In my short post yesterday, Thunderf00t’s video demonstrated how easy it is for a large corporation – specifically Google, which controls how the vast majority of information on the internet is accessed – could easily collude with politicians for their own benefit…and to the detriment of us, the ‘little people’. In addition, Thunderf00t demonstrated how, through YouTube, Google had already demonstrated that they do censor (by not allowing their search engines to ‘pick it up’ and thus making it ‘virtually dissappear’) information which is critical of them…
The desire, means and ability: it’s all there!
Sadly, that is just the tip of the iceberg!!!
From Michael Geist:
… the Electronic Commerce Protection Act comes to a conclusion in committee on Monday as MPs conduct their “clause by clause” review. While I have previously written about the lobbying pressure to water down the legislation [to protect consumer rights] (aided and abetted by the Liberal and Bloc MPs on the committee) and the CMA’s recent effort to create a huge loophole, I have not focused on a key source of the pressure. Incredibly, it has been the copyright lobby – particularly the software and music industries – that has been engaged in a full court press to make significant changes to the bill.
The DRM [Digital Rights Managament] concern arises from a requirement in the bill to obtain consent before installing software programs on users’ computers. This anti-spyware provision applies broadly, setting an appropriate standard of protection for computer users. Yet the copyright lobby fears it could inhibit installation of DRM-type software without full knowledge and consent. Sources say that the Liberals have introduced a motion that would take these practices outside of the bill.
Even more troubling are proposed changes that would allow copyright owners to secretly access [personal] information on users’ computers.
(my emphasis and notes)
OK – let’s sum up:
Large multinational corporations are lobbying (and succeeding, with Liberal and Quebec PMs) to allow changes to the proposed Electronic Commerce Protection Act which will permit – in the name of protecting their copyright – manufacturers of products (from video games to music CDs to just about anything else that is ‘electronic media’) to install and run programs on your computer, which would gather personal data about you and your computer use. And, it would allow them to do it without your permission – and even without your knowledge!!!
If there really are people out there who think this is something that only concerns people who steal music or movies, please, think twice.
Do we permit the police – who, at least, are accountable to the citizenry – to wiretap our phone ‘just to make sure we are not breaking the law’? NO! They must prove, to the satisfaction of a judge, that there is a cause for surveillance, get a court order, and only then can they listen in. If it ever gets to court, the police are obligated to disclose all that they have. And, so it should be.
This lobbied-for change would, in effect, permit private corporations – who are not accountable to anyone but their own BOD and shareholders – to ‘wiretap’ your computer, monitor every keystroke, access data in every bit of memory. Without any judicial oversight, without any requirement that they disclose the information they collected – or what it was they were collecting in the first place.
This would permit corporations to install ANY SPYWARE THEY WANT on ANY computer… and this software could attack any program or data it deemed to be in breech of DRM.
And, you have no say in it.
Remember what happened to all those Kindle users, who woke up one day and found books they legally purchased deleted, because somewhere higher up the chain, people were bickering about digital rights?
Well, this would become the norm: anyone who had any claim to a copyright could install software on your computer – without you even knowing about it – and if this found anything it considered breeched its DRM, it would delete it. Even if you bought it legally. Because if there were any dispute anywhere along the line, their ability to delete ‘the content’ would be supreme. Really.
Is this reasonable?
Is this the fair balance of rights?
And if you don’t think this is happening already, you are wrong!
Even Canada’s Privacy Commissioner, Jennifer Stoddart, warns of the impact these changes would have to the privacy rights of Canadian citizens:
Technological advances hold out the promise of greater convenience, but sometimes at a cost to human rights such as privacy and the ability to control our personal information.
Meanwhile, governments and businesses have a seemingly insatiable appetite for personal information.
Governments appear to believe – mistakenly, I would argue – that the key to national security and public safety is collecting mountains of personal data. Privacy often receives short shrift as new anti-terrorism and law enforcement initiatives are rolled out.
Personal information has also become a hot commodity in the private sector. Our names, addresses, purchases, interests, likes and dislikes are recorded, analysed and stored – all so companies can sell us more products and services.
Adding to our concerns is the fact many businesses fail to adequately protect this sensitive information – leaving it vulnerable to hackers and identity thieves.
And if you thought THAT was not enough….
This idea has been ‘rumbling about’ for a few months, but recently received publicity when Eugene Kasparsky openly stated that each internet user should have an internet passport. This would, presumably, document their every click and keystroke, which could then be monitored through increased internet regulation. I dare reach this conclusion because Mr. Kasparsky also said that there must be no anonymity on the internet, and any country which refuses to regulate and monitor its citizens should be cut off the net.
Oh, and this should all be enforced by ‘internet police’!
I’d like to change the design of the Internet by introducing regulation—Internet passports, Internet police, and international agreement—about following Internet standards. – Eugene Kaspersky,
CEO of Russia’s Kaspersky Lab
OK – this idea is radical now. You may shake your head and say this will never be possible.
But, 40 years ago, did anyone think that, once accused, the ‘truth’ could not be used as ‘defense’?