DO NOT CALL the CRTC

The Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) has been in the news recently, and my inner communications scholar was intrigued. This post was going to be about CANCON and the CRTC online, and the potential ramifications on net neutrality, but an interesting debate with my roommate today about another CRTC related issue prompted this post on the Do Not Call list instead. People often ask me what, in fact, the study of communications is, and both of these issues, along with many many others fall under the study of communications. Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) (the Internet; wind-up laptops aiding education in undeveloped countries; electronic voting, etc.) are constantly evolving and changing the way people communicate. Understanding and adequately regulating these interactions is vital in harnessing their potential for benefits to society. That is the importance of the study of communications.

So back to the Do Not Call List (DNCL). As of 30 September 2008 Canadians have been able to add their phone numbers to a national registry, which will prevent them from receiving phone calls from telemarketers. Unless, of course, those telemarketers happen to be: a charity; political parties; riding associations; candidates; newspapers; or organizations with which you have done business in the past 18 months. Also not covered are calls about market research, public opinion polls, or surveys, which the CRTC explains "are not telemarketing calls because the caller is not asking you to purchase, lease or rent products or services" (https://www.lnnte-dncl.gc.ca/cofi-fico-eng). This clause provides a neat loophole for companies to call you asking if you would like to answer a survey, after which they would progress to bombard you with their sales pitch. Some people have even found that they have received more calls from telemarketers. Some cell phone users had never received any calls until they registered their numbers, as the list provides a handy bank of numbers for telemarketers (why you would register a number that wasn't receiving calls in the first place I'm not sure).

There is clearly a demand for this service in Canada. On the first day the list was available, the website was overloaded and not everybody was able to register immediately. That much activity on the first day says to me that this is more than a nuisance and is on the mind of a lot of people. Four and a half million people registered in the two months following the implementation (about a seventh of Canada's population. In two months).

The DNCL is also clearly not working. Many of the phone numbers are displayed as a bunch of zeros, and are untraceable. The CRTC has received thousands of complaints, and has been able to do little about the issue. It has the power to levy $15 000 fines to those who break the rules, but this is clearly a difficult task, and one that is not slowing the tide of phone calls. Something must be done, whether it's increased scrutiny and swifter condemnation of offending parties involving the phone companies and the technology itself, or the further establishment of a Do Call List, where people can instead register to receive telemarketer's phone calls. Michael Geist, a professor at the University of Ottawa in the area of technology and law, has set up his own system called iOptOut (http://ioptout.ca/). Registrants with his system can have an e-mail sent on their behalf requesting to be removed from telemarketers' lists which would otherwise fit the exemptions.

The debate I was engaged in today was whether or not the list was necessary, and what was the nuisance/privacy factor involved with telemarketers. My roommate contended that it was easy to say no or hang up the phone when telemarketers call. It was not that big an inconvenience or an invasion of the private sphere, and was actually a legitimate form of doing business. I argued that calling people's private phone lines in an attempt to hawk stuff they don't need was an invasion of people's private time and space, as well as an aggravation and interruption. My house would receive numerous phone calls a week that when answered were nothing but dead air. An explanation I heard for this was the practice of companies using dialing machines to call multiple numbers at once. The first one to answer got the sales pitch, while the rest got nothing. This was an attempt on their part to reduce time wasted calling people who are not home. And we've all received phone calls once we've sat down for dinner. I believe both of these situations to be nuisances that are not reasonable expectations of phone-ownership.

He likened it to being approached at street corners by Amnesty International ("Can you spare a moment to save a life?") or Girl Guides selling cookies at your door. Yet both of these contain a fundamental difference to cold-calling. In the first scenario, you have left your house and entered the public sphere, where there is an expectation that you may be required to interact with other people. It is also easier to say 'no thank you' with a dismissive wave as you walk past than to move to and answer a telephone, and wait until they stop their initial spiel to say no. The second scenario is clearly different because it involves children in a community group, doing actual legwork to raise funds. I would be resentful of receiving random calls out of the phone book from Girl Guides, and be much less likely to buy cookies, however them walking around the neighbourhood shows some effort. This is also much less frequent than the sometimes daily calls.

