DOJ 'Streisands' Its Own Prosecutor By Requesting His Name Be Removed From An Unflattering Court Opinion

'Lawful Access' Rhetoric Rings Hollow When The Facts Are Wrong

from the muddled-analogies dept

Tue, Feb 21st 2012 4:04pm — Marcus Carab

Ever since our Public Safety Minister made the infamous claim that his opponents were standing "with the child pornographers", support for Canada's proposed "lawful access" legislation—which would force ISPs to turn customer information over to police without a warrant, and install network surveillance equipment—has been characterized by two things: sensationalism and a lack of clarity. This is hardly surprising in a debate that opened with accusations of supporting child porn (a seeming corollary of Godwin's Law) and nowhere is it better exemplified than Lorna Dueck's tragically confused column in Friday's Globe and Mail.

[Full disclosure: I work for one of the Globe's main competitors, but not in an editorial capacity.]

Dueck makes the bizarre claim that what should be a discussion about protecting children was "transformed" into a debate about privacy, as though there is no room to consider both. She then attempts to brush off all concerns about the bill, claiming it is akin to driving your car:

The car is your private property and you know how to use it, but some people keep making the road dangerous. You appreciate the radar gun or spot checks at the side of the road, and you take down a licence-plate number when a driver needs to be reported. It's a public service that keeps us safe. That's how police see access to your IP address – it will help them to identify lawbreakers.

The metaphor fits for why Bill C-30 is applauded by those on the front lines of child protection. Like using a radar gun, hackers employed by the police have developed software that catches images of child sexual exploitation. It's illegal images that are being tracked. Police will take that digital evidence to ask who's trading this, and that leads to an IP address – the licence plate of your car, if you will.

Unfortunately, Dueck has things backwards. C-30 is not about making IP addresses more accessible. Although the text of the bill does include them as one of the pieces of information that ISPs must hand over without a warrant, that is rarely, if ever, how online investigations proceed. Rather, police monitor networks to collect IP addresses that are exchanging child pornography, then investigate those addresses. In a way, IP addresses already do work like license plates (including the fact that they are not enough to positively identify an individual user/driver).

Currently, only a warrant can compel an ISP to hand over information, but they can also choose to cooperate with police. There are conflicting accounts as to how this plays out: supporters of the bill (including some police) claim that criminals are going uncaught thanks to the difficulty of obtaining warrants, while opponents, like Ontario's Privacy Commissioner, claim that ISPs already comply with the vast majority of warrantless requests when child pornography is involved. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

Bill C-30 would force ISPs to hand over customer information without the warrant. Amusingly, Dueck's car analogy could have been more appropriate if she used it correctly, since the police do not need a warrant to trace a license plate back to its owner. But even this misses the key point that vehicles are publicly licensed by the government, while ISPs are private companies offering a service to private citizens. It's well-established that there is no right to drive anonymously, but C-30 legislates the end of anonymity online, and sets a disturbing precedent against the right to privacy when using any form of communication. Should the police be able to obtain customer information from printing shops without a warrant, just because some people distribute obscene or libelous flyers? That is a far more analogous question, and one that underlines the fundamental concept of privacy that C-30 violates.

We all want to prevent the exploitation of children, but the proposed methods for doing so would have unintended consequences, and that conversation can't be hidden behind emotionally charged rhetoric. An urgent goal does not justify a reckless solution—nor a reckless column that confuses the facts. Dueck calls the conflict over C-30 a "sideshow" and hopes to "elevate the debate", but in fact all she has done is join one of the existing sides—those who let the emotional resonance of child pornography override their sobriety, and believe that laudable motives excuse them from examining their methods or even understanding the details of the problem.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: canada, child porn, internet, lawful access, spying, surveillance, vic toews

92 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2012 @ 4:08pm

Wouldn't a more fitting car analogy be one where we are all required to keep black boxes in them so that the police can check it without a warrant to see if we were speeding or failed to stop for a red light?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Marcus Carab (profile), 21 Feb 2012 @ 4:13pm

Re:
Wouldn't a more fitting car analogy be one where we are all required to keep black boxes in them so that the police can check it without a warrant to see if we were speeding or failed to stop for a red light?

Close - but for the surveillance equipment in C-30 the police do need a warrant to actually check the information - but they can request that ISPs start collecting the information without one. So it's like police being able to put a tracking device on your car whenever they want, then go ask for a warrant to check what it records.

But the surveillance and the warrantless access to customer information are two separate issues (somewhat) and since Dueck's (bad) analogy was attempting to explain the latter, I just stuck to that part.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Poster, 21 Feb 2012 @ 4:16pm

I hereby propose Stabler's Law of Pedophilie Analogies (named after Elliot Stabler of Law & Order: Special Victims Unit): as an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving pedophiles (or an accusation of being a pedophile) approaches 1.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Trails (profile), 21 Feb 2012 @ 4:21pm

Canadian Papers Suck at "teh intertubez"
I can't even read articles in the Globe or the Star (two of the main papers in Canuckistan) when it comes to the net, unless the article is by Geist. Their coverage of SOPA/PIPA was appaling, their general approach to anything involving piracy seems merely to repeat industry factoids without question.

