Archive for the ‘Commentary’ Category

South Shore – St. Margaret’s All Candidates Debate at the Days Inn

Tuesday, April 19th, 2011

Tonight I’m going to take a whirl at a bit of live-blogging.  Refresh this post for updates. I’ll post in reverse chronological order (newest at the top).

8:45pm – Closing statements.  Earle (NDP) notes that Harper fell because of Contempt of Parliament, a first, and a really, really bad thing.  (I wonder why the media isn’t covering this properly.  I had to do my own research to figure out what this Contempt stuff was.)  Wells (Liberal) also mentions the Contempt. MacLellan (Green) ignored that and talked positively about himself and the Greens.

I’m worried that these parties are going to split the vote again, though.  We need to get out the vote!  One of them has to beat the Conservatives!

8:34pm – Everybody here wants to up corporate taxes again, to use the money for public programs.  Supporters of tax cuts say the cuts create jobs, but that’s not how things go down.

8:26pm – Question about children, and effectively the future of the Canadian population.  Interesting and poignant discussion.

8:13pm – Liberals and Green also have plans to make government more accountable.

8:12pm – NDP has plans to put new restrictions on PM’s ability to get prorogation – they’d need government approval if they’re trying to do it to avoid a non-confidence vote.

8:10pm – Current question’s title: The Harper Government and its Abuse of Democracy.  Had a good summary of how messed up things are right now.

8:00pm – NDP, Lib, and Green all support helping make post-secondary education more affordable (though they have different plans to go about it), and they all support Canada Post staying public.

7:35pm – All three candidates here (NDP, Lib, Green), are all for keeping the Canada Pension system working, none of this privatization nonsense.  (As a book I’m reading right now – The Paradox of Choice – notes, having to figure out all the ins and outs between tons of Pension plans as an individual is yet another stressful choice that gets piled on to us in modern society.)

7:21pm – Keddy skipped a school debate earlier today, too.

7:15pm – Keddy got booed for not being here, due to ‘scheduling conflicts’.

7:07pm – They’re still setting up.  Apparently the incumbent Conservative isn’t here.  The heck?

2 Reasons Why I Would Never Vote Conservative

Wednesday, March 30th, 2011

In general, politics are becoming increasingly negative. “Your party sucks,” as opposed to “This is why my party is good.” We have more negative campaign ads than ever these days, and they were already starting up before the election. Ideally, we should be compromising on our differences, rather than endlessly arguing with closed minds and getting nowhere.

That said, after going over my results in Vote Compass there are two major reasons why I would never vote Conservative, despite having some areas of compromise with them in other questions.

1. Human Rights

As shown in the above image, the Conservatives are the only party that strongly believes that marriage should only be between a man and a woman. All the other parties either strongly disagree or somewhat disagree. To me, this is a simple, no-grey-area human rights issue. If we are to advance the idea that monogamy is a worthwhile practice, and that two people can unite in a lifelong bond, there is no logical reason to deny this to people who happen to have a different sexual preference from the majority. Heterosexuals “damage” the institution of marriage all the time as it is, there’s no reason to think homosexuals will do any more or less damage to it.

2. Political Party Financing

Now, you might ask – why are we giving political parties our money? The answer – to keep our system democratic and fair. If we don’t give the political parties money, and if we don’t put regulations on how much money they can raise and spend beyond that, it turns into a wealth contest. The wealthiest people and/or the people with the wealthiest supporters gain the campaign edge (and keep in mind the current wealth disparity – a small amount of rich people have far more money to work with than a large amount of middle-class/lower-class people).

Personally, I’m guessing we could be giving less than we are now, and we could be further regulating the amount of money they can spend. But, as you see above, the Conservatives strongly agree that political parties should not receive any government funding. That means it would all be coming from private sources, which means the Conservatives would have a gigantic edge in campaigning, as rich people often tend to skew Conservative. And, sadly, in this era campaigns involve a lot of media blitzing and soundbites, and the people with the most money get the most coverage and the most eyeballs – we don’t want to do anything to continue further down that road.

And those are two reasons why, as things stand, I would never vote Conservative.

 

Blackberry Browsing – An Open Letter to CTV News Channel

Wednesday, September 30th, 2009

The September 29th technology segment on CTV News Channel suggested an email browsing practice which has security implications.  No mention of any potential security implications was mentioned on the segment, so I’ve written the following email to them.

