Slashdot Mirror


Q & A With Canada's Michael Geist

Torrentz writes "P2PNet is running a question and answer session with Canada's Michael Geist, a leading Internet and copyright expert. Geist discusses P2P, the music business, and the future direction of copyright law." From the interview: "My focus has traditionally been on Internet issues and I'm very active on privacy, spam, Internet governance issues. The growing attention to copyright merely reflects its critical importance to the Internet and to creativity and culture more generally."

56 comments

  1. Re:finally get to a thread early enough to moderat by Toba82 · · Score: 1

    Then voice it.

    --
    I pretend to know more than I really do by mooching off google and wikipedia.
  2. Re:finally get to a thread early enough to moderat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think the idea was to give you something that'd be easy enough for you to start off with.

  3. CRIA...A? by mc+bean · · Score: 0
    Do you think Canada will ever be in the same situation as the US where even young children will become CRIA (Canadian Recording Industry Association of America) victims? - we asked him in the Q&A below. "I hope not," he says.
    Goddamn, I hope not too. With Stephen Harper in power though the 'Canadian Recording Industry of America' may not be far off. At any rate, we're back to paying flat tax on recordable media north of the border. Avast ye mateys!
    --
    Coranon Silaria, Ozoo Mahoke
  4. Re:Experts by Atlantis-Rising · · Score: 5, Informative

    He's a law professor and holds a chair in Internet and E-Commerce Law. How much more of an expert do you want?

    --
    "It is possible to commit no errors and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life." -Peak Performance
  5. Re:finally get to a thread early enough to moderat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One man's data is another man's meta-data.

  6. Re:finally get to a thread early enough to moderat by fatduck · · Score: 1

    Saturday morning in Kuwait :/

    --
    Making you think you're crazy is a billion dollar industry.
  7. Re:Experts by Machina+Fortuno · · Score: 1

    "a person with special knowledge or ability who performs skillfully" is what defines an expert. Of course, I think the question he is asking... who determine how good of one you are. In this guy's case.. he has a spiffy resume to back it all up, so he must have better opinions than me (haha).

    --
    ...
  8. Re:Experts by Atlantis-Rising · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Nobody says he has better opinions than you. But being a law professor and with his CV, he probably does have special knowledge, and he apparently performs quite skillfully. So his opinions might not be better, but his facts are likely to be a lot better, and he probably knows a lot more about the entire legal aspect than you (and most people) do.

    --
    "It is possible to commit no errors and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life." -Peak Performance
  9. Re:finally get to a thread early enough to moderat by Scarletdown · · Score: 0, Redundant

    And here in DurkaDurka^WAfghanistan as well. At least tomorrow's my day off and I can sleep in.

    --
    This space unintentionally left blank.
  10. Pirate Party by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Question: Should Canada and other democracies get Pirate Parties - just like the one in Sweden - in order to get the issues about copyrights and patents into the political discussions?

  11. WOW! Canada has a Michael Geist ???? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WOW! Canada has a Michael Geist ???? Whodathunk there was a punk named Michael Geist in Canada, too ????

    Mike Geist
    USofA

  12. Re:finally get to a thread early enough to moderat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    poor you... oh well, back to sucking dicks right? at least you got that...

  13. Re:Experts by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 1

    his opinions might not be better, but his facts are likely to be a lot better, and he probably knows a lot more about the entire legal aspect than you (and most people) do

    His opinion has a lot more value than yours or mine, because, like you point out, whatever he based his opinion on doesn't come from his arse.

    --
    "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
  14. Re:finally get to a thread early enough to moderat by DeathFromSomewhere · · Score: 1

    and it is even a subject I have an opinion on... sigh.

    Good, you shouldn't be modding this thread anyways.

    --
    -1 overrated isn't the same thing as "I disagree".
  15. Re:finally get to a thread early enough to moderat by bjpirt · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    and then instead of waiting until there is you post now so you can't

    ah well

  16. Re:Experts by Literaphile · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    What makes you an expert? You don't even know how to sign up for an account on Slashdot!

  17. Re:Experts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He needs a leet screen name with verifiable cred going back to early usenet days. No a "real name" isn't acceptable here.

  18. Re "Re:finally get to a thread early enough to ... by themadplasterer · · Score: 0, Troll

    WTF? What are you people, on dope?!!!

