Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Privacy Government News Your Rights Online

Privacy Commissioner Criticizes Canadian DMCA 72

Posted by kdawson from the opting-out-is-not-circumventing dept.
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "Jennifer Stoddart, the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, has criticized the proposed Canadian DMCA in a public letter to Jim Prentice, the Canadian Minister of Industry. Specifically, she's asking them not to protect any DRM from circumvention that gathers and transmits personal data, because that would give abusive DRM makers a legal cudgel to use against anyone who exposes them. The proposed bill, which was recently delayed due to heavy opposition, is thought to contain DMCA-style anti-circumvention provisions that would make it illegal to investigate or remove intrusive DRM, even if that DRM was violating Canadian privacy laws."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Privacy Commissioner Criticizes Canadian DMCA More

Privacy Commissioner Criticizes Canadian DMCA

Comments Filter:
  • So as far as I understand it, blocking outbound connections at the firewall--a legitimate security tactic--would hence become illegal under the terms of this DMCA?

    Another case of legislators not having the faintest clue what they're talking about...but then, that's a bit redundant to say that, isn't it?
    • I'm curious - if removing DRM is banned, does that make it illegal to uninstall a game that uses a driver based copy protection?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by sm62704 ( 957197 )
      Wow, the mods are really retarded today. AFAICT, yours is the first post yet is modded "redundant". *scratches head*. I'd have modded it "insightful" for the "subject" alone; ROT-13 isn't a lot more secure than ROT-0 (i.e., no cryptography at all) and is protected by the US DMCA (or Skylarov wouldn't have been arrested), that means that everything is encoded; indeed, your analog sound waves, whan sampled, are coded. Since it takes a computer to decode them... oh shit did I just give RIAA lawyers some ammo?

      A
      • I think the moderation was meant to be funny, given my comment about politicians being clueless. ^^;

        And according to the article, this DMCA version would outlaw any means of circumventing existing DRM, some of which "phones home"--and as such, by preventing it from making an outbound connection, you would be circumventing its intended function, ergo it would be illegal to block it at the firewall.

        At least, that's how I read it.
    • OMG! I just decoded it! Will they come and get me now?
  • Can't someone just tell me what this is all aboot, eh?

  • Privacy Commissioner? (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Can we get one?

    Sincerely,
    USA

  • Canadian Libraries also urge consumer protection (Score:5, Informative)

    by thirty-seven ( 568076 ) on Tuesday January 22, 2008 @02:52PM (#22142234)

    In related news, from a December 21st, 2007 CBC News article: Libraries urge Ottawa to consider consumers in drafting copyright law [www.cbc.ca]

    The CLA [Canadian Library Association] fears the Canadian government, now redrafting copyright legislation, will create a new act closely mirroring U.S. legislation that curtails consumer rights, such as the right to copy material for their own use, Don Butcher, executive director of the Canadian Libraries Association said in a news conference in Ottawa Friday.
    ...

    "This is a battle between Hollywood lobbyists versus the average Canadian," Butcher said.
    ...

    Any changes made to law should protect artists such as musicians and authors, but also allow copying for individual use, he said.
    ...

    "Interest in the legislation isn't just coming from experts and specialists, lawyers and lobbyists. This time, interest is coming from ordinary Canadians," Butcher said.

  • Either install this malware, or break the law! (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I want to send out some homemade CDs with DRM that installs a rootkit that includes botnet software. That way, when someone tries to STEAL my music with their computer magic, I am compensated by having a computer added to my botnet. Circumventing the installation of the botnet software is illegal, under the DMCA. That way, if someone tries to report me for hacking their computer, I can claim that they were attempting to circumvent my DRM, and get them thrown in jail. In other words, I'm pulling a Sony.

  • The Privacy Commissioner of Canada (Score:5, Informative)

    by thirty-seven ( 568076 ) on Tuesday January 22, 2008 @03:04PM (#22142430)
    Political and PolySci junkies might be interested to know that, according the Privacy Commissioner's website [privcom.gc.ca]:

    The Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Jennifer Stoddart, is an Officer of Parliament who reports directly to the House of Commons and the Senate.
    This means that the federal Privacy Commissioner is not an Officer of the Crown, like, say, the Attorney General of Canada is, and so the Privacy Commissioner is formally independent of the government (a.k.a. the executive branch in the U.S. and other presidential/congressional systems).

