DancingSamurai.ca

About time, I say. See this Globe & Mail article, ‘At the Mercy of the Government’:

If you are in trouble overseas and go to a Canadian embassy, Canada’s government believes that it has the option, but not the obligation, to help. If the government is fond of you, like Brenda Martin, it may help with papers or a private jet home, but if it scorns you, like Mr. Abdelrazik, it may revoke your passport and exile you. The choice is the government’s alone.

No laws govern this relationship, the government says. As then-Mr. Justice Konrad von Finckenstein of the Federal Court wrote in an earlier case, “Canadians abroad would be surprised, if not shocked, to learn that the provision of consular services in an individual case is left to the complete and unreviewable discretion of the minister.” Except for the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the minister’s exercise of the prerogative is absolute.

What this means is that Canadian citizenship is less than it appears.

Dr. Dawg is already all over this one, and it seems (shockingly) that the Liberals are against such Protection of Canadians. I suppose it makes sense, as the Abdelrazik thing started under their watch, after all. But Ignatieff, who has shown not even a shadow these last few months, is not making much of a positive impression on Canadians – at least, this Canadian.

I just received a link to a CIRA (Canadian Internet Registration Authority) survey about their WHOIS policy. As you may know, sometime last year, due to privacy concerns, hid individual users’ names and contact details from the public WHOIS results. (I mentioned it briefly years ago).

Many have commented (see for example Michael Geist’s article on CIRA) how weak this protection actually is, since ‘law enforcement’ can just claim to be investigating you and get your details. (Oh, they have to claim its related to terrorism… but they claim EVERYTHING is related to terrorism these days.). Not to mention, the loophole that if someone has an intellectual property right claim against you… they can get your details.

If it’s a legitimate complaint, get a court order. How hard is that?

So, it seems they’re asking for input. Is it too much to hope for that they are rethinking their ways, or is this just a show to appease the critics? Unfortunately, I remain sceptical… a lot of questions were asking about EXPANDING the above loopholes…

I recently drafted and sent in a letter to the Canadian Copyright Consultation (and cc’d it to my MP). I drew heavily on Michael Geist’s Speak Out on Copyright website and his Short Answer. (Because I agree with him, not because I am lazy or intellectually bankrupt. *wink*)

Please send your own comments in – you have another 4 weeks or so!

(more…)

First the Kafkaesque circus with Mr. Abdelrazik.

Now for two months Cannon exiled a Canadian citizen, stating she was an ‘impostor’ (despite having multiple pieces of identification claiming she was who she said she was):

Mohamud, 31, spent a month visiting her mother in Kenya and was on her way back to Canada when an officer stopped her at Nairobi airport May 21, saying she did not look like her four-year-old passport photo.

At the crux of the matter was the size of her lips.

After spending eight days in jail she was released on bail with no travel documents.

Canadian consular officials said she was an “impostor,” voided her passport and sent the case to Kenyan authorities for prosecution.

As Mohamud showed various pieces of ID, volunteered fingerprints and garnered the attention of media across the country, the Canadian government maintained their stance that she was not the citizen she claimed to be.

The above quote is from this CTV article, which reveals that DNA now proves her identity, too.

Will the Canadian government apologize, and swiftly bring this Citizen home to her family? What actions will it take to remedy these grossly negligent acts, and ensure no other Canadian citizens are thus wronged?

