Slashdot Mirror
Privacy Commissioner Criticizes Canadian DMCA
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "Jennifer Stoddart, the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, has criticized the proposed Canadian DMCA in a public letter to Jim Prentice, the Canadian Minister of Industry. Specifically, she's asking them not to protect any DRM from circumvention that gathers and transmits personal data, because that would give abusive DRM makers a legal cudgel to use against anyone who exposes them. The proposed bill, which was recently delayed due to heavy opposition, is thought to contain DMCA-style anti-circumvention provisions that would make it illegal to investigate or remove intrusive DRM, even if that DRM was violating Canadian privacy laws."
So as far as I understand it, blocking outbound connections at the firewall--a legitimate security tactic--would hence become illegal under the terms of this DMCA?
Another case of legislators not having the faintest clue what they're talking about...but then, that's a bit redundant to say that, isn't it?
In Xanadu did Kubla Khan
A stately pleasure dome decree
Can't someone just tell me what this is all aboot, eh?
So basically, -1 troll/offtopic is really slashdots way of saying "I hate that you thought of something before me."
Can we get one?
Sincerely,
USA
Why don't you take care of your own "democracy" in the United States?
People need to know.
In related news, from a December 21st, 2007 CBC News article: Libraries urge Ottawa to consider consumers in drafting copyright law
The CLA [Canadian Library Association] fears the Canadian government, now redrafting copyright legislation, will create a new act closely mirroring U.S. legislation that curtails consumer rights, such as the right to copy material for their own use, Don Butcher, executive director of the Canadian Libraries Association said in a news conference in Ottawa Friday. ... "This is a battle between Hollywood lobbyists versus the average Canadian," Butcher said. ... Any changes made to law should protect artists such as musicians and authors, but also allow copying for individual use, he said. ... "Interest in the legislation isn't just coming from experts and specialists, lawyers and lobbyists. This time, interest is coming from ordinary Canadians," Butcher said.Atheism is a religion to the same extent that not collecting stamps is a hobby.
I'm curious - if removing DRM is banned, does that make it illegal to uninstall a game that uses a driver based copy protection?
If you haven't made a developer cry, you've wasted a day.
I want to send out some homemade CDs with DRM that installs a rootkit that includes botnet software. That way, when someone tries to STEAL my music with their computer magic, I am compensated by having a computer added to my botnet. Circumventing the installation of the botnet software is illegal, under the DMCA. That way, if someone tries to report me for hacking their computer, I can claim that they were attempting to circumvent my DRM, and get them thrown in jail. In other words, I'm pulling a Sony.
Atheism is a religion to the same extent that not collecting stamps is a hobby.
Specifically, she's asking them not to protect any DRM from circumvention that gathers and transmits personal data
Why would anyone circumvent DRM in a way that allows people to know who did it? And why would you even bother protecting DRM from that sort of circumvention?
(Tip: Prepositional phrases generally go directly after the words that they modify.)
Rob
By God, down here in the benighted South, we do privacy right. First off, it's a Czar, not a Commissioner, because it sounds cooler.
In 2003, we appointed Nuala O'Connor Kelly, formerly of Doubleclick fame, as Chief Privacy Officer of DHS, which is pretty close to Czarina as it gets.
And she then appointed, two years later, J. Reed Freeman to the DHS Privacy Committee, in honor of his heroic efforts to get Gator's spyware on every PC in Am... ummm, I mean the value he added through his work at a opt-in marketing services provider called Claria...
PRIVACY? THREAT DOWN!
Uh oh... /meesa guess the privacy commissionner will have to find a new job pretty soon...
The canadian version of the DMCA's been introduced 3 or 4 times already and died on the floor each time.
It looks like the US-DMCA has shown it's teeth enough that people are actually caring enough for it to be a politically unfavourable piece of legislation to pass.
All I have to say is "god bless the appointed senate, and it's somber second thought", without which it would've passed before parliament had time to dissolve
I can under stand why the DMCA got passed in the US, due to Motion picture/Record Company lobbying. But in Canada? Does the Motion picture/Record company have that much power in Canada, so this sort of thing is even considered for law. Good for Jennifer Stoddart, to be pointing out the major issues to the Government, will they listen?
