February 25, 2012
Reason.tv: Banning drugs, banning same-sex marriage, and banning fun
February 24, 2012
“[T]hose who pass for our leaders are largely anti-democratic, elitist and have little compunction about intruding into our private lives”
Daniel Ben-Ami at spiked! recommends reading Robert H Frank’s The Darwin Economy: not because it’s well-written (he says it’s not) but because it exposes the mindset of our would-be tyrants.
Everyone interested in contemporary society should read Robert H Frank’s The Darwin Economy or a book like it. It is not that it is amazingly astute or beautifully written. It is neither. But it does give readers an exceedingly important perspective: an inside view of how the current generation of politician-technocrats thinks.
Identifying some of the key themes of contemporary political debate is easy enough. A glance at the media reveals that those who pass for our leaders are largely anti-democratic, elitist and have little compunction about intruding into our private lives. Working out how they reach the conclusions they do, understanding the internal logic or their approach, is more difficult.
In many ways, economics is the discipline best suited to the technocratic mindset. This has nothing to do with its traditional subject matter. It is not about debating how to produce goods and services or how to distribute them. Instead, it relates to how economics has emerged as an approach that distances itself from democratic politics and provides little room for human agency.
[. . .]
Finally, the narrow vision embodied in technocratic approaches leads to a blinkered approach to problem-solving. For example, most economists discuss tackling climate change in terms of the optimum design of a market for carbon trading. There is little critical debate about the nature of the threat the world is facing or of the range of possible solutions. One alternative to tinkering with the demand for carbon might be to have a huge programme for building nuclear reactors. Such an initiative would also have the advantage of helping to tackle a vital but often forgotten problem: the need for massive amounts of additional energy to fuel economic development.
The technocratic approach to policymaking has become immensely influential and pernicious. Although it is often expressed in terms of economic arguments, it has an impact across the whole range of social life. It is anti-democratic, anti-political and anti-human. To counter the rise of technocracy, it is necessary to delve deep into how its arch-exponents think.
ESR’s open letter to Chris Dodd
Chris Dodd is apparently trying to get some kind of compromise or accommodation with the firms of Silicon Valley. ESR explains that this is not likely to yield the kind of returns he’s expecting:
Mr. Dodd, I hear you’ve just given a speech in which you said “Hollywood is pro-technology and pro-Internet.” It seems you’re looking for interlocutors among the coalition that defeated SOPA and PIPA, and are looking for some politically feasible compromise that will do something against the problem of Internet piracy as you believe you understand it.
There isn’t any one person who can answer your concerns. But I can speak for one element of the coalition that blocked those two bills; the technologists. I’m not talking about Google or the technology companies, mind you — I’m talking about the actual engineers who built the Internet and keep it running, who write the software you rely on every day of your life in the 21st century.
[. . .]
The difference matters because the businesspeople rely on us to do the actual technical work — and since the rise of the Internet, if we don’t like where a firm’s strategy is going, it tends not to get there. Wise bosses have learned to accommodate us as much as possible and pick the few fights they must have with their engineering talent very, very carefully. Google, in particular, got its huge market capitalization by being better at managing this symbiosis than anyone else.
I can best introduce you to our concerns by quoting another of our philosopher/elders, John Gilmore. He said: “The Internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it.”
Prohibition-era restrictions finally coming down: Making it legal to cross provincial boundaries with wine
Of course, it’s only a private member’s bill, so there’s only a tiny chance that it will be enacted:
I recently spent four days in Kelowna, B.C. during the Canadian Culinary Championships, then another subsequent two days at home in Toronto, tasting B.C. reds. There are many intriguing and excellent new labels on the market. […] The vast majority however are not available on the shelves of the LCBO’s Vintages stores; and the prices of some that are available for order via local agents are bloated by 50% to 100% over retail in B.C., thanks to LCBO mark-ups.
Before you say ‘so what’s the point’ and click away, hear my tale. Their availability may improve dramatically before this year is out, and you may be able to access them at something closer to B.C. prices. Our archaic interprovincial wine shipping system is seeing its first official crack.
