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
Heads They Win, Tails We Lose: What Lies Behind the U.S. Trade Battle For Control over Data 
Still Not a Privacy Law: Bill C-25’s Political Party Privacy Provisions Fall Short Again 
Could Bill C-22 Make Canadians Less Safe? The Systemic Vulnerability Gap in Canada’s New Surveillance Law 
Why the Verdict on Social Media Defective Design Harming Children Gets the Instinct Right But the Law Wrong 
Scoping in the Tech Giants: Bill C-22’s International Production Order and the Shift to a Less Privacy-Protective Cross-Border Disclosure System
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.