From Slashdot:

What's Going On in Canada?
"Up in Canada, the Privacy Commissioner of the province of British Columbia is recommending an immediate freeze on all outsourcing of public data to US-connected firms, Reuters and the CBC are reporting. After extensive consultations, the Privacy Commissioner has found that the USA Patriot Act threatens the private data of citizens even if they don't live in the USA (repeat: non-Americans are at risk). You can visit the Commissioners website, and download a summary or the full report."

I read the summary, and found this paragraph:

All levels of government in Canada must ensure that their laws are consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and that their policies and actions do not off end Charter protections. Several submissions suggested that putting British Columbians’ personal information at risk of seizure under the USA Patriot Act might conflict with privacy protection under the Charter. While we do not analyze this question, we acknowledge that Canadian courts require Charter values and rights to be considered in interpreting legislation such as BC’s FOIPPA.

So I decided to look up this charter, and I found it. Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, located on laws.justice.gc.ca, which goes to unusual lengths to tell the world that French and English are it's official languages, but otherwise looks similar in content to our Bill of Rights.

I decided to look for the US Bill of Rights, which is located not on a website with the words "law" and "justice" in the URL, but rather on "archives.gov" in a section called "Exhibit Hall." Rather than the text of the Bill of Rights, I'm reading is a Transcript of the Bill of Rights, as if it's chronicling an event and not informing me of my rights. Finding the rest of the Amendments is even harder.

And I noticed the "transcript" of the Fifth Amendment

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger

and I contrasted it with Canada's charter

9. Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned.
10. Everyone has the right on arrest or detention
    a) to be informed promptly of the reasons therefor;
    b) to retain and instruct counsel without delay and to be informed of that right; and
    c) to have the validity of the detention determined by way of habeas corpus and to be released if the detention is not lawful.

Period, end of sentence, no "except." Nobody Canadian citizen can be detained arbitrarily without being informed of the crime they're being accused of, without counsel, and without habeas corpus. Under the Patriot Act, I've heard of people being detained without being informed of the crime they were being accused of, and being held for months without a trial.

Is America more interested in the history of it's laws than in the current reality? Are we really in a constant state of "public danger" that requires us to live in the exception rather than the rule? (And the "exception" only applies to people who are in the military, not ordinary citizens, but somehow even that exception has been stretched.)

Even Osama bin Laden, if you read the full transcript of his speech, (Aljazeera Translation, or download the video here without translation) says the Patriot Act is a move away from Freedom and towards a Monarchy.

Then, what happened was that he was impressed by the monarchies and the military regimes, and he was jealous of them staying in power for tens of years, embezzling the public money without any accountability. And he moved the tyranny and suppression of freedom to his own country, and they called it the Patriot Act, under the disguise of fighting terrorism. And Bush, the father, found it good to install his children as governors and leaders.

Interestingly, the Patriot Act gets it's own website, and rather than reading a transcript of the Patriot Act, you read the Text of the Patriot Act, and you can find it via a single click from any page on the site.

http://www.lifeandliberty.gov/

It even has a section to dispel several dozen "myths," especially the ones put forth by the ACLU, and sections on how the Patriot Act is benefiting us every day. The site itself is a single link off of the Department of Justice homepage.

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are pieces of paper that have been transcribed and are taught in school to children. The Patriot Act was "enacted... by overwhelming, bipartisan margins, arming law enforcement with new tools to detect and prevent terrorism: The USA Patriot Act was passed nearly unanimously by the Senate 98-1, and 357–66 in the House, with the support of members from across the political spectrum."

Update, November 2, 2004: Another reason to move to Canada: Own the copyright on commissioned works you create.

Who should own your wedding pictures?
Ottawa quietly changing rules for copyright of photography

Photographers are essential and valued members of the creative community. A great photograph can educate and inspire; copyright law protects photographers by granting them copyright in non-commissioned photographs and by allowing them to contract for the copyright of commissioned photographs.

 

The proposed bill seeks to augment those rights by changing the default rule on who holds the first copyright for a commissioned photograph.

 

Since its introduction in 1924, Canadian law has vested copyright in the party that commissioned the work.

 

Photographer groups claim that this approach has hurt their business, since they are unable to fully participate in the market for "stock photography."

 

Unfortunately, changing the rule would harm consumers since, unlike other countries, including Australia and New Zealand, the proposal does not make an exception for consumer commissioned photographs taken for personal or domestic purposes.

 

As anyone who has used a wedding photographer or taken their children for portraits can attest, consumers hire photographers to capture their precious life moments with the expectation that the resulting photographs belong to them. While photographers may seek permission from consumers to use a particularly good picture to hang in their storefront window or place in their portfolio, the current law requires photographers to first obtain the commissioning party's authorization.

I think the article is a little sensationalist, a simple contract can change the ownership of the copyright, and it will give the creators of copyrightable works more freedom over who owns what. The only concern I have is unscrupulous photogaphers can screw their customers, but a change in the law, like that of Australia and New Zealand can change that.

Maybe we should move to Australia instead? Christmas in Summer anyone?

Discuss this article in the Forum.