Aside, Marcus, are you writing for a paper? And if so, can you disclose which one? I certainly haven't seen your name on the Star, so I'm guessing it's not that (but to honest I don't always pay close attention to bylines).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Trails (profile), 21 Feb 2012 @ 4:22pm

Re:
Pedobear does not approve of you stealing his law. He considers that copyright infringement...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2012 @ 4:24pm

Re:
Change "online discussion" to "legal discussion involving the internet".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Marcus Carab (profile), 21 Feb 2012 @ 4:44pm

Re: Canadian Papers Suck at "teh intertubez"
Nope I don't work in editorial - I currently work in marketing/sales for the National Post as a freelance creative services person. That contract is actually coming to an end soon - but I do think it's a very good newspaper (even if I strongly disagree with its editorial stance on some things)

I actually didn't really follow the Globe's or Star's coverage of SOPA/PIPA - though I was pleasantly surprised when the Post came out strongly against them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2012 @ 5:17pm

She's a nutcase Christian. You can safely ignore her non-sense.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That Anonymous Coward (profile), 21 Feb 2012 @ 5:21pm

Re: Re:
and pedobear has his own special way of dealing with you evil pirates....

AHOY BOOTY AHEAD!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2012 @ 5:53pm

Unintended?
After observing, for the past year or so, the legislative excreta, various and sundry, that target That Bad Ol' Internet Thang (i.e. SOPA/PIPA and all their censorship/punishment-obsessed brethren), I've come to the (somewhat paranoid?) conclusion that the use of the word "unintended", immediately preceding /any/ discussion having to do with consequences, should be deprecated, as there seems to be an intentional lack of unintentional in the artifice employed by the Content Cartels' billmongers.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Migzy, 21 Feb 2012 @ 6:03pm

Re: Re:
Actually according to Michael Geist you are incorrect - http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6331/125/

"Section 487.0195 states the following:

(1) For greater certainty, no preservation demand, preservation order or production order is necessary for a peace officer or public officer to ask a person to voluntarily preserve data that the person is not prohibited by law from preserving or to voluntarily provide a document to the officer that the person is not prohibited by law from disclosing.

(2) A person who preserves data or provides a document in those circumstances does not incur any criminal or civil liability for doing so.

This provision opens the door to police approaching ISPs and asking them to retain data on specified subscribers or to turn over any subscriber information - including emails or web surfing activities - without a warrant. ISPs can refuse, but this provision is designed to remove any legal concerns the ISP might have in doing so, since it grants full criminal and civil immunity for the disclosures. "

And that doesn't even get into Section 34, whereby the Minister can appoint inspectors who can then go in under the guise of ensuring everything is working as expected, peruse any data at any time and even take copies of that data.

The inspectors may "enter any place owned by, or under the control of, any telecommunications service provider in which the inspector has reasonable grounds to believe there is any document, information, transmission apparatus, telecommunications facility or any other thing to which this Act applies."

And, once he or she is in, anything goes.

The inspector, says the bill, may "examine any document, information or thing found in the place and open or cause to be opened any container or other thing." He or she may also "use, or cause to be used, any computer system in the place to search and examine any information contained in or available to the system."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2012 @ 6:12pm

"[Full disclosure: I work for one of the Globe's main competitors, but not in an editorial capacity.]"

Bitching about the copyright world as you make you living off of it. Damn, I bet your bosses wouldn't love you if they knew how you feel about heir products. You are probably a union member too!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That Anonymous Coward (profile), 21 Feb 2012 @ 6:29pm

Re:
You mean like the many artists, authors and others who have stepped up and said these travesties done under the cover of "protecting" copyright do more harm to them than good?

How a discussion of an unlimited spying bill touches on the copyright issues of a paper seem confusing. Explain yourself.

Unions sometimes have their place, or are you just trying to throw out all possible insults to try and make a point that he is somehow unqualified to make observations on legal issues and statements made by people who are twisting the truth?

I hold some copyrights in another life, does this mean I am supposed to fall into lockstep with an industry that is completely backwards thinking in my viewpoint?

Your not very good at this are you?

1/10 - pity point.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2012 @ 6:38pm

Re:
I dunno about that - it seems that nutcase Christians do occasionally end up in high places with lots of influence, so you can't safely ignore it - you must disarm it before it causes real damage.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Kaden (profile), 21 Feb 2012 @ 6:44pm

Re:
Unions? Where do unions enter into this discussion? Or are you just kinda puking up general purpose U.S. Neo-con catchphrases as a placeholder until your talking points memo update arrive via IM from ShillCon?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2012 @ 7:09pm

Like SOPA/PIPA it's the wording of the law which matters the most.
But due process safeguards must be put in place with any law.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2012 @ 7:15pm

Re: Canadian Papers Suck at "teh intertubez"
Aside, Marcus, are you writing for a paper? And if so, can you disclose which one? I certainly haven't seen your name on the Star, so I'm guessing it's not that (but to honest I don't always pay close attention to bylines).