  19. Re:finally get to a thread early enough to moderat by dukiebbtwin · · Score: 1

    Friday Night at 4AM and TFA is slashdotted :( .

  20. Re:Experts by Jack+Action · · Score: 5, Informative

    Geist actually holds a prestigious Canada Research Chair.

    These are national research chairs, and very hard to get.

  21. Re:Experts by Atlantis-Rising · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I don't know about you. But as another poster notes, the CRCs are very hard to get. I've read some of Geist's stuff, and he's not stupid. He does know what he's talking about, he just talks about it from a legal perspective, (he does commentary), and his own perspective. and do you know what? I'd be really, really surprised if he DOESN'T know everything you laid out. He does work with the technology. He does understand how it can be used. But he is, first and formost, a lawyer and a commentator, not a techie. And if you can't get the fact that maybe he's just as smart as you are, but coming at it from a different angle through your head, you're too stupid to complain that he should shut his mouth. I'd ask you to do the same, but your foot is already in it.

    --
    "It is possible to commit no errors and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life." -Peak Performance
  22. Two Cars in Every Garage by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 3, Funny

    Mr. Geist, your expertise with Internet Copyright Law seems to have the momentum of a runaway frieght train. Why are you so popular?

    --

    "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

  23. Trends and motivations... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Prof. Geist,

    From a naive perspective, it would seem that copyright and patent laws have become ludicrously one-sided (its seems the public interest would usually be best served by breaking them). I would like to hear your perspective on the state of balance in these laws. Which countries, if any, are best/worst for keeping the public interest. Is corruption playing a role in making copyright and patent legislation?

  24. Re:Experts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Whoa, easy there. He said "holds" a chair, not throws one.

    Sure academia is a great self congratulatory circle jerk with more than its fair share of charlatans and frauds
    , but lets give the guy a chance.

  25. Software patents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As a programmer with sympathies for free and open-source software, I consider software patents a much more serious threat than perpetual copyrights on music. Is there any (effective) activity a mere citizen can undertake -- preferably without killing anybody -- that will help ensure a future where I can program and distribute without fear of being financially crushed by a well funded team of corporate lawyers? Or am I, and others like me, doomed to eventual stamp collecting?

  26. Common sense not so common by LaughingCoder · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Reading the article, I am struck by the common sense he exhibits. I have to say this whole P2P thing really needs to be sorted out - it is consuming far too many resources.

    As I think back to when I was younger, the way those of use with little disposable income got our music was to record it off the radio. I would wait anxiously for the Thursday night countdown so I could try to get a recording of my favorite songs. Of course we didn't have nonlinear digital editing tools (or even crude analog editing tools) so invariably there would be a DJ yammering (and sometimes other room sounds) on my recorded music. And I became the master of the 70's fadeout, turning down the volume of the radio near the end of the song, trying to end the recording gracefully before the DJ chimed in. Anyhow, it strikes me that the big difference between then and now was that, while I could get (inferior quality) free music, I couldn't easily share it with others, though occassionally I would get together with friends and let them copy my recordings (and vice versa). Oh, and when I got a few sheckles together I would buy the 45 of my favorite songs, and over time built a decent collection (decent in size, not quality ;-).

    So this makes me wonder if we need to change the P2P universe somehow. I just don't think the current system is sustainable over the long-term. To me the "problem" is massive sharing. I personally believe this goes beyond the concept of "fair use". I don't think there are many people who consider it a crime for me to loan a friend a CD (or a book or a DVD for that matter). If we could extend that model somehow to P2P, keeping it easy to share with people we have "direct contact" with, but more difficult to share with people on another continent, I think that would be a more balanced approach. And of course there would be nothing stopping artists from distributing their stuff broadly if they so chose. I could almost imagine "content-playing machines" exchanging some sort of key or token via some non-remotable physical interface, thereby allowing those machines to share content with each other. Sounds Orwellian, I know, but it would maintain the "fair use" aspects while inhibiting massive sharing.

    --
    The more you regulate a company, the worse its products become.
    1. Re:Common sense not so common by Haeleth · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't think there are many people who consider it a crime for me to loan a friend a CD (or a book or a DVD for that matter). If we could extend that model somehow to P2P, keeping it easy to share with people we have "direct contact" with, but more difficult to share with people on another continent, I think that would be a more balanced approach.

      But if it's OK to lend a CD or a book to a friend who lives in the same city as you, surely it's OK to lend one to a friend who lives further away?

