Oh Canada! "Free Speech Areas" to be defined for 2010 Olympics

I read this, thought about it, and after a while, wondered why nobody else picked this up.

Read it on the CBC!

I am sure they'll be near the arctic circle, if they don't arrest people for applying for a "permit to protest." Add to it the recently filed lawsuit against the RCMP going by known protesters' houses and telling them "we're watching you" and this is taking on a whole new dimension. Tasering with abandon is nothing new, but the subtle intimidation has eluded authorities in Canada for some time. Now they're brazen enough to flaunt it on the CBC.

Jokes aside, this paints a frightening picture of the "authorities" and their opinion on what criticisms they should face.

Newsflash: Criminal Aliens apparently to be removed from US

I realize that this blog has strayed from technical stuff to politics, but unlike politics, most technology seems to achieve what it sets out to do.

So now, get this: apparently the homeland secretary wants criminal aliens out of the US.

As a law-abiding, legal alien, I am surprised to learn that this is not the case already. But then, they don't kick illegal aliens out, either. Why am I following this rabbit-warren of rules again?

On the other hand, there are these crazy rumors where you're held until the day after your visa expires and then escorted out of the country if they can't find any real crime to charge you with. I suspect you'd need to be extremely belligerent for anyone to bother.

November 4: We all lose.

Voter apathy abounds once more, as people get tired of the hyping for the big election. But no matter who wins, the real winner is big government. You have two candidates promising to expand government to do this and do that, and insisting the USA can support its debt load to pay for it. While that may be true, I remain unconvinced that more government is the cure to the ills that ail us.

Let's see:

The War:

It's a war on ideology, not a nation. Can't win a war against an idea. Big Brother rings with "War is Peace. Ignorance is Strength." You have one candidate stating that telling the enemy affected by the idea how long they have to lie low before they leave, and the other telling everyone that the mess made by the USA needs to be fixed as best as possible. I agree with the latter, because while the USA plays world policeman, other countries are tired of cleaning up afterward, especially when a lot of vitriol flowed their way too.

Trade:

One candidate blames all ills of the economy on globalization, and has made NAFTA his sworn enemy. This shows his absolute ignorance about how NAFTA actually works to the benefit of the USA. Let's see - the USA gets access to Canadian labor, and can send its professionals freely to Mexico and Canada to build their own businesses.

In return Mexico gets the "hope" of jobs by those businesses, and gets to sell its oil at cut rate prices. Canada gets to "hope" that US companies buy its products while having to compete for professionals with US companies able to pay more and benefitting from a much lower tax structure. Plus Canada is given the good grace to be able to sell its natural resources at 1980's prices.

The USA gets to ignore rulings from the WTO against duties in contravention of WTO rules. The USA also gets to ignore rulings by the NAFTA panel for duties that violate the trade agreement. And it clogs the same panels trying to eliminate the sanctioned counter-veiling duties.

So in short, the USA wins. It gets cheap Canadian electricity, saving California from Enron. It gets to tax the piss out of Canadian roofing products that should have no tax. It gets cheap Canadian oil, natural gas, and special treatment for environmental regulations in Canada.

So Obama thinks that Canada will decide to be nice, and negotiate an even better deal for the USA?

Try this:

• The USA gets to pay for natural resources at Canadian market prices, in Canadian Dollars.
• Making the NAFTA trade commission rulings binding.

What does this do for US "Joes"?

• Double the price of natural gas.
• 20% increase in the price of lubricants
• 50+% increase in water prices for the western USA (which will be reflected in vegetable prices!)
• Car prices in the USA would increase 10% or more - remember that Canada makes almost half of the parts for cars built in the USA.
  

Should the USA decide to "strong-arm" negotiations (like canceling TN visas):

• Every Canadian NAFTA professional enables the employment of 2 American workers, average.
• Departure of the estimated 20,000 NAFTA professionals would cost the USA another 40,000 jobs at the minimum.
  

A great start to "fixing the economy", Obama. What's next, "Arbeit macht Frei"?

Personal Responsibility:

The clamor for Obama also underlines the willingness of people, in times of uncertainty, to demand they "be taken care of" by government. This is not startling, but certainly eye opening to see how impoverished the "American Spirit of Independence" really is. Under Obama, especially under a Democratic super majority, expect your right to fail to be severely curtailed, and if you do succeed, to be penalized harshly to "spread the wealth around."

