The banks seem to be pushing back more than Revenue Canada. They're doing things like warning every suspected "US person" that if they open an account, they have to report to Revenue Canada, who will pass their name on the Internal Revenue. That, by the way, is the Canadian law they've committed to following.
Cisco has already committed to moving R&D to the Toronto area. Moving factories to cheap countries is normal. Moving R&D to expensive North American cities is genuinely unusual. Even Sun only based secondary stuff here, like ABI stability, and we had a significant cost advantage back then.
Companies producing anything hackable can't afford to exist only in the States any more: they need a significant presence in a country with different laws, so they can play off the countries' legal systems off against one another. Conversely, Canadian companies may well want to have a presence in the EU, and EU companies may wish to move their US operations to Canada or Mexico.
There's a series of good studies, done with brain scanning in place, described in Joshua Greene's Moral Tribes, Emotion, Reason and the Gap Between Us and Them, New York (Penguin), 2013.
Perhaps, but we're talking about fining Canadian banks 30% of their US transactions if they don't spy on their customers. Considering the smallish absolute cost of US tax cheats and the largish absolute size of Canadian bank's dealings with the US, "methinks the lady doth protesteth too much" (;-))
Yes, it is indeed illegal for the Canadian Communications Security Directorate to engage with the NSA to spy on Canadians.
According to the minister responsible, it's also illegal for the CSE to spy on anyone for the NSA, which they did during the G8/G20.
They're trying to remove that restriction: in part because Canada objected to decisions like U.S. vs Bank of Nova Scotia, the US Internal Revenue service got a law passed requiring any bank doing business in the 'States to report on their US customers to the IRS. Canada Revenue seems to have rolled over, while the banks are doing things like warning US citizens that if they create an account they will be reported to the US taxman by the Canadian one.
To be precise, the case was one in which the US required the Bank of Nova Scotia's subsidiary in the US to duplicate records from the Cayman Islands, contrary to the laws of the Caymans and also of Canada, where the Bank is chartered. That's why I put quotes around the "extradited" (;-))
If the records were already in the 'States, there wouldn't have been reason for the Bank to object to a subpoena from a US grand jury.
Returning to your post, FATCA is indeed a problem, and IMHO is a US response to tightened blocking legislation in Canada. US business would be well pleased if it caused ScotiaBank to go away.
Canada has a number of links that carefully don't pass through the US. A somewhat obvious case is the link to Cuba (;-))
That particular one started out as a 9600 baud satphone kludge between Memorial U in Newfoundland and a Cuban university.
We need a different scheme for "design patents", or "design trademarks" so that one can retain the style of a certain mouse so long as you're doing business with the mouse, but lose it if you stop using it.
Trademark works very much that way, but doesn't protect artistic designs. Design patents exist, but don't deal with the rodent use case.
Having done that, the pressure to have silly periods in copyright can fall to zero.
Almost ironically, Adam Smith held that the primary creator of wealth was labour, and also included product of the soil, as a sort of more basic construct, and, somewhat cautiously, the investments of landowners and businessmen from their profits.
[I just re-read the Wealth of Nations and The Theory of Moral Sentiments]
Actually they only did that for a few individual messages where the operators messed up, although they did describe it as an approach, until it was safe to admit they'd captured a 4-rotor machine from a sub. It was just declassified last year that they were so very badly stuck that they laid on the Dieppe raid in hopes they could "pinch" at least one machine from either the naval headquarters building or one of all the trawlers and e-boats based there. They failed miserably.
My wife bought me the book on it for Christmas (One Day in August: The Untold Story Behind Canada's Tragedy at Dieppe, by David O'Keefe) , as she knew the Essex Scottish was my regiment, and that I was interested in crypto.
If I have a crack for a current cryptosystem, I'd still need to build a machine to address the next cryptosystem.
Remember the panic in Britain when the (WW2) German submarine service switched from 3-rotor to 4-rotor Enigma machines! They hadn't finished a "bombe" got 4-rotor machines, and only broke the 4-rotor code when they captured an undamaged 4-rotor machine.
That failure was one of the reasons behind building "Colossus", the first electromechanical computer. Colossus was eventually able to decrypt message from the Lorenz SZ40/42 12-wheel machines, which were much harder than the 4-wheel enigma.
In most legal systems derived from the English Common Law, this is selling something "not suitable for the purpose sold", and is part of the definition of fraud. Consult a lawyer for local details.
[Boy, lots of fear in the comments from AC, aren't there?]
The signature on the slip is a protection for *you*, not the store. If it's forged, that's evidence that you weren't the buyer. See your local equivalent of the Statute of Frauds, etc.
Using a 4-digit pin is immensely less secure than using a handwritten signature, For the thief, it's guessing 4 digits instead of practicing for hours and hours to perfect a good-enough forgery (;-))
To be somewhat nitpicky, capabilities as discussed here are a way of enforcing categories. They're main value is what you mentioned, their ability to put fine-grained restrictions on processes, such as "you're a game, not a debugger, so you can't read another processes memory".
Slashdot Mirror
The banks seem to be pushing back more than Revenue Canada. They're doing things like warning every suspected "US person" that if they open an account, they have to report to Revenue Canada, who will pass their name on the Internal Revenue. That, by the way, is the Canadian law they've committed to following.
Cisco has already committed to moving R&D to the Toronto area. Moving factories to cheap countries is normal. Moving R&D to expensive North American cities is genuinely unusual. Even Sun only based secondary stuff here, like ABI stability, and we had a significant cost advantage back then.