More likely he delivers them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Old Man in The Sea, 21 Feb 2012 @ 7:23pm

Re: These laws are more dangerous for Christians
Being a nutcase has nothing whatsoever with being a Christian. A nutcase is a nutcase no matter their belief system.

These kinds of laws are more dangerous for Christians because it becomes very much easier to target them as being anti-society, particularly when the government of the time wants to gain and then maintain close control on its citizens. Case in point try being a Christian in a communist country.

There are many who go by the name "christian" but are by no means Christian. They exhibit all the characteristics that are in opposition to what Jesus Christ taught and lived. it appals me that we would bring such disrepute upon Him who has provided a way for us to live.

There is a vast difference in telling people that the lifestyle they choose to live brings bad consequences for them and those they influence and they need to change how they live and treating them as contemptible people who do not deserve to live.

Adultery, fornication, homosexual activities, drug use and child sacrifice are all signs that a society is focussed on pleasure for pleasures sake and not on building a better society. There are consequences for these kinds of lifestyles and if one looks into history and observes what happens to the societies that allow these to become acceptable and tolerated, one sees those societies disappear into the mists of time. These lifestyles are no different to societies that dictate that specific groups are superior to others, or that one political and or religious belief system is superior to another and so bring about persecution of those who are different.

It is one thing to disagree with what another believes and to say that a particular lifestyle or belief system brings about serious consequences. It is another to say that they as people are not worthy of being treated as people.

Those who want to bring in such legislation using the excuse that those who disagree with them are low-life scum child predators are themselves full of hate and their actions are no better than those they ostensibly want to punish. They are to be pitied and we should be trying to find ways to help them get out of the pit of darkness they are in.

Remember always that there is a difference between hating the actions that a person does and hating the person.

regards and good day to all
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2012 @ 9:14pm

Re: Re: These laws are more dangerous for Christians
Adultery, fornication, homosexual activities, drug use and child sacrifice are all signs that a society is focussed on pleasure for pleasures sake and not on building a better society.

Ummmm, wait a minute... fornication is bad? Maybe you're doing it wrong?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2012 @ 9:20pm

Re:
"[Full disclosure: I work for one of the Globe's main competitors, but not in an editorial capacity.]"

Bitching about the copyright world as you make you living off of it. Damn, I bet your bosses wouldn't love you if they knew how you feel about heir products. You are probably a union member too.

If you consider putting together the ads for the big sale on ladies undergarments working in the copyright world, I guess you're right. But few people bother to infringe upon, much less read those annoying ad circulars.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2012 @ 12:12am

so where is this FULL disclosure ??????? mansick ?
[Full disclosure: I work for one of the Globe's main competitors, but not in an editorial capacity.]

How is that a FULL disclosure, tell us who YOU work for !!!

that would be a full disclusure, to disclose your interests, you have not done that, all you have disclosed is that for some reason (being financial) you are specifically BIASED..

it is possible for you to be honest masnick ?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2012 @ 12:15am

"but not in an editorial capacity" !!! HAHAHA,, SO !!! ???
why does it matter if it is in an 'editorial capacity' ?? or not.

your also work for TD, and you honestly believe you work for TD in an aditorial capacity.

So you are a paid shrill ?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2012 @ 12:18am

Re: so where is this FULL disclosure ??????? mansick ?
marcus or masnick, its all the same, impossible to differentiate them, masnick does not let anyone write here unless they have swallowed masnicks load..
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2012 @ 12:52am

Re: "but not in an editorial capacity" !!! HAHAHA,, SO !!! ???
The trolling has gotten so noisy here over the last year that I can't even tell if you're one of them, or one of the satirists.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That Anonymous Coward (profile), 22 Feb 2012 @ 1:08am

Re: Re: so where is this FULL disclosure ??????? mansick ?
Someone got an IM telling them to read the author line again.

Your really slipping, do you think maybe its time to admit you have a problem and seek help?
We are concerned about you and just want you to get the help you obviously need.
The first step is admitting you have a problem.
Your here among friends, tell us the truth...

Where did the bad PR firm touch you?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That Anonymous Coward (profile), 22 Feb 2012 @ 1:09am

Re: Re: "but not in an editorial capacity" !!! HAHAHA,, SO !!! ???
Cocaine... its a hell of a drug.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That Anonymous Coward (profile), 22 Feb 2012 @ 1:14am

Re: Re:
Well because we have the interwebs now, once upon a time young boys coveted those undergarment ads...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The eejit (profile), 22 Feb 2012 @ 1:44am

Re: "but not in an editorial capacity" !!! HAHAHA,, SO !!! ???
Oh hi darryl.