  • Circumvention that gathers personal data? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Pluvius ( 734915 ) <pluvius3@@@gmail...com> on Tuesday January 22, 2008 @03:04PM (#22142436) Journal
    Specifically, she's asking them not to protect any DRM from circumvention that gathers and transmits personal data

    Why would anyone circumvent DRM in a way that allows people to know who did it? And why would you even bother protecting DRM from that sort of circumvention?

    (Tip: Prepositional phrases generally go directly after the words that they modify.)

    Rob

  • Meanwhile, Back In America... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 22, 2008 @03:08PM (#22142504)
    What's all this aboot a privacy commissioner actually arguing for the privacy interests of her fellow citizens? Is Canada some sort of Bizarro America where they do everything backwards?

    By God, down here in the benighted South, we do privacy right. First off, it's a Czar, not a Commissioner, because it sounds cooler.

    In 2003, we appointed Nuala O'Connor Kelly [wired.com], formerly of Doubleclick fame, as Chief Privacy Officer of DHS, which is pretty close to Czarina as it gets.

    And she then appointed, two years later, J. Reed Freeman [news.com] to the DHS Privacy Committee, in honor of his heroic efforts to get Gator's spyware on every PC in Am... ummm, I mean the value he added through his work at a opt-in marketing services provider called Claria...

    PRIVACY? THREAT DOWN!

  • Uh oh... /meesa guess the privacy commissionner will have to find a new job pretty soon...

    • Re:Uh oh... (Score:5, Informative)

      by epine ( 68316 ) on Tuesday January 22, 2008 @04:25PM (#22144156)
      Well, we do have a tradition in Canada where our political midges intrude upon the affairs of independent oversight: Lunn defends firing of nuclear watchdog head [theglobeandmail.com] The man is a pox, duly elected, for the present duration.

      Shun Lunn [members.shaw.ca] from Vote Splitting for Dummies.

      I wouldn't assume the same fate for our privacy commissioner. You need to understand something about national character, which is best expressed in a recent article in the NY Times: Pinker on moral instinct [nytimes.com]

      The notion is that there are five fundamental moral instincts that cut across all human societies: harm, fairness, community (or group loyalty), authority and purity. Where nations differ is relative priority.

      Many of the flabbergasting practices in faraway places become more intelligible when you recognize that the same moralizing impulse that Western elites channel toward violations of harm and fairness (our moral obsessions) is channeled elsewhere to violations in the other spheres. Think of the Japanese fear of nonconformity (community), the holy ablutions and dietary restrictions of Hindus and Orthodox Jews (purity), the outrage at insulting the Prophet among Muslims (authority). In the West, we believe that in business and government, fairness should trump community and try to root out nepotism and cronyism. In other parts of the world this is incomprehensible -- what heartless creep would favor a perfect stranger over his own brother?
      I've long had issues with Pinker's writing style, but he does consistently raise good points (if you don't get hung up on his first introduction of an idea, where he holds back essential refinements out of some misguided notion of rhetorical linearity).

      Scratch a Russian, you find a peasant (plus three bottles of Stolichnaya and a Kalashnikov). Scratch a Canadian, you'll find 40 acres of dirt, a dour British deference to civic order, a Mennonite spirit of community and fair play, and the irascibility of Scotsman with the hand of authority up his kilt.

      At the end of the day, the American fetish for harm and authority is just a passing chest cold. We just need to expectorate a Gary Lunn or two, and we'll revert right back to our traditional boring selves.

  • Yay for the Senate (Score:5, Interesting)

    by BrainInAJar ( 584756 ) on Tuesday January 22, 2008 @03:10PM (#22142544)
    The canadian version of the DMCA's been introduced 3 or 4 times already and died on the floor each time.

    It looks like the US-DMCA has shown it's teeth enough that people are actually caring enough for it to be a politically unfavourable piece of legislation to pass.