If my business makes more than 250,000 per year, it pays more corporate tax. Great - why should I grow beyond this and employ more Americans then? The average 7-11 makes more money than this. Proprietors get doubly screwed.

If I am "rich", and depending on which debate you listen to the Democrat's definition ranges from "over $40,000 per year" to "over 150,000 per year depending on their audience, you get to pay more tax too. In reality this amounts to little more than what the Bush tax cut took out, but you're approaching Canada's rate, and Canada gets cheap health care.

At least Obama can get away with mentioning that there is a problem in some minority communities of motherhood out of wedlock feeding the cycle of crime. I applaud at least that shred of remaining personal responsibility. It beats "lebensborn" camps any day.

Conclusion:

We're screwed on the NAFTA issue alone. And don't get me started on baseless measures like gun control - it's really helped keep the murder rate in Chicago, DC, LA, and Oakland down, hasn't it? "Common Sense" is about as malleable as the term "rich." If you know nothing but are asked to opine on something, what makes sense to you won't make much sense to someone who knows anything about the subject.

The return of the "fairness doctrine" translates to "we don't appreciate the fact that people enjoy listening to foaming-at-the-mouth neocons ranting on air" so we'll make stations carrying them put on stuff that advertisers won't pay for because nobody wants to hear it if they want to make money. Great. Real fair, that is.

McCain isn't much better, but at least electing him would keep the American tradition of a divided government keeping insanity and change in check.

News of the "Death of American Capitalism" grossly exaggerated

As there is further evidence of the bills on the unsustainable becoming due, let me remind you, humbly, of this:

Eight billion in farm subsidies. (Federal budget, 2006)
One trillion in oil company subsidies. (est.)
One trillion in nuclear energy subsidies. (est.)

Now, please explain to me where the capitalism part comes from.

For all of the blaming of the "free market's" role in the economic correction (say "meltdown" like you're out of breath or something), let me remind you that there isn't one, at least in America.

Much of the subsidies are returned to Washington in the form of fees paid to lobbying firms, probably a quarter in all.

Things to be said to consumers:

Nobody made you sign the leases, loans, and mortgages at variable interest rates.

Nobody told you that signing the leases, loans and mortgages absolved you of following a sound financial course.

So why did you?

Why make the rest of us pay?

Another Reason I left Canada: Bill C-61

Canada currently imposes a "fine" on all digital and analog media purchased, ostensibly to compensate artists for copyright infringement you'll do with that media. If you use your CDs for a more legitimate purpose than fair use, you paid the fine anyways.

Obviously, you're guilty, proof being irrelevant. This is akin to gasoline having a surcharge added for the speeding ticket you're expected to get.

This has backfired on the music industry. If you're on the side that states that the sales have fallen because the music industry hasn't made all much worth listening to in recent years, rather than piracy, you'll applaud this: Canada's RIAA arm got a serious smackdown about two years ago when the defendant successfully argued that no further damages were due because the fine for the crime had already been paid. That meant that because of the media reimbursement/fine/tax, copying music and video had basically been legalized.

Of course, copyright holders could not let this stand, and so had their henchmen in parliament propose a draconian addition, currently called bill C-61. Hon. Minister of Industry Bill Prentice deserves to lose his seat for this. Here is the summary - you'll note similarities with the US DMCA:

• Circumvention of encryption, no matter how trivial (like xor 81), is now a federal offence (called a felony in the US)
• $500 fine (not clear if it's a minimum or a maximum) for each copyright violation (so a Youtube posting will average $20,000)
• Unlocking of cellphones counts as circumvention of encryption (even if a provider locks your personal cell phone)

The issue, as always, is the fine print, usually skipped by the press. Critics who watch out for this sort of thing argue that the search and seizure rights granted by the bill and others on the books it refers to effectively make Canada a police state, like it isn't already (ask me about September 2003 at Vancouver International Airport one day).

Protests are cropping up all over the place, according to the CBC.

What's really missing from the debate are the following points:

• The new bill would empower distributors, who are the copyright owners (artists surrender this to get distributed), so it does not help artists, and thus does not help creativity.
• Security through Obscurity would also take over the Canadian technology market - it's okay for your bank to use XOR 81 encryption, since it's "illegal to circumvent." Tell that to your ID thief in Russia, and see if he cares. He's thankful his life was made easier.
• Security companies, those that nudge vendors to make their software more secure, now face legal penalties like they do in the United States. Point out another flaw in Internet Explorer, go to jail. There. Microsoft's happy.

