Canadian ISP Blocks Web Sites They Don't Like 13
An AC sends: "In response to the printing of the URL of an inappropriate web site on a series of safety-tip trading cards handed out to elementary students in New Brunswick, Canada, the provinces' major ISPs decided to take matters into their own hands, and block access to the web site for all their customers: school, government, and... private individuals. A spokesman for the phone company NBTel says "Once they've [the RCMP] given us the okay that there is nothing illegal on the web site we'll just turn it back up." . The printing of such a site on the card was apparently unintentional, as it was designed by children. Just no one seems to have thought to check it out before it was printed. Here you can see the
CBC News Story." This is the third Canada-vs-website story in the last couple of days. Something in the water?
It's a wonder that this doesn't happen more often. (Score:3)
--Perianwyr Stormcrow
Re:It's a wonder that this doesn't happen more oft (Score:2)
Censorship anyone? (Score:3)
"But the companies say anaconda-dot-com is a special case and they reserve the right to block any site that might offend customers."
This is crazy too. "Might offend customers?" Who are they to decide what "might" offend me. What offends me is that and ISP, who gets paid to provide a connection to the internet, nothing less, nothing more, believes they have the right to regulate LEGAL content. This isn't child porn, or warez here. What ever happened to freedom of speech? Anaconda.com is a business, and one that depends on visitors to turn a profit. What right does and ISP have to block access to a legal business? It wouldn't be legal for a road crew to intentionally block the enterance to a parking lot of a porn shop just because they built the road. This is no different, you are merely paying a toll to the ISP to use their roads. I realize this is in Canada, and being American, I don't know how close the freedom of speech laws are to ours, but it would seem to me that private business doesn't hold the athority to dictate what is law.
"RCMP computer crime investigator Corporal Jeff Adam says nothing on the site is illegal but it could be considered obscene under Canadian law"
Would some Canadian Slashdotter please explain what such laws are? And even still, wouldn't that be up to the courts to decide and not private enterprise?
One thing the article didn't provide any information on is, just how did the domain name wind up on these cards to begin with?
Just like ORBS and the RBL (Score:2)
#include <devils_advocate>
Before everyone goes off ranting and raving about censorship, I'd like to point out that the same argument that lets ORBS [orbs.org] and the RBL [maps.org] off the hook applies here. We say that it's acceptable for ISPs to block known spammers because spam is a nuisance to the internet community, and because the ISP is a private business, and customers can always choose not to do business with them if they don't like their policies.
Well, in some ways, the same applies here. If kinky porn is offensive to the majority of the members of the community, the ISP may be right to block it. And again, those who don't like it, don't have to purchase Internet access from the ISP.
--
Re:Just like ORBS and the RBL (Score:2)
As a Canadian... (Score:1)
They can do it (Score:1)
On a similar note, I am a university student (in the US) and I have been surprised by the arguments I've had roomates and friends of mine (smart people, one a fellow CS major) Who not only cannot understand why I refuse to do business with companies that practice censorship, but actually think that if the government required that you be 17 to buy a video game instead of just Wal-Mart requiring it, well, that would be ok too.
Local Newspaper story (Score:1)
Safety Cards Lead Directly to Porn Site
Fredericton Daily Gleaner, Friday Nov 3 2000
(http://www.dailygleaner.com)
The provincial government has learned an important lesson: If it's going to include a fictitious web site address on a safety card for children, make sure it isn't the address for an adult web site.
Earlier this week, 6000 safety kids cards were distributed to elementary schools as part of a community safety and crime prevention campaign. Each of the nine safety cards focused on safety tips for kids in Grades K-5.
The art on the Pokemon-style cards was designed by two nine-year-old twins in Grade 4 at Priestman Street School.
One of the cards offering tips about Internet safety portrays a dragon-style monster with a computer mouse for a tail.
The character, like the other eight cards in the set has a specific name -- in this case Anaconda.com.
But typing that name into the Internet brings up an "inappropriate" pornographic web site, touting "erotic female domination".
Instead of a snake, as one might expect, the site shows a man lying on the ground with three high-heel shoed women standing on him.
In a hastily called news conference Thursday, Education Minister Elvy Robichaud and acting Public Safety Minister Percy Mockler tried to pacify any fears that might have arisen. Public Safety Minister Milt Sherwood is on vacation.