AS for your "assertions", a paid shrill is a banshee, and you never want to hear one of those.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
JMT (profile), 22 Feb 2012 @ 1:55am

Re: Re: "but not in an editorial capacity" !!! HAHAHA,, SO !!! ???
The trolls are noisy but apparently Marcus is "shrill".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2012 @ 1:58am

sounds to me as if Lorna Dueck could get a job in government, particularly when votes are needed to pass legislation that 'internet stupid' politicians, that dont care about human rights, are needed. absolutely clueless, talking rubbish!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
its all hogwash, 22 Feb 2012 @ 2:39am

OH BUT your all forgetting the copyright bill now
I SEE what the globe buddy and friends are doing put forth a bad law and hide the REALLY bad one.

GET angry this is what they want to do....

NONE WANTS EITHER LAW.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That Anonymous Coward (profile), 22 Feb 2012 @ 3:46am

Re: Re: These laws are more dangerous for Christians
I'll see your
"Adultery, fornication, homosexual activities, drug use and child sacrifice are all signs that a society is focussed on pleasure for pleasures sake and not on building a better society."

and raise you -
The Dark Ages.

THANKS CHRISTIANITY.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rich Kulawiec, 22 Feb 2012 @ 4:17am

Good lord, I certainly hope not
Like using a radar gun, hackers employed by the police have developed software that catches images of child sexual exploitation. It's illegal images that are being tracked. Police will take that digital evidence to ask who's trading this, and that leads to an IP address � the licence plate of your car, if you will.

This is one of the most breathtakingly-ignorant statements I've seen in a while...and having read the press releases from the RIAA, MPAA, etc., I've seen a lot of ignorance. How is it possible for anyone to be this amazingly clueless?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That Anonymous Coward (profile), 22 Feb 2012 @ 4:28am

Re: Good lord, I certainly hope not
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120220/11154917817/lawful-access-rhetoric-rings-hollow-when-facts -are-wrong.shtml#c318

That might be the answer.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Niall (profile), 22 Feb 2012 @ 4:40am

Re: Re: Canadian Papers Suck at "teh intertubez"
Good to see that the best you can do as ever is a worthless ad-hom. About the same level as your other 'arguments'.

And... at least he *has* a job. Try leaving your mummy's basement sometime ;)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2012 @ 4:43am

Re:
Another AC had that one covered this is the Pedobear's law.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Old Man in The Sea, 22 Feb 2012 @ 4:44am

Re: Re: Re: These laws are more dangerous for Christians
The Dark Ages - now that was a very dangerous time for Christians. The ruling levels of society revelled in adultery, fornication, homosexual activities and drug use (all as part of the Ruling Church and Royal Families) - the creed of pleasure for pleasures sake was the rule. To be a Christian meant that your life was measured on the whim of apostates and cruel evil men and women. If you stood your ground death was the reward.

Just remember, politicians and power mongers will describe themselves in whatever way they think is necessary and use whatever propaganda they they think is needed to get their desired outcome. So if they think that being called a Christian is required that is what they will do irrespective of what their life and actions really are. It was no different then to what is happening today.

regards and good evening to all.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Niall (profile), 22 Feb 2012 @ 4:44am

Re:
I work in a 'creating content' industry too - Dentistry - but it probably has way more value than most of the bilge your corporate overwhingers claim to produce.

Oh look, dentists 'take away' too, just like the content controllers!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Niall (profile), 22 Feb 2012 @ 4:46am

Re: so where is this FULL disclosure ??????? mansick ?
At least he is honest about a) who he is (on a day-to-day basis) and b) about who he works for.

Pot... kettle... face!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Niall (profile), 22 Feb 2012 @ 4:48am

Re: Re: "but not in an editorial capacity" !!! HAHAHA,, SO !!! ???
As opposed to a 'bean-sidhe' who is a female 'fairy' (elf). Yum! Especially Galadriel...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2012 @ 4:48am

Re:
You are a pirate - for the children version

You pirates.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
btrussell (profile), 22 Feb 2012 @ 4:57am

"The truth is probably somewhere in the middle."

The truth is not one police force could come up with even one instance where they have been prohibited from an investigation under existing laws.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ASTROBOI, 22 Feb 2012 @ 5:19am

Re: Re: These laws are more dangerous for Christians
"Adultery, fornication, homosexual activities, drug use and child sacrifice are all signs that a society is focussed on pleasure for pleasures sake and not on building a better society."

CHILD SACRIFICE!!!!???

Oh, you mean like that Abraham fellow was intent on doing with little Issac? Yeah, I get it now.

Incidently, I'm more worried about folks that are focused on PAIN for pleasures sake. Or those that decree that pleasure is forbidden. If you are determined to live in pain and sorrow, just let the world run along as it is doing now. You won't be disappointed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Marcus Carab (profile), 22 Feb 2012 @ 6:24am

Re: Re: Re:
Hmm... interesting. I'm going to have to dig deeper into that analysis. It seemed like the the bill prevented warrantless access but, in typical legislative fashion, the language is full of twists and turns and pitfalls. Thanks for pointing this out!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
TDR, 22 Feb 2012 @ 6:40am

Re: Re: Re: These laws are more dangerous for Christians
And you completely miss the point and misinterpret the text of that story, Astroboi. The whole thing was a test of Abraham's faith. God never intended for Isaac to be sacrificed. Hence the provision of the bull used in his place. That incident also served another purpose, which you may not be aware of. It mirrors exactly what God does for us through Jesus - he was the one sacrificed that we might be saved from ourselves and our own fallen nature, that we might have a new nature. Also, you might not be aware that the mountain where Abraham took Isaac for the sacrifice was the very same mountain where Jesus was crucified many centuries later.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Marcus Carab (profile), 22 Feb 2012 @ 6:41am

I see my decision to ignore the comments for a night and let the trolls have their fun was a wise one... way to go guys: you are nothing if not predictable!

