Posts Tagged ‘Network Neutrality’
Canada’s Soon-To-Be Introduced “Lawful” Access Legislation
The first prong mandates the disclosure of Internet provider customer information without court oversight. Under current privacy laws, providers may voluntarily disclose customer information but are not required to do so.
The second prong requires Internet providers to dramatically re-work their networks to allow for real-time surveillance. (without court oversight)
The bill sets out detailed capability requirements that will eventually apply to all Canadian Internet providers. These include the power to intercept communications, to isolate the communications to a particular individual, and to engage in multiple simultaneous interceptions.
Moreover, the bill establishes a comprehensive regulatory structure for Internet providers that would mandate their assistance with testing their surveillance capabilities and disclosing the names of all employees who may be involved in interceptions (and who may then be subject to RCMP background checks).
Having obtained customer information without court oversight and mandated Internet surveillance capabilities, the third prong creates a several new police powers designed to obtain access to the surveillance data.
These include new transmission data warrants that would grant real-time access to all the information generated during the creation, transmission or reception of a communication including the type, direction, time, duration, origin, destination or termination of the communication.
Law enforcement could then obtain a preservation order to require providers to preserve subscriber information, including specific communication information, for 90 days. Finally, having obtained and preserved the data, production orders can be used to require the disclosure of specified communications or transmission data.
An OPENSOURCE film about copyright, teenagers & internet.
Director / Writer: Julio Secchin
Producer: Luiz Felipe ‘Moe’ Couto
Cinematographer: Daniel Venosa
Assistant Director: Rodrigo Vasconcellos
Art Directors: Maya Dikstein & Laura Shalders
Costume Designer: Maria Catarina Duncan
Editor: Felipe Peres & Vincent Zoidberg, A.C.E.
Original Titles Design: Níkolas Pereira
Art Property Producer: Gabriel Cabral
Art Director Assistants: Livia Travassos & Manoela Medeiros
Original Music & Sound Design: Bernardo Uzeda
Sound Recordist: Diogo Valentino
1st Camera Assistant: Guilherme Rezende
2nd Camera Assistant: Marcelo Pizzato
Still Photographer: Gabriel Secchin
Additional Photography & Camera Operation: João Atala, Diego Quinderé, Lourenço Monte-Mór, Gabriel Mariani, Guilherme Rezende & Marcelo Pizzato
Special Effects: Equipe M
Continuity: Manuelle Rosa
Make-up Artist: Isabela Arêde
Casting: Rodrigo Vasconcellos & Duda Gorter
Assist. Production: Emerson Mendes, Nathalia Melo & Leonardo Batista de Brito
Set Manager: Rafael ‘Torah’ Silva
Gaffer: Danilson Souza Costa
Additional Gaffer: Baianinho
Best Boy Electric: Bartô
Starring: Pedro Ramôa, Gustavo Berriel, Rafaella Buzzi & André Ramiro.
Featuring: Marcello Biju, Guilherme Bellem, André ‘Fofo’ Chaves & Gabriel Frazão
Special thanks to Andre Camara
Funny how Canada’s Broadcasters have launched a public “information” campaign that makes a number of astoundingly false claims about Canada’a proposed copyright bill C-32 that is currently making it’s way through the legislative process.
Big fat lies:
- Local Radio at risk without Bill C-32
– Remember CTV’s Save Local TV campaign? Same billshit, only thicker
- Claims millions of dollars will leave Canada robbing Canadian artists of their fair share
– Since when did Canadian broadcasters give a shit about Canadian artists. They’ve sent millions lobbying the government for even more ways to screw Canadian artists out of royalties. In 2009 they claimed to have paid Canadian music artists $51 millions dollars on $1.5 BILLION in revenue!
- Canadian Broadcasters generously shared only 3.4% of their revenue with artists that contributor virtually 100% to their programming!