    All I have to say is "god bless the appointed senate, and it's somber second thought", without which it would've passed before parliament had time to dissolve

    • Re:Yay for the Senate (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Telvin_3d ( 855514 ) on Tuesday January 22, 2008 @03:16PM (#22142684)
      Actually, the original quote from John A Macdonald described it as a house of "sober second thought". I always loved the implication that the first house wasn't sober. Although, given the history of Canadian politicians and John A Macdonald in particular, this may not be far from the truth.
      • Well, I believe it was the Three Dead Trolls in a Baggie who said that when he died he took it all with him, he even took the gin.
      • No... actually, it's the word "thought" that precludes the House of Commons from that description.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by elrous0 ( 869638 ) *
      Don't worry, Hollywood has plenty of patience and money. They'll eventually find a way to weasel it through.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Chemicalscum ( 525689 )
      It died primarily, because we inconveniently for the RIAA/CRIA MPAA etc had an election called before it went to a vote ok the Senate slowed it down. This is something we can rely this year as we will almost certainly get an election this year and hopefully we will get rid of Harper and his crypto-Bushite hidden agenda. However we cant always rely on this there are enough Liberal MP's in the pay of the media conglomerate that we will face the same problem from them. I don't even trust the NDP on this one
  • I can under stand why the DMCA got passed in the US, due to Motion picture/Record Company lobbying. But in Canada? Does the Motion picture/Record company have that much power in Canada, so this sort of thing is even considered for law. Good for Jennifer Stoddart, to be pointing out the major issues to the Government, will they listen?
    • 1.Canadian government rejects new law designed to make the content cartels happy
      2.Content cartels lobby US government to put pressure on Canada to comply
      3.US government threatens to replace imports from Canada with imports from somewhere else
      4.Canadian government gives in and passes law (see the law making it illegal to use cameras in a movie theater)
      5.Profit (for the content cartels)
  • It's just a terrible mess, all this DRM crap. If stricter DMCA makes it in Canada, it'll set a new precedent for a new, tougher one here... it's like this game of one-upmanship on who can be more draconian. What is next, making it illegal to use computers without DRM on them? (Trusted Computing, anyone?)
  • I mean, worms and whatnot are software, so any measures they take to prevent people from analyzing them could be construed as protecting the author's copyright on the software.
    • I was just considering the implications of that, as a matter of fact...on one hand, yes, it does look like that'd be an amusing way to give a wrist smack to the gov't.

      However, many jurisdictions have a 'clean hands' principle when it comes to lawsuits--that is to say, if you're engaged in doing something illegal when the alleged 'offense' against you occurs, then you lose any standing for said suit. For instance, if I slip on a toy truck while burglarizing your house and proceed to break my hip, I can't
  • ...why do you need privacy?

    I find it amazing how, even in Canada where there are governmental agencies apparently unafraid to speak against the money interests, that this might still get passed there. It's clearly not in the interests of the people at large and in the long run, it's not even in the interests of the copyright cartels. (At present, it seems there's a LOT more movement in the direction of individual, unaffiliated artists and it partly due to the ridiculous games that the copyright cartels ha

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Baorc ( 794142 )

      If you're not doing anything wrong...why do you need privacy?

      Simply because the desire for privacy does not imply wrongdoing. And we are entitled to it.

    • If you're not doing anything wrong...

      why do you lock your door?

      why do you have a pin # for your bank card. what are you hiding?

      It's not just privacy it is also security.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by jez9999 ( 618189 )
      I find it amazing how, even in Canada where there are governmental agencies apparently unafraid to speak against the money interests, that this might still get passed there.

      "I've said it before and I'll say it again: Democracy doesn't work." --Kent Brockman

    • If you're not doing anything wrong... ...why do you need privacy?

      I am truly amazed that this canard of question is still asked in the age of the "Jedi Kid" and facebook and youtube and myspace....

      Unless you lead a perfectly moral life 100% of the time and never do anything that anyone else would consider to be immoral, illegal, objectionable, or just plain hilarious, then you need privacy.

      And guess what? There are enough different groups with enough different agendas to find something you do immoral, il

  • Lots of U.S. movies are filmed in Canada - and the governments up here give significant tax incentives to U.S. filmakers to come up here and put Canadians to work. This is why the american movie industry will have clout - though given the shape of the US dollar versus the Canadian dollar the incentive is not as great as it was a few years ago. Still, there cannot be that much illegal copying going on up here in Canada - after all there are more people in California (36 million) than in all of canada (33 m

  • Jim Prentice is my MP... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by swordgeek ( 112599 ) on Tuesday January 22, 2008 @03:53PM (#22143464) Journal
    Over the years, I've talked to Jim about a number of issues. When he was a member of the Conservative opposition party, he took the time to respond to my concerns and seriously considered my objections to party policy or his vote on certain issues.