"As the minister of education, I would like to reassure parents that this mistake is inexcusable and I take full responsibility," Robichaud said.
He added the government is investigating the incident as well as taking steps to get the cards out of circulation.
When contacted by a parent in Saint John who noticed the link Thursday, notes were issued by the Department of Education to parents.
School principals were notified and asked to retrieve the cards and it was confirmed the site had been blocked. Robichaud said all community access sites in schools had the site in question blocked, as did all government and public school library computers.
"We're investigating right now to see what happened. I can't tell you if it was the process, if it was somebody who did it on purpose, I don't know," Robichaud said.
Mockler, however, said he thinks it was an honest mistake.
"As far as I am concerned talking with my professional staff at the Department of Public Safety... this is a result of a human error and in my book it's an honest mistake."
They will continue, he said, on their fact-finding mission to discover how this happened.
The department of education says there were about 600 Anaconda.com cards manufactured and they estimated about two-thirds of them were distributed in the school system.
Donna Bliss, principal of Priestman Street School, said in her school's case the mistake on the cards was discovered just in time. There was an early distribution, though, to 23 Grade 4 students who were involved in the initial celebration of having the two boys' designs chosen as artwork for the cards.
She said the letter going home to parents of the 23 students is basically just to let them know the Department of Education IT team discovered the Anaconda.com site is not an appropriate site and to assure them no school computer can access it.
Bliss said she was a little disappointed such a happy event on tuesday became negative.
"I was really pleased for the two artists involved, it was a really big achievement for them and certainly a celebration we were very proud of. It's unfortunate it turned out like this," she said.
"I know the effort the boys had put into the development of the cards and it certainly is no reflection on them. Their input is still a very positive one, it's just unfortunate that there was an oversight somewhere that it became this issue."
She said the extra cards will stay in her office until she is given directions about what to do with them.
Amal George, the mother of a Grade 4 student attending Priestman, has a computer at home, but said her daughter doesn't access the Internet. She does, however, have older children who do. She said older kids would likely type in that address just to see what it would bring up on the screen.
"Kids, you know, they like to check stuff like this out, so I don't think it's good for them," she said.
George said she was pleased to hear that it's been blocked from all school sites, but questioned whether that will solve the problem entirely.
"All the kids are going to love to see this now," she said.
Re:Just like ORBS and the RBL (Score:2)
If the ISP acknowledges that they are indeed blocking sites, for whatever reason they choose, then users can choose to stay with them or they can choose to go elsewhere. They are a business, and like it or not they can choose to relay some content.
Is it OK that Walmart chooses not to sell albums with Parental Advisory stickers on them? Some call that censorship. It's not. They also choose not to sell hard-core xxx rated movies, but no one seems to care about that (well, I'm sure that SOME care about it).
Censorship is when the government chooses what we can see and say. The ISP is a business... they can do pretty much what they want.
Now it seems that they're doing this in the open, and that it's not a secret. If they blocked it and never said anything about it, then that might be wrong. But I don't think that's the case here.
-S
Re:Censorship anyone? (Score:1)
The company that a friend works for had to ship a computer down to the states (they program software for frame-grabber hardware), because of some absolutely unbelievable hardware issues. The 'puter gets down fine, and everything works out fine-- until it hits customs. Some Neanderthal opened the case up (probably looking for smutty comics, or Where's Waldo? books), spilled statically-charged styrofoam packing peanuts into the case, and then put the lid back on-- using only one screw. Eris only knows where the other three screws went
Re:Censorship anyone? (Score:2)
It seems everyone is so paranoid about offending someone that they takes these matters into their own hands and decided what people can and can't view. Makes me sick.
Yeah, I know, this post isn't going to get any bonuses, but I just lost it when I read this.
---
Re:Censorship anyone? (Score:1)
As for whether it should be up to the court to decide, I know that customs agents have discretion in decidind whether something is obscene. Another poster mentioned the "Little Sisters vs. Big Brother" case. There a lesbian bookstore was regularly having all their shipments seized at the border over things that decidedly were not obscene under Canadian law. Apparently the procedure you have to go through to get anything back that was wrongly seized is ridiculous.
As it said in the original post... (Score:1)
Today was just a day fading into another-Counting Crows