Slashdot Log In
The Great Firewall of Canada
Posted by
Zonk
on Fri Nov 24, 2006 12:38 AM
from the didn't-know-they-could-build-things-up-north dept.
from the didn't-know-they-could-build-things-up-north dept.
engtech writes "Canadian carriers Bell Aliant, Bell Canada, MTS Allstream, Rogers, SaskTel, Shaw, TELUS, and Videotron have all opted in to a blacklist, dubbed Project Cleanfeed Canada, provided by Cybertip.ca, the Canadian tip-line against child exploitation. The idea of having a national blacklist sends shivers down my spine. I'm a pessimist, I believe that any form of censorship will eventually be abused despite it's good intentions." Besides engtech's post on the subject, Dr. Michael Geist has some considered comments about this issue. From that post: "Critics are quick to draw parallels to Internet censorship in countries such as China. However, those countries involve state-based content blocking, with no transparency or legal recourse. In fact, several democracies — most notably Australia — have established limited blocking rules, while British Telecom, the UK's largest ISP, voluntarily blocks child pornography as part of its CleanFeed program. Even with various legal safeguards, many Canadians would undoubtedly find the blocking of any content distasteful. Yet to do nothing is to leave in place an equally unpalatable outcome that silences those would speak out against unlawful hate speech for fear of personal harm."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Chilling effect (Score:5, Funny)
Sorry, sir, our records indicate that PEDOS4PEDALS has had several complaints lodged against it and has been blacklisted in accordance with current regulations. If you wish to pursue this further, please see our webpage www.complainhereyousickpervert.ca for more information on how to remove your domain from the blacklist.
Re:Chilling effect (Score:5, Insightful)
As any SysAdmin knows firewalls are a waste of time against those inside the system that are desperate to move data. Even those not smart enough to break through will just use sneakernet and unless you want to lock down every pc in the country this isn't going to be stopped.
Some one should do some thing about outright wastes of money like this even above the out cries that 1984 is here.
Why do they even need a blacklist? (Score:3, Interesting)
I mean, why would you allow a site with child pornography (which is illegal almost everywhere) to remain up wh
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't want to "handle" it because the availability of child pornography on the net is *not* a problem.
Paedophiles are a problem, but that's a
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How about "Quit worrying if anyone looks at it, and start worrying about those who actually abuse actual children?" Seems simple enough to me. I've no interest in looking at the stuff myself, but I'm not concerned if anyone else does-I am concerned if some
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, what consent did those children give for their photos to be used like that? Don't you think t
Re:Chilling effect (Score:4, Interesting)
The main problem is that many people overreact to mundane things and see sexual behavior where there is none. this seem particularly true in very conservative communities, see for instance all the noise around a parents magazine that were doing a pro-breast-feeding campaign and putted a mother feeding her baby in the cover. Or how many people were shocked by the desperate attempt of getting some attention of a singer that flashed her naked breast in a national event in the US.
In my opinion the more you forbid, the more something is prohibited, more people will search those things and usually in a more deviant fashion. So, yes I believe that all this paranoia around pedophilia is creating a new kind of pedophiles that are dirtier and dangerous. But please don't read this as "green light" for child abuse or sex with children, I don't think it is right. But the over reaction in common situations can have a bad effect, there is somewhere in the line from "not allowing children to sit on Santa's lap in the mall" and "allowing child porn" where there is a good equilibrium.
Um, come again? (Score:5, Interesting)
No, to do nothing is to allow free speech on both sides. Blacklists, or lack thereof aren't going to help OR stop people from speaking out against hate speech. All they'll do is prevent speech of some sort.
This Canadian doesn't follow the logic here at all.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The submitters reaction so
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
We Aussies have a similar attitude, but I contend that the "common good" is served by a "free speech" as idealised in the US constitution and elwehe
Re:Um, come again? (Score:4, Insightful)
When I'm surfing at home, on my computer, through my telephone line, I'm paying for everything. If anyone thinks they're censoring that connection they can fuck right off.
If they want to go after the purveyors of questionable websites using the existing laws, then fair play to them.
