From russellmcormond at gmail.com Mon Dec 5 12:29:29 2011 From: russellmcormond at gmail.com (Russell McOrmond) Date: Wed Dec 7 20:01:01 2011 Subject: [discuss] Writing letters to Peter Braid (MP for Kitchener-Waterloo) about CarrierIQ Message-ID: On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 1:23 AM, Bob Jonkman wrote: > Here's an article full of quotes from researchers, vendors and carriers. > Largely the particular incident with Carrier IQ seems to be a tempest in a > teapot. ?But Paul's concerns about conducting and publishing such research > in Canada once Bill C11 becomes law are very valid, and should be cause for > concern for any technologists. > > http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-57336064-281/carrier-iq-verbatim-answers-from-company-exec-researchers/ > > ? By now it seems abundantly clear that, contrary to earlier reports, > ? the Carrier IQ technology is not actually a "rootkit keylogger." Bob, and others. While this specific software turned out to not be as bad as reported, it is still worth writing to Peter Braid (MP for Kitchener-Waterloo) who will be part of the C-11 special legislative committee. The issue isn't so much whether this specific program was malicious, but that the interests of the carriers (previous owner of the device?) and the rights of the current owner may conflict. Bill C-11 includes the following: "30.63 It is not an infringement of copyright for a person to reproduce a work or other subject-matter for the sole purpose, with the consent of the owner or administrator of a computer, computer system or computer network, of assessing the vulnerability of the computer, system or network or of correcting any security flaws." Your guess is as good as mine whether this conflict between owners and carriers would constitute a "security flaw", or yet another contractual disagreement where one party is granted far more power than the other (contract between carrier and owner may say that owners have no rights). My guess is that it would not be considered a TPM exception. The most important thing for Peter Braid to recognize is that there are 4 stakeholder groups impacted by the Paracopyright provisions in C-11, not only two. It isn't only copyright owners vs. audiences of those copyrighted works, but must include recognition of rights of competing software authors and device owners. In this case is is carrier vs. device owner that is the issue, something that shouldn't have anything to do with a "copyright" bill, but which C-11 impacts. The following may be helpful: Why Heritage Minister James Moore is wrong on Bill C-11 "technological protection measures" (TPMs) http://c11.ca/5382 If I can help with letter writing, let me know. If we can get a large number of KWLUG members to send letters that didn't seem like a form letter to Peter Braid, then he may finally spend the time to learn about this issue. We need to move this from being something technologists are upset about amongst ourselves to something which we as an active community inform government why we are upset. BTW: Keep focused on the Paracopyright issues. As soon as you open the topic of the Copyright aspects of the bill, you'll be dragged down that rat-hole. -- Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: Please help us tell the Canadian Parliament to protect our property rights as owners of Information Technology. Sign the petition! http://l.c11.ca/ict/ "The government, lobbied by legacy copyright holders and hardware manufacturers, can pry my camcorder, computer, home theatre, or portable media player from my cold dead hands!" http://c11.ca/own From psema4 at gmail.com Wed Dec 7 11:49:19 2011 From: psema4 at gmail.com (Scott Elcomb) Date: Wed Dec 7 20:04:07 2011 Subject: [discuss] Test Post Message-ID: Checking if the list is still alive - I just recieved my monthly subsciption reminder... for Sept. Best, -- ? Scott Elcomb ? @psema4 on Twitter / Identi.ca ? Atomic OS: Self Contained Microsystems ? http://code.google.com/p/atomos/ ? Member of the Pirate Party of Canada ? http://www.pirateparty.ca/ From russellmcormond at gmail.com Wed Dec 7 20:33:29 2011 From: russellmcormond at gmail.com (Russell McOrmond) Date: Wed Dec 7 20:33:30 2011 Subject: [discuss] Test Post In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Ouch -- September? As far as I know things are working, but I'm not involved in the sysadmin side of things. I just do policy stuff.. On Dec 7, 2011 8:12 PM, "Scott Elcomb" wrote: > Checking if the list is still alive - I just recieved my monthly > subsciption reminder... for Sept. > > Best, > -- > Scott Elcomb > @psema4 on Twitter / Identi.ca > > Atomic OS: Self Contained Microsystems > http://code.google.com/p/atomos/ > > Member of the Pirate Party of Canada > http://www.pirateparty.ca/ > _______________________________________________ > discuss mailing list > discuss@cluecan.ca > http://www.linux.ca/mailman/listinfo/discuss > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.cluecan.ca/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20111207/a3bfb845/attachment.htm From russell at c11.ca Tue Dec 20 08:54:48 2011 From: russell at c11.ca (Russell McOrmond) Date: Tue Dec 20 08:58:28 2011 Subject: [discuss] MPs in ridings -- can us FLOSS folks get in touch with them? Message-ID: <4EF093A8.1040502@c11.ca> Last Thursday