John L. Jarvis

Quebecorsaurus and the CBC

2011-11-03T09:44:00.000-04:00

A provocative tweet pointed me to the latest media battle back home, between the CBC and those who all seem to fall under the umbrella that is Quebecor Media Inc. (QMI): the former's record re ATIP requests, bleeding out to the familiar ground of their funding and how they use it.

I've always had mixed feelings about the CBC: on one hand, I really enjoy some of their programming -- I'm thinking of their radio programs in particular now, including Quirks and Quarks and lots of Radio 3 stuff -- but, as a corporation beholden us (read Canadians writ large) -- they're operating loss before government funding, etc. in 2010 exceeded $1.2 billion (before taxes), according to their latest financial statements -- they've never struck me as humble enough, silly as that sounds (to me, anyway).

So, to be frank, that Ezra rant about the newspaper ad struck a chord with me. As did this, from Peter Worthington (also published in the Toronto Sun):

Peladeau complains that CBC's budget for celebrating its 75th anniversary should be public knowledge. Of course it should... Why is the CBC allowed to keep secret the number of vehicles in its fleet? Or how much it spends on entertainment? Or what it pays Peter Mansbridge?

As Worthington points out, there is an argument for keeping some information close -- what the CBC cited as "documents for... journalistic, creative and programming activity" in response to a motion from the Commons Access To Information Committee last month -- but surely that doesn't extend to simple facts and figures. Now, Worthington writes for "QMI Agency," according to his byline, but I think on this -- amongst his many sports analogies and QMI love -- he has a point.

Because I can't resist it, I'll include one example of the fencing that's going on between these two: on one side we have QMI's claims about the CBC's inefficiencies re ATIP requests; on the other:

[Information Commissioner] Legault said that between 2008-9, 90 per cent of all access requests launched with the CBC were made by six individuals representing business interests. Although their identities have not been revealed, the courts have heard that one law clerk working on behalf of Quebecor's Sun Media newspaper chain submitted nearly 400 requests in late 2007.

I'll be the first to admit that I need to do more research on this, but there's something to be said for clear and concise disclosure; what the kids today would call transparency, I guess. For example, after listening to Ezra rant, I wondered whether it would really be that hard to find out what the CBC spends on marketing. Turns out that it's pretty hard, as far as I can tell: they lump it under Television, radio and new media services costs (emphasis mine):

Television, radio and new media services costs include all costs related to the production of programs, including direct out-of-pocket expenditures, departmental and administration expenses and the cost of activities related to technical labour and facilities. A portion of the costs of operational support provided by services such as human resources, finance and administration, building management and other shared services are also included in the related costs. Television, radio and new media services costs also include programming-related activities such as marketing and sales, merchandising and communications.

From the BBC's annual report for the subject year

It's almost like they're trying to hide it in one of their biggest pots. Now, compare that with how the BBC approach this same sort of accountability (right). It's a concise table in the annual report, with marketing costs clearly broken out; note how the content costs dwarf them, as you'd expect. They've even broken out the digital switchover stuff separately, something I wouldn't have thought to go looking for, but certainly find interesting. (They market that little robot like nobody's business.)

Again, in all this, it's that hint of humility that I'm looking for. I can't put my finger on why exactly, but the BBC definitely has it, where the CBC doesn't.

The Commander resigns

2011-08-27T05:29:00.000-04:00

I don't particularly like the phrase "living in the moment," but I do think that sentiment approximates how I live much of my life. I'm not as nostalgic as I used to be, but do love marveling at how folks lived in the past. I'm also a poor planner, but do count myself lucky to be alive now: the pace of innovation is breathtaking, and yet I well remember a time before the Internet.

When I think of the early days of the Internet, two sites come to mind: The Tool Page and Slashdot. My peers would hardly call these days early -- adolescence at least, surely -- but, to use the term favoured by Rob "CmdrTaco" Malda, my nerd hat was always a bit ill-fitting. Which was one of the reasons I loved Slashdot from the start: yes, I could bone up on hardware and marvel at the rise of Linux, but, more importantly, there was no better place for news about your science fiction favourites, or those toys that glisten like gems in your childhood. (See, told you I used to be nostalgic.)

My best Slashdot moment, you ask? Early in 1997; May, I believe -- yes, I'm too lazy to search for the post -- when they broke that later that year, or the next year, two of my most favourite things in the whole wide world, would wed. "Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you, Star Wars Lego!" "Oh, aren't they lovely?" *sniff, sniff*

I - was - over - the - moon.

Then, three or four years after that, I could've made a good start on a bridge to the moon with all the Lego I'd added to my previously substantial collection.

I have no idea how big that story was at the time. None. Because I couldn't imagine any other site caring about that sort of news more than Slashdot, and once I had it, well, then there was only the waiting for that next story, likely mostly gossip, with that one glorious nugget of fact.

Like every good site and Usenet group at the time, we were a community. (Cue the codger voice deriding social networking.) And, like every good community, we had our own lingo. The introduction of registration was a big moment. I was working with two good friends, fellow Slashdot fans, at the time. We'd all been pulled away on various tasks that morning, and I think it was Zedd who discovered it, around noon or early in the afternoon. Moments of frantic, feverish typing ensued. Then, most importantly, ID numbers were compared. Mine was the highest, I believe -- much to my chagrin -- but we were all in the tens of thousands.

And so a class system was born. This was well before moderation, and yet, there was moderation: if a three-digit ID commented on a story, fingers went to chins in pondering. They must be wise: look at that ID!

Now, of course, a five-digit ID is pretty darn cool, but that took time. And with time, my visits to Slashdot waned (likely to my detriment, I hasten to add). There are many reasons for that, none of which have anything to do what remains an excellent site. So it was with considerable surprise that I read Jeff Atwood's tweet this morning about CmdrTaco's resignation. I, too, echo his words: certainly the end of an era.

So here's to you, Rob! Thanks for all the great times -- lots of great memories, despite my having largely abandoned nostalgia -- and best of luck in your future endeavours!

Elections Canada on Internet voting

2011-08-18T17:33:00.000-04:00

Chief Electoral Officer Marc Mayrand recently published his report on the 41st General Election, held earlier this year. It includes one reference to Internet voting:

Elections Canada has been examining Internet voting as a complementary and convenient way to cast a ballot. The Chief Electoral Officer is committed to seeking approval for a test of Internet voting in a by-election held after 2013.

The CBC headlined their article on the report with it: Elections Canada lobbies for test of online voting. Clearly the topic has gone mainstream.Overall, I see reasons for optimism: first, note that the press is making the distinction between electronic voting and online voting; an old lament of mine. Second, they've highlighted the proper implementation of the secret ballot as one of the concerns about voting online. And, finally, Elections Canada isn't racing ahead on this -- note that the statement I quoted doesn't include a deadline. They are also eliciting informed opinions, and remaining far more technology agnostic than most folks would expect them to be, I would imagine:

Strategic initiatives
Our key strategies to support [the Accessibility] objective in the next five years are to:
... with the prior approval of Parliament, test a secure voting process during a by-election that allows electors to vote by telephone or Internet

Strategic Plan 2008-2013 (the emphasis is mine)

It isn't perfect, of course: that workshop made but one reference to the risk of coerced voting, as far as I could tell. Also, the public discourse -- well, such as it is in comments on press articles, and the questions raised at that workshop -- hasn't adequately quashed that old argument celebrating online banking (and tax filing, I've seen recently) as proof that the nut of Internet security has been cracked. As I've stated previously, that argument is based on a false premise. Still, I'm hopeful that these trials to come will be well run, their results thoroughly examined, before any Internet facilitated process débuts in an election on our national stage.

So close...

2011-06-16T02:38:00.001-04:00

Struggling for some positives after last night. Think I've got a few:

Recchi is one of the last, if not the last, players from my "big fan" hockey days. I remember watching him cut it up with Jagr and Stevens. They were deadly. (All you Newfs out there heard that one right.) It's great to see him win one last Cup.
Nothing beats hearing our anthem belted from 18000 throats, except maybe seeing almost ten times that number in the streets of Vancouver, in celebration. They said it in the coverage, and it's true: when's the last time you saw streets like that? Bet they weren't happy, and things were about to turn nasty.

These past two years have seen Canada host a couple of amazing sporting events. Nothing brings our vast country together like them, and the more I see of the world, the more I realize that we're in good company: national unity is elusive; particularly in the twenty-first century.

But I'll tell ya what: in 60+ minute chunks over this playoffs, I've felt like my home is just out that front door, Atlantic Ocean be damned. And I loved it.

That voice

2011-02-24T15:11:00.000-05:00

As is often the case, what I'm currently reading births the urge to return to this blog -- if you can call these semi-annual posts a log. This time it's Michael Chabon's Maps and Legends, and the short essays My Back Pages and Diving Into The Wreck. The book is simply gem after gem, in my opinion -- this is the first of his books I've read, incidentally -- but these essays in particular have reminded me of an inner turmoil now a decade old, or more.

I've toyed with the idea of writing for a living -- and that's the perfect phrase for it -- for many years, culminating in what was an exquisite inner agony, and yet by 'n' large invisible to even those close to me, some 10 years past. I bought the books, I subscribed to the magazines, I drank the juice. And I didn't quit my job. Thank goodness.

There are a few reasons to be thankful, but Chabon's raised one in particular with those essays: when he's almost hit bottom with the second-novel blues and finds that lifeline, I'm lost. I mean, I'm there when he reiterates the "Write what you know" mantra, but that bit about writing without purpose, luxuriating in the knowledge that he's found that voice to tell whatever story comes is as attainable as Zen master in my world.

That voice, that urge, isn't in me. In fits and spurts is how I write. Working abroad is a prodigious well that I plunge the bucket in regularly, ostensibly for the folks and family back home, but truly because I enjoy writing when the subject is self-evident. That, and I'll never remember all we've done otherwise. I'll bottle this time of our lives and sell it back to that senile sod.

But I'm under no illusions: the project, fun as it is, is finite. Once we're home again, the same problems will rear up. It simply means that my respect for these writers of epic fiction grows with every passing year. I was lucky enough to have been able to dabble in writing non-fiction in my day job; enough to know it isn't for me, be it travel writing, journalism, critiques, etc. And without that voice, well writing fiction for a living would be torture, and a destitute agony at that.

I still have a few projects I'm kicking around. But this is a hobby. Repeat after me.

Law & Order: UK -- first impression

2010-08-08T18:06:00.000-04:00

I watched my first episode of Law & Order: UK this evening. The episode was entitled Paradise, from Series 1, and dealt with multiple murders, the victims being from London's Turkish community. I had high hopes for this show. I've enjoyed all the spin-offs from the original franchise; Special Victims Unit and Trial By Jury, in particular. However, I'm already disappointed by what I've seen so far, even considering it's just a single episode.

My biggest complaint centres on the pacing: it's much slower than any of its American counterparts, unnecessarily expounding on information that is clear, and breaking for a number of scored sequences with no dialogue. The latter, while clearly attempting to convey some poignancy, was overused and, frankly, smacked of state propaganda. ("See? We know immigrants are people too!")

Scenes with detective inspectors and crown prosecutors wandering along streets and by the Thames, while perfectly normal in a well-paced story, left my wandering mind with the impression of laissez-faire attitudes. And before someone comments on this, I know they''ll want to highlight the city it's set in, but that doesn't mean it needs to steal the show. The Republic of Doyle is a great example of a show with great pace that captures the best of St. John's and her people.

Next on my list of complaints is the tone and format of the show: a good example of the former would be the first scene with the Director of the Crown Prosecution Service, and I'll simply point to the meagre courtroom time in reference to the latter at this point.

Castle's performance in particular nettled me because that role -- the DAs of the American shows -- is normally occupied by the smartest person on the screen. They're normally two steps ahead of their prosecutors, and usually shed new light on the information presented to that point, while dictating how the trial will go. However, not only did Castle fail utterly in this regard, he openly attacked his prosecutors with an argument that you'd expect of any layperson off the street. He was downright common, and made his bumbling prosecutors seem brilliant in comparison.

Finally, I present some complaints that could be classified as procedural anomalies. I'm not familiar with British law -- that's actually why I was excited about the show: I know more about the American legal system after watching those shows for many years, and hoped to get some idea of where it differs from the British one -- but, in at least a few cases, these anomalies strike me as fundamental; still, as always, please comment if I've missed the mark:

I don't remember hearing anyone read the Miranda warning, which is used in England, as I understand it.
Having tracked their best lead to the hospital, the police imply that they'll arrest him, but never do so on screen. They then conduct an interview in his hospital room, during which his barrister hardly utters a word. (A theme that is to continue.) Now while this may be procedure for grievously ill suspects, it just struck me as odd that no evidence for the trial was gathered through interviews at the police station. Which brings me to one of the biggest anomalies I noticed...
When the accused is brought in, it's the prosecutors that do so, and the interview takes place at their offices. The police have no on-screen involvement. How is it appropriate for a prosecutor to (aggressively) interview the accused prior to trial? And, again, his barrister hardly utters a peep.
Finally, as hinted at earlier, the trial offered very little in the way of entertainment, while mercilessly attempting to yank away on the heart-strings. The accused's barrister was silent -- silent! -- throughout the sequence, even when, at one point, my mind screamed, "Objection! Calls for speculation!"

I will watch a few more episodes. It's possible that I happened upon the worst of the bunch. While most of the dialogue struck me as wooden, I did enjoy a few of DI Ronnie Brooks' lines, and look forward to seeing more of him.

The chore of creating

2010-07-09T13:51:00.002-04:00

Should creating art ever feel like a chore?

I'm of two minds on this, but the fact is that, clearly, sometimes it does. Marc Ellerby has recently announced that the fabulous Ellerbisms will end shortly, for that reason amongst others, and, just a few moments ago, Brian Brown admitted that Bellen! has invoked a similar dread in him for some time now.

On the one hand, I'd like to think that being creative is a non-stop blast; or at least full of highs amongst few lows. If you're doing it right, would be an important caveat, I guess. But, really, that's naive. I've read enough books on writing to know that making a living at it requires a lot of discipline. (King talked about his daily 8 a.m. to noon ritual in On Writing.) Heck, even blogging, as defined (i.e., regular updates), requires it, as I'm well aware. (Aware that I'm failing, in other words.)

To continue that train of thought, once you've gained some modicum of popularity, logic dictates that you should build on it, working through any drudgery you may encounter along the way. On the other hand, if that drudgery persists, maybe it's an indication that it's time to move on. Because I truly feel that you can kill a project by taking it past its prime. The television show analogies spring to mind now, unfortunately, but I do like that expression "jumped the shark". That moment is elusive; most days I don't think Firefly had a chance to blossom, but then I think, it was so good that maybe that shark was just around the corner.

Either way, as my comic book project coalesces in my head, I'm well aware that, while it may not seem like fun every day, it should most days. Oddly enough, I think I may be happier if I resist the urge to share the work as it progresses -- with all the pressure to continue that that evokes -- and just share the finished product. On the other hand, that subtle pressure may be just what I need to complete it in a timely fashion.

In the end, I feel lucky that my lifestyle doesn't depend on any of this.

MPs' expenses: a sober second look

2010-05-18T18:53:00.001-04:00

The row over MPs' expenses in the United Kingdom was big news. The story broke in the lead up to the general election, and no political party got off clean. However, before Canadians head down the same path, demanding an audit of Canadian MPs' expenses, I think a sober second look is in order.

First, these expenses are audited, by KPMG. Second, those audits, along with all the OAG audits, are paid for by the taxpayer. The OAG paid KPMG over $250000 last year for "accounting and audit services" in 2009-2010. In that same year, the OAG's fourth quarter expenses for accounting and auditing contracts approached $900000. Even if we say that that was an expensive quarter, you're still looking at more than $3 million a year for audits. That's a lot of money. And while the annual spending of the House of Commons and the Senate is more than $500 million, I think we should ask ourselves when demanding another audit is throwing good money after bad, so to speak.

It isn't like the government hasn't had its share of embarrassments related to its expenses. I think we would be kidding ourselves to imagine that excesses like Radwanski's haven't led to changes. Still, I would like to see the results of those KPMG audits made public. I think the OAG's website is an excellent example of the openness that could defuse this sort of storm in a tea cup.

Update 27/05/10: looks like the audit will happen anyway.

National Express and the volcano

2010-04-30T01:57:00.000-04:00

I sent the following complaint to National Express a few weeks ago -- when that whole business with Eyjafjallajökull started.

Hello,

I called your switchboard around 1530 yesterday regarding the coach trip my wife and I were supposed to take later that day (at 1830) to Heathrow. I wanted to know whether there was anything I was supposed to do prior to the bus leaving if I wanted to get a refund, as we'd just found out that our Saturday a.m. flight was cancelled due to the ongoing volanic ash problem.

Your staff member -- I don't remember his name -- told me that I was not eligible for a refund, even though we'd paid extra for a refundable ticket, because it was less than 72 hours prior to the departure of the coach.

I find this to be completely unacceptable, as we had no way of knowing the status of our flight 72 hours prior to the coach leaving, and therefore whether we'd need a refund. And I think you'll agree that this situation in particular is so extraordinary that no customer should be expected to anticipate it.

My wife and I have been frequent National Express customers since moving to England last year, but this incident has seriously shaken our confidence in your company. With the added cost of a hotel, we've decided that it may in fact be cheaper for us to simply hire a car service on the day of our flight, as opposed to using National Express the night before, to avoid this sort of situation in the future.

I believe we are entitled to a full refund, and ask that you acknowledge this complaint in short order.

Sincerely,

John Jarvis

I received a letter from them in the mail yesterday stating that they "cannot accept liability for customers who were unable to travel. Therefore [they] cannot offer a refund." I wasn't asking them to accept liability; I just wanted them to ease up on the 72-hour notice bit this one time, in what can only be characterized as extraordinary circumstances. As my wife said, there really isn't much point in paying extra for a refundable ticket, assuming we decide to travel with them again.

21st century vote

2010-03-06T13:49:00.002-05:00

Michael Geist linked to a Sun story about Alberta considering on-line/Internet voting for the province at some point in the future, using the term e-voting in the title of the post. This muddying of terms really worries me; it has huge implications for this issue, I maintain: while e-voting machines may one day be a viable option for elections in Canada, I have serious doubts about the same ever being true of on-line/Internet voting.

This quote from Alberta's Chief Electoral Officer highlights a few of my concerns:

I can do my banking online, but I can’t do my voting online... Once it has been proven to be effective, that the votes can be certified, all that security stuff can be looked after, I certainly see that as something that’s coming. Anything that we can do to make the process more accessible to electors is obviously a good thing.

