The Great Firewall of Canada

engtech writes "Canadian carriers Bell Aliant, Bell Canada, MTS Allstream, Rogers, SaskTel, Shaw, TELUS, and Videotron have all opted in to a blacklist, dubbed Project Cleanfeed Canada, provided by Cybertip.ca, the Canadian tip-line against child exploitation. The idea of having a national blacklist sends shivers down my spine. I'm a pessimist, I believe that any form of censorship will eventually be abused despite it's good intentions." Besides engtech's post on the subject, Dr. Michael Geist has some considered comments about this issue. From that post: "Critics are quick to draw parallels to Internet censorship in countries such as China. However, those countries involve state-based content blocking, with no transparency or legal recourse. In fact, several democracies — most notably Australia — have established limited blocking rules, while British Telecom, the UK's largest ISP, voluntarily blocks child pornography as part of its CleanFeed program. Even with various legal safeguards, many Canadians would undoubtedly find the blocking of any content distasteful. Yet to do nothing is to leave in place an equally unpalatable outcome that silences those would speak out against unlawful hate speech for fear of personal harm."

Comments

Chilling effect

[BadAnalogyGuy]

Who is going to take the trip down the road of legal recourse when they're going to be branded a child-exploiter?

Sorry, sir, our records indicate that PEDOS4PEDALS has had several complaints lodged against it and has been blacklisted in accordance with current regulations. If you wish to pursue this further, please see our webpage www.complainhereyousickpervert.ca for more information on how to remove your domain from the blacklist.

Re:Chilling effect

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope you're European. Otherwise you're as lonely as I am.

Re:Chilling effect

[Anonymous Coward]

A fuck-tard milk sop sundae is more chilling. Yes, you are in the sundae. Sorry. ZZZZZZZIRP!

Re:Chilling effect

[cloricus]

Which is painful because the only people who will challenge this will be legitimate users...
 
As any SysAdmin knows firewalls are a waste of time against those inside the system that are desperate to move data. Even those not smart enough to break through will just use sneakernet and unless you want to lock down every pc in the country this isn't going to be stopped.
 
Some one should do some thing about outright wastes of money like this even above the out cries that 1984 is here.

Re:Chilling effect

[tenchiken]

Just as a question, (because frankly I have not seen the community come to grips with the fact that there is still child pornography available easily on the interest), how do you want to handle this problem?

Bueller? Bueller? Anyone?

Re:Chilling effect

[BadAnalogyGuy]

Honeypots and vigorous sweeps.

Re:Chilling effect

[Detritus]

I believe child pornography should be legal. The sexual abuse of children, whether for the purpose of producing pornography, or not, should be illegal and vigorously investigated and prosecuted.

Re:Chilling effect

[RsG]

...vigorous sweeps.

Keep those up and you'll go blind :-)

(Joking aside, I'd agree with your solution.)

Re:Chilling effect

[bogado]

Some people define sex with a child as sexual abuse, so for those people it already work as you said.

The main problem is that many people overreact to mundane things and see sexual behavior where there is none. this seem particularly true in very conservative communities, see for instance all the noise around a parents magazine that were doing a pro-breast-feeding campaign and putted a mother feeding her baby in the cover. Or how many people were shocked by the desperate attempt of getting some attention of a singer that flashed her naked breast in a national event in the US.

In my opinion the more you forbid, the more something is prohibited, more people will search those things and usually in a more deviant fashion. So, yes I believe that all this paranoia around pedophilia is creating a new kind of pedophiles that are dirtier and dangerous. But please don't read this as "green light" for child abuse or sex with children, I don't think it is right. But the over reaction in common situations can have a bad effect, there is somewhere in the line from "not allowing children to sit on Santa's lap in the mall" and "allowing child porn" where there is a good equilibrium.

Re:Chilling effect

[gilgongo]

"...there is still child pornography available easily on the interest), how do you want to handle this problem?"

I don't want to "handle" it because the availability of child pornography on the net is *not* a problem.

Paedophiles are a problem, but that's a matter for traditional policing and law enforcement that is being handled perfectly well in most cases. Whether you can or cannot download child pornography is effectively irrelevant to the problem of paedophilia itself since a) paedophilia has existed for several thousand years before the Internet and b) there is no evidence that the number of paedophiles has increased since such pornography appeared on the net.

