Brain Drain Tollbooth

The CBC reported yesterday on an ongoing attempt by the State of North Dakota to attract farmers from Canada. This attempt to incite an “agricultural brain drain” has failed so far (none of the 30 farmers the state has tried to woo so far have accepted the offer), but it reminded me about another type of “brain drain” I became aware of very recently. This form of “brain drain” is quite different, but is an equal or greater threat to Canada’s future.

Preparing for my entrance into the UBC MBA Program, I met several students who were also entering the program. All of them have only been Landed Immigrants for less than a year and came to Canada specifically to attend the MBA program. What’s shocking, at least to me, is that none of these students have any intention of staying in Canada once they have completed their MBA!

Something about this seems wrong. Should these students be counted as part of Canada’s “brain drain”? The term “brain drain” has typically implied losing highly skilled Canadian workers to other markets (primarily the United States). However, I would argue that for this term to apply, the skilled workers in question would have to be truly Canadian in the first place. At this point, it would appear these students are Canadian only for the purpose of short-term gain, rather than long commitment to Canada.

Don’t get me wrong, I’ve got nothing against immigrants. I originally came from Australia, so I’m also an immigrant (though I am now a naturalized Canadian citizen). I’ve lived here twenty-six years, as have my parents. We’ve paid our taxes and contributed our fair share towards building Canada’s social system. For me there seems to be something wrong with allowing people to manipulate the Canadian system to obtain cheap education, healthcare, and other social services at the expense of those of us who have committed to living in Canada. It would seem to me that these students have basically added an extra year to their program in order to bypass the cost of the International Program, before they move onto greener pastures. And they’ve done it at our expense. Who the hell do they think they are?

This is the problem: people are leaving their own country, stopping off in Canada to train up, and then moving onto other countries that are more willing to adequately compensate them for their skills. Is it unethical? Certainly, but it’s also perfectly logical. Why pay for education and healthcare when you can immigrate to Canada, stay long enough get trained (not working or paying taxes during that time), and move on?

What we need is a system that prevents against this kind of abuse. In some ways, we already have this in place; for example, my wife (an American) can’t claim welfare for the next ten years as a condition of her becoming a Landed Immigrant. Suppose that we implemented a sliding scale system for our social services, one that started at 0% coverage by the Canadian government (i.e.: you pay the full cost) to 100% coverage (i.e.: you pay the same as any other Canadian) over a ten-year period.

This would definitely prevent against Canada being taken advantage of by those who would use Canada’s generosity for their own gain. However, such a system would create second-class citizens within the country. Nobody wants to deny rights to those who seek refuge in Canada. But as much as Canada wants to be fair, I think it needs to recognize the world isn’t fair and act to protect itself.

Canada is at risk of turning into a filling station on the “brain drain” freeway. I’d say it’s time we built ourselves a tollbooth.

Software Wars

Last week Hewlett-Packard attempted to use the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) to crush security research company SNOsoft for revealing a particular nasty exploit allowing a remote attacker to access to machines running HP’s Tru64 Unix operating system. While this is not the first attempt to disrupt legitimate security research using the DMCA (see earlier attempts by the RIAA against Dr. Ed Felten), this represents a true departure from previous attempts: to a casual observer, SNOsoft didn’t even violate the DMCA!

The DMCA, as its name suggests, is about protecting copyright in the age of technology that enables perfect digital copies of copyrighted materials. Part of the act outlines terms that make it a crime to circumvent copyright controls or distribute tools for that purpose. What’s interesting is that the “technology” distributed by SNOsoft had nothing to do with copyright protection technology, it only really enabled a malicious user to access a system running Tru64 without proper authorization. Is that wrong? Undoubtedly a person using the exploit against a third-party’s system would be breaking the law, but they, not SNOsoft, would be prosecutable under US federal computer fraud statutes, not the DMCA.

Did HP honestly expect it would be able to sue SNOsoft for damages resulting from the release of the exploit, despite the fact that the problem was a direct result of HP’s own faulty software? Most software today is distributed under an End User License Agreement (such as this example Microsoft EULA) that stipulates the software is provided “as is”, under no warranty, and not even guaranteed to be suitable for any purpose! If HP is not liable to its own customers for faults in its Tru64 Unix, how can it contend that SNOsoft should be liable for any damages that result from an exploit that someone other than SNOsoft used to breach a Tru64 system?

Perhaps recognizing the possibility of setting a software-liability precedent, HP hastily recanted its legal threats.

Software companies want to be able to sell a product, but they don’t want to be liable for any damage their product might inflict. They want to sell something, but a person who purchases their product doesn’t actually own it, they only own a “license” which can be revoked by the manufacturer at any time. They want to be able to access a user’s machine without their knowledge. They want. They want. They want.

How about what we, the users, want?

It’s time that software development companies realized that they’re just regular companies and, like every other company (recent examples notwithstanding), they have to follow the rules. Play time is over. Grow up or go home.