Canadian MP Calls For ISP Licenses, Content Blocks 273
An anonymous reader writes "A member of Canada's ruling Conservative party has pledged to "clean up"
the Internet with new bill that would mandate ISP licensing,
know-your-subscriber rules, and allow the government to order ISPs to
block content. ISPs that fail to block would faces possible jail time
for the company's directors and officers."
what's happening (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:what's happening (Score:5, Informative)
It's always disturbing to see things like this, but this is nothing to worry about. The bill is a "private member's bill". That means that her party isn't interested. Even worthwhile private member's bills that would receive a lot of support if sponsored by the party have little chance of passage. Furthermore, she isn't a prominent member of the party. It's very unlikely that this bill will go anywhere.
Re:what's happening (Score:5, Insightful)
Please move on, nothing to be seen here.
Re:what's happening (Score:5, Insightful)
for some reason, all over the world we stopped electing the best and brightest to power and started electing the mentally retarded that have lots of money.
This needs to be smacked down hard. Canadians need to write scathing letters to their representatives saying how bad the idea is.
These scumbags do this crap as litmus tests to see if they can get away with bigger things. They gauge the reactions to this stuff to see how they can make their real plans fly.
Re: (Score:2)
Now, corporations do learn quickly. And of course, they will pump their money into those dimwits that are easiest to control and who do not even think about thinking themselves.
Makes sense, doesn't it? I mean, who would you buy?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just say that in a few years they become prominant, well this failed bill can be trumpetted as 'a past history of interest in internet user/ISP accountability' or some such crap.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
More likely, she made a (really stupid) election campaign promise to do "something about the interweb" and someone (who gave her money) reminded her that she hasn't done a thing and there's probably an election call coming up shortly.
c.
Re:what's happening (Score:4, Insightful)
Fuck Godwin (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the Conservatives were getting high up there in the polls, but the figures seem to be retreating, so all hope is not lost.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Things have indeed gotten slightly out of hands since we elected the Conservatives, which seem to be a little too close to Bush for my tastes. Unfortunately, the people seem to like them, and there is only one matter that keeps the Conservatives from being able to be reelected as a majority government: Afghanistan. If Harper finds a way out of Afghanistan, he'll get the public support he needs to get reelected, and that's bad for all of us.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. It happens every time the conservatives get in to power. The last one brought us "Free Trade", this one isn't quite sure how it's going to fuck things up just yet.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
This is a private member's bill, and despite the fact that it came from a Conservative MP, the same sort of nonsense has come from Liberals and the NDP. Indeed, this is the sort of bill that usually comes from a Liberal (because they're all about talk and no action, and everyone with any brains knows this won't ever lead to action).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
National Defence is important to protect our borders. We have the money and investing in military is a good thing
Re: (Score:2)
I agree. But the recent plan to purchase 100 tanks is not to defend our borders. It is to carry the fight in Afghanistan.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Actually it is. NATO [nato.int] has a requirement that if one of our allies is attacked, and wants us to join the fight, we have no choice in the matter. If we didn't honour our obligations and join the US in Afghanistan it would be very bad for our national defense. Iraq has never attacked the US, so we had a choice in that one.
It's the weekly speeches about how Israel is so great and wonde
Yeah, right... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
They should be able to pick up something cheap out of China.
Re:Yeah, right... (Score:5, Insightful)
Right now there is a push to force ISPs to use content filtering, in fact the Fed Govt has a tender out now to evaluate effectiveness or otherwise of filtering technology.
Unfortunately the problem isn't just the right-wing Family First wackos, it's also the plethora of unethical IT consultants in search of a good pork barrel telling them: "Censor the Internet ? Sure, no worries, we can have that up and running in 6 months if you just give us $millions".
The more they try to muzzle the Internet public, the more foolish they look.
Only to the tiny minority of people who realise how impossible it is.
Re:Yeah, right... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, the fact that going to www.imaterrorist.com in your web browser gets rejected at the ISP level is not the same thing as preventing you from accessing the content on that site.
I think we need a new Slashdot tag: wethinkweowntheinternet. We could just automatically moderate the first post in any such discussion pointing out the futility of censorship at a national level to (+5, Insightful), all the others repeating the same thought to (-1, Redundant), and the remaining 97% of comments (+5, Funny)
Re:Yeah, right... (Score:5, Informative)
If it's the same "clean feed" technology that the UK government forces all ISPs to "voluntarily" use, then you might like to look at this [cam.ac.uk] paper (pdf) which describes how to use the system to discover what sites it is blocking, and perhaps will give you some ideas on how to circumvent it.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe we can tie it to user ratings to help ensure that. A++++++ GREAT SIET. WOULD DEFINITELY JIHAD WITH AGAIN
Re:Yeah, right... (Score:5, Informative)
There is a list of sites that have been shut down, but those are sites that were hosted in Australia. There's no list of sites that you're not allowed to access. There simply isn't any filtering in place to do that.