the House of Commons adjourned, meaning MPs are in their respective ridings until the end of January. As I wrote in http://c11.ca/5387 , this is an important time for us to get in touch with them. For the Canadian FLOSS community, the focus needs to be on "technological protection measures". I've come to believe that anything we say about the Copyright parts of the bill will serve as a distraction from the Paracopyright parts which represent the greatest threat to software choice and thus FLOSS. I also believe politicians are knowingly making policy choices on Copyright, but that they don't understand technology enough to understand the impacts of Paracopyright. I've sent messages to try to meet my own MP on this issue again, and hope that other people will as well. The more technical people talk to MPs about the Paracopyright aspects of C-11, the more chance we have of avoiding the harm the passage of the current bill will have to our sector. I'm here to help if anyone wants to discuss the policy itself, and why I've taken the focus that I have. -- Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: Please help us tell the Canadian Parliament to protect our property rights as owners of Information Technology. Sign the petition! http://l.c11.ca/ict "The government, lobbied by legacy copyright holders and hardware manufacturers, can pry my camcorder, computer, home theatre, or portable media player from my cold dead hands!" http://c11.ca/own From hub at figuiere.net Tue Dec 20 11:19:13 2011 From: hub at figuiere.net (=?UTF-8?B?SHViIEZpZ3Vpw6hyZQ==?=) Date: Tue Dec 20 11:18:44 2011 Subject: [discuss] MPs in ridings -- can us FLOSS folks get in touch with them? In-Reply-To: <4EF093A8.1040502@c11.ca> References: <4EF093A8.1040502@c11.ca> Message-ID: <4EF0B581.4020201@figuiere.net> On 11-12-20 5:54 AM, Russell McOrmond wrote: > I've sent messages to try to meet my own MP on this issue again, and > hope that other people will as well. The more technical people talk to > MPs about the Paracopyright aspects of C-11, the more chance we have of > avoiding the harm the passage of the current bill will have to our sector. > Only if your MP is a deceptiCon, because they all vote the ideologicial party line. And even then it is a lost cause as the all vote like sheeps. Since when the "Harper majority" accepted an amendment in any of the bills from the position? Never. Mark my words: C-11 will go through unamended with unanimous support from the DeceptiCons. Hub From russell at c11.ca Fri Dec 23 10:24:58 2011 From: russell at c11.ca (Russell McOrmond) Date: Fri Dec 23 10:24:20 2011 Subject: [discuss] Whose Software Freedom? A 20-year perspective. Message-ID: I posted something to the blog this morning http://www.cluecan.ca/node/1198 which might be interesting to discuss. It is one of the constant conversations that I've observed in the FLOSS community over the last 20 years, with those conversations sometimes being quite heated. Hopefully we can discuss what motivates us to participate in FLOSS communities. While I know what I wrote will be seen as controversial, the intention is to spark conversation in our community. Hopefully we can do so without there being any flame-war. Thanks, and best of the season! -- Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: Please help us tell the Canadian Parliament to protect our property rights as owners of Information Technology. Sign the petition! http://l.c11.ca/ict/ "The government, lobbied by legacy copyright holders and hardware manufacturers, can pry my camcorder, computer, home theatre, or portable media player from my cold dead hands!" http://c11.ca/own From russell at c11.ca Fri Dec 23 10:46:45 2011 From: russell at c11.ca (Russell McOrmond) Date: Fri Dec 23 10:46:08 2011 Subject: [discuss] MPs in ridings -- can us FLOSS folks get in touch with them? In-Reply-To: <4EF0B581.4020201@figuiere.net> References: <4EF093A8.1040502@c11.ca> <4EF0B581.4020201@figuiere.net> Message-ID: On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 11:19 AM, Hub Figui?re wrote: > Only if your MP is a deceptiCon, because they all vote the ideologicial > party line. And even then it is a lost cause as the all vote like sheeps. > Since when the "Harper majority" accepted an amendment in any of the > bills from the position? Never. I don't think you will be surprised that I'll disagree with this defeatist attitude :-) When it comes to the Copyright portion of C-11, I believe the Conservatives made policy choices based on an understanding of the impacts. Whether I agree or disagree with those choices doesn't matter, and I agree that they are unlikely to change those provisions. When it comes to the Paracopyright provisions in C-11, few of the politicians are aware of the impacts and thus it is unlikely they made deliberate policy choices. Our job as a technical community is to focus on educating politicians about these impacts, so that they can have a policy discussion based on science rather than science fiction. I've observed the CPC rhetoric since they formed, and I strongly believe if they had the same understanding of the technology that I do that they would be as strongly opposed to the Paracopyright policies currently in C-11 as I am. They were so upset about the mere registration of long-guns, and yet we see a policy which legalises the non-owner