Slashdot Mirror
End of Online Anonymity in Canada?
boochy writes "Are we close to losing our anonymity online in Canada? As Angela Pacienza writes in a National Post article; "The record industry's attempts to sue people who share music online threaten to change the widely held expectation that everyone's anonymous when surfing the Internet, lawyers representing the public interest argued Monday."
This is a very interesting article that shows how much the lawyers representing the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic are trying their best to protect our privacy online."
You filthy Americans lose more freedoms every day and you wi....er....wait.....
What? End of my anonymity? But I just paid $199 for my computer to stop broadcasting an ip address!
Don't no about hour anonymity, but we shore seem to be loosing hour ability to use the write words when we right.
Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
If someone believes they are completely anonymous while simply surfing around, they should be dense enough to think a lawsuit is just some legally mandated article of clothing.
Karma: Terrible
They're letting anonymous Canadians loose? RUN TO THE HILLS!! "But they're coming from the hills" Run AWAY from the hills! If you see a hill, run in the other direction!
Loosing?! Oh..."losing"...
No. We're not losing our anonymity. We never had it. Your email shows up on mail servers everywhere. Your IP is logged. You can be found.
There's a big difference between actual anonymity and perceived anonymity. The public thinks they're anonymous. The realization that they are not (through education or through lawsuits of these sorts) will lead to increased awareness and eventually smarter users.
Maybe I'm just optimistic.
How does this fit in with Canada's new privacy law that came into effect January 1st? Is this a legitimate business purpose?
Trolling is a art,
How can it be "the end of online anonymity" if we've never had it in the first place?
Support the First Amendment. Read at -1
The canadian privacy laws have been passed to protect the citizens who, actually, vote for the government, so the government better listen to the people.
But again, the National Post is just a wet-dream from those rich people who are trying to eliminate the State so they can profit off the unrich people unhindered.
Who ever told you that you were "anonymous" on the Internet?
I actually see 2 different issues here. First, should a person's activities online be traceable? Yes - after due process. We all would love to see spammers caught, etc. However, the other issue is the record company's suit. Should they be suing? Well, the fact that I think they are greedy, stupid, outdated fools doesn't change the fact that they currently have a legal right to do so, I suppose. But here's to hoping they get some reasonable limits set on them soon (say real due process, reasonable limits to how much they can sue for, etc).
Do ordinary Joe Public people really believe they are anonymous when browsing the web?
Yes they do. Just looks at how many people have used the "I didn't know it was illegal!" defense when accused by the RIAA/MPAA of being file-sharers...
The author of this post proves it
Rule by corporate law(yer) is quite a scary concept. The reward for a successful prosecution becomes to easy to attain.
We've all known, especially those of us with static IPs, that the Internet isn't so anonymous. Anyone who cares badly enough could probably find out who was hiding behind that IP address to download Britney's latest single (ooh! the scandal!). But the article isn't talking about /.ers; it's about Average Joe Canadian. Hey, since it's frickin' cold in Canada, does anybody want to go into business selling tinfoil-lined ski hats?
"Den som vover mister Fodfaeste et Oieblik; den som ikke vover mister Livet." -Soren Kierkegaard
Over 90% of blocked activity at my firewall is probes from kazaa, gnutella etc looking for the last computer with that IP, who was filesharing. Last thing I want is to get hassled for running software I dont have installed because I got some other guy's IP. (the other 10% was mostly nimda and code red - yay microsuck)
Having anonyimity in Canada is like wearing a ski mask to an adult theater; It's great that nobody knows who you are, but nobody's really looking at you because they're all staring at the guys on horses...
well, it's nothing one behind the ear wouldn't cure
The Toronto Star reports: Howard Knopf, an intellectual property lawyer speaking as an intervener said providers should not be ordered to disclose the names because there is no evidence to suggest they are breaking any Canadian laws..
Sigs are bad for your health.
This is the exact defense one individual I know used when he was accused of breaking into a rural school's computer system about ten years ago. Though this was a criminal charge (and the burden of proof substantially higher), he was easily acquitted because the prosecutor couldn't show that it was him specifically who was breaking into the computer systems.
In like manner, however, I suspect that the house of cards of the recording industry will just as easily fall apart with these civil suits in Canada. If I stupidly misconfigured my wireless or wired router to allow people to essentially walk in, they could easily breach computer security and use my computer to download all manner of goodies. Given what the AVERAGE computer user is (and you all know what the average user is like...), this is more than a plausible defense.