First, the security requirements associated with on-line banking differ significantly from those associated with any Internet voting system. I would also suggest that they are much more complex: consider that, under the current system, a voter cannot be directly linked with his or her specific vote and is therefore free from being coerced to vote a certain way. Similarly, banks accept a certain level of fraud (including on-line fraud) as the price of doing business; I don't think the same can be said of any voting system we would consider using to determine the leadership of the country.

This brings me to my second point: there are complexities in this that shouldn't be passed on to other trials, be they in the EU, the US, or wherever. When officials in power use phrases like "security stuff" and imply that other smart people are doing things, so why aren't we, well, again, I get nervous. He uses the term certified. What does that mean to him, or the people conducting the trial? Again, if part of it includes proving that a particular user cast a particular vote -- certainly part of a plausible definition -- that would obviously have enormous privacy implications (as it is completely unnecessary, and just asking for problems, however careful the government is with that information).

Finally, in addition to confusing e-voting machines with Internet voting -- I'm sure someone in power thinks trials of one have some bearing on the suitability of the other -- voter turn-out, or the lack thereof in recent years, always seems to come up in these discussions. And while I'll be the first to admit that it's an important issue, it's for that very reason that it should be divorced from any discussion about the voting systems to be used. Otherwise, the implication is that advent of one-click Internet voting will bring the young voters in droves. On this point, I like the provincial NDP leader's comment (i.e., look at mandatory voting, as they have in Australia); while one could question the merit of the suggestion, the idea that voter engagement need not be synonymous with Internet voting is spot on.

Update: Geist on why thoughts of using Internet voting in provincial and federal elections are premature.

The Book of Eli

2010-01-21T17:14:00.000-05:00

It isn't hard to see how this project managed to draw such an impressive cast: ultimately, its message is good. And while it faltered, and badly at times, I don't begrudge the time I spent watching it. That's nothing to sniff at these days: my appetite for violence and hatred, even in the service of truth, isn't close to what it used to be. I'm soft in new ways every year.

But enough about me, for the moment: before I continue, I have to say that any movie that casts 'Bull' (Ray Stevenson) and Tom Waits will get my undivided attention; at least while either of them is on the screen. I hadn't seen Bull in years, and he squeezed every last ounce out of this role, such as it was. Tom is a force -- a free spirit if there ever was one -- and while this was no Down By Law, I did enjoy his character; particularly his introduction.

Spoilers follow:

This movie took a long time to get started; a long, long time. The music wasn't right -- I agree with Tarantino on the role of opening music: 1) it has to make a promise, and 2) the movie then has to deliver on that promise. This opening left me with nothing, except a vague notion that I was watching Chariots of Fire. And it was dirty, but not in the right way. Yes, things were falling apart, but the boots Eli (Denzel Washington) pulled off the guy who was hung were pristine, when we all know what happens to those victims in their final moments. I won't even comment on the iPod.

But once it started, I found myself enjoying moments. Gary Oldman can always carry a scene, and I thought Jennifer Beals as Claudia really played well opposite him; theirs were probably some of the best scenes, actually. Casting Mila Kunis as Solara was a mistake, though; she didn't detract from every scene she was in, but just about, and the last five minutes with her had me smirking when I should've been sombre. (Did anyone else think George Michael's Faith was gonna start blasting from her iPod?)

Ultimately, though, as I said, the message of doing more for others than yourself is a good one. No harm can come from taking that to heart. And the Bible finding its place amongst the holy texts of the world past was a nice touch. What bothered me was that the director didn't consistently rely on his cast to deliver that message. Washington was up to it, and did it admirably at times, as did Beals, but then for whole swathes of the movie there'd be this slow motion work, often combined with silence; it was so forced. I really liked the scene where Solara returned to the place where Eli'd been shot because it wasn't sluggish or heavy. It easily could've been, dripping with a sense of rolling the stone away from the empty tomb, but it was simple, and more powerful for that, I found.

I can't believe the appetite for post-apocalyptic films right now. Still, if some find success with this sort of message, I think that's a good thing.

Mormons on the purpose (meaning) of life

2009-12-14T11:28:00.005-05:00

I met two very nice Mormon missionaries on the way to the surgery (i.e., clinic) this morning. (Yes, I'm still sick. I had to pick up some registration forms today so I can hand them in at my appointment tomorrow morning. Not sure why I couldn't fill them out on site tomorrow, but I wasn't about to mess with my chances of seeing a doctor.) One was from the States and the other was from Germany. I was fascinated to learn that they were living in England for two years, doing this work for twelve hours a day (every day, I believe, but maybe they get some time to themselves on the weekends); most surprisingly of all (to me) was that they are living together, and didn't know one another before starting this missionary work. It's really quite remarkable, mostly because they seemed so genuinely happy.

They caught me a bit unawares, since, as many of you know, I've had a lot on my mind lately. Questions of faith, prayer and the purpose of life hadn't made it on my top ten list of thoughts, if you like, for some time. (Other than in the context of The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy, which, in a case of really unfortunate timing, I'd just started a few days ago: do you know how hard it was for me to avoid blurting out a '42'-related punchline? Words fail me.)

In all seriousness, though, I have, at various stages of my life, explored a number of religions. My parents raised me in the United Church of Canada until I was old enough to decide that it wasn't for me – or, not at that time, would be a better way to put it – so I've read a fair bit of the King James version of the Christian Bible, but I've also read parts of the Qur'an, and some Buddhist teachings. So I was curious when the missionaries presented me with a copy of The Book of Mormon. (I'm a sucker for free books, by the way.)

However, as I sit here now, having read the chapter that was highlighted as being about the purpose of life (i.e., the second chapter of the Second Book of Nephi), and watched some of the relevant videos on their Web site, I realize that what I should've said in that conversation is that, while I don't yet think of myself as an atheist – agnostic was the word I settled on when discussing it with them – I am more comfortable with the overarching humanist tenet than I realized: that is, that this really is all there is, so we should really get on with doing good deeds and enjoying ourselves. Many of the (truly heartfelt, honestly) messages on the Mormon site began with the subject talking about how they just couldn't accept that this was it; that there wasn't something (to us) before our birth, and, in particular, that there isn't something after our death. As I sit here right now, I realize that, while I would never say that I've come to terms with death – not sure what that animal would look like, to be honest – I've clearly accepted, on some fundamental level, that I will die... at some point.

It's funny: living moment-to-moment, which, let's face it, I've been doing for about six months now, can sort of push these thoughts well-out of your mind.

Under-weather distractions

2009-11-09T08:20:00.003-05:00

I found another treasure at Moss Books this weekend, on one of my short forays from under this oppressive cold and its stomach-bug buddy (not to mention the rain): a collection of Oor Wullie and The Broons comic strips from 1936 – 2006. The dialogue is a bit of a struggle, but the stories range from cute to poignant; the latter a pleasant surprise (for me) from something that ran regularly in The Sunday Post (until I read about the paper's sentimental nature, anyway). I think the layout of Oor Wullie is my favourite part so far, however: each strip starts with the sly main character squat on an overturned pail – any of a variety of expressions on his face – and each finishes with the same, or something subtly different. This trademark is emphasized on the back of the dust-jacket, with some twenty of Wullie's faces displayed in a grid of portraits, helpful one-word captions beneath them.

Thankfully there's been plenty of football (a.k.a. soccer) to distract me from my housebound state this weekend – was worried I had the dreaded flu for a bit; they won't even accept you at clinics (what they call surgeries) here right now if you have a fever. My favourite, by far, was the derby (pronounced 'darby', even when the English commentators are working a German Bundesliga game, I've discovered this morning) between Swansea and Cardiff City as those clubs compete for the first real shot at a Welsh promotion to the English Premier League in many, many years. These derbies are fierce competitions between local rivals, as best I can tell, and, without exception, are surrounded by some of the most vocal (and truly in its singing sense!) fan support I've ever witnessed at a sporting event; I hope to see something approaching it live someday (with the protection of earplugs, of course). Swansea won this one 3 – 2 in front of their hometown crowd, scoring more goals than they'd managed in any other match this season, in what really could've been a win for either club.

The Good Life

2009-06-17T20:53:00.003-04:00

I just finished Seth's It's A Good Life, If You Don't Weaken, and I'm filled with conflicting emotions: it's a beautiful book, and poignant at times, but I think it's how much I identify with the main character -- or rather, how I imagine I would've as a teenager -- that stirs the strongest feelings. Well, that isn't being entirely honest either, but I truly envy his talent, and if that emotion isn't the strongest in my breast as I type this, it's surely the second-most by the slimmest of margins.

I find myself looking for small similarities in our lives, hoping they'll illuminate larger ones. Peanuts, for example, was a favourite of mine as a child also, although I'd be stretching things to say that it ever inspired any of my infrequent doodling. No, more than anything, unfortunately, it's the melancholy we've shared that's the most striking. Particularly as a young man, I spent many a day as Seth did in this work, contemplating my mood, and its possible sources. Eventually I came to the conclusion that it was a bit of the chicken and the egg, in that such thoughts only spawned dark thoughts, or at the very least, perpetuated a dark humour. By cutting them off before they had a chance to take hold, I found myself a happier man. I believe Seth also came to this conclusion, giving voice to it when his character, Chet, speculates that he spends too much time pondering such things.

What concerns me about all this, and, oddly, what is also reflected in Seth's book, is a perceived lack of creativity in me since I've discovered these happier times. The reference is only in passing, with Kalo's mother quoting him on the benefits of a little misery in an artist's life. For some time, I've worried that, beyond the darkness of my own creation, I have not suffered; in fact, I would suggest that even in my deepest moments of self-pity, I would never suggest that I have been anything less than blessed with luck and good fortune. (I may curse such blessings at times, but only half-heartedly, if I'm honest with myself.)

I also envy Seth his prodigious memory. However he may ponder the benefits of those musings, there's no doubting their detail and vitality. I'm hoping I'll recall more as I apply myself to the documenting of them, but I certainly worry about the depth of that particular well as I write this. The other big question right now is my ability to draw. I have all the limited tools of that craft at my disposal now, so that somewhat-dreaded answer is surely close at hand.

That's heavy-handed; downright dire, in fact. I got a bit carried away. Truth be told, I'm having fun with this, and I expect to enjoy my dabbling in drawing as well. After all, unlike the fictional Kalo, I don't expect to raise a family on it.

ICG report on the Gaza stand-still

2009-04-23T10:22:00.003-04:00

Efforts should focus on an outcome that meets [Fatah and Hamas'] immediate needs. Neither wants to give up the territory it controls, so for now let them keep it. That should not prevent forming a government that helps rebuild Gaza, gives Ramallah a foothold in Gaza and Abbas the greater legitimacy he needs to deal effectively with Israel – and with his own people...

Words matter, but actions matter more. The international community should judge the government on... willingness (or not) to enforce a mutual ceasefire with Israel, acceptance of Abbas’s authority to negotiate an agreement with Israel and respect for a referendum on an eventual accord. Hamas’s position on whether a Palestinian state would recognise Israel will matter only once that state exists. Prior to that, it is academic.

Sage words. It's hard to believe it's been two years since the last National Unity Government.

More on my driver rating system idea

2009-04-09T12:22:00.003-04:00

I witnessed an unusual traffic accident yesterday: what began as a typical rear-ending took a bizarre turn when the 'rear-ender' reversed at high-speed and rammed the 'rear-endee' again!

As I navigated the Ottawa Police Web-site later in the day, their instructions for submitting traffic complaints got me thinking about my driver rating system idea again: specifically, note how much information is required regarding the timing, the other driver, their vehicle, etc. Now, admittedly, I glossed over how a particular identifier would be represented as one of many potential vehicles in proximity with you, but, setting that aside for the moment, a lot of the information the police are looking for could be automatically generated; the process would also be more timely, and possibly even safer, if you compare it with the scenario where a person is trying to relay all that information over a handheld cell-phone while driving.

On the point of representing particular identifiers on a person's appliance, the balance between the cost and complexity (and safety) is at the crux of the problem: ideally, the system would visually represent the makes, models and positions involved, updating the information every few seconds, on a sizable screen that can be centrally located in the vehicle's dash. However, at a minimum, a multi-line text display of license plate number, make, model, colour and direction (with respect to your vehicle: so, front, back, left, right, etc.), updated regularly, would suffice. (You wouldn't want to rely on the license plate alone, since the vehicle could be screaming through an intersection on a path perpendicular to yours; also, straining to read a plate in your rearview mirror could be a serious distraction.)

One final point on the subject of this system being a target: all the contact information that the police require from the person reporting the incident shouldn't be included in this system. Depending on how drivers are issued their RFID tag and associated identifier, the DMV system or a separate system could be queried by police using the reporting appliance's identifier. That way, people who want to know the address of everyone who drives down their street need access to more than this system.

Canada in Afghanistan: Mixed Messages

2009-04-03T20:49:00.005-04:00

"This is antithetical to our mission in Afghanistan," Harper said in an interview with CBC News... "Making progress on human rights for women is a significant component of the international engagement in Afghanistan. It's a significant change we want to see from the bad old days of the Taliban," he said.

The Canadian government has been making these sorts of statements since we first committed soldiers to the NATO mission in Afghanistan. It makes sense, at first blush: even the pacifists have difficulty arguing that improving the lives of young girls isn't a worthy cause. However, returning to this simple message too often runs the risk of pushing the primary purpose of the mission -- that is, the destruction of al-Qaeda's safe havens in the region, and the regime that tacitly supported them -- out of the public discourse. And while this may be of little consequence initially -- in terms of public support -- should the simple, secondary (or even tertiary) purpose ever noticeably diverge from that primary purpose, serious problems can arise.

And that's what Harper was dealing with today: a relatively small change in Afghan politics gave rise to existential questions about our mission in that country. Don't misunderstand me: I support the notion of fundamental human rights, and I think the details that I've read about this new law violate some of them; however, Afghanistan is hardly the only country to enact such laws, and it isn't close to being the worst.

Add to this the clear indication of how Harper's interview might have gone, had his government stayed on the AQ-busting message:

"It is probably more likely that al-Qaeda would be able to launch a serious terrorist attack in Europe than in the United States because of proximity," Obama said. "This is not an American mission, this is a NATO mission. This is an international mission."

Now, Obama's message may not have brought the promises of extra soldiers that he'd hoped for, but he needn't worry about the cries from human-rights groups (or worse still, from grieving families who feel misled) derailing him. Nor need he fear his statements haunting him later: he's correct, and will be seen as consistent as he continues to push his administration's new strategy for the region.

How's my driving? on a municipal scale

2009-02-14T18:56:00.003-05:00

After being tailgated for a dozen blocks or so by a big black pick-up with tinted windows, a thought occurred to me: as I saw him cut-off two other vehicles in less than a block of the double-lane road we were all travelling on, I wondered about a world where the three of us could present our combined assessment of that person's driving in some sort of public forum. This led me to further speculate on a system that went beyond public shaming, where enough poor assessments could affect someone's insurance rating or the number of points on their driver's licence.

At its most basic, the system would combine RFID tags and readers, and some simple appliance that would provide little beyond Internet access. As a practical aside, maybe the system could be partially financed by asking people to buy the optional appliance (that would include the RFID reader), while the RFID tag would be universally deployed in the licence plate. In other words, rating how others drive would be optional, but everyone within a certain radius would be able to rate your driving regardless.

As I see it, a city-run, Internet-accessible system would allocate a certain (small, at least initially) number of slots to each citizen on a periodic basis (say, monthly). It would have to be signature-based, but it would also need to scale well -- I'm thinking at least a million users (municipal in the sense of Ottawa, in other words... Manhattan would need a different system entirely) -- so I'm wondering if it would have to be session-based also, as opposed to some sort of asymmetric system that piggy-backs off the driver's licence renewal. Either way, the goal would be to make it somewhat difficult to spoof another person's identity, keeping in mind that cryptographic complexity is at odds with the 'simple' appliance I mentioned earlier.

With these slots, a person could choose to rate any other identifier that their RFID reader is picking up at that moment. Obviously, the more complex the rating system, the less safe it would be to operate while driving, so I'm thinking that each identifier around you (i.e., other drivers) is assigned a number, and once you press that number, you then press '1' through '5' to rate that person's driving. (And maybe you have a different set of buttons for the rating system, so that it's clear that '1' is poor or '1' is stellar -- colours introduce other problems... maybe smiley faces and frowns -- since no two surveys are ever the same in that regard.)

So, to go back to my earlier example, if I pick up and rate that truck on my rating system appliance, and the two others who were cut-off do the same, this city-run system would pick up three ratings of one identifier's driving with very similar timestamps. At this point, some sort of reputation system would qualify each of our ratings based on a number of factors: how often we submit ratings, how often those ratings are corroborated, both by drivers around us, and by other drivers at other times of the day, how other drivers rate our driving, the number of years we've driving, how many accidents we've had, etc. I'm going beyond the basic system with some of these factors, but the idea is that you would vary the number of slots each person gets, and the factors considered by the reputation system over time, studying whether there were any appreciable benefits to introducing any of these complexities.

Because one of the many unspoken costs behind this idea is the potential for abuse. It's fine to speculate on a secure, city-run system, but if we tie in too much information, or use the rating that pops out to impose serious penalties on people, the system would become too valuable a target to reasonably secure. However, if it's used to augment the systems we already have in place, I think it could work: if I knew that running this yellow light could get me my second poor rating of the day (and a strongly-corroborated, poor rating, if the intersection's busy), I'd probably think twice about doing it.

And that's where the real strength of this system would be: you would want there to be very little incentive to damaging a person's reputation, either by falsely submitting many uncorroborated ratings of others in their name, or by falsely submitting many poor ratings on their driving. The idea would be that identifiers that repeatedly came up as poor drivers, as rated by many different people, both at the same time, and over a significant period of time, would have that reflected in a permanent record of some sort, keeping in mind that the most recent year's record would carry more weight than the one before it (i.e., much like accident records now).

As a side-note, this is my hundredth post; and in just six short years! ;-)

Letter to my MP: Concerns and Suggested Changes to Bill C-61

2008-07-28T01:21:00.001-04:00

Mr. Poilievre:

As discussed in our meeting last week, I have a number of concerns with the proposed amendments to the Copyright Act in Bill C-61. The lack of public consultation (to date) on this bill also concerns me, and in lieu of such a process I ask that the suggested changes to C-61 herein be sent to the Minister of Industry and those responsible for chairing its parliamentary committee (once it is convened).