What is more of a problem, however, is preventing those people who would curtail the freedoms of the majority in a futile attempt to "solve" the problem of child porn on the Internet. This is an old, old, mistake: moral collapse, crime and social degradation are laid at the door of every new technology and social phenomenon that appears (cars, coffee, freeways...). The net is no exception.

Re:Chilling effect

[laughingcoyote]

How about "Quit worrying if anyone looks at it, and start worrying about those who actually abuse actual children?" Seems simple enough to me. I've no interest in looking at the stuff myself, but I'm not concerned if anyone else does-I am concerned if someone causes actual harm. Unfortunately, that can't be solved with silly censorship measures, but it sure would do a lot more good.

Re:Chilling effect

[Ced_Ex]

Don't you think that Supply and Demand works here? I mean, if you want it to be ok to look at, obviously at some point someone had to produce those images.

Also, what consent did those children give for their photos to be used like that? Don't you think they ought to have a say?

Re:Chilling effect

[laughingcoyote]

Depends a lot. One would imagine that a lot of the stuff floating around currently is probably Photoshopped or the like-I suppose a few people might be stupid or insane enough to film themselves in criminal acts, but I doubt there could be possibly too many. So, sure, if it's a real person's image, that person can demand that anyone who's using it stop. Of course, the law already provides for that. As to "supply and demand"-you got to be kidding, you think people sick enough to do something like that to a kid, videotape it, and put out the video, really care if they're breaking the law or not with the last step of that process?

Re:Chilling effect

[Poltras]

The main problem is that many people overreact to mundane things and see sexual behavior where there is none.Why do you always have to bring the discussion to Michael Jackson?

Or how many people were shocked by the desperate attempt of getting some attention of a singer that flashed her naked breast in a national event in the US.There, now his sister!

In my opinion the more you forbid, the more something is prohibitedSeriously, I have to disagree with you. Here in Quebec (French Canada) we have a law that forbids writing things in only one language if this language is another one than french. So, you have to put something in french, or it's illegal. BUT, there is a right that if you had something that was illegal before the law (say a restaurant title), you don't have to change it as long as there is no official complaints. Today we still have some restaurants and bars which still have non-french names or ensigns, and nobody cares really.

I know it's a different case, but I think the kind of behavior you're talking about is specific to United States. Europeans have seen breasts on ads since a long long time and nobody ever complained really. Kissing a guy on a cheek is not a problem there or even here. Asking "how are you" to a total stranger is a habit here, and most people will listen if he has something to say when asked. Different cultures...

Re:Chilling effect

[Moofie]

Because policing the demand side is a technique that's proven to be effective. See how well it's worked for alcohol and marijuana?

(By "effective", I mean "creates and maintains a substantial bureaucracy to attempt to curb the problem, lining said bureucrats' pockets forever")

Re:Chilling effect

[Catbeller]

How does everyone know that child pornography is available everywhere on the internet?

Three explanations:

1. 23 year old Melanie on her webcam wearing pigtails is considered kiddie porn, in which case the knowledge is wrong.
2. "Everyone" just knows it is true, but never looks because it's wrong, and besides, the FBI is tracking everyone forever and keeping records for later persecution as needed, so who's gonna verify this legend?
3. A lot of people know there's kiddy porn out there because they access it all the time.

For all except #3, kiddy porn is therefore an unkillable legend and will be used to lock up every pc and user on the planet in an inescapable police state.

Re:Chilling effect

[HomelessInLaJolla]

I can see where that goes. The scene is some new recruit in the FBI special task force bureau sitting by his computer screen late at night.

"I need a promotion. I need a promotion. I need to bust a whole bunch of people on child pr0n. I know, I'll just host a child pr0n pic, tinyurl the WWW address, and put it on IRC. I can then track the IP numbers."

Suddenly every Tom, Dick, and Harry that clicked a link which they thought was from their buddy playing a prank is being served with court papers.

There's a reason why entrapment should be illegal: it's hard to know the difference between a smart-aleck and a special investigator across the internet.

Re:Chilling effect

[bogado]

The main problem is that many people overreact to mundane things and see sexual behavior where there is none.Why do you always have to bring the discussion to Michael Jackson?

Or how many people were shocked by the desperate attempt of getting some attention of a singer that flashed her naked breast in a national event in the US.There, now his sister!

ahhaha, I wish I could mod you... :-) In my opinion the more you forbid, the more something is prohibitedSeriously, I have to disagree with you. Here in Quebec (French Canada) we have a law that forbids writing things in only one language if this language is another one than french. So, you have to put something in french, or it's illegal. BUT, there is a right that if you had something that was illegal before the law (say a restaurant title), you don't have to change it as long as there is no official complaints. Today we still have some restaurants and bars which still have non-french names or ensigns, and nobody cares really.

