Bill C-27: Anti-Spam or Pro-Spyware

It turns out that Bill C-27: The Electronic Commerce Protection Act covers a lot more than just anti-spam. It was written to include a requirement that software cannot be installed on a user's computer without consent, as an anti-spyware provision.

What a good idea.

No one has the right to put software on my computer without MY permission. Just as no one has the right to put software on YOUR computer without YOUR permission. It is, after all, YOUR computer. You bought it to do what you wanted or needed it to do. Why should anyone have the right to put things on your computer? It isn't THEIR computer.

Michael Geist's news is that the copyright lobby wants to ensure their software will be able to trespass on our equipment and through our files so they can target "violation of a user agreement or alleged copyright infringement." The copyright lobby is concerned that this legislation will block attempts to track possible copyright infringement through surreptitious electronic means. They want our government to give them the right to invade the privacy of all Canadians just in case there is a copyright violation.

The copyright lobby is concerned that C-27 will "block investigations that involve capturing user information on computers without knowledge or consent."

Since the copyright lobby was unhappy with C-27, Geist said that. "the Liberals have tabled a motion that would exclude Section 7(1)(b) from C-27 - effectively restoring the exception in these circumstances."

"On top of these provisions, sources say the Liberals have also tabled motions to extend the exemptions for telecom providers. "

If this law is passed with these amendments, the internet carriers (Bell/Telus/Rogers/Shaw/Sasktel) will have the right to remove things from our computers or add things to our computers. This law will go much farther than the CRTC decision to allow Bell Canada to use Deep Packet Inspection, and is an even greater risk to our personal security.

There is a proposed motion that would also create an exception for telecom providers to the requirement to obtain express consent. It states that the section does not apply to telecom providers providing a telecom service, which is defined to include:

No one has the right to put anything on my computer without my permission.
(Just as no one has the right to put a bug in my bedroom.)

No one has the right to take anything from my computer without my permission.
(Just as no one has the right to take anything from my home without my permission.)

No one has the right to read my email without my permission.
(Just as no one has the right to open my snail mail without my permission.)

No one has the right to go through my document folders without my permission.
(Just as no one has the right to go through my file cabinet without my permission.)

If any corporation entitled to trample on any of these rights by virtue of the fact that I purchased a piece of equipment, software, CD or DVD, just inform me you plan on doing these things BEFORE I purchase the item from you. That way, I can decide if it is worth it to me to put my privacy at risk.

Canada HAS laws. It has one of which I'm particularly fond:
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms [1]

Canada even has law enforcement agencies. If the forces of law believe that I am infringing copyright, let them follow the rules of Canadian Law and do an investigation. If searches are deemed necessary, let there be search warrants. Remember that Canadian Law I mentioned? It has a bit that promises Canadians:

8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms [1]

The changes to Bill C-27 being contemplated by the committee would actually grant powers of unreasonable search and seizure to corporations.

This is NOT acceptable.

This is the letter I am about to send to all of them:
Re: Bill C-27: The Electronic Commerce Protection Act

I am deeply concerned that the committee working on Bill C-27 is considering last minute amendments to this law (or possibly introducing modifying legislation later) that would make it legal for third parties to surreptitiously add to or remove anything from my computer without my express consent.

Corporations and Internet carriers should not be allowed to invade my privacy because I've purchased their movie or used the internet. Allowing corporations and telecommunications carriers to surreptitiously invade the privacy of Canadians flies in the face of provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Privacy Act as well as being contrary to advice offered by Public Safety Canada.

Don't be pressured into making last minute ill advised changes without time for serious thought and investigation. Doing this would certainly not be in the public good. Canada deserves good laws.

My computer belongs to me. No one else has the right to put anything on it or take anything off it without my permission.

Sincerely,

That's what we need to do: tell them NO.

This is the committee who are putting this law together
(links direct to email addresses)

The Honourable Tony Clement, P.C., B.A., LL.B., Minister of Industry (Conservative) [2]
Hon. Michael Chong, [3] Chairman of the Committee
Anthony Rota, Vice Chairman [4] (Liberal)
Robert Bouchard [5] (Bloc Québécois)
Gordon Brown [6] (Conservative)
Siobhan Coady [7] (Liberal)
Marc Garneau [8] (Liberal)
Mike Lake [9] (Conservative)
Brian Masse [10] (New Democratic Party)
Dave Van Kesteren [11] (Conservative)
Mike Wallace [12] (Conservative)
Chris Warkentin [13](Conservative)
Along with a lovely link that will help you find your own MP in the event you don't know who it is.
Find your Member of Parliament [14]

I would think that the Minister of Public Safety would also have a definite interest in these changes to this proposed legislation, since the tabled loopholes will certainly make it more difficult for the forces of Canadian law and order to successfully prosecute perpetrators of electronic crimes (such as con artists, identity thieves etc.)
[15]

Irony
October is Cyber Security Awareness Month [16]

I'm pretty sure that the politicians being pressured by the big guns of the copyright lobby haven't thought about the ramifications of this. That's one of the reasons for pressing for a last-minute addition, it can't be scrutinized as closely because there isn't time.

