Bill C-74, the Modernization of Investigative Techniques Act has been introduced by the Canadian Government.

The intention is to give law enforcement easier access to modern means of communication.

Critics are concerned for several reasons, including the costs ISP will need to spend to accomodate this, the lack of judicial pre-authorization, and privacy in general.

Perhaps the good news is that there is a good chance that this bill, and the controversial bill C-60 copyright bill, won’t get passed before the election that seems to be looming.

Michael Geist has a post with links to the government’s view, and his criticism of the bill.

Read Michael Geist’s comments

Read a timeline and series of articles on itbusiness.ca

To illustrate a point about data brokers, McLean’s has obtained the cell phone records of Canada’s Privacy Commissioner.

Bell has issue a statement saying that the info was obtained fraudulently, and that they take privacy seriously.

We have not heard the last of this one.

David Fraser’s Canadian Privacy Law Blog has a couple of posts with more details.

Read David’s first post

Read David’s post about Bell’s comments

DAVID CANTON – for the London Free Press – November 12, 2005

Read this on Canoe

The concept of Web 2.0 has garnered much debate recently.

The Web 2.0 label was coined by O’Reilly Media to reflect the Internet’s perceived renaissance. O’Reilly observes the Web has new and evolving rules and business models, but did not construct an actual definition.

There has been much discussion on the appropriate definition — along with a number of critics who disregard the concept altogether.

Web 2.0 holds that the Internet has developed from a collection of static websites into a cohesive platform that provides users with constantly evolving web applications that can be accessed by both PCs and handheld devices.

(more…)

Vint Cerf of Google – who has been called the father of the Internet – submitted a letter for a congressional hearing on some proposed legislation.

His words are also relevant for the current debate over US/ICANN control over the Internet, vs. the desire for more control from outside North America, perhaps by the UN. No matter what the ultimate governance model is, it must focus on enabling the Internet, not controlling it, and can’t let bureaucracy get in the way.

He stated in part: The remarkable social impact and economic success of the Internet is in many ways directly attributable to the architectural characteristics that were part of its design. The Internet was designed with no gatekeepers over new content or services. The Internet is based on a layered, end-to-end model that allows people at each level of the network to innovate free of any central control. By placing intelligence at the edges rather than control in the middle of the network, the Internet has created a platform for innovation. This has led to an explosion of offerings – from VOIP to 802.11x wi-fi to blogging – that might never have evolved had central control of the network been required by design

Read a Slashdot post with more detail

Read a Circle ID article on Internet governance

For those that have not seen the deluge of articles on this, Sony-BMG hid some code on some music CD’s that was intended for DRM or copy protection. The code is similar to a virus, is hard to find and eliminate, and can compromise the computer.

The CD also comes with a EULA (End User License Agreement) the user has to agree to when launching the CD in a computer. EULA’s are standard fare for software – but for a music CD??

The EFF took a look at the EULA, and has found some rather strange things in it. Like if you go bankrupt, you have to delete it. Or they can put backdoor programs on your computer that allow them to use self help to “enforce their rights”, and if by doing so they destroy your computer, or cause a security risk – that’s just too bad. (Seems to me that violates the Criminal Code!)

This approach certainly does not encourage people to buy CD’s.

Read a Techdirt post

Read the EFF analysis

Read my earlier post

“Lawful access” refers to proposed legislation that would give police increased powers for electronic surveillance.

Government says it is necessary as a result of changing technology and risks. Critics see it as an intrusion into ordinary people’s lives that is not warranted.

David Fraser’s Canadian Privacy Law blog has a reference and links to a CBC Radio discussion on the topic.

Read David’s post

Read an earlier article of mine

Wired has an article with their top 10 list of software bugs.

It includes failed spacecraft, deadly medical treatments, and an allegedly intentional bug planted by spys.

Read the Wired article

David Canton – For the London Free Press – November 5, 2005

Read this on Canoe

An attempt to suppress something will sometimes cause more harm than good by bringing more attention to it.

It is important to understand and consider one’s legal rights when someone does something that offends you or your business.

It is also important to think through the options for redress and whether some of those options might backfire.

The “Streisand effect” is what happens when someone tries to suppress something and the opposite occurs. The act of suppressing it raises the profile, making it much more well known than it ever would have been.

(more…)

The Canadian association of broadcasters has suggested that alternatives to their services should be governed by the Broadcasting Act.

A blog entry by Tim Denton claims what it really means is that: the Canadian Association of Broadcasters (CAB) called for the regulation of the Internet in a way that could save the obsolete business model of broadcasters.

That post is a worthwhile read. Perhaps the real issue is whether legislation like the Broadcast Act still makes sense in today’s world.

This reminds me of the music industry approach.

To me we have to think in terms of the content or services being separate from the “pipe” or delivery mechanism.

For music, for example, a CD is simply a container for the songs. We buy the songs, not the CD.

We are entering a world where we pay for the bandwidth, whether it be hi-speed cable, DSL, WiMax, or cell. The services on top of that may or may not come from the same provider – and may or may not cost money. That includes everything from phone, long distance, music, video games, “TV”, etc.

The approach the music/entertainment industry seems to take is like buggy manufacturers fighting the advent of the car. If they fought it, they ultimately lost. If they realized they were in the transportation business, not the buggy business, they had a chance to adapt and prosper.

Read the Tim Denton post

This is latest furor over copy protection (also known as TPM’s or Technological Protection Measures). More evidence to support my assertion that TPM’s are fundamentally evil.

The CD puts code on computers they are played on that are hidden, hard to detect, and hard to remove. It reminds many of malware such as adware and spyware, and uses the same approach as some viruses.

Take a look at the various links below for more details, including criticism, and Sony’s attempts to mollify the concerns.

Read a CNet article describing the issue

Read Michael Geist’s criticism

Read a Techdirt criticism

Read a Techdirt post on Sony’s response