Concerns with Bill C-61

First, I will elaborate on three of my concerns specifically to give my suggested changes some context:

Playing legitimately-purchased DVDs on a Linux computer will constitute copyright infringement, according to the definitions of technological measure and circumvent in Bill C-61 (section 41.1);
Backing up legitimately-purchased digital media (e.g., movies on DVD, music on CDs, music from on-line music stores) will constitute copyright infringement, according to a number of sections of C-61, including, but not limited to, section 29.22 (1) (d), and in some cases, 29.22 (1) (c); and
Playing movies from legitimately-purchased DVDs on a video iPod will constitute copyright infringement, according to a number of sections in C-61.

Playing DVDs on Linux

Software called DeCSS is required to play the majority of commercially-produced DVDs on the Linux operating system; this software decrypts the Content Scrambling System (CSS) – an encryption and authentication scheme designed to prevent the direct copying of video files off of the discs themselves – on these DVDs. CCS is administered by the DVD Copy Control Association, which excludes Linux from the licensing it requires of the manufacturers of all DVD-related equipment (including DVD players, for example).

By defining a technological measure as “any effective technology, device or component that... controls access to a work...” – as opposed to focusing on those that control the right to reproduce the work (i.e., copy-protection measures), which is all that is required by the WIPO Internet Treaties – Bill C-61, section 41.1 prohibits the use of DeCSS, thereby prohibiting the playback of legitimately-purchased DVDs on any computer running the Linux operating system.

Backing up digital media

By the same reasoning, making a backup copy of the movies on legitimately-purchased DVDs – in case the original is scratched or otherwise rendered unreadable – is also prohibited by Bill C-61. Section 29.22 (1) (c) also prohibits making a backup copy of the music on legitimately-purchased CDs that include any sort of digital rights management software, as well as the music in files legitimately purchased from on-line music stores such as Apple's iTunes store – again, in case the original is scratched (in the case of CDs), corrupted (in the case of music files), or otherwise rendered unreadable.

However, Section 29.22 (1) (d) is even more troubling, as it prohibits both of the methods I currently use for backing up all of my music (including the music on legitimately-purchased CDs without any sort of DRM software): 1) making backup copies to blank DVDs; and 2) Carbonite's on-line backup service. The latter is a service that, for a fee, allows the user to designate certain files on their computer(s) for backup to the company's servers.

By using either of these methods, I am making more copies of this music than I have devices to play it; however, given the money I have invested in this music, and the time I have invested in making it available on my computers and iPods (likely the equivalent of many weeks at least, given my collection of approximately 700 CDs), I think that I am justified in wanting to back it up.

Playing DVD movies on an iPod

Making a copy of a movie on a legitimately-purchased DVD for the purpose of playing it on my video iPod is also prohibited by Section 41.1.

Suggested changes to Bill C-61

In the light of my stated concerns with Bill C-61, I present two options to address them:

The Private Use option:
1. Retain the Copying for Private Use section of the Copyright Act (i.e., C-42, Section 80); and
2. Amend it to cover digital media in general, including, but not limited to, music, movies and video games; and
3. Amend the definition of technological measure in C-61, Section 41 to focus on controlling the right to reproduce a work (i.e., copy-protection measures); OR
The Backup Exemption option:
1. Retain the Computer Programs section of the Copyright Act (i.e., C-42, Section 30.6); and
2. Amend it to cover digital media in general (as outlined above); and
3. Amend the definition of technological measure in C-61, Section 41, as outlined above; and
4. Replace the reference to “videocassette” in C-61, Section 29.21 (1) with a more general term that could refer to any number of video formats we might have in the future; and
5. Remove C-61, Sections 29.21 (1) (c) and 29.22 (1) (c).

Rationale for suggested changes to Bill C-61

In addition to the reasoning I provided as part of outlining my concerns with Bill C-61, I would like to highlight some examples of international law that support the changes I have suggested to Bill C-61.

Regarding the definition of technological measures

New Zealand's Copyright (New Technologies) Amendment Bill¹ includes the following definition:

TPM or technological protection measure—

(a) means any process, treatment, mechanism, device, or system that in the normal course of its operation prevents or inhibits the infringement of copyright in a TPM work; but

(b) for the avoidance of doubt, does not include a process, treatment, mechanism, device, or system to the extent that, in the normal course of operation, it only controls any access to a work for non-infringing purposes (for example, it does not include a process, treatment, mechanism, device, or system to the extent that it controls geographic market segmentation by preventing the playback in New Zealand of a non-infringing copy of a work)²

The Lithuanian Law No. IX-1355 of March 5, 2003, Amending the Law on Copyright and Related Rights³ includes the following article:

Article 75. Limitations for Application of Technological Measures

1. When technological measures applied by owners of copyright, related rights and sui generis rights prevent the users of such rights from benefiting from the limitations of copyright, related rights and sui generis rights, provided for in paragraph 1 of Article 20, subparagraphs 1 and 2 of paragraph 1 of Article 22, paragraph 1 of Article 23, Article 27, subparagraph 2 of paragraph 1 of Article 29, subparagraphs 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 of paragraph 1 of Article 58, and paragraph 1 of Article 63 of this Law, the users of the rights must be provided with conditions or adequate means (i.e. decoding devices and other) enabling to use legitimately accessible objects of copyright, related rights or sui generis rights to the extent necessary for the users of the rights to benefit from the limitations of copyright, related rights and sui generis rights provided for their interests.

I would point out that Lithuania has acceded both treaties that make up the WIPO Internet Treaties.⁴

Finally, the Norwegian Copyright Act⁵ includes the following section:

§ 53a. It is prohibited to circumvent effective technological protection measures that the rightholder or others he has given permission employs to control the copying or making available to the public of a protected work.

...

The provisions of this section shall not hinder research into cryptology. Nor shall the provision in the first paragraph hinder private users in gaining access to legally acquired works on that which is generally understood as relevant playback equipment.

Regarding Personal or Private Use

New Zealand's Copyright Amendment Bill also includes the following section on personal use:

81A Copying sound recording for personal use

(1) Copyright in a sound recording and in a literary or musical work contained in it is not infringed by copying the sound recording, if the following conditions are met:

(aa) the sound recording is not a communication work or part of a communication work; and

(a) the copy is made from a sound recording that is not an infringing copy; and

(b) the sound recording is not borrowed or hired; and

(c) the copy is made by the owner of the sound recording; and

(d) that owner acquired the sound recording legitimately; and

(e) the copy is used only for that owner’s personal use or the personal use of a member of the household in which the owner lives or both; and

(f) no more than 1 copy is made for each device for playing sound recordings that is owned by the owner of the sound recording; and

(g) the owner of the sound recording retains the ownership of both the sound recording and of any copy that is made under this section.

(2) For the avoidance of doubt, subsection (1) does not apply if the owner of the sound recording is bound by a contract that specifies the circumstances in which the sound recording may be copied.

Lithuanian Law No. IX-1355 also includes the following article on personal use:

Article 20. Reproduction of Works for Personal Use

1. It shall be permitted for a natural person, without the authorisation of the author or any other owner of copyright, to reproduce, exclusively for his individual use, not for direct or indirect commercial advantage, in a single copy a work published or communicated to the public in any other mode, where the reproduction is a single-action.

Regarding backup copies

Finally, in the following article, Lithuanian Law No. IX-1355 also discusses the idea of multiple backup copies for use in the event that the original is unusable (as I discussed in my concerns above):

Article 30. Making of a Back-up Copies and Reproduction for Adaptation of Computer Programmes

1. A person who has a right to use a computer programme, shall, without the authorisation of the author or other owner of copyright, have the right to make back-up copies of the computer programme or to adapt the computer programme, provided that such copies or adaptation of the programme are necessary:

1) for the use of the computer program in accordance with its intended purpose, including for error correction;

2) for the use of a back-up copy of the lawfully acquired computer programme, in the event the computer programme is lost, destroyed or becomes unfit for use.

Sincerely,

John Jarvis

1http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/Legislation/Bills/b/2/a/00DBHOH_BILL7735_1-Copyright-New-Technologies-Amendment-Bill.htm

2http://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2006/0102-3/latest/096be8ed801aae8a.pdf

3http://www.wipo.int/clea/en/details.jsp?id=2890

4http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/Remarks.jsp?cnty_id=1071C and http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/Remarks.jsp?cnty_id=1264C

5http://www.kopinor.org/opphavsrett/norwegian_copyright_act

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Nepean-Carleton page on a Fair Copyright for Canada wiki

2008-07-17T12:38:00.002-04:00

I'm maintaining the Nepean-Carleton page on the Fair Copyright for Canada, Ottawa Chapter wiki and I'll be including the latest information on my efforts to talk with Mr. Poilievre there.

Conversation with Pierre Poilievre's Constituency Office

2008-07-09T17:51:00.002-04:00

I called Pierre Poilievre's constituency office today and was told that I wouldn't be able to meet with Mr. Poilievre until the next "Constituents' Day" at the end of the month or early next month. I was told that Mr. Poilievre had recently had such a day, and that a number of people had used the opportunity to express their displeasure with Bill C-61. (The person I was talking with added that the office hadn't received any positive feedback on the bill to date, that we -- i.e., those opposed to the bill -- were doing the right thing in getting our message to our MP, and, on a more personal note, that he had to admit that the product of bureaucrats could sometimes leave you shaking your head.)

I left my name, phone number, and community of residence with this person, who told me that he would call me when the next Constituents' Day was scheduled (again, likely near the end of July or early in August).

I'm planning to call Mr. Poilievre's parliamentary office tomorrow to see whether I get the same message.

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Planning to meet with Pierre Poilievre in the next week or so re Bill C-61

2008-07-08T23:38:00.001-04:00

As per the subject, if you live in the riding of Nepean-Carleton and are interested in meeting with Pierre Poilievre to discuss your concerns regarding Bill C-61, send me an e-mail. I'm not thinking about anything fancy; just a few points on how I want to be able to watch DVDs on my video iPod, etc. I'll post more details on what I plan to say shortly -- and the date and time of the appointment too, of course, once I've booked it (sometime in the next few days).

Also, if you're on Facebook, consider joining the Ottawa Chapter of Fair Copyright for Canada.

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Poilievre on assessing constituent participation

2008-07-06T09:59:00.001-04:00

I was recently provided with a summary of a meeting with my MP, Pierre Poilievre, on Bill C-61. There were many points of interest to me, but one that stood out was Mr. Poilievre's ranking of constituents' participation in the debate: specifically, e-mail form letters, even a lot of them, are not considered important, but that someone who sends a brief in is taken very seriously. I assume this also means that original letters, regardless of their method of delivery, rank above form letters, as Mr. Poilievre emphasized the importance of implicit evidence of the constituent's time and thought.

Much of this is intuitive, but there are nuances that I wonder about:

Where do petitions fit in? I suspect it depends entirely on how they're used, but again, even the most organized and articulate presenters would be able to make a more compelling case with real examples of conversations on constituents' doorsteps, I would think;
Are all messages from constituents dealt with similarly? Or, is the post better than e-mail, and delivery by hand better than both? I suspect the answer to both is yes.

Blogged with the Flock Browser

FriendFeed continues to surprise me

2008-05-17T19:50:00.005-04:00

I don't normally write what amounts to a sales pitch, or at least not in this forum. However, since one of the consequences of this discovery is less content in this very forum, I figure the breach of decorum is justified.

FriendFeed is a free service that allows you to gather all your shared content in one place, and, by extension, read and comment on all of your friends' shared content. Now, while I can appreciate how cool that is, it isn't why I love FriendFeed.

I love FriendFeed because it is a really slick way for me to comment on a variety of content. Google finally updated their excellent Reader to allow you to make a note on any item you share, providing some context. However, the interface is a bit clunky, especially when compared with the comment feature in FriendFeed: I add my shared items feed as a 'service' in FriendFeed; now I can comment on any item that comes in. But get this: FriendFeed also parses any notes I've made on those shared items in Google Reader as comments too, which I can then edit or delete (neither of which Google Reader allows, unless I want to delete the whole item). Not only that, but FriendFeed parses URLs in those notes so that they're ready to follow; Google Reader treats them as text that must be copied to the address bar.

Plus, it's easy to share any page you find, and include optional comments and an image. (Yes, Google Reader includes this functionality too -- except for the image bit -- but, again, you'd better not make any mistakes because there's no way to edit that note later on.) Then there's that new site that you stumbled upon: automatically shared. Party photos on Flickr: nicely shared as one item with thumbnails. It's useful -- I count well over 30 services that are compatible with FriendFeed -- and it just looks great. Finally, and possibly most importantly (particularly if you have a group of like-minded friends on FriendFeed, I'd imagine): you can comment on or simply 'like' other users' content, which is then pulled into a 'discussion' feed of those items you'd recommend.

So, now I find myself jotting down a quick comment on a shared item (either through Google Reader -- if I don't feel a typo coming on -- or waiting 'til it pops up in my FriendFeed feed), or simply 'liking' something that appears in my friends' feed or the public feed. Sure, some topics can't be summarized in a few lines, so this blog will continue, but for my (almost) daily thoughts, check out my FriendFeed feed, my comments feed, my 'likes' feed or a combination of all three.

Light rail as a sign of progress

2008-04-24T21:24:00.003-04:00

I happened to catch a segment on the Leonard Lopate Show about the upcoming North Carolina primary this afternoon, and this off-hand statement (at approximately 9:28 in the recording, in case you want to skip to it) made me smile:

Charlotte just opened its first light rail... a century behind a lot of northern cities in that respect...

A lot, maybe, but not Ottawa. (Sorry, I couldn't resist. :-) )

On security cameras

2008-04-08T08:10:00.003-04:00

A UC Berkeley report on whether security cameras have deterred crime in San Francisco is conclusively inconclusive, according to the mayor. Schneier also commented on the article; unsurprising, as the security camera is a popular target of his security theater argument.

I just finished reading Robert A. Heinlein's Friday, where he speculated that, in the future, monitoring security cameras in 'real-time' would require sampling, in practice; he implied that this was common knowledge, at least amongst criminals, and that they managed their risk accordingly (e.g., they went ahead and played the odds, or destroyed the camera, etc.).

However, the reality that this and other articles reinforce is that all of these decisions - including whether to install security cameras, how many to install, how to operate them, and how to monitor them - are heavily influenced by money. If there's money available, why not install security cameras, just in case, in other words; this, despite the fact that compelling arguments against the collection of unnecessary data have been put forth since the 60s.

The system sucks

2008-01-12T09:55:00.001-05:00

The Lower (formerly No) Impact Man, Colin Beavan, has succinctly expressed my current opinion on the environment in a recent post (that I also shared with you, incidentally): the system sucks. By that, he means that the ruts in the road that we normally follow throughout our lives are not designed with the environment in mind; it's the backdrop, and it's taking a beating, according a body of knowledge (including last year's IPCC report).

The example that's the centrepiece of his post is air travel, and it's also the one that forced me to look long and hard at my life. I realized that for many of the previous years, my lifestyle didn't reflect my opinions; there are all sorts of examples I could list, but by far the most damaging to the environment was my annual air travel.

Colin writes about the incentives to vacation once a year versus, say, going on longer sojourns, much of which could be done over land, and I certainly live in that world. (While he also makes some valid points about business travel, that isn't the world I live in right now.) I would eventually lose my vacation allotment were I to attempt such a drastic change in my lifestyle, so I will go a step farther and say that the system punishes that sort of behaviour.

I love traveling. And while I love the breadth of settings my country offers me - and there are still many parts of it that I have yet to explore - I love traveling far away. I have only just begun to travel the world. I can envision a time when my wife and I will be traveling somewhere warm every year, as we do now, and taking another trip to a far-off locale, in addition to our annual trip 'down East' in the summer (by car). Yes, some years that extra trip will probably be closer to home (e.g., the birthday celebrations in Québec City this year), but I certainly don't want to feel obligated to do that.

That may be selfish, but at this point in my life, I'm O.K. with that. I will use cloth grocery bags, I will buy fair-trade coffee (and drink it out 'n' about if it's served, in my travel mug if I have it, or out of a paper cup if that's the only option), I will take the stairs, I will drive a smaller car, but I will not feel bad when our annual flight down South blows all the carbon dioxide emissions I've managed to save during the previous 364 days; not for one minute.

Some of the examples I've raised bring me to my final point: Colin's right; the system can be changed. I like my analogy of ruts in the road because it communicates how deeply ingrained some of this stuff is, while indicating that it isn't immutable. On the plastic grocery bags, complaining about that in the 80s would've got you some funny looks - acid rain was the only problem in our part of the world back then, in case you weren't aware - and even just a few years ago our mayor lamented the cost of sending our plastic bags to the Far East(!) for recycling when he canned the program. Now most of the grocery stores around my house take them back, and they all sell their own cloth bags. My favourite movie theatre, the Bytowne, sells fair-trade coffee (in disposable cups), and Bridgeheads are popping up all over the place.

The key is to identify the worst behaviours encouraged by the system and make some noise about them. In the time it takes you to put your thoughts down in a forum like this, you could have a strong, personal message for your MP or MPP. (I'm not a big fan of form letters, but that may be because I don't understand the system; there's that word again.) But another key is to identify those more malleable behaviours - the shallow ruts, if you will - that could be influenced by local campaigns and, likely, local spending habits. Even if those changes don't reduce carbon dioxide emissions, I think, in the aggregate, they show people the potential for real rewards from their efforts, and I think that's a message we don't hear enough these days.

Range Voting

2008-01-07T16:56:00.000-05:00

I just got around to reading a very informative interview with William Poundstone on voting systems. I still have a lot to learn on this subject (as some have pointed out previously), which may account for my finding the interviewer's style a bit erratic; it was an excellent read otherwise.

Of particular interest to me was the discussion concerning small political parties: in addition to being the fairest voting system - according to a study by mathematician Warren Smith that is referenced throughout the interview - the range voting system also benefits small political parties. The idea is that by assigning each candidate a value in a range (say, from 1 to 10), voters address the 'spoiler effect', or the splitting of votes amongst similar candidates, such that a candidate in clear opposition to them wins the election with less overall support: under a range voting system, voters would be able to assign similar values to similar candidates, or to their favourite (possibly 'fringe') party candidate and the best of the candidates who are likely to win, if you will. This also addresses the concept of 'wasting' one's vote in a first-past-the-post or plurality voting system.