      It doesn't even have to cross continents - if I live in London and you live in Edinburgh and we only physically meet a couple of times in a decade, then it's going to be very inconvenient for us to meet specially to set up a sharing link. And as soon as you allow any form of remoting (even sending a physical token by post), you open things up again for people sharing with people on a different continent who they don't know in the slightest and couldn't even describe as a passing acquaintance, let alone a friend..

      And how do you stop people passing things on to all their friends, and so on? Six degrees of separation, and all that: however you set the system up, someone would come up with a filesharing program that would work with it. It might be slower than current systems, with a lot more steps required to transfer a file between continents. But it'll work.

    2. Re:Common sense not so common by LaughingCoder · · Score: 1

      It might be slower than current systems, with a lot more steps required to transfer a file between continents. But it'll work.

      I agree, and that is *almost* my point. By forcing people to invest time and effort, abuse will be throttled. Yet at the same time it would still be easy to share/swap with nearby friends. If you wanted to swap with someone a half a world away, they *could* send their device to you, and then you could swap keys and send it back -- then you could swap via the net. And of course you could easily move your content between your own devices without any impediments.

      I personally think the biggest objection people have to all these DRM schemes is that they get in the way of common, reasonable use of purchased content. It always seems to be an all-or-nothing proposition. I am just searching for some middle ground that makes sense.

      And I know the internet makes it easy to share with anyone on the planet, but just because something is possible, that doesn't mean we should do it. For example, it's also possible to put everyone's private information into an online, widely accessible database so anybody, anywhere can find out anything they want to know about you. I could come up with many, many reasons why this would be a good idea. But obviously most people would strongly (and rightly) object. So instead if someone wants some of your personal data they have to contact you directly and you have to decide to give it to them or not.

      --
      The more you regulate a company, the worse its products become.
    3. Re:Common sense not so common by Alsee · · Score: 1

      I understand your desire and intent, but you are basically tipping over your own sig: "Politician's Logic: Something must be done! This is something, so it must be done."

      I personally think the biggest objection people have to all these DRM schemes is that they get in the way of common, reasonable use of purchased content.

      I agree many people see it that way, but I think that is a superficial understanding of the problem, and in fact wrong understanding of the problem.

      I say there is absolutely nothing wrong with DRM itself. Publishers are absolutely free to publish their content in any format they wish, and that includes any DRM schemes they wish to apply.

      In reality DRM does not seriously "get in the way of common, reasonable use of purchased content", because in a Free Market individuals and companies will immediately respond to any market need and any market demand for ways to solve any problems that crop up in the use of purchased products. A Free Market will almost immediately supply the means of circumventing or removing DRM to resolve any problems in the common, reasonable use of purchased content.

      The issue is that DRM Does Not Work. The problem is not DRM, the problem is horribly broken law attempting to get DRM to work. The problem is the DMCA and the EUCD. The problem is law that say innocent noninfringing people go to prison if they descramble DRM for a legitimate purpose. The problem is law attacking and prohibiting the Free Market itself. The problem is law criminalizing legitimate and vital products. The problem is law attempting to prohibit technology itself.

      The problem is law attempting to suppress, conceal, and criminalize math equations, and to criminalize the doing of that math. For that is really all all the DRM circumvention is... the knowledge and calculation of certain math equations to descramble one sequence of numbers into a difference sequence of numbers. DRm is teh idea that people will not or cannot know the equations and do the math o unscramble their own files.

      Your user name (LaughingCoder) appears to indicate that you are a programmer. If so you must know that you can't magically make general technology unable to copy and communicate bits. You must know that the closest you can come to that is for unencrypted data to be completely unconstrianed, and to only attempt to control encrypted data. And you must know that any authorized user must actually possess the decryption key to be able to use it. You must know the closest you can come to that is to have their key in their hardware, and to then to make the invalid assumption that they cannot or will not look at or modify their own property to see their own key. You must also assume (or attempt to legally impose) that the free market (or formerly free market) is unable to produce or modify general technology for owners to know their own keys and do their own math.

      And most improtantly you must know that the general ability to make common reasonable use of purchased content MEANS the ability for independant developers (or potentially the user himself) to be able to write software capable or reading and manipulating that data in general and novel ways. It means the ability to read e-book data and run it through custom text-to-speech software for a blind person. It means the ability to read music data to organize and play it through new and innovative player software. It means that something like novel visualization software needs to be able to read and understand the raw music data. It means that audio editing and manipulation software needs to be able to read and understand the raw music data. It means that the software needs to unrestricted ability to manipulate and output that data in any possible unrestricted form.

