Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Privacy Your Rights Online

Canadian Bill C-234 to Require ISP licensing 46

Posted by michael from the canadians-trying-to-lose-press-freedom-ranking dept.
Matthew Skala writes "In Monday's House of Commons proceedings, Canadian Member of Parliament Peter Stoffer (NDP member for Sackville-Musquodoboit Valley-Eastern Shore) introduced Bill C-234, an anti-child-pornography Bill. It requires all Internet Service Providers to get licenses from the Government, specifically including non-profits and individuals. Licensed ISPs then must block Web sites named by the Government as containing child pornography, and must "report information [of the Government's choice] to the Commission for the purposes of this Act" - a requirement that neatly slips in spy-on-your-users requirements under the radar of the ongoing Industry Canada consultation on "Lawful Access" (wiretapping/CanCarnivore)."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Canadian Bill C-234 to Require ISP licensing More

Canadian Bill C-234 to Require ISP licensing

Comments Filter:
  • Canadian Member of Parliament Peter Stoffer (NDP member for
    Sackville -Musquodoboit Valley-Eastern Shore) introduced Bill C-234, an anti-child-pornography Bill.

    First, they try to annex Frodo's hobbit-hole, then THIS!!!!!

  • I'm probably going to burn through some of my karma on this, but what the hell:

    By itself licensing ISP's is not a bad idea. It is a pointless idea, but not bad. Now add in "You must censor whatever we tell you to" and were starting to talk trouble. Sure it just starts with kiddy p0rn, but then they will find something else they don't like and what do you know all we need to do now is add it to the list.

    I'm not really all that fond of kiddy p0rn, but protecting children at the cost of liberty, in this case freedom of speech, is just too high a price to pay! Hmmm, I've heard this argument before somewhere - where could that be? [nra.org]

    • By itself licensing ISP's is not a bad idea. It is a pointless idea, but not bad.

      Pointless is bad, when:

      it costs tax money to enact and to enforce

      it costs individuals and companies money to ensure they're in compliance

      it gives lawyers something else to ligitigate about

      it takes away government resources, like police time, from legitimate problems

      Just figuring out what laws apply, and what taxes accrue, given the mammoth complexity of federal law (in any Western nation), requires anyone doing business to pay far too much to a lawyer and to an accountant.

      Pointless costs money and time without producing any individual or societal good. Pointless is bad.

      • I agree, pointless is bad, it cost's money, but it isn't nearly as bad as the loss of freedom. If you take my money (via taxes or any other such manner) I still have the freedom to complain, orgainize, and tell the world why I don't like your tax; however, when you take my freedom (in this case free speech) no ammount of money can buy it back.

        So given the choice of waisting money or loosing freedom, I would pick waisting money. At least that way I could still have half a chance to fix the problem if I wanted to.

        In this case the real fight is freedom of speech and not giving up just a little bit of it to "make the world safer for children". With any government this is just the start of taking away more and more of that freedom until it is completely worthless. As an added bonus I'm also against a waistful government agency.

      • Re:Child P0rn, just a foothold to kill free speach (Score:4, Informative)

        by t0qer ( 230538 ) on Thursday October 24, 2002 @12:52PM (#4523665) Homepage Journal
        # it costs tax money to enact and to enforce

        That is such a terrible point.

        Coming from an abusive home, I have to say I am thankful for the taxes that went to my public defender, the taxes that paid for the childrens shelter, and the taxes that paid the judges salary. Now that i'm a somewhat well adjusted adult, I pay property tax on my house, income tax, all kinds of taxes. These kids that are being exploited on the internet need someone to look out for them, cause it sure as hell doesn't sound like you will.

        Kids are human beings and our future, they're not some commodity that you can make that sort of statement on. Cattle, yes, kids no. Whoever gave you a mod point should be ashamed of themselves
        • These kids that are being exploited on the internet

          Children are abused in people's homes.

          I have to say I am thankful for the taxes that went to my public defender, the taxes that paid for the childrens shelter, and the taxes that paid the judges salary.

          And your public defender, childrens shelter, and judge are not on the internet, and they are not ISP's. And the money spent on them is not wasted.

