Spying on You - With Impunity - Not on My Computer!

I'm writing this for two reasons:

1. I'm (almost violently) against unwarranted (literally meaning without judicial warrant) intrusions into my and other citizens' private affairs by government or anyone - especially by self-serving media moguls eager to advance their own sales of what I can only consider "buggy-whip" products in the 21st Century's air-car marketplace.
2. I want to note that this particular topic again points up the incredible dominance of Microsoft over the public's computer facility options and how I simply don't play that game; at all!

Russell McOrmond's Digital Copyright mail list points up several articles (BoingBoing, Michael Geist) and the fact that Canadian legislators are again being lobbied heavily by the copyright and telecommunications industries to add ammendments to the proposed C-27 Copyright anti-spam bill to include un-known and unauthorized surveilance of personal computers by those self-same lobbyists - NOT THE POLICE!!! but BUSINESS!!!

Without judicial review or oversight!

This is just one more slip down the slippery slope toward a police state (and in fact this is worse) the likes of which we've seen in Soviet Russia and in China. Do you really want to live under such a microscope?

Micheal Geist lists some of the proposed "reforms"

• changing the definition of "computer program" to exclude "a text file that is not independently executable" (ie. exclude cookies from the definition)
• a new exception for third-party referrals. The referral provision allows for a single message where there is a referral from someone with a personal or family relationship.  It also requires the marketer to disclose the source of the referral in their message.
• a new exception for quotes or estimates of goods or services if requested by the person to whom the message is sent
• a new exception for the completion or confirmation of an ongoing commercial transaction
• a new exception for warranty or safety information
• a new exception for ongoing subscriptions, loans or similar relationships
• a new exception for information related to an employment relationship
• a new exception for product updates or upgrades
• a new exception for solicitation to participate in surveys or market research
• a new exception for information on self-governing professions
• a clarification that the existing business relationship continues if the business is sold
• the removal of the need for explicit consent for software programs for updates or upgrades where consent was obtained earlier
• an expansion of implied consent to include instances where the person has published their email address or provided their email address to the sender and the message is relevant to their business or role.
• an extension of the time to remove a person from a mailing list to ten business days
• a "grandfathering" of the need to obtain consent in an existing business relationship to three years from when the Act takes effect (double from 18 months)

The bottom line is that business is given a free hand in making your computer tell what you are doing without giving you a chance to tell them to go to hell. "the removal of the need for explicit consent for software programs for updates or upgrades where consent was obtained earlier" covers a lot of ground. For example it allows Microsoft to install completely different software under the guise of an "update" to your operating system (like their "malicious software removal tool" that has been accused of removing legitimate software purchased and owned by the computer owner)

The bill (C-27) lobbyists also want to effectively allow the media industry to install Digital Rights Management software (of any flavor - remember the Sony Root Kit debacle!!) onto your computer without even asking you whether they can. Not withstanding the fact that just having such software on your system is an affront to your ownership of the computer it runs on, the media industry simply does not care (nor have any duty to test) if their software interferes with other similar software or indeed legitimate software that has nothing to do with their content.

I give as an example Microsoft's own "tilt-bit" (read the original Peter Gutmann article for more depth) software deeply embedded into their recent operating systems that several times per second checks to make sure you have not made any changes to the underlying hardware or operating system controls on video and audio processing hardware/software, eating up valuable (to you) CPU horsepower and doing absolutely nothing of value to you - yet requiring you to purchase a far more powerful CPU than you might otherwise have needed.

The bottom line is that when you've tied yourself to a proprietary facility (in this case the operating system on your computer) you allow the vendor to make choices "for you" that may in fact be completely against you - and they don't have to tell you that they've done it!

The Candian Bill C-27 with the Liberal ammendments in it would give your music and video vendors the right and ability to do the same thing. Not on my computer!

You see my computer is not running anything from Microsoft (well, it does, but I keep it in a virtual cage and feed it judiciously through a filter) and since the whole thing is open source I (and any/all others who wish) can look at what is running and what wants to install itself and make an informed choice about it. The Open Source movement (Linux and all the software that is available for it and that is licensed under the GNU Public Licenses) allows us all to be eyes on the software to ensure nobody tries to slip a fast one on us, individually or collectively.

You see, if we control the hardware and the software we have the ability to say no to business - no, we don't want your ill-conceived and often ill-created instrusive software - at all!

Vote with your dollars - don't purchase anything that requires that you install anything on your computer that you have no view into - hit them in the pocket book and they'll change. If you don't; if you play along with them or "don't care" then we all lose.

Contact your member of parliament - and/or in this case the local Liberal candidate - and tell them you're not impressed with this potential intrusion on your personal liberties.

richard