locking up of our technology? They truly have the "protecting property rights" aspects backwards, where C-11 Paracopyright will not only harm the interests of most copyright owners, but also directly attacks other classes of owners. They've also expressed support for devolving power to provinces, with C-11 Paracopyright quite likely coming up to constitutional challenges if passed without amendments (See: http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6214/125/ http://l.c11.ca/faq#constitution ) Whether a government MP or opposition, the point is to draw attention to the Harper cabinet to this issue. They may not take amendments from the opposition, but I can't believe they won't be willing to amend a misunderstood section of bill to be consistent with their own values. So far the debate in the house has missed the core Paracopyright issues in C-11 . I discussed this in http://c11.ca/5386 , as a reply to an NDP MP and leadership candidate discussing C-11. Like a vast majority of MPs discussing this issue, he is distracted by the minor impacts of C-11 "use controls" on fair dealings, not recognising the major harm of C-11 "access controls" on many areas of law including copyright. BTW: At the very least, try to get people to sign the IT property rights petition. I want there to be opportunities in February for MPs to stand up and discuss this issue. http://l.c11.ca/ict/ -- Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: Please help us tell the Canadian Parliament to protect our property rights as owners of Information Technology. Sign the petition! http://l.c11.ca/ict/ "The government, lobbied by legacy copyright holders and hardware manufacturers, can pry my camcorder, computer, home theatre, or portable media player from my cold dead hands!" http://c11.ca/own From hub at figuiere.net Fri Dec 23 14:22:24 2011 From: hub at figuiere.net (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Hub_Figui=E8re?=) Date: Fri Dec 23 14:21:45 2011 Subject: [discuss] MPs in ridings -- can us FLOSS folks get in touch with them? In-Reply-To: References: <4EF093A8.1040502@c11.ca> <4EF0B581.4020201@figuiere.net> Message-ID: <4EF4D4F0.6060602@figuiere.net> On 23/12/11 07:46 AM, Russell McOrmond wrote: > On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 11:19 AM, Hub Figui?re wrote: >> Only if your MP is a deceptiCon, because they all vote the ideologicial >> party line. And even then it is a lost cause as the all vote like sheeps. >> Since when the "Harper majority" accepted an amendment in any of the >> bills from the position? Never. > > I don't think you will be surprised that I'll disagree with this > defeatist attitude :-) Not defeatist. Realistic. That mean a different angle needs to be found. The conservative caucus that hold a majority in the house of common is deaf to anything that does not come from the "leader's" office and talking points. So why wasting our energy on that approach? > When it comes to the Copyright portion of C-11, I believe the > Conservatives made policy choices based on an understanding of the > impacts. Whether I agree or disagree with those choices doesn't > matter, and I agree that they are unlikely to change those provisions. > > > When it comes to the Paracopyright provisions in C-11, few of the > politicians are aware of the impacts and thus it is unlikely they made > deliberate policy choices. Our job as a technical community is to > focus on educating politicians about these impacts, so that they can > have a policy discussion based on science rather than science fiction. See my previous comment. > I've observed the CPC rhetoric since they formed, and I strongly > believe if they had the same understanding of the technology that I do > that they would be as strongly opposed to the Paracopyright policies > currently in C-11 as I am. They were so upset about the mere > registration of long-guns, and yet we see a policy which legalises the > non-owner locking up of our technology? Welcome to the faux-majority. Similarly they are for police power to spy on Canadians, which by itself is in total opposition with their argument to scrap the LGR. You have better chances convincing the Harper appointed Senate majority. They seem to have a more sober approach and you can actually raise the point that the copyright bill is actually infringing on the constitution by trampling on the provinces prerogatives. The other valid approach is via the Supreme Court of Canada that could be, once the bill received royal assent, used to challenge the constitutionality of the bill. BTW, IANAL. Hub From russell at c11.ca Sat Dec 24 12:50:15 2011 From: russell at c11.ca (Russell McOrmond) Date: Sat Dec 24 12:49:37 2011 Subject: [discuss] MPs in ridings -- can us FLOSS folks get in touch with them? In-Reply-To: <4EF4D4F0.6060602@figuiere.net> References: <4EF093A8.1040502@c11.ca> <4EF0B581.4020201@figuiere.net> <4EF4D4F0.6060602@figuiere.net> Message-ID: <4EF610D7.4090504@c11.ca> On 11-12-23 02:22 PM, Hub Figui?re wrote: > Not defeatist. Realistic. That mean a different angle needs to be found. > The conservative caucus that hold a majority in the house of common is > deaf to anything that does not come from the "leader's" office and > talking points. > So why wasting our energy on that approach? A few reasons. I don't believe that there needs to be one