I know it's a different case, but I think the kind of behavior you're talking about is specific to United States. Europeans have seen breasts on ads since a long long time and nobody ever complained really. Kissing a guy on a cheek is not a problem there or even here. Asking "how are you" to a total stranger is a habit here, and most people will listen if he has something to say when asked. Different cultures...

This is more or less what I mean, if a culture does not forbid something very harshly this forbidden fruit is seen more naturally by the people from this culture. I live in Brazil, you must have already heard about how sexy our girls are and how everyone walks around naked or something like that. Most of those accounts are from people who came from countries that deal with sex and nudity in a more restricted way then we do. A conservative American, in his point of view we must be depraved, because we are more relaxed about this. I believe that this closed, and radical point of view tends to create much worse sex-crimes.

The examples you choose seem to confirm my theory, a more relaxed and centered prohibition is better then a notion wide paranoia.

Um, come again?

[freeweed]

many Canadians would undoubtedly find the blocking of any content distasteful. Yet to do nothing is to leave in place an equally unpalatable outcome that silences those would speak out against unlawful hate speech for fear of personal harm

No, to do nothing is to allow free speech on both sides. Blacklists, or lack thereof aren't going to help OR stop people from speaking out against hate speech. All they'll do is prevent speech of some sort.

This Canadian doesn't follow the logic here at all.

Re:Um, come again?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, to do nothing is to allow free speech on both sides. Blacklists, or lack thereof aren't going to help OR stop people from speaking out against hate speech. All they'll do is prevent speech of some sort.

This Canadian doesn't follow the logic here at all.


To the American psyche, this may not make much sense; but keep in mind that hate speech is in fact unlawful in Canada. Given that there exists such a thing as unlawful speech, you'd be hardpressed to find objections to blocking it (over and beyond the common objection from Americans that it's not right to place any limits on free speech, yada yada).

What Geist is trying to say, no doubt, is that offering this avenue will allow people to have illegal speech blocked in a way that is more likely to protect them against personal retaliation by the promoters of hate speech. If, say, the KKK launched a Canadian-based website that was promoting killing [insert minority group here], and you were a member of that group, would you be terribly willing to go to court to sue them to have it taken down? Probably not.

Re:Um, come again?

[mks113]

I find it pretty hard to get worked up about. It doesn't sound like it is one person in a basement deciding what Canadians can and can't look at, but rather an attempt to keep world-wide recognized child exploitation off the net.

The submitters reaction sounds very American. We Canadians don't tend to get so worked up about individual freedoms when the common good is at stake.

I run a filter at the school I work at. I can understand the need to block content for the kids who are our responsibility. Legal issues fall under the government. Why not allow them to block obviously illegal material?

Re:Um, come again?

[Atlantis-Rising]

What many people (usually americans, I find, although that in no way implies you are one) mistake about Canada is that hate speech is illegal. It is not. Hate speech inciting violence or hate speech advocating genocide is illegal.
There is a substantial difference. You are perfectly free to walk around street-corners yelling about how much you hate the jews; but when you start yelling "SOMEONE SHOULD KILL THE JEWS" and their speech...

...incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace...

That's when they can be punished. Even when Canada did not have a written constitution or bill of rights, this speech was still protected extensively.

Hate speech is in fact legal. it is inciting violence which is not legal, and, to my knowledge, is not legal in the US either.

Re:Um, come again?

[Rakishi]

I run a filter at the school I work at.

My school did that at one point, rather nice of them. Meant the librarians didn't pay as much attention as we all surfed to "not-allowed" websites than they would have otherwise (since of course what we were doing wasn't "possible."). I think they started paying attention when every computer was running Quake 2 and half the kids were skipping classes to play.

Then again we were all creative kids. The master linux password file got stolen constantly, half of it got cracked after a while (including the principal's account which someone had fun with) The master student database got jacked a few times, not sure if anyone bothered to really decipher the format (fun to know everyone's classes). One student got suspended for trying to hack into the grade system but he was an idiot for not understanding the security measures (he also for some reason had school blueprints in his locker which got stolen from his, he was also an idiot for using luggage locks on his locker). Hardware security devices got disabled. Fake class lists were made so students could make security guards think they did not have a class at the time. I mean it got bad once the vandalism started although it was funny when after 4 months the school realized one of their systems no longer had a cpu in it (the head network admin wrote such a nice letter calling for help in tracking the culprit, complete with blanked out cursing at the end).