I’m not holding my breath for sensible answers. But I have posed these questions to the ‘Honourable’ Cannon himself. You can too:

Hill Office:

House of Commons
Ottawa, ON
K1A 0A6
Tel: (613) 992-5516
Fax: (613) 992-6802
Email: Cannon.L@parl.gc.ca

BoingBoing points out a couple of concerning stories from the US – In Tiburon (apparently a smally, idyllic town with a very low crime rate) officials want to photograph every car / license plate entering and leaving town, and are using the classic “if you’re innocent, what have you got to hide?” justification. (BoingBoing post)

I think there are plenty of Google Street View examples of people caught in embarrassing but legal situations, for one. Bruce Schneier actually wrote a piece on privacy and has some good replies:

Some clever answers: “If I’m not doing anything wrong, then you have no cause to watch me.” “Because the government gets to define what’s wrong, and they keep changing the definition.” “Because you might do something wrong with my information.” My problem with quips like these — as right as they are — is that they accept the premise that privacy is about hiding a wrong. It’s not. Privacy is an inherent human right, and a requirement for maintaining the human condition with dignity and respect.

Two proverbs say it best: Quis custodiet custodes ipsos? (“Who watches the watchers?”) and “Absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

Cardinal Richelieu understood the value of surveillance when he famously said, “If one would give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, I would find something in them to have him hanged.” Watch someone long enough, and you’ll find something to arrest — or just blackmail — with. Privacy is important because without it, surveillance information will be abused: to peep, to sell to marketers and to spy on political enemies — whoever they happen to be at the time.

The other related post is a story about Baltimore was thinking plastering their buses and trains with microphones and recording all conversations of passengers and drivers. Just in case. They even asked for a legal opinion about this, and hastily withdrew the proposal when they realized the public could find out about it.

I feel echoes of the Stasi here… am I wrong? What would Orwell think?

So we took our little 1-month old baby to get photos (yay!) at the local Wal-Mart (boo! – but our neighbour who is a great photographer works there). We got into a little discussion regarding (what else) copyright, and ownership of photos so commissioned.

UPDATE: Wow, this post seems to have made it to #1 on Google on the subject, and is my most popular page this week. I guess I should clarify that the below is regarding Canadian (and I believe UK) law. The default in the US (where many of my visitors are likely from) is actually the opposite, i.e. commissioned photos’ copyrights rest with the photographer in the absence of an agreement otherwise.

(more…)

Although I’m not sure I would let two 12-year olds take a 3 year old to the mall, I don’t think it’s criminal neglect:

On Saturday, June 16, 2007, I was charged with endangering the welfare of my children, a criminal charge that, in the city where I live, Bozeman, Montana, can lead to imprisonment in the county jail. The Montana Code 46-16-130(3) states that a parent can be charged with this offense if she “knowingly endangers the child’s welfare by violating a duty of care, protection, or support.”

Typically, prosecution is pursued when an adult supplies a child younger than eighteen with drugs, prostitutes the child, abandons the child’s home, or engages in sexual conduct with the child. A violation of duty of care is described as cruel treatment, abuse, infliction of unnecessary and cruel punishment, abandonment, neglect, lack of proper medical care, clothing, shelter, and food, and evidence of bodily injury.

I was charged with this crime because I dropped my three children and their two friends off at the Bozeman Gallatin Valley Mall.

Now call me conservative, but I think parents have a right to raise their children how they see fit. Only in absolutely egregious cases of neglect or abuse does the state have any business stepping in. The above clearly does not qualify.

Even the most poorly educated and impoverished person has more love for their children than the cold, cold, state… which generally sees them as future little taxpayers and workers, or emotional bargaining chips with which to pass ever restrictive laws to increase its power (for a recent example, see this).

Wake up people! There was a time when 12 year olds led countries. “Kids” are capable of as much or as little as we let them…

Outrage of the Week: Mom Arrested for Letting Kids Go to the Mall « FreeRangeKids.

The recent Conference Board Copyright Report has been in the news (at least on the blogs I read) quite a bit lately – even in some mainstream media. I mentioned it before; in brief, a so-called “independent” research board (Conference Board of Canada), on May 29th published three reports on copyright and Intellectual Property. These reports were commissioned by Canadian media associations.

The Conference Board’s reports were critical of Canada’s current copyright laws, claiming our country is a piracy haven and needs to update copyright laws to be in line with those of the USA. Sound familiar?

(more…)