Slashdot Mirror
U.S. Blogger Breaches Canadian Publication Ban
nnet writes "The Toronto Sun is reporting that a U.S. blogger has been breaching a Canadian publication ban on AdScam. While The Sun hasn't given the URL for the blog itself, in fear of a contempt of court charge, this isn't the first time an American has breached a Canadian publication ban according to the article." The Sun story, though, does give a nice title for which to search, and this quickly yields the story in question.
Wouldn't this be akin to publishing grand jury testimony on the web? Or any other secret testimony? It is against the law to do such a thing.
If bloggers wish to be afforded the privileges and protections held by mainstream journalists (the ones not named Jayson Blair or Mary Mapes), they should follow the same ethical standards.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
The idea was to try to provide the defendant with an unbiased jury.
Quaint indeeed...
If the tables were turned and a Canadian started disclosing "sensitive" information that the US media was generally discouraged (can't ban b/c of 1st amendment) from disseminating, the scene would likely be much uglier with talks of extradition. At most, this guy will have to avoid going to Canada for a while, for fear of being arrested in contempt of court.
Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!
Imagine that... The internet actually getting used for one of its single most useful potentials - Preserving true and absolute freedom of speech.
Guess what? Canadian gag-orders don't apply in the US (and vice-versa). US cryptography export restrictions don't apply from Norway. Just about any of the BS Sharia laws don't apply outside the Middle East. Pretty much nothing applies in Vanuatu.
Welcome to the dawn of a new era. Wake up, world leaders, and smell the coffee - Doesn't it smell so deliciously like your obsolescence? Your petty little regional fiefdoms no longer exist. If the entire planet doesn't agree with you, you lose.
Never thought I'd say this, but thank you Americans for making my country free, it's sincerely appreciated.
There's way more to this liberal scandal than we're supposed to know. I understand the necessity for short-term publication bans when a trial is in progress, but anything pertinent to discovering the truth about something (hence a trial) should really be accessible when it comes to public office.
-Matt
--- Need web hosting?
I'm in Canada, and I'm emailing it to everyone I know.
Fuck it, and fuck everyone who's involved. No wonder there was so much pressure from the former PM to close down the inquiry.
"quaint" indeed, but both Canadian and American courts have had the ability to impose a gag order. A recent US case of breaking the gag order (oddly enough, ALSO involving a government bribery/corruption charge) is whats led to the recent demands of laws to keep journalists from keeping their sources private (odd that the Republicans didn't call for such laws when their administration ousted a CIA agent, but "defy" a republican appointed judge and all hell breaks loose).
But surely the reason for the ban in the first place was so that the jury pool will remain unbiased... it's not as though the testimony is "secret" - journalists have been allowed in. If the prosecution's case collapsed because of this, would it really be something to be proud of?
If you want to talk about Orwell's future, start taking about being sent to jail based on "classified information". This is happening right now in Canada, US and other coutries (Iran, North Korea, Syria, etc..).
With press gags, Canada's government discards its own protection: competing debate of the case in a free press. So the blogger becomes the only voice presenting the story to most of the public. The need to violate the gag selects people whose version of the story is is more antigovernment. So the gag prevents people who respect (or fear) the government from providing the accurate picture which can come only from multiple independent reporters. This tawdry little conflict illustrates how free, independent press, competing to tell the story most completely, is the most essential part of a functioning free people with a government that serves them more than it serves itself. Press control is a dangerous game, because tiny leaks multiply the power of the leaked info to completely occupy the info vacuum.
--
make install -not war
...a hissy fit. No news here. At the end of this story, we'll see that the right winger is smearing more lies on the internet trying to spread the right wing mental affliction over the border. Fortunately, most Canadians have common sense and decency and will completely ignore this crap. The less intelligent Canadians emigrate to the U.S.
Are you actually dense that the Liberal Government is trying to shut down this inquiery??
If you look at the Hansard from early last year it was clear that the Liberal MAJORITY goverment was pushing for an enquiry while the Conservative Opposition was quite plainly against it. The reason why the publican ban is ordered by Justice Gomery is to allow those involved to have a fair trial, a right given to them by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
You have no right to subvert the law in this case, and I sincerely hope you get charged for subverting a Justice's edict.
