A Posteriori

It has been revealed this week that the Bush administration has sued Google after that company refused a U.S. Department of Justice (DoJ) request for all of all the searches run against it over a week long period. It was revealed a day later that all the other major search engines: Yahoo!, MSN and AOL all mostly complied without incident or protest.

The reasons the subpoenas were issued had nothing to do with a criminal investigation, nor were they backed with a search warrant signed by a judge. It was a request initiated and backed solely by the DoJ without any charges being laid. The stated reason for this action was to “search for evidence” to aid the Bush administration in gathering evidence to reverse a Supreme Court ruling overturning a 1998 law on Child Pornography. The DoJ wants to gather enough evidence for it to appeal that judgement and re-enact the law. In order to do so, it must prove that internet search filters for child pornography searches do not work.

First of all, let me clarify that I am staunchly opposed to child pornography. However, I don’t think this is the real issue here.

How is gathering evidence that somebody found child porn through a search engine, as opposed to simply demonstrating that a search can be performed using that search engine, bolster the DoJ’s case for re-enacting the 1998 law? I simply don’t understand their reasoning, and I haven’t yet heard any convincing arguments to that effect.

Given the absence of a criminal investigation, criminal charges being laid, any kind of search warrant or judicial approval, the legal basis for such a subpoena would appear to be tenuous at best and totally misleading at worst. There has been zero oversight in this process. All this amounts to is a fishing expidition.

With the DoJ’s case on such apparent light footing, why are the non-Google search engines complying? Why should private companies aid what is essentially a glorified overzealous prosecutor in gathering “evidence” to support its legal case?

According to the Register, Google isn’t completely altruistic in that they’re not necessarily acting out of the purest motivation to defend their customers:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/01/21/gonzales_vs_google/#just_in

Nonetheless, Google is defending their business model and trade secrets. Ergo, Google is acting in its own best interest and, indirectly at least, in the interests of their customers. The other search engines, Yahoo!, MSN, and AOL, appear to be acting against their own best interests, afraid of offending to current administration and potentially seeing their share prices drop from shareholder fears of lawsuits. Google, which is still a majority closely held stock (by the owners), can afford to stick to their guns.

Nonetheless, as in the case with Google and the book publishes (subject of October 21st, 2005 blog http://bloglines.com/blog/WordWarrior/2005_10), Google appears to be far more inclined to defend its own interests as a company against powerful opponents, like the DoJ or book publishers.

Google may not be the most altruistic company or the most devoted to privacy, but it has more fortitude than any of its competitors. Perhaps that is why it, and its customers, continue to thrive. This is also why I will continue to use Google, but boycott the other portals.

These days, the copyright debate seems to be framed, mostly by the content provider industry, as a stark choice between two extreme outcomes:

1. Free and unimpeded access to all copyrighted material with zero protection for content providers and artists.
2. Content that is restricted severely and solely according to the rules set by the content providers, with no input from the consumers, with draconian penalties with those accused of copyright infringement.

The debate is further framed under an absolutely fallacious presumption that all content providers and artists wish to completely restrict the copying and distribution of said material. Some artists wish to freely distribute their work without compensation, or license their content under a limited “Creative Commons” arrangement.

In order to “protect” their copyrights, content providers have begun experiment with a variety of Digital Rights Management (DRM) schemes. DRM is a mechanism by which content providers, through either hardware, software, or both, restrict the ways in which digital content (music, movies, digital literature) can by copied through copy protection. It also restricts how digital copies can be used, for how long, and on which devices. There are presently several competing flavours of DRM. Suffice it to say, all of these variations on DRM were established without the consent of the end users in any way shape or form.

In the rush to implement DRM, consumers’ legitimate concerns are not being taken into account. These concerns include the fair use of content for which they’ve paid, including the right to make backup copies of this material, and the ability to transfer said content to portable digital devices, like MP3 players.

