‘Secret’ pressure on anti-spam bill
p2pnet news view | P2P | Music:- The Electronic Commerce Protection Act, “comes to a conclusion in committee on Monday as MPs conduct their ‘clause by clause’ review,” blogs Michael Geist.
He says he’s previously written about lobbying pressure to water down the legislation, “aided and abetted by the Liberal and Bloc MPs on the committee,” and the CMA’s, “recent effort to create a huge loophole.
But, Geist continues, “I have not focused on a key source of the pressure, ” going on »»»
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 copyright lobby’s interest in the bill has been simmering since its introduction, with lobbyists attending the committee hearings and working with Liberal and Bloc MPs to secure changes. The two core concerns arise from fears that the bill could prevent surreptitious use of DRM and block enforcement initiatives that might involve accessing users’ personal computers without their permission.
The DRM 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. In its place, they would define computer program as, among other things, “a program that has as its primary function…inducing a user to install software by intentionally misrepresenting that installing that software is necessary to safeguard security or privacy or to open or play content of a computer program.” This sets such a high bar – primary function, intentional mispresentation – that music and software industry can plausibly argue that surreptitious DRM installations fall outside of C-27.
Even more troubling are proposed changes that would allow copyright owners to secretly access information on users’ computers.
PIPEDA currently features a series of exceptions to the standard requirements for obtaining consent for the collection of personal information (found in Section 7). Bill C-27 includes a provision that bars those exceptions in cases involving computer harvesting of email addresses and the “collection of personal information through any means of telecommunication, if the collection is made by accessing a computer system or causing a computer system to be accessed without authorization.” In other words, email harvesting and spyware would not be permitted and would not qualify for the PIPEDA exceptions found in Section 7.
The copyright lobby is deeply concerned that this change will block attempts to track possible infringement through electronic means. The Section 7(1)(b) exception in PIPEDA currently states that collecting personal information without consent or knowledge of the individual is permitted if it is reasonable to expect that the collection “would compromise the availability or accuracy of the information” and the collection is “related to investigating a breach of an agreement or a contravention of the laws of Canada.”
One can well imagine how this exception could be used for investigations targeting the violation of a user agreement or alleged copyright infringement. With the changes in C-27, the exception would no longer apply to harvesting email addresses or to accessing personal information on computers without authorization. For the copyright lobby, this would block investigations that involve capturing user information on computers without knowledge or consent. In response, sources advise 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. The bill currently includes an exemption for telecom providers where they act as intermediaries in the transmission of a spam message (Section 6(6) of the bill). This obviously makes sense as telecom providers should not be treated as the message sender when they are merely the messenger. Yet there isand a proposed motion that would also create an exception for telecom providers to the requirement to obtain express consent before users install programs on their computers. It states that the section does not apply to telecom providers providing a telecom service, which is defined to include:
“providing computer security, user account management, routing and transmission of messages, diagnostics, technical support, repair, network management, network maintenance, authorized updates of software or system firmware, authorized remote system management, and detection or prevention of the unauthorized, fraudulent or illegal use of a network, service, or computer software, including scanning for and removing computer programs”
“These proposed changes are simply outrageous and it is disappointing that the Liberals have brought forward motions on behalf of the lobby in this manner,” says Geist, adding:
“With the hearing on Monday, it is critical for Canadians to speak out – yet again – to ensure that C-27 does not leave the door open to private surreptitious surveillance. Write to Industry Minister Tony Clement, your MP, or the members of the Industry Committee today asking them to reject these changes. The members of the committee include:
- Michael Chong (Con), Chair
- Anthony Rota (Lib), Vice-Chair
- Robert Bouchard (BQ), Vice-Chair
- Gordon Brown (Con)
- Siobhan Coady (Lib)
- Marc Garneau (Lib)
- Mike Lake (Con)
- Brian Masse (NDP)
- Dave Van Kesteren (Con)
- Robert Vincent (BQ)
- Mike Wallace (Con)
- Chris Warkentin (Con)
Michael Geist – Michael Geist’s Blog
[Geist is the Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law at the University of Ottawa. He can be reached by email at mgeist @ uottawa dot ca]
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win ~ Mahatma Gandhi
Michael Geist – The Copyright Lobby’s Secret Pressure On the Anti-Spam Bill, October 16, 2009
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It’s really easy!
Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details.
October 18th, 2009 at 4:07 am
Michael, great article. Unfortunately I am learning that the online community are too lazy to get off their fat backsides and do anything that remotely requires them to raise even the little pinky.
Guys and girls, you should be ashamed of yourselves.
Pull finger and write your local member.
Dear Minister/Local Member,
This is just not on. I do not want anyone peeking and prodding around in my computer without my specific authorised.
I consider this breach of my personel privacy equal to an unwarranted intrusion into my home. In fact possibly more serious because my computer has the names of my greinds and associates, it contains private emails and even some commercial in confidence material that my company have entrusted me with but is not for consumption by any third party.
I am unable to see how this legislation in its current form, by allowing unwarranted intrusion, data theft and commercial spying can in anyway benefit the long term economy.
I look forward to receiving your assurances by way of reply that neither you nor any members of your party will be supporting the passage of this bill or any future ammendment that would cause or permit a similar breach of the privacy of all Canadian voters.
Yours sincerely…..
October 18th, 2009 at 12:39 pm
You really seem to enjoy throwing barbs Tom, and they are undeserved.
How many pro P2P people do you know personally ?
A few, 6, 10, 100 ?
Would it be enough to really form a valid statistical example of the whole community ?
As I said to you in a different post, in which you threw the exact same jab, there are MANY of
us who right, e-mail, talk, participate .. and have done so for many years.
We can’t participate in talks that are hidden from us.
We can’t participate in talks we are not allowed to attend.
We ARE participating.
We do not have any multimillion dollar corporate ‘investors’ so we can’t buy a ticket to
secret negotiations.
To characterize the whole of us as ” too lazy to get off their fat backsides and do anything that remotely requires them to raise even the little pinky. ” is incorrect, disingenuous, and even a little dishonest.
It is in fact, arrogant bullshit.
Be smarter than that.
October 18th, 2009 at 12:45 pm
Heres the other thread in which you hinted at the same incorrect conclusion.
http://www.p2pnet.net/story/29857
To say we are lazy for not participating in talks that are deliberately made ’secret’ is not really
a good way of looking at it.
Instead you might consider asking yourself why they go out of their way to make sure these
talks are secret, hidden from those who just might voice dissent. Ask why these things
are kept hidden away until it is too late for dissenting opinion to impact the outcome.
October 18th, 2009 at 1:29 pm
I dunno, Tom.
You come off as a smart, techno-conscious guy, but then you come out with these curious brainfarts.
Any history of ADD in your family?
Like Dredd, I’ve beaten my head against the wall exercising my rights to be heard, via every medium available to me. Geez, I’ve literally given myself tendonitis from the typing alone. So have many others “here”, and they’ve stated that.
As I said in another comment, I’ve since given it up, as our Government has made it quite clear they are being run by the same Corporate Collective that’s been interfering with governments all over the Globe since I was born, and that they don’t want to hear from the People. This doesn’t mean I’ve also given up the fight itself. It just means I’ve decided to change my strategy.
You can try to beat the system all you want, but if the cards are rigged, and you know that fact, it makes no sense to start a fresh hand at the same table.