In the Air Canada departure lounge at Kelowna Airport I spent a few minutes talking to Ron Canaan, MP for Kelowna-Lake Country. He, along with MP Dan Albas of Okanagan-Coquihalla, have been championing a private members bill (C-311) that would make it legal for individuals to carry or import wines across provincial borders (which has been technically illegal since Prohibition almost 90 years ago). A website called freemygrapes.ca has the full story.
The bill passed Second Reading in the House of Commons in the last session, and Mr. Canaan is “confident” it will pass third reading and become law this year. He is hoping in early summer.
February 23, 2012
Michael Geist on why Canada should not appear in the US piracy watchlist
You’d think, as Canada ranks 13th in the world for strength of intellectual property protection (much higher than the US at 24th spot), there’d be no question that Canada should not be considered as a “piracy haven”. But you’d be wrong:
In what has become an annual rite of spring, each April the U.S. government releases its Special 301 report — often referred to as the Piracy Watch List — which claims to identify countries with sub-standard intellectual property laws. Canada has appeared on this list for many years alongside dozens of countries. In fact, over 70% of the world’s population is placed on the list and most African countries are not even considered for inclusion.
While the Canadian government has consistently rejected the U.S. list because it “basically lacks reliable and objective analysis”, this year I teamed up with Public Knowledge to try to provide the U.S. Trade Representative Office with something a bit more reliable and objective. Public Knowledge will appear at a USTR hearing on Special 301 today. In addition, last week we participated in meetings at the U.S. Department of Commerce and USTR to defend current Canadian copyright law and the proposed reforms.
The full submission on Canadian copyright is available here. It focuses on four main issues: how Canadian law provides adequate and effective protection, how enforcement is stronger than often claimed, why Canada is not a piracy haven, and why Bill C-11 does not harm the interests of rights holders (critics of Bill C-11 digital lock rules will likely think this is self-evident).
February 22, 2012
“Mr. Toews encapsulated both the intellectual bankruptcy of the post-9/11 security/freedom equation and the capricious, self-indulgent doltishness that sometimes infects the Conservative government’s policymaking”
Chris Selley in the National Post on the disappointing moment at the start of the fight against C-30, the Canadian government’s internet bill that would eviscerate what little privacy protection still exists:
The most disappointing moment in the otherwise heartening backlash against the Protecting Children from Online Predators Act came right at the beginning, immediately after Public Safety Minister Vic Toews issued his immortal Question Period ultimatum. Mr. Toews was defending a law that would, among other things, allow government agents to march into your Internet service provider, without a warrant, and “examine any document, information or thing.” In this regard, he said Liberal MP Francis Scarpaleggia, and by extension all Canadians, “can either stand with us or with the child pornographers.”
He deserved — Canadian democracy deserved — nothing less than a humiliating, well-crafted, immediate putdown. He didn’t even get a “for shame.”
[. . .]
In a dozen words, Mr. Toews encapsulated both the intellectual bankruptcy of the post-9/11 security/freedom equation and the capricious, self-indulgent doltishness that sometimes infects the Conservative government’s policymaking. Any high school student should be able to identify and debunk the fallacy Mr. Toews was employing; to defend the intrinsic value of freedom and privacy; to articulate the dangers of handing governments excessive and unnecessary powers.
[. . .]
So, I think Mr. Toews’ comment sealed the deal. In the light of day, the War on Terror-era “you’re with us or you’re with the terrorists” argument is cringe-inducing; sub in criminals for terrorists and it’s laughable. More importantly, though, I suspect Mr. Toews finally confirmed a certain suspicion among many Canadians: When the government tells you it needs to limit your privacy or freedom, what it probably means is that it wants to limit your privacy and freedom and thinks you won’t put up a fight. It’s delightful to see this government proved wrong.