A group of consumers (ie copyright users) has finally spoken out in opposition to this seriously flawed and simplistic paradigm, and the way in which DRM is being used to enforce this paradigm:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/01/18/drm_consumer_opposition

In light of the Sony rootkit debacle (in which Sony CD’s were found to have surreptitiously damage users’ Windows computers), it has become painfully obvious that the content providers cannot be trusted to unilaterally impose the rules of the game. Somewhere in this process, some powerful third party must defend the legitimate interests of copyright users (ie consumers).

The only way DRM can be made to be fair is through government regulation. All DRM schemes, by law, would have to conform to a government-defined DRM specification. Among other things, the specification would have to include the following requirements:

1. Support multiple computer operating systems, including (but not necessarily limited to) Windows, Linux, and Mac OS.
2. Support multiple digital devices, including all MP3 players, portable movie players, etc.
3. Allow the consumer to make backup copies of the content.
4. Replacement of any lost or destroyed copies of the content with a free digital copy or a physical copy at minimal cost to the consumer.
5. Full disclosure of the nature of the DRM included with the physical or digital copy of the content.
6. Full warranty against damage done by the DRM mechanism to a user’s equipment, including computers, portable devices, etc.
7. Deposit of a fully open and non-DRM’d digital copy of the content with an appropriate government agency, to be disseminated to the public upon expiration of the content’s copyright.
8. Severe restriction against any included mechanism to allow the content provider to collect data on the consumer’s use of the content or any other content or any other activity on the consumer’s computer.
9. Allow the free and unimpeded distribution of content by those artists or content providers that wish to do so. The DRM mechanism for a copyrighted work should have an “off” switch for content providers.
10. Require that the source code for the DRM program be fully disclosed to the government agency, with a current copy maintained by that agency. This code can be audited at the initiative of the DRM agency to ensure that it’s complient with the rules above.

It’s absolutely senseless to expect content providers, who represent only one side of these transactions, to solely run the system in a way that is fair to the other side, the consumer. it’s time for the government to get involved.

1. View preferences with a simple keyboard command for any application (command-comma).
2. Alt-tab (command-tab) navigates between whole applications, not open windows, which is far cleaner and more intuitive. Command-tilde navigates between open windows of a single application.
3. Other running programs do not take the focus away from the main program currently in use, the way Windows does.
4. Exposé, which is far cleaner and intuitive than the Windows taskbar or X Window multiple desktops.
5. Security that’s far more solid than Windows, and much more user friendly than Linux/FreeBSD.
6. Superior keyboard design, including close ESC key, volume controls, caps lock button that lights up and eject.
7. Intuitive, simple, secure and reliable installer system. The installer uncompresses folders containing application system files from an archive (like zip) file. These folders, once installed, are represented graphically as a single icon. The applications files are quarantined in a single folder and not scattered throughout the filesystem piecemeal as they are in Windows or Linux/FreeBSD. Uninstalling the program in question requires only dragging and dropping it into the trash.
8. DarwinPorts, an open source porting system that’s very reliable, rich and intuitive, but not yet as complete as Gentoo’s or FreeBSD’s.
9. Absolutely no hardware or driver issues. Mac OS X is written exclusively for Mac hardware.
10. The overall look and feel of the OS is so much more aesthetically pleasing than any other windowing environment.

The New Year is always a fitting mechanism with which to start fresh. It’s a time for reflection, but also a time to look forward. However, many make the mistake of using the new year as an excuse to forget who they really are, frailties and all, and pretend to be someone they could never be.

Fitness clubs make a fortune out of suckers deluding themselves into thinking they will magically go from an overweight slob to the paragon of fitness. Smokers believe that they can go cold turkey. These people miss the whole point of self improvement.

Self improvement is about evolution, not about forced dramatic metamorphosis. One can’t go anywhere without understanding and remaining mindful of where one has been. Evolution is a slow and gradual process, and good habits can only be established over time with a great deal of patience. Old unhealthy habits must be shed, and new ones formed meticulously, but progressively.