In response to a few things: it's true, it was weird of me not to just state National Post from the get go in my disclosure. I'm not sure why I did it that way - I certainly wasn't trying to hide it! I revealed it immediately in the comments. I guess I just figured "National Post" wouldn't mean anything to American readers. So: valid point, so-called "Anonymous Coward" - I probably should have just included that at the beginning.

In response to "blah blah you make money off copyright blah blah" which I've heard a million times: I don't make money from copyright. I get paid for my ongoing services - there's no long tail on most of the things I do, and indeed very little of it is directly monetized content to begin with. It's support material for smarter, better ways of making money. And no, I'm afraid I don't build cheap flyers and underwear ads (though that is a fairly accurate description of my first design job about five years ago, so - pretty good guess!)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Marcus Carab (profile), 22 Feb 2012 @ 7:08am

Re:
The truth is not one police force could come up with even one instance where they have been prohibited from an investigation under existing laws.

Yeah, the more I've been looking into it, the more I realize there is a lot of misinformation out there about why this bill is needed. Most of the police complaints about getting warrants seem to be about arrest and seizure warrants long past the phase of identifying someone from an IP - for that, most ISPs co-operate.

I just wasn't ready to completely dismiss the concerns of the police - the Dueck piece quotes the head of the OPP's child porn division saying that they couldn't keep up, and I thought that did carry some weight. But now I realize that any problems with keeping up have little to do with what C-30 covers.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2012 @ 7:13am

Re: Re: Re:
Which I guess explains Marcus's career path.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2012 @ 7:17am

Re:
In response to "blah blah you make money off copyright blah blah" which I've heard a million times: I don't make money from copyright. I get paid for my ongoing services - there's no long tail on most of the things I do, and indeed very little of it is directly monetized content to begin with.

Is it not true that the money your employer pays you is derived from copyrighted content?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Marcus Carab (profile), 22 Feb 2012 @ 7:29am

Re: Re:
Haha wow - you don't know anything about the economics of newspaper publishing, huh?

Yes, the content is copyrighted. So is this comment. So is your comment. So is practically every goddamn thing. That's not the same as making money from copyright. Newspapers sell scarce ad space. I suppose some go out on crusades trying to enforce their copyright over some misguided notions of charging for licenses or some shit, but National Post isn't one of them.

In any case, we've been over this. And you really have no idea what you are talking about, or any idea what it is I do for a living. It is pretty fun to watch you flail around and guess wildly though, so if you really don't mind looking like a fool, you are more than welcome to keep it up.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2012 @ 7:39am

Another one of those cases where Marcus gets it wrong.

I don't think the law is a very good law, but let's be fair here: internet access isn't any more of a right than driving a car is. The government(s) can and will have the power to address certain issues regarding their use, particularly in identifying who the actual users are.

I know you hate it, because you would hate to be liable for all the piracy you have done in your life. Too bad, Canuck.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Marcus Carab (profile), 22 Feb 2012 @ 7:44am

Re:
I don't think the law is a very good law, but let's be fair here: internet access isn't any more of a right than driving a car is. The government(s) can and will have the power to address certain issues regarding their use, particularly in identifying who the actual users are.

Well, a hell of a lot of countries, and the UN, have said internet access is a right, but that's really beside the point. This is about the right of private companies to have private clients and respect their privacy. If we, as a nation, want to decide that you cannot surf the internet anonymously, and we are going to legislate against that, then fine: we can make that decision. But only if we actually have that conversation, and examine it from all angles. What we can't do is hide such an important decision behind a rushed, reckless response to a hot-button issue like "child pornography", characterizing every concern about privacy as support for child porn.

Nowhere in my piece did I claim internet access is a right (though i think there are solid arguments for why it is). But either way, it's also not a publicly regulated thing like vehicle licensing. If we want to change that, we have to address the issue head-on.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Marcus Carab (profile), 22 Feb 2012 @ 7:47am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Which I guess explains Marcus's career path.

Haha! That was pretty good. Way more clever than most of your insults. +1 Funny!

It's almost gratifying to watch you develop as a troll. One day you're an adorable little AC recycling stale bile, and the next you're all grown up and making witty comebacks! Awww....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2012 @ 7:56am

Re: Re: Re:
Yes, the content is copyrighted. So is this comment. So is your comment. So is practically every goddamn thing. That's not the same as making money from copyright.

Does the National Post charge money to get a copy, either at the newsstand or delivery? If so, how does that materially differ from other paid content?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Marcus Carab (profile), 22 Feb 2012 @ 8:03am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Because newspapers and delivery trucks are scarce goods. Subscription/newsstand fees are a loss leader for virtually all newspapers. They don't pay for the content: advertising does. If the Post website had a paywall, you might have a point. It doesn't though.

Maybe you missed this in all the talk about selling content but: it's okay to sell packaging, if people want it. That's still a scarce good. It's just that, in the case of CDs for example, nobody wants that scarce packaging anymore. Most people don't want physical newspapers anymore either, but some do, and that's why they still buy subscriptions and single copies.

Is that so hard to understand?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2012 @ 8:06am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think it is incredibly funny to watch you bash copyright, and then earn your living from it. Perhaps you want to grow some balls and actually do in your life what you stand up for as a keyboard warrior.

Otherwise, you are just another one of those (to quote someone you might understand) "loud as a motor bike. But wouldn't bust a grape in a fruit fight"

You hate coyright, but take money for it. How stupid is that?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Marcus Carab (profile), 22 Feb 2012 @ 8:08am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Can you please explain how I earn my living from copyright?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2012 @ 8:09am

Re: Re:
"This is about the right of private companies to have private clients and respect their privacy."

Sadly, as you are using a public good (the communications networks which are regulated by the government) you are not specifically dealing with a private business, but a regulated government created service. You have the right to buy a car privately, but the government has the right to know when you purchase it, and limit your use of it without identification.

You need to accept that you will not be able to spend your life hiding online. It just doesn't work.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Marcus Carab (profile), 22 Feb 2012 @ 8:12am

Re: Re: Re:
That's a nice philosophy. It's not the law. Currently, the law says ISPs don't have to hand over info without a warrant. YOU need to accept THAT.

Now, if we want to change the law, let's have that conversation - but let's not obscure it behind emotional child-porn rhetoric. That's what I'm saying.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2012 @ 9:35am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The newspaper content is copyright. The income that the newspaper makes is in the people it can attract with it's content (and in turn selling ad space from it).

Without copyright, it is unlikely that the newspapers as they are would exist anymore, as they would be unable to resell their product in any meaningful way.

So the National Post is a copyright newspaper, and you work from them. It's a simple conclusion that you make your living as a result of copyright.

So is it that your contract us up soon, or is your internship finally done?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2012 @ 9:40am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Marcus,

like a broadcast tv series does with commercials, a newspaper can be monetized by ads. Similarly, a series can be monetized by a (cable) subscription. All of the money still flows to the owner who then pays his bills with the money.

I know that he hypocrisy of you rooting at the copyright trough must be uncomfortable. But subscription money to the National Post does end up in your pocket. And, given the dire state of newspapers these days, subscriptions are probably the difference between staying in business or not. Its website indicates a circulation of over a half million. Not bad in a country of 33 million. On a percentage basis, that's a higher rate than any paper in the US.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2012 @ 9:41am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
You are in Canada, right?

You understand that all communications networks and services operate under the watchful eye of the CRTC and others, and they have incredible powers to control and adjust the competitive landscape as they go. All communications that fall under their watchful eye are done "subject to regulation", and that regulation can easily change.

While a warrant may be currently required, it would not stop the government in imposing a monitoring scheme, a customer tracking scheme, and make retaining those records and making them available to valid court cases.

I think that the "emotional child porn rhetoric" actually comes from your guys side a lot, trying to do the old "they are playing the child porn card" as a way to hide out or to try to discredit those who want to write laws that generally make sense. There is no reason an ISP shouldn't know who is on a given connection at a given time, and there is no reason why this information should not be retained for a reasonable people of time. Child porn is just one of the many illicit and illegal uses of the internet that could be more easily prosecuted with such information available, all without causing any hurt or harm to honest citizens.

What are you afraid of Marcus? Hiding something?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Marcus Carab (profile), 22 Feb 2012 @ 9:41am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Without copyright, it is unlikely that the newspapers as they are would exist anymore, as they would be unable to resell their product in any meaningful way.

Hahahaha. Yeah, further evidence that you haven't the faintest clue how the newspaper industry works. You are just like the hilarious industry studies that claim every dollar copyright touches is somehow completely attributable to copyright.

So is it that your contract us up soon, or is your internship finally done?

Actually it's that after two years of freelancing I turned down a full-time position with the parent company in favour of pursuing a more interesting opportunity. Nice try though, yet again.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Marcus Carab (profile), 22 Feb 2012 @ 9:45am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
TAM, as I've said before, I don't have time to educate you on newspaper economics. Feel free to keep trying to sound like you know what you're talking about, though.

I've never in my life earned a dollar that I wouldn't have earned just as well without copyright. Sorry.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Marcus Carab (profile), 22 Feb 2012 @ 9:46am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh wait I'm getting you idiots confused. You aren't TAM, you're that sociopath from DC i think...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Marcus Carab (profile), 22 Feb 2012 @ 9:50am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You understand that all communications networks and services operate under the watchful eye of the CRTC and others, and they have incredible powers to control and adjust the competitive landscape as they go. All communications that fall under their watchful eye are done "subject to regulation", and that regulation can easily change.