          We could mandate that everyone have a radio locator beacon surgicaly implanted, I guess we should do it to protect the children.

          -
        • # it costs tax money to enact and to enforce

          That is such a terrible point.

          Well, maybe it is a terrible point, but it's not mine. Or I should say, you missed my point.

          I wasn't addressing the Canadian plan per se; I was addressing another poster's contention that pointless legislation isn't inherently bad, by explaining that any pointless legislation is bad, because it diverts resources from meaningful legislation.

          I understand this is an emotional issue for you, but if you plan to contribute to the discussion, you need to read at least closely enough to discern the arguements being made.
        • Internet porn is a effect, not a cause.

          The reasons behind the fact the porn is available, and has a market, is what your prevention tax dollars should be spent on, not to search innocent people, 'just in case'.

          Exploitation is bad, dont get me wrong, but using it as an excuse for a backdoor way to remove privacy for law abiding people in mass, is just as wrong.

    • Now, if the aim of this bill was REALLY to stop CP rather than full-scale user spying, then wouldn't it make more sense to block sites at the internet backbone level rather than at the ISP?

      What if a user visits a dodgy site that fires off 101 popunder CP ads? Or is unfortunate enough to get his email on a CP spammer's address list?

      Yup, while these pricks might not have any real influence in Canadian politics, you have to admire their balls for bringing up such a blatant "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!" style policy in an intelligent and free country such as Canada. It's more of an American Style(tm) idea.

      Also, rather conveniently, it means that no ISP could possibly make a stand against this sort of BS, since they'll lose their lisence. I might to move to Canada one day, but not if it just turns in to an American Style(tm) dictatorship.

      Ali

      • The problem is that once you require blocking at the backbone level, you're extending a single country's laws to the entire internet, which most people agree is a Bad Idea. What happens when laws collide? France and Germany have strong anti-Nazi laws; many other nations allow people to speak out as Nazis. Staying on the child pornography issue, some European nations allow nude modeling as young as 16, whereas the United States blocks most such photography for anyone under 18. Whose side does a backbone provider take in that case?

        I still believe that backbone and other pure network providers should be left alone. They carry bits, and that's it. Any company that provides storage should be held unaccountable for their customers, unless and until it is brought to their attention and investigated (which should take all of a few minutes). If it's child porn or something else similarly illegal, they can shut down access, follow a procedure to provide copies of the data and any applicable logs for access to the proper authorities, and then their hands are washed of it. If they believe that a law is unjust, they can choose to fight it, but only in that case should they have any further involvement or liability.

        • Martin, that's exactly what I think. :)

          When I said backbone, I meant the national connection points, like Linx [linx.org] for example.

          Oh and in case anyone non-techie was was wondering about the CP spam point, it's because the HTML email will use images stored on the CP [i.e. blocked] server, thus registering a connection attempt to that server.

          One last thought about France, Germany and whoever else, having anti-nazi laws... In those countries, especially Germany, there is [I have heard] a sense of "national shame", for want of a better description, about the actions of the Nazis. I would have thought that this in itself would pretty much make anyone speaking out as or in support of Nazis social outcasts. A sort of social censorship, if you like. This is pretty much the case in America, where anyone who voices an opinion that goes against the general perception [read: What The News Corps And Government Say], even backed up by testimonies and evidence, such as John Pilger's documentry "Palestine Is Still The Issue", basically causes uproar among the GWB faithful plebs who believe what they see on the news. As one Canadian /.er roughly put it [I forget who, sorry] "I live near the border and get some of your TV channels. Is your TV state sponsored or something?" and that prretty much tells you what's going on. And his/her comment is hardly suprising [slashdot.org].

          As my .sig once said: "American freedom of speech: You can say what you want, just watch what you say."

          Ali

    • >By itself licensing ISP's is not a bad idea

      Eh? Why? Why should it be illegal to provide information without the governments permission? Bizarre!
    • Canada does not and never has offered any constitutional right to freedom of speech. Just thought you might want to know.
  • As the subject says, introducing a bill != law. This bill still has to be voted on by parlement. If it gets a yes vote in parlement, it must then be voted on by the Senate. I really really don't think this bill will come to pass.
    • Uhm, Ok, how come we have the DMCA, had Prohibition, and how come two 14 year olds were given the death penalty....in the US of A?