February 21, 2012
The real problem with forcing employers’ insurance to pay for contraception
At the Adam Smith Institute blog, Tom Clougherty discusses the biggest problem with the current American debate over contraceptives and insurance coverage:
Now, I’m no Rick Santorum. I’m a fan of contraception. But there’s so much wrong with this story that it’s hard to know where to start. Should the government really compel you to buy a service from a private company? It’s probably better than the government nicking your money and providing that service themselves, but for a libertarian it still rankles. Then there’s the insensitivity to deeply-held religious conviction, which not only exposes the ‘liberal’ left’s inability to tolerate social mores that differ from their own, but also highlights the way big government inevitably tramples on diversity and choice with its one-size-fits-all monomania. And then there’s the idiot-economics which suggests that you can force a company to provide a service without anyone having to pay for it. In this case, assuming insurance companies can’t find a way of covertly passing on the cost of contraceptive cover to church-affiliated employers, then everyone else with insurance ends up footing the bills through higher premiums.
But perhaps the biggest problem is the one explained by Sheldon Richman in this Freeman article: contraception has nothing whatsoever to do with insurance.
Insurance arose as a way for individuals to pool their risk of some low-probability/high-cost misfortune befalling them. It shouldn’t be necessary to point this out, but coming of child-bearing age and choosing to use contraception is not an insurable event. It’s a volitional act. It may have good consequences for the person taking the action and society at large, but it is still a volitional act. It makes no sense to talk about insuring against the eventuality that a particular person will use contraception.
February 19, 2012
Toews didn’t even know what was in his own proposed legislation
In an interview with the CBC, Public Safety Minister Vic Toews reveals that he hasn’t actually read or understood his own bill:
In an interview airing Saturday on CBC Radio’s The House, Toews said his understanding of the bill is that police can only request information from the ISPs where they are conducting “a specific criminal investigation.”
But Section 17 of the ‘Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act’ outlines “exceptional circumstances” under which “any police officer” can ask an ISP to turn over personal client information.
“I’d certainly like to see an explanation of that,” Toews told host Evan Solomon after a week of public backlash against Bill C-30, which would require internet service providers to turn over client information without a warrant.
“This is the first time that I’m hearing this somehow extends ordinary police emergency powers [to telecommunications]. In my opinion, it doesn’t. And it shouldn’t.”
As was detailed in a recent post on the Canadian Privacy Law Blog, Bill C-30 is riddled with nasty little booby traps, including a provision that prevents your ISP from telling you that your information has been given to the police (or other “inspectors” as designated by the minister) even after the investigation is complete. For that matter, there doesn’t even have to be a criminal investigation underway: if someone is given the role of “inspector” under this bill, they have the right to demand this information under any circumstances at all.
An update to that blog post since last time I linked to it:
Update (18 February 2012): It is really worth noting that this gag order is not new. It has existed in PIPEDA for quite some time. What is new is extending it to cover “lawful access” requests.
People should be aware that — I am told — in the vast majority of cases, internet service providers will willingly hand over customer information without a warrant when the police tell them that it is connected with a child exploitation investigation (using something cynically called a “PIPEDA Request”, which I’ve blogged about before). If your internet service provider hands over your information voluntarily, that’s also subject to the gag order in Section 9 of PIPEDA.
February 18, 2012
Even hardcore pro-Tory cheerleaders hate the new Internet bill
The Sun chain of newspapers is without a doubt the most pro-Conservative media voice in Canada. When even they are calling Bill C-30 “seriously flawed”, you’ve got to hope that the government will give up:
The legislation, Bill C-30, tabled this week as the Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act, had virtually no safeguards to protect law-abiding Canadians, including the media, from being spied upon by police, bureaucrats, CSIS — even the competition bureau.
Until Prime Minister Stephen Harper punted the bill straight to committee for a badly-needed overhaul, his government appeared unconcerned about its own inconsistency.
Earlier this week, for example, the long-gun registry was finally put down, killed by the Harper majority for one reason and one reason alone.
It was rightly deemed to be an intrusion into the privacy of law-abiding Canadians.
This leaves Bill C-30 indefensible in its present form.
Requiring telecommunications providers to hand over personal information — without a warrant — to law-enforcement agencies opens the door to incredible abuses, and not just by Big Brother.
“This is going to be like the Fort Knox of information that the hackers and the real bad guys will want to go after,” said Ann Cavoukian, Ontario’s privacy commissioner.
The bill also includes a lovely little gag order provision that prevents your ISP from telling you when your information has been turned over to “inspectors” under the bill (and that doesn’t limit itself to the police: anyone could be appointed as an inspector by the ministry).