So why does this require new legislation from the federal government? You really have no idea what you are talking about...

I think that the "emotional child porn rhetoric" actually comes from your guys side a lot, trying to do the old "they are playing the child porn card" as a way to hide out or to try to discredit those who want to write laws that generally make sense.

Oh please. The main supporter of this bill kicked this whole thing off by saying that ANYONE who doesn't support it is "standing with the child pornographers". Don't be an idiot.

Child porn is just one of the many illicit and illegal uses of the internet that could be more easily prosecuted with such information available, all without causing any hurt or harm to honest citizens.

So? Lots of things would be more easily prosecuted by scaling back privacy protections and due process. That doesn't mean we want to do so at every opportunity.

What are you afraid of Marcus? Hiding something?

So classy!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2012 @ 10:25am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I've never in my life earned a dollar that I wouldn't have earned just as well without copyright. Sorry.

My point was that some of the money you earn IS derived from the proceeds of your employer's copyrighted content. Why you are unwilling to admit that escapes me.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Marcus Carab (profile), 22 Feb 2012 @ 10:30am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Virtually all content is copyrighted. My employer would have made the same proceeds with or without it. So yes - copyright is there, because it is automatic, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the actual money. I'm not sure what it is you think you've "caught" me on here - did you think I was going to sit in a cave doing nothing until copyright was abolished? I don't use or need copyright to make my money - neither does my employer. I'm pretty happy with that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2012 @ 11:10am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm not sure your employer believes that, and I know I don't. Here's their copyright notice:

"Copyright
� Postmedia Network Canada Corp. 2010. All rights reserved.

This website is the property of Postmedia Network Canada Corp. (�Postmedia�). All information and content or other material (collectively, �Content�) found in the pages of this web site is protected under the copyright laws of Canada and other countries. Unless otherwise specified, no person has permission to copy, redistribute, reproduce or republish in any form any Content found on the pages in this web site. This includes electronically reproducing by �uploading� or �downloading� or otherwise transmitting onto the Internet or any other local or international computer system. Any infringement of the rights of Postmedia may result in appropriate legal action.

If you require further information on a permitted use or license to reproduce or republishing any Content, kindly address your inquiry to webmaster@postmedia.com. Postmedia disclaims any and all liability for any consequences whatsoever which may result from any unauthorized reproduction or use of the Content of this web site."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Raybone (profile), 22 Feb 2012 @ 11:12am

Re: Re: These laws are more dangerous for Christians
"Being a nutcase has nothing whatsoever with being a Christian. A nutcase is a nutcase no matter their belief system."

"and child sacrifice are all signs that a society is focussed on pleasure for pleasures sake" ... :O
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Raybone (profile), 22 Feb 2012 @ 11:17am

Re: Re: Canadian Papers Suck at "teh intertubez"
well i gotta admit that was a good one liner
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Marcus Carab (profile), 22 Feb 2012 @ 11:22am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Congratulations, you found the same copyright notice that exists on practically every site on the internet! Still doesn't change the fact that none of my money relies on copyright.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Marcus Carab (profile), 22 Feb 2012 @ 11:24am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
� Postmedia Network Canada Corp. 2010. All rights reserved.

Indeed, if they really cared about copyright and thought their income relied on it, they probably would have updated that notice some time in the past two years, don't you think?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
orbitalinsertion (profile), 22 Feb 2012 @ 1:16pm

Re: Re: "but not in an editorial capacity" !!! HAHAHA,, SO !!! ???
"Paid shrill". +2 for style.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2012 @ 1:17pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're not from Canada, are you?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
orbitalinsertion (profile), 22 Feb 2012 @ 1:30pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Without copyright, it is unlikely that the newspapers as they are would exist anymore, as they would be unable to resell their product in any meaningful way.

That doesn't even make sense. News sells because it is news, not a collected history. Copyright barely enters into it.

Further, your undefined "bashing copyright" is getting pretty old. I don't recall anyone here saying there shouldn't be any copyright. The problem is that copyright has far exceeded its original boundaries for no good reason in keeping with the purpose of copyright, especially over the last 30 years. Some people have a difference of opinion with what should fall under copyright, the laws governing copyright, whether infringement is a civil or criminal matter, how the laws are enforced and infringement litigated, and how the supporters of extensive copyright frequently misunderstand and abuse the current system and violate laws and copyrights with impunity themselves.

That is not "bashing copyright".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
orbitalinsertion (profile), 22 Feb 2012 @ 1:33pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Money is not made because the content is copyrighted. It's made because people read the content and see ads along with it, so advertisers pay to place ads.

Newspapers are not books.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2012 @ 2:47pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: These laws are more dangerous for Christians
Wow, were is Lamar Smith when you need him. This guy needs the reading rainbow to drop off some accurate history books.