      Hopefully, Canada isn't as idiotic as the US. I feel ashamed sometimes to be a citizen of the US....
  • defines

    childpr0n ::= <criticism-of-canadian-gov't> | <hacking/priracy-related> | childpr0n

    child porn is just the beginning. They will probably modify the law to block anything they want to.

  • Private members bill (Score:5, Informative)

    by Tabercil ( 158653 ) <tabercil@@@gmail...com> on Wednesday October 23, 2002 @07:49PM (#4518437)
    It's going to be difficult for non-Canadians to understand what's going on here...

    The NDP (of which Peter Stoffer is a member) is largely a rump party (holding only 13 seats of 301). So the amount of influence it has in Canadian politics at the moment is minimal beyond criticism.

    Since the NDP does not hold power, this means that Mr Stoffer's bill is a private members bill. These very rarely become law. Often what happens is these bills go into commitees and don't come out.

    I'd say the chances of this bill getting passed are about as good as Larry Ellison & Bill Gates becoming bosum buddies.

    If you want to learn more about how the Canadian political system works, try these links:

    http://frenchcaculture.miningco.com/library/week ly /aa030902a.htm
    http://www.parlcent.ca/canada/mg.h tml
    • Indeed under the current system any bill not introduced and fully supported by the government in power (the cabinet, specifically) has about 0 chance of ever making it into law.
      • Further to that, the chance that NDP will ever be that party in power is the same: 0

        Besides, the current government in Canada doesn't tend to make controversial laws. (Chretien wants to keep his "most poopular prime minister, ever" title...). And of course, until the right gets back together, the Liberal party will be in power for quite some time.

  • Government provided porn list. (Score:5, Funny)

    by grent246 ( 600606 ) on Wednesday October 23, 2002 @10:32PM (#4519167)
    So under this bill if you want to be kept up to date with all the latest child pornography sites all you need to do is register as a canadian ISP and the government will keep you up to date with lists of sites.

  • Canadian Politics 101 (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Anyone in the house of commons (aka house of representatives for you americans) can introduce any bill onto the the register. The kicker is, the prime minister decides on which order bills are voted upon in the house. since this member introducing the bill is not in the prime minister's party, it is likely that the bill will be put to the bottom of the registry, and never voted upon (for the registry is cleared every season, when parliament takes their usual spring, summer, fall, and winter breaks).

    this bill will never even be debated in the house. i could say "lalala let us all wear our underwear on our heads, or you'll be thrown in jail", and it would be a bill, doesnt mean its every going to be debated or become a law.

    This will not happen people.
    The NDP (new democratic party) that introduced this bill is highly socialist (in my opinion communistic), and introduces all kind of crap.

  • Look people, this Bill was introduced by a member of the NDP party. Anyone remember Preston Manning ? These guys are kind of like the government's pet cat.. they make up big fusses to try and gain attention, we pet their back and give them a (cash) treat, then they go back to sleep for a few months until the next federal elections roll around.

    This is just a PR stunt for the NDP, so they can come back and say "Look at us, we tried to crack down on kiddie porn, and Jean Chretien's government turned us down. Liberal is evil! NDP is your friend!".

    • Anyone remember Preston Manning?

      Why is Preston Manning relevant to this discussion? He was the leader of the Reform Party (NOT the NDP), until it became the Alliance Party. Both the Reform and the Alliance parties are about as right wing as you get here in Canada, while the NDP is left wing.

  • Will Not Become Law (Score:2, Informative)

    by Flarenet ( 31299 )
    I really doubt if this bill will actually become law for one simple reason: telecommunication giants like BCE (Bell Canada Enterprises) and Rogers Cable will lobby to have the bill killed, since a bill like this would make them legally and finacially liable for the actions of their subscribers. Both companies have enough problems keeping their networks stable---they don't also need the problems of trying to filter their users.

Slashdot Top Deals

If it wasn't for Newton, we wouldn't have to eat bruised apples.

Close