Ted,

I am very concerned about the fact that a bill allowing the Government / Police to monitor the Internet activities of law abiding citizens is even being considered by the House of Commons. The statement that people that believe this bill is an error “support child pornography” is a horrible, misinformed thing for any government representative to state in the public forum. I know it wasn’t you that said it, but as my local government representative I don’t know where else to express my extreme distaste on this matter.

Monitoring Internet activity and allowing warrant less searches of a persons Internet history violates the following fundamental freedoms guaranteed in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms:

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion;

(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and

(d) freedom of association.

I am sure you are familiar with this fundamental aspect of Canadian law, but I will explain how I believe Bill C-30 violates them:

2(b) As a Canadian we are guaranteed the right to express ourselves in any way, at any time, without any risk of reprisal. By monitoring the Internet in this way, you are destroying the free and open forum that the Internet is built upon. To use the rather distasteful example that your government used, even Child Pornographers are guaranteed the right to discuss their vile, contemptible desires via any means that is available to them. In the words of Voltaire “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

2(c) If people fear that their activities are monitored they will no longer be willing to express ideas openly on the Internet. Thus compromising our right to freely convene on the Internet and spread ideas.

2(d) The Internet is full of sites that serve multiple purposes, we are free to associate with parts of them without associating ourselves with the whole (if your are not familiar with the creativity an anonymous environment presents, visit 4chan.org. Some very vile things occur there, as well as some of the most creative things our generation has ever experienced.) By monitoring the Internet, you are taking away this context based association, police agencies CANNOT be trained to tell the difference between someone on 4chan to spread creativity and someone on 4chan to download illegal materials. The Internet is a gray area that cannot be defined by law, trying to do so will criminalize a large portion of users.

Even in the event that a law monitoring the Internet is passed, people that are performing criminal activity now will continue to do so by utilizing the same procedures they use now. Hell, we got the Internet working in Iran. Do you think we can’t outsmart the ISP’s? You would merely be monitoring the activities of naive users that don’t understand how to anonymize and secure their connections. I assure you that people that distribute child porn today would only have to make minor changes to their practices to continue to do so anonymously in even the most closely scrutinized environment.

Thank you for taking the time to read my email, I am available to talk further on the matter if you are interested. I can be reached at:

Phone – [REDACTED]
Email – josh@newwestcreative.com

Regards,

Josh Harkema

Dear Josh,

Thank you for your correspondence expressing your concerns on Bill C-30, the Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act. I greatly appreciate hearing the thoughts and views of my constituents.

Bill C-30 was introduced on February 14, 2012, by the Honourable Vic Toews, Minister of Public Safety. Our Government has recognized that as our technology evolves, many criminal activities – including the distribution of child pornography – become easier. Canada’s current laws do not adequately protect citizens from being exploited. That is why Bill C-30 is proposing to bring laws up to date and provide authorities with the tools they need to do their job. The approach we are taking strikes a healthy balance between the necessity to keep Canadian privacy rights safe, and the investigative powers used to protect public safety.

Any claims that private communications such as emails or web activity will be intercepted without warrants are completely false. This legislation maintains that police and authorities will still be required to possess a warrant issued by a judge to access the contents of private information. Our Government’s proposed process of linking subscriber information to an internet address is congruent with linking phone numbers to an address in the phone book. Basic subscriber information will be limited to a citizen’s name, address, email address, telephone number, name of the telecommunications service provider, and Internet Protocol (IP) address.

The basic information outlined in this tabled legislation is equivalent to information that is already freely shared online by individuals, and is often quite public. Bill C-30 will not call for telecommunications service providers or police to generate databases with information obtained from Canadian citizens. Telecommunications service providers are already permitted by law to voluntarily release basic subscriber information to authorities with no warrant. Bill C-30 offsets these provisions by including various checks and balances that are not currently in existence, and clearly identifies which basic subscriber identification pieces authorities have access to.

Bill C-30 will be sent directly to Parliamentary Committee for a thorough examination of the most effective ways to protect Canadians while maintaining acceptable privacy restrictions. One particular privacy safeguard outlined in Bill C-30 would require audits by privacy commissioners.

Because of recent technological innovations, terrorists and criminals have discovered ways to cover up their illegal activities. The Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act will enhance safety for Canadians by placing authorities on the same playing field as those who seek to harm us. In conclusion, the message is clear: if an individual chooses to use technology to commit crimes – such as distributing child pornography – authorities will apprehend them and they will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

For more information on this legislation and to follow it through the legislative process, please visit: http://www.parl.gc.ca/LegisInfo/BillDetails.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&billId=5375610

Once again, thank you for taking the time to write. I hope this response addresses your concerns. Should you have any further comments or questions, or if I am able to be of assistance in the future, please do not hesitate to contact me again.

Sincerely,
Ted Menzies, M.P.
Macleod

Many small and medium enterprises spend 1000’s of dollars a year on licensing of Microsoft server products. With the advent of large-scale hosted Microsoft applications it is now possible to spread the licensing costs out over many years, rather than buying them in one large lump sum. This allows companies to only license the software they use, rather than buying the whole package of software and only using small parts of it.

A 25 user organization would spend approximately 10000 dollars having an on-site exchange server implemented by a professional. This includes licensing, hardware, and consulting fees’. It does not include soft costs over 5 years, but a conservative estimate of 3 hours of support per month ($285) would bring the total cost to $27100. If the same organization was to utilize a hosted solution the total cost over 5 years would be $26250 (17.50 / mailbox / month) including any required on-site support, data backups, and guaranteed uptime. The hosted solution is almost a no brainer. There is no hardware on site to maintain, all upgrades are done off-site, and all the maintenance is done by people who know exactly what they are doing. Hosted Exchange with Intermedia, for example, is collocated (stored in multiple, geographically distant locations.) This provides data redundancy that would cost 1000’s of dollars to maintain internally.

Reliability of on-site hardware is always in question. Some companies are one break in away from losing all their internal data. Wouldn’t it be easier to keep all company data off-site in secured server farms managed by professionals? You’re on-site 4000 dollar dell server sitting on the floor is nowhere near as reliable as the 60 million dollar server farms that most hosted solutions companies maintain. Most hosting companies manage their data in such a way that it would take two major natural disasters happening simultaneously on both coasts of the United States to cause a service outage. That dell on the floor is one hard kick away from total failure.

As you can see, there is no good reason to keep your Microsoft applications hosted in house. Moving to the cloud will save your company money, downtime, and frustration. Not only are their substantial cost savings to be leveraged, but the unlimited scalability means that your company can grow without having to worry about the IT infrastructure being able to support it. If your company is interested in finding out what Microsoft Hosted Applications can do for you, call Joshua Harkema at 403.617.0197.

My report cards were average at best and always punctuated with remarks like “Michael is not living up to his potential”. When I saw this video it resonated. Maybe it will for you too.