There is a major confusion in the media about C-61 and they don’t understand the core problem. The issue is not about people downloading music it’s about the anti-circumvention provisions which make it illegal to break the digital rights management (Britannica - Wikipedia) which prevents you from copying music and in some schemes requires your computer to “phone home” to an server from whoever you bought the music from before it will play.

Imagine if iTunes closed up shop suddenly. Most of the tunes you’ve paid for would suddenly become digital paperweights - with no server to verify that the content is legal it won’t play.

Providers have held consumers in the dark in the past. Google discontinued it’s video store leaving millions of videos they sold unable to be played (they did sort of offer partial refunds to people who bought their content.) Major League Baseball changed the format they sell videos in rendering all previously sold content useless. No refunds. Microsoft discontinued some of their phone home servers too so if you changed computers suddenly the music collection that you’ve paid good money for is also worthless.

C-61 would make it illegal to break the DRM on content that you’ve paid for but can no longer enjoy. Who is the real criminal here? It’s not Canadians.

Today the much feared Canadian DMCA (err, “fair and balanced after consulting with Canadians” amendment to the Copyright Act) came out and it’s anything but fair and balanced.

You know when you go to buy an airline ticket and they show you a price of $199*. When you actually land at your destination the * has more than tripled your price after surcharges, surcharges and more surcharges.

This proposed legislation is more or less the same way. Yes, it does contain a provision according to Prentice’s mass email that “expressly allow you to record TV shows for later viewing; copy legally purchased music onto other devices, such as MP3 players or cell phones; make back-up copies of legally purchased books, newspapers, videocassettes and photographs onto devices you own;” but there is a huge *.

You can’t break DRM or digital locks (Britannica - Wikipedia). So, all a content provider has to do to strip you of your rights is put a digital lock on the content and you’re subject to a $20,000 fine for doing exactly what the earlier provision says you can do.

Another concept is cell phones. With GSM phones (like iPhone) my account is stored on a little removable card that goes into the phone. Rogers (my current carrier) locks the phone so it will only work with their SIM cards.

After my contract is up and I have paid for my phone I want to take it to Europe and buy a cheap SIM card there for use overseas and not pay the arm and a leg roaming charges Rogers wants. If I break the restriction on something I have paid for in full I am subject to the fine. Rogers isn’t forced to provide me with an unlock code at the end of my contract so under this proposed law I would be stuck.

I have no problem with bringing copyright law up to the digital age. I have a problem with false advertising. C-61 has been falsely advertised by Jim Prentice and it needs to stop.

With recent news about the “SilentBanker” trojan that basically steals your usernames and passwords for online banking sites (and making your hard earned $$$ appear in a bank account a long ways away) the need to protect ourselves is extremely high.

For the ultra-paranoid among us there is an option which will provide pretty good protection from such keyloggers. If you use a LiveCD (essentially a CD or DVD with an operating system on it) which boots your computer into a sterile environment without touching any files on your computer. So, any badware thats in your Windows install cannot run and cannot intercept your transmission.

One common LiveCD is Ubuntu Linux which can be downloaded for free at http://www.ubuntu.com/getubuntu/download - once you download it you burn it to a CD or DVD by using the “Burn from Image” option in your CD burning software. After you have the disc, stick it in your computer and reboot - it will boot into Ubuntu. Once it boots, use the Mozilla Firefox (it’s pretty easy to find) web browser to do your online banking (or buying stuff online - pretty much anything with sensitive information in it) and then remove the CD from your computer and reboot.

It’s a little slow to load the LiveCD but if you are concerned about security it’s a good step to take. Even with the most corrupted Windows install you will be safe from Silentbanker and the other badware which can steal your information.

Following a recent CBC Marketplace story “Getting Gouged by Geeks” which showed essentially a sting operation with a computer with blown RAM calling in the various computer support companies to troubleshoot and repair the issue.

Needless to say, the program was not very complementary towards the technical support industry as a whole. Some of the criticism was well warranted (the privacy / ethics), some of it was not (trained competent people don’t work for free - think of how much the mechanic on your car charges.)

The biggest concern I saw (and that is very well warranted) is the point Marketplace raised about techs copying data to a device that they would take with them and not return to the customer (ie, an external hard drive or laptop) without first asking for authorization from the customer. While it is very commonplace to copy data off of a defective machine before working on it to prevent losing data the fact remains, you could have someone’s sensitive digital data on your hard drive, financial data - pretty much everything to steal someone’s identity and ruin their life.

1) Never copy data without authorization and explain how you are going to remove that data once you are done (yes, once you delete in Windows it can be recovered with some data loss but it’s harder to recover. Overwrite utilities can help there)

The second big concern was the dramatic “fear” tactics used to upsell more products / services. In some cases, replacement of a computer is cheaper than repair. Note some. Often it’s a quick and easy repair and unless the customer wants an upgrade, just fix it. As I see it, ensuring techs are primarily techs who focus on revenue from support not sales is critical to the reputation of the repair firm. Some companies get it, some do not.