If your subscribed to one of Western Canada's largest Internet service subscribers (Telus), you've already lost your 'anonymous' status. Telus sells your info to marketing companies - you got to opt out manually by calling thier privacy line.
Don't worry, it's just your mailing address, name, and your phone number. Telus swears they're not selling your email address but I wonder how much longer before they start to use that as a cashable asset?
At issue here is whether or not the music industry is allowed to snoop on your home PC's. Where's the search warrant I ask?
Point 1. Canada's law on privacy (FOIP) may protect us from RIAA anyways. New rules and guidelines came in effect on January 1st. It basically allows us to operate with business without reprocussions of invasion of privacy.
Point 2. Canada is already collecting a tarrif on CD's sold in Canada to go towards musicians from sales lost from online music sharing(even though most have never seen a red cent). If I'm already paying tarrifs on CD's to protect the music industry, do I not have a legal right to copy and download music I want?
Point 3. CD's were suppose to promise cheaper albums when first introducts in the 80's. Cost of production of an LP vs a CD is around 95% less. Where's my savings RIAA? Most albums still go for $15-20 dollars. Where's my promised $7 new albums?
Last Point. The last time the music industry shut down Napster, music sales plumeted 10%. Does file and music sharing spawn interest in CD's? What about albums or CD's I can no longer buy but the music is available P2P? Doesn't RIAA realise that they should be embracing this as an opportunity to change how music is sold? I mean, it's not like artists make money on albums anyways. Who's really behind this push?
Management is doing things right; leadership is doing the right things. - Peter F. Drucker
Lawyers and government types just don't get it. The technological Pandora's Box has been opened, and legislation isn't going to help. Anonymity on the Internet? Try looking into the FreeNet project. It's so anonymous that lawmakers practically don't know it exists. And if they did, they still couldn't do anything about it.
Key word is "attempts." Each time they've tried the ISPs have told them to hit the bricks. YAWN. Nothing to see here folks. Move along.
"Hey buddy. Better move - there's a truck coming."
"Trucks? Trucks never come down this road."
"Nevertheless, here comes the truck."
"I doubt it. Nothing to see here."
"But..."
"Lalalalalalalalalalalalalala-" *WHAM*
I don't even get why the Recording Industry is trying to sue us Canucks.
Did everyone just forget about the Hub-Bub where all blank media got a special tax added on to the price because naughty people were using it to pirate music?
I've been paying this god-damn "pirate" tax for YEARS now. Doesn't *PAYING*FOR*IT* make these claims of IP Theft kind of moot?
...Also, I didn't know Buggalo could fly.
well, let's look at the blank cd levy in canada shall we? the tax is distributed to artists and labels by socan (society of canadian artists, musicians and producers... how they got "socan" out of that i don't know). it's distributed based on sales. ie big selling artists get a bigger chunk of the taxes.
now, i'm in a band. we're producing a record that will be released by a local label. it's almost certain that we're going to lose money on this whole venture but, hey, it's a labour of love. the cd's that we're using are subject to the levy.
what does this mean? it means my band will lose money making our cd but avril levigne will make a profit from it through the levy.
whew.
2 1337 4 u!
You're incredibly wrong on just about all points. I have mod points right now and couldn't decide whether to mod you down, or reply. Since by the time I decided, you'd already been modded into oblivion, I guess I'll just add insult to injury and reply to your wildly inaccurate and ignorant ramblings.
Re: Health Care
Canada does have a problem with its health-care: the wait times. I'll grant you that in Canada, it generally takes longer to get non-life-threatening operations than it does in the US. But with a catch: in order to get this "expidited" service in the US, you have to be able to afford it. And not everyone can. So in the US, you have nice, fast service for the rich, and no service at all for everyone else. In Canada, EVERYONE gets the health care they need.
An interesting phenomena in Canada is that rich Canadians will come to the US for treatment, because even though they have to pay full price, they get it much more expidently, and higher quality.
The assumption that US healthcare is of higher quality is actually a myth. While it does cost more, and you can get it faster, it is not necessarily better. Canada has all the same drugs, treatments, and state-of-the-art equipment that the US does, with a few notable, exotic exceptions.
Secondary education also seems to be the same.
