” notification within Second Life, hoping to make the latter change the name of his virtual art gallery. When this didn’t work, a complaint was formally filed in the real world, dragging the creators behind SL into the legal debacle as well.

While the identity of Vezina remained unknown throughout the entire process, the sign displaying the word in question was finally “removed”, due to the Court’s decision to enforce the trademark. [4]

Much like piercing the corporate veil, it seems, for now, there is recourse for physical courts to manifest their legal muscle within a digital ecosystem.

But what about in-world lawyering and digital practice?

Second Life may have lost its lustre for many, as users and businesses left for greener (and less pixelated) pastures, but it gave us a window into where things are likely headed (sorry Zoom).

Amat Juris could easily have been a practicing member of the Second Life Bar Association (SLBA), working diligently for clients from the confines of a computer-generated office, earning viable income for services rendered.

This may sound a bit far-fetched, but many real and credible firms did just that: setting up virtual spaces to better facilitate representation and access to legal communities outside of their customary reach. Ross A. Dannenberg, an IP attorney at Banner & Witcoff, Ltd., goes as far as calling such environments the great leveler, as they provide “the ability to reach out and connect with people in any country in the world…very easily” (referencing his firm’s use of SL to locate and work with a solo practitioner in China). [5]

With the recent news that Mark Zuckerberg is looking to redefine the Facebook brand as a metaverse company, we may not have to wait long to expand on the SL experience.

Facebook is looking to become an online world where users interact with content, but also engage from the “inside” (through the use of virtual reality headsets such as the Oculus). Zuckerberg envisions a space that on-boards a substantial chunk of an individual’s life – allowing one to both attend a concert for a favorite artist, and welcome customers into a virtual storefront to purvey goods and services. [6]

There’s a solid chance then, that the next iteration of the SLBA will be found here; firms will once again be setting up shop and opening their “doors” to the masses, but this time around, the client-pool – of users and businesses – will dwarf anything that has existed previously.

This alone should be reason enough for most to explore a new paradigm of legal practice, but there are more incentives than just dollar signs; the metaverse promises to be a rapidly changing immersive experience, blending legal considerations of the past with new and uncharted waters of advocacy, representation and what it truly means to offer value to a client or customer.

In summary, the pandemic has shown us how badly outdated our current landscape really is; perhaps the way forward comes not just from a reworking of our legal systems, but a complete re-rendering of who were are – as individuals and professionals.

SOURCES:

[1] “I am not a Cat” Screenshot by Amanda Kooser/CNET

[2] u/xReyjinx “Ideas for realm rules?”, Reddit.com (2019) Online: https://www.reddit.com/r/Minecraft/comments/b4ve8w/ideas_for_realm_rules/

[3] “Minecraft Castle” by Mike_Cooke is licensed under CC BY-NC 2.0

[4] Victor Keegan, “How an Avatar on Second Life sparked a real-life court case”, The Guardian (Nov 25, 2008) Online: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2008/nov/25/second-life-internet

[5] Thai Phi Le, “Are Second Life Residents Subject to Real Laws?”, DCBar (March 2013) Online: https://www.dcbar.org/for_lawyers/resources/publications/washington_lawyer/may_2013/virtual_game

[6] Casey Newton, “Mark in the Metaverse”, The Verge (July 22nd, 2021) Online: https://www.theverge.com/22588022/mark-zuckerberg-facebook-ceo-metaverse-interview

BLDC 2020

Today I had the opportunity to participate in the 2020 Boston Legal Design Challenge (#BLDC2020). It was the first year this competition was held online, and they were therefore able to include teams from outside of Boston proper.

Throughout the day we were invited to participate in exercises with our team members. Our team, the TRU Legal Architects was the only team from Canada. We were accompanied by a facilitator from Liberty Mutual Insurance in a zoom breakout room. Our facilitator led us through a collection of exercises where we collaborated through Mural.co in order to strategize and discuss what we were going to pitch to the judges.

At the end of the day, we competed against the 9 other teams and presented our idea to a panel of 3 judges. Ultimately we pitched the idea of an automated legal consultant who would provide assistance to small firms and sole practitioners looking to digitize their practice at little to no cost. We wanted to provide a resource that would help facilitate a seamless transition online for those who do not have the same resources available to them as would be found in a larger firm. We were thrilled to come in 3rd overall.

A lot of the presentations focused on access to justice and products that would help move the legal profession into the future. It was a very valuable experience and I think the people who participated will undoubtedly do great things for the profession in the future.

Court: A Click Away!

The “slow to change, uphold tradition” mindset has hampered the use and uptake of technology in the justice system. Pre-Covid, court participants had to go to a physical location, wait for the allotted time, then present themselves in their role. Videoconferencing and audio call-ins were underused, and the profession claimed not to have its strengths in IT.

Covid-19 changed how we see large gatherings of people and thus critically impacted the court system. Moving forward, there will be pressure to grow the online adjudication of uncomplicated civil and criminal matters. Zoom cases that have already been conducted should not be seen as temporary, but also, they should not be seen as permanent. The adjustments in the pandemic should be a stepping stone in developing a standard tool that will be utilized throughout the justice system.