2) Support is to fix, not to upsell

Many of the people who are calling these companies don’t know anything about computers and rightfully so. I have no clue how my car works and truth be told, I don’t care. The core issue is that qualified people don’t work for minimum wage or anything close to it. Half the problem is that people expect IT to be cheap “any kid can do it” and in order to meet the prices, some companies have gone for the cheap (often unqualified) person to meet that price expectation.

Maybe it is time for regulation and a code of ethics in the IT sector. Granted the fact that those in front of a computer or administering a server can access pretty much any content (including executive / confidential files) there is just too much to lose with a rogue tech. The hard part, there’s no way to determine who is competent - the certifications many techs have often involve passing a test which may test “learn and dump it on the test” knowledge, not practical skills.

So, for now, maybe a standardized code of ethics by a professional association which can publicly embarrass those who agreed to abide by it’s ethics but didn’t. It’s not perfect but it’s a start.

The latest rage on the ‘net is the Facebook application - essentially a bit of software which uses Facebook (the social networking site) as it’s sole medium. One cannot simply go to myapplicaitonname.com - no, you can only access it if and only if you have a profile on Facebook and login to the Facebook.com site.

Jason Calacanis explained Facebook’s motives for offering an platform that anyone can access

1. get free developer labor
2. generates tools for their platform and users
3. get free research into which features their users wants

(http://www.calacanis.com/2007/10/09/should-you-trust-facebook-with-your-business/)

Naturally, this has attracted hordes of developers who will generate apps because it’s relatively easy to do and it’s a way to gain “fame” among peers (”hey look, my app has 10,000 users!) Indeed, many of the apps that exist on Facebook have very limited potential for making money and exist as labours of love.

Now, a very select group of developers is basing their entire business (and financial future) off of a Facebook app. While I use Facebook regularly and use it for it’s core features (ie, social networking) it’s not the holy grail of the world. The barrier to entry and exit is pretty low, for all we know, Facebook could lose as many users a day as it is gaining right now. For a while, MySpace was the giant that couldn’t be beat, now look at where it’s standing in comparison to Facebook. Another day, another site could come along (offer an easy “import from Facebookâ€? feature) and dominate market share. Your application wouldn’t work with this new platform and bam, your revenue stream drops dead.

Not only does the “Facebook app” developer face two issues namely being having their fate determined by a third party which may or may not have any loyalty to you, the lowly app developer. One also has the issue of there being too many Facebook applications which can ruin someone’s Facebook experience.

Facebook gained a loyal following for being a lot “cleaner” and “more private” than it’s biggest competition MySpace. With too many apps, Facebook is starting to lose its edge on the “clean and simple” department. It’s not that you have apps on your profile, it’s everyone else. If I want to leave a message on someone’s wall, I really don’t want to scroll through 50 application sections to do so. Chances are I will get fed up with all the clutter and app invites and go somewhere else. Too many Facebook apps diminish the value of Facebook

Facebook should be commended for opening their platform - there are many good applications out there. On a business level however, I wouldn’t dream about basing my entire income on a third party that I don’t control. Facebook apps are great for simple “funâ€? gadgets and promotions (a great extension for a lot of web apps) but is a pretty big risk for someone’s bread and butter.

Facebook is a high risk stock. It’s fine to play around a bit with some high risk “money� – just don’t bet your entire life on it. While you’re thinking about it, stop sending me 5 million Facebook app invites. I really don’t want a cluttered up profile.

Every time I go online these days I see websites being called “long tailed” AJAX web 2.0 applications. While next to anyone can call a site “web 2.0″ - what are the real benefits of web applications over a desktop application. In most cases, although a single user application may be called “web 2.0″ - the real power lies in the ability for multi user and collaborative access.

Regardless of advances in networking technologies we will never make it faster to edit text in a web browser than it will be to send it over the “tubes of the internets” to a web server somewhere. While one can edit text offline and then send it all in one batch, very much like what I am doing right now when writing this essay in WordPress you will not be able to benefit from instant saves, backup recovery etc that desktop applications can offer.

So, where is the power in Web applications? The biggest advantage out there is the fact that they can be accessed from anywhere. Imagine if you had to go to your bank every time you wanted to make an online banking transaction to use their customized desktop software, it would ruin the whole advantage of online banking. Via the web it makes it simple to access the system from pretty much everywhere with software that is installed on practically every consumer computer on the face of this planet.

Apart from access from anywhere there is one major advantage. Multi user access. Wikipedia for example would not operate if everyone was restricted to one physical location or having to download specialized software to edit a page. Wikipedia works because all one has to do is click a button on a web page and edit a text field. On a business application, SugarCRM and Salesforce work because they allow people to work from anywhere and share the work they are working on with other members of their team.

Web 2.0 could be seen as a fancy marketing term for sites employing lots of AJAX which means no pages to refresh. I don’t believe so. Web 2.0 is an application that has to be accessed remotely via a web browser or it would be next to impossible for people to use. Web 2.0 is applications that require multi user access and can’t tie people to one physical location. Web apps won’t be replacing your desktop word processor anytime soon unless you need to collaboratively create those documents with other people but it will be the dominant force for groupware, CRM, and banking applications.