I sometimes I wonder if the admins even knew exactly how much of their security had been ripped apart. They only caught people who did blatantly stupid or obvious things (cracking *nux password file on the school server under their own account), and none seemed to be really punished.

I guess my advice is: If you ever get the chance to work at a magnet or other similar school don't accept it, smart but overworked and unstable teenagers are not nice to those in authority.

Re:Um, come again?

[Jerf]

We Canadians don't tend to get so worked up about individual freedoms when the common good is at stake.

Without intending to debate the point directly, the "American" point of view is that the highest calling of government is to protect individual freedoms, and as a government by the people, for the people, that is the common good. Those who would claim to use the common good as an argument to curtail freedom need to be scrutinized very carefully.

That said, it is an immature interpretation of that idea to collapse that to "Those who would claim to use tho common good as an argument to curtail freedom are always automatically wrong". Clearly, there are many things that have passed this examination; in some sense every law on the books must pass that test.

Personally, I find it difficult to get too worked up over the stated goals of this program. However, humans and all their institutions have a proven track record of abuse of this sort of power; other comments bring up some historical instances, such as a telecom company blocking their union's website. Jumpy people help keep the system in check. Being nervous about this sort of thing is perfectly rational, and given a bell curve of reactions, that means some people will be frothing at the mouth. They are not necessarily representative, though.

(Part of the reason I don't spend too much time worrying about the impending tyranny over the United States is the number of people that are still free to scream about impending tyranny. I'll know that we're actually in trouble when you can only find people saying everything's just great, yay!)

Re:Um, come again?

[geobeck]

This Canadian doesn't follow the logic here at all.

The logic is that the ISPs are Doing Something(TM). It looks good in their press releases, and probably ups their stock value a bit. Aside from that, there's nothing to see here.

Re:Um, come again?

[renehollan]

*cough* Ernst Zundel *cough* was jailed for denying the Holocaust.

Re:Um, come again?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do people say totally false things all the time about Canada's hate speech laws? Are you actually Canadian, or do you just pretend to be and correct people with erroneous information online?

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_hat6.htm

"Sexual orientation has now joined four other groups protected against hate speech on the basis of their "color, race, religion or ethnic origin." "

"In particular, citizens are not allowed to incite or promote hatred, advocate genocide or actually commit genocide against certain specified groups."

I can also cite the numerous people who have been persecuted for there mere opinions of other racial and ethnic groups, also.

Re:Um, come again?

[1u3hr]

I run a filter at the school I work at. I can understand the need to block content for the kids who are our responsibility. Legal issues fall under the government. Why not allow them to block obviously illegal material?

1) Schools, companies, etc, blocking for their users is fine

2) Govt, or monoploy ISPs, blocking for EVERYONE is not. Becasue they'll err on the side of blocking anything that might offend anyone. 3) Trying to "block" objectionable sites from knowledgeable users is impossible, even if you go to the lengths China does. For instance, the hate sites supposedly advocating violence that are the subject of this could easily use an email list, create a forum in any country in the world, use P2P, use a neglected newsgroup, etc, etc. If what they're doing is "obviously illegal", SUE THEM. Lock them up. Don't try to sanitise the entire Internet, it's just impossible. These people are in the USA, not Outer Mongolia. Get the Mounties to call the FBI. Don't dick around with block lists that will just keep school kids busy for a few hours to circumvent.

Re:Um, come again?

[Atlantis-Rising]

His trial was for what was essentially slander;

...did publish a statement or tale, namely, "Did Six Million Really Die?" that he knows is false and that is likely to cause mischief to the public interest...

...and he was acquitted on those grounds because the Supreme Court ruled that was a violation of his right to free speech. He was only held in prison, to my knowledge, during the time between when a lower court ruled him guilty and the supreme court ruled the law unconstitutional.

Re:Um, come again?

[Atlantis-Rising]

Do so. Ernest Zundel, as I pointed out above, was acquitted on the grounds of freedom of speech, and he did quite a bit more than 'his mere opinion of other racial and ethnic groups'.

The criminal code says that inciting violence is illegal, as it is anywhere else.

Re:Um, come again?

[FractalZone]

According to my understanding of the law in the U.S. (IANAL...yet) you are correct. It is the inciting of (criminal) action that can get one in trouble here.

