Episode 106 – C Is For Copyright and Less Isn’t Moore

Transcript of Live Chat.

This podcast is NSFW which means Not Safe for Work or No Screams for We’en

Show Notes:

Dystractions & Dysertations

Note: Dystractions are posted as we find them on Facebook, Identi.ca (!!1!) & Twitter.

Zomg, we has a PlayBook app!!1!

The true cost of Bieber & Gaga.

HaX0rism has become a point and click affair.

Dear Google: Please keep Dr. Schmidt away from the microphone.

What happened, Indiana Jones? You used to be cool…

Attention British Columbia: Randy Quaid and wife are on the move.

Russell Peters has a memoir now?

The Pope talks WIPO. Mmm-kay.

In case anyone’s wondering, we’re with Wikileaks.

AC reads the form letter he got from James Moore.

Shout-outs

Big thanks to Campbell & Brown’s T-Shirt Town for making us some fabulous t-shirts to giveaway. (They’re based in Portland, Oregon – which is pretty much the closest city America has to Canada…in terms of awesomeness.)

Listen and learn…or just read here how you can get a mention. Leave a comment, mention us in a tweet, etc, etc. Then you get a shout-out. Yes, it’s that simple. All the cool kids are doing it!

Howdy to our Twitter pals, a #FollowFriday will be yours again this week.

And as always, much love to our chat room participants.

Music

Dave Borins, with his track “Lucky Ones”.

7 comments

  1. I assume AC got the same lame form letter everyone else was getting. http://BillC32.ca/5200

    In my letter I sent to all MPs near the end of the summer I asked for a meeting. Mr. Moore has two different staffers reply: on September 23 I received the “Please be assured that your correspondence will be given due consideration” letter, and on October 20 I received the “Unfortunately, his schedule does not permit a meeting at this time”.

    I bet that Barry Sookman, lobbiest for the copyright intermediaries (Pick one that you aren’t fond of, and they have likely been his clients :-), has never received these type of letters.

    This is not the WIFI you are looking for:

    Schmidt may have the wrong way of phrasing things, but do you disagree with what he has said?

    Lets take a previous flap: In response to a suggestion that Google should break the law and ignore police demands and court orders to release information that might invade someone’s “privacy”, he said that people shouldn’t be doing things online they want to hide from the police.

    Is that a wrong response? It’s the response I would give. I would also say that if people think that is invasive then they should be interacting with their elected officials, not spewing uninformed opinions about Google.

    Lets take the recent WIFI flap: Google is collecting GeoData with the use of vehicles (bicycles to vans). This allows them to replace their previous use of TeleAtlas or Navteq data for street maps, but also for other geodata features. One is the ability of mobile devices without GPS (or with poor access to GPS data) to estimate their location based on the strength of various WIFI access points from where they are.

    The software they were using buffered more than just the data they needed (SSID’s/etc), and that is what was supposedly a big deal. This is all data that is broadcast, and is NOTHING like leaving a door open and someone walking in. It is more like you walking into my home and then complaining that I overheard your loud conversation.

    What Google is doing protects privacy. The data collection is done by employees, and there is no leakage of third-party data (IE: someone else was at some location at some time). Contrasting this, Apple was found to be using data from customers with both WIFI and GPS to collect this data, and then send back to Apple.

    Now I find it ironic that when Google is protecting their customers privacy they get reprimanded by “privacy” commissioners, but when Apple violates the privacy of their customers you barely see any news stories about it.

    I’m also tired of hearing various governments concentrating on third party privacy issues, and not first focusing on government created issues. “Lawful access” and the technical measures contemplated in C-32 are far more invasive than is even possible for a private corporation to accomplish. Given the “yawn” letters about Google and WIFI I have heard from Jennifer Stoddart, I hope that they will have the commission out in full force as witnesses against C-32 and any future lawful access legislation.

    I’m no apologist for Google or any other company, but I think that people have an odd idea of what constitutes private information and what is public. Some commentators also seem to hide behind some sort of reality distortion when it comes to evaluating the transgressions from various companies.

    (And that ends this rant :-)

    Oh, and I wanted to talk about Officer Bubbles. Oh, sorry, that was last week’s rant :-)

  2. “Some commentators also seem to hide behind some sort of reality distortion when it comes to evaluating the transgressions from various companies.”

    Names or it didn’t happen!

  3. “Some commentators” didn’t refer to an individual on the DyscultureD episode, but to the wider media/etc who have been commenting on these stories. Or more precisely, how little commentary happened about the Apple privacy invasion compared to what Google was doing.

    I think a more interesting question I had hoped would be discussed is whether people reading this think that the information that a WIFI access point broadcasts into a public space is “private”? Should there be an onus on the individual to try to keep private information private?

    Note: WPA/WEP are not the only ways to keep information private. Why are there still sites in this day and age that accept passwords in an HTTP connection, rather than demanding that any login happen within HTTPS? This is a trivial technological solution that would protect passwords in all the various scenarios where the communication can be eavesdropped on: WIFI being only one.

  4. Speaking only for myself I’ve given up on Apple and moved on; anyone who chooses their products deserves what they get.

    I’m more critical of Google because they do so much good otherwise that the bad stands out that much more — and I do think it’s a bad thing when a company who’s primary source of revenue is data mining goes out into the world and snatches up a bunch of passwords and such… whether by accident or not.

  5. It isn’t possible to not “snatch passwords”. You can have processed them and actively ignored them, but that is different. If you passively receive broadcast data for later processing, and some unencrypted data happens to contains passwords, is that really the fault of the recipient?

    If I am talking on the phone, and someone walks by in a public place yelling their password out loud, did I or the person on the other end of the phone do something wrong? If we used this knowledge and logged in then that is wrong, but is it really an offence to have overheard someone broadcasting allegedly “private” information?

    The solution to this “problem” is for people to stop yelling their passwords out loud in public places. Digitally this is a trivial technological problem that has no excuse not to have been solved long ago. There was a time when cryptography was expensive enough that plain-text passwords could be excused, but that time is long past.

    Non-digitally is another matter, and there is a massive need to educate people in keeping their passwords private. Don’t get me started on how “friendship” is defined by teens these days by a willingness to share passwords. I don’t even share my passwords with my wife. But that is a problem for another day.

    Again, I’m not an apologist for Google, but I really don’t consider them to be at fault in this case. Leaking out complex relationship information with the launch of Buzz was their fault, and they should have been reprimanded for that. That was a really stupid stupid move on their part. I still do not see any value in having Buzz directly connected with Gmail, and excessively mixing public and private information.

    But this WIFI flap is in my mind a missed educational moment because people are pointing fingers elsewhere rather than doing their part to fix the problem.

    It is like when people who don’t even bother to vote complain about what “Governments” do. Armchair politics is less than worthless. If you want something to happen you have to become active, or at least visibly support those of us who are active.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *