The more I read about this, and the ramifications sink in, the less I like it. The combination of the expected copyright reform bill and this proposed treaty leads us down the wrong path. Its a backwards step and out of touch with the reality of today’s technology, marketplace, and consumer rights and expectations.

As Michael puts it:

This suggests that the two-part Prentice plan is rapidly coming together – a Canadian DMCA could be introduced next week, while by the end of the year Canada may have agreed to an international treaty that mandates new levels of surveillance for ISPs and border guards. The effect of these reforms will dramatically reshape Canadian law with Prentice and Prime Minister Stephen Harper rolling out the red carpet for President George Bush’s demands and leaving Canadians wondering how their consumer, property, and privacy rights suddenly disappeared.

Read Michael Geist’s update

Read another comment by Mike Masnick on Techdirt

Apparently the tickets for this summer’s Olympics will contain a microchip with the ticket holder’s photograph, passport details, addresses, e-mail, and telephone numbers. The idea is to keep troublemakers and protestors out of the stands.

Of course this raises issues about privacy and just what will be done with all that information, and its questionable whether those measures will have any effect on that goal.

A great example of security theatre – somehow not surprising when it goes along with the theatrics of the opening and closing ceremonies.

Read more on Slashdot

Several blogs and newspaper articles have mentioned a leaked document that describes the ACTA negoitiations. It is a proposed treaty among a few countries to help stem the flow of counterfeit goods at borders. The proposed treaty and the way it is being discussed raise all sorts of problems.

For example, it supports the US entertainment industry agenda that is being pushed by the US government – the same agenda that has huge opposition on the copyright reform front. And if that’s not bad enough in substance, its being negotiated out of the public eye.

It also has the potential to make crminals of all of us at border points, as it would give customs officers the ability to look for “illegal” copies on any device we have. Having customs officers deciding what are legal vs illegal copies of things is a scary proposition as that determination is not always easy even for the courts. And content that may be perfectly legal to have in one country, may not be in another.

In the grand scheme of things, stopping a truckload of counterfeit CD’s would be a good thing – but stopping individuals from crossing a border with their ipods is just silly.

This strikes me as one of those creeping out of control concepts where legitimate border controls are being used for improper purposes.

For more information on this topic take a look at:

Ottawa Citizen article

Globe article

Slaw post

Michael Geist’s post

There will be a rally today on Parliament Hill in Ottawa from 11:30 to 1:30 to support net neutrality.

For more details see:

netneutralityrally.ca

neutrality.ca

Campaign for Democratic Media

For the London Free Press – May 26, 2008

Read this on Canoe

A new aspect of estate planning has arisen with the advance of the Internet — the preservation of one’s online legacy. It’s no longer as simple as passing down the family photo album.

People are beginning to consider who will receive their user names and passwords to things such as their websites, e-mail accounts, blogs, contact management systems and online photo storage upon death.

While some are considering how to ensure their online identities are preserved for future generations, others are examining how their online identity or business can be removed from the public domain after death.

With the advance of web services such as Flickr, Photo box or Facebook, the popularity of the online storage of photos has increased. Likewise, the diary or journal has been replaced by the blog.

While these mediums afford the opportunity to pass down more photos of an individual and more content about their lives and thoughts, steps must be taken to ensure that family members can get to the information and that any monthly fees remain paid so the information is not destroyed or lost in cyberspace.

And what about e-mail? It seems both Google and Microsoft have policies to allow the family of a deceased account holder to get access to the account. They require proper paperwork, such as a death certificate. Yahoo won’t provide such access.

For many, the question likely will be, “Do I want my family to have access to my e-mail after I die?” For some, their e-mails are something they do not expect to be read by anyone besides themselves and the recipient, and the thought of relatives perusing them after they’re gone could be distasteful.

Don’t forget about domain names. They may be valuable to your family on their own, even if the domain name doesn’t host content worth preserving.

If you operate a business as a sole proprietor, the same issues apply to any online tools you use to run your business. Some small businesses increasingly rely on online tools for such things as accounting, document retention and customer collaboration. Their continued use may be crucial to the continued success of the business.