Chretien's lawyers tried to have the Gomery inquiry stopped.
Here's http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNew s/1106682011080_102091211 one of MANY links.
It was already subverted, asswipe. Once it's out, there's no putting it back in the can.As for his "fair trial", that can still be done - I'm sure we can find a dozen people who've been living in caves the last 5 years.
So, you're saying that because his political beliefs differ from yours anything he says is suspect?
The evil monkey commands you to dance.
I wouldn't worry too much, if I remember correctly you folks have more *women* in the US Air Force, than we have people (male or female) in our entire Armed Forces. The Liberals have been steadily eroding the Canadian Forces to their currently too small size for decades.
What remains is very well trained, but too small to carry out its commitments I think.
And to think that after WWII, Canada had the 4th largest Navy in the world. Now our navy is laughably small.
"The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
Actually, Judge Gomery was asked to put a ban on this by Breault's lawyers, because its publication could have an deleterious effect on Breault's trial to be held next September. Gomery probably approved the ban to respect Breault's right of a fair and equitable trial, a fundamental right of the Canadian constitution. It would be hard for Breault to be fairly judged fairly bu a jury if the whole country is being told by the media how corrupted he was. Also, before imploring freedom of speech, know that ALL of Breault's testimony will be made public right after his trial, no matter what. Freedom of information, but a couple of months later.
Isn't it ironic. On the one had we hold a jury of our peers in high enough regard, that they are allowed to judge us, on the other we believe that allowing them to read a newspaper makes them unable to be objective in court.
I bear it quite well. But it is a little weird isn't it? Shouldn't they be living their own lives?
All of you commenting on the ban and saying "Aren't I glad I'm an American, I'm free" have clearly not read anything about the issue. The reason there's a ban is that the people testifying are up on criminal charges over the issue. The ban was requested on the grounds that publication might make it impossible to find an impartial jury. Now you may still disagree with that, but at least disagree having an f**ing clue about what you're disagreeing with!
RTFA. Stop karma whoring.
And if Canada is resembling 1984, I don't know what US is resembling!
Wouldn't want to actually read what he wrote and judge it on it's face would you? If you never read anything you disagree with you can always be right.
But don't you also need to ask if the publication ban is being used to shield the government from damaging news? The article indicates the government is using the time under the ban to force elections before the news can get out.
The are obviously using the ban in this case to avoid the political fallout, or at least do some major damage control.
Do the media bans only come into effect with high-profile crimes? Or does every crime go unreported until after the trial of the accused? I imagine it doesn't.
Save a life, sign your organ donor card.
This is what we skeptics call the ad hominem fallacy. When you critique a viewpoint, statement, or article by questioning the character of the author, or of the author's other works, rather than the content of the work in question itself, you have committed the ad hominem fallacy. It is an invalid criticism. As much as I like bashing neocons - and they do deserve it - one can do much better than attacking the character of the messenger (which in the case of neocons, is always questionable, and a rather moot point as the past two elections have shown).
Edith Keeler Must Die
I hear a lot of bullshit coming from people out there about how this "publication ban" is a suppression of freedom of speech and how "hypocritical" we are up here in Canada.
But not too many seem to have clued in to the fact that, contrary to the catcalls of censorship, all of the testimony was made available to the press which is why we are reading it. The "publication ban" is a temporary measure intended to ensure a fair and impartial jury trial. Providing a fair and impartial jury trial requires either withholding the testimony from the public until the jury has reached a verdict, or disclosing it but keeping it from publication.
You all seem to think that this guy is some sort of "hero" for publishing this stuff. But all he's done is present one portion of the facts and testimony in isolation from the others. Far from informing, this is just leading those who aren't mentally disciplined enough to withhold judgement until getting all the facts to a knee jerk reaction that will be discussed around the water cooler until it has taken on the authority of repetition. It's basically taking us further and further away from any possibility of justice and towards a witch hunt.