Re:Yeah, right... (Score:4, Funny)
Of course, you have to say that, or they'll come take you away.
Re:Yeah, right... (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Moronic MP Repeats Mistakes (Score:5, Interesting)
Direct link to the Act (Score:5, Informative)
Some lowlights: So if I let my flatmates share my internet connection, that makes me an ISP without a licence? Which makes telling a paedophile to get help an offense. On the upside, this could cut down on some of the vigilantism.
Re: (Score:2)
No, I didn't 'forget' to click 'Post Anonymously.' I'm not a troll and I have no worries about what I post. The only time I post anonymously is when I don't want to be a karma-whore.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Star systems, fingers, slipping (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
What I noticed when using the wireless on our PC's to connect to my router was a few other wir
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Or, install an encrypted overlay darknet [freenetproject.org] on top of the hobbled network and communicate freely. And herein lies the problem - there are solutions to curtail government censorship in existence RIGHT NOW. Unfortunately, they never gain any traction, because everybody seems to support the censorship of something or other because, well, "X is REALLY bad and NEEDS to be censored, whatever the cost." There seem to be very few of us who understand that censorship is all or nothing.
How long... (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not up to government to decide what we can and can't see, and I feel it is a very bad idea to build them the weapons to do so, no matter how much they promise to not use them for their own advantage.
Re:How long... (Score:5, Funny)
The good will and decency of our elected officials.
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that this is a government initiative, and this, won't work.
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that this is a government project, and thus, won't work.
Also, the fact that the very attempt is impossible (without serious tradeoffs).
Seriously. I rent a server in the US. I can SSH to that server. Unless they block all encrypted traffic (goodbye to any commercial internet venture, along with thousands of IT people who use SSH for work daily) they cannot block anythin
In Canada ... (Score:2)
Wrong on two counts.
In Canada, hate speech is illegal. "... advocating genocide or inciting hatred against any 'identifiable group' is an indictable offense under the Canadian Criminal Code with maximum terms of two to fourteen years. An 'identifiable group' is defined as 'any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation." source [wikipedia.org]. This law was upheld by the supreme court in R v. Keegstra [canlii.org].
In C
Promotes violence against who? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm wondering about material that promotes violence against men. Or, hey, why not violence against people. Or, better yet, they could simply stop walking the authoritarian path of banning everything that moves and poke fun at people who promote violence against [insert group of your choice here] instead. People rarely want to emulate individuals who are widely derided.
Oh, sorry, poking fun requires wit. The folks who want these kind of laws only have half of what is required.
Re: (Score:2)
Block all political party and personal sites. If someone is running for office, block their site, emails, tv commercials and paper advertising.
this will stop violence more than anything else.
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently, they will to be able to block material "that promotes violence against women"
Also, if recent events in the UK is anything to go by, note that any image seen as violent (even if simulated and consensual - yes, some adults are into stuff like that remember) is automatically assumed to be "promoting violence". The UK Government is planning to criminalise possession of images (even if simulated and consensual, even priv
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently, they will to be able to block material "that promotes violence against women"
They may state that but the real reason is much more hideous. There are a growing number of uncontrolled decent sites on the internet, separation groups, private blogs criticizingly government actions. With TV, the control of CBC (a government corporation on the dole). Others that are private can't compete as easily and get the squeeze from CRTC if they get too frisky. There are mandated Canadian content guideline
Re: (Score:2)
Not important. Remember, it's a tragedy when women are beaten or raped or molested as girls by men, but a joke when men are beaten by women or raped in prison (much less women, since most people believe that isn't possible) or molested as boys by women.
It's the old double standard: "Men are strong and supposed to be able to take anything and want any sort of sex even when their infant or their not men, they're pussies. Women are weak and suppose to require help for even the most minor things and hate sex and when this is occationally not the case, it must either be because a man corrupted her or she's had mitigating circumstances.".
Who says this? really?
The majority of rapes are committed by men against women. Women have been treated as property in our civilization for hundreds, if not thousands of years. It's only in the last few decades that advances in equality have been made. So there is still quite an entrenched male domination in our society.
Certainly, volence by women against men or against children should be treated seriously, but what stinks is men that get all upset when people try doing something to reduce voilence against
Re: (Score:2)
How many boys get raped by men?
How many males are abused and get no support except laughter?
--jeffk++
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, rather than reducing 'violence against women,' wouldn't it be better to reduce violence? Rather than fighting for 'equality of women,' wouldn't it be better to fight for equality?
Re: (Score:2)
And as long as you keep drawing that distinction, you're making the same mistake the parent post was talking about. People need support. Reducing it to one group of people vs another just clouds the real issue.
I don't think its one vs. another. As I said, all violence needs to be addressed. But what we need to recognise is that some forms of violence is more prevalant than others.