It's just a terrible mess, all this DRM crap. If stricter DMCA makes it in Canada, it'll set a new precedent for a new, tougher one here... it's like this game of one-upmanship on who can be more draconian. What is next, making it illegal to use computers without DRM on them? (Trusted Computing, anyone?)
... then only outlaws will have files without DRM!
I mean, worms and whatnot are software, so any measures they take to prevent people from analyzing them could be construed as protecting the author's copyright on the software.
...why do you need privacy?
I find it amazing how, even in Canada where there are governmental agencies apparently unafraid to speak against the money interests, that this might still get passed there. It's clearly not in the interests of the people at large and in the long run, it's not even in the interests of the copyright cartels. (At present, it seems there's a LOT more movement in the direction of individual, unaffiliated artists and it partly due to the ridiculous games that the copyright cartels have been playing with artists and their customers alike.) While these copyright cartels have been spending money to buy legislation in countries across the planet, their customers are starting to discover alternative sources of entertainment.
Now if only we could see more independent movies reach the box offices, store shelves or other media sources the way we are seeing music changing, perhaps they'll all start to realize the expensive graves they have been digging for themselves.
So basically, -1 troll/offtopic is really slashdots way of saying "I hate that you thought of something before me."
No, generally "troll/offtopic" means that either a) the mod has no sense of humor or b) your joke wasn't funny.
What gets me is when I'm trying to be funny and they mod me "insightful" or "interesting".
-mcgrew
Speaking of insightful and interesting offtopic stuff, today's mcgrew journal concerns my good looking roommate, economics, religion, a hooker, the possibility that the roommate is jealous of the hooker, and a pimp. Family fare!
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
Lots of U.S. movies are filmed in Canada - and the governments up here give significant tax incentives to U.S. filmakers to come up here and put Canadians to work. This is why the american movie industry will have clout - though given the shape of the US dollar versus the Canadian dollar the incentive is not as great as it was a few years ago. Still, there cannot be that much illegal copying going on up here in Canada - after all there are more people in California (36 million) than in all of canada (33 million) plus alot of Canada - even within an hour or two of Toronto (population about 2 million) - is still on dial-up! Moreover I think the government actually likes it when Canadians bootleg American films - its stops Canadians from sending our gold to Hollywood; I bet these DRM restrictions will come in as fast as super-touph anti-marijuana laws - I bet the government likes it when Canadians smuggle pot into the U.S. - that brings a lot of US gold up here (we have to watch that 'balance of trade'). Too bad about Marc Emery though.
Over the years, I've talked to Jim about a number of issues. When he was a member of the Conservative opposition party, he took the time to respond to my concerns and seriously considered my objections to party policy or his vote on certain issues.
However, since the Conservatives took office and he was appointed a ministerial chair, he has changed drastically. The responses I get from him now tend to be generic form replies. I sent him a letter about the proposed idiotic 'camcorders in theatres' anti-piracy legislation. I got a form reply saying that he'd forward my concerns on to the minister responsible (Bev Oda, I believe). Seven months later, LONG after the legislation passed, I got a personal reply from Jim, pointing out how goofs with camcorders were destroying the Canadian movie industry, and that we have become a haven for pirates because of our lack of legislation (which of course was the Liberal's fault), etc., etc., etc.. Basically, it was a complete and abject capitulation to the MPAA/CMPDA. Coincidentally, the bill was introduced a week after Arnie had come visiting the province.
I'm totally disgusted with Jim. He's turned into a complete sell-out to industry and greed. He no longer represents his constituents, he no longer cares what's best for his riding or the country, he merely does what his bosses (governmental or industrial) tell him. Worse, he's a complete hypocrite.
So here is my message to the honourable Jim Prentice, MP for Calgary Centre North and federal minister of industry: You are no longer wanted. Get your lying, festering, useless carcass out of government and go back to your family. Maybe they can beat some sense back into you.
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
A handful of us met with our MP this very afternoon (Laurie Hawn - Conservative for Edmonton Centre). We talked about our concerns and what happens next for about an hour.