So how do you deal with this? The first step is to determine what elements of your online identity should continue, then prepare a plan to ensure they can. Like any asset, the beneficiary can be spelled out in a will.

While a will can determine the ultimate owner, the more immediate issue is to preserve your family’s access and give control to your estate trustees to preserve the data in the short term, and provide access to the right individuals in the long term.

We should be cautious, however, about providing others with our user names and passwords, or writing them down where anyone can find them. They can be stored with a will, but Internet services, user names and passwords change too quickly for that to be effective. Consider using an asset inventory tool, such as Dovetail Organizer (dovetailorganizer.com).

Ann Cavoukian just released her 2007 annual report, a 76 page report including statistics on complaints and information requests, significant cases, and her views on some important issues going forward.

David Fraser summarizes it by saying “apparently it was a good year“.

I’ll comment more once I have a closer look, but for now:

Read the press release

Read the report

Read David Fraser’s comment

Just attended the London TechAlliance AGM, which featured Dr. Thomas Homer-Dixon as the speaker. He presented a rather sobering view of the severity of the problems of climate change, carbon emissions, and peak oil. His message for solving these is in part that he is hopeful that the crisis will spur ingenutiy and entrepreneurship to find solutions. We can’t expect government or large institutions alone to solve this.

He also suggested that ingenuity and creativity is enhnaced by more communication and collaboration, but that there may be a point where too much of it becomes counterproductive.

I have not read any of his books, but if his talk is any indication, they would be a worthwhile read for anyone wanting to make a difference on these issues.

Go to his website.

The CRTC just announced that they will be having a public hearing in early 2009 about broadcasting and the new media environment. The CRTC regulates traditional broadcasters. In 1999 the CRTC decided that it would not deal with the internet.

From their press release:

In 1999, the Commission examined new media services that deliver broadcasting content over the Internet and concluded that regulation was not necessary to achieve the objectives of the Broadcasting Act.The Commission issued an Exemption Order for these services, observing that:

there was no discernible impact on conventional radio and television audiences attributed to new media services
market forces were providing for a Canadian presence on the Internet, which was supported by a strong demand for Canadian content, and
there was no evidence that the Internet had impacted the traditional broadcasters’ advertising revenues.
In 2007, the Commission issued a similar Exemption Order for broadcasting services that are received through cellphones, personal digital assistants (PDAs) and other mobile devices.

The CRTC has decided it is time to take a closer look.

From their press release:

The Commission has a responsibility to ensure that the broadcasting system is in a position to achieve the objectives of the Broadcasting Act, today as well as in the future, said Konrad von Finckenstein, Q.C., Chairman of the CRTC. New digital technologies and platforms are creating opportunities for the broadcast of professionally-produced Canadian content that simply didn’t exist a few years ago. Our intention is not to regulate new media, but rather to gain a better understanding of this environment and, if necessary, to propose measures that would support the continued achievement of the Broadcasting Act’s objectives.

Take a look at their press release and a speech from the chair for more details.

A web site has been set up to take public comments until June 15. It already has several comments, most of which are adamant that the CRTC keeps its hands off, or complain about ISP services.

Read the press release

Read the chair’s speech

Look at or make a comment

The CRTC refused to grant CAIP’s (Canadian Association of Internet Providers) requested interim injunction to stop Bell’s throttling of internet traffic, but has published a plan to consider the issue in detail. Anyone concerned about this issue has until Jun 12 to file comments.

The CRTC stated that they expect to rule by late September. The good news is that the CRTC is taking a serious look at the issue – which has the potential to affect how we all use the Internet.

If you are not familiar with this issue, take a look at previous entries under “network neutrality” in my tag cloud.

Read the CRTC letter

Read Michael’s take on this

Michael Geist says the Ottawa rumour mill indicates that we might see a copyright reform bill soon. His article is worth a read to find out why “the decision to forge ahead with the controversial reform package is a curious one”, and a suggested course of action for getting the copyright reform bill we really do need.

Read Michael’s article