Musing on Nupedia and 'knol'

2007-12-17T09:41:00.000-05:00

My first thought upon reading Google's announcement of its knowledge repository - called 'knol' - was that it's been tried before: Nupedia espoused similar goals before its demise. Subsequent thoughts included:

Writing an article is a lot of work: will the benefits make it worthwhile? (Ad revenue would help with this.) The benefits of name recognition may be tough to quantify before you reach real renown, for example.

A picture and biography of the author raise questions too: playing on their book analogy, I do check the dustcover occasionally, but it's rarely the deciding factor; particularly when I'm looking for an authority on a subject (as opposed to reading for pleasure, for example): the calibre and number of recommendations, followed by the quality of the writing are much more important to me. Also, I tend to agree with the criticism of journalists who include their pictures next to their newspaper articles: shouldn't the writing speak for itself? (Although, admittedly, this does seem fairly innocuous nonetheless.)

The circumstances surrounding Nupedia leave me of two minds: one could say that Wikipedia's rise detracted from Nupedia by offering a potentially less time-consuming means of contributing. However, one could also say that Wikipedia's rise brought attention to open knowledge in general, and that experts would quickly recognize what many more people have since: there are limits to the utility of articles that are perpetually open to modification by all; a sister site with Nupedia's philosophy could be attractive to that community of experts.

Whether Nupedia implemented that philosophy is open to debate. Certainly, and I say this with a tinge of irony, its Wikipedia article details a number of flaws. For my own part, I was content to copyedit articles in my subject area of computer science, so I have difficulty believing that experts suffering comments from anonymous reviewers with no knowledge of the subject area was endemic or little more than 'growing pains', as it were. Again, I know I had doubts as to whether I would be accepted as a CS reviewer with only a BCS to my name.

I'll be watching 'knol' with great interest. In addition to the tarnish Wikipedia has accumulated in recent years, the other, probably far more significant, circumstance associated with knol's introduction is its sponsor, and the enormous buzz that comes with it. Many will rightly say that if Google can't do this, no one can for the foreseeable future.

More on the public's perceptions: nanotechnology

2007-11-26T23:10:00.000-05:00

I've written about the disconnect between the fears of the public and those of the experts before. A report published yesterday focuses on nanotechnology, and as one might expect, one of the only significant sources of public concern regarding it related to surveillance devices: a favourite bogeyman of the mass media and privacy advocates alike (although, admittedly, their complaints normally focus on the macro devices, as it were).

Still, I don't know that I would've ranked any of the subtopics in the article as a concern; yet another research topic, I guess.

Update: December 3: Building a Safe Nanotechnology Future, and, for the truly industrious, Nanoscale: Issues and Perspectives for the Nano Century sounds like an excellent resource.

The role of deception

2007-11-24T14:54:00.000-05:00

I read Flowers for Algernon recently, and Charlie's frustration after seeing a movie with a sappy ending early on in his development - It isn't real! - came to mind as I read this statement in an In Character article on deception and autism:

Many children with autism are perplexed by why someone would even want to deceive others, or why someone would think about fiction or pretense.

For further reading on the uses of deception, check out the International Herald Tribute article entitled Denial makes the world go round.

Problems with proportional representation

2007-09-30T14:41:00.000-04:00

Some time ago, a friend and I discussed some alternatives to the first-past-the-post electoral system. With the referendum on "mixed-member proportional" representation in Ontario coming up this month, these sorts of discussions are in the news again: in particular, David Warren's column in the Citizen this morning detailed how much of what I highlighted as advantages of proportional representation could be abused.

I think he goes too far in characterizing it as a potential "disaster," but he certainly gives us food for thought.

Rory Stewart to speak in Ottawa

2007-09-22T15:32:00.000-04:00

I've spoken briefly about Rory Stewart in the past. This is an excellent opportunity; while it is free, seating is limited so register early.

Facebook news?

2007-07-25T08:40:00.000-04:00

The CBC is now keeping me apprised of where Canada ranks in Facebook. I hope this isn't the extent of their plan for engaging the "Facebook generation".

On space colonization

2007-07-22T01:51:00.000-04:00

When I read Charlie Stross's essay on the impracticality of space colonization, mankind's imperative to survive came to mind as a good counterpoint. As I mulled this over, however, I realized that I was equating life on Earth as we know it now (e.g., suitable atmosphere, large swathes untouched, etc.) with survival; taken more generally, things could get pretty bad on Earth (e.g., mass extinctions, pandemics, a large rise in sea levels globally, etc.) and mankind would still survive, in some form.

That's when I realized that Stross's argument held up: it would likely be more practical to build entire artificial environments on, and possibly orbiting, the Earth than to colonize space (given the technology that's feasible today, as Stross states).

That said, I decided to write about this after reading John Tierney's article in the New York Times on Dr. J. Richard Gott III's theory regarding the survival imperative. Initially, I wondered whether Dr. Gott covered points I hadn't considered. Unfortunately, however, he makes a simplistic leap from our survival to space colonization; if it is based on logic, as opposed to the popular talk on space, it isn't clear in the article. For example, Stross outlined why basing arguments for space colonization on our history of colonization on Earth is flawed.

Also, while the idea that all of our 'eggs', so to speak, are in the single basket called Earth intuitively compels us to colonize space - as I readily admitted above - Gott's seizing on Mars as a solution doesn't stand closer scrutiny: the biggest threats to Earth may also be threats to Mars (e.g., to be very optimistic, the lifespan of the Sun), so we certainly couldn't stop there. Which brings me back to my earlier point: while spreading ourselves out makes sense, for reasons outlined by Stross, things would probably have to get really bad on Earth before space colonization was considered practical.

Bill Moyers' interview with journalist Christian Parenti

2007-07-07T15:45:00.000-04:00

I've read some disturbing news about the current situation in Afghanistan - I often share it and other information of interest in the frame to the left, incidentally - and Bill Moyers' interview with Christian Parenti last month (and the subsequent questions from the public that he answered) continues that trend.

As a caveat, let me add that I'm often skeptical of press reporting on Afghanistan, and North American press reporting in particular; however, Parenti seems to bring an informed opinion to the table, and, of course, the fact that he's sitting across that table from Moyers says a lot about him.

Godwin's Law

2007-05-14T22:10:00.000-04:00

I hadn't heard of Godwin's Law before reading today's xkcd strip, and while the law specifies on-line discussions, a follow-on point attributed to Godwin got me thinking. First, the law:

As an on-line discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.

It is precisely because such a comparison or reference may sometimes be appropriate, Godwin has argued, that overuse of the Nazi/Hitler comparison should be avoided, as it robs the valid comparisons of their impact.

I'm going to make another leap and say that the same logic applies to Neville Chamberlain comparisons. And I know I'm a bit late on this one, but, even after the public disaster, I don't think Elizabeth May gets that. Yes, she was sorry the day before, but, ooo, ooo! They did it too!

I'm sorry, if she couldn't do without the glass-houses comment, at least reiterate that it was a mistake. And I did laugh at the CBC radio news bit that played Layton's "I would never..." followed by his very own - deeply disgusted, I might add - Chamberlain reference in parliament a few years ago. So, no, I'm not claiming that no one should've pointed out this double standard. I just get this... smugness from the Green party site that seems to miss the point.

Conservatives propose to extend voting period

2007-05-10T21:56:00.000-04:00

Two thoughts come to mind: 1) Has the government determined that a significant portion of the people who aren't voting cite polling booth hours when asked why they don't? And 2) Have they considered how this will change the polling booth security environment?

On the first point, I believe government employees are guaranteed a break to vote if their shift spans the polling booth hours. Can anyone confirm this? Or shed light on any private-sector policies?

On the second point, the longer they have to ensure the integrity of those ballot boxes, the greater their vulnerability.

Finally, if the answer to the first question is no, then the government could be wasting a lot of money, in areas related to the second question and beyond.

The U.S. Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act

2007-05-09T20:37:00.000-04:00

Sharon Terry, president of the Genetic Alliance:

The American public can now access genetic tests, feel safe about their genetic information not being misused and participate in research that involves genetic information.

This is certainly a step down that path, but there are still many to go: there are many uses for genetic information beyond screening related to employment and insurance. And the bigger problem is collecting, using and retaining these data properly.

NASA ponders death

2007-05-02T17:42:00.000-04:00

A NASA document on crew health shows how the agency is pondering some of the ethical questions raised by deep space exploration. I was again reminded of Heinlein's Stranger In A Strange Land as I read that sex would be dealt with separately: the book opens with, oddly enough, a look at a manned mission to Mars and the associated, seemingly-thorough screening process to select the crew. The mission ends in tragedy because of... you guessed it: sex.

I'm not suggesting that NASA will overlook this - the article suggests that sex will be considered under the category of behavioural issues. This is just one of those top-of-the-head posts.

The CBC's Office of the Ombudsman

2007-04-21T11:36:00.000-04:00

Since the "Lawand report" last year, there have been a few CBC stories that have bothered me and others (via CanuckJack). It got to the point where I was seriously questioning the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's integrity; an upsetting position, given that they're publicly funded.

In reading the CBC Ombudsman's latest annual report, and his findings regarding the "Lawand report" (including his further observations), I do sense a commitment to principled journalism. However, I can't help but wish that the Office of the Ombudsman had more teeth. For example, the following review of a complaint is from his annual report:

GEOFFREY POUNDER
Program: The World At Six, CBC Radio
Mr. Pounder complained about a CBC Radio report about Venezuela. Chavez may or may not be the villain the CBC makes him out to be. But the CBC's presentation is so dubious that it is impossible for listeners to form their own judgment.
...
Review ([David] Bazay)
While it is true that program balance can and should be best determined over time, and while I found overall coverage to be pretty well balanced, I did agree that there was some merit to Mr. Pounder's complaint. The report gave voice to one of President Chavez's supporters and to two of his critics, including the priest/sociologist cited at the very end of the item who described President Chavez as a tropical Milosovec, and accused him of destroying Venezuela's democracy. I shared Mr. Pounder's view that in fairness the president or one of his supporters should have had the opportunity to respond.

I wonder whether that's enough; whether, in the event that this sort of reporting was shown to be systematic, anything could be done about it. Again, it's my money we're talking about here.

I suppose the 43 466 complaints regarding the Green Party's exclusion from the televised leaders' debate last year support the notion that the CBC would be held to account for such actions; well, that they would draw significant ire anyway. And with the Ombudsman recommending greater public access to the Office in his annual report, one can hope that there wouldn't be a shortage of publicly-available evidence.

Update: May 9: The Auditor General also evaluates the CBC periodically.

Rory Stewart on The Agenda

2007-04-20T21:59:00.000-04:00

If you haven't heard Rory Stewart speak, do yourself a favour and watch or listen to Steve Paikin's interview with him on The Agenda.

Green Party policy and nonviolence

2007-04-15T21:06:00.000-04:00

The Green Party has announced that Kevin Potvin will not be allowed to run as their Vancouver-Kingsway candidate in the next election because his views are antithetical to Green Party values. The press release opens with the claim that Potvin [expressed] approval for the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and that [n]on-violence is one of the Green Party's fundamental principles, so the party's position is clear.

I would hope that May read Potvin's article from 2002 before coming to that conclusion. And even if she did, I find such an unequivocal conclusion to be a bit of a stretch: after all, as Potvin clearly stated in the article, and in his rebuttal to the recent criticism, he was stating his feelings at the time, not advancing a violent ideology or some such. Besides, he was a journalist at the time. While such a statement from an elected representative of a country that must work closely with the United States might raise some eyebrows and ruffle some feathers, that's exactly what journalists are supposed to do.

Now maybe May had a telephone conversation with Potvin prior to issuing the press release. Maybe he said something to her that was aberrant to the rebuttal he posted. If so, I think it should've been included in the release, because the party's position seems flimsy as it stands; another example of the excessive caution in Canadian politics.

To take a theory such as nonviolence and apply it so broadly to everything representatives (and would-be representatives) of your party say and write is to invite disaster: if they manage to navigate that minefield at each and every press conference, you can be certain of what will be first and foremost on their minds at all times, and, by extension, of the chances of anything remotely illuminating being said.

And how did nonviolence get so high up in the party's platform anyway? When I hear antithetical and the Green Party, big oil and clear-cutting come to mind, but not violence. Not that I think violence solves anything, but it has about as much to do with environmental protection as womens' rights, or abortion. Let's stay on message here, people; at least 'til we get a bleedin' seat anyway.

The Minister of Industry responds...

2007-03-30T21:09:00.000-04:00

I sent my MP a message last May regarding Bill C-60 (an Act to amend the Copyright Act). I got a copy of the Minister of Industry's response to him in the mail a week or so ago. The letter is dated March 1, 2007 and reads:

Mr. Pierre Poilievre, M.P.
Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board
House of Commons
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A6

Dear Colleague:

Thank you for forwarding copies of recent letters from several of your constituents regarding possible amendments to the Copyright Act (the Act).

In my view, the Act must continue to be supportive of innovation and research while reflecting current technological and legal realities. To this end, a balance between adequate protection for copyright holders and reasonable access to copyrighted material is critical.

With this in mind, I am working closely with my colleague, the Honourable Bev Oda, Minister of Canadian Heritage, to determine the appropriate next steps with respect to copyright reform.

Please be assured that I am very mindful of the concerns expressed by your constituents, and will take these into consideration as we move forward.

Sincerely,

Maxime Bernier

c.c. The Honourable Bev Oda, P.C., M.P.

I'm pleased. It isn't practical to expect more from a politician, I would suggest. Notice that he used the word 'balance' to describe his view on the matter. I would go so far as to call that encouraging, save that it's only words at this point.

Chimps: Hauser vs. Heinlein

2007-03-25T20:40:00.000-04:00

The brain has a genetically shaped mechanism for acquiring moral rules, similar to the neural machinery for learning language, according to Harvard evolutionary biologist Marc Hauser... Chimpanzees, who cannot swim, have drowned in zoo moats trying to save others.

That's a very different picture from the pivotal scene in Robert A. Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land, where Valentine Michael Smith finally groks (fully understands) humour as he witnesses chimps in a zoo being cruel to one another.

That's the first thing I thought of as I read the article, and it isn't noteworthy for any other reason.

Dion, The Consummate Politician

2007-03-21T20:56:00.000-04:00

Dion said it was parliamentary tradition for MPs to follow party line on confidence votes such as budgets.

"A vote on the budget, like a vote on a throne speech, is a vote of confidence. You cannot vote against the caucus on it."

Spouting tripe about traditions, party lines and what MPs cannot do is no way for a former academic to argue his position. Comuzzi's position - that he was supporting his constituents - wins hands down.

Indoor air pollution

2007-03-12T22:07:00.000-04:00

Coincidentally, I was reading Michael LeGault's Think!: Why Crucial Decisions Can't Be Made in the Blink of an Eye when a story about air pollution in Canadian ice rinks hit the press. According to LeGault, this sort of thing is quite serious:

Fear causes flaws in our perceptions, which leads to erroneous thinking and conclusions. For instance, a study conducted by the EPA found that the public's top environmentally related health concerns included radioactive waste, radiation from nuclear accidents, industrial pollution of waterways, and hazardous waste sites. Yet, when the EPA polled its own experts it got an entirely different list of concerns. Radioactive waste and radiation from nuclear accidents were not even ranked, and some of the public's lowest concerns, for example indoor air pollution, were ranked "high" by experts...

Toward objective journalism

2007-03-06T11:58:00.000-05:00

It seems that every other day I'm reading overtly biased reporting in Canadian newspapers (e.g., coverage of Fredericton MP Andy Scott's resignation and our work in Afghanistan). However, the subject interview gives me some hope for the future, as Jooneed Khan has been writing about the facts for about as long as I've been breathing. Of course, you could look at it as a last bastion, but I'm feeling optimistic today. Here are some highlights from the interview (the emphasis is mine):

My concern has always been that before one can form an opinion, one needs facts--as wide a spectrum of facts as possible. I’ve found that mainstream media selects the facts to bring people to think and look in a certain way; and that was not only incomplete, but a disservice to the reader... I’ve tried to bring those facts which were selected out, and put them together in a coherent way...

[A] very recent example is Lebanon. The hue and cry in the western media... that Hezbollah is radical, that it’s a proxy for Syria and Iran, that it’s threatening Israel, threatening Lebanese democracy. The statements that I’ve heard out of the White House, from Ottawa and Paris constantly reiterate democracy, democracy. I thought, this is a totally artificial debate, which can have dangerous consequences, so I did a piece last week, called the “Democractic Deficit in Lebanon.” I just brought the facts to show that when you have a dictated arrangement--dictated by the US and Saudi Arabia--on the Tyre Agreement, where they have allotted 64 seats to Muslims, 64 seats to Christians on a sectarian basis and you haven’t had a census in the country for 75 years... [E]veryone who has done estimates based on the official figures has come to the conclusion that the Christians today are about 35 per cent of the population. Even the sectarian democracy that they’ve imposed does not reflect the true sectarian makeup of the society...

I wrote about Palestinian rights and Palestinian suffering at the same time as I wrote about South African [a]partheid, and the legitimate rights of the South African majority. I suppose the South African consulate in those days did call my editors once in a while, but since I could not be silenced on my facts, what the paper did was allow colleagues of mine to peddle the official line. So on one page--mostly in the business section--articles [there] were praising the [apartheid] system as a free economy and a bulwark against Communism and an outpost of the free world[, while] I was writing about the Freedom Charter... about exclusion, which was also part of the reality. So you had in the same paper... two views. And I appreciate that. I think newspapers in a free society should reflect the diversity of views.

His anecdote about reporting from Iraq is less hopeful, but doesn't take away from the fact that La Presse's policies do more to promote objective journalism than any other paper's that I've read about.

Human beings and abstraction

2007-01-13T13:52:00.000-05:00

I am often amazed at people's proclivity for abstraction. While the following comparison may be unfair, it does show how people can ignore certain obvious, and sometimes horrific, aspects of their surroundings:

Bertschinger explained that [in Mekele, Ethiopia in 1984] there was enough dried milk, sugar, oil, bread, and rice to feed about 500 people. Then she confessed to Buerk — and the camera — her terrible responsibility. Every few days, several dozen children would graduate from the feeding regimen Bertschinger had helped to establish, and she could replace them with new patients. She would step outside, where more than a thousand people sat waiting in the sun. When she appeared, there would be murmurs and cries, but the migrants remained seated in orderly rows. Bertschinger would examine children sitting alone or held aloft by a pleading parent. She would grasp their biceps to feel bones wrapped in leathery skin. Most importantly, she would search the children’s eyes for a spark of life. If she didn’t see that glint she passed on by — there was no point wasting food on a child who would soon be dead.