Feel safer already?

The point is, the criminals on the networks don't care about this, and they are outside the reach of Canadian law. But the folks whom you trust to keep the people with your information honest will see jail if they tell the people with your information that they're not being responsible.

Good work, Canada!

Message from Creative: Stop making our products work!

Well, I posted this on Slashdot, as I am sure there were other submissions as well.

Here is the story - a user named "Daniel_K" "modded" (I hate that term) the driver suite that Creative distributes for their sound cards to re-enable some features their driver disables in Windows Vista. Notably, these features work just fine in Windows XP, and Creative seems to be pushing this as a way to make customers upgrade to a new card, the same as the old, but with a driver that works (for now).

Sound fishy? You bet.

To quote their VP (original thread archived here):

Daniel_K:

We are aware that you have been assisting owners of our Creative sound cards for some time now, by providing unofficial driver packages for Vista that deliver more of the original functionality that was found in the equivalent XP packages for those sound cards. In principle we don't have a problem with you helping users in this way, so long as they understand that any driver packages you supply are not supported by Creative. Where we do have a problem is when technology and IP owned by Creative or other companies that Creative has licensed from, are made to run on other products for which they are not intended. We took action to remove your thread because, like you, Creative and its technology partners think it is only fair to be compensated for goods and services. The difference in this case is that we own the rights to the materials that you are distributing. By enabling our technology and IP to run on sound cards for which it was not originally offered or intended, you are in effect, stealing our goods. When you solicit donations for providing packages like this, you are profiting from something that you do not own. If we choose to develop and provide host-based processing features with certain sound cards and not others, that is a business decision that only we have the right to make.

Although you say you have discontinued your practice of distributing unauthorized software packages for Creative sound cards we have seen evidence of them elsewhere along with donation requests from you. We also note in a recent post of yours on these forums, that you appear to be contemplating the release of further packages. To be clear, we are asking you to respect our legal rights in this matter and cease all further unauthorized distribution of our technology and IP. In addition we request that you observe our forum rules and respect our right to enforce those rules. If you are in any doubt as to what we would consider unacceptable then please request clarification through one of our forum moderators before posting.

Phil O'Shaughnessy
VP Corporate Communications
Creative Labs Inc.

Mr. O'Shaugnessy, do the right thing and resign, because you know nothing about how software developers or the market work. You clearly fell off the cluetrain. Go crawl back under the rock you crawled out under from, or maybe some dying music label that sells crappy music but wants to blame the Internet will hire you.

Creative's damage control folks have now deleted this post on their forum, and replaced it with this:

We have read the strong feedback about Creative's forum post regarding driver development by Daniel_k and other outside parties. Creative's message posted on our behalf by our Company spokesperson tried to address our concern about the improper distribution of certain software which is the property of other companies. However, we did not make it as clear as we would have liked that we do support driver development by independent third parties. The huge task of developing driver updates to accommodate the many changes in the Vista operating system and the extensive testing required, including the lengthy Vista certification requirements for audio, makes it very difficult for Creative to develop updates for all past products. Outside developers have been very helpful to Creative and our customers by developing updates for many of our Sound Blaster products, and we do support and appreciate these efforts. This however does not extend to the unauthorized distribution of other companies' property. We hope to work out a mutually agreeable method for working with Daniel_k in supporting his efforts in driver development. Going forward, we are committed to doing a better job of working more closely with third parties to support their development for our products and our customers.

Message Edited by Dale-CL on 04-01-2008 03:49 PM

Sounds like that reverse gear grinding away. In short, Creative's position is:

• The technology daniel_k re-enabled for Vista was only licensed from the original creators for use under Windows XP.
• Daniel_k was wrong to accept money to support is "illegal" habit. (If you're claiming that I only have a license to my hardware, you guys need to get your heads examined. It's like Ford telling you you don't have a license to put Yokohama tires on that car.)
• They're really mad that he made their kind-of-crappy audio processing suite work with cards other than ones made by Creative. Boo-hoo.

Tough cookies, Creative. Makes me glad I passed your products by the last couple of years.

Daniel_k got responded on Wired - good for him to do this in more mainstream press.