How often do you hear of men getting raped by women?
Now how often do you hear of women getting raped by men?
I must also state that I think the whole idea of this bill is stupid. Censoring people is stupid. I'd rather have all the haters and violent people be allowed to post their stuff on the net. If people are censored, they feel more
Total Bunk. (Score:5, Interesting)
Especially the bit about violence against women (but not against men) being grounds for a license to be revoked. And the bit about censoring my access to information.
The internet loses value if we start filtering it. Granted there are laws that prohibit sexual exploitation (of minors) and violence against anybody, but this is not a reason to give anybody such a high level of control over our (not mine, not his, not yours, but our) medium.
I don't think this will make it through as law... I hope. But I worked as a Legislative Page for a while, and you'd be amazed what gets voted on.
Re: (Score:2)
That can only mean that they think that promoting violence against men is okay.
when (Score:2, Interesting)
This is like world domination (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hey Pinky! Where's the Brain?
-InnerWebparanoid ++ (Score:5, Insightful)
The Bible (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Just because The Bible has historical records of the crap stuff that some evil people did, doesn't mean that the Word of God endorses said behaviour. If I am mistaken, please enlighten me and show me exactly where explicit violence targeting women (i.e. beating, raping, torture, etc) is promoted in The Bible. The New Testament is actually more relevant for today's living, so even better if you can show such a quote from the
Re:The Bible (Score:5, Informative)
"Suppose a man marries a woman,
and says, "I married this woman;
but when I lay with her, I did not
find evidence of her virginity."
If, this charge is true, that evidence
of the young woman's virginity was
not found, then they shall bring the
young woman out to the entrance
of her father's house and the men
of her town shall stone her to death."
Deut 22:13-21
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.""
John 8:7
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The Bible (Score:5, Informative)
Exodus and Leviticus are chock full of prescribed punishments for women who do everything from sleep with another man (stoning) to practice "witchcraft" (stoning) to a slave having sex with her master (that's a stoning) to stating that women are "worth" about 50-70% what a man is worth.
Though like most Christians you'll insist that none of that stuff matters anymore. Why then, I ask you, is it still in your holy book, and why do people point to the same book when talking about other "moral codes."
Re: (Score:2)
You want a NT quote? How about 1 Peter 3:2-6 where it says wives are to use "chaste conversation, coupled with fear." They are not to braid their hair, wear gold, or put on any "apparel." They are to do these things in imitation of the "holy" women of the Old testament who were "in subjection to their won husbands: even as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him Lord."
Re: (Score:2)
So in comparison to barbaric societies, the Bible is less barbaric. However, when compared to modern sensibilities it is a horrible, horrible book.
And what about Deuteronomy 22:13-21 where it explicitly states that if a woman is not a virgin on her wedding night she should be stoned to death on her father's porch?
Re: (Score:2)
Please enlighten me and show me exactly where the parent post said anything about the Bible promoting violence targeting women. The post only said that it contains descriptions of violence targeting women. A broad interpretation of a poorly worded law could mean that such parts of the Bible would be illegal on the Internet.
Re: (Score:2)
No, because they'll apply the same ambiguous, mercurial, politically motivated "standards" to censoring the internet that they apply to censoring radio and television. "If you hold the wrong opinions, we'll shut you down. What are those opinions? Well, you just tell us what yours are, and we'll tell you if you're shut down."
Re:The Bible is a government publication. (Score:3, Insightful)
Truth in advertising (Score:3, Insightful)
in other news (Score:2, Interesting)
canada is not like the US, canadians care about civil liberties and open society.. well at least enough to be outraged if their government tried what a certain other government has been doing.
As was once said... (Score:5, Funny)
Helps if I actual post the whole thing :( (Score:2, Informative)
Does she not understand (Score:5, Insightful)
And because it hasn't been said yet; it's violence against women and child porn now; but before the ink on this bill dries, it will be turned toward copyright enfringers, and peole who promote the end of marijuana prohibition.
Oh, that's an easy one (Score:5, Interesting)
Huh? What do you mean, "impossible"? Since when's that been an issue with laws concerning the 'net?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Genie is out of the bottle (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps Joy Smith does not understand, but the Internet is a global system, i.e. most of the content exists somewhere else than Canada, eh. She can try to regulate ISPs all she wants, but she can't actually touch most of them, and those that don't want to be bothered simply won't operate in Canada, or will flout the law and dare the Canadian government to come after them.
