[d@DCC] My Lawful Access consultation submission.

[tOM Trottier]

Matthew,

Excellent critique/response. I suggest you forward it to the opposition 
critics too, and I suggest reworking it into an op-ed piece for newspapers -
 you might actually earn some money while questioning Industry Canada's 
wisdom

One comment. The issue of "lawful" access is not a foregone conclusion. It 
is a question: What access to personal information and activity should be 
lawful, and what access should not?


Russell,

You may want to check your spelding. I'd suggest you focus your criticisms 
and give Industry Canada specific suggestions.

Now to work on my own critique.......

tOM

On Sunday, December 15, 2002 at 18:42
mskala at ansuz.sooke.bc.ca <discuss at digital-copyright.ca> wrote:

> On Sun, 15 Dec 2002, Russell McOrmond wrote:
> > department of justice is tomorrow.  While I normally like to have a long 
> > period of FLOSS-style open peer review for submissions I send to the 
> > government, this will not be possible as I left this to the last minute.
> 
> I have similarly written a last-minute submission; a draft is posted
> as flat text at http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/lasub ; probably a few hours from
> now I'll package it up and send it in, and shortly after that I'll post a
> final version on my Web site.
> 
> I haven't really had a lot of time or energy to devote to this process,
> and I must admit that having seen excellent submissions from people who've
> spent more time on it, I haven't felt that it was absolutely critical for
> me to make a detailed submission.  Mine just flags what I see as the most
> important highlights of the proposal.
> 
> > http://www.flora.ca/russell/drafts/lawfull-access.html
> 
> Overall, it looks good to me.  I think it could be improved by adding some
> kind of introduction and/or conclusion, drawing together the points made
> into a brief summary - the same sort of thing I did in my own
> submission.  That way a reader can tell at a glance what your main points
> are.
> 
> > Note: I removed the section of my submission on "Virus Dissemination",
> > although I may add it back in.  How the discussion paper defines a virus
> > is extremely vague, and may include copyright anti-circumvention tools or
> 
> Well, it's a totally separate topic from the rest of the lawful access
> document, but it's one that I hope doesn't fall by the wayside.  Maybe the
> most appropriate response would be a completely separate submission; but
> what I did was to just put it in a separate section with some complaints
> about the process problem.
> -- 
> Matthew Skala
> mskala at ansuz.sooke.bc.ca                    Embrace and defend.
> http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/
> 
> --
> For (un)subscription information, posting guidelines and
> links to other related sites please see http://www.digital-copyright.ca
> 


---- Quidquid latine dictum sit altum viditur ----
   ,__@	tOM Trottier +1 613 860-6633 fax:231-6115
 _-\_<,	758 Albert St.,Ottawa ON Canada K1R 7V8
(*)/'(*)		ICQ:57647974 N45.412 W75.714
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a 
little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor 
safety." -- Benjamin Franklin

--
For (un)subscription information, posting guidelines and
links to other related sites please see http://www.digital-copyright.ca