      DRM can certainly make those things inconvienent, however a Free Market will always be able to rapidly resolve such issues and independant innovative products would thrive.

      The problem is

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    4. Re:Common sense not so common by LaughingCoder · · Score: 1

      First, thank you for the excellent and detailed response. I read it several times and can readily appreciate your argument. However, I believe we have a fundamental disconnect. Full disclosure: Yes I am a coder, and beyond that, I have in fact implemented DRM in a prior job. Yes, I understand that the key must be embedded in the device hardware, and that the key must be unique for every device, not just every TYPE of device. And content must be encrypted using the target device's key. And yes, I acknowledge that techies will figure out a way to access the key and/or break the encryption. All of that we can agree on.

      Where we part ways is how DRM affects and is perceived by the other 99% of the population. For them it is all just mysterious and causes them grief. It is not an option for them to pull down an OSS decrypter, or hack into their shiny new DVD player. All they want to do is make a copy of their CD so they can have it in their car. They want to put the CD into their computer, press a button, and have the music in their cell phone or mp3 player. They want to make a custom mix CD of their favorite songs. They want to listen to their music on their work computer as well as on their home computer, and perhaps their laptop when they are traveling. They want to buy content from online providers and add it to their playlists, or burn it to CD/DVD. They don't understand why, if they buy a song from iTunes, they can't play it on their phone. Or why they can't put all their music into one playlist (DRM schemes are almost always exclusive of other schemes). None of this is "fixed" by eliminating DCMA. You yourself said that companies (content providers) are free to use any DRM scheme they choose. This implies to me that the tower of Babel will not only persist, but worsen. My suggestion was based on the fact that the "Free market" has created this concept of DRM, and it is probably with us to stay. I was hoping to find a way to make it workable/tolerable for the casual user.

      And if something does need to be done, then it needs to be some innovation and adaption on the copyright law side to compensate creators, not some war to exterminate technology and exterminate abilities.

      Yikes! I suppose one could imagine, if we had a blank sheet of paper, we would come up with a scheme where content creators would be "compensated" by some sort of "worldwide organization" that counted the number of times their content was accessed. For this to work every device would have to be "connected", and every user would receive a periodic "content bill". Alternatively I suppose it could be paid for by a broad-based "tax" of some sort. In either of these scenarios the concept of content ownership becomes an anachronism, and perhaps that is where it ultimately needs to be. Interestingly, that seems to be where Microsoft is headed with its software subscription model. I have to say, I don't read alot of praise for this approach on these boards.

      I personally think, in the end, that the notion of "property ownership" is too firmly embedded in our psyche to accept this rental approach (remember DIVX - the first one, not the current one?). Then again, maybe once technology evolves sufficiently it will become easy and cheap enough for people to accept it. There are a number of "unlimited" streaming music services (I subscribe to Yahoo Unlimited) that seem to be catching on, but they are crippled today by the lack of portability of the music.

      --
      The more you regulate a company, the worse its products become.
    5. Re:Common sense not so common by Alsee · · Score: 1

      We agree even more than you realize :)

      Where we part ways is how DRM affects and is perceived by the other 99% of the population.

      Oh, I certainly agree with you there.

      (1) I just accept that certain undesireable things are not reasonably aviodable. There is no reasonable right or reasonable means to prevent people from developing new formats (and DRM encryption is little more than a really obscure format), and no reasonable right or reasonable means to prevent them from doing things like the old "floppy disk defective sector" tricks or the new CD error correcting code tricks.

      and
      (2) I think an unrestricted market place will deal with DRM attempts better than you considered. Yes, some end users will get hassled by DRM attempts, but the direct and secondary and further effects should effectively resolve the overwhelming majority of it. The first direct effect is that any single individual problem of any significant market size will immediately prompt a market solution to supply that signifigant market demand. The second direct effect is that manufacturers will be entirely free to biuld hardware in the first place to minimaize and aviod DRM issues. Most DRM ettempts fall pretty flat without collusion on the hardware side. A major secondary effect is that consumers will clearly see that they are being hassled by DRM and will be pissed when they have to pay for some supplemental product that defeats the DRM. Their reaction will be that the initial product should have had this usability built in in the first place. The other major secondary effect is that publishers will no longer have any expectation that DRM will work anyway. They will *know* that there will be other companies offering products on the market to defeat any DRM they attempt to impose. What's the point of trying to apply DRM when you know that it will merely irritate and drive away customers, and that some $5 product (or even some free download) will be readily available to remove the DRM anyway?