That's taken into account in the bill (Score:2)
If a country defines "violence against women" as the same as "dishonouring a woman" (ie, not killing her when she is raped...), you are breaking a "similar law" of a "foreign state" if you are providing information that goes against this process in some way, from my reading. This brings canadian citizens under the laws of whatever the CRTC(appointed bureaucrats) decide, online anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
But that doesn't matter. If I am running an ISP in a foreign country, I really don't fear the Canadian Government. I am not going out of my way to enforce decency standards that Canada has defined, even if they make sense to me. The cost is prohibitive, and given the number of countries on the planet, if everyone decided that ISPs had to enforce their rules or else, most ISPs would go belly up. Regulating the Internet is a waste of time and resources; not even ICANN can do it, and they handle the domain nam
I hate news like this (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, y'all don't need much help, I mean seriously: censor the internet, hockey, ice fishing, cheap beer and expensive cigarettes? What kind of country is that?
Aboot time, eh?
(I kid, I kid)
Not even remotely constitutional. (Score:5, Insightful)
That doesn't mean we shouldn't be concerned or silent. Concerned Canadians should write their MP and the author of the bill, Joy Smith. [joysmith.ca]
Re: (Score:2)
When did that start mattering again?
In other news (Score:3, Funny)
The request contained, amongst other things, "...MPs should be graduates with IQ above 110...must not present any bill for consideration without concurrence of 80% of his/her constituents...and should provide for hardcore jailtime if the MP is found falsifying records about education, IQ, etc..."
No, am serious. Who is this guy? Does he know a thing about internet, beyond "series of tubes",??
404 (Score:3, Funny)
Typical of Canada... (Score:5, Interesting)
Canadian governments at all levels love to float trial balloons such as this (as, I suspect, do governments everywhere). Fact is none of them ever really make it to the law books. Or in the occasional case where something silly does in fact make it into regulations, it is discovered to be silly and ignored from then onwards. An example? Because Canada spans 5 time zones, it is against the rules to broadcast interim election reports in those parts of the country where the polls have not closed. Theoretically, this includes Internet reports. But it is not enforced because regulators discovered, much to their annoyance, that servers in the Tonga Islands are not within the jurisdiction of the Canadian courts.
This will blow over, just like every other ill conceived Canadian government plan to stick its regulatory proboscis where it is not welcome.
Canadians should comment on this.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Send an email to Joy Smith [mailto] (the MP who introduced this half baked bill). Here's mine:
I would like to voice my objections to the "Clean Internet Bill" recently introduced by Ms Smith. This bill will be totally unenforceable as any traffic can and will be encrypted on the Internet. And an ISP licence? I thought one of the goals of this government was LESS bureaucracy. This would be yet another arbitrary and unenforceable regulation. Do I become an ISP for sharing a connection with other members of my household? Canada currently has a reputation as a leader in the high tech field, but this reputation will be eroded by such poorly thought out pieces of legislation as this.
I'll make them a deal (Score:5, Interesting)
I'll give you my support for "cleaning up the internet" when you clean up the bribery, corruption and kickbacks in your profession.
Unbelievable... (Score:4, Insightful)
Scandinavia allready has this madness :-( (Score:3, Informative)
Write to her, it's free! (Score:3, Informative)
424 Confederation Building
Ottawa, ON, K1A 0A6
How Private Member's Bills (Don't) Work (Score:2)
What does this gain him? Nothing but a sound bite. Next election campaign, you see "I tried to clean up the Intarwebs to protect your child
They want their hands around the throat of the net (Score:3, Insightful)
Aside from the obvious wrong of trying to restrict ideas and content, the other point that I think can be made which shows how wrong this is - is the following:
Who decides what is inappropriate content? The standard is in the eye of the beholder:
I am sure that there are a lot of people who find nudity, sex, art, controversial discourse, etc. beautiful; (as I do), and find a lot of what many organized religions (and the other things these people use as their personally defined self-righteous "moral" authority) to be profane and harmful, especially when used in the political/governmental sphere - as do I.
An argument can be made that children shouldn't watch porn (and violence is worse IMO) and I agree with this, but this is something that the parents or guardians are responsible for. Don't attempt to take away freedoms and discourse by claiming that you are protecting children or "cleaning up the net."
So we can then see that this isn't about protecting anyone from anything - this is about controlling ideas, controlling possibilities and getting a handle around the internet - I think governments have realized that the net is one area where these masses actually have organizing potential that is difficult to squelch - they don't like not being able to control it.
There is also the obvious political side too IE promising some political bullshit which is impossible to deliver - because even if they get away with this the technological libertarians (not the political party per se, I am referring to those in our community who will use their skills to protect the freedom of the net) - will use encryption and/or hopefully develop tools to try to circumvent most of these restrictions.
Private Member's bill or not... (Score:3, Informative)
http://webinfo.parl.gc.ca/MembersOfParliament/Mai
Find their member of parliament and tell them that they will not tolerate motions like this under any circumstance.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
That's weird because I would have said the exact opposite: the "bad ISPs" are the ones that enforce their opinions of right and wrong onto their customers, thereby discriminating and censoring; whereas the "good ISPs" are those that behave as common carriers and don't interfe