[kwlug-disc] Writing letters to Peter Braid (MP for Kitchener-Waterloo) about CarrierIQ

Russell McOrmond russellmcormond at gmail.com
Mon Dec 5 12:29:29 EST 2011

On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 1:23 AM, Bob Jonkman wrote:
> Here's an article full of quotes from researchers, vendors and carriers.
> Largely the particular incident with Carrier IQ seems to be a tempest in a
> teapot.  But Paul's concerns about conducting and publishing such research
> in Canada once Bill C11 becomes law are very valid, and should be cause for
> concern for any technologists.
> http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-57336064-281/carrier-iq-verbatim-answers-from-company-exec-researchers/
>   By now it seems abundantly clear that, contrary to earlier reports,
>   the Carrier IQ technology is not actually a "rootkit keylogger."

Bob, and others.

  While this specific software turned out to not be as bad as
reported, it is still worth writing to Peter Braid (MP for
Kitchener-Waterloo) who will be part of the C-11 special legislative

  The issue isn't so much whether this specific program was malicious,
but that the interests of the carriers (previous owner of the device?)
and the rights of the current owner may conflict.

  Bill C-11 includes the following:

"30.63 It is not an infringement of copyright for a person to
reproduce a work or other subject-matter for the sole purpose, with
the consent of the owner or administrator of a computer, computer
system or computer network, of assessing the vulnerability of the
computer, system or network or of correcting any security flaws."

  Your guess is as good as mine whether this conflict between owners
and carriers would constitute a "security flaw", or yet another
contractual disagreement where one party is granted far more power
than the other (contract between carrier and owner may say that owners
have no rights).  My guess is that it would not be considered a TPM

  The most important thing for Peter Braid to recognize is that there
are 4 stakeholder groups impacted by the Paracopyright provisions in
C-11, not only two.  It isn't only copyright owners vs. audiences of
those copyrighted works, but must include recognition of rights of
competing software authors and device owners.   In this case is is
carrier vs. device owner that is the issue, something that shouldn't
have anything to do with a "copyright" bill, but which C-11 impacts.

The following may be helpful:

Why Heritage Minister James Moore is wrong on Bill C-11 "technological
protection measures" (TPMs)  http://c11.ca/5382

  If I can help with letter writing, let me know.  If we can get a
large number of KWLUG members to send letters that didn't seem like a
form letter to Peter Braid, then he may finally spend the time to
learn about this issue.   We need to move this from being something
technologists are upset about amongst ourselves to something which we
as an active community inform government why we are upset.

BTW: Keep focused on the Paracopyright issues.  As soon as you open
the topic of the Copyright aspects of the bill, you'll be dragged down
that rat-hole.

Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/>

Please help us tell the Canadian Parliament to protect our property
rights as owners of Information Technology. Sign the petition!

"The government, lobbied by legacy copyright holders and hardware
manufacturers, can pry my camcorder, computer, home theatre, or
portable media player from my cold dead hands!" http://c11.ca/own

More information about the kwlug-disc mailing list