      You list many legitimate consumer hassles. I really think essentially all of those DVD and music hassles will pretty well dissapear if the DMCA is eliminated. They are huge markets that will defeat any DRM so immediately that it isn't even worth attempting to apply DRM in the first place. They are huge markets that are so competitive that it isn't even worth attempting to apply DRM in the first place. I think the only place signifigant hassles may remain is in obscure niche products where the impact is too small to reliably attract solutions.

      Both sides need to face reasonable reality. Facing reasonable reality means that I accept I have no reasonable right or ability to avoid attempts at DRM schemes and the unfortunate implications that come along with that (such as some people being hassled by DRM schemes). The copyright industry needs to face reasonable reality that they have no reasonable right or ability to enforce DRM, and the unfortunate implications that come along with that fact (that DRM schemes are generally worthless, and that they have to deal with and rely on copyright).

      >And if something does need to be done, then it needs to be some innovation and adaption on the copyright law side to compensate creators, not some war to exterminate technology and exterminate abilities.

      Yikes!


      Chuckle. It really shouldn't be such a "yikes" statement. I simply said either we stick with traditional copyright law and traditional copyright enforcement and the realities of enforcing traditional copyright law in the internet age, or the extremely broad statement of being open to innovating or adapting copyright law is some general unspecified way to compensating creators. Chuckle.

      I admit the inintial such alternative to come to my mind is for the government to sample things like P2P distribution of their work and for the government to directly pay such creators out of general taxes. I hadn't been so ambitious as to imagine a "worldwide organization", just something th

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    6. Re:Common sense not so common by LaughingCoder · · Score: 1

      Are you familiar with pandora.com? [pandora.com] If you haven't, you can try it 10 hours for free. Pandora is only $35 per year, and it is a pretty impressive internet radio system.

      Thanks for the pointer. I gave Pandora the run-through the last few days -- comparing it to Yahoo Music Unlimited. I think for the things I value in a music service (ability to choose, ability to play music even when not connected to the net, wide selection of "mainstream" artists, encode quality) Yahoo is a much superior experience. True, Pandora is $25/year cheaper, but the selection of content (at least the stuff I listen to) seems to be quite limited. Further, only being able to skip 10 songs/hour is a problem for me; I routinely bumped against that limit. One song was so obnoxious that I had to turn the volume all the way down and wait it out, since I was out of skips. That experience conditioned me to tolerate songs I didn't care for just in case something really bad came along later. As regards the quality of the encode, Yahoo uses 192kbps WMA, which is quite a bit better than 128kbps mp3. The biggest advantages I see for Pandora are: nothing to install, accessible from any browser (Yahoo must be installed and you are limited to 3 activated machines) and it's a decent music discovery service. I was really intrigued by their categorization of music driving the recommendations. Yahoo has a recommendation feature, but I believe it's simply based on the Amazon model (others who downloaded this song also downloaded this other song).

      Oh, and if there is a song I really want to keep around or play in a non-WMA compatible device, there is always Audacity (the dreaded analog hole!). BTW, I searched everywhere on my harddrive for those "open mp3s" you spoke about, but they were nowhere to be found. Could Pandora perhaps have switched to a true streaming model?

      --
      The more you regulate a company, the worse its products become.
    7. Re:Common sense not so common by Alsee · · Score: 1

      I searched everywhere on my harddrive for those "open mp3s" you spoke about... Could Pandora perhaps have switched?

      Possible. I haven't used it in a while.

      Or maybe I wasn't clear about the files... I found them in the the window temporary folder with no file extention. If I recall correctly, the directory list / file names looked like this:
      Access-1
      Access-2
      Access-3
      Access-4
      Access-5

      only being able to skip 10 songs/hour

      Yes, that is annoying... but I found it east to work around. It's 10 skips per hour per station. If you click on a different station, or if you delete and recreate the station, then you have 10 skips available again.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  27. No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because fair use isn't piracy, and making mix CDs and mashups isn't piracy and using obvious ideas that should never have been patented isn't piracy and complaining when politicians say "long copyrights benefit authors" but then extend it way beyond the authors death, isn't piracy either.