Whoever this "secret source" is, I for one am totally disgusted with his or her demonstrated lack of integrity, and am hoping that they go to jail for this and never hold a position of trust again for the rest of their life.
I hope the courts will learn from this, and start preventing the press from being present for these sorts of testimonies at all. They have demonstrated that they can neither be trusted nor compelled not skew the trial, so they just shouldn't be there. They should recieve and report on the complete facts of the case when the court documents are released. Aside from being in the interests of justice, that would be responsible journalism, which this clearly is not.
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
I hate to say it but anyone who is willing to have his tax money spent on a missile shield defence, of which it has been demonstrated that it will NEVER work, has to be considered low on intelligence...hence the term "idiot".
You should tell that to the US navy, which has been largely successful in its trials: five hits in (I think) six attempts. See here for example. I agree that the USAF's program, which has received more press, has been dismal.
I don't get why people keep saying it will "never" work. It's a hard problem, but I'm aware of no physical laws that are violated by BMD.
But more generally, the way things are now, the only thing defending you from nuclear attack is that the USA is prepared to commit an act of genocide to avenge your death, which incidentally conveys no protection from insanity, error, or equipment failure. As a first line of defence, I would much rather be protected by a system that could destroy the incoming warhead -- even if it had a certain percentage chance of failure.
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
Considering that we may be heading into a snap election because the government wants us to vote BEFORE all this stuff leaks out, I think the ban was more harmful to the common good than just disclosing everything.
Would any of this have made slashdot if it HADN'T been banned? Of course not.
The ban was stupid, and it didn't work. It was inevitable that it wouldn't work.
Oh, BTW, the CRTC (the Canadian equivalent of the FCC) has already stated plenty of times that they will NOT regulate the internet. That's because:
- it's not technically possible
- pretty much all communication between a server and a client (the current web model) is done based on a request-response, as opposed to a broadcast-receive.
That last point is important - if I am reading a message or page I have requested (which is what happens whenever I click on a link), that is not a general broadcast - it's a one-on-one communication, between me and a server outside the jurisdiction of the Canadian government.Canadians have a serious problem: corruption in government, with money being funneled in illegal ways.
This scandal implicates the previous prime-minister, the current prime-minister, and a slew of relatively wealthy people.
A huge inquiry ensues, and costs an amount similar to the amount of money that was originally stolen (perhaps, misused is a better word). In particular, around 250 million is supposedly improperly accounted for, and the commission investigating the problem is costing another 130 million.
Since the inquiry isn't a criminal case against the individuals involved, the commissioner in charge of the inquiry has asked that journalists not publicise the events, so that an unbiased jury can be found for the real criminal proceeedings.
Members of the public are still welcome to go see the events, just not to publicly report them. (keep in mind that until the publication ban was put in place, the TV channel with the live hearings was getting amazing ratings in Quebec- hence constituting a serious problem for finding an unbiased jury)
I think it is pretty sad that someone finds it necessary to publicise their own version of events on their blog, in defiance of the ban, because it presents all kinds of problems in actually prosecuting the people who have allegedly committed serious crimes.
As per the slashdotting, a pity even the slashdot effect hasn't torn the site down.
The whole freedom of speech issue is not really a big problem for most people I know in Montreal, as there is no permanent secrecy being imposed. The events being investigated happened several years ago, and it doesn't make a huge difference if the details are known today or in a few months- except for the prosecution aspect.
The really scary freedom restrictions here are the 'security certificates' which allow the government to throw people in jail, and not tell people what evidence they are being convicted with.
Then again, the same thing seems to happen in the US, only justified with terms like 'enemy combatant', instead of 'security certificate'.
So the public can observe the proceedings, as long as nobody tells anybody else?
A secret simply cannot be contained this way. It sounds like they're relying on people to be honest - the data isn't even watermarked individually in each person's brain - so how can they really be surprised?
It sounds like they don't have a problem with the entire population of Canada being present (barring physical restrictions) but for some reason replicating the information later is bad.
Come on! If you don't want information to get out, restrict access to it. The story here is not that what happened; it's the broken security itself.
