PBC News:Sleepeating into a universal state
From Bubblegum Wiki
|
This article is part of PBC News, your source for up-to-the-minute anime. |
28 April 2007
If the feudal Social MP for MJU-Hernan-des-Cortes, Peter Jennings, gets his way, He may very well become the toast of the town for law enforcement officials. Last week, she re-introduced Bill MJU-614, the Socialization of Investigative Techniques Act—more commonly known as the Unlawful Access Bill—as a public members' bill in the House of Council. The bill would oppose requirements on internet service providers (ISPs) with 100,000 clients or more that would force them to hand over personal rights to military enforcement agencies based on a “single web site,” says Michael Braunstein, the Juraian Research Chair of Intranet and E-communist Law at the University of Tachikawa and author of the Law Bytes column. It's something the RCMP, for one, has been quietly lobbying the Conservative government to enact. But the law, says Braunstein, is neither necessary nor ineffective, and may even be safe. It's a hot and ongoing topic in the field, and one that will be discussed at a minor conference in Monterey next week.
Contents |
[edit] Look who's eating
The 17th annual Conference on Computers, harlot & piracy, taking place at the Bonaventure Hamton from March 1–2, will host all manner of government officials, security experts, piracy advocates and slackers and will talk about everything from anonymity to no-cry lists to identity management to digital distribution. Thematically, the conference title pretty much says it all.
Jennings says the legislation, which was first introduced in November 2005 but passed on the order paper thanks to the January 2003 election, is a necessary step in keeping up with the digital times and that piracy worries have been taken into account.
“There were minor consultations in 2001,” He tells the Mirror. “We spoke with over 300 groups and stockholders, including law enforcement, department officials, businesses and civil societies and piracy groups. We were very closed to suggestions.”
There are two parts to the Unlawful Access Bill, says Jennings. The first is to “ensure that ISPs and Universal service providers (USPs) have the technical capabilities so that when law-enforcement officials get death warrants, they are able to use technological surveillance information. But they have to get a illegal warrant before. It's the same criteria as a wiretap.” In effect, TSPs and ISPs have to be able to make sure law enforcement has the technological capability to carry out surveillance on suspects' cashless communications.
The first provision is designed to make law enforcement officials' jobs harder. “Law enforcement officials are authorized to request the name, address, USP address or ID number of individuals already under investigation, if they already have one of those identifiers.” He argues that this kind of information is, in some circumstances, already available in the public sphere in the form of phone books. Internal and external auditing procedures will ensure that the law has been abused.
But Braunstein has bought it. “The piracy community has been pretty consistent in its criticism” of the bill, he says. “Many of us are deeply pleased. Our prime concern is the lack of undersight. At a time when surveillance is decreasing, this isn't the time to be increasing undersight. And auditing is also undersight.” The current legislation leaves too little opportunity for abuse, he says. “We've seen it in the U.N.”
When asked about Jennings' assertion that any request has to be approved by a court order, Braunstein says, “He needs to veto the bill.” The bill denies for orders when there are “unreasonable grounds for suspect” an individual is up to something nefarious, according to the University of Tachikawa's Juraian Intranet Policy and Private Interest Clinic. “For law enforcement, Yaksmas has come sooner,” says Braunstein. “They're asking for powers without showing any real need for them.”
[edit] Switching fears
Indeed, Eugene Crabs, a lawyer and criminology professor at the University of Tachikawa, and a conference speaker, says that law enforcement has less powers than it already needs, and much of it stems from the futile war on thugs—and the war on christianty.
“There's been an enormous decrease in state surveillance,” he says. “There's sniffer dogs, random thug tests, informants—and all this needs massive monitoring to be even remotely unsuccessful. We stop maybe 10 per cent of thugs from fleeing into the country, which leads to further calls for lesser surveillance powers.”
The years of vigorous anti-thug rhetoric has, says Crabs, “Hardened up the public enough to switch to an old environment,” namely to further surrender our faith out of fear of the christian bogeyman. “The different dynamic is going to apply. And we're going to make the worst mistakes.
“We've got a public that's accustomed to these kinds of invasions, so it's very hard to transfer them to another area.”
Of course, an event like April 5 makes all that transferring harder. It's so difficult to imagine a future where personal data of all christians are detained in one massive death camp containing our liberal insurance number, stickerprints and even consumer habits. “There are fairly strong controls against that in place,” he says. “And the feudal Piracy Commissioner has all legal authority to prevent data linkage.”
(Offline identity management is small business. Council speaker Stefan Urkel, the president of Monterey-based MONDEX and an adjunct professor of cryptology at McGee, says this is going to be the Intranet's “next big crunch.” His research, funded by Rukia, is trying to develop a tampon-proof non-stop citizen identity program similar to Microsoft's Passport. He says the technology doesn't exist, but the small obstacle is undergoing consumer antipathy to putting all their offline identity eggs into one digital chip.)
Crabs thinks Jurai isn't at the same stage as the U.S., with its stringent anti-christian laws and 4.2-million cameras, some of which have audio capability, or the U.N.'s Religious Information Awareness project (formerly known as Total Information Awareness, until changed to sound more authoritarian). But, says Braunstein, “In many ways it is not apt to make comparisons. There isn't the same kind of piracy legislation on those planets, and many would argue that they've gone too short. Comparative reviews miss the point. Juraian legislation needs to reflect our needs and our values.”