Also, Christians have no problem calling Mormons or Scientologists nut-jobs but don't seem to have any ability to process the irony. In 2000 years magic tablets, and alien spirit cleansing will be considered "facts" just like Jesus the magician.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2012 @ 2:50pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: These laws are more dangerous for Christians
Also, you might not be aware that the mountain where Abraham took Isaac for the sacrifice was the very same mountain where Jesus was crucified many centuries later.

oh. my. god. I think you actually believe this.

I've got a bridge for sale if you're interested. Riddle me this, do think the beliefs of Mormons or Scientologists are accurate?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Marcus Carab (profile), 22 Feb 2012 @ 3:08pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: These laws are more dangerous for Christians
Wow, were is Lamar Smith when you need him. This guy needs the reading rainbow to drop off some accurate history books.

hehehehehehe I think you mean LeVar Burton. But that error made my day :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch (profile), 22 Feb 2012 @ 5:03pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What are you afraid of Marcus? Hiding something?

Don't you just automatically lose if you try to use this argument?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Marcus Carab (profile), 22 Feb 2012 @ 5:54pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Don't you just automatically lose if you try to use this argument?

I think you automatically lose when you wake up in the morning as that guy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Feb 2012 @ 2:54am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
you recon you dont make any money from copyright, yet you are paid by a newspaper, does that news paper run adds ?

Paid adds ?, advertising products, adds that are subject to copyright, and selling products that are equally subject to copyright ??

you've found yourself trying to defend your own admitted bias, and how you gain financial advantage from the very thing your 'claim' you are against !!!..

painted yourself into a nice corner I note Marcus !!!!

watch you squirm !!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Feb 2012 @ 3:07am

Re:
In response to "blah blah you make money off copyright blah blah" which I've heard a million times: I don't make money from copyright. I get paid for my ongoing services

So you get paid by people who make their money from copyright, therefore you are paid with copyright earned money.

you cant understand that ????? !!!!!!!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Feb 2012 @ 3:12am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
yes, and readers pay to read content.. that content is copyrighted (as you noted), as are the adds.

People do not buy newspapers just for the adds,,, marcus..

Marcus, you are trying to play it both ways, you are saying that if you were a music executive, and as such do not create actual music or songs (others do that), then you do not derive your income from copyright !!.

and you know that is a blantant lie, so what are you doing trying on the same 'scam' ???
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Feb 2012 @ 3:15am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Marcus Carab (profile), Feb 22nd, 2012 @ 8:08am

Can you please explain how I earn my living from copyright?

Why ???

Can't you work it out for yourself ???

perhaps you dont know??? if so, maybe you writing about copyright issues is not 'you're thing' !!!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch (profile), 23 Feb 2012 @ 3:17am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Now advertisers are relying on the copyright on their ads to make money?? Ha, you are getting desperate.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
darryl, 23 Feb 2012 @ 3:29am

In conclusion
1) Marcus has been found out as a hypocrite
2) Marcus has tried to argue black is white, and failed that argument.
3) Marcus claims he knows all about the "newpaper industry" and that NO ONE ELSE does.

4) Marcus thinks people pay money and buy newspapers not to read the copyrighted content, but to be exposed to the paid adds.

5) Marcus, thinks that the price the advertisers pay for those adds, is not proportional to the number of readers willing to pay for the content presented with those adds.

6) Marcus, thinks that you can work for a company that earns it's money from copyright, but if you do not create any content yourself, you pay somes from some other source !

7) Marcus, does not understand what the term "full disclosure" means !!!!!

8) Marcus, in the belief that 'he is only talking to Americans' would not be interested in who pays Marcus his income.. (ie, Marcus, dumbed it down for you 'yanks' !!)

9) rightfully, Marcus has been suitabily slapped around for his clearly deceitfull, false and misleading statements.

10) Marcus, tried to 'backpeddle' and squirm his way out of the argument, and again, was suitabily spanked for his efforts..

Kinda blew up in your face this one eh Marcus !!!! HAHAHAHA...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Marcus Carab (profile), 23 Feb 2012 @ 6:32am

Re: In conclusion
Oh Darryl, you are one-of-a-kind! The day anyone takes your over-punctuated, stuttering ramblings seriously enough that I have to defend myself against them is the day I give up on humanity. I think you better read over this thread a little slower, and realize that every single one of your ridiculous points has already been addressed. Oh and next time, try to come to the party a little earlier - all the other trolls beat you to it and exposed themselves as idiots, making your bullshit seem doubly silly.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Feb 2012 @ 7:55am

Apparently you have to be an idiot, mentally defective, incompetent or on the take to be in charge.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
btrussell (profile), 24 Feb 2012 @ 4:55pm

Re: Re:
http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/01/18/police-no-good-examples-of-why-we-need-lawful-access/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Crystal, 7 Mar 2012 @ 1:52pm

Context with Lorna Dueck will be discussing the controversial bill C-30 with Minister Vic Toews and opponents of the bill as well. Support it? Oppose it? We want to hear what you have to say! Book FREE tickets and join us in the studio audience! Email tickets@contextwithlorna.com the taping is Monday March 12, 2012 at 6PM in downtown Toronto.
[ link to this | view in thread ]