21st century vote

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"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

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

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:

1. 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);

2. 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

3. 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:

1. 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

2. 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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'

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.