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.
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...
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?
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..).
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.
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.
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.
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.
In the US, we "sequester" juries: isolate them from the community, media and other influences during a trial. That protection seems like a better way to keep juries "honest" than to deny press freedom to the entire country (and, by extension, the world). And it's another reason to keep trials short, which Canada already manages. There's a conflict between trial by peers, and unfettered publication (libel trials have too much lag to be effective in this case). Resolving it at the expense of an informed public guarantees injustice.
--
make install -not war
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.