Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Canadian Copyright Lobby Fights Anti-Spyware Legislation

Posted by Soulskill on from the stop-being-jerks dept.

An anonymous reader writes "New Canadian anti-spam and anti-spyware legislation is scheduled for a key vote on Monday. Michael Geist reports that the copyright lobby has been pushing to remove parts of the bill that would take away exceptions which currently allow spyware to be installed without authorization. 'The copyright lobby is deeply concerned that this change will block attempts to track possible infringement through electronic means.' There have also been proposals to extend the exemptions granted to telecom providers to include the installation of programs without the user's express consent, which Geist says will 'leave the door open to private, surreptitious surveillance.'"

11 of 104 comments (clear)

  1. Let me guess... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Either overtly, or in practice, this demand for private surveillance powers would cover them putting spyware on my machine; but not my putting spyware on their machines....

    1. Re:Let me guess... by polle404 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      and next term, they'll have it amended with a nifty little clause, so you're not allowed to uninstall it, either, i'd wager.
      scary stuff...
      and I thought Canadians were the levelheaded ones of that particular continent? ;-)

      --

      ~men are from earth. women are from earth. deal with it.~
    2. Re:Let me guess... by QuoteMstr · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm ambivalent on whether the parent is troll, but regardless, he has a salient point: when a significant portion of society breaks a law, there's not something wrong with the society, but with the law. Authority to govern comes from the consent of the governed. Ubiquitous lawbreaking without social consequence* is tantamount to retracting that consent. It's a terrible situation: not only is there a very real personal danger of capricious enforcement, but when a lawmaking apparatus is so aloof that it deems most of the people who make up a society unfit to be part of that society, that society is likely very sick in other respects as well.

      * That is, practically nobody will shun you for sharing files, or smoking pot, (or in the 1920s) going to a speakeasy, but if you are acquitted of a murder on a technicality, you can expect to lose many of your friends.

    3. Re:Let me guess... by QuoteMstr · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You're talking about individuals. I'm talking about society. As far as individual acts go, as Dan Ariely said, a fine is a price. Some people are willing to pay it. But I'm not talking about individuals weighing the risks and reward, but rather indications that particular laws are unjust.

      I'm talking about wide-spread lawbreaking without social consequences for the lawbreakers. If littering were common, and nobody seemed to care much, then there would be a case for repealing the laws against it. But neither criterion is satisfied, really, so we can conclude that we actually do want laws against, err, opportunistic waste disposal.

    4. Re:Let me guess... by aztracker1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually, I pretty much consider littering one of the most serious breakdowns of society... you are literally polluting your own environment directly. I'd rather have my son pirate every piece of software on his computer, and every bit of media he has a hold of than to see him litter. That's the truth of it... Not that I really condone the piracy of all software and media.

      --
      Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
    5. Re:Let me guess... by haruchai · · Score: 2, Insightful

      We were, mostly levelheaded until the right-wing nuts managed a takeover of the center-right - sound familiar?
      Then the centrist and center-left basically fell apart and, shockingly, the only thing preventing the minority government
      from gaining a majority, which would really screw anyone who gives a damn about basic freedoms, global warming,
      equal rights and transparency in government are the Quebec sovereignists.

      Scary times indeed.

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
  2. Two faces of a coin by Voulnet · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The more spyware and copyright lobbyists get mentioned together in legislation environments, the better. Since the majority of the folks in the judicial system are not tech-savvy, this may be a good chance to print a very bad (and true) trait on the operations of the copyright lobby.

  3. Re:We don't allow that sort of thing by AHuxley · · Score: 2, Insightful

    a few thousand dollars by a few thousand Canadians and your into significant amounts of money.
    Never forget the lure of a job after politics, scholarship for family, friends.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  4. Re:Am I reading the summary wrong? by AHuxley · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The copyright lobby is pissed. They want to go fishing. The law would allows them to sneak but only collect data within limits, if they stumble over your emails ect, it gets very tricky.
    They want sneak and peak open season.
    If their "off the rack", one size fits all IP hunting Windows backdoor application gets all your data, so be it.
    If they have to stand in open court and explain case by case how they 'protected' personal information during and after the hacking, it spoils the fun of the rapid IP to conviction shock and awe.
    Best to get all data protections dropped and get a licence to hack anyone, anything, anytime. No pesky state detective license, federal law, state like "microphone" recording laws. Your IP is seen in the wide, game over, no fancy lawyers in court asking 'questions'.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  5. Re:We don't allow that sort of thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Lobbyists are not allowed to give any significant amount of money to politicians in Soviet Canuckistan. Bribes "political contributions" are limited to a few thousand dollars and are stringently regulated.

    So? You want to know how this works around here (many European countries)? Politicians get exclusive vacations after which they change their agenda by 180 degrees. Or they get very high-paying "consulting" contracts. Or once their term is over, they end up in a high-paying position in a company of their choice.

    Anti-corruption laws are made by politicians for politicians. They cannot work.

  6. Shame? by divisionbyzero · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Do these RIAA and MPAA have no shame? Seriously. How can they ask for these things with a straight face? Must be desperation in the face of an obsolete business model.