See this month's Walrus for Stars Above Africa. What follows are a few reports on the North American release of Sony's Playstation 3:

Police used pepper balls to contain a crowd waiting for the Circuit City... to open Friday morning... The crowd of 200... was waiting in line for the new Playstation 3. [WTOP Radio]

A scene straight out of Lord of the Flies started around 5 a.m. Thursday in front of the Best Buy. [Lawrence.com - thought you'd like that one, Bruce :-)]

A man goes to the hospital after slamming into a metal flagpole during a stampede at a... Wal-mart. [Joystiq.com]

The age-old story of income inequality

2007-01-12T17:25:00.000-05:00

In another of those coincidences I do so enjoy, I happened upon this article by Wheelan as I'm reading Status Anxiety by Alain de Botton. Where I would normally tend to side with Wheelan's argument regarding income inequality, de Botton reminds me of just how old not only the gap between the rich and the poor is, but also the very idea of taking responsibility for one's station in life. Wheelan says:

If the gap between rich and poor gets too large, and if those at the bottom feel they have no meaningful route to the riches at the top, then the fabric of society will fray, or even come unraveled entirely.

Utter hyperbole. As Smith and Hume said well over 200 years ago (in their backhanded fashion), it's the rich that provide the greatest service to society, fueling economies with their desires and silly whims.

Wheelan does temper his thoughts as he goes along, though, and raises many of the same points as de Botton, such as our peers wielding more influence on how we view our station than absolute figures, while acknowledging that television can distort one's peer group (it's almost like I *know* Tomkat, ya know). :-)

Freedom of religion: veil threats

2006-10-18T20:03:00.000-04:00

A story in today's Independent about the veil debate in Britain got my hackles up - what about piercings? They make people uncomfortable! - with the first few paragraphs - as was the point, I'm sure. However, as I read further, I realized that Blair's comments were closer to that fine line than the story initially implied. And, setting aside whether he should be commenting on a case before the courts - ah, no! - he's right to watch his words: integration and multiculturalism, and their fallout, have long been divisive subjects, despite the everything-is-new flavour they have in the wake of September 11, 2001.

And Canada is no different, as the arrests of eighteen men in Toronto over the summer have shown. We're still trying to get the right balance: even Bernard Ostry, the pen behind our country's multiculturalism initiative of the 70s, has questioned whether these policies can work. As opposed to getting sidetracked by how much of our population will be made up of visible minorities in the future, however, I prefer John Ralston Saul's focus on citizenship being tied to responsibilities and obligations - engaging the immigrant, in other words, to express themselves and contribute, and celebrate the freedoms laid out in our Charter.

Which leads to Blair's comments, and the freedom of religion (deemed fundamental in our Charter, incidentally). Veils, kippahs, turbans, etc. have been in the news for years. Britons have worried about integration long before the attacks in London on July 7, 2005. The article goes on to describe how many European countries have attempted to address this problem; while it presents the U.S. as enlightened in this area, I think at least part of the reasoning behind the argument is flawed:

"We want to show our minorities that they are protected by their own people," Sheriff Bacca emphasized.

This emphasizing our differences is counterproductive, as I see it; distracting from the root causes of all sorts of problems, when people of that combative cant decide to boil it down to the 'real' issue of ethnicity, religion, etc.

I don't like reading about early experiences in my country like Baltej Singh Dhillon's, but I do feel that Canada is getting it right, with his case, and with acknowledging our immigration mistakes of the past, as two examples.

Vote for the little guy!

2006-10-13T19:23:00.000-04:00

Voting for the little guy just got a whole lot easier (in my books, anyway). As many of you know, I've been voting for the Green Party for years simply because I wanted to see more parties in Parliament, but didn't want to throw my vote away, as it were - that is, on a party that would never get 2% of the vote, and therefore wouldn't get my $1.75 for their next campaign.

Well, an Ontario Superior Court judge struck that law down today! And, in case you think we're talking about a pittance here, the seven parties that were affected by that law in 2004 now get to share approximately $500000! Better than a kick in the pants, as they say.

Campaigning and the 'net

2006-10-06T21:19:00.000-04:00

Cheney likes what this Washington Post article called the "new media":

"Sometimes it's pretty trashy," he said of new media's rise. "But I guess I'd put the proposition that there's more time and opportunity for policy discussions and debate than there used to be."

As I read the article - which was worth reading, incidentally - I kept thinking that whether a candidate can use the 'net to their advantage or not is really beside the point; the entire process seems to be falling further away from what's really important: how will you run the country?

And then the article ends with that Cheney quote, voicing and marginalizing my thought simultaneously. I guess I don't see it that way. It seems that, maybe in an effort to get more done, or maybe for far more base reasons, policy sound bites - to say nothing of the trash - have taken the place of any discussion on the campaign trail. After all, the power of the 'net is such that lively and informed debate is probably going on in the shadow of this "new media".

To bring this back to my country, I am holding out some hope that Michael Ignatieff will prove an exception to this rule.

A deadly caricature...

2006-09-14T19:53:00.000-04:00

As I read about Kimveer Gill, the gunman at Montreal's Dawson College yesterday, I can't help shaking my head at what a caricature he seems: "Metal and Goth kick ass", the "Trench" handle to go with his coat... And yet we must take him seriously.

My second thought followed on the heels of these three quotes:

Gill is believed to have been carrying at least three weapons: a handgun, a 12-gauge shotgun and a semi-automatic or automatic rifle.

He was armed with three weapons that media reports say were legally registered to him.

Neighbours told CBC Radio that Gill lived with his parents in the house.

His parents were "shocked", meaning they didn't know their son was amassing (and registering!) an arsenal of weapons to rival a Terminator. At least Harper isn't making any knee-jerk commitments; my initial thought is that this isn't a failing of legislation (at least not first): nobody needs that many guns.

Update: September 20: a related interview with the creator of the video game based on the Columbine shootings.

Update: October 2: Andrew Spicer suggested the idea of legislation that allows certain municipalities to ban certain firearms. I don't know whether that would work, but I do like the idea of formally recognizing that rural and urban municipalities have different concerns. I guess it could open us up to the confusion one can face crossing state borders down south, but, still, I feel the concept has merit.

Canada and Afghanistan

2006-09-09T13:21:00.000-04:00

In a recent conversation with a friend, I struggled to express my position on Canada's mission in Afghanistan:

[W]hile I still feel that it shouldn't be debated now - waffling is bad for morale, and I don't see how the situation could've changed that much since we first agreed to it, old gov't or not - answering Layton's questions during one or more question periods seems reasonable to me:

* What are the goals and objectives of this mission and how do they meet Canada's foreign policy objectives?
* What is the realistic mandate of the mission and how is it being enforced?
* What are the criteria to measure progress?
* What is the definition of success?
* And what is the clear exit strategy for this mission?

Reading the news this morning, I realized Rex Murphy did a much better job - than Layton, and certainly me - of isolating the major problem, and, very importantly, suggesting a way forward. I particularly liked this passage:

[F]rom the very beginning of this mission, from the long ago days of Mr. Chrétien through Mr. Martin's term as prime minister to this present moment, a clear, full, articulated case for the mission has not been made.

We've had everything else but the full statement of why the mission is important to us as Canadians, how it relates to our national interest and values and a full description of what we hope to see as a result of our troops being there.

Well said, Rex; well said.

The Middle East: Canada's bias

2006-07-24T20:11:00.000-04:00

First, let me open by acknowledging that the best of this post benefits from many reasoned opinions that I've heard and read over the past week, including those of many folks at CKCU, and The Train. The cock-ups are all mine, however.

Second, while I haven't explored this to date, the United Nations' role in international affairs seems to have diminished over the years; this, in turn, must affect Canada's role in the arena. I accept this premise, and wish my country would succeed in spite of it.

I think Israel's response under the circumstances has been measured.

With this oft-quoted statement, and others, Stephen Harper expressed our country's bias, even as most of us were still struggling with the bad news.

Days later, seven Canadians were killed in an Israeli attack, and current estimates put the Lebanese, mostly civilian, casualties an order of magnitude above those of Israel. My point is not that Harper could have predicted this, but rather, that by throwing our support behind one side in this conflict, he has spoiled any role we could have played in negotiating some dialogue between the two sides, and cheapened our country's proud history in international affairs.

Subsequent statements by our government "urg[ing] all sides to act with restraint and take all measures possible to protect innocent civilian lives" strike me as obligatory.

On protecting Israelis...

While acknowledging that both the Israelis and Hezbollah are on questionable moral ground right now, the idea that Israel is simply protecting its citizens is ridiculous. Setting aside Israel's significant military advantage - which the U.S. is "rushing" to supply, by the way - Hezbollah's capturing Israeli soldiers needs to be considered in the context of the other prisoner exchanges between the two countries.

It's essential that Hezbollah and Hamas release their Israeli prisoners...

But, again, with this sort of rhetoric, Harper shows our, seemingly uneducated (frankly), bias. I'm not saying I agree with negotiated prisoner exchanges, but if Israel legitimized it in the past, one must acknowledge that it's possible that Hezbollah was simply attempting to start another round of negotiations; again, a possibility that Harper doesn't seem consider, let alone refute.

I'm ashamed of my Prime Minister's position is this conflict, and I sincerely hope that it isn't indicative of future Conservative foreign policy.

Balanced Copyright Reform

2006-05-13T09:41:00.000-04:00

Here's a copy of an e-mail message I sent to my MP on the subject:

Hello Mr. Poilievre,

It's come to my attention that draft legislation concerning "copyright reform" could be drafted in coming weeks and months (building on Bill C-60). I suspect you've already received a form letter or two on the subject of "digital rights management" or DRM, so rather than add to that pile, I thought I'd quickly relate a personal experience on the subject, to give you some perspective.

My wife recently bought a number of CDs for a road trip. She'd had her iPod digital music player for a while, but this was to be the first time we took it as our sole source of music for any length of time. With the FM transmitter she'd bought for it, we would be able to play it through the car stereo, the portable stereo of anyone we visited along the way, etc.

However, she quickly became frustrated with the Nickelback CD she bought. She couldn't import it into iTunes (iPod management software), or even play it on her computer. The digital rights management software on the CD prevented it.

It's that DRM software prevents this and other legal uses of the merchandise we purchase that makes it such an important issue. (The fact that it can also open our computers to breaches of privacy and security is a separate, but equally important, issue: Sony-BMG's DRM software is a chilling example of this.)

While the Canadian Coalition for Digital Fair Access has some good information on this issue (as does the more recent Online Rights Canada), it's the "Consumer Technology Bill of Rights" put together by DigitalConsumer.org in the U.S. that succinctly captures what I would like to see in any DRM-related legislation.

I'll just quote the point that's relevant to my story:

2. Users have the right to "space-shift" content that they have legally acquired. This gives you the right to use your content in different places (as long as each use is personal and non-commercial).

(http://www.digitalconsumer.org/bill.html for the complete list.)

Thank you for your time, Mr. Poilievre.

Cheers,

John Jarvis

The politics of confrontation

2006-05-12T19:16:00.000-04:00

A friend sent me an article on the Auditor General's gun registry report that was leaked. The tone of these opposition quotes sent me off on a tirade:

It's troublesome given that ethics, accountability, transparency, turning government around, cleaning government up are supposed to be one of the top priorities of the new government, said New Democrat David Christopherson.

And if they had any role whatsoever in leaking this then they're... betraying their pact with the Canadian people.

A Liberal press release offered more of the same:

This unprecedented affront to the office of the Auditor General, Sheila Frasier, makes a mockery of Prime Minister Stephen Harper's promise to operate with a higher ethical standard, said Mr. Wrzesnewskyj.

I think the Liberals (and their NDP terrier) are completely undermining the "new party" spin they've been cultivating around their leadership race with this whining and nitpicking - the "Look, they're worse than us!" tripe - that was the previous minority government's daily bread. Nothing has changed: the Liberals have no vision for the country, and no one to truly lead the way once they beg, borrow or steal one.

It hurts me to say that, by the way, because listening to Ignatieff speak around the time of his announcing his run for the party leadership sparked a hope in me that we might get past the bickering for a time; but it means nothing if he still has these petty vermin below him.

If they'd waited 'til the report came out and acknowledged the mistakes it will certainly include - I've read about the software development debacle, so I know I'm not reaching here - I can honestly say that it would've significantly reinforced that hope I mentioned: simply because it would've been so radically different from anything this squabbling mass of glad-hands has done in years.

The cost of these distractions is concisely stated in the following quote I read a few months back:

Institutional rivalry, lack of foreign policy consensus, and increased media coverage combine to create a foreign policy making environment that accentuates the normal advantage held by immediate policy questions and current intelligence over long-range issues. It also favours the politics of confrontation and competition over that of problem solving.

-- Glenn Hastedt, Public Intelligence: Leaks as Policy Instruments - The Case of the Iraq War, Intelligence and National Security, Volume 20, Issue 3, September 2005.

The Prime Ministers: Louis St. Laurent

2006-03-30T22:05:00.000-05:00

My correspondence on the CPAC series continues:

Hmmm... This is a strange series. I didn't like this episode either. He was voted our greatest post-war Prime Minister, yet they spent little time explaining why he'd get the vote of so many historians. What truly positive material we did see came from his own family (relevant, but not very surprising, one would think).

This emphasis on the 'Uncle Louis' facade, and, later, his, and his cabinet's, air of entitlement - which seemed to be much worse than the situations that fall under that category today - were not flattering. And whatever the true proportion of these episodes during his entire leadership, by paying lip service to his great achievements and lack of involvement in the PR machine, the producers are passing judgment on the man.

And this isn't the first example of that. I just found this one to be particularly heavy handed. Man, and I thought CPAC was a more balanced alternative to the CBC; guess no one can resist the opportunity to spin.

Later correspondence focused on Byfield's negativity:

Well, he's a journalist, and I have to say, I valued his perspective on St. Laurent more than, say, on Laurier, because Byfield was there covering the '57 election, for example. The fact that he relates how all the old-timers in his profession were unhappy with the government at that time, for example, is fine with me. I want to know. But it's the producer's job to balance that with St. Laurent's earlier success, and give Byfield a chance to reflect on that, if possible (don't know if he was even working then).

And CPAC's spin:

Well, I for one would seize any media source that showed the sort of balance I'm talkin' about; and I wouldn't let 'em go. :-) I know there are other people who feel that way too. There is such a thing as scoopin' and spinnin' yourself to death, I think. You're certainly sentencing your credibility to death, let's say.

La Convivencia

2006-03-29T18:42:00.000-05:00

I just finished watching the BBC documentary An Islamic History of Europe. Its stirring depiction of la Convivencia, with Muslims and Christians sharing the best of their cultures in Spain, while hotly contested, got me thinking about these first decades of the 21st century: it may be naïve, but I feel that Canada is well placed to revive this idea of coexistence.

The Prime Ministers: William Lyon Mackenzie King

2006-03-25T11:37:00.001-05:00

My correspondence on the CPAC series continues:

Well, in my opinion, the blame for [the seemingly harsh comments of Jack Granatstein and Ted Byfield] falls on the editors of this series; I was actually going to use the adjective 'stupid' in that sentence (take your pick of places; more than one's appropriate), but thought better of it. They are focusing on inconsequential crap, and, given that, I think both Granatstein and Byfield did a good job of relating what we - unfortunately - know about King's private life, in all its strange detail, but without dwelling on it, and then getting on to the "and so what?" of it all. Who cares? Byfield ends a segment with I think his decisions ultimately were always pragmatic. He did his job, in other words.

I [also feel it wasn't write to publish King's diary, instead of burying it with him, as was his wish]. Did his family make that decision? Did they come to regret it, I wonder? People are entitled to their private thoughts; and they're entitled to put them down for later review. You can't keep a life of thoughts in your head, and being able to read them would probably help one sort through a lot of problems. That aside, whatever his reasons for writing, the public doesn't have the right to read it, just because he wrote it.

The Prime Ministers: Wilfrid Laurier: Addendum

2006-03-24T19:26:00.000-05:00

In the light of all this nonsense about Harper's waistline - no, I won't even hyperlink to it and give any 'news' site the satisfaction of traffic - I thought this later point in the correspondence was also germane:

... and Chretien made a point of saying the press didn't question [Laurier]. I thought that was fantastic! Imagine knowing no more about your prime minister's private life than, say, your doctor's.

It does not matter, people.

The job they're doing, that's what it's all about.

The Prime Ministers: Wilfrid Laurier

2006-03-24T18:51:00.000-05:00

This is the first of a few posts on correspondence I've had re CPAC's The Prime Ministers television series:

When a Quebec supporter complained few immigrants were francophone, Laurier said, We trust in the long run they will come out right true Canadians.

I love this line. That was the highlight of the show, so I thought I'd lead with it. I'll be pullin' that one out in a future conversation with Dad, you can be sure, that, and the “tough” people that made Western Canada under him. (Canadians are English and French... Pffft!) ;-)

I was struck by how strongly people need heroes. The man described for most of the thirty minutes was well beyond his considerable 6' frame. Chretien said he was an institution in his family, and clearly he isn't alone. (I found him very convincing in that moment, by the way; very sincere. I didn't think much of his comments overall, but when he spoke about francophones talking their place after Laurier, I felt the importance of it.)

But clearly he was human. I mean, however reverently it was read, Laurier's thoughts on politics were clearly that the end - his “certain object” - justifies the means, which “could not be approved of”. I don't agree, but acknowledge that I prefer to think in the ideal, and have long since ruled out a career in politics as a result. :-)

Finally, all the comments on Laurier's appearance went over the top, eventually; somewhere around the comment that he probably spent a lot of time in front of a mirror. I certainly wouldn't want to be remembered that way.

This is Canada

2006-03-23T21:45:00.000-05:00

Many months ago, I received an e-mail message entitled This is an article printed in the Toronto Star, CANADA full of the worst vitriol. Worse still, it was plagiarized vitriol, originally written by an American a number of years ago.

I'm embarrassed to admit that the sender fully supported the message. I wish I'd read John Ralston Saul's beautiful speech Citizenship, Immigration and Federalism: The Complexity of Modern Democracy in Canada before I'd responded to it, but I'm still satisfied with what I wrote:

I'm reading In the Name of Identity: Violence and the Need to Belong by Amin Maalouf right now, and in it, he talks about how, depending on the current situation, an individual will associate with one part of their identity more than others (e.g., they're Catholic, or they're French, etc.), when, in reality, they're still the complex mix of cultures, histories, beliefs, etc. that they always were.