- UPDATE: The Canadian Broadcasters are actually supporting one aspect of C-32 – the elimination of the Broadcast Mechanical Royalty which has been a source of income for Canadian Artists for a decade. The broadcasters FALSE claims that the money goes into the pockets of “Big Recording companies outside of Canada” since up until late 09 there was no such tariff being paid to Master owners. This has been a steady stream of income to artists on Indie and major labels alike.
Check this slice of utter bullshit from the CBA’s website. The graph below is trying to compare the cost of music and “social growth” – whatever the hell that is – to declining radio revenue. I think the decline radio revenue is linked more to shitty programming and the rise of the Internet. To some how try and link radio’s decline to bad copyright laws is pure and simple hokum! And even despite the decline, Canadian radio broadcasters enjoyed revenues over $1.5 BILLION in 2009! Pretty tough slogging eh!
Local radio is in it’s death throws
Anyone who listens to “local” radio which is now mostly owned and by Canadians largest broadcasters or cable companies knows just how desperate they’ve become. Like Canadian television their programming is stuffed to over following with nauseating self promotions and incredibly bad local advertising. Local operations in most markets have become regionalized with only skeleton crews remaining in most markets. But hey, according to the CBA local communities would shrivel and die without local radio!
Canada needs balanced and fair copyright laws that DO NOT allow for vendors to lock down the products we PURCHASE with DRM (Digital Rights Management) locks that Bill C-32 will make ilegal for you to unlock, despite having purchased the product.
I strongly urge every interested Canadian to visit Dr. Michael Geist’s website. Here’s his brief bio from his blog:
Dr. Michael Geist is a law professor at the University of Ottawa where he holds the Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law. He has obtained a Bachelor of Laws (LL.B.) degree from Osgoode Hall Law School in Toronto, Master of Laws (LL.M.) degrees from Cambridge University in the UK and Columbia Law School in New York, and a Doctorate in Law (J.S.D.) from Columbia Law School. Dr. Geist has written numerous academic articles and government reports on the Internet and law and was a member of Canada’s National Task Force on Spam. He is an internationally syndicated columnist on technology law issues with his regular column appearing in the Toronto Star and the Ottawa Citizen. Dr. Geist is the editor of In the Public Interest: The Future of Canadian Copyright Law, published in 2005 by Irwin Law, the editor of several monthly technology law publications, and the author of a popular blog on Internet and intellectual property law issues. Dr. Geist serves on the Privacy Commissioner of Canada’s Expert Advisory Board, on the Canadian Digital Information Strategy’s Review Panel, and on the Information Program Sub-Board of the Open Society Institute. He has received numerous awards for his work including the Les Fowlie Award for Intellectual Freedom from the Ontario Library Association in 2009, the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s Pioneer Award in 2008, Canarie’s IWAY Public Leadership Award for his contribution to the development of the Internet in Canada and he was named one of Canada’s Top 40 Under 40 in 2003.
The Toronto Star: The push for new Internet surveillance capabilities – dubbed the “lawful access” initiative – dates back to 1999, when government officials began crafting proposals to institute new surveillance technologies within Canadian networks that would include additional legal powers to access surveillance and subscriber information. Over the past decade, lawful access has stalled despite public consultations, bills that have died on the order paper, and even a promise from former public safety minister Stockwell Day to avoid mandatory disclosure of personal information without court oversight.
Last June, current Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan tabled the latest lawful access legislative package. Much like its predecessors, the bill establishes new surveillance requirements for Internet service providers. In an about-face from the Day commitment however, it also features mandatory disclosure of customer information, including name, address, IP address, and email address upon request and without court oversight.
Lawful access has long faced at least two significant barriers. The first involves ISP costs associated with installing new equipment and responding to disclosure requests. The government has attempted to address those concerns by promising to help pay the bills. It plans to provide some funding for new equipment and, in a little noticed provision, has opened the door to paying ISPs for providing customer name and address information to law enforcement authorities.