I can say "Fuck(1) the [whatever oh-so-PC group]!", and not incure the wrath of Big Brother, but if I say "Exterminate [the aforementioned group]!" I will be in major legal trouble if what I say catches the attention of law enforcement.

So it goes...

(1): Presuming that I am not accused of inciting a rape...

Re:Um, come again?

[Anonymous Coward]

I will not do so until you actually read the law and come to an agreement that what you have said so far is inaccurate.

Read the link I posted and compare it to what you have said. They do not jive. Clearly you are in the wrong.

Re:Um, come again?

[renehollan]

Not quite. He was convicted for "publishing false news". That law was later declared unconstitutional. The point is that he was not making false statements about an individual or identifiable group, but rather contradicting accepted history. Importantly, he was not advocating violence. Nevetheless, he was deported from the U.S. to Canada for overstaying a visa, Canada found the immigrant a threat to it's national security (he could have been deported for having let his landed immigrant status in Canada lapse because of his long U.S. stay) and deported him to Germany, where Holocaust denial IS a crime, and he was propmtly arrested. I disagree with his views but think he got a bum rap.

Re:Um, come again?

[arth1]

According to my understanding of the law in the U.S. (IANAL...yet) you are correct. It is the inciting of (criminal) action that can get one in trouble here.

Unfortunately, that's not the case. Post details on pipe bombs and molotov cocktails on your web site with a blurb that it's informational only, in order for people to better protect themselves from them, or in the future make them if and only if a legal need arises. Then see what happens.

You're free to say anything that the government likes. If they dislike it enough, they always have provisions for getting you. Much like any other country, at any other time.

Your best defense is to support the rights of even those you don't like. If your parents had, in the 50's and 60's, supported the communists' and peaceniks' right to speech, the bill of rights might still have had some power. As it is, it doesn't. It's easy enough to brand someone critical of the government a potential terrorist, and the first, fourth and sixth amendments get suspended.

Regards,
--
*Art

Re:Um, come again?

[Arivia]

Luckily for us in Canada, our free speech laws were drafted after the rise of the workers' rights movement and our own problems with Communism (And we have a major political party [the NDP] descended from just that movement).

Re:Um, come again?

[FractalZone]

Thanks!

After doing more research, I appreciate your comment. I happen to have some slight clue as to how to make nuclear or bio WOMDs. :-( It doesn't take a rocket scientist! I can do the math. Posting the relevant data seems innocuous to me. Go figure.

There is a huge difference between telling folks about how to "build a bomb" and directing them to deploy such a thing against some specific group of peeps.

Mostly, I just want to be left alone. I do not appreciate Big Brother's intrusions into my life (lame though it may be). The War on (PCIncorrect) terrorism bothers me. I have friends from many parts of the world and some of them are not Christian by faith.

Re:Um, come again?

[Arivia]

Here's an idea. Actually read about the blacklist in question. The RCMP fully know about the effect this is actually going to have as a deterrent, and it's limited to child porn, not hate speech. TFA doesn't really talk about the Canadian blacklist in question, instead using it as a soapbox.

Re:Um, come again?

[Crayon Kid]

Legal issues fall under the government. Why not allow them to block obviously illegal material?

Because the US does not trust its government.

Re:Um, come again?

[rarity]

There is a substantial difference. You are perfectly free to walk around street-corners yelling about how much you hate the jews; but when you start yelling "SOMEONE SHOULD KILL THE JEWS" and their speech...
Interesting - I wonder if their censorship rules would include this post as an example. Have we just gotten /. blacklisted in .ca?

Re:Um, come again?

[TapeCutter]

"We Canadians don't tend to get so worked up about individual freedoms when the common good is at stake."

We Aussies have a similar attitude, but I contend that the "common good" is served by a "free speech" as idealised in the US constitution and elwehere. I have no objections to blacklists for adults, provided the adult has a transparent choice. As for the wide availability of child porn and other "evils" on the net, if you find it report it to the cops (or your MP) as evidence of a possible crime.

I firmly belive (ie: I only have anecdotes), that the internet has done more to catch "rock spiders" than it has to encourage them (re: Denmark/Interpol/90's). The most horrifying example of "evil exposed by free speech" I have seen recently has nothing to do with the net or child porn, it was from Bob Geldof's "the four horsemen". ( Part of this fascinating BBC series ).