I’m simply a law student who has never done a “real” trial, but there are some suggestions and procedures that may assist in setting the standards of virtual court. This is simply a discussion on how things may change and the benefit of those suggestions.

The Courtroom (or “Courtzoom”) 

Zoom and similar platforms have provided a service to many during the pandemic, having created a place to go when it could be anywhere but physical. In the near future, our virtual courtroom should be on its own platform with a custom interface that eases the process and maintains the decorum.

  • There could be a set position in gallery mode, where the Crown (or Plaintiff) and Defence (or Defendant) counsels’ video box would always appear. Which could be set by logging in as such. The judge would appear in a box at the top of the screen.
  • The room would be open 20 minutes before without the judge enters to allow for “tech testing” time (more on that later). This would also allow the judge to come in afterwards, which would provide an opportunity for counsel to bow and show respect.
  • The witness view box could be moved individually.
  • Judges and clerks would be given additional controls to mute other participants, record cases and create private breakout rooms.
  • There would be a forum portion or “hub” that would have court listings that would allow the public to enter as passive viewers.

These ideas only skim the surface of what could be implemented to better the courts. I think there should be a focus on creating a system that is easy to navigate, and allows for each participant to seamlessly go through the process, while conserving some of the dignity that surrounds the court.

The Participant Set-up

Due to the accessibility of the internet and technology, set-up could easily be satisfied by having a quiet space, internet connection and a laptop (or smartphone). Though far from ideal, it would allow for those with less funds to be able to contribute and participate. I find myself interested in the “access to justice” aspect of such a change. In one view, this would help those in rural areas without transportation get the opportunity to be “in” court. Another view may see this as increasing the divide between those that have and those that don’t. As with many things, there are positives and negatives. Much of the brainstorming of ideas in this post is about highlighting those benefits and finding ways to lighten the load of the downside.

  • The “courtzoom” should be accessible to smartphones to widen the scope of participation. It could use a one-time log in, to allow for people to feel safe borrowing tech to use for their hearing.
  • A link could be shared to family and friends that would easily allow them to join as passive viewers. Allowing for the support of having someone you care about in your corner.
  • For those without the means of technology, there should be public buildings with rooms set up for videoconferences. These could be found in places like libraries and universities and could be used on a reserve basis. Firms could be encouraged to bring their clients into their conference rooms, so they have the benefit of working technology. I know that this opens up a world of other issues, but to think that we are given the opportunity to bring the “court” and “justice” to those that are vulnerable is an opportunity we should jump on.

How do we help?

This question needs to be present for all those that put their mind to connecting technology and the court. Tech has the opportunity to be the support that so many need. Those outside the profession of law need to come first when visualizing what a new system could look like.

It’s about making steps in the right direction.

Counsel & Advocacy 

I believe a lot of lawyers will be able to adapt to the changes of virtual court and continue to serve their clients in whatever new medium may appear. It may take some time though.

This point of the conversation has been something I’ve been thinking about a lot. Due to the criminal moot that I’m competing in having moved to a virtual medium, I’ve begun to wonder how to advocate over my laptop. Below I’ve compiled some of my thoughts, using my current understanding of technology, advocacy lessons from the moot and Professor Jones’ class. To ground all my ideas in how practice is going now, the podcast “The Lawyers Lounge” has an episode on virtual hearings where the hosts helpfully explain their own experiences in online court.

I’m interested in how advocacy at the trial level will change and grow as things are added and removed from how we view virtual hearings. What can lawyers do to increase their presence in such a courtroom?

  • Multiple screens will be pivotal to managing the balance between the video boxes that are watching (passive), video boxes that are speaking and being spoken to (active) and the documents required to conduct the trial.
  • There should be an “eye-contact” screen that has the webcam attached with the video of the person you’re speaking to, and the documents required at the moment on the same screen.
  • Good lighting and mic quality are important as well. As advocates you’d want to present the best case as possible without having dark rooms or muffled voices distracting viewers.
  • A podium set-up may be ideal if the advocate is better on their feet.
  • A good knowledge of the platform being used, and a 20 min tech testing period before the trial begins will reduce tech stumbles that may slow the process.
  • It is possible that due to the distance often felt with virtual communication, it might be beneficial to be slightly (and I mean only a tad) more theatrical when presenting your case. It might keep those involved more “dialed in”, when it’s so easy to “tune out”.

These suggestions are simply the thoughts of a law student excited about how things may change. There will always be a need for a physical court as some issues require it, but to think about using technology to further your field and alter the profession has value. There is this opportunity to make a tough situation into a lasting change that will benefit all those involved.

If anyone has ideas to add or advocacy suggestions, I would enjoying reading them. Thanks!

Michael Noguera

Citations

Professor Craig Jones’ advocacy lessons helped how I though about what alterations may be successful.

Lisa Jorgensen & Danielle Robitaille. “Inside the Courtroom: Virtual trials and the Sharma decision”, (2020), online: The Lawyers Lounge Podcast <http:// www.emond.ca/the-lawyers-lounge-episode-archive>.