approach, or that this is wasting energy. Whether it will be before or after C-11 passes, changes will be needed. We will need to have informed politicians that will make those changes, some of which may already have seats in parliament. Some of those who will fix these problems may be in the Senate, and some of them may even be provincial MPP's. We don't know who those people are that will best help us, so we need to meet with as many people as we can. Who is opposition today can become government later. This is also not a left vs right or partisan issue. Those who think this is a "Harper" thing need to remember that the policies we are fighting come from the Clinton/Gore government in the USA, and are strongly and aggressively supported by Obama. The Liberals were largely able to table a better bill because the Bush administration wasn't breathing down their throats, and thus they stuck to WIPO language (limited use controls) rather than the WIPO+DMCA language (Access controls that have no tie to copyright, etc, etc). While the Copyright part of C-60 through C-11 can be said to be "Made in Canada", the Paracopyright comes directly from the US presidency/administration. The Harper government has accepted amendments to bills, even if not in a rational/reasonable manner. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/inside-politics-blog/2011/12/committeewatch-flashback-irwin-cotlers-c-10-amendments-redux.html These are amendments to C-10 which the Liberals tabled but the Conservatives in committee rejected. They were then tabled by the Conservatives at report stage, but rejected by the speaker on the grounds that they should have been brought forward at committee. They are now likely to be tabled in the Senate, etc... A warped way to do things, but possible if it becomes obvious to the Conservatives that they are making mistakes. Getting the attention of Senators is something we want to be able to do, but that is best done by going through our own MPs. This is where an opposition MP may be better, given they may be more willing to put in a good word and help set up meetings with Senators. Challenging the law after it is passed within the legal system will not be trivial, and will require that someone actually be sued. I speak about the constitutional issues in http://mcormond.blogspot.com/2011/11/protecting-it-property-rights-not-short.html It won't be me that will be sued. It is highly unlikely anyone would sue me for being very public with my ongoing circumvention of TPMs as they will know that I'll be willing to put my money/time/etc on the line to fight for what I so strongly believe in. It will be a less sympathetic defendant, likely a case where neither the plaintiff or the defendant have any respect for the property rights of others: but where those representing the DRM sector will somehow look less like the thieves they are. Part of the problem with the constitutional argument is that *WE* haven't so far been able to engage our provincial politicians. My MPP in Ottawa South is Dalton McGuinty, currently the Premier of Ontario. He has thus far ignored and/or punted my questions to another Minister who hasn't addressed any of the issues. I've tried to use the multiple meeting I've had with his brother David who is the federal MP to try to get the provinces involved -- but that itself requires that there be more federal MPs aware of the issues and thus some support for his pursuing (And thus back to the need to meet with federal MPs alongside our provincial representatives). And so-on. I don't see meeting MPs as the only thing we need to be doing, but a foot in the door to the larger conversation we need to be having. I'd love to meet with more MPs myself (I'd love to collect the whole set http://flora.ca/mp :-), but that won't happen without constituents meeting with them first to recommend they meet with me if they want to get into the weeds/etc. > You have better chances convincing the Harper appointed Senate majority. > They seem to have a more sober approach and you can actually raise the > point that the copyright bill is actually infringing on the constitution > by trampling on the provinces prerogatives. > > The other valid approach is via the Supreme Court of Canada that could > be, once the bill received royal assent, used to challenge the > constitutionality of the bill. > > BTW, IANAL. I also am not a lawyer, and I agree that we should *also* be doing the above. I just see this as a larger interconnected network of things we should be doing. The timing right now is federal MPs in ridings. The other stages of the process will happen at other times, and while we need to be ready for them they aren't what is happening this month and next. Later next year I'll be suggesting we focus on a different part of the challenge. Then again, if you happen to know an MPP or Senator, and can work on that stage of the process, then dive right into that right away :-) -- Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: Please help us tell the Canadian Parliament to protect our property rights as owners of Information Technology. Sign the petition! http://l.c11.ca/ict "The government, lobbied by legacy copyright holders and hardware manufacturers, can pry my camcorder, computer, home theatre, or portable media player from my cold dead hands!" http://c11.ca/own