    However, since the Conservatives took office and he was appointed a ministerial chair, he has changed drastically. The responses I get from him now tend to be generic form replies. I sent him a letter about the proposed idiotic 'camcorders in theatres' anti-piracy legislation. I got a form reply saying that he'd forward my concerns on to the minister responsible (Bev Oda, I believe). Seven months later, LONG after the legislation passed, I got a personal reply from Jim, pointing out how goofs with camcorders were destroying the Canadian movie industry, and that we have become a haven for pirates because of our lack of legislation (which of course was the Liberal's fault), etc., etc., etc.. Basically, it was a complete and abject capitulation to the MPAA/CMPDA. Coincidentally, the bill was introduced a week after Arnie had come visiting the province.

    I'm totally disgusted with Jim. He's turned into a complete sell-out to industry and greed. He no longer represents his constituents, he no longer cares what's best for his riding or the country, he merely does what his bosses (governmental or industrial) tell him. Worse, he's a complete hypocrite.

    So here is my message to the honourable Jim Prentice, MP for Calgary Centre North and federal minister of industry: You are no longer wanted. Get your lying, festering, useless carcass out of government and go back to your family. Maybe they can beat some sense back into you.
    • No, tell us what you really think. ;)

      Rona Ambrose is my MP. How lucky I feel. Replace 'Jim Prentice' in your post with that name, and the same holds true, including her sending real letters in opposition, and form letters as Minister of the Environment (that was a laugh in itself).
      • Oog. "Canada can't ever meet Kyoto standards, even if we shut down the entire country forever." You have my sympathy.
    • Many politicians are like this. They get power and stop listening to the little guy. You see it with Liberals, you see it with Tories, it's pervasive.

      Mind you, my MP has always been a dink. I also never voted for him, and I know people who made shirts that say "Fuck Vellacott" on them.
    • Well said! I have very little respect left for Harper and his ilk. He left my MP -- the intelligent and thoughtful Diane Ablonczy -- out in the cold (well, they threw her a bone the second time around, but nothing real) from a cabinet which was already badly gender-imbalanced. Hey, Stevo -- whatcha gonna do when your puppetmaster is out of office at the end of the year? If your own government lasts that long, that is ...

  • Repost of what you should do - VERY IMPORTANT (Score:5, Informative)

    by JonMartin ( 123209 ) on Tuesday January 22, 2008 @04:51PM (#22144660) Homepage
    I originally posted this on Friday to this article [slashdot.org] on the same subject.

    A handful of us met with our MP this very afternoon (Laurie Hawn - Conservative for Edmonton Centre). We talked about our concerns and what happens next for about an hour.

    The bill will be introduced sometime in the next month or so. It is now considered, thanks to the efforts of everyone who called and wrote in December, a high profile bill.

    A bill goes through 3 readings in the House of Commons. After the third it is passed to the Senate. After the first and second reading the bill may be sent to committee for hearings and modification. Now here is where it gets tricky. After the second reading the committee cannot make major changes to the bill, so if the proposed copyright legislation is really broken (and by all indications it will be) it needs to go to committee after first reading where it can be completely overhauled if need be.

    But it is the discretion of the House leaders (each party) whether it goes to committee after the first reading.

    So you all need to write (an actual physical letter works best) to the Leader, House Leader, and Industry critic of the opposition parties to tell them this bill must go to committee after the first reading so we have an opportunity for hearings and major revisions. Send copies to Stephen Harper, Jim Prentice (Minister of Industry), Josée Verner (Heritage), Peter Van Loan (Government House Leader), James Rajotte (head of the Industry committee) and your local MP while you are at it.

    This might sound like a lot of work, but because of the minority government this is probably the best time for this legislation. Remember, committees are made up proportional to seats in the House, so the Government has to bargain with the opposition there too.

  • The harsher the DRM, the more cracked movies there are for me to download on P2P.

    Without DRM and at a reasonably price, I might be tempted to download from a legal source or even buy a DVD. Then I'd spend money. That would be bad.
  • And I for one am thankful at least one government official realizes this.

    If I wanted DRM, I wouldn't have served seven years in the Canadian Army.

    Want to change the Canadian Constitutional guarantees of privacy?

    Nuh uh.
  • It is not about money.

    It is to encourage sharing of knowledge that improve the whole mankind.

    If you do not share, you have no protection. If you do not want sharing, there should be no protection.

    The copyright law should make anyone wanting to access a piece of intellectual work possible, with a cost.

    The copyright law should make sure protected intellectual works be archived by some institution.

Slashdot Top Deals

Algebraic symbols are used when you do not know what you are talking about. -- Philippe Schnoebelen

Close