February 17, 2012
Even the folks who supported “lawful access” are rethinking after Vic Toews’ “with us or with the child pornographers” comment
Lorne Gunter was about to write in favour of the Conservative government’s Orwellian “lawful access” legislation until Vic Toews clarified the issue for him:
Want to read my email, Vic Toews? Get a warrant
Vic Toews, stay out of my inbox. And no, it’s not because I’m trying to hide messages between me and kiddie porn providers.
I was about to write a column defending the Tories’ “lawful access” bill, albeit with strong reservations. Then Public Safety Minister Vic Toews accused anyone and everyone who wasn’t fully behind his bill of being supportive of the sexual creeps who prey on children by making and distributing pornographic images of them.
Seriously, Mr. Toews? Could you have done anything else that would have more thoroughly confirmed civil libertarians’ fears about your bill’s assault on privacy and personal liberty?
It is not a sign of indifference to the scourge of online child pornography to be concerned about giving police too much authority to snoop around in Canadians’ online activities. That’s a genie that cannot be put back in its bottle once it’s been released.
Gary Johnson is “the candidate that the Left once hoped Barack Obama would be”
Theo Anderson thinks that Gary Johnson is the candidate that should terrify the Democrats:
Gary Johnson is, in some important ways, the candidate that the Left once hoped Barack Obama would be. He vocally opposes the death penalty, the use of torture by the U.S. military, and the indefinite detention of people charged with a crime–even suspects charged with terrorism.
He’s pro-choice. He calls for deep cuts in the defense budget and an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan and from many of our military bases around the world. He unequivocally supports marriage rights for gays and believes that legalizing marijuana — rather than building a wall — is the key to solving illegal immigration. He also favors a two-year grace period for immigrants who are in the U.S. illegally, so that they can obtain work visas and continue living and working here.
[. . .]
What’s striking about Johnson isn’t just the fact that he’s to the left of Obama and most other elected Democrats on many issues. It’s also his boldness in comparison with the Democrats’ timidity. He’s been a fierce critic, for example, of the warmongering and civil-liberties abuses by both major parties over the past decade. In January, when he spoke the ACLU’s National Staff Conference, he called for repeal of the Patriot Act.
“Ten years ago,” he said, “we learned that the fastest way to pass a bad law is to call it the ‘Patriot Act’ and force Congress to vote on it in the immediate wake of a horrible attack on the United States. The irony is that there is really very little about the Patriot Act that is patriotic. Instead, it has turned out to be yet another tool the government is using to erode privacy, individual freedom and the Constitution itself.”
Joey deVilla’s “What People Think Libertarians Do”
Click image to go to original post at The Adventures of Accordion Guy in the 21st CenturyFebruary 16, 2012
Getting rid of that messy, obstructive “democracy” thing in Europe
Bruno Waterfield on the destruction of democracy in Greece and what it will mean for the rest of the European Union:
What happens in Greece will mark the opening of a new era in European politics. It is important therefore to understand what is and isn’t going on. The crisis is not, as many believe, being driven by ‘neoliberal’ economic policies. It isn’t caused by any Greek cultural propensity to fecklessness either. And, despite the protest graffiti and the timeless appeal of Nazi references, the Greek tragedy is not a plot to restore an explicit German hegemony in Europe. Angela Merkel is no Adolf Hitler.
What is happening in Greece is a crisis of European proportions because it is the sharpest expression of a destructive trend common to all countries in the EU: the twenty-first-century elite mission to place institutions, policy and statecraft above society. The Greek catastrophe, then, is an indicator of what happens when the question of interest or politics becomes the sole preserve of bureaucratic or state structures decoupled from, and increasingly defined against, the public.
Measures imposed on Greece are explicitly declared, even celebrated, as being in opposition to Greek society. Any attempt by political parties to uphold the democratic representation of Greek interests is met with aggressive hostility. Moreover, the EU-IMF programme, or so-called Memorandum of Understanding, for Greece is utterly divorced from economic reality. As documented in the Daily Telegraph, the Eurozone’s policies are pushing Greece into a ‘death spiral’ that defies any economic logic.