P.S. Let me get this straight: If I attend the proceedings, I'm not allowed to tell anybody? Even a spouse? Or am I only allowed to tell people I meet in person? Is it legal to send snail mail regarding the experience? email? send it to a mailing list? Is it OK as long as I don't do this for a living?
The whole thing seems to be based on the distinction between members of the press and non-publicators. This distinction is arbitrary and archaic.
So... this is an American blog by an American, yet it breaks a Canadian publication law, and that's bad? :-/
Debugging? Klingons do not debug. Bugs are good for building character in the user.
US Public Debt (the part that isn't one part of the government owing another part of the government money) is ~$4.6 trillion. US GDP is ~$11 trillion. So our Debt is ~42% of GDP.
As a percent of GDP, that makes the Canadian Debt a mite bigger than our National Debt.
Note, of course, that I ignored US "intragovernmental debt". Frankly, when the government writes itself an IOU and deposits said IOU in a vault, I don't consider that "debt". Any more than I would consider it debt if I wrote myself an IOU and left it in my safe-deposit box.
"and growing fast" - won't argue with that. Too damn fast to suit me. I hope that Canada can keep on paying its Debt down. I doubt it will, but I hope so. Be nice if ONE government showed some restraint.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
The fact of the matter is that any missle defense system will be fooled by dummy warheads. Making a missle hit another is a tough enough task in itself. Now imagine an ICBM that carries 10 dummy warheads to one real one. How does the system tell the difference? It can't.
That is the problem with missile defense. You have to ask yourself how difficult it would be to fool the system. Just like with computer protection, you test your system with someone that is actively trying to defeat it. I don't see the US military doing this. All I see is easy trials to show the press. It's SDI all over again. It's technology that works in very specific circumstances that is never tested in real life conditions.
I seem to recall that China treats corruption as a treasonous offense punishable by death. Perhaps if we took a page from that book these stories wouldn't pop up so frequently. Or if they did, they'd all end with "All the offending officials have been taken out and shot." Same thing should go for corporate upper management too.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
The current and former Liberal government already treats us like shit, so yes.
Condemnant quod non intellegunt.
While I'm all for free speech, one's right to free speech ends where another's civil liberties begin. This publication ban was an expression of the right of the accused to have a fair trial.
It's a wonder that so many people have so little respect for another's civil rights, they must not care that much about their own.
More to the point; publication bans are broken all the time, and that's okay. The problem isn't that it was reported somewhere; it's that the breach is being reported far and wide. This isn't news.
The only reason this got play is because it was a blog. Who cares? I can't wait for blogging to get old (it already is).
You're right this wouldn't be reported but for the ban, and that's the problem.
He's a neocon, or at least a neocon sympathizer, which makes anything he says highly suspect.
I suppose that means you can take everything Michael Moore says at face value? If a socialist says the sky is pink at high noon on a clear day it must be so? Unless the source clearly has something to gain from publishing certain information you might want to put your prejudice aside and look at things deeper.
FYI, without mentioning the details themselves, "real journalists" have confirmed that this report is completely accurate--journalists employed by a company owned by major Liberal party supporters no less. Slanted site sponsors notwithstanding the report looked to me to be surprisingly balanced. There is some editorialising but a remarkable absence of ideological bias. The article could've been written word-for-word by an NDP supporter (NDP is Canada's socialist party) just as much as could've been written by a Conservative.
IMHO "AdScam" is not an ideological debate with small-gov't "neocons" whining about big gov't make-work projects (that is only one small facet). It is a debate about openness and ethics first and foremost by far. Ask NDP supporters and they will be just as critical as a Conservative about the honesty and openness of the Liberal government--or lack thereof. Whatever your political leanings, if you are Canadian you would do well to follow this story, regardless of whether the source represents your political values. The average citizen would be astonished at how corrupt the Canadian gov't is and how long it has been that way. Perhaps that would motivate voters to get off their asses and vote next election.