The bill will be introduced sometime in the next month or so. It is now considered, thanks to the efforts of everyone who called and wrote in December, a high profile bill.
A bill goes through 3 readings in the House of Commons. After the third it is passed to the Senate. After the first and second reading the bill may be sent to committee for hearings and modification. Now here is where it gets tricky. After the second reading the committee cannot make major changes to the bill, so if the proposed copyright legislation is really broken (and by all indications it will be) it needs to go to committee after first reading where it can be completely overhauled if need be.
But it is the discretion of the House leaders (each party) whether it goes to committee after the first reading.
So you all need to write (an actual physical letter works best) to the Leader, House Leader, and Industry critic of the opposition parties to tell them this bill must go to committee after the first reading so we have an opportunity for hearings and major revisions. Send copies to Stephen Harper, Jim Prentice (Minister of Industry), Josée Verner (Heritage), Peter Van Loan (Government House Leader), James Rajotte (head of the Industry committee) and your local MP while you are at it.
This might sound like a lot of work, but because of the minority government this is probably the best time for this legislation. Remember, committees are made up proportional to seats in the House, so the Government has to bargain with the opposition there too.
Serve Gonk.
The harsher the DRM, the more cracked movies there are for me to download on P2P.
Without DRM and at a reasonably price, I might be tempted to download from a legal source or even buy a DVD. Then I'd spend money. That would be bad.
thegodmovie.com - watch it
Though it's very much flawed from a formal logic perspective :)
And I for one am thankful at least one government official realizes this.
If I wanted DRM, I wouldn't have served seven years in the Canadian Army.
Want to change the Canadian Constitutional guarantees of privacy?
Nuh uh.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
It is not about money.
It is to encourage sharing of knowledge that improve the whole mankind.
If you do not share, you have no protection. If you do not want sharing, there should be no protection.
The copyright law should make anyone wanting to access a piece of intellectual work possible, with a cost.
The copyright law should make sure protected intellectual works be archived by some institution.
1.Canadian government rejects new law designed to make the content cartels happy
2.Content cartels lobby US government to put pressure on Canada to comply
3.US government threatens to replace imports from Canada with imports from somewhere else
4.Canadian government gives in and passes law (see the law making it illegal to use cameras in a movie theater)
5.Profit (for the content cartels)
If you're not doing anything wrong... ...why do you need privacy?
I am truly amazed that this canard of question is still asked in the age of the "Jedi Kid" and facebook and youtube and myspace....
Unless you lead a perfectly moral life 100% of the time and never do anything that anyone else would consider to be immoral, illegal, objectionable, or just plain hilarious, then you need privacy.
And guess what? There are enough different groups with enough different agendas to find something you do immoral, illegal, objectionable, or just plain hilarious.
Since you don't believe you need privacy, let me record your day, everyday. Then let me take one event out context, say, the one time you absolutely lost it, foaming mouth with rage at your 2 year old because you slept badly and you're worried about your Mom's operation and your boss is being a dick and your blood-sugar is low.
You remember that moment? Scared the crap out your kid? And you were glad your spouse wasn't there because they would have thought you a monster? But you immediately regretted it, calmed down, cried a little yourself, and hugged your kid until you both felt better, and there were never any lasting effects, except that little bit of guilt or shame you still secretly feel?
Now, I am going to take that video and I am going to publish it everywhere. I am going to spam the bricks and mortar world with printouts of you foaming at the mouth.
How will your spouse and friends and family and coworkers react? Think you'll ever get a table at your favourite restaurant again? What will your kid think when they see that picture years from now?
I agree, you've never done anything wrong. Human, yes. Wrong, no. Still feel you don't need privacy?
Once upon a time, if your reputation was ruined by an isolated event, you would have moved a few villages away, and all would have been well.
On the Internet, there are no isolated events, and there is but one village. Better hope for reincarnation, because that one moment - recorded and widely shared, because you had no need of privacy - has ruined your life. And your spouse's. And your kid's. Etc.
Still feel you don't need privacy?
I'm here EdgeKeep Inc.