Each evolutionary step must be taken after a great deal of self-analysis, and much thought. The motivation that is built for this step must be pure, and cannot be born out of fear, insecurity, or a desire to overcompensation for a perceived shortfall. The person making the change must visualize the change beforehand, anticipating any pitfalls or any other demotivating factors, and compensating for such hurdles.

For instance, losing weight and becoming healthy is not a sprint, it’s a marathon. Such an end state requires gradual, incremental changes to diet, lifestyle, routines and one’s outlook on life. It’s not enough to simply go on a diet and join an exercise club. It requires a routine of visiting the gym to be integrated into that person’s lifestyle, and for a person’s eating habits to be forever changed.

We all follow a path. Finding that path, and staying true to it should be the goal of every enlightened person, as well as any person striving for enlightenment.

With the coming of 2006, consider carefully the next step in your personal evolution. Happy New Year!

In spite of the varied myths that dot the North American cultural landscape, the dating scene is a very brutal and merciless place. Indeed, the casualties are diverse and numerous. These casualties stem from rejection, but also from a twisted process of character manipulation and abandonment of one’s essential convictions for a form of individual assimilation.

The challenge of dating involves making a choice between presenting oneself as an entirely different person and confronting oneself . It is a direct test of one’s integrity and principles against one’s fear of loneliness. This fear becomes more pronounced as one gets older.

With regard to the first choice, the direct question with which one is confronted is “do I make myself more likeable, superficial or complicit in order to quell my deep-seeded desire for companionship?” The temptation for the weak and unprincipled to answer that question in the affirmative is compelling and in some cases irresistible.

With regard to the second choice, it takes far more courage and spiritual fortitude. A good and worthwhile relationship is one in which the partner challenges you, including many of your assumptions and pre-conceived notions. A worthwhile relationship is one that adds value to one’s life through positive change, without requiring a compromise of deeply held principles.

In my opinion, despite the degree and frequency of failure, the only possible choice in the second one. Without deeply held moral principles. it’s impossible for one’s life to have any real meaning or direction.

Granted, well-meaning and well-thought out compromise has its place, and is in many cases essential to a working relationship. Such compromise must have as its ultimate goal the genuine improvement of one’s life within the context of the relationship. When compromise is initiated solely to save or establish a relationship, then such compromise is valueless.

Valueless compromise is counter-productive in the long term because the falsified favourable image will eventually abate and the underlying incompatibility will be exposed, destroying the relationship is a spectacular fashion.

So the moral of the story is:

• Be true to oneself
• Find one’s true path
• Follow that path without wavering

Eventually, someone worthwhile should join you on that path. If not, then it’s better to walk the path alone than to deviate aimlessly from that path with somebody else.

First of all, I want to offer my sincere condolences to all freedom loving Europeans who just had the Orwellian Data Retention Act imposed upon them by the “democratic” European Union government.

While this development is indeed tragic, Europeans are not without recourse. Nonetheless, while a freedom lover’s first instinct to avoid data detection may be to encrypt all their communications, this would not be wise, or prudent, or effective. The use of encryption will raise a red flag to the Ministry of Love, or whatever they’ll call the department responsible for monitoring internet communications. That department will doubtless view the encrypted communication as an attempt to mask criminal activity, and act accordingly. Many countries, including the UK, make refusal to hand one’s encryption keys a jailable offence.

Instead, freedom lovers such as yourselves should employ a markedly different strategy. This strategy would be the exact opposite of that facilitated by encryption. Your goal should not be to reduce the amount of information logged about you. Your goal should be to drastically increase the amount of data logged about you. The more data the system must track the better. A freedom lover should not view the ubiquitousness of junk on the internet as a curse, but as a blessing.

Remember that there is only so much aggregate hard drive space in the world. The key vulnerability in the system is that there is they can’t write infinite logs for your internet habbits. Even if they manage to find enough hard drive space to log all this data, there is a limit to the extend to which they can index useful information in your logs, especially if there’s too much info in those logs for them to isolate the useful, pertinent information that they need in order to successfully blackmail, and thus, control you (the true purpose behind Data Retention).