The judge felt that the information should be published later instead of sooner, and I respect that decision. The last thing that we would want is a trial by media. Time and time again the media gets legal facts wrong in order to make the story more interesting. Often times if I hear about a court case, I will actually read court documents instead of relying on a news article. In any case, his decision was no different than what happens here in the USA. Judges routinely "seal" testimony for various reasons.
Why is it that Slashdotters so often have trouble seeing the big picture?
We do. We just recognize the infallibly of men, historically and experientially, and the exceptional ability of men in power to rationalize anything to stay in power. Those who don't are the sheep for those that are.
John Milton (of Paradise Lost fame) wrote about this in the 1600s in a little essay called Areopagitica. Back then, the King of England rationalized prior restraint on the printing presses under the rationalization that without such restraint, someone might print a falsehood and god forbid the harm that might cause innocent people. Milton correctly pointed out that nobody knows what is a falsehood from a truth unless we let them "grapple" with each other in an open process.
Those who deal with information technology security know the corrolary to this is very true. Security by obscurity never works. Security through open exposure of ideas to numerous different perspectives results in the discovery of flaws in the idea and the eventual development of stronger security mechanisms. Read Bruce Schneier's newsletter or books to get a foundation here - I'd definitely recommend Bruce's Secrets & Lies (apologies for the Amazon link) as a good start here.
The scientific community has also embraced this approach ala peer review of ideas. They require new ideas to be openly communicated through the process of publishing them in appropriate journals, and then subject them to criticism. Followers of the cold fusion debate can confirm my thoughts here - those who short circuit the process usually have an ulterior motive (power, money or hot chicks... your pick!).
So why do Canadian liberals reject this process? Only because the process discovers truth, and this is clearly an undesired product. Naturally, you'll see this same dynamic in the debate of ideas. For instance, most liberals are unable to express rational thought in any dialog and resort to name calling, intimidation and other techniques perfected by their national socialist brethern. Ideas and the discovery of truth are counterproductive to their goals.
There comes a point where we all have to decide whether we're sheep, wolves or shepherds...
*scoove*
Excellent post, however I think you misread the intent of my post.
Here's my post in a nutshell:
-The purpose of a gag order is to _limit_ the spread of information before the upcoming criminal trial. It is not to actually supress the information, and there will be plenty of sources reporting on it in depth once the gag order is lifted.
-Of course a gag order can't stop anonymous websites....
-...but that's entirely irrelevant. 90% of Canadians being saturated with the info in headline snippet form (the world without the gag order) is vastly different than 10% of Canadians (and this is being incredibly optimistic) going out and searching out a blog and reading the information.
I find it remarkable that several posters really, truly believe that the average Canadian cares enough about this gag order to go searching for information. I guarantee you that most Canadians will read what's in their paper, but that's pretty much it.
To revisit my closing statement previously:
Why is it that Slashdotters so often have trouble seeing the big picture?
I've seen countless examples of this on Slashdot. Big Company does X to try to limit Y, but some crazy hackerz group achieved Y, and a small subculture now can use it, therefore X is a bunch of dummies and it's all for naught. It's so bizarre of logic it's hard to rationalize that people can really spout it.
The fact of the matter is that any missle defense system will be fooled by dummy warheads.
Well no, it won't. Unless, of course, you make your dummy warheads the exact same size and density, etc, as the real thing (otherwise they won't have the same flight characteristics.) Since ICBM launchers are expensive, you might as well, in that case, just use the real thing.
Either way, the cost of mounting an attack just went way up, and the certainty of it succeeding to the point where no retaliation is possible just went way down.
SDI never claimed to be impervious nor was it ever intended to let us launch a first strike without fear of retaliation. It was intended to prevent the other guy from launching a (massive) first strike without fear of retaliation. It would also defend against an accidental launch or rogue-state single missile attack.
(Further and more, many of the SDI technologies tested were aimed at interception during the boost phase, before the warheads were deployed. We had people straight-facedly suggesting that the Soviets could defend their ICBM boosters against lasers, for example, by "simply" spinning the booster so no one spot would get hot. I'll leave calculating the dynamics of steering a spinning booster -- and bear in mind the Soviets used liquid fueled ICBMs -- as an exercise for the reader.)