Oh no, it's definitely not. Canada's government directs much, much more funding (proportionally) towards post-secondary education than the US. The most expensive undergraduate university in Canada is still far, far cheaper than even the average tuition at private institutions in the US. When I graduated 5 years ago, my tuition was $3800 CDN/year, and that was the most expensive anywhere in the country (Acadia University). At the time, Harvard tuition was around $23,000 USD, IIRC.
In addition, the student loan system is more accessible in Canada.
I've spent time in the US, and strongly prefer Canada. While I concede that the US is very large, and attitudes obviously vary by region (just as they do in Canada), my experience with USAmericans was that they are very confrontational, conservative, closed-minded, and traditional about certain issues (gun control, gay marriage, war), and apathetic about other important issues (intellectual property laws, corporate lobbying of government to "buy" laws, DMCA, privacy issues in general).
Canada is far more progressive, socially. Our drinking age is lower (19 versus the US's 21), gay rights are far more advanced in Canada than in the US. Marijuana is de facto legal here (posession, at least - not trafficking or growing [yet]). Publication and media laws are more lax and liberal. Our freedoms and privacy have not been "bought" by powerful corporations nearly to the degree that they have in the US, although that's probably because we simply have far fewer corporations large enough to exert such pressure, by virtue of our smaller population.
Pollution is less in Canada. The violent crime rate is an order of magnitude lower, even when you consider the population difference. Our taxation rate is actually comparable to the US's, when you factor in things like health insurance, which you might not see come off your income tax bill, but you're paying anyway, giving you the illusion that you actually get to "take home" more of your salary than a Canadian. Sure, we may pay an extra $3000 more in income tax than a USAmerican making the same salary, but we're not paying $350/month for health insurance, either. Yes, I know the numbers don't add up. You're actually paying more for your health care than we are, because your government has been paid off by the pharmaceudical companies, and is allowed to gouge people for expensive medication. Canada has tougher regulations to keep medicine affordable, and thus decreasing our overall cost of health care.
OK, I'm done ranting for now.
Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
This is where I like the fact that IANAL, for just being cynical gives me a nice idea...
I seem to remember that Canada (just like France and quite some other countries) have people pay a special TAX on Hard Drives/CDR*s/DVDR*s to "compensate" for the piracy that occurs anyway...
Well...You see it ? no ?
I pay a tax on my recording media because it is implied I WILL use it for piracy, even if I don't.... Having paid that tax, I think I can swear to god that I didn't pirate this music, I even paid the tax to have the right to do it...
Would be a shame to see all this tax money I pay go unreclaimed by not accessing all this music I actually paid a tax for....
and so on... Now mod me up and down till I puke, but somewhere in what I said there is a truth, a cynical one, but a truth nonetheless.
It takes 40+ muscles to frown, but only four to extend your arm and bitchslap the motherfucker
As an example, I believe, based on a short search, there's a good chance that you're a Canadian, living and working in Toronto. You also work with a hotel company, probably in management or accounting. You have visited the US more than twice, but you don't like us very much (and, really, based on what you post about, I can't disagree). I could find out more, but I have no reason to violate your privacy, and anyway, I'm lazy. :)
I have also done a rough psychological profile on you, but the results indicate that posting such a profile might cause you to react defensively, so I won't (Don't worry, most people react that way, it's hard not to). But it's interesting how much detail people give about themselves when the post a lot on public boards (myself included).
For a (fake) example, suppose someone said on a board, "Treated differently? Your telling me! When I was in Washington State, my stuipd older sister has AGIAN fooled my parents into giving her more money." I could tell from that sentence that the person's relationship with their parents is strained, probably has authority distrust issues, probably has a negative opinion of women (especially in authority), and is insecure about money (most likely not having enough). I can also guess that they are a "hunt-n-peck"-typer, and while very well educated, probably did better in math/science than they did in English.
Of course, none of that is certain, and I'd have to collect various posts over a year or so to get a better picture. I have also found people online are VERY different in real life. Usually the biggest jerks online are quiet and shy in person. Arrogant people are usually ignorant, and so on.
Why collect this info? It's very easy to trace "double logins" this way, like users on a board who have two logins, and use them to start trouble, like "drumming up support" among their aliases. It's also easy to compare people across boards or various interactions, like, "That guy posting in your comments section of your journal sounds a LOT like the jerk we have been getting in IRC lately. What's his IP? Yeah. It's him." Moderators in various venues compare notes a lot.
Some info on the Canadian laws:
http://neil.eton.ca/copylevy.shtml