OVER THE EDGE December 5, 2007-January 9, 2008 JEREMY JOHNSON Sarr Writer There have been times when I have been asked something like, “why do you bother with the privacy debates?” Sometimes, the excuse is, “it’s far over on the other side of the country” or “it’s not our country at all, so why should we care?” Well, I care because these kinds of debates will make an impact here when issues like this come locally. Now that the new sports centre has decided to force people to make the choice of giving a finger- print or not using the sports centre, all these observations in the privacy debate magically come in handy. There is one thing I do not understand in this debate: why isn’t there some sort of swipe card system instead? Maybe an alterna- tive that doesn’t require personal information would suffice? Unfortunately, otherwise, I’ll have to plead general ignorance to a lot of the details since I was unable to get any for the time being. To make a long story short, I’m against for- cing people into databases which would con- tain personal information because this opens the door for a liability on the student’s end of things. So, on with what I know on privacy issues such as this. The most relevant case, to my knowledge, is the LSAT (Law School Admis- sion Test) case. In the case, in order to take a test as part of the admission process, stu- biemy Johnson - Staff Writer other identifiable information. No thumb- print, no test, no admission. The information is then transmitted to the United States where it would be subject to the US PATRIOT Act among other things. A complaint was filed and the privacy commissioner was brought in to investigate. In the end, the commissioner found that the collection of fingerprints were merely administrative and had nothing to do with educational purposes and demanded that LSAC cease the collection of fingerprints. Most importantly, the commissioner said, “I would note, however, that even if the finger- prints were still collected but held in Canada, they would continue to be vulnerable to US and Canadian law enforcement.” It’s not per- fectly clear if this is directly related as the sports centre is not an admission test, so this argument could be made against the LSAT case. Essentially speaking in the LSAT case, it was found to be an invasion of privacy. Google LSAT fingerprinting and CIPPIC and you should find the complete ruling in PDF format. Then there is a compelling argument made by the privacy commissioner of Ontario. This argument is more for those who say, “it’s just for some basic security!” The speech is known as the “Privacy by Design” speech. In it, the commissioner argues that you should care when privacy is a factor because when a democracy falls into a dictatorship, the first thing that unravels is privacy rights. It’s only the sports centre though, no big deal, right? . = Northern Sports Centre Fingerprinting Debate Wrong. My question is, if we start associat- ing fingerprints with our pictures/identities in a database, what else would we give up next “Just to make sure”? If I am doing nothing wrong, what gives you the right to monitor me in the first place? If you haven’t read my other piece on the 25 million lost identities in the UK, you may want to read that. I will say that the case in Britain shows that when not even a govern- ment with tight regulations and all of the pro- tective technology of today can’t be trusted to protect personal identities that are important, can we trust a small sports center to do the same? ‘Then there is the CRIA (Canadian Record- ing Industry Association) discovery case which shed some light on the privacy situa- tion in Canada. CRIA basically went to the courts and demanded personal information on alleged file-sharers. To the best of my know- ledge, no ISP said that they would hand over the personal information of their customers over to third parties. How did the ISPs react to CRIA’s demand? Well, one said no, they wouldn’t (Rogers) and another said, “give me enough money and I’d do it” (Telus). Thank- fully, CRIA lost the case miserably, but it shows that, even if you take privacy seriously when you get private information, there are those that are willing to change their minds on the agreement later on down the road. I know I'll probably be frowned on for com- paring this to the Bush Administration, so if you don’t want to hear this argument, then skip to the next paragraph. One of the largest privacy debates happening in North America is centered in the US over telecom amnesty. Essentially, the major ISP’s in the US were illegally wiretapping Americans and any traf- fic going in and out of the US and feeding all the information directly to the NSA. When the whistle was blown on the NSA, the Bush Administration ramrodded a bill through congress that says that this activity is illegal. Unfortunately for Bush, that bill was too late for the lawsuit against AT&T for breaching privacy laws. Right now, the Bush Adminis- tration is trying everything in the book to give retroactive immunity to telecoms for provid- ing personal information to the NSA. So far, it’s not succeeding, but the war over this issue is huge in the US. All you have to do is check out EFF for the development on that and re- lated stories. All-in-all, I'd say the whole idea of main- taining a database with personal information just to gain access to something you basic- ally paid some money towards already is a bad idea all around. There are plenty of other reasons I could offer, but this piece is long enough as it is and I believe I made my point anyway. On a side note, this story hit CBC and, re- portedly, the BC privacy commissioner is