If they want to set up a general, overly-broad, excessively-powerful system designed to block out literally "anything objectionable" automatically and on a massive scale, then they can either:
1. Hold a national referendum every day or two to define precisely what is "objectionable", and set the filter accordingly,
2. Allow everyone to register their own "objectionable" criteria and only block those sites on a per-person basis, or
3. Fuck right off.
Censorship is bad, even when it's necessary. Centralised, automated censorship is really, really bad, and has never been shown to be necessary. End of story.
Even if you trust the present administration 100% on every subject (and who really, honestly trusts politicians, especially these days?), once you set up a system so powerful you aren't just trusting them, you're also implicitly trusting every single administration that ever comes after them.
Skirting Godwin's Law for a minute, even if you trusted the German government of 1900, would you trust the german administration of 1939?
Transferring this kind of power to governments is a one-way street - no government ever sat back, looked about and said "Y'know, we've got far too much information on people, and too much damn power. Let's shred some files, drop some database tables and uninstall a few cameras, eh? Just for shits and giggles".
Transferring this kind of power to a government is handing them a loaded pistol pointed at your head. Sure, you might trust the guy you handed it to, but it's going to get passed on every four years, so in four years time you have no idea whose finger is going to be on the trigger, and it only gets worse as time goes on.
Transferring this kind of power to governments should not be equated with handing a gun to a good and trusted friend. It's more like handing a gun to a complete stranger - why would you do it unless it was absolutely, clearly essential for your immediate survival?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
What? Since you're so in favour of it, please exercise a little self-censorship here or at the very least make it clear you speak only for yourself and
Re:Um, come again? (Score:5, Informative)
There is a substantial difference. You are perfectly free to walk around street-corners yelling about how much you hate the jews; but when you start yelling "SOMEONE SHOULD KILL THE JEWS" and their speech...
That's when they can be punished. Even when Canada did not have a written constitution or bill of rights, this speech was still protected extensively.
Hate speech is in fact legal. it is inciting violence which is not legal, and, to my knowledge, is not legal in the US either.
Re:Um, come again? (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately, that's not the case. Post details on pipe bombs and molotov cocktails on your web site with a blurb that it's informational only, in order for people to better protect themselves from them, or in the future make them if and only if a legal need arises. Then see what happens.
You're free to say anything that the government likes. If they dislike it enough, they always have provisions for getting you. Much like any other country, at any other time.
Your best defense is to support the rights of even those you don't like. If your parents had, in the 50's and 60's, supported the communists' and peaceniks' right to speech, the bill of rights might still have had some power. As it is, it doesn't. It's easy enough to brand someone critical of the government a potential terrorist, and the first, fourth and sixth amendments get suspended.
Regards,
--
*Art
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
An example for each of the above thr
Hold on there, Cowboy (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sure the outrage has you foaming at the mouth, and is palpably dripping from your chin as we speak. But hold your horses.
We are not talking about silencing political speech here. Canada is not China, period. We have had laws against hate crimes and child porn for quite awhile now, and there are specific exceptions allowed in our constitution such that there can be no hiding behind the banner of free speech for these things. They are, unequivocably, criminal acts.
If any sites of note are wrongly blocked, you will hear about it very quickly. Again, we are not China, and news travels fast. The potential for abuse here is small.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It is called the slippery slope and.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Blocking some sites doesn't have to be a bad thing. In the US and Canada and other countries child porn is illegal. If you publish a magazine full of 12 year old children having sex you will go to jail. Do you feel t
Re:Hold on there, Cowboy (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Hold on there, Cowboy (Score:5, Insightful)
When Richard Warman asked the CRTC to order Canadian ISPs to block certain U.S. sites that allegedly threatened him, one of the reasons they refused was because of the "unprecedented nature of the relief sought in the Application."
If such blocking was more common, as it would if it was used daily against other sites, then the 'unprecedented action' defense wouldn't exist. Judges are unlikely to create new blocking systems where none exist already, but adding a site to an already extant one is a far lower standard.
It's naive in the extreme to simply assume that systems like this, regardless of the reasons for their creation initially, won't be extended to other ends. When you give someone a hammer, don't be surprised if they start looking for something to pound with it.
