The responsibility of artists

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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...

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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

The London Free Press is running a story about Ontario's Internet and telephone voting options. I'm surprised by the amount of media coverage this is getting; it's a municipal election, after all. Heck, even the Slashdot community is throwing in their two cents.

Of course, boosting voter turnout is the focus of the London Free Press article. Security and privacy requirements get a paragraph:

Church [the president of CanVote Inc.] said the system uses security measures based on world standards for financial transactions like those used in online banking or credit card transactions.

Has anyone considered the possibility that the security and privacy requirements for financial transactions may differ from those for on-line and telephone voting? Limited liability plays a big role in the security of financial transactions (in North America, anyway; I understand the U.K. is a bit different). Would it play any role in on-line voting? It isn't like a voter can point to an unbalanced cheque book at the end of the month when something goes wrong. I read about Elections Canada's interest in this system, and I find myself doubting whether these questions have been asked, let alone answered.

Federal Government House Leader Don Boudria planned to observe the system in action tonight as ballots are tallied.

"As minister responsible for the Canada Elections Act, electronic voting is of particular interest to me," Boudria said.

"Voting electronically addresses issues such as time and distance that sometimes prevent people from voting."

The fact that high on the list of reasons (if not the #1 reason) for not offering on-line voting to Ottawa voters is inaccurate voter lists does not reassure me in the least. Presumably, we'd all be receiving plain white envelopes marked Important Municipal Election Information if they could iron out that little wrinkle.

Out of curiousity, a friend of mine (one of the voters in this apparent field test of Prescott Russell, and Stormont Dundas and Glengarry) held his envelope in front of a common light bulb, easily reading his six-digit identification number and his four-digit authentication number (CanVote calls it a PIN).

This is truly scary. I thought these discussions (let alone implementations) were years off.

Over the last few days, I've been digesting the news that a limited number of Ontario voters will be able to vote over the Internet (and by telephone) in next month's municipal elections. I wrote the city, looking for more information. Here's their response:

From: suppressed [mailto:suppressed@ottawa.ca]
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2003 3:13 PM
To: John.Jarvis@suppressed
Subject: RE: Electronic Voting: The Municipal Election and CanVote

Hello

From what I have viewed on the CanVote web site it appears that only 2 municipalities in Ontario are using this process. FYI, each municipality within Ontario runs individual election processes for their own municipality. I would suggest you contact the municipal offices listed on the web site to obtain their views. The City of Ottawa is not looking at internet voting as of yet as a result of the poor quality of the voters' list received from the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation.

Elections Office

-----Original Message-----
From: John.Jarvis@suppressed [mailto:John.Jarvis@suppressed]
Sent: October 29, 2003 11:36 AM
To: elections@ottawa.ca
Subject: Electronic Voting: The Municipal Election and CanVote

Hi,

I was surprised to learn that CanVote (http://www.canvote.ca) is providing electronic voting services for the Ontario 2003 municipal elections. Granted, it doesn't look like the service is available to Ottawa voters (yet), but I find myself wondering who decided this was a good idea, and what their plans are for the rest of Ontario in the future. Is this some sort of field trial? Has Ottawa considered it?

I'm really looking for any information you can provide; you don't have to browse the CanVote Web site for long to realize that it is woefully short on information.

Thank you,

John Jarvis

A little over a week ago, Interim Privacy Commissioner Robert Marleau announced his office's decision to withdraw their charter challenge against RCMP video surveillance in Kelowna, BC. I find it interesting that their reason was the expense associated with the appeal. Could this be the first of many corners cut from their first challenge as they stampede toward meeting their second?

* To assure and demonstrate to Canadians that they will continue to receive top-level service in protecting and defending their privacy rights.
* To rebuild and regain the confidence of the Parliament of Canada, as well as our many important stakeholders across the country.
* To help organizations understand their obligations, and citizens their rights, under Canada's new private sector privacy law, which comes fully into effect on January 1, 2004.
[Privacy Commissioner of Canada's home page]

Lord knows Parliament had lots to say about former Privacy Commissioner George Radwanski's spending...

I've heard that Radwanski alienated much of the privacy community over his three (and a bit) years in office. I can't help but be cynical of these sorts of announcements, especially when they're so brief. Repairing some bridges in the west, perhaps? This doesn't bode well for the work of their office.