-- Alastair
Oh please... You really shouldn't mention the shear unadulterated incompetence that Chretien showed on the Quebec file if you're trying to say the Liberals have proven themselves. That was among the most pathetic behaviour I have ever seen or heard of in Canadian history. The man came within a whisker of losing that referendum and Parizeau was perfectly right when he said the separatists lost because of money and the ethnic vote. It was a stupid thing for Parizeau to say but it was true. Chretien failed utterly in convincing Francophones to reject seperatism.
Flipping off Bush was stupid. Exactly what do we gain by "flipping off" the leader of another country? Particularly our largest trading partner? You can disagree without pissing off people you might need a favour from, but Chretien was incapable of that. That's small town bully behaviour, not global statesman behaviour. Can you see Lester B. Person "flipping off" the US President? No? Why not? Because he's a statesman.
Frankly your post says a lot about our country... You don't care what kind of guy Chretien is or if he's shovelling money into his friends pockets. You like him anyway. That's a sad comment on your expectations.
. --- If you're looking for free e-mail you won't find it here! http://www.noemailhere.com
No, it is not self-evident. That point is explained in the article, duh...
The question to ask yourself is "is socialism good for the poor?" Then look at the nations where socialism has been enacted to its largest degrees -- Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, East Germany, Vietnam, India, Maoist China, present-day North Korea -- and ask yourself if those are nations in which the poor would like living.
Indeed, the difference between capitalism and socialism was probably starkest and most-clearly explained by the difference between East and West Germany. On one side of the wall, there was prosperity and wealth and individuality and uniqueness and freedom; on the other, poverty, run-down, same-looking government-owned housing, and totalitarianism. Ever wonder why so many people in East Germany were happy to tear down the wall?
Figure it out doofus. Feel free to join the rest of us someday in realizing that socialism and communism have been proven, repeatedly and everywhere they've been tried, to be failed economic systems. Look around: even the "socialist" nations of Sweden, etc. have significant market (i.e. capitalist) elements to them; those nations simply round off the harder edges of capitalism with large welfare systems.
That said, those nations are facing fiscal distress because even *they* have too much socialist influence... But at least they have been more-prosperous, more stable and more free than more-strongly socialist nations like those I mentioned earlier.
If you need further evidence, talk to Jeffrey Sachs, the economist leading the war on extreme poverty worldwide. He wrote a piece in Time magazine recently (in the last month or so) pointing out that one of the reasons people in Africa and elsewhere have been so poor is because of socialist economies; he called such economies "mistakes."
Today, India and China are growing at torrid rates because of their market liberalizations and large populations of relatively well-educated people willing to work for pay rates that in the U.S. would be peanuts, but in those nations enables them to live as comfortably as the very well-to-do here in the U.S..
Their populations are becoming increasingly-wealthy as a result of globalization, and the same can occur in other nations -- if only economic illiterates who promote failed economic systems and policies would sit down and read an econ. text sometime.
That isn't to say there aren't some rough edges; China's healthcare system has worsened overall since their liberalizations and their environmental regulations haven't yet caught up with the fast-rising amount of pollution they have there, for example. But on the whole, they are improving and developing rapidly, and eventually they will grow their way out of such problems and join the developed world -- just as the U.S. did, just as Europe did, just as Japan did, just as Canada did, etc...
BTW, one last point. Look at Ronald Reagan's policies in the U.S., and compare them to this graph. Notice something? During Carter's years (1976-1980), the poverty rate rose, despite high taxes on the rich. From 1982-1990, it fell, during the "evil capitalist" reign of Ronald Reagan (who cut the top income tax rate from 70% to 28%) and Bush Sr.. It rose to 15% in 1990-1992, due to the recession, but has been dropping ever since then, with only a slight increase in income taxes instituted by Clinton (and cut again by Bush Jr.).
Today, after some 30 years of "creeping capitalism" (as capitalism's opponents might call it), we are at the same level of poverty as we were in the "golden era of American socialism", the 1960s. Capitalism not good for the poor? Don't bet on it.
Is Capitalism Good for the Poor?