Re: Innovation is easy! (Aug. 8)

If the computing industry (and society in general) were to take an approach where we taught individuals to actually think instead of just do,

we as a society would be farther ahead. It is disturbing to see more and more government dollars handed over to the colleges, and yet a decline in the amount of R&D and support for our universities. It appears to me that the government of the day is bent on making jobs rather than careers for people.

Over the past 20 years that I’ve been in the computer industry it has been fairly easy to spot individuals who are trained to think versus individuals who are trained to work.

Maybe some day the light will come on and we’ll see some support for these institutions and have them properly funded for the future.

Dan Keizer

Re: VeriSign of the times (Aug. 7)

You missed one important target for complaints about sleazy business practices: the organizations using those business practices. If enough people complain, perhaps they will see that they are alienating potential customers not attracting them.

Edward C. Bodfish

Re: Meet Canada’s first privacy plaintiff (Aug. 6)

I’m glad Matthew Englander has taken issue with Telus for publishing names and addresses. The more terrifying part of this issue is the fact that Telus was charging a fee for not publishing the information. Stretch this perspective a little and it could sound like extortion: if you don’t pay me X number of dollars I will publish your private information all over the Internet. What’s the difference? Where is the line drawn? Good on you, Matthew!

Linda Herbert

Re: Meet Canada’s first privacy plaintiff (Aug. 6)

I would be interested in the outcome of this case. I am currently paying Telus to keep my information unlisted (from the phone book). I too object to Telus charging a fee for this (non) service.

Sixtus Lee

Re: Meet Canada’s first privacy plaintiff (Aug. 6)

I think Mr. Englander is wasting judiciary system resources by his actions. He should get a private number, period.

On the other hand, I agree with the man about telcos gouging subscribers $2 per month ad infinitum just for setting one bit in their subscriber’s database.

Telcos originally justified the monthly fee to cover the cost of calls to 411 for unlisted numbers. Now that they also charge for these calls regardless of the outcome, the $2 per month is no longer justifiable. He should be filing a class action suit against the telcos. The CRTC has failed us again.

Jacques Orsali

Re: Meet Canada’s first privacy plaintiff (Aug. 6)

I applaud Mr. Englander’s efforts to raise this issue. It is not proper for a company to treat the privacy of citizens as if it were that company’s own property to do with as it pleases. Once contact information is out there, we all know what happens: spam, garbage mail or worse.

I’d like a company’s privacy policy to be this simple: “”We will not disclose your personal data to any party for any reasons, and we will not retain personal information however received without your specific written consent.””

Frankly, if I want to be included in a list, I want the right to opt in. Otherwise leave me out, or you’ve lost my business and gained me as a vocal opponent.

Al De Wachter

Re: Toronto studies smart cards for transit system (Aug. 6)

I’ve been a Metropass user almost since its inception and would have no objection to a system that would make it more convenient, in general.

That being said, I would object if the changes made the system significantly more expensive, especially for people like me who do not live in the city and make use of the system only to commute to work.

Tony Smets

Letters to the editor must include the writer’s name and company name along with an e-mail address or other contact information. All letters become the property of Editors reserve the right to edit submissions for length and content.

Share on LinkedIn Share with Google+