Dear CTV News Channel,

I am writing about the tech segment with Marcia MacMillan interviewing Marc Saltzman. He suggested that it is more efficient to navigate Blackberry emails using the previous and next hotkeys, however, he did not say anything about the security implications of this practice.

Opening an email can automatically activate content contained within it. Spam can include tracking code or pictures that confirm a user has opened an email, leading to more spam going to that now known address. Emails that are opened can automatically activate viruses. Although Blackberry viruses are purported to be rare, they are not impossible, and it is better to have good security habits now in case they become more prevalent in the future.

Also, good or bad security habits on a Blackberry could transfer to a user’s computer habits. If someone gets used to just skimming through emails with the previous and next hotkeys, opening the email without examining the subject, they might start doing the same on a Windows PC. An email that might not affect a Blackberry could do far more damage to a computer.

Efficiency and security can be at odds, and sometimes there is a fine line between practical and paranoid, but I believe technology segments such as this should include an examination of pertinent security issues, so that the public has some information with which to make their choice between efficiency and security, and to realize that they are making such a choice.

Regards,
Gus Webb
gnote.ca

Canadian Copyright

Sunday, September 13th, 2009

The government has been soliciting submissions on the direction copyright law should take in Canada. (For more information on this, I suggest reading the information at http://faircopy.ca/ )

The following is my submission to them:

I am both a consumer and producer of copyrighted media.  I believe that copyright needs to carefully balance the rights of the artists and producers with the rights of the consumer.  The concept of ‘fair use’ for personal and educational uses needs to be evolved for digital devices.

There are a lot of large companies that are only looking out for themselves, not the artists, not the producers, not the consumers.  The Record Industry Association of America uses bullying tactics to stay rich, and isn’t particularly helping the artists in the process.  It does not serve anyone for corporations to be suing grandmothers and children for listening to a few songs they acquired from the internet.

The idea that music sharing hurts CD sales, aggressively pushed by the record industry, is overly simplistic.  John C. Dvorak suggested years ago that Napster, a program used to share music from personal, digital libraries between users, actually helped cd sales.  When consumers looked for digital copies of songs they liked (and likely already owned), they found other songs they liked, thus discovering new music they never would have heard otherwise – which they could then buy on CD.  http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,1537393,00.asp

It should be remembered that just because people download a file for free, it does not mean that a company is losing money.  That person may not have paid for the product anyway.  But by viewing and possibly sharing a free file, there is at least a gain for the company by exposure – free publicity.

In another article, http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,34048,00.asp , Dvorak suggests that Napster could have become a new distribution medium, where people would pay a monthly fee to use the service without limit, the profits from which could be split amongst the media companies to both the corporation and the consumers’ mutual benefit.  Yet, the music companies have not readily embraced such a model, preferring to look to the past.

I believe the onus should be on the private sector to provide services that are simple and convenient for the consumer.  There will always be piracy, but it should be up to the private sector to utilize and develop technologies and systems that will inspire consumer loyalty in the majority.  The technology exists for companies to distribute their content digitally, without limit.  No packaging or physical distribution, which is great for the environment.  Peer-to-peer and torrent networks allow for the decentralization of server and bandwidth resources, in effect making it cheaper for content to be distributed than the companies can hosting the content themselves.  All the media companies would have to do is be willing to bring full legitimacy and backing to versions of these services, and hook in a payment system (ideally by monthly fee, so that the items a user has purchased don’t even need to be kept track of).  This would result in low cost for both distributor and consumer.

All music and video files should also be free of Digital Rights Management.  DRM is always flawed – there are always ways to circumvent it, and they often penalize legitimate users by making it hard for them to keep track of licenses, or even introducing instabilities to their computers or causing equipment to malfunction.  Honest users will treat the music and video files they purchase appropriately, others will circumvent it anyway.

Companies are embracing digital forms to some extent.  iTunes is a popular service, though it charges a relatively high fee for an ephemeral computer file.  Many tv shows are being streamed online, though this requires more computer power than distributing files through a peer-to-peer network, where the end result is simply playing on a consumer’s device with little chance of skipping or stalling.

The world is quickly changing.  It has been said that Canada can be a leader in technology and green innovations.  Fair Copyright can be a part of this strategy.  The CBC has already delved into this brave new world by sharing its show Canada’s Next Great Prime Minister via bittorrent.  http://www.cbc.ca/nextprimeminister/blog/2008/03/download_canadas_next_great_pr.html Hopefully Canada will continue to be innovative as it looks to the future.

G. Webb
Lunenburg, NS