cur- rently involved on this issue. Hopefully, he recommends an alternative to finger-printing at the very least. dents had to provide fingerprints along with Stephane Dion and the Current State of Canadian Political Affairs | Drew ADAmick ConrTRIBUTOR These words can describe what Parliament has become: A friggin’ gong show. The conduct of Members of Parliament, including Our Fearless Leader, Stephen Harp- er, would put two-year olds to shame. Each party tries to outdo each other in verbal attacks and who can spout the best 30-second sound byte. Policy and ideas have taken a back seat to style, spin, and subterfuge. This is exemplified by the Conservatives’ “Not a Leader” at- tack ads on Liberal Leader Stephane Dion as soon as he was elected leader, which in turn has created (at least the impres- sion of) a self-fulfilling prophesy both within and outside the Liberal Party, in particular among the supporters of Michael Ignatieff, that Dion doesn’t have what it takes, Now, speaking as a card-carrying federal Liberal (and proud of it!), I can say that the divisions are most certainly not as bad as the media, the Conservatives and the NDP are making them out to be. And I will tell you that there is quite signifi- cant grassroots support for Stephane Dion within the Liberal Party, even among those who supported other candidates such as myself (I supported Gerard Kennedy). But I digress... The problem of Dion’s perceived leadership faults lies with the state of affairs in Canadian politics these days. By far the biggest factor is the mainstream media. The media thrives with the current state of politics. Why? Because such partisan, childish, immature behaviour sells stories. This is especially true if there is any hint of scandal - perceived or otherwise. The 24-hour news cycle and modern television these days pre- cipitates a media culture where quick, witty and glib sound bytes prevail over the grand and electrifying speeches of dec- ades past. Great political leaders such as Sir Winston Church- ill and Franklin Roosevelt would never have made it in today’s modern political arena, instead favouring such “leaders” like Stephen Harper and Jack Layton - who have little to no char- isma, spunk and passion, but instead have Machiavellian tac- tical minds and can master the 30-second quip. Stephane Dion is perceived to be weak because he cannot grasp the concept of making quick statements. Dion’s nature is one that more along the lines thriving in atmospheres like debate forums. In- deed, Dion’s performance on TV Ontario’s current affairs pro- gram “The Agenda” was stellar and he seemed more at ease. The more at ease you are, the more likely you can convey the image you want people to see. As well, Dion’s performance at the Parliamentary Press Gallery Dinner brought the house down. Check them out on YouTube. But then again, who besides political junkies and informed citizens watches that kind of stuff. And political junkies and informed citizens almost always have set partisan affiliations that are unlikely to change. The people Dion needs to target to get his message across to (and who would, I think, be most impressed with his style once you look at the other leaders), unfortunately, do not watch programs like The Agenda. They get their news from the 24-hour news cycle with its 30-second sound bytes. And it is Harper and Layton who dominate that scene. Unfortunately, Harper and Layton don’t seem to want to improve the discourse in Parliament. It’s all a game to them. They are hoping to create a polarized political culture in Canada - a two party system essentially. Harper is a power-hungry obsessive maniac and Layton just blows hot air all over the place, thinking he has what it takes, but in reality isn’t fit to manage a whelk stall (to paraphrase Churchill’s comments of the British Labour Party). Yet these men stand to further cement the petty and hot-headed dis- course that is called Canadian politics today, all in the name of gaining more percentage points and seats. The only person who stands in their way is Stephane Dion. And despite what they think, Dion is not going to back down. Dion did not back down when virtually the entire Quebec in- telligentsia and media classes denounced him as a traitor and a rat. Dion is the kind of leader many Canadians are looking for. Someone with integrity and committed ideals, and some- one who respects the opinions of his colleagues, unlike Harper (and to an extent, Layton) who runs things as a one man show and is only interested in the victory part of politics and of con- stant electioneering, not in actually governing. However, the current state of political affairs does not recognize leaders who actually want to govern. Lawrence Martin’s recent column in the Globe and Mail argues that Dion is a victim of the political “whore game”. He’s right. Politics has become simply a sport where people suck up to as many people, interest groups, etc. as possible with promises that they cannot keep to get elected - which are often unpractical once you actually get elected. The notion of providing peace, order, and good government that is respon- sive to and reflective of the will of the people seems lost these days. And the leaders who can provide that can’t get very far, or, in Stephane Dion’s case, get blasted for “lack of leadership and principles.” Conduct like what is going on in Parliament is fueling an ever-increasing cynicism in our elected officials. Problem is, when the opportunity to elect someone who will change this presents itself, no one is willing to give that person a fair shot. But who said politics is supposed to be fair? I think it should be, don’t you?