Slashdot Mirror
End of Online Anonymity in Canada?
boochy writes "Are we close to losing our anonymity online in Canada? As Angela Pacienza writes in a National Post article; "The record industry's attempts to sue people who share music online threaten to change the widely held expectation that everyone's anonymous when surfing the Internet, lawyers representing the public interest argued Monday."
This is a very interesting article that shows how much the lawyers representing the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic are trying their best to protect our privacy online."
Id like one fat dick, with a side of juicy pussy please.
PPP wasup mattac gordita uway
FAPFC!
Anonymous FP
Ninnle
Ninnle
Ninnle
Ninnle
BATMAN!
That wouldn't work; 'loosing' is a correctly spelt word. A grammar checker handy be may.
The list goes. A lot of my US friends wanted to migrate to Canada, if things in the US got worse. However, it is sad to note how the multinational that have decimated democracy in the US is slowly spreading their tentacles to Canada. I hope Canadians win this battle. Good Luck to them.
Indefinitely Detained US Citizen
This summer, when it gets hot outside, and your hemmoroids
are even hotter, just look to the cool relief of Preparation-H
to get you on your way.
Ewwww....Britney Spears, Justin Timberlake, Creed.... you really need better taste in music, Bob. Oh, and a good lawyer. ;)
Stuff it with the BS nationalism. Nothing is more pathetic than Canadians who have perpetual short-man syndrom with the US. Your post isn't even on topic (this is about a potential law in Canada, not how the US and Canada compare) and your facts are screwed.
Canadian health-care is a HUGE problem. The system costs too much and is suffering from shortages and inefficiency, but so far no one has been able to propose a good solution (you can't just stop state-run healthcare). Just because everyone has government mandidated healthcare doesn't mean it's good. An interesting phenomena in Canada is that rich Canadians will come to the US for treatment, because even though they have to pay full price, they get it much more expidently, and higher quality.
I'd like to figure out how you think Canada's education is more accessable. Primary education (as in K-12) is the same in both countries. Everyone is not only allowed, but required to go. Primary education is perfectly accessable in the States, just go to school. They are there and paid for by public money.
Secondary education also seems to be the same. In both countries there is everything from cheap community colleges that will let pretty much anyone with a diploma in up to elite schools with hefty requirements and price tags.
As for the labour laws, what's more just about them?
The media in Canada is no different than in the US. There are better and worse networks/newspapers/radio stations/etc and they all have a different slant on things. I fail to see any huge difference. Tell me, what is so special about the CBC? Or is it just that Canadian news tends to have a more socialist slant than American news (understandably)? Maybe it's just that the US doesn't do talk radio all the time.
Get off the "our country is so awesome" spin. No, it's not. Canada is a good country, and one with many good points, but it's not the One True Enlightened Land. There are plenty of problems, and plenty of room for improvement.
But again, the National Post is just a wet-dream from those rich people who are trying to eliminate the State so they can profit off the unrich people unhindered.
[rant]
For the love of god, the state should NOT be a cash redistribution machine; it should NOT be large, and it should NOT be powerful.
The economy is NOT a zero sum game. Just because someone is rich does not mean that they accumulated their wealth by the exploitation of the "unrich" (is that the new politically correct term? I should probably start using it, lest the "tolerant" masses stone me for being "intolerant").
I have grown weary of standing by while my fellow Canadians rally for a larger, more powerful government. How many times must we walk down this path until we finally accept it leads nowhere.
Well, I suppose as the old saying goes "a government that steals from Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul." Just remember my fellow citizens, do not rest until those with high incomes have LESS money than those on low incomes.
[/rant]
Uttering logically derived and empirically supported truths to the disciples of the orthodox establishment.
Second, the State has a duty that everyone can lead a decent life. This means that it has to make sure no one gets swindled by anyone, be it a bank, an employer or a scammer. With the barriers to entry that the rich are putting all over the place to prevent competition from entering the markets, the Economy is starting more and more to turn into a zero-sum game.
The time when an entrepreneur can pursue an opportunity is long gone, not thanks to increased government regulation, but thanks to anticompetitive trade practices that are effected by the larger and larger conglomerates that swallow more and more of the Economy every day. We know and have seen where the opposite (less and less State) goes towards: we see it daily at work in the USA, a place where the rich and powerful trample the unrich into meaningless pulp. Typical bourgeois poppycock. Their propaganda aims only towards the elimination of the State so it will stop preventing them from abusing consumers and the public. Ask yourself: when a rich man asks for something, does he do it for everybody's sake or merely for his own? When you're greedy enough to have accumulated a vast fortune, your motivations are rather crystal-clear.
Ironically, I think that we are both on the same side on the issue.
is certainly not capitalism.
Something that is not textbook "responsible capitalism for dummies" is not de facto socialism as your previous post insinuated. The particular levy issue is a case of aberrant capitalism wherein corporate consortium has exerted enough influence on government as to institutionalize the expropriation of wealth from individuals (by a government acting as an agent of the corporations) to enrich corporations whose dated business models are failing.
What would you call forcefully taking money from everyone just to support the actions of certain people?
Bush tax cuts.
By the way, notice how I managed to write the above without any argumentum ad hominem?
Your original post was a sly attempt to disparage a great country ad populus, an action to which this particular hominem takes serious umbrage.
Less it be misconstrued by those acquainted only with binary viewpoints: I am not anti-capitalist - I live and work in and benefit from the capitalist system. But there needs to be a balance. A sad fact of the human condition is that too much power in any one group's hands leads to their abuse of those with less power.
Sigs are bad for your health.