Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Stop throwing good money after bad. (Score 1) 342

by davecb (#47423377) Attached to: The Pentagon's $399 Billion Plane To Nowhere
Canada's government of the day is using it as a money-sink. Our requirements are for a twin-engine, long-range, non-stealthy aircraft with a moderate ground-support capability, such as the F-18 Hornet we now use. They rejected the newer super hornet, and so I fear the entire programme exists only to soak up money they don't want to spend on the priorities of the other parties...

+ - Canadian Supreme Court Delivers Huge Win For Internet Privacy->

Submitted by Anonymous Coward
An anonymous reader writes "For the past several months, many Canadians have been debating privacy reform, with the government moving forward on two bills involving Internet surveillance and expanded voluntary, warrantless disclosure of personal information. Today, the Supreme Court of Canada entered the debate and completely changed the discussion, issuing its long-awaited R. v. Spencer decision, which examined the legality of voluntary warrantless disclosure of basic subscriber information to law enforcement. Michael Geist summarizes the findings, noting that the unanimous decision included a strong endorsement of Internet privacy, emphasizing the privacy importance of subscriber information, the right to anonymity, and the need for police to obtain a warrant for subscriber information except in exigent circumstances or under a reasonable law."
Link to Original Source
United States

Did Russia Trick Snowden Into Going To Moscow? 346

Posted by samzenpus
from the can-we-give-you-a-ride? dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Ex-KGB Major Boris Karpichko says that spies from Russia's SVR intelligence service, posing as diplomats in Hong Kong, convinced Snowden to fly to Moscow last June. 'It was a trick and he fell for it,' Karpichko, who reached the rank of Major as a member of the KGB's prestigious Second Directorate while specializing in counter-intelligence, told Nelson. 'Now the Russians are extracting all the intelligence he possesses.'"

Comment: Niggle: one polices one's monopolies and crooks (Score 1) 347

Actually one "polices" them rather than "regulating" them. It's called the "police power of the state", and refers to a lot more than the cops. Anything that gets you dragged in front of a magistrate or board who can punish you is policing

Regulation is a technical term for bylaw-like legislation, is misleading as heck, and historically is a term that lots of people in the 'States and Canada viscerally hate.

Comment: Re:Isn't this classic anti-trust fodder (Score 1) 211

by davecb (#47118637) Attached to: Amazon Confirms Hachette Spat Is To "Get a Better Deal"

My publisher has such a site and sells DAISY, ePub, Mobi and PDF directly. They cannot sell them via Amazon, however. The Amazon site sells only a kindle-specific variant.

The fact that someone as major as O'Reilly has to deal with Amazon, at a price disadvantage and with significant limitations on what they're allowed to sell is typical of a monopoly, or an oligopoly with one leading member and the others doing price- and policy-following.

Monopolies are barely legal in Canada (where I am), but oligopolies and price-following are winked at. Very occasionally the government or courts will whack a leading oligopolist, but only if they are enraging the whole cell-phone-using population. Arguably they're a criminal conspiracy in restraint of trade, but as they only communicate their evil plans with each via press releases, the "secret" part of conspiracy is technically absent (;-))

Comment: Re:Not illegal (Score 1) 218

by davecb (#47080183) Attached to: Amazon Escalates Its Battle Against Publishers

The US used to have such laws, having suffered from significant monopoly problems in the past. It may be illegal in Canada, but it's arguably illegal everywhere else. If you sell houses in Chatham, you can't refuse to sell a house built by Bill Green, nor refuse to sell a house to Chan Hin Poon, even if you think Bill is an idiot and you hate anyone Chinese (;-))

Nor can you ask Bill for a kickback.

Comment: Re:same old 1980s service on a new pole, sure (Score 1) 238

by davecb (#47073283) Attached to: Google Fiber: No Charge For Peering, No Fast Lanes
The approvals are for "add a new wire to all the poles in East Bumsquat county, with component sizes the same or smaller that standard F", rather than approval for houses. They're issued to companies who pull and maintain the wires and pay fees according to another preapproved schedule for large areas, typically a county or a region like "the south shore of Nova Scotia". If you want to pay a different fee, that takes a meeting. And, as I said, the original approvals took months of boring meetings, there and in Ontario.

Comment: Re:or nine years sooner (Score 1) 238

by davecb (#47069571) Attached to: Google Fiber: No Charge For Peering, No Fast Lanes
Provinces vary: the first permission to hang cable TV on Ontario Hydro poles took months and months, but subsequent ones got rubber-stamped at subsequent monthly meetings. Nova Scotia, on the other hand, reputedly turns them around in a few days, unless you ask for something that requires a meeting.

Comment: Re:Hedge (Score 2) 238

by davecb (#47068223) Attached to: Google Fiber: No Charge For Peering, No Fast Lanes
Someone had to bootstrap it, and Google stepped up, for their own normal benefit. In other locations, and after some years in the current ones, Google can offer to hand the physical fibre and the things it hooks to, to the local utility company. That moves the fibre itself into a being a common carrier, and probably a regulated monopoly if the local laws require.

Power corrupts. And atomic power corrupts atomically.