I was dismissed as lazy for not wanting to get up from what I was doing to answer the phone, but this is not a fair assessment. It's not about the physical effort, but instead about the disruption and invasiveness. I should not have to screen my phone calls to avoid telemarketers. I should not have to feel rude about interrupting or hanging-up to avoid a sales pitch. I should not have to stop eating dinner to answer a dead-line that could have been an important call. These all become disruptive uses of my private technology, which are invariably different from pitches from the street-corner or the Girl Guides. It is also something the CRTC needs to do a better job of enforcing, lest it be left up to Michael Geist.

RM

The CRTC official Do Not Call List Website: http://www.lnnte-dncl.gc.ca/

My Blog entries may also take a Christmas break (perhaps something the 22nd), but we will return in the new year.

On A Positive Note...

With all the negativity in the news in the last week involving the prediction of a deep recession, cheating university students, collapsing ski-lifts and the deaths of 6 Canadian soldiers I would like to, in the spirit of the Christmas season, try and find some light in the deep darkness of the Swedish winter.

After experiencing an earthquake here in Southern Sweden yesterday, a first for myself, I found myself musing over how strong our need to be with others actually is. We all want to share our experiences with others and when something remarkable happens the first thing we do is open our door and try to find something to de-brief with. In a time of year where people, religious or not, come together to share stories, a good meal and take part in a more than 1600 year old tradition, we also share in a common need to be together.

I’ve been reading a book by Jean Vanier called “Our Life Together: A Memoir in Letters.” Vanier is the founder of the L’Arche communities for the disabled that exist in over 30 countries around the world. In this book he outlines the humble beginnings of the very first L’Arche community in Trosly, France. Vanier is a man of faith that has an unbelievable belief in humanity and its capabilities, especially amongst those we perceive as the weakest in our society. He also shares in his words great wisdom and hope for all of us. One particular quote that jumped out at me while I was reading has stuck in my head for the past week. It seems in our daily routines we at times forget about the common humanity we share. Other people become nuisances that get in our way and cause us to wait in line at the store while Christmas shopping. Sometimes we need something to happen to shake us up (an earthquake works pretty well) and put things back in perspective. In a season where stress and darkness can reach our very hearts we all need to see the potential that even the dark has to bring about something great.

“On the eighth of July a third left on pilgrimage for Fatima. During the trip we encountered all sorts of difficulties. The brakes of the minibus driven by Thérèse needed repairs. We stopped at Guarda and that gave us an unforgettable evening at the house of some new friends. Three windshields broke with a deafening sound on Spanish roads. Marie Paule and Carole in the Deux Chevaux were the first vicitims; then there was Colleen and family and finally it was the Citroën D.S. with Dédé, who cried out. “How beautiful! How beautiful! It is just like crystal!” We spent two days in Bayonne with Anne Marie and Sister Monique, who came to our rescue. The oilcap on Alain’s car disappeared and with it quite a lot of oil! Have you ever looked for an oilcap in Spain on a Saturday evening? These episodes were always accompanied by joy and by encounters with new friends. That is where I began to discover the importance of welcoming the unexpected with openness, trying to see the positive elements in these events.”

Whether it is a friendly greeting or helping someone with a car-problem we all have opportunities every-day to meet people; people just like us. At times it is as if we don’t have any room in our lives for new friends and we would rather stay in our own comfortable bubbles. However it is these bubbles keep us in the dark no matter the time of year.
Maybe this year, in the midst of all the darkness and worries, we can try and see these problems from the outside and, in Jean Vanier’s spirit, see the potential these tribulations give us to be better people.

A very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year from myself to all our readers!

Will Grassby

My blog entries will return on Jan. 3 along with a new format, weekly features and some other new surprises as well!

(Bus) Strike

I'd be lying if I said the new-urbanist in me wasn't just the least bit tickled by the plight of suburban Ottawaians during the current transit strike; but the environmentalist in me is equally appalled, so it balances out.

The City of Ottawa is currently embroiled in a six-day-old transit strike, that is looking like it could easily last until the new year. This, coupled with Christmas shopping and heavy snowfall has made for some very frustrated commuters.

The Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU), representing OC Transpo drivers, mechanics, and others associated with public transit in the city, have been on strike since last Wednesday. This call to the picket lines corresponded with the first big snowfall of the winter, which snarled traffic, and increased transit times ten-fold for some people, while stranding many without cars. Perhaps intentional, perhaps unfortunate, but that perfect storm left many unsympathetic to the striking workers. Making things worse is the picket lines themselves around the city, where they restrict access to certain parking lots, adding up to an additional forty minutes on to an already extensive commute, and resulting in more than one incident of drivers intentionally hitting picketers with cars.

At the heart of the matter isn't money, but rather control. Control over scheduling, that is. Without fully understanding the intricacies of transit scheduling, my understanding goes something like this: under the current system the city lays our the routes and times, and then the drivers get to select their desired shifts. The drivers with the most seniority get to select first. The real difficulty comes with many of these being split-shifts revolving around the rush-hours. Many shifts are only three or four hours long, and most are during regular commuter times. What the city wants to do it be able to schedule the drivers as they see fit into these slots, which could result in a driver starting their day at 8:00am and not finishing until 9:00pm, but with three hours off in between somewhere. This represents less quality/family time for the drivers, but $3.4 million in annual savings for the city (CBC, 15 Dec 2008).

Both the city and the drivers are represented by abrasive men to whom open-mindedness does not come easily. A self-made millionaire with no political experience rode a wave of rural-populism and a 'zero-means-zero' tax-increase message to Ottawa's mayoral chair in the 2006 municipal elections. Larry O'Brien has since quashed a light-rail public transportation plan; given himself and then rescinded that same pay raise; made disparaging remarks about homeless people; and been formally charged with bribery under the Criminal Code of Canada by the OPP for his actions in the election. He has also most recently lost a budget vote, and been forced to raise taxes a whopping 4.9% higher than zero. He believes he can run a city like a business, and has been looking to correct inefficiencies in the bureaucratic machine since is inauguration (not altogether a bad thing). However, I'm sure these pinko unionists concerned about 'quality of life' just grind his gears, and he can't afford to lose this strike battle too.

On the other side is André Cornellier; a seemingly militant unionist who would throw himself under a bus if it meant protecting his drivers (not altogether a bad thing). He recently fiercely defended a driver who left a young mother at the curb while he drove off with her two-year old on board after an argument about strollers. ("The mean bus driver took me away from mommy," said the tabloid Ottawa Citizen's front page.) Cornellier has recently offered up a couple of whoppers, appearing brash and unsympathetic, and not doing himself any favours. In an interview with CTV, the following exchange occurred:
CTV- "Will you be giving your membership an opportunity to see the offer and vote on it tonight before midnight?"
AC-"No."
*pause*
CTV-"Why not?"
AC-"Why?"
When asked about the delay caused by picketers, he said: "It's about... inconveniencing people. What's wrong with that?
For more: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkBIsGTlUT8&watch_response).

So now the city hangs in the balance. People are forced to find other ways to get around, and business owners are losing many customers at this vital time in a sagging economy. Freezing rain tonight, and calls for temperatures as high as 4°C Monday and as low as -9°C Tuesday, which will only result in icy slush, and we're all stuck watching two petty men duke it out (by duke it out I mean not talk to each other). I guess watching Harper try and save a measly $30 million at the expensive of the financial well-being of all of his opponents inspired O'Brien to try and save a measly $3.4 million at the expense of the contentment of oft-underappreciated employees who take a lot of abuse and make the city run. That said, calling a strike on the eve of the first big snowfall and right before the Christmas season, while being represented by a man who wears his callous disregard for everybody else like a badge of honour is not the best way to rally public sympathy. In the end really everybody loses, except for the cabs, and perhaps the new-urbanists. And this perfect storm is looking like it could go the distance.

RM

The Blog Journalists to Return Next Week

Due to the high volume of events here at The Blog Journalists this week, this Friday's edition will not be appearing. We will be back as usual next Monday.

Thank you!