Therefore, insofar as your recorded internet communications data is concerned, it should be your goal as a freedom lover to strive for a noise to signal ratio as close as possible to 100%. If you’re concerned that the Ministry of Love will frown upon you posting to an anti-war mailing list, then drown out the signal with subscriptions to multiple Gilmore Girls, Britanny Spears and Sponge Bob mailing lists, as well as multiple Canadian Antiques Roadshow and Desperate Housewives discussion forums. If you also subscribe to the Noam Chomsky newsletter and fear reprisals, then mask you anarchist sympathies with frequent automatic refreshes of the Star Wars, 24, and NYPD Blue home pages and latest news pages, as well as allowing each of your 100 alternative webmail addresses to be added to mailing lists of various spam sites, including, but not limited to, Bonzai Buddy, Gator and any site linked from any of the myriad of pop-up ads you see on a daily basis.

Remember that as far as you’re concerned, there isn’t nearly enough s&#^ on the entire internet to mask your true surfing habits. A Gmail account has 2 gigs for your emails. Use it all! Your ISP probably has either unlimited bandwidth or 20 Gb per month. Use it all! (yes, even if it’s unlimited). If your national government does not incur a 300 billion Euro deficit in the first year paying for all the bureaucrats to track, filter and categorize the sheer volume of junk you and your fellow internet users surf, subscribe to, or post, then you’re not doing your job as a freedom-loving patriot.

Fight data retention! Drown out the signal with noise! Overwhelm the infrastructure and government bureaucracy! Power to the people!

The phrase itself is a flagrant lie. “Intellectual property” comprises copyright, patents, trademarks and trade secrets. None of these legal mechanisms involve ownership of said “intellectual property” in any way shape or form.

From Google.com:

Copyright: A copyright is a set of exclusive rights granted by government for a limited time to protect the particular form, way or manner in which an idea or information is expressed.

Patent: A patent is a set of exclusive rights granted by a government to a person for a fixed period of time in exchange for the regulated, public disclosure of certain details of an invention.

Trademark: A word, phrase, symbol, or design, or combination thereof, that identifies and distinguishes the source of the goods or services of one party from those of others.

Trade secrets: A trade secret is a confidential practice, method, process, design, or other information used by a company to compete with other businesses.

Copyrights and patents are rights over the subjects of the copyrights or patents over a limited time. The individual or company in question is granted an exclusive right to reproduce or use said subject over a fixed period of time, after which the rights to these subjects expire and they fall into the public domain. Trademarks do not expire, but at the same time, a trademark could just as easily be a word or phrase commonly used in the English (or any other) language (ex “Office”), therefore, the individual or company can’t claim ownership of that phrase in that language. It’s debatable whether or not trade secrets comprise “property” or if they’re just confidential information. Regardless, even confidential information must be surrendered to society as a whole (as represented by the government) under appropriate circumstances where illegal or immoral behaviour is suspected.

Taking into account the above, the case for the “intellectual property” verbiage is weak at best and totally deceitful at worst.

It is absolute wrong for corporations or individuals to claim ownership of what are mostly temporary rights that are conferred by the government for the purpose of granting certain incentives to encourage innovative behaviour. These mechanisms represent a pact with society, and should not be interpreted by those granted the benefit of such mechanisms, and especially not by society as a whole, as being God-given rights to these corporations or individuals. In order for these “intellectual property” holders to continue to benefit from such mechanisms, it must be understood by all those involved that society itself must benefit from these arrangements, otherwise society as a whole must have the right to revoke or further limit such mechanisms.

Society, culture, innovations, phrases and words, confidential information and especially ideas ultimately belong to society as whole. The debate over “intellectual property” must reflect this fundamental truth.

The substance of each specific “intellectual property” mechanisms is the subject of another blog. However, in order to have an honest debate, we need to have honest verbiage. Let’s stop calling it what it isn’t. It’s time to dump the phrase “intellectual property” and replace it with something more descriptive and open.

Nobody will argue that setting foot on someone’s private property without their consent is against the law and just plain wrong. Furthermore, nobody would dispute that forcibly entering someone’s private property or residence is an egregious crime. Why then does the same logic not apply to someone’s electronic property?