Cory Doctorow on boingboing: [17]
The opposition Liberals have proposed amendments which appear to have been drafted by copyright and telecom lobbyists. They would allow for surreptitious installation of computer programs and - even more outrageously - would allow copyright owners to secretly access information on users' computers.
--Michael Geist

[Note: this is the short version of Anti-Spam Bill morphs into Secret Spyware Bill [18] the Stop Usage Based Billing post I put together in response to warnings issued by Cory Doctorow & Michael Geist on Friday

Comments

Submitted by LaurelRusswurm on October 19, 2009 - 4:28pm.

Well its a day later. Five of the elected MPs from the Committee to enact this law on the list I included have gifted me with auto-responses.

Three of the auto-responses indicated that they were deleted without being read.

Seems some elected officials have a differrent idea of democracy than I do.

Submitted by pogge on October 19, 2009 - 4:56pm.

You're actually doing better than I have. I emailed Clement and all 12 members of the committee yesterday and I haven't received anything at all back.

Submitted by LaurelRusswurm on October 19, 2009 - 6:12pm.

Not really, I just had my email program set up differently than yours. The MPs who delete myBill C-27 email without reading it will most likely have deleted yours without reading it too. I emailed the entire list mentioned above, including my MP.

What I've received aren't actual human generated replies, these are automated responses. My email program is set up to always ask for a response: it asks the recipient computer to let me know if it has been received and read. Many email programs are set up to not respond to this at all. But many respond.

When the recipient opens the mail I get an "Email has been read" email. And if they delete without reading it at all, I get one of these which tells me that my email has been deleted without being opened.

When my email address recives an email asking for a response, it asks me if I wish to respond or not. So I can decide if the recipient gets the return receipt.

My guess is that THESE MPs weren't computer-savvy enough to know better than to allow "deleted without reading" responses to be sent out. And THESE MPs are the people are going to be voting about this law which could so damage Canada.

Of course, next time these MPs will know better.

Submitted by pogge on October 19, 2009 - 6:46pm.

Michael Geist: Conservatives Reverse on Watering Down Anti-Spam Bill

Submitted by LaurelRusswurm on October 19, 2009 - 7:44pm.

Keep watching Michael Geist's blog.

A lot of lobbying is going to happen over the next 48 hours.

Submitted by pogge on October 20, 2009 - 2:20pm.

Michael Geist: Liberals To Drop Controversial Copyright Lobby Spyware Amendments

Submitted by remind on October 20, 2009 - 2:29pm.

Great to see people actually making changes, too bad more would not do it for otherthings...

Thanks for the info on this...

Submitted by radiorahim on October 20, 2009 - 3:16pm.

Your best protection against corporate spying is making use of software that is licensed under the GNU General Public License.

Software licensed under the GPL gives you as a user rights:

Free software is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of free as in free speech, not as in free beer.

Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it means that the program's users have the four essential freedoms:

The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
The freedom to study how the program works, and change it to make it do what you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements (and modified versions in general) to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

A program is free software if users have all of these freedoms. Thus, you should be free to redistribute copies, either with or without modifications, either gratis or charging a fee for distribution, to anyone anywhere. Being free to do these things means (among other things) that you do not have to ask or pay for permission.

You should also have the freedom to make modifications and use them privately in your own work or play, without even mentioning that they exist. If you do publish your changes, you should not be required to notify anyone in particular, or in any particular way.

More here

We should always oppose state sanctioned corporate spying on our computers. But there will always be a hack politician or two and the corporate copyright lobbyists trying to attack our freedom to use our computers as we see fit.

When we use free software, the source code of that software is always publicly available. Even if someone tried to insert spyware into free software it would easily and quickly be removed.

That's not the case with proprietary software. We don't have free access to the source code of proprietary software and so it's very difficult for anyone (outside of the software developer) to figure out what it's doing. Microsoft has developed it's Windows operating systems in cooperation with the U.S. National Security Agency. Does that make you feel comfortable?

Free software licensed under the GPL (or similar licenses) is our only true defense against government/corporate computer spying.

Submitted by LaurelRusswurm on October 21, 2009 - 12:36am.

@radiorahim - GNU General Public License is in fact a very good thing. It is always good to mention and the world would be a better place if it was the norm. (That said I think it will be at some point.)