Blogger questioned by the FBI for online comments

This blogger was invited down to the local FBI office for his trip through the wringer for posting criticisms of laws, the FBI, and homeland security. Oddly enough, he had the guts to post about that too.

Apparently they censored his blog first though.

Nice!

Officer shot during no-knock warrant; no drugs seized

In from the Gestapo tactics department:

On January 18th, 2008, Officer Jarrod Shivers of the Chesapeake Police Department was shot during entry while serving a "no-knock" warrant for marijuana in the middle of the night. As a result, the lone occupant, Ryan David Frederick, was charged with 1st degree murder after the original group of police called in SWAT for assistance. (Virginia Pilot)

First off, my condolences to the friends and family of the slain officer. It is a tragedy.

However, it is reported that after a second article appeared in the Virginia-Pilot that omitted any drugs from the seized items list taken from the house, one has to wonder if they had the right man or house. The subsequent complete radio silence by the department makes this look like a cover up of the worst degree. So my condolences to the man and his family, who in the absence of explanations by officials, seems like another victim of government overreaching.

In the defense of the police:

• An informant told them that the suspect was growing quantities of marijuana in his garage, had a scale, and packaging equipment.
• A warrant was issued, and the officers served it at the time of their choosing.

In defense of the suspect:

• The Chesapeake PD spokesperson implied that the officers serving the warrant were in plain clothes. Now, if you had someone in plain clothes kick in your door in the dark, would you not legitimately assume this was a home invasion in progress and act to protect yourself? Home invaders are smart enough to pretend to be cops these days, too, so unless the uniform were absolutely clear, I'd argue that in the heat of the moment it would be impossible to make an informed decision, and I'd rather err on the side of my personal safety.
  
• On the seized items list are "three shells, and a Bersa 'Firestorm' .380 hand gun". So am I to believe that an officer serving a no-knock warrant was not wearing a vest? A .380ACP round has less impact energy at the muzzle than a 9mm Parabellum/Luger round does at 25m. All modern, even concealable vests are rated to stop the latter.

Evidence the police used was an informant's statement. That's fine. However, isn't it reasonable to expect that they investigate some more before kicking in doors? Anyone can tell a cop that I am growing pot in a garage, and my door gets kicked in in the middle of the night?

If you were an officer serving a warrant of this sort, in the middle of the night, wouldn't you wear a uniform, or make it absolutely clear that you were police? Yelling "Police!" while kicking in the door isn't enough - home invaders (the criminal sort) do that too.

I think it's sad that this cost an officer's life, and ruined another. Is the fight against a small time pot grower really worth this cost? Remember, pot-heads don't beat their wives. Alcoholics do.

Of course, the online police board have an entirely different view on the matter.

Ron Pauls Newsletters and Lew Rockwell

Well, I guess I had better post these links, just in case you, dear reader, don't follow the ones on the right.

Reason Magazine made a convincing case (to me, anyways, even though the title asked who did it) that longtime friend and business associate Lew Rockwell wrote some of the bigoted vomit into Ron Paul's newsletters. Ron Paul stated that "some crazy staffer" did it. Then it sounded like his campaign was about to come clean, but this would expose Ron Paul as a liar (as if you can be libertarian and pro-life/anti-choice).

Even the Donklephant noticed.

Why do politicians seem to think everyone but them is stupid?

Happy Voting Day, and uh, Apple censors everybody.

First off, I hope you voted. For someone that will defend your rights and freedoms, and not take them away "in order to protect you."

On the digital freedom front, Apple not only manages your digital rights for you (meaning you have none, kind of like having emergencies managed, and oxymoron and a federal agency) and has been super busy removing or blocking access to people complaining on its forums about problems with Mac OS X "Leopard". Especially popular ones, such as ones linked to by enthusiast sites like Tom's Hardware Guide.

Remember that some article noted anecdotally that liberals were more likely to use Macs than anyone else? I guess that's kind of like shutting off conservative talk radio in the name of "equal access."

I don't care for the conservative side of the argument either - so I just don't listen, and act to change my radio station instead of complaining. I know, this "responsibility thing" again, it's easier to blame your (usually someone else's of course) radio for putting conservative babble on, kind of like those "assault weapons" that go around on their own killing people.

Other people complaining about Apple:

Wikia
eMac

And my Google search for the lazy. Clicking on the news header is also educational.