(Bus) Safety

It is very possible that there is a person alive in Winnipeg today who would not be had Vince Weiguang Li been denied his knife of a Greyhound Bus in July of 2008. His horrible, tragic, unprovoked, and brutal murder of fellow passenger Tim McLean was not a rational act, and was a crime that likely would have been committed eventually anyways, and would not have been stopped by increased bus security.

And yet, an increase in security is exactly what Greyhound intends to do. Passengers in major terminals may now be swept by hand-held metal detectors, have their luggage checked, and may be required to store all luggage save for purses and wallets under the bus (CBC, 4 Dec 2008). Greyhound officials say that these measures are the result of a two-year safety study, and do not directly relate to any one incident. I am all for increased safety, but all that these measures lead to is an increase in security instead.

It is hard to argue that metal detectors and luggage searches that remove knives from buses will not lead to an increase in security. But at the expense of time, money, and personal freedom, these measures overpower the safety they look to ensure. Particularly concerning is the prospect of not being allowed carry-on luggage. I often travel with a newspaper, book, camera, snack, water, etc. and such a provision would make this impossible. The Greyhound is great because it is cheap and fast, and does not require reservations, however these security features put that in jeopardy, as wait times and costs would surely increase.

Knee-jerk reactions of increased surveillance and inspection are indicative of a time and place where a Prime Minister gets re-elected with a tough-on-crime agenda. We are constantly being warned about the threats to our safety, whether it's killers on the bus or terrorists sending signals across Swedish borders. Furthermore, the only way to stop these threats is increased surveillance and harsher penalties.

What these theories fail to address is the root of the problems, and instead they just exacerbate them by directing funding away from development and into punishment, and locking criminals up, together, for longer periods of time, with less effort directed towards rehabilitation. The justice system is supposed to serve three simultaneous purposes: punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation. Punishment is really simply a primal instinct for revenge, and does not serve a whole lot of purpose beyond satiating our desire to see this. I do not deny possessing these feelings myself, but in the grand scheme of justice and society, it serves the least purpose of all three. Deterrence commits the fallacy of assuming that all criminals are as rational as those making the laws. Vince Weiguang Li was clearly not deterred by any threat of capture. Most crimes have underlying factors (mental health issues; drug addiction; lack of social support) that cannot be fully understood by those on the outside to whom dislike for prison would be a rational deterrent. Perhaps the best example of harsher penalties not leading to a decrease in crime is the lack of correlation between the death penalty and a lower homicide rate.

That leaves rehabilitation, which can be tied together with prevention. Only by investing in discovering and addressing the root of the problem can crime ever really be effectively dealt with. This may seem like an obvious and vague conclusion, and not really offer any tangible direction on how to spend limited resources. I don't pretend to have the answers, but I know that Greyhound drivers with metal detectors is not one of them. We are continuing to invest more and more in our infrastructure and our youth, and particularly with at-risk groups, and I believe this will ultimately prove to be the method that best quells the flow of crime.

RM

FRA-lagen: Sverige som övervakningssamhälle

Due to the fact I am writing a major test in Swedish next week and need practice writing for the essay section I am doing today's blog in Swedish along with an English translation which can be found directly below the Swedish version. As I am writing in a foreign language the content is simpler than a normal “Blog Journalist” blog and concerns an issue that is currently being discussed in Sweden, but one that has international consequences. I hope our English readers excuse these simplicities for this week and enjoy trying to understand the Swedish translation!

FRA-lagen

Sverige tycks som om det kommer att vara det strängaste landet i västvärlden när det gäller övervakning av elektronisk kommunikation. Den första januari 2009 en ny lag träder i kraft vilken har fått det informella namnet “FRA-lagen.”

FRA är en förkortning för försvarets radioanstalt, den myndigheten som kommer att hantera signalspaningen som legitimas av den nya lagen.

Lagen är mer en verksamhet som kommer att påverka flera lagar. FRA-lagen innebär att viss trädbunden kommunikation kan övervakas. Innan var det bara radiosignaler som kunde övervakas. Lagen kommer också att förändra sättet att personuppgifter behandlas.