Re:Hold on there, Cowboy (Score:5, Interesting)
Here in Denmark we have had such a system for more than a year.
The police get secret blacklists from the "Save The Children" organization. The polices have signed contracts with all Danish ISP's.
There are government reports talking about blocking hate speech, racism, and threats of violence.
Last month a danish ISP was ordered to block allofmp3.com by a court ruling, referring to the these filters. http://itpol.dk/sager/nyheder/Allofmp3En [itpol.dk]
In Italy they are blocking foreign gambling sites.
Having a system where the police are supplieng list of sites for ISP's to block is not a good thing.
Re:Hold on there, Cowboy (Score:5, Funny)
Watch out, if you make fun of the Canadians they might come burn down Washington, DC again.
Re:Hold on there, Cowboy (Score:5, Funny)
Hmmm... (Score:5, Funny)
Are they already blacklisting grammar sites?
Slippery slope (Score:5, Insightful)
Apparent age of females, intent of speech or hatred therein, and many other things are open to wide interpretation. So who gets to decide what is standard vs hate speech, what is pornographic, what girls/boys appear underage? The same companies that block a disagreeable union webpage... that isn't a good sign to me.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Fortunately, Telus doesn't maintain the list, we do, these guys are federally funded [childfind.mb.ca].
If problems come up we (the public) file complaints and the issue gets handled. Sure, we can insert comments about poor response times, red tape, etc. But that's neithe
Doesn't seem that bad (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Doesn't seem that bad (Score:5, Insightful)
So how do they identify child porn? (Score:5, Interesting)
australia (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Lots of issues but... (Score:3, Interesting)
The other issue I see is that an ISP can block whatever they want. It is their choice as business. If the customer is not happy with their policies or practices then they can choose not to be a customer any longer.
Here in the US the government does censor at times despite the first amendment to the Constitution. But, I think the Supreme Court has historically done a decent job of ruling in favor of free speech.
Obligitory (Score:2, Funny)
Meanwhile in Denmark... (Score:5, Informative)
The verdict could have very strong implications for the future. It clearly states that an ISP can be held liable for temporarily (milliseconds) storing infringing data on their routers. This means that ISPs can be forced to block websites, if the court decides that these sites are mainly used to spread "illegal" content.
Read more here [torrentfreak.com] and here [slyck.com]...
Re:Meanwhile in Denmark... (Score:5, Informative)
When looking for a link, I was shocked to see a new development in this case: Yesterday the ISP in question announced that they decided not to appeal as they had announced they would, and all other major danish ISPs have started blocking allofmp3.com too.
You can read more about this in danish at Piratgruppen [piratgruppen.org].
The court decision is available in PDF format in danish here [www.dr.dk], and I found an unofficial english translation of the conclusion of the court decision here [propiracy.org].
Further analysis of the court decision in danish can be found here [itpol.dk].
Personal Freedom? (Score:2, Interesting)
Hate Speech? (Score:4, Insightful)
It is ridiculous, immature and naïve to think that someone could actually be HARMED by ideas or words. Has no one else ever been taught that Sticks and Stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me ?
Face it, outlawing "Hate Speech" is pretty much enacting Thought-Crime legislation. If you disagree with someone's obviously wrong ideas, such as something as senseless as racism, combat it with logic, common sense and better ideas. Don't make thinking or saying certain things illegal.
And even if it was possible to come up with a defense of anti-Hate Speech laws, the boundaries between what is and isn't hateful is arbitrary and would inevitably be abused.
It's not going to stop with child porn. (Score:5, Insightful)
The excuse for national censorship systems is undoubtedly going to be child porn, but it's absolutely naive to think that it won't be extended to other things. It's going to go from child porn, to "hate speech," to gambling and financial transactions ('when you gamble, you're financing terrorism!'), to downloading and copyright infringement. When you look at the motives of the people driving these programs, they are not going to be satisfied simply with ineffectually blocking some porn.
"Hate speech" shouldn't be banned (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think it's such a big deal if sites with child porn are censored. I don't think that it is a big deal if the sites are nearly child porn. Ok, you can't masturbate to the images of adult women who are dressed up to look like children. Big loss.
