Canadian ISP Blocks Web Sites They Don't Like

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?

Comments

It's a wonder that this doesn't happen more often.

[Perianwyr Stormcrow]

Think about it, how hard is it, really, for an ISP to transparently block a site? They could just expunge it from their domain records or mis-point the domain name to something inactive, and cause the real site to be unreachable by their customers... and no one would probably ever notice. After all, isn't it true that most people never try again once they've attempted to reach an Internet site that's down or inactive?

--Perianwyr Stormcrow

Re:It's a wonder that this doesn't happen more oft

[Dr_Orion]

It is even easier than that, just use a non-authoritative DNS entry pointing to an unused IP address. You wouldn't want to have to try and manage a large list of domains that you supply non-authoritative DNS information about, but for a few domains it would be easy enough. Of course any of the customers could easily be using alternate DNS severs, but most would not go to the trouble or have any idea why changing servers would make a difference.

Censorship anyone?

[SlashGeek]

This has to be a joke. There are millions upon millions of porn sites on the net, and easily found on Yahoo or even just trying something in the location bar. If children want to find them, they will. Why can nobody take parental supervision as a method of content controll anymore?

"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?

Re:Censorship anyone?

[Goldberg's Pants]

This kind of shit really pisses me off. No offence to any Americans, but I always thought Canada was above this sort of crap. Guess not. Blocking sites that customers may find offensive. That is such garbage. It's only the vocal minority that whine, the kinda that sit frantically masturbating over sex scenes on TV while saying "This is terrible, simply terrible, I must complain". Bunch of whiny pathetic "won't somebody think of the children" jerkoffs.

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.

---

Just like ORBS and the RBL

[Lazarus Short]

#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 and the RBL 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

[Anonymous Coward]

Not the same thing. A website is speech and a spam email is speech, but a website is something you seek out (and bear the cost through your Interenet access fee), a spam email is something sent unsolicited. Since it is unsolicited, you bear the cost even though you don't want to and haven't agreed to. So they're not the same thing.

Re:Just like ORBS and the RBL

[sdo1]

Somebody mod this guy up, because this is EXACTLY the point.

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