Å andra sidan finns det stränga regler att FRA måsta följa för att använda signalspaning. Bland dessa regler är att FRA måste söka tillstånd för all signalspaning och de ska enbart få tillgång med dömstolens tillåtelse. Dessutom får de bara signalspana på trafik som passerar Sveriges gränser dvs. de får inte avlyssna når båda avsändaren och mottagaren finns i Sverige.

FRA-lagen är ett försök för att minska risken för utländskt hot och terrorism i Sverige. Lagen har mötts med mycket motstånd bland politiker samt vanliga svenskar för att lagen bryter mot deras personliga integriteten. Det finns många som är oroliga att denna lag bara är ett steg mot ett övervakningssamhälle inte olikt det som finns i George Orwells berömda roman 1984. Vissa kritiker kallar även lagen för “Lag 1984.”

Personligen har jag blandade känslor kring detta. Å ena sidan är det alltid bra att vara försiktig när det gäller terrorism särskilt i dagens läge. Å andra sidan är Sverige benägen att vara för försiktig. Klart att terrorism är en verklighet men varifrån kommer hoten just nu egentligen? Terroristattacker är väldigt ovanliga i Sverige och det verkar osannolikt att den trenden kommer att förändras.

Dessutom inskränkar FRA-lagen på den personligafriheten. Det är en mänsklig rättighet att tänka och säga vad man vill utan att ha någon som lyssnar på sig. Problemet är att den här lagen kommer förmodligen inte att användas på det sätt som ansågs och möjligheten för missbruk är stor. Sannolikheten att FRA kommer att hitta terrorister är låg och denna lag skulle kunna skapa en känsla av mistro och misstänksamhet i det svenska samhället. FRA-lagen skulle också kunna försämra förhållandet mellan Sverige och andra länder som inte håller av lagen och även väcka främlingsfientlighet för att lagen är baserad på misstro mot främlingar.

Avslutningsvis anser jag att FRA-lagen inte är lika farlig som många kritiker tycker men däremot är den tämligen onödvändig.

The FRA Law: Sweden as a Survellience Society

Sweden is likely to soon become the strictest country in Western society in terms of surveillance of electronic communication. On January 1st 2009 a new law will come into effect that has been given the informal name of “The FRA Law.”

FRA is an acronym for Försvarets Radioanstält, or in English the Defense Radio Institute, which is that authourity that will govern the use of signals intelligence that is legitimized by the new law.

The FRA Law is actually more of a movement that influences several different Swedish laws. It implies that wired communication can be surveyed whereas before only wireless communication could be surveyed. The law will also affect the way that personal information can be used.

On the other hand however the FRA Law has to follow several rules in order to gather and use signal intelligence. Among these are rules that require FRA to receive permission before they can gather information and a requirement that they will only use the information with direct consent from the Supreme Court. Furthermore signals intelligence will only be used on signals that cross Swedish borders. In other words they will not be allowed to gather information when both the sender and receiver are within Sweden.

Essentially the FRA Law is an attempt to reduce the threat of attacks from other countries as well as terrorism. The law has been strongly opposed by many politicians as well as ordinary citizens because of the way the law breaches their personal privacy. The are many that are worried that this law is a step towards a surveillance society not unlike the one in George Orwell’s famous novel “1984.” Some critics of the law have even dubbed it as “The 1984 Law.”

Personally I have mixed feelings about this. In one way it is always good to be careful with regards things like terrorism, especially in today’s world. In the same way Sweden is a country that has a tendency to be too careful. Of course terrorism is a reality, but where exactly is the threat coming from? Terrorist attacks are very rare in Sweden and it seems unlikely that this trend will change anytime soon.

Furthermore, the FRA Law infringes on personal privacy. It is a human right to think and say what one wants without having someone listening in. The problem is that this law is unlikely to be used in the way it was intended to and the potential for abuse is high. The likelihood that the FRA Law will uncover any terrorists is low this law could breed mistrust and suspicion within Swedish society. The FRA Law could also hurt the relationship between Sweden and other countries that aren’t fond of the law and could also awaken feelings of xenophobia because the law is essentially based on the mistrust of foreigners.

Ultimately I think this law is not as dangerous as it is made out to be but for the most part rather un-necessary.