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

The current issue of Out-law.com (from the UK law firm Pinsent Masons) has an article entitled Privacy and law: 10 ways to win public trust in a surveillance society.

Its an interesting read for anyone concerned about the issue of public surveillance.

It states: Function creep is very easy for Government to justify. For example, what is the justification to limit access to surveillance data only for anti-terrorism purposes? Why should serious crimes that are not terrorist related – a brutal murder or rape, for instance – be excluded? If other serious crime becomes an acceptable reason for using these retained data, why not all violent crime? After all, surely we want to find the perpetrator who attacked and mugged a pensioner and stole the £10 in her purse?

And if the authorities use these retained data for a £10 theft, why not use access to the personal data to trace a £400 Council Tax arrears, or an £80 fine for dropping litter. Then, if the retained data are used in tracing £100 of debt, why not use the personal data to improve efficiency of service delivery and save £100? It is this kind of reasoning which explains why function creep is inevitable and why the Government chose, contrary to all its public consultation documents and without Parliamentary debate on the subject, to allow the ID Card database to be used for a general administration purpose by all public authorities.

As I’ve said before, I find this trend towards increased surveillance and data collection by government authorities creepy.

Read the Pinsent Masons article

The Globe and Mail has an article entitled Is Wikipedia becoming a hub for propaganda? Tracking website shows thousands of changes to articles originated from federal government offices.

It describes changes to Wikipedia entries that came from individuals using federal government computers. Its rather disturbing, but perhaps not surprising.

Wikipedia entries are designed to be edited by anyone. While its perfectly acceptable for government sources to edit or add facts, the article describes edits that were made to reflect personal or political views or agendas.

Read the Globe article