This is largely due to the fact that the legal system is having trouble catching up with the rapid pace of evolution of computing technology, but there are signs that the gap is closing. Take this recent judgement, for instance:

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/ericjsinrod/2005-10-11-spyware_x.htm

In his judgement, a U.S. federal court judge concluded that spyware installed on a user’s computer without that user’s knowledge or consent was equivalent to illegally trespassing that person’s physical property. All I can say is: It’s about time!

My computer is my private property, as are my personal files, which belong to me. The software that I run on my computer is licensed to me, either with a open source license or a proprietary software license. That software does not belong to me, but the terms of the license allow me to use this software for personal use, which is my primary intention.

Nonetheless, the hardware was sold and ownership transfered to me. Ergo, it is my property. By consequence, so are the electronic bits and bytes on my system; I pay for my electricity.

Since I own an Apple computer running OS X, my computer is mostly secure from electronic trespass. Nonetheless, the vast majority of computer users run Microsoft’s Windows operating system, an OS with what many experts have concluded is a horrible track record on security. I won’t get into the technical details of Windows’ lack of security Nonetheless, for all but expert users or users running the very latest version of Windows (XP service pack 2), running that OS is the equivalent of leaving the physical front door of one’s home wide open to trespassers. And trespass they do.

Due to this lack of security, Windows users have had software installed on their computers without their consent or knowledge. The greatest offenders are spyware companies, who install programs that, among other things, monitor users, compile usage patterns, and send this information back to these spyware companies. This is the physical equivalent of the representative of a telemarketing firm walking into one’s home, taking down that resident’s phone number, reading through their mail and bills, recording part of their phone conversations. going through their wallet or purse, and asking questions about that resident’s personal life. This is an outrageous and untinkable invasion of privacy. This would be unacceptable in the physical world, so why do we tolerate it in the electronic world?

Some predictable counter-arguments must be addressed immediately:

1) “The users didn’t secure their system, so they effectively let us in.”
The fact that users are either ignorant about the their electronic door being wide open or are powerless to stop it is no excuse. Walking into someone’s home with the door wide open is still considered breaking and entering.

2) “The users clicked on my End User License Agreement (EULA), which they read and understood, granting me access to their system.”
EULA’s have questionable legal value, because they are click-through agreements that users never bother to read, and they’re written in incomprehensible legal-eze. A user clicking through a EULA is not giving their consent to be subject to trespass.

3) “We suspect the user of having pirated copyrighted material, and must find such material and possibly remove it from their system in order to protect our intellectual property.”
This is the most flagrant kind of trespass of all, and is a gross violation of due process, judicial oversight, and the presumption of innocence, not to mention the role of legitimate law enforcement officials and the moral bankruptcy of corporate vigilantism. If a person is suspected of having stolen property in their home, the person from whom the property was stolen does not have the right to enter the suspected thief’s home. That is still considered breaking and entering. Furthermore, even a law enforcement official needs a search warrant singed by a judge and some sort of evidence upon which to base their case. Suspicion is not in of itself grounds to search a person’s home.

Another reason this hasn’t been brought to the attention of the legal system is that entering somebody’s computer via the internet is fair easier and far quicker than finding their home, breaking into it and then entering it. What’s more, it’s far more difficult to detect an electronic intruder than a physical one, even when the owner of the computer is logged in to their machine.

The legal system needs to treat electronic property the same as physical property, or these spyware and content companies will wreak havoc on users’ PC’s and the lawyers and judges will continue to look the other way. Trespass is trespass. Trespassers should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

With the Canadian health care system paid for by all taxpayers through general taxation and health care premiums, it astonishes me that the government doesn’t adjust the taxation system to punish those who chose unhealthy lifestyles, and reward those who choose healthy lifestyles.

Oh sure, there are the sin taxes on tobacco and alcohol. However, these taxes are meant mainly to raise government raise revenue and in some cases to reinforce government monopolies and maintaining high-paid union jobs. They have far less to do with discouraging unhealthy habits.