The second barrier involves lingering questions about the need for lawful access. Critics have pointed to the fact that Canadian law enforcement has successfully used the Internet in hundreds of investigations, including a high-profile Toronto terrorism case. Moreover, the law already grants ISPs the options to disclose customer’s names and address information.
I do not understand how the government seems to think that individual connections to the Internet which are made in our homes and well behind the long standing and legally accepted demarcation barrier with other telecommunications providers are not PRIVATE connections. We have to push back hard on this absolutely bizarre Tory notion that incorrectly promoted the idea that Canadians accept no privacy while using the Internet.
There is a huge difference between a lower expectation of privacy while suing the Internet and allowing the government to track and record your movement on the Internet WITHOUT a court order.
And it’s NOT about terrorism folks. Recent revelations from a US Senate subcommittee clearly demonstrate the the sneek and peak provisions in the US Patriot Act were virtually NEVER used in terrorism cases but rather drug enforcement cases.
The Justice Department made 763 requests for “sneak-and-peek” warrants in 2008, but only three of those had to with terrorism investigations, Sen. Russ Feingold told a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Wednesday.
And law enforcement legislation that does not require court oversight is unconstitutional and WILL ALWAYS be abused by a sitting government. History continues to prove this fact time and time again!
We hope that you will consider supporting and participating in this campaign. We believe that if the CRTC decision to allow Bell and Telus to decide whether or not to provide competitor access to broadband is not changed, prices for broadband and other next generation telecom services to all customers will spiral upwards, innovation and service will suffer, and business customers will have little or no power to protect their interests. Show Your Support!
Toronto Star: As the commission weighs the various claims, it would do well to consider testimony it heard a few months ago during the February new media hearings. The issue in those hearings was whether Internet service providers should face a levy to fund new media or be required to prioritize Canadian content. (The CRTC declined to do both in its decision released last month.)
Interestingly, the same telecom and cable companies that will now argue that managing their networks is essential offered a somewhat different take when confronted with the prospect of doing so in the name of supporting Canadian content.
For example, Shaw Communications Inc.’s network-management submission states “traffic management is necessary to ensure that Shaw’s customers continue to have access to fast, reliable and affordable service.” It adds the “traffic shaping process uses deep packet inspection (DPI) technology to identify packets that are associated with P2P file-sharing applications and to slow those packets down, limiting the amount of available capacity P2P traffic consumes.”
Yet, when CEO Jim Shaw was asked about the prospect of identifying traffic during the new media hearings, he told the commission, “we can only tell you how many bits are coming in or out. We don’t know what kind of bit it is. It could be anything from an email to a porno. We don’t know that. We spend no time trying to figure out what bits are going to your house. We just don’t know.” (Unless it’s P2P traffic then they throttle it down)
So what’s the story morning glory? (:
Search Engine: (Moved to TVO since the brain trust at CBC has cancelled the show) Canadian tech podcast Search Engine, Peter Van Loan, the new Public Safety minister, attempts to explain the Conservative government’s approach to privacy on the internet. (Listen to interview)
“Canadians have no legitimate expectation of privacy when they use the Internet”
There you have it. Right from hte mouth of Harper’s lead idiot on the Concersative government’s position on “privacy” vs “security”. At least now we know how the Harper government is going to try and fight this battle using the scary spector of child pornography as a way to get Canadians to lossen up on personal privacy.
The Minister for Public Safety clearly does not have even the simplest grasp on the issue of individual privacy given his galacticly, gifted definition of private information.
We’re not requiring ISPs to give out any personal information without a warrant, just your real name, your home address, your IP address, your home and cell number…
This legislation has NOTHING to do with catching child pornographers. It is about setting a dangerous precedent that will allow the Canadian government to collect information about where you go and what you do online, at anytime WITHOUT ANY COURT OVERSIGHT!
And this government is actually suggesting they may look into allowing Internet voting!? HOLY SHIT!