This culture has been developed over centuries of struggles, trials, and victories by millions of men and women who have sought freedom... We speak ENGLISH/FRENCH, not Spanish, Portuguese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language...

I don't know how far back this guy wants to go, but I'll always be able to find examples to contradict him. This idea of Canada as a snapshot in time, after the war of 1812 or some such, is just silly. Canada, like every other nation around the world, is changing with each passing year, and how it is changing is all a matter of your perspective, what part of your identity you most strongly associate with today.

Let's look at some examples from 1921:

BC: English, 221145, Chinese, 23533...
ON: French, 248275, German, 130545...

Canada was much more than English and French, and many of the immigrants who spent time in internment camps during the two World Wars would question the universal freedom this guy speaks of.

Aside: I am not, in any way, disparaging the sacrifice made by the more than one hundred thousand brave Canadians who died in those two wars. I'm merely using it as an example of how perspective makes all the difference in the world.

God is part of our culture...

Christanity is part of our history, and, in one form or another, part of the history of most of the known world. Some of its tenets are now part of our culture of respect (embodied in such foundations of our nation as the Charter), but Christanity is no more part of our culture today than any other religion. The right to practice the religion of your choice is part of our culture, however, and, yes, to practice it without fear of offending anyone.

We are happy with our culture and have no desire to change...

As I've said, this idea of culture as static does not reflect reality. Canada is distinct and great, not because of our history, but because we are a nation that recognizes the inherent dignity in every human being, and are working towards a day when all of us (not just Canadians, but the world at large) can be free from the fear of harm and death for the thoughts we conceive and choose to express.

Finally, I found this correction re our national motto to be amusing.

Knee-jerk Trade-offs

2005-07-22T14:54:00.000-04:00

Speakers more profound than I - including Adam Shostack and Bruce Schneier - have weighed in on the Western approach to terrorism countermeasures, a recent example of which is the searching of bags and packages carried by people entering New York City subway stations.

Countermeasures like this spring up far too quickly. They must be subjected to a more critical process, so, as one of the New Yorkers commented, the terrorists don't simply hit us where we're weak (e.g., shopping malls... before the decade's out, I'd bet). Otherwise, how are we to know whether the trade-offs we've accepted are good ones?

Information and Human Nature

2005-02-28T14:45:00.000-05:00

Michael Gorman, president-elect of the American Library Association, created a ripple when he questioned Google's dream of taking over the universe by gathering all the information in the world and creating the electronic equivalent of, in their own modest words, the mind of God. (Search on Google and God's Mind if you don't want to register with the Los Angeles Times.) However, I think Google, Gorman and his detractors are all missing an important point, and it centres around human nature.

While Gorman makes some good points in Google and God's Mind, his notion that only certain books need to be digitized - "massive databases of digitized whole books, especially scholarly books, are expensive exercises in futility" - is really splitting hairs; how they're used afterward is more important, as he implies in his second piece, Revenge of the Blog People: I do not believe [Google Print] will give us anything that comes anywhere near access to the world's knowledge.

It's how the information is used afterward, how knowledge is accumulated, that's really important. I'll use another quote from Google and God's Mind to illustrate my point:

The nub of the matter lies in the distinction between information (data, facts, images, quotes and brief texts that can be used out of context) and recorded knowledge (the cumulative exposition found in scholarly and literary texts and in popular nonfiction). When it comes to information, a snippet from Page 142 might be useful. When it comes to recorded knowledge, a snippet from Page 142 must be understood in the light of pages 1 through 141 or the text was not worth writing and publishing in the first place.

Gorman says must be understood, but really it's up to the reader; if they want to draw their own conclusions from a paragraph on Page 142, that's their prerogative, and this is where my point about human nature comes in.

Morgan Jones talks about convergent and divergent thinking in The Thinker's Toolkit: 14 Powerful Techniques for Problem Solving, and how humans are convergent thinkers at heart. That is, in our reading and research, we are inherently trying to tie it all up and converge on a solution or opinion, if you will; that's the way our brain works. Now, going back to Gorman's example, what the Google Print project will facilitate is the converging of an opinion based on Page 142 of that particular book, and maybe a few pages from some other books, with the reader never having read pages 1 through 141, or the preceding pages of the other books.

But that's like saying guns kill people, John. Yes, you're absolutely right, and I'm not knocking the Google Print project. I say that Google, Gorman and others are missing the responsiblity that these sorts of initiatives place on our education system. As people read fewer books cover to cover, teaching people how to think critically and research becomes all the more important. Given our convergent natures, I can see a time when kids rate their research on the number of sound bites they've skimmed (and, no doubt, how quickly they've done it as well). Educating them on proper research techniques means that they'll be able to make the best use of the most powerful tools as they're developed (like Google Print).

Invisible Darkness turns Deadly

2004-12-14T20:25:00.000-05:00

O.K., so the title is misleading: Deadly (2005), the film about Paul Bernardo and Karla Homolka’s psychological dance with death and depravity isn't based on the Stephen Williams' book Invisible Darkness; in fact, despite buying the rights to the book in 1994, Director Peter Simpson abandoned the project in the face of public outcry, especially from St. Catherines.

According to the Toronto Star, Deadly "was written through court transcripts and other evidence in the public domain... [and writer Manette Rosen's interviews] with police involved in the [Bernardo and Homolka] case at headquarters, as well as a crown attorney..."

I recently received a copy of the 2001 petition to stop Simpson's Bernardo film. (Whether it had anything to do with Simpson dropping the movie, I don't know.) Of the 70 or so names attached, over half were from St. Catherines, and all but a few were Ontarians. One signatory - at least I assume they signed it... as much as you can sign an electronic document without using a digital signature - included the comment:

Some things are just too important NOT to pass on - I hope you agree.

Of course I agree that some things are important enough to speak out about - some things are important enough to fight for, in my opinion - but I don't agree that the making of this movie qualifies.

Why? Because the story is out of my hands; it's out of everyone's hands. It happened, at least two books tell the story, and people will continue to talk about it, despite the heroic efforts - in scale only; the deliberate destruction of records is despicable and barbaric! - of Danson to wipe what really happened from the face of the earth: again, from The Star:

[Tim] Danson [lawyer for the families of victims Kristen French and Leslie Mahaffy] even won an order to have the Ontario attorney-general's office burn the Bernardo-Homolka videos, as well as autopsy photos and other evidence, in a precedent-setting move.

Burn, no less! The bile rises in my throat just thinking about it. Fahrenheit 451 made real! Whatever his motives, that was just wrong! And that gets back to the petition: I'm sure all those people from St. Catherines hoped they were helping the families of Bernardo and Homolka's victims in some small way by signing that petition - heck, maybe some of them even know one of the families - but you know what? It doesn't matter. Period.

The only thing that matters is how those families live each day: if they look to the world to forget what happened to their daughters, sisters, etc. - even for some period of time, because how long is enough? Who can say? - they will continue to be disappointed and hurt; and, no less importantly, they'll be killing those women again, and all they did with their lives. If, however, they look within themselves and to each other for support, nothing, not books, movies, not even tourists (think Jack the Ripper and you know they'll come), will be able to steal more moments of their lives.

Time does not heal all wounds.

"Diamond" "Dimebag" Darrell Abbott, R.I.P.

2004-12-09T19:02:00.000-05:00

I just saw a story on CTV Newsnet about a shooting in Ohio, pantera.com confirms it: Dimebag Darrell, of Pantera fame, is dead. I'm shocked.

5 Minutes Alone was an anthem for me in university, and Cowboys From Hell? No one was playin' that stuff then. Whatever the animosity among the band members in recent years, no one can take away the butt that Pantera kicked in the 90's.

R.I.P., Dimebag.

On challenging U.S. copyright law...

2004-11-30T17:13:00.000-05:00

LISNews.com is reporting that, unfortunately, Kahle v. Ashcroft has gone the way of Eldred v. Ashcroft.

The Stanford Center for Internet and Society has a great summary of how the two cases differ:

In [Kahle v. Ashcroft], two archives [the Internet Archive and the Prelinger Archive] ask the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to hold that statutes that extended copyright terms unconditionally - the Copyright Renewal Act and the Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA) - are unconstitutional under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment, and that the Copyright Renewal Act and CTEA together create an effectively perpetual term with respect to works first published after January 1, 1964 and before January 1, 1978, in violation of the Constitution's Limited Times and Promote...Progress Clauses.

Isn’t [Kahle v. Ashcroft] just Eldred v. Ashcroft all over again?

No... Eldred v. Ashcroft involved a challenge to the constitutionality of the Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA), which extended the term of both existing and future copyrights by 20 years. In 2003, the Supreme Court rejected these challenges. Eldred focused narrowly on the constitutionality of the CTEA’s extension of the term of subsisting copyrights; the Court held that these extensions did not violate the First Amendment or the Progress Clause.

Kernighan, debugging and assurance

2004-10-04T15:16:00.000-04:00

I read a great Kernighan quote at Marquee de Sells today. For those who aren't familiar with Kernighan, he helped design the awk programming language and coauthored the first book on the C programming language.

I was struck by the security implications of programmers writing computer programs that they aren't smart enough to debug. The analysis and testing that makes up a security evaluation is comparable to debugging, and yet many of the evaluators I've worked with are not as smart as many of the programmers I know. My experience with evaluator qualifications states that a college or university degree in engineering or computer science, plus a few years apprenticing, is sufficient for evaluating source code. Is this realistic?

Thinking about debugging and security brought me to the concept of a reference monitor: a reference monitor enforces the authorized access relationships (i.e., the policy) between the subjects and the objects of a system.[1]

One implementation of the reference monitor concept was called a reference validation mechanism. Early examples of reference validation mechanisms were called security kernels, or that combination of hardware, firmware and software which implements the reference monitor concept.[2] Three design requirements of these reference validation mechanisms (and security kernels) were: 1) It must be tamper proof, 2) it must always be invoked, and 3) it must be small enough to analyze and test with complete assurance.[3]

It would seem to me that Kernighan's point speaks to a caveat on the third requirement: it must be small and simple enough to analyze and test with complete assurance.

Footnotes

1. Anderson, J. P., Computer Security Technology Planning Study, ESD-TR-73-51, vol. I, ESD/AFSC, Hanscom AFB, Bedford, Mass., October 1972 (NTIS AD-758 206).

2. Computer Security Technology Planning Study.

3. U.S. Department of Defense, Department of Defense Trusted Computer System Evaluation Criteria, December 1985.

Security Certification for PIN Entry Devices

2004-08-17T10:17:00.000-04:00

Having been inconvenienced by card skimming, I found this Register article on Visa's PIN entry device certification program very interesting.

My complaint to Toyota, Part 3

2004-08-05T23:46:00.000-04:00

So, having given up on Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. (that's the American affiliate, I gather), I turned to Toyota Canada, Inc., even though no vehicle purchase was involved:

Hi,

I'm trying to submit a complaint to Toyota Worldwide [the parent company, also referred to as Toyota Motor Corporation later on --John], but there doesn't seem to be any means of doing this through the toyota.co.jp Web site.

I filed it with toyota.com and got the following response:

Response (Michael) 08/04/2004 07:59 AM
Thank you for contacting Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc.

We apologize, Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. only handles inquiries for vehicles sold in the United States and manufactured to U.S. specifications. Please contact Toyota Canada, Inc. for further assistance with your inquiry.

--

My original complaint [posted earlier --John] follows. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated.

Toyota Canada, Inc. quickly responded:

Dear Mr. Jarvis,

Thank you for your recent correspondence.

We have noted your comments regarding the advertisement and have forwarded them to the appropriate departments within Toyota Canada Inc. for information purposes.

Thank you again for taking the time to write and for providing us with your feedback.

Sincerely,

Christine James
Toyota Canada Inc.

This left me puzzled... especially the information purposes part:

Thanks for the quick response, Christine. I am a little puzzled, however. First, I'd asked two questions at the end of my comments, so they weren't simply intended to inform. Second, am I to understand that Toyota Canada, Inc. was responsible for the production of the advertisement in question? I'd assumed it was produced by Toyota Motor Corporation for an international audience (dubbed in various languages, as appropriate). [I've since realized that the commercial is silent, greatly simplifying this job. --John]

If this is indeed the case, I would appreciate your help in forwarding my comments to Toyota Motor Corporation.

Cheers,

John

Their response was priceless:

Thank you for your recent correspondence.

We have noted your further comments. As well, we would like to take this opportunity to explain that Toyota Canada Inc. and Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A. (TMS) are separate business entities, as such, we suggest contacting TMS's Customer Relations directly for comment at the following:

TMS
Customer Relations
19001 South Western Ave
Torrance CA USA
90509-2991
Phone: (800) 331-4331
Fax: (310) 618-7814

We would also like to mention that TMS can be contacted through their website - www.toyota.com - select 'Contact Us' at the bottom of the main page, next select the 'FAQ page' link. You may have to create an account with TMS.

Thank you again for taking the time to write.

Sincerely,

James Mcwade
Toyota Canada Inc.

That's right, folks: that smacking sound is me being batted back and forth between the American and Canadian arms of Toyota. :-) There's more to come, though; I'm not giving up yet.

My complaint to Toyota, Part 2

2004-08-04T19:16:00.000-04:00

Well, Toyota responded this morning:

Response (Michael) 08/04/2004 07:59 AM

Thank you for contacting Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc.

We apologize, Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. only handles inquiries for vehicles sold in the United States and manufactured to U.S. specifications. Please contact Toyota Canada, Inc. for further assistance with your inquiry.

Toyota Canada, Inc.
1 Toyota Place
Scarborough, ON
Canada M1H 1H9
888-869-6828

If we can be of further assistance, please feel free to contact us.

Toyota Customer Experience

An invitation to complete a customer survey followed this message. I responded to the questions about their Web site and customer service as follows:

I don't feel it's proper to expect people to create an account before they can submit questions or comments to your company. Someone (or some group) should be monitoring a feedback@toyota.com address. I felt my comments were important enough to warrant registering with your Web site; I doubt many others would bother.

As for the response I received, I was simply sluffed off to the Toyota Canada based on my location; it's obvious that the person didn't even read my complaint, since it had nothing to do with a vehicle I'd purchased (their excuse for the rebound). If anything, my complaint should've been forwarded on (by them, not me) to the appropriate department of Toyota Worldwide.

Up next: Part 3: Toyota Canada, Inc.

My complaint to Toyota

2004-08-03T23:57:00.000-04:00

I saw your "splitting" Matrix ad (the one where the cars part and merge like drops of water) in the movie theatre again tonight, and, since it still offended me, I decided to write.

Specifically, I complaining about the way it opens, with the Matrix driving straight at the meridian before the tunnel. First of all, the fact that it's the first image that we're presented with tends to drill it into our minds for the length of the ad (and beyond), but, even worse in my mind, is it's being completely unnecessary; there are many other ways to introduce this idea of splitting that aren't nearly so evocative.

Just on the off chance that you have no idea what that image of driving into a meridian evokes, it is almost the exact image that was presented to the world following the death of Princess Diana in the summer of 1997. I asked two other people - keep in my mind that it's only my second time seeing the ad - about the first thought that entered their heads after seeing the image, and they both responded with Diana's death. I'm confident that more asking would elicit similar responses.

Normally, I'm all for freedom of expression in art - it's what kept me from writing this complaint after my first viewing - however, I really feel that this ad constitutes a gratuitous use of that particular image, both in its placement (i.e., at the beginning of the ad) and its relevance (i.e., it's really not referenced again; cars split and merge without any catalyst, if you will, throughout the rest of the ad).

Now, I'm not suggesting that you pull the ad - again, I'm a firm believer in letting others decide for themselves what they deem to be offensive - but I am interested in knowing whether you were aware of the striking similarities between your footage of the tunnel meridian and the shots of the wreckage where Princess Diana and Dodi Fayed died, and if so, why you decided to include them.

Thanks,

John Jarvis

On protection from unreasonable searches and racial profiling...

2004-07-23T23:13:00.000-04:00

My buddy's thoughts on Phillip Henry Mann's acquittal got me started... :-)

First, I don't agree that the story begs the question: should a criminal have a reasonable expectation of privacy? If the police have reasonable grounds for suspecting that someone's a criminal, then they can take that person downtown for questioning. So, yes, if they have reasonable grounds for suspecting someone's trafficking drugs, by all means, stop the guy and bring him downtown for questioning. The key point in this story is that after the initial pat down and questioning (which I completely agree with; I don't want to see a cop wounded or killed by some scared kid any more than the next guy), they got the guy to empty his pockets because they were curious about the soft object they'd felt (as I read it). If they were surprised by what it was (i.e., they didn't suspect they'd find it when they approached the individual), and they'd convinced themselves that they weren't in any danger prior to asking to see the contents of the pocket, then there's no reasonable grounds for the search.

See, as with any aspect of the law, you've gotta go out to the boundary cases... Those improbable, and often really scary, situations. In this case, yeah, you know, I'm not saying it'd be the end of democracy as we know it if this guy lost his weed, paid a fine, etc. But what about the 911: The Road to Tyranny footage of the woman being pulled over and eventually charged with obstruction of justice? For those who haven't seen that excellent documentary, think of ticket quotas or cop surliness taken to an unreasonable extreme. Legislation is our only protection against these, thankfully rare, sorts of abuse.

Now, on racial profiling, I'll just tackle a few of its many facets. First and foremost, one should always be mindful of the biases and mind-sets of the people involved; the concept of racial profiling should never be separated from the people involved in the real-world situation, because their biases will have a huge impact on how the concept is applied. For example, if it's obviously a crutch propping up sloppy work, then we, as a society, have a problem.

But, for the sake of argument, let's say that, from a counterterrorism standpoint, some degree of racial profiling makes sense strategically (as in your example of al-Qaida). That is, it makes sense to look for people of a specific ethnicity in the search for the rest of that particular terrorist group. Now, how that appropriateness is applied tactically, in certain American and Canadian cities, for example, is another kettle of fish entirely. We must compare them very carefully (as I mentioned), keeping in mind the freedoms that we enjoy and the concept of being innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

It's scary stuff, man. If you're on the right side of the law today, then, yeah, sure, pull over, let them search your car, your home, your pockets; you've got nothin' to hide. But, s**t, look out if you happen to be on the wrong side of things tomorrow.

On wanting to believe versus believing...

