Copyright Watch notes the striking similarity between Industry Minister Jim Prentice's talking points and some letters to the editor from local chambers of commerce."
Copyright Watch on Prentice’s Parrots
3 Comments
Recent Posts
More Transparency Not Police Reporting: Navigating the Safety-Privacy Balance for AI ChatBots 
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 259: The Privacy and Surveillance Risks of AI Chatbot Reporting to Police 
Nobody Wants This: Senate Rejects Government’s Anti-Privacy Plan for Political Parties By Sending Bill Back to the House With a Sunset Clause 
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 258: Jaxson Khan With an Insider Perspective on AI Policy Development in Canada 
Time for the Government to Fix Its Political Party Privacy Blunder: Kill Bill C-4’s Disastrous Privacy Rules
Yeah, I noticed that in the St. Catharines Standard. I thought maybe the local Chamber of Commerce head had political aspirations, but now I don’t know. Why would this happen? Is the Ministry of Industry lobbying the Chambers of Commerce?
It prompted me to write my own letter to the editor, which appeared in today’s Standard, so it probably had the reverse of the desired effect.
Puppeteering
One would hope so for the entire country.
Policy laundering
Classic tactic for controversial legislation: a) refer to vague international obligations requiring passage of invasive law, b) diffuse meaningful public debate by introducing law during \’political downtime\’, c) quietly wait for press coverage to drift, d) use allied interests to present an appearance of consensus, e) enact law quickly by focussing on those interests during final legislative analysis.