Companies producing anything hackable can't afford to exist only in the States any more: they need a significant presence in a country with different laws, so they can play off the countries' legal systems off against one another. Conversely, Canadian companies may well want to have a presence in the EU, and EU companies may wish to move their US operations to Canada or Mexico.
There's a series of good studies, done with brain scanning in place, described in Joshua Greene's Moral Tribes, Emotion, Reason and the Gap Between Us and Them, New York (Penguin), 2013.
My company does all that as a matter of course, to meet Ontario law. Surely Google can! I mean, they're not stupid...
Perhaps, but we're talking about fining Canadian banks 30% of their US transactions if they don't spy on their customers. Considering the smallish absolute cost of US tax cheats and the largish absolute size of Canadian bank's dealings with the US, "methinks the lady doth protesteth too much" (;-))
It works in Firefox and Chrome on Linux, sorry. Perhaps try just http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15359095430199898378 which works for me
They're voting with their feet. That tends to make their complaints look fairly serious to the US congress.
Yes, it is indeed illegal for the Canadian Communications Security Directorate to engage with the NSA to spy on Canadians. According to the minister responsible, it's also illegal for the CSE to spy on anyone for the NSA, which they did during the G8/G20.
That didn't apply to Jean Cretien (;-)) which is probably what that comment was alluding to ...
They're trying to remove that restriction: in part because Canada objected to decisions like U.S. vs Bank of Nova Scotia, the US Internal Revenue service got a law passed requiring any bank doing business in the 'States to report on their US customers to the IRS. Canada Revenue seems to have rolled over, while the banks are doing things like warning US citizens that if they create an account they will be reported to the US taxman by the Canadian one.
To be precise, the case was one in which the US required the Bank of Nova Scotia's subsidiary in the US to duplicate records from the Cayman Islands, contrary to the laws of the Caymans and also of Canada, where the Bank is chartered. That's why I put quotes around the "extradited" (;-))
If the records were already in the 'States, there wouldn't have been reason for the Bank to object to a subpoena from a US grand jury.
Returning to your post, FATCA is indeed a problem, and IMHO is a US response to tightened blocking legislation in Canada. US business would be well pleased if it caused ScotiaBank to go away.
--dave
Canada has a number of links that carefully don't pass through the US. A somewhat obvious case is the link to Cuba (;-)) That particular one started out as a 9600 baud satphone kludge between Memorial U in Newfoundland and a Cuban university.
We need a different scheme for "design patents", or "design trademarks" so that one can retain the style of a certain mouse so long as you're doing business with the mouse, but lose it if you stop using it.
Trademark works very much that way, but doesn't protect artistic designs. Design patents exist, but don't deal with the rodent use case.
Having done that, the pressure to have silly periods in copyright can fall to zero.
--dave
Almost ironically, Adam Smith held that the primary creator of wealth was labour, and also included product of the soil, as a sort of more basic construct, and, somewhat cautiously, the investments of landowners and businessmen from their profits. [I just re-read the Wealth of Nations and The Theory of Moral Sentiments]
Actually they only did that for a few individual messages where the operators messed up, although they did describe it as an approach, until it was safe to admit they'd captured a 4-rotor machine from a sub. It was just declassified last year that they were so very badly stuck that they laid on the Dieppe raid in hopes they could "pinch" at least one machine from either the naval headquarters building or one of all the trawlers and e-boats based there. They failed miserably.
My wife bought me the book on it for Christmas (One Day in August: The Untold Story Behind Canada's Tragedy at Dieppe, by David O'Keefe) , as she knew the Essex Scottish was my regiment, and that I was interested in crypto.
If I have a crack for a current cryptosystem, I'd still need to build a machine to address the next cryptosystem.
Remember the panic in Britain when the (WW2) German submarine service switched from 3-rotor to 4-rotor Enigma machines! They hadn't finished a "bombe" got 4-rotor machines, and only broke the 4-rotor code when they captured an undamaged 4-rotor machine.
That failure was one of the reasons behind building "Colossus", the first electromechanical computer. Colossus was eventually able to decrypt message from the Lorenz SZ40/42 12-wheel machines, which were much harder than the 4-wheel enigma.
In most legal systems derived from the English Common Law, this is selling something "not suitable for the purpose sold", and is part of the definition of fraud. Consult a lawyer for local details.
[Boy, lots of fear in the comments from AC, aren't there?]
The signature on the slip is a protection for *you*, not the store. If it's forged, that's evidence that you weren't the buyer. See your local equivalent of the Statute of Frauds, etc.
Every sighted human can do signature verification with no extra tools, and the signature is a protection for *you* if it's recognizably a forgery.
No, you already did that in the contract: it's the "acceptance" part of "offer and acceptance", which see.
Using a 4-digit pin is immensely less secure than using a handwritten signature, For the thief, it's guessing 4 digits instead of practicing for hours and hours to perfect a good-enough forgery (;-))
Alas, it is a fable: the story is set some years into the future, when such capabilities can be bought off the shelf.
Aha! That sounds interesting, but as a search term, I get everything ever written about data loss protection (;-))
To be somewhat nitpicky, capabilities as discussed here are a way of enforcing categories. They're main value is what you mentioned, their ability to put fine-grained restrictions on processes, such as "you're a game, not a debugger, so you can't read another processes memory".
Strongly agree!
--dave
[Thanking the NSA was just a tiny bit tongue-in-cheek]
Yup, in the Fabulously Secure Supplier Company's safe (;-))