2004-07-16T21:23:00.000-04:00

I was doing my part to make Slashdot a better place, metamoderating away, when I came to a comment on Pascal's Wager: an argument for believing in God, basically. Well, in reading the context of the comment, I came to a reply by Dunbar the Inept that echoed my thoughts on belief.

My religious experiences didn't touch on this wager, or any other argument for believing or not. It's as if it was assumed that I believed because I was in Sunday school, because I was confirmed (O.K., maybe there was an argument for the assumption in that case) and because I read some of the Bible, when, in fact, I was conflicted.

And these experiences aren't limited to my United Church of Christ days: as I briefly discussed last month, I quickly became discouraged as I read the Qur'an, with its strong language against anyone who doesn't hold belief in their heart. What's amusing is that, were I able to flick belief on like a switch, I would be insane (as Dunbar pointed out).

On kids and the Web...

2004-07-12T22:18:00.000-04:00

HaloScan's basic account restricts comments on the owner's site to 1000 characters. Who knew I'd have so much to say on this post by Deirdre?

Brian captured my thoughts on the first point; security through obscurity shouldn't be your only line of defense.

On the second point, I'll bite. From the MacCentral article on the ruling:

If the law hadn't been challenged, a workable solution would now be in place... Parents wouldn't be afraid to leave their kids alone in the room with the computer on.

I disagree. If I were a parent - and I'm not, so, yes, take that into account - I wouldn't be relying on legislation or technology to assuage my fears about what's going on behind closed doors.

Depending on the age and maturity of the child, I would rely on either supervised Web time only, or my child's judgment and our open relationship. Gone are the days of unsupervised research with the children's encyclopedia or Britannica. If my kid needed to do research on tadpoles, filtering software (even the ICRA functionality in Internet Explorer seems to work well, although it requires some work on the Web site author's part) plus my supervision would be the only way to go. As they got older, some unsupervised time could be introduced... It comes down to being my responsibility.

Having the government determine what the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find obscene scares me, to be honest. We're talking about getting rid of the artistic merit defense up here in Canada too, and I just keep thinking that, yes, it sounds reasonable in many, even most, scenarios that proponents bring up. But what about the cases at the extremes of the spectrum? What about the filmmaker who shies away from the story that needs to be told for fear of going to jail?

Tread lightly, people. We have to live with these decisions.

Card Skimming

2004-07-12T20:32:00.000-04:00

My bank disabled my banking card over the weekend; apparently, I used it at a location that's under investigation for card skimming. When I first got the call Sunday morning, I thought I'd pegged the compromised automated banking machine, but today the teller told me it could've been any location - including stores - I'd banked at in the last month. (They don't give out the location to avoid compromising the investigation.)

Now, one scheme I've heard of reads the information off the magnetic stripe on your banking card while a camera in the pamphlet holder records you entering your PIN. I learned today that a common scheme ignores the PIN, making a copy of your card and forcing a reset of the PIN with a master PIN, using the same machine you use to change your PIN at your branch. Schneier would love it! Foiled again by a global secret (in all card writers, in this case).

The good news is that so long as I notify the bank within 24 hours of learning my banking card has been lost or stolen, I'm not liable for any of the subsequent charges. Same goes for the scenario where the bank informs me of the compromise, obviously (which is why I still suspect that it was that ABM I used on Friday; the bank disabled the card right away because they knew they'd be footing any bill the skimmers or their friends racked up). Now, this all assumes that I haven't contributed to the compromise (e.g., helpfully writing my PIN on a Post-it stuck to my card, giving my card and PIN to my long-lost Uncle Bob so he can buy some smokes); should the bank be able to prove otherwise, I could be liable for even more than my account balance!

On Shapiro's Understanding the Windows EAL4 Evaluation...

2004-07-10T16:30:00.000-04:00

I should've done this a long time ago. It seems like every time a Common Criteria (CC) story hits Slashdot, some would-be expert hyperlinks to Jonathan S. Shapiro's Understanding the Windows EAL4 Evaluation, like it's the CC's Brutus. However, as often happens in discussions involving the CC, people misunderstand (and often overstate) what the CC and an EAL say about the security a product provides.

How the Common Criteria Really Works

While Shapiro gets the general idea, you should understand that the Protection Profile (PP) hasn't caught on like most of the those involved in the project probably expected. It's optional, first of all, and requires a lot of time and effort from groups who are independent of the security product companies (e.g., consumer rights groups) to work. There are exceptions (e.g., the Smart Card Protection Profile), but, for the most part, the consumers, or their independent representatives, must define their own security needs for this step to be of some utility.

The reason is that if the consumer doesn't understand the PP - the Controlled Access Protection Profile is a good example - then they won't understand the company's security target that claims conformance to that PP, nor what the evaluation - and its associated assurance level - really means.

The Security Target (ST) is the required document that Shapiro should be referencing. It scopes the evaluation, detailing all the security requirements the product satisfies, how it satisfies them, and what assurance the consumer should have that they really are satisfied (that's the evaluation assurance level or EAL). The ST can get those security requirements from one or more PPs, but that isn't required, or, like I said, what normally happens.

Now, that all changed to some degree in January 2000, when what's now the U.S. Committee on National Security Systems issued the National Security Telecommunications and Information Systems Security Policy No. 11 (or NSTISSP #11), requiring that all products dealing with national security information (read anything sold to the U.S. government) be evaluated against the CC. Oh, and here's a bunch of PPs that you can conform to.

So, just because a lot of companies - like Microsoft - chose to conform to those PPs doesn't mean it's the only route; it doesn't even mean it's the best route. It all depends on what you, the consumer, are looking for. Concerned about what access control mechanisms are in your operating system? Well, pick up the ST (available at the CC Web site), flip to the security functional requirements section and see what it claims from the Access Control Policy family (i.e., FDP_ACC; you can find your whole shopping list in the second part of the CC).

But Shapiro's bang on when he says that the EAL, the PP (if there is one) and the ST don't mean diddly-squat if you haven't made sure that your shopping list is covered off.

The Controlled Access Protection Profile

Shapiro is correct in saying that the requirements in the Controlled Access Protection Profile (CAPP) aren't enough to protect an Internet-connected system; but who said they were? No one. (At least I hope Microsoft didn't say that.) To quote the Common Criteria Evaluation and Validation Scheme Web site:

The CAPP was derived from the requirements of the C2 class of the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) Trusted Computer System Evaluation Criteria (TCSEC), dated December, 1985...

1985, people! And, I would argue, it wasn't that the CAPP was the most complete validated PP. Shapiro's right when he implies that Microsoft couldn't hope to satisfy other "ported" set of requirements: the Labelled Security Protection Profile or B1 replacement; and it's those very mandatory access requirements that we need on the Internet. This is where Shapiro's going when he talks about EROS (SELinux is another example), and how it won't work well with the ubiquitous discretionary access operating systems of today.

Evaluation Assurance Level 4

To quote the Common Methodology for Information Technology Security Evaluation (i.e., the CEM: the document that states how to conduct CC evaluations at the various EALs):

EAL4 provides a moderate to high level of assurance. The security functions are analysed using a functional specification, guidance documentation, the high-level and low-level design of the TOE, and a subset of the implementation to understand the security behaviour...

Shapiro compares this analysis to an audit of a company's business practices. The CEM is not ISO 9001; it demands, among other things, that the product's design be sound. For example, to quote the high-level design content element ADV_HLD.2.3C:

The evaluator should make an assessment as to the appropriateness of the number of subsystems presented by the developer, and also of the choice of grouping of functions within subsystems. The evaluator should ensure that the decomposition of the [Target of Evaluation's (i.e., the product) Security Functions or TSF] into subsystems is sufficient for the evaluator to gain a high-level understanding of how the functionality of the TSF is provided.

Shapiro states that "essentially none of the code is inspected," and that such an examination isn't even required at EAL4. This is false. Notice the last input to the analysis quoted above: a subset of the implementation (i.e., some of the code). The size of this subset is left to the evaluator, with the understanding that if concerns arise while examining the initial sample, sampling should continue until the evaluator is confident in the product's ability to provide its stated security functions. To quote the implementation representation content element ADV_IMP.1.1C:

Other factors that might influence the determination of the subset include:
the complexity of the design (if the design complexity varies across the [Target of Evaluation or TOE], the subset should include some portions with high complexity);

the results of other design analysis sub-activities (such as work units related to the low-level or high-level design) that might indicate portions of the TOE in which there is a potential for ambiguity in the design; and

the evaluator’s judgement as to portions of the implementation representation that might be useful for the evaluator’s independent vulnerability analysis (sub-activity AVA_VLA.2).

To continue the CEM quote on EAL4:

... The analysis is supported by independent testing of a subset of the TOE security functions, evidence of developer testing based on the functional specification and the high level design, selective confirmation of the developer test results, analysis of strengths of the functions, evidence of a developer search for vulnerabilities, and an independent vulnerability analysis demonstrating resistance to low attack potential penetration attackers. Further assurance is gained through the use of an informal model of the TOE security policy and through the use of development environment controls, automated TOE configuration management, and evidence of secure delivery procedures.

I'm not sure what Shapiro means by "no quantifiable measurements... of the software." No lines-of-code measurement? Something related to the number of system calls? While these properties certainly affect the keep-it-simple principle of security, I don't know that there are specific thresholds we could use in evaluating security products. (Well, beyond the extremes: I'm thinking of Schneier's Secrets & Lies... an estimated 60 million LOC in Windows 2000, over 3000 system calls in Windows NT 4.0!)

Certainly the CEM isn't that prescriptive. Things like the number of subsystems in the product's high-level design are left to the evaluator's judgment. Is the developer's choice of subsystems useful in understanding the product’s intended operation? Well then, whatever the number, it's served its purpose.

However, I do not believe, as Shapiro states, that an EAL4 evaluation "says absolutely nothing about the quality of the software itself;" in my opinion, the associated analysis is qualitative. I've mentioned the design requirements, but there's also ensuring that the developer has tested to that design, there's a verification of that testing and additional independent testing... And this is focused on the security functions claimed in the ST, remember. This evaluation says nothing about those functions that aren't security related. (Since they're where the money is, it's a safe bet that the developer's tested them.)

Documents related to the software development process are evaluated (e.g., configuration management and delivery), but the processes themselves are verified during a development site visit. And the quality of these processes is just as important as the quality of the software itself. If you can't guarantee that the evaluated software is what the customer is actually installing, what have you achieved?

Conclusion

Well, if you've made it this far, all I'm saying is that the CC is a tool; you, the consumer, can use it to specify your security needs (i.e., in a PP), and you, the developer, can use it to specify what your product secures and how (i.e., in an ST). That people compare products solely based on the EALs they were evaluated at is not the fault of the framework (use the STs, Luke!). Similarly, the levels themselves give the developer (or their sponsor) a choice in the amount of time and money they want to commit to the enterprise. How much assurance are your customers looking for? Do they simply want to know that the guidance documents you supply with the product will actually help them get it to a secure state (e.g., EAL1)? Or do they want to know that you've tested every single security function identified in your functional specification (e.g., EAL3)?

Having said all that, I would love to see a mandatory access operating system like SELinux go through a CC evaluation. If we could get that kind of security in the U.S. government, maybe, just maybe, it would get enough momentum to spill out into the U.S. population. And then? Oh, then the world, baby! :-)

Toward Choice

2004-06-26T12:48:00.000-04:00

Well, the 38th General Election is almost upon us. I've decided how I will vote, and I've decided to reveal my decision here: I'll be voting for my Green Party candidate on Monday.

So, first, why Green? I heard about - and, just recently, read about - the political campaign financing reforms that set an annual public subsidy of $1.75 per vote for parties that win over two per cent of the popular vote. I've read that the Green Party has the support of about six percent of the voting public, so I'm reasonably confident that my vote will throw another $1.75 in the Green pot for next year.

So what, you say? Well, Green Party leader Jim Harris still has a day job. With a big enough pot, he could spend more of his time thinking about, and soliciting opinions on, the country's problems. (I don't think he'll drop the day job, since he's an author as well as a management consultant.)

Too often, Canadian politics is simplified to the resources available (read money). Oh, you have a problem? How much money do you need? Well, that'll force cutbacks elsewhere. I think the voters assume that solutions (but not money) grow on trees, and that with enough resources, we could solve all of Canada's problems. The fact is that we've thrown a lot of money at some problems for years, and they're still staring us in the face.

I've heard - CBC Radio One in the morning and evening is where I get most of my information, BTW - that the Green Party approach is frugal - fiscally conservative seems to be the vernacular - and thoughtful. That is, questioning the solutions that people take for granted, and trying to generate new ideas and discussions around them. This is obviously elusive, and it remains to be seen how it would work in practice, but I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt today.

So, finally, why reveal all this to the world? Well, to be honest, I still have a lot to learn about our political system and the problems that our "open society" is up against. (Dare I say I'm green?) :-) If you see flaws in my logic, have relevant information I'm not considering, or just want to share your point of view, add your comments at the end of this entry. (That goes for any entry, BTW, although I only just set up commenting this month. E-mail me about older entries; I'll probably create an new one based on your comment.)

The Fruits of the Immoral

2004-06-13T17:06:00.000-04:00

The creators of The WB's Superstar USA were obviously part of the popular crowd growing up; either that, or they're acting out a perverted cycle of abuse. This show is as cruel and immoral as the school-yard to high-school game of letting the pariah hang out with the popular crowd to protract said loner's humiliation when their true status is finally revealed. It is heartless, and runs diametric to the spirit of the golden rule.

Close to a month ago, CBC's Ontario Today ran a phone-in on raising moral children. Unfortunately, I couldn't listen to the whole program - having to work in the afternoon 'n' all :-) - but what I heard got me thinking. What are the consequences of raising children who don't question why Sally is never invited to any birthday parties, or why Paul gets the snot beaten out of him every school day at 3:00 p.m.? What happens when the movers and shakers believe that that's life, and that those who are affected should suck it up and watch their backs so they're on the winning side next time?

Today, I think the answer is that shows like Superstar USA are produced, promoted and watched by millions of people. Is this a big deal? Not really, but I think it's a sign of things to come. One can only hope that the people behind the scenes don't see how this message feeds the fear of humiliation, putting the preservation of one's status - and one's self, ultimately - above all other considerations. The consequences of this are truly horrific when these people are asked to act morally, when many other lives hang in the balance. What will be going through their heads? Which outcome makes them look the best? It's scary... really scary.

The perfectly-legal, all-seeing eye

2004-06-11T20:09:00.000-04:00

"We're at war," [Dennis R. Schrader, director of homeland security for Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr.,] said.

This blanket justification for building a regional, closed-circuit, video surveillance system in Baltimore raised my blogging brow, but it was Schrader's flawed logic that pushed me over the edge:

Cameras will only observe and record that which a police officer or private citizen could legally see.

Each camera will only observe and record what could be legally seen! The aggregate of every camera's observation is something that no one could physically see, and it is such a limitation that is taken into account when laws are written. Remove this limitation, and we can no longer talk about what is legal or illegal until the effected laws have been revisited.

This is one of the few things that's scarier than the huge databases of information being compiled these days: decision-makers who are oblivious to the power of data. (What else is scarier? Corporations owning these databases, but that's another entry.) What may seem innocuous to one person (e.g., seeing Joe walk out of some apartment complex), may be a critical piece in someone else's puzzle: the final correlation in a list of evidence that means Joe's screwin' around, or he's an alcoholic, or a homosexual, or suffering from Parkinson's disease... The list is endless, as is the list of what people could do with that information, including nothing. The point is, it's out of Joe's hands. His privacy is in jeopardy.

:-)

2004-06-04T21:03:00.000-04:00

Canadian Pentecostal... Terrorists?

2004-05-27T18:50:00.000-04:00

I wish I could find the sound bite I heard on CBC this morning; I don't know if it was the same FBI agent (Ahearn), but someone from the FBI said something like, This sort of thing reflects the climate change since September 11, 2001. Yes, absolutely. The Western hemisphere will never be the same. Then he went on to say, "... and people need to watch what they say around these security measures." Uh... What?

This kind of thinking starts us down a very slippery slope; the problem is that the public buys it wholesale, feeding the fear that words and thoughts are dangerous, regardless of their context. I'm not saying that the FBI were wrong to investigate this complaint; all I'm saying is that this was their opportunity to put things in perspective, say that it's good to be vigilant, but we must also be rational. In what context were the words spoken? Are you responding to other indicators? What are they? The right to speak one's mind is so fragile in the face of all this fear.

This snowball of public opinion has another cost: no one questions the security trade-off - security is always a trade-off (to quote Schneier). In this case, we're trading the right to speak about a broad range of ideas for what? Security theatre (another Schneier phrase). It's irresponsible to let people believe that they're safer when they don't hear about terrorist acts, or bombs, when we're on the bus, in line at Wendy's, or on an airplane.

Yes, be vigilant (because, no, Pollyanna, the whole world isn't in love with Canada), but don't start looking for the gestapo every time someone says "bomb" or "anthrax."

May 27, 8:45 AM EDT

Plane Turned Around After 9/11 Discussion

BUFFALO, N.Y. (AP) -- A plane was turned around on the runway and returned to the gate after three men were overheard praying and discussing the Sept. 11 terror attacks.

The men - two ministers from Toronto and one of their cousins from the United States - were on a Continental flight Wednesday headed to Newark, N.J.

The pilot taxied back to Buffalo-Niagara International Airport, where members of the joint terrorism task force in Buffalo interviewed the men and fellow passengers.

The ministers were identified as the Rev. Komal Singh and the Rev. Yohan Heenatigala. The third man was not identified.

Singh was on his way to an evangelical crusade in Baltimore when he told another passenger that the passenger's last breath on Earth would be his first breath in heaven if he became a born-again Christian.

"My first reaction was someone was just talking and someone got nervous and that's exactly what it turned out to be, but it has to be checked out," said Peter Ahearn, FBI special agent in charge.

The men were released and the flight took off.

Copyright: 2004 Associated Press
Publication: AP Custom News

Personal Use: You may make a single copy of any portion of the content, or use this content online, solely for your personal, non-commercial use, provided you do not remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from such content.

The responsibility of artists

2004-03-31T20:00:00.000-05:00

Today, the Independent Filmmakers Cooperative of Ottawa (IFCO) denied Ken Takahashi's grant application for his film Last Night with Jesse. The grounds for this verdict - fear of the film's running afoul of proposed law Bill C-12 and its lack of an artistic merit defence - while troubling, are not the subject of this entry.