I find it outrageous that I should have to pay sales tax on my gym membership, since I’m effectively saving the government money spent on future health care costs related to heart disease and being obesity. It’s also silly that somebody who chooses to eat out at McDonald’s pays the same sales tax as somebody who eats at Subway (yes, it’s possible to eat an unhealthy sub at Subway and to eat a somewhat healthy salad at McDonald’s, but I digress).

One of the reasons that people choose to eat junk food instead of healthy food is that it’s cheaper and quicker to eat junk food than healthy food, as a rule. It should be possible to remove such a disincentive to healthy eating by levelling the playing field. There should be a junk food tax. With the incidence of diabetes among the next generation likely to be high, it just makes sense. Foods deemed to be healthy (and the rules for what constitutes “healthy” food could potentially be elaborate) should not be taxed at all.

And while each respective level of government at it, they can do far more than remove the sales tax on gym memberships. They can make it easier for people to get exercise during their day to day living with their hectic schedules. Office buildings, apartment buildings and condo buildings should be given incentives to reserve and maintain rooms with exercise equipment. Office buildings should leave staircases open so as to give people the option of using the stairs instead of the elevator. Municipal governments should build more bike paths, make life easier for pedestrians and harder for motorists. Encourage people to burn less fuel (which is getting more expensive and less abundant) and to burn more calories (still plenty of those to go around ).

The consequences of unhealthy living on our health care system are dire and just as impossible to ignore. Healthy living (along with prevention) is the best medicine.

It’s a shame that the publishers’ association decided to make such a big deal out of Google scanning the content of public libraries. These numbskulls apparently don’t understand the meaning of fair use, nor do they appreciate the fundamental reason for libraries to exist in the first place.

Libraries exist in order or provide a repository of important knowledge for society as a whole, knowledge that would otherwise be prohibitively expensive for individuals to compile, especially low income individuals. The existence of libraries is fundamental to a free-thinking and well-informed society. Fortunately, such libraries also run contrary to the interests of large publishers, who would obviously make more money if everybody was forced to buy every single book they read. The internet serves the same purpose. As library books get scanned, the internet can become even more of a large electronic library than it already is. People might buy even less books

As for fair use, which is Google’s legal argument, the publishers don’t understand that it is implicit in copyright law that the public at large is allowed to use copyrighted material without permission for the purpose of critique, reference or summarization. This also runs contrary to the publishers’ business model, since it deprives them of the ability to charge people to make brief references to their material. Creating indexable references to these books is Google’s real agenda for scanning these books, and it does constitute fair use. Google’s legal case is rock-solid on this basis, and the publishers’ are wasting their shareholders’ money in filing this lawsuit.

With the law on Google’s side, it’s a shame that they managed to blackmail Yahoo! (with Wall Street’s complicity) into an opt-in system for library book scanning. An opt-in system (in which the publishers send the search engine the list of copyrighted books for which they grant scanning permission) is far less desirable for society as a whole than an opt-out system (in which the publishers send the search engine the list of copyrighted books for which they withdraw scanning permission).

It should not be Yahoo!’s or Google’s job to police and/or filter copyrighted content, nor should these companies or their users (directly or indirectly) have to pay for such content policing and/or filtering. If the publishes can’t get their own respective houses in order insofar as paying their own bloody costs of doing business and doing their own analysis as to what content if theirs is valuable enough to protect, then they don’t deserve to be in business at all. In the real world all kinds of businesses and corporations externalize their costs to all kinds of third parties and society as a whole. That doesn’t make such externalizing morally right, nor should society or other businesses willingly subject themselves to become victims of this externalization. Yahoo! (or their shareholders) chose to allow itself to be victimized in this manner.

I imagine in their fantasy world we would be forced to pay every single time we read either all or a part of their books, or use part of one of their books for reference, critique or summarization. Thankfully, physical libraries where low income people have access to a wealth of society’s knowledge still exist. We should not allow these publishers to take them away.