  28. And yet... by Rocketship+Underpant · · Score: 1

    In spite of his "expertise", I see a fairly clear flaw in his premise, which is quoted in the Slashdot blurb:

    "The growing attention to copyright merely reflects its critical importance to the Internet and to creativity and culture more generally."

    The reality of things, I think, is that attention paid to copyright reflects its importance to media *corporations* who are afraid of changing times, as well as to the corrupt politicians (e.g. Orrin Hatch) who have staked out careers based on selling out their constituents to said corporations.

    The issue is also important to Mr. Geist, since he gets to validate his prestigious degree in "e-commerce" and write about it for money.

    On the other hand, the "Internet" couldn't care less. Creativity and culture don't need copyright, and the hundreds of millions of people who actually engage in cultural exchange (of both copyrighted and non-copyrighted culture) on the Internet were probably blissfully aware of any copyright issues when they started swapping mix tapes, taping television, ripping CDs, writing fan fiction, singing "Happy Birthday", photographing tourist attractions, playing DVDs under Linux, and so on. Many of them are still totally in the dark; it's not a natural impulse to ask yourself when you want to listen to a song, "oh, I wonder if the author's life-plus-300 year copyright term has expired yet; I might be stealing from the pockets of his impoverished great-grandchildren".

    --
    He who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.
  29. Elitism is wrong by Frozen+Void · · Score: 1

    That like picking on grammar,while ignoring what the poster said.
    Or ignoring someone with a screename like 294283443.
    Maybe he doesnt intend to be a member of slashdot or comes in rarely enough to not justify membership.

    1. Re:Elitism is wrong by Literaphile · · Score: 1

      Uh... notice how I also asked "what makes you an expert?"... merely using the Internet does not make someone an expert.

    2. Re:Elitism is wrong by Frozen+Void · · Score: 1

      Notice the inherent notion that "Only Experts Can Challenge Experts"
      Elitism QED

  30. acid by wadiwood · · Score: 0, Troll

    And you'd be too hyped up on acid to recognise plain old boredom when you see it.

    http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=172500&cid=143 63433

    BTW I thought my website was ugly but yours and the one you modelled it on suck more.

    I can't believe people are wasting mod points modding this stuff down - at least I wasn't that stupid.

    --

    -- it must be true, it's on the internet.
  31. The war at home by der_boy · · Score: 1

    Dear Mr. Geist, I am currently a student at U of O. I first want to congratulate you for giving our university such a positive image in online community. I have recently learnt through a reliable source at the University that services like SASS (Student Academic Success Service) send records by email containing psychological and academic profiles tied with the student's name and student number. As you are probably aware, email is not encrypted and system personnel who manage those email accounts have access to potentially damaging information that could compromise the student's reputation. Furthermore, many SASS services promote the illusion of confidentiality and anonymity. Students are not made aware that such information is recorded and kept on them for an indefinite period of time. My question: What is the point of fighting the online privacy war when their is already a war to be fought at home?

  32. Re:WOW! Canada has a Michael Geist ???? by SleepyHappyDoc · · Score: 1

    Not only that, but our Mike Geist is willing to post as other than an Anonymous Coward. ;)

    --
    Stasis is death. Embrace change.
  33. Re:Experts by vishbar · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Psssh, we're talking about Canada here. Last person to hold this chair researched the long-term effects of market saturation of lumberjacks on maple syrup production.

    --
    Ride the skies
  34. CRIA? by drmarcj · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Do you think Canada will ever be in the same situation as the US where even young children can become CRIA (Canadian Recording Industry Association of America) victims? - we asked him in the Q&A below.

    OK, I can name at least one thing wrong with that statement. (Hint: there's no Canadian association of anything American).

  35. Re:WOW! Canada has a Michael Geist ???? by whitehatlurker · · Score: 1
    Or at least wouldn't "post AC, then sign his name ..."

    My name is Joe ... oops

    --
    .. paranoid crackpot leftover from the days of Amiga.
  36. "the decline of radio" Really? by lonecrow · · Score: 1

    Handsup everybody who streams radio while online. I suspect there is a hole in the data and it will turn out that radio listeners have just gone online not gone away.

  37. Re: In Canada you hold chairs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In Soviet SteveBallmer republic, we dont hold chairs-

          We THROW them! At you!