What concerns me is City Councillor Jan Harder's position on the matter. Her self-proclaimed threat to pull the city's contribution to arts funding (about one third of the total amount) was particularly distasteful, and unprofessional. (Unfortunately, I heard the sound bite on CBC Radio One, and haven't been able to find it in print.)

Takahashi's position echoes my thoughts on the role of artists:

I think it's important for artists to push the envelope, to challenge the status quo. And the city council getting involved and dictating what forms of art should be concentrated on - I think that's a bad thing to do and a dangerous precedent. If art is going to be dictated by the government, then we've lost an important voice, and I'm very concerned about that.

I feel strongly that challenging the status quo - with or without taxpayer dollars - is key to preserving the liberties that make this country great, in much the same way as Sherman Kent urged intelligence analysts to avoid analytic or cognitive biases:

[Kent] urged special caution when a whole team of analysts immediately agrees on an interpretation of yesterday’s development or a prediction about tomorrow’s. Especially regarding Vietnam, he also cautioned against a “been-to” bias; field exposure can be valuable, but a quick trip doesn’t necessarily provide revealed truths. One path he recommended for coping with cognitive bias was to make working assumptions explicit and to challenge them vigorously.

Just the fact that there's such an outcry against this film should give us pause. Will it send the message that aberrant sexual behaviour against children is acceptable as Ottawa resident A. Charles King suggests? The film is in pre-production, folks! It isn't saying anything yet!

In forcing us to reconsider our knee-jerk reactions, artists have a big responsibility. By acknowledging the importance of this role - in the form of arts funding - citizens are really "electing" artists and their approving bodies, trusting in their judgment. By insisting that city council have a say in how arts funding is granted, Jan Harder is implying that she too is an artist who knows how the status quo must be challenged (and how it must not, in this case). I don't know about you, but the films that really challenged what I thought I knew often horrified me, certainly coming out of left field. Would you trust the average joe on the street to judge the merits of that sort of art as it sits in the mind of an artist, an unrealized vision?

It reminds me of Former Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau's thoughts on democracy:

Nor do I believe that elected representatives should abdicate their responsibility by being nothing but the mouthpieces for their constituencies. In its extreme form this ceases to be representative democracy and becomes direct democracy. Though it may look more democratic, it's really tantamount to saying that policies and laws must be decided by the people themselves... It's a misunderstanding of parliamentary democracy, and it cannot be made to work in large societies, because small groups meeting to deal with very important problems from their regional or local point of view cannot have in mind the legalistic, administrative, constitutional functions of government that are the fabric society must have to function in an orderly way.

Similarly, I feel that Jan Harder's, or any other city councillor's, point of view inappropriately biases her judgment of how the status quo should be challenged. To a lesser extent, I feel the same way about the IFCO, which is why I'm glad that their denial was based on legal grounds. (Whether that law is right and just is another, equally important, matter.) This responsibility rests with the artists, in my mind, and it is the grandeur of their calling.

Netiquette Guidelines

2004-03-21T19:31:00.000-05:00

Request For Comments: 1855 - Netiquette Guidelines was published in 1995, but it is still very relevant today. Granted, many Internet users are paying a flat rate for their bandwidth these days - taking some of the sting out of the argument that quoting whole messages costs your recipients, for example - but goodness knows a thought to brevity wouldn't hurt Internet traffic levels.

I got to thinking about this RFC after I received what I considered to be a rude e-mail at work. The subject was in uppercase, and there was no salutation or complimentary closing. Worse still, it included the question: how did you figure that one?

Now, the tone of that question makes all the difference in the world. Friends, or even acquaintances, could admonish one another easily by putting a teasing spin on it; that spin would force a leap of faith between strangers, but it could still fly, depending on the personalities involved. But take the facial expressions and tone out of the equation, and it will fall hard 9 times out of 10, in my opinion.

I had never met the woman who sent this e-mail. (I'd also done nothing wrong - she had made an incorrect assumption - but that's beside the point.) My response directed her to the proper person, but I'm wondering if I should follow it with a copy of Netiquette Guidelines... Seems like I'd be violating some other etiquette though, and that would defeat the purpose of the whole exchange, no?

Muhammet Kalem and me

2004-02-08T12:51:00.001-05:00

This is a picture of a street corner in Konya, Turkey; the city where the 11-storey apartment building (according to the CBC; Reuters has it as a 10-storey building) collapsed on February 2, 2004.

Muhammet Kalem was pulled from the wreckage today, having indicated his position to rescuers by moving a piece of plastic tubing. As I look at pictures of Konya, I'm stunned by how much it resembles many Canadian cities. I lived in four apartment buildings over a six-year span of my life, and not once did I doubt, or even consider, their structural integrity. Strict building codes are yet another luxury I enjoy without thought.

I understand that Muhammet's father (who had gone out earlier and avoided the collapse) had already arranged his burial plot. What mixed emotions he must be dealing with today: his son alive beyond all hope, his wife (and second child?) still missing.

2004-01-21T16:05:00.000-05:00

Still on the subject of trademark infringement, HaidaBucks legal battle ended well last summer. (I like that name a lot, actually.) It looks like Mike Rowe's will also. Here's to the power of public opinion!

Uzi Nissan's Plight

2004-01-20T21:34:00.000-05:00

I was reading about Mike Rowe's recent run-in with Microsoft when I found comments comparing it to Uzi Nissan's problems. Up until then, I'd been unaware of Mr. Nissan's legal battle with Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. The car maker has been trying to wrest the nissan.com domain name from Mr. Nissan since 1999, despite his every right to it. Unbelievably, as it stands right now, Mr. Nissan still owns the domain name and nissan.net (what used to be the home of his Internet service company), but he can't use them for commercial purposes. Talk about stripping ownership of its value! Now that his appeal has been rejected, he waits. What I can't believe is that the judge ruled that Mr. Nissan's critique of this lawsuit on ncchelp.org proved the actual dilution of the Nissan Motors trademark, as required by the Federal Trademark Dilution Act. I sure hope this ruling is sent back for review. The man has a right to express his opinion!

The US-VISIT Program

2004-01-16T10:58:00.000-05:00

Bruce Schneier wrote a great piece on the US-VISIT program for the current Crypto-Gram. My first thought, upon reading about the program on Slashdot about a week ago, was: where does Canada fit in it? This came up in answering one of the frequently asked US-VISIT questions on the U.S. Department of Homeland Security Web site: while Canada is not part of the U.S. Visa Waiver Program, existing agreements with the U.S. exempt most Canadians from having to submit their biometric data. Of course, this can change based on national need.

My second thought was retention. It's easy to collect data, but keeping track of what you've collected, throwing it out when you're done with it, that's tougher. To their credit, the U.S. DHS conducted a privacy impact assessment on the US-VISIT program that addressed many of the fair information practices, including limited collection, accuracy and individual access:

There is also some duplication in the types of data collected by each system. These inconsistencies and duplication result in some heightened degree of risk with respect to integrity/security of the data, and to access and redress principles, because personal information could persist on one or more component systems beyond its period of use or disappear from one or more component systems while still in use. These risks are mitigated, however, by having a Privacy Officer for US-VISIT to handle specific issues that may arise, by providing review of the Privacy Officer’s decision by the DHS Chief Privacy Officer, and, to the extent permitted by existing law, regulations, and policy, by allowing covered individuals access to their information and permitting them to challenge its completeness. Additionally, as an overarching mechanism to ensure appropriate privacy protections, US-VISIT operators will conduct periodic strategic reviews of the data to ensure that what is collected is limited to that which is necessary for US-VISIT purposes.

What's interesting is that this quote is taken from the section entitled Retention and Destruction. At no point does it discuss the destruction or deletion of the biometric data. And, again, it's easy to keep data around just in case. The scary part is, though, when new systems are being developed and those involved are looking for ways to save money, to avoid reinventing the wheel, these piles of data are pretty enticing. What happens if I'm separated from my biometric data? Oh, that's John because he sent us this biometric data electronically, and look! It matches. No, actually it's just the person who has access to that data; it's been sitting on this decommissioned kiosk for the last two years, but hey, no worries, because you know what? John's fingerprints don't change a whole heck of a lot.

Yes, I know most sensible systems will only use stored biometric data in comparisons with what they get from me, right there, but convenience, assumptions, time constraints... System designers, project managers... They make mistakes. I'd just prefer that my data trail wasn't there, ready to be mucked with.

Overcome With Expression

2004-01-15T20:21:00.000-05:00

I am shy. I'm more outspoken than I was 10 years ago, but, on the introvert-extrovert spectrum, I'm still an innie. Those moments when I feel the need (or see the opportunity) to express myself are rare. However, when they come, I experience some strange physiological changes: my skin starts tingling, and my extremities start to sweat and cool. If it takes me a few minutes to write my thoughts down, or speak them, or even complete some sort of public test (of skill or strength) - the key is expressing myself to others - I'll become so cold that I'll start to shake. This can be really annoying, if, for example, the test is a multiplayer game of Halo: sweating all over my keyboard while shaking my mouse makes it tough to shoot the enemy.

Am I alone? Again, it's an excitement, as opposed to an anxiety. Believe me, I know the difference. In Grade 9, I had to speak on my favourite song for a few minutes in front my (English? Social Studies?) class; by the end, I was getting one or two words out between gasps, seconds from hyperventilating. That was anxiety, and my public speaking is much improved today, I'm happy to say. But this excitement is still distracting. Sometimes I shake so badly that I can't type. And my wife loves it when I hug her with my corpse-like hands. :-)

New Year Blogs

2004-01-02T14:22:00.000-05:00

Lately, I've gotten in the habit of reading a few of the fresh blogs to the left of the home page after I log out of Blogger. Of course, it's the interesting names that catch my eye (and yes, I'm aware that mine doesn't qualify... It's placeholder for my portfolio when I start writing seriously). I've heard some statistics on this, but I'm still surprised by the number of blogs with less than a dozen entries. Today, many are New Year blogs.

I'm sure to read something about this is the coming weeks, just like I read about (and deal with) the spike in gym membership every New Year. And I'm sure the coming months will see a similar trickle of abandonment as motivation dwindles. But blogs are different than gyms: they're only a few keystrokes away for most of the Internet community. No getting up early nor putting off supper for an hour nor spending the best parts of your evening going to and from (depending on your gym routine). So why do people stop blogging?

One answer is: they run out of things to talk about; and that's a good one. I, for one, don't want to read filler. But I would guess that people are always thinking about something. See, I got around this by starting another blog of limited scope: what I'm watching. I wasn't always thinking about things worth blogging about here, but I was watching lots of movies and a bit of TV. And as the credits were rolling on these shows, thoughts were always bouncing around in my head. Now I've just forced myself to sit down and type those thoughts out, in much the same way that many successful writers live, as I understand it. I guess I'm hoping that this limited exercise won't be so limited one day.

So, if everyone has thoughts bouncing around in their heads, the obstacle may be the process of typing them out. Without these aspirations, would I bother sitting down and typing as often as I do? History has shown the answer to be no, despite the fact that I enjoy it once I've started. And then there's another possibility, one that equally applies to me: the fear of looking stupid. Yes, John, I have a thought every few seconds, but none of 'em are particularly intelligent. I have religiously followed that Better to be thought a fool advice my whole life, and I suspect I'm not alone.

And yet, with all these obstacles, one in seven (or so) of the fresh blogs I stumble upon has been going strong for at least a year, sometimes two. I want to be able to say the same of at least one of mine.

About the new layout...

2004-01-02T10:46:00.000-05:00

Hopefully this recommendation doesn't violate the terms of this service: until Pyra Labs (Google now, I guess) brings back their upgrade plans, I recommend using the Mozilla Firebird browser. I only recently realized that this layout doesn't work well with the advertisements, and Mozilla Firebird can block them. Yes, I realize this service wouldn't be free for very long if everyone took me up on this, but I will be putting my money where my mouth is as soon as possible (and feel free to call me out if the ad-free plan is offered again and you're still seeing the ads).

2003-12-22T15:52:00.000-05:00

Well, a little over a week ago the Copyright Board of Canada decided to freeze existing private copying levies at their current levels. In addition, they introduced new private copying levies on the non-removable memory in devices like MP3 players.

I think everyone realizes that these levies are a compromise. There's no silver bullet with "music piracy" engraved on it. And with that in mind, I was happy with the board's decision. By distinguishing between CD-Rs and those bizarre audio CD-Rs - to the tune of 51¢ per disc - they are acknowledging that people do use CD-Rs for legitimate purposes. Denying the Canadian Private Copying Collective's request to establish a levy on removable memory cards is another good example of how the board recognized the utility of these technologies. Again, the decision isn't perfect: apparently there are different minidisc formats, for example, some of which can store any type of data. It isn't clear whether this was considered in the decision to charge a 72¢ levy on all minidiscs. In all fairness, it sounds like few people are using data minidiscs.

2003-12-22T12:52:00.000-05:00

In his latest Crypto-Gram, Bruce Schneier talks about the value of quantum cryptography:

I don't have any hope for this sort of [quantum-cryptographic] product. I don't have any hope for the commercialization of quantum cryptography in general; I don't believe it solves any security problem that needs solving. I don't believe that it's worth paying for, and I can't imagine anyone but a few technophiles buying and deploying it.

While I see his point, my understanding of the value of quantum cryptography - based almost solely on Simon Singh's The Code Book - is that it's yet to be seen. Secure communications that can only be broken today by an infeasible number of calculations will be broken in the time it takes to perform one such calculation in the age of quantum computing. This will be a new security problem that quantum cryptography can solve.

Update: 8:12:00 PM: Bruce responded to my message:

My point is that software and network security are so lousy that breaking communications never comes down to the calculations, feasible or otherwise. It makes no sense to put a third lock on your front door if your windows are wide open.

2003-12-19T13:54:00.000-05:00

It's a pretty amazing time we're living in. I often find myself taking it for granted; at no time is this clearer than in conversations with older generations. I'll be talking with my mom about a movie, and she'll wonder whether a particular actor was in a particular movie. Immediately I'm thinking about the Internet Movie Database, and if I'm on the portable, I'll be there in a flash, spitting out the answer with nary a second thought. This, of course, still floors my mother. She doesn't own a computer, so beyond the growing tendency of a brief punch of information, with more available - to many, but not her - on the World Wide Web, she's oblivious to the potential of the Internet.

But that's just the tip of its utility. If I hear an expression, if someone refers to a historic moment, if I have any sort of question, my knee-jerk reaction is to bring up my browser and start searching for more information. If I live to see the day of ubiquitous, wearable, Internet-connected technology, it could very well be the end of me. I can see it now:

Man Perishes on Park Bench: Forgets to Eat During Three-day Search for Atlantis

I bring all this up because I'm amazed at how much the Encyclopedia of Arda is enhancing my reading of The Lord of the Rings. I've just started Book II - the Council of Elrond is met - and I'm sure I've already spent two hours reading encyclopedia entries, following the hyperlinks through the ages of Middle-earth and lands beyond. It's truly a wonder! For example, as soon as Merry mentioned the men of Carn Dûm (in his daze after being rescued from the Barrow-wight), I looked up their entry in the encyclopedia.

In reading the book(s) for the third time, my plan is to continue through the appendices to The Silmarillion, The Book of Lost Tales and the other volumes in the history of Middle-earth. With the Encyclopedia of Arda just a few keystrokes away, I'm sure to save many hours of hunting through books for references that I can't quite remember. And since all the entries are dated, you always have an idea about which book(s) contain the original material.

2003-12-18T17:27:00.000-05:00

In Fame vs Fortune: Micropayments and Free Content, Clay Shirky references the idea of mental transaction costs, and their role in the failure of micropayment systems. While I understand his rationale, I find myself hoping that time will prove him wrong.

I know that I don't mind paying for content; I gladly coughed up some change for Scott McCloud's The Right Number, for example. I would like to think that there are other, equally-frustrated readers who would pay for the diamonds in the rough, so to speak, or even for help in finding them. Shirky claims that "the good stuff is becoming easier to find as the size of the system grows" and I find myself shaking my head. Google is an amazing tool, but it's no substitute for a good recommendation.

To use another example, I would make micropayments for issues of First Monday. I can't imagine trying to find essays of that calibre using Google, but even if I could, there are many topics that I've only developed an interest in after reading that journal. My respect for their editors makes that time investment less of a gamble. And really, this is all about using my time wisely (to quote one of my high-school teachers). I could troll the ocean of amateur blogs, or I could pay someone else to.

2003-11-28T17:08:00.000-05:00

As you may have noticed (from the bottom of this page), I'm concerned about my right to fairly use the copyrighted material I purchase. I don't see any problem with copying such material to a different medium, and possibly converting it to different format in the process, so long as it is for my personal use and convenience. (These concepts are captured in points #2 and #5 of the Consumer Technology Bill of Rights.)

Since Canadian copyright legislation has been in the media a lot lately, I took it upon myself, being the concerned citizen that I am, to learn more about it. Initially, I was surprised to discover that the Copyright Act defines the copying of a musical work embodied in a sound recording for private use in terms of the copier, not the owner. In other words, so long as you do the copying, copying music for your own use does not infringe the artist's copyright. It doesn't matter whether you own the CD, cassette tape or musical file.

However, what I couldn't figure out was whether I had fewer rights to use the copy than I did the original. Was a copy of a copy illegal? Well, the answer seems to be "Maybe." According to Neil Herber, even though the Copyright Act makes no mention of the source (i.e., whether you're copying the original sound recording or a copy of it), your original intent behind making the copy is important (i.e., you planned to loan your copy to your friends).

2003-11-25T15:30:00.000-05:00

Well, Pete Lindstrom is at it again. This time, he's quoted in a Register article on some Diebold ATMs that were infected with the Nachi worm. While not as boneheaded as his comparing virus writing and sex, this quote is still a beaut:

I think of ATMs as a relative of SCADA systems, as those things not really being on the Internet, but being on some network, says Peter Lindstrom, an analyst with Spire Security. In some ways, it's kind of ironic, that I think standardization across the board has created some of the issues.

Merriam-Webster defines irony as 3 a (1) : incongruity between the actual result of a sequence of events and the normal or expected result (2) : an event or result marked by such incongruity.

So, what exactly is incongruent about standardization causing security problems? It may not be intuitive, but, as security professionals know, it's one of the disadvantages of homogenous systems, to be balanced against their many advantages. Defense-in-depth ring a bell, Pete? If your network design calls for layered firewalls, use different products at each layer. Exploits that work against one layer will likely fail against the other.

Man, this guy is really starting to bug me.

2003-11-25T13:16:00.000-05:00

By the way, for a peek at the lighter side of my life, check out what I'm watching.