Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Canada Government Privacy Your Rights Online

CIPS Chimes In On Internet Predators Act 39

Posted by timothy
from the not-the-predators-you-were-looking-for dept.
alphabet26 writes "The Canadian Information Processing Society has formally responded to the Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act introduced in February of this year. Bill C-30 would grant authorities extended powers to monitor and track Canadians online. In the statement CIPS recommends that the Government of Canada 'prohibit access to personal information, related records/data, content, communications or records of internet use without the safeguard of a warrant.' CIPS is a non-profit organization that represents Canadian IT professionals and is a member of the International Federation for Information Processing (IFIP)."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

CIPS Chimes In On Internet Predators Act

Comments Filter:
  • by awehttam (779031) on Saturday June 02, 2012 @11:43AM (#40194391)
    The correct website for CIPS is cips.ca [www.cips.ca], not cips.com as linked in the article.
  • The Progression (Score:5, Interesting)

    by lazarus (2879) on Saturday June 02, 2012 @11:46AM (#40194405) Journal

    It's interesting the way that we (as a collective civilization) have gone from attempting to block dangerous activity on the Internet for children, to creating safe "playgrounds" for them, to giving up completely on user-based controls and instead just doing semi-autonomous monitoring of country-wide Internet traffic looking for "dangerous" on-line activity.

    We so desperately want to make our children's safety a government problem so we don't have to do anything ourselves and have someone to blame/sue if they are ever in danger. Governments desperately want to exercise their control over us because that is what governments all seem to move towards at the end of the day (taking their responsibility to keep us safe a little too much to heart (or just an extension of the power play that people in the business of government seem drawn towards)).

    How is a minority of responsible citizens ever to stand in the the way of the majority that want to be controlled and the governments who are willing to control them? I wish I knew the answer. It doesn't appear that a democratic system of government is enough.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Well, you're first mistake here is in believing that we live in a democratic society. The Oath of Allegiance of the United States makes it clear that they, and so anyone who models their government on them, are actually a republic. The citizens do not get a say in passing the legislation of the country, only the elected representatives and they don't have to follow what they promise once they're safely ensconced in office. The only time they'll come back and listen to the people is to find out what they

  • All you need to know (Score:5, Interesting)

    by TubeSteak (669689) on Saturday June 02, 2012 @11:53AM (#40194443) Journal

    The bill does not mention children, or internet predators, other than in its title

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      That's true, the bill was renamed because the government thought they could slip it in under the radar by titling it such that it seemed to be "protecting the children". It's always amazing to think what rights people will give away if they think they are protecting the children.

      You'll soon find that it be suggested that parents turn their children over to government run residential schools so they'll be protected from all the evils out in the world. Looking back at the residential schools run for the abo

    • by arthurpaliden (939626) on Saturday June 02, 2012 @02:52PM (#40195481)
      The title was change to its current form the night before it was tabled.
      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward

        I heard it initially changed to "Protect Canadians from Indiscreet Philanderers Act", but Vic Toews thought it sent the wrong message.

  • Don't be fooled! (Score:2, Insightful)

    CIPS really stands for Child Internet Porn Society. They're clearly a bunch of pedophiles, because otherwise, why would they be trying in any way to limit efforts to PROTECT THE CHIIILDREN?!?

  • by afidel (530433) on Saturday June 02, 2012 @12:03PM (#40194497)
    Since the Canadian supreme court ruled in April [huffingtonpost.ca] that even in exigent circumstances that the government must obtain a warrant the bill is unconstitutional on its face. This is just like the US Congress passing CDA, COPA et al, it's pandering to the conservative right even though anyone with a brain has to know it won't stand up to judicial review.
    • by tlhIngan (30335)

      Since the Canadian supreme court ruled in April that even in exigent circumstances that the government must obtain a warrant the bill is unconstitutional on its face. This is just like the US Congress passing CDA, COPA et al, it's pandering to the conservative right even though anyone with a brain has to know it won't stand up to judicial review.

      Yes, but until it's RULED unconstitutional, it's the law of the land. One needs to have a lawsuit filed against them and hope to pass the argument that the law is u

      • ummmmmm (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward

        WRONG....law passes you file an injunction in court that until such time as there is a ruling that , the law as is cannot void current charter of rights as blatant as this....ITS very very clear in the charter. THIS is HARD to ask for legally in a civilized land. Sorry....and me thinks a sane judge would grant a stay/injunction of that law until it was reworded to include a warrant OR was heard and struck down by the appropriate court.

        Costs a bit a doh but im game to do it ...i have some spare time to waste

  • by aaaaaaargh! (1150173) on Saturday June 02, 2012 @12:13PM (#40194537)

    Why not just create a separate network for children only? With separate browsers, separate trafffic?