I am much more concerned about who gets to decide what "hate speech" is. This is pre-emptive screening, before you get to a court battle. Who gets to decide what sites are hateful? Are activist groups able to get their people into the committees? What about sites that are critical of illegal immigration? Websites that claim to cure homosexuality? What about those critical of Islamic extremism? Israel? Scientology? What about a site that condemns the Catholic Church for being soft on priest pedophiles?
The evolution of society depends on ideas that are initially unpopular. Freedom is the ability to act without the permission of others. A society needs to show that your activities harm others before they should ban it. Oppression comes from the banning of political free speech, not from allowing it.
If a hateful person harms an innocent person, that criminal should be charged with a criminal offence regardless of their political ideology. If you are attempting to sow fear throughout a community, you should be charged with a terrorism offence. If a member of the Klu Klux Klan burns a cross on a black family's lawn, it's the same thing as someone calling in a bomb threat. I believe in the death penalty and I have no problem with the execution of neo-Nazis for killing blacks, Jews, etc.. I just don't believe they should be punished for what they believe.
avoiding it doesn't stop it (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe I should build a giant reinforced concrete fence/wall because my neighbor 2 blocks away engages in gay butt sex and that may offend the squirrels in my backyard.
The slippery slope will happen, Murphy's Law will strike.
A slippery cliff (Score:3, Insightful)
Error in article and summary (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, NTL/Telewest is the UK's largest ISP.
from a recent BBC article http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6039740.stm [bbc.co.uk]:
"The UK's largest residential internet provider is currently NTL, which has 2.9 million home customers, followed by BT on 2.2 million."
Sweden have had this for some time (Score:3, Insightful)
Which brings me to my point -- I hope they never log whoever are ending up on these blacklisted sites to somehow use the information, because with spam messages, scam sites, and the general reality of the web, one can easily end up on blocked sites without even intending to. In my case, it was about some misleading link on a regular legit webpage, or maybe the domain had expired and been bought up by some shady business.
Personally I'd rather be without these blocks, and can't say the world have become a better place with them. It seems to in no way shatter e.g. pedophile groups with the continued problem. Someone who're really looking for this can also just head over to Freenet for example. I think the downsides of risking false positives aren't really worth it.
It's funny that the mention "hate speech" (Score:3, Insightful)
There are many people in this world who have bought into all sorts of destructive ideologies. The only way to keep these dangerous dogmas in check is by addressing them and discussing them and refuting them. Mainstream society is the culimination and the product of open dialogue where all ideas come together to vie and compete for an audience and followers. This process is the reason why mainstream western society is NOT under the influence of dangerous and/or extremist ideologies. Mainstream society in a culture of open discussion and dialogue converges upon concusions which, while not always the absolute best, are generally among the better conclusions and almost never among the worst. When mistakes are made they are quickly corrected.
But whenever this system of open discussion of all ideas is cast aside in an attempt to avoid the worst ideas, the result is that those ideas are never examined, and therefore not held in check. The irony is that this creates the very conditions under which those ideas can come to the forefront.
The best way to fight lies is not with a gag order, but with the truth. A gag order can give the appearance of victory over lies, but at the cost of sacrificing the very process by which the truth is discovered and preseved. If you shut your eyes to lies, they won't be open to see the truth.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just keep on saying that. (Score:3)
Re:Great Firewall (Score:5, Insightful)
That is rather frightening really or naïve, believing that others somehow want what is best for you by the simple fact that they managed to cheat and lie their way to the top. Then again humans seem to love to give criminals big guns and then wonder why they got shot in the head.
It's unlikely to be abused, especially if there is some transparency.
Of course it will get abused sooner or later, everything is once someone with a potential gain finds a way to do it.
It's very American to automatically respond to this kind of thing as though it was a threat.
No, it's the safe way of doing things. See unlike say Great Britain we feel that losing all our freedoms gradually by "small but increasing steps" is not a good things.
Stop acting like a teenager.
No, unlike you we understand human nature and the nature of those in power. Only the naïve and stupid think that things will not be abused or that those in power should be blindly trusted at all.
Not eventual. (Score:3)