As time goes by there is more and more open source, and more peoplw who are understanding the concept. But even as it gets better and better and gets more of a following, I'm afraid even that would not be protection against the legally sanctioned spyware, particularly if combined with the powers they were thinking of granting the telecom providers:

"detection or prevention of the unauthorized, fraudulent or illegal use of a network, service, or computer software, including scanning for and removing computer programs".

I took that to mean that the telecom providers would have both the power and the legal right to scan for and remove programs they decide are bad. Then they would be able to remove security programs such as spyware spotters, because they would be stopping the legal use of spyware. (I am not a lawyer or a techie, I'm a mom who reads.... I may be out to lunch....if I'm wrong let me know, but that's what I believe could have happened if that was in the law.).

It is great that it appears this isn't going to happen this time.

The next step (paranoid... me? nahhhh) would have been outlawing GPL stuff. Not so impossible... and as open source threatens the closed source giants like microsoft-- rather the way the Indie ISPs are threatening Bell - and if DRM is the law, and DRM cannot be unlocked under law, and all computers come with windows installed and DRM. If "they" got their way, it might become illegal to remove windows (breaking DRM) and install Linux. You buy a computer, you uninstall windows, you install Ubuntu, you go to jail. Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men...

That's why vigilance is SO important. I think keeping an eye out so that political interests don't dump us in the soup is even more important to keeping us safe.

Something that bugs me is that all the politicians and political commentators bewail it when we have a minority government. Yet, when you look at minority governments, they seem to be the best thing for Canada.

Think about it. If there was a Liberal majority right now and the liberals wanted to put this law in place, would they have backed down? I doubt it. And nothing could have stopped them. Canada has no way to get rid of them once they're elected. A majority government is a dictatorship.

What's so wrong with a minority government? They usually talk about how expensive it is to have elections. From where I sit, elections are a lot cheaper than the patronage orgies that seem to erupt no matter who is in power with a majority. A majority government can unilaterally change things for the worst regardless of how unhappy the populace is at the thought.

As far as I can see, one of the best things we have is universal health care. But neither the conservatives or the liberals ever wanted it, and the only reason we got it was because of minority government wheeling and dealing. (The fact that the ruling parties never really wanted it could be why its erroded as much as it has. Too many majorities.)

An annual Federal election couldn't cost us more than NAFTA or GST or the AVRO Arrow. Too many Canadians are annoyed at the fact that all our politicians seem as bad as each other, so they don't vote. What we need is to get EVERYONE to vote. Doesn't matter who for. We badly need electoral reform, but the ruling parties don't want that because they might have to learn how to play well with others... or worse learn to listen to us.

I just took a peek at Wikipedia and it seems that most provibces have more choices than you'd think:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_Canada...

So vote for anyone. If there isn't a party you want to vote for, and you're unhappy with the ruling party, vote against them. Vote for the Saskatchewan Marijuana Party or the Atlantica Party. Sadly, PEI's Draft Beer Party doesn't seem to be operational anymore.

Don't let the ruling parties scare you with polls, or dire predictions, or scams like strategic voting. Polls can be skewed to say anything. If there's no one to vote for, vote against.

Miniority governments minimize the damage politicians can do to Canada,

Submitted by M. Spector on October 21, 2009 - 12:41am.

Hey, we already have a thread about C-27.

Submitted by LaurelRusswurm on October 22, 2009 - 1:37am.

I didn't find it until after I started this one. I've posted there too. I'm still pretty new here, and since I found out about Usage Based Billing in August I haven't had the luxury of free time.

Submitted by radiorahim on October 23, 2009 - 1:17pm.

LaurelRusswurm...whatever legal powers that governments could grant telecom providers or whoever, they use technological means to do their spying. Free Software gives the user the technological means to prevent or counteract this spying.

Most of the tools, like "Tor servers" that are used to anonymize your web surfing are being built by free software programmers. Proprietary software vendors are unlikely to ever do this sort of thing.

So I think it's in every computer user's interests to migrate as much as possible over to using free software instead of proprietary software.

Right now, the majority of computer users use mainly proprietary software and perhaps a small amount of free software. I think that over the long term we need to reverse this situation so that we mostly use free software and only use proprietary software for a very tiny number of perhaps very specialized things.

Submitted by Michelle on October 23, 2009 - 2:57pm.

Hmm. Okay, since this one was opened last, I'll close it and we'll use the earlier thread. Once that one "fills up" I'll reopen this one for everyone to continue the discussion. :) And I'll link to this thread in the other one so that people can read the posts here too.

No worries, Laurel - it's easy to miss other threads on the same subject. Welcome to babble!