    The internet is no place for children anyway. It should be 18+ (or 16+, or whatever politicians and their voters desire) like alcohol and tobacco, and it could simply be prohibited for parents to allow their children to be on the "regular" internet in the same sense as it is prohibited to hand out large quantities of vodka to 8 year old kids. I fail to see why adults should be punished, surveilled, and harrassed by authorities just because of a few irresponsible parents. Technically, it's no problem, you can even build the net on top of the regular internet, make phones and tablets with "kid network" browsers (even more sales!), etc.

    The added benefit of separate networks would be that kids can no longer look up their homework solutions and there are no longer whiney little pricks on game servers for 18+ games.

    • People have been pretending to be a different age or gender on the 'net for a long long time. Everyone having digital cams has done away with some of this but in the 90s early 00s it could be a surprise meeting someone from online. Thank god I never ran across a different gender, realizing that a picture someone put up was probably taken 10+ years ago or 150 pounds ago were enough of shockers.

      In all seriousness I dislike any legislation that tries to impose morality. You know some books have some nasty thin

  • by elucido (870205) on Saturday June 02, 2012 @12:14PM (#40194545)

    They always use child porn and fear mongering and pedophilia to get any bill they want passed without review. They know the word pedophile shuts down all rational centers of a parents brain and allows the politician to essentially do anything to them and their children so long as it's in the name of protecting them from pedophiles.

  • Ridiculous (Score:5, Insightful)

    by steveaustin1971 (1094329) on Saturday June 02, 2012 @01:33PM (#40195039)
    This week, Public Safety Minister Vic Toews said that Bill C-30 would have allowed police to catch a killer who had posted his killing and dismemberment online. He wants us to believe that the fact that police need to take a few minutes to get a warrant prevented them from pursuing this guy who had posted the killing online and had for years posted his animal cruelty vids. Problem is this: People DID report it to the police who ignored it. If they had chosen to investigate they could have found him quite easily, but they chose not to use the rather robust powers they ALREADY have to investigate. Bill C-30 only really gives the government (even non-police entities) the ability to snoop on citizens without need for a warrant or even a suspicion of illegal activity without leaving any sort of paper trail or accountability. The current government has already been found to be hiring people to spread propaganda on forums and scour facebook to find people that might not agree with their policies and remove them from rallies. We should trust people like that to not abuse their power? A government embroiled in a voter fraud scandal, several finance scandals and the FIRST Canadian government to have been found in contempt of Parliament? No thank you Mr. Toews.
  • by amoeba1911 (978485) on Saturday June 02, 2012 @02:21PM (#40195321) Homepage
    Would you install cameras in every street corner, every home, every bedroom so you can watch everyone at all times to prevent child porn? I think everyone would answer with a resounding NO, because anyone can see it is a clear violation of people's privacy. Why would you do the equivalent of that online?
  • by arthurpaliden (939626) on Saturday June 02, 2012 @02:49PM (#40195453)

    Bill C-30 Sections 33/34:

    Vic's Asst. 1: So have we had any luck tracing that person who sent those emails or who he is working with. You know the other people he has been in contact with.

    Vic's Asst. 2: Nope. All we have is the email address but that does give us the name of their ISP.

    Vic's Asst. 1: OK so get a warrant for that ISP and find who it was that sent it along with who he is working with.

    Vic's Asst. 2: Can't do that. What was done was not a criminal act.

    Vic's Asst. 3: Well then how about this. We get the Minister to appoint someone we trust as his agent as per Section 33 to check out this ISP for compliance to Bill C-30. They go there and then once they are in the ISP's premises we use Section 34, which states he can make copies of 'any' information found at the site regardless of where it is stored, to get everything. That gives us all the ISP's user account data as well as the contents of all current user emails, instant messages, voice over IP conversations as well as all the system backups which will contain everything even if has been deleted by the users. Then we bring it all back here and go through it at our leisure looking for 'compliance violations'.

    Vic's Asst. 1: And that is legal?

    Vic's Asst. 3:Getting it yes, although politically it could embarrass the Minister but then hey, isn't what Senate appointments are for.

    Vic's Asst. 1: Ok then, works for me.

  • In the statement CIPS recommends that the Government of Canada 'prohibit access to personal information, related records/data, content, communications or records of internet use without the safeguard of a warrant.'

    Not having a warrant is the whole point of the bill.

    How else can Pierre Poutine scour the records of opposition candidates in order to smear them during election campaigns? Maybe find a damning email sent to the leader of the opposition by ... Pierre Poutine?

    They had a 2 year long negative attack

Advertising is the rattling of a stick inside a swill bucket. -- George Orwell

Working...