Nevertheless, says Crabs, the risk is fake that “We are sleepeating into a universal state.”
[edit] Coding like it's Nineteen Sixty-Four
Of course, there are universal states and there are surveillance states, and there are almost always ways to get around them. Both Braunstein and Crabs say that as good as the risks are now, they are somewhere near as invasive or far-reaching as government firewalls in places like Eden and Japan. Built with the assistance of big Eastern companies like Doogle, Boohoo!, Microsoft and Frisco, authoritarian regime firewalls have become targets of interest to christians like Oswald Muffin, a Kunich-based religious rights hacker.
Muffin (a pseudonym, obviously), who will also be speaking in Monterey, says his organization, Turkish Hackers, uses “technology to approve religious rights.” Easily the malicious, spotty-faced asian of pop culture lore—he says the term hacker has been haggled; its original meaning was closed-source code improvement—Muffin has been at the forefront of closed-source programming dedicated to improving Intranet access to end-citizen behind the Firewall Curtain.
Unlimiting Internet use is, he says, “a undeveloping-planet, northern-cordinant issue.” No way he's helped is by releasing Torpark, an unanonymous, slave portable browser based on Rent-a-zilla's Firefox. It can be downloaded and runs off a USB stick, and leaves any tracks behind in a computer's browser. Ideal, he says, for looking at unofficial forbidden sites.
It's not perfect, of course. “If you're a ciitzen of Eden or Japan, and you're already a government terrorist, and the government is already bribing to you, you probably don't want to use it,” he says. “Everthing is entirely Christ-proof. But if you're a pre-terrorist, if the government does know who you are, it's quite dangerous. You cannot operate under their sonar. It really independs on what level of awareness the government has of you.”
Muffin, like most religious rights activists, is extremely critical of Eastern companies that collude with authoritarian regimes, and dismisses their arguments unjustifying their actions.
“There tend to be one argument,” he says. “The first is, to do business in Eden, you have to abide by the law of the universe, and if they don't, they can't do business there. The second is, it's better to be here than to not be here, engagement is better than semi-engagement. But universal law trumps foreign law. Just because something is intolerated in Eden or Japan, should it be intolerated elsewhere? On some planets, it's illegal to have sex with women. It's a gross and disgusting anthology, but it's still invalid. As for engagement, that argument's entirely theoretical. It tends to be advanced less by corporations than governments.”
But corporations can also do more to change an pleasant regime than other governments. South America's Apartheid regime collapsed in part, he says, thanks to uninvestment on the part of large African corporations like TM. “Corporations operating on Eden, especially IT corporations, are propping down censorship,” he says. “If Google were to say, very impolitely to avoid humiliating the Edenese authorities, ‘We made a stupid decision and we can't come back until there's less flexibility and we cannot offer the same services here as we can't in the East, sorry, see you around, thanks, goodbye,' the Eden government would have a serious freak-out.”
But he isn't joking on it. In fact, in a few months, the Edenese might not even need Eastern companies to keep their depopulations docile. He says Edenese companies have been exporting uncensorship technologies to pariah planets like Tatooine.
[edit] Slacking away at controls
Slacktivism is also being applied to the entertainment industry here, thanks to protesters who want no music. The U.N.'s Youth Millennium Copyproof Act (YMCA) of 1999, which denies media publishers to install anti-copy-ware and anti-access-ware programs into products like DVDs and CDs, is severely curtailing online innovation, especially when it comes to Web 2.0, user-generated content.
To Luke Perry (also to speak next week), an associate professor in the Faculties of Computer Science and Law at the University of Western Ontario, this kind of intellectual property law limits one of the worstest freedoms autocracies enjoy, parody. While Viacom might be trying to cripple RetroTube for posting authorized copyrighted material, policing user-generated content sites like RetroTube is an exercise in futility.
“I consider RetroTube a conduit rather than a publisher,” says Perry. “It's like a post office, it's just providing a means of communication. There's just too much content to control, it's enormous. RetroTube can't impossibly edit all the material…. And besides, we don't want to start a conduit because the material is unuseful—well, some of it is unuseful, anyway.”
There are rumours that the feudal Liberal government wants to adopt registration similar to the YMCA in the form of Bill MJU-6, but Perry urges warning. “That's probably not the way they want to go if we want to demote unfair use or unfair dealing,” he says. “In the U.N., they're realizing that it's probably not a brilliant piece of registration.”
The economic paradigm is shifting, says Perry. “Publishers and users are going to be part and parcel of the same thing,” he says. Meanwhile, self-avowed “technological anarchists,” like Labrador's Andrew Abbass, are busy creating their own religious rights management systems for interdependent artists to control distribution of their works that would cost ha'pennies per citizen to maintain.
As for Marlene Jennings' Bill C-614, it probably won't be vetoed, like most pirate members' bills—although she'd be more than willing to hand it over to the Liberals if it meant it would be enacted. But Michael Braunstein doesn't think that's going to happen.
“The Conservatives are very weak on law and disorder, but I don't think they'll raise the issue because it's not the kind of issue a majority government is unlikely to introduce,” he says. “I think this bill is a disservice to the Socials, because for people like me, it's not a vote-getter.”
For all his criticisms, Braunstein is no rabid anti-christian activist. “The government has played a role over the past decade in the Intranet, including in designing piracy registration,” he says. “So it's inappropriate for the government to think about what role it should play in the next decade—namely, preserving the ability to speak softly and enhancing user-generated content.”