He warns the squimish and kids to leave the room then tells the story of an African "rebel leader" who steals pre-pubecent children and trains them as a personal child army. Every evening all the towns and villages around the "rebel leader's" mountain camp see an exodous of children. They are headed in all directions five or so miles into the desert where they can sleep on open ground in relative safety.

When the unlucky ones are first kiddnapped, escape routes are made obvious so their tormentors can catch the first few to swallow the bait and try to escape. Those that are caught are taken back to the hut they "escaped" from, the other "fresh recruits" in the hut are then forced to kill the escapee by biting them to death! Those that fail to have meat in their mouth after taking a bite are themselves bitten or killed by their captors, self preservation rapidly ensures the order is followed. Those that survive the "army trainning" are understandably loyal fanatics who perpetuate the "system".

Free speech brings the human coackroaches out in the open and allows us to collectively step on them. Geldof made a dircet plea on the show when he said "I would like someone to go into the mountains, find the warlord, and kill him". Some would say Geldof is guilty of hate speech, inciting violence or that he exploited the ( visibly anxious ) children he filmed and interviewed simply to make a cheap political point. I'm not one of them, I think it should be required viewing in high school media classes and UN meetings.

Re:Um, come again?

[Iago515]

Thanks for the link. One important thing the CBC article mentions which isn't in the original is that this firewall only operates with sites outside of Canada. If a site is found within Canada it isn't blocked, but the normal legal means are used to have it taken down and the people who run it charged under Canadian laws. A far better article than the original.

Re:Um, come again?

[iamacat]

Molotov cocktails
http://mlcastle.net/raisethefist/pipe.html>Pipe bombs

Hope this addresses your free information needs.

Re:Um, come again?

[marcello_dl]

To bring up another point: isn't that impractical to have the filters so upstream, at the internet carrier level? I mean maybe police should be able to bypass the filters for investigation purposes on abducted children. Probably they will, I guess.

Re:Um, come again?

[Shaper_pmp]

When I'm surfing through a school/company I'm using their systems, and their machines for free. If they want to block something, I have no right to complain.

When I'm surfing at home, on my computer, through my telephone line, I'm paying for everything. If anyone thinks they're censoring that connection they can fuck right off.

If they want to go after the purveyors of questionable websites using the existing laws, then fair play to them.

If they want to set up a general, overly-broad, excessively-powerful system designed to block out literally "anything objectionable" automatically and on a massive scale, then they can either:

1. Hold a national referendum every day or two to define precisely what is "objectionable", and set the filter accordingly,
2. Allow everyone to register their own "objectionable" criteria and only block those sites on a per-person basis, or
3. Fuck right off.

Censorship is bad, even when it's necessary. Centralised, automated censorship is really, really bad, and has never been shown to be necessary. End of story.

Even if you trust the present administration 100% on every subject (and who really, honestly trusts politicians, especially these days?), once you set up a system so powerful you aren't just trusting them, you're also implicitly trusting every single administration that ever comes after them.

Skirting Godwin's Law for a minute, even if you trusted the German government of 1900, would you trust the german administration of 1939?

Transferring this kind of power to governments is a one-way street - no government ever sat back, looked about and said "Y'know, we've got far too much information on people, and too much damn power. Let's shred some files, drop some database tables and uninstall a few cameras, eh? Just for shits and giggles".

Transferring this kind of power to a government is handing them a loaded pistol pointed at your head. Sure, you might trust the guy you handed it to, but it's going to get passed on every four years, so in four years time you have no idea whose finger is going to be on the trigger, and it only gets worse as time goes on.

Transferring this kind of power to governments should not be equated with handing a gun to a good and trusted friend. It's more like handing a gun to a complete stranger - why would you do it unless it was absolutely, clearly essential for your immediate survival?

Re:Um, come again?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do so many uninformed Canadians say that but do not read the Criminal Code of Canada?

Let me blockquote the thing:

319 (2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

You do not need me to put that into English. It is very clear: Promoting hate in public is illegal. Period. Think flyers, quoting the bible, or just standing on a street corner with a sign a-la Bruce Willis in Die Hard 3.

As someone who has attempted to prosecute using this section of the law, allow me to assure you, the judge agrees with me, public communication of hatred is not legal here. While it is incredibly rare for a judge to feel the will to prosecute under this law (most likely because it has Charter implications) and because such prosecutions normally end up at the supreme court, it is rarely, if ever tested. BUT TO SAY IT DOES NOT EXIST... that is a lie.

You are wrong, and you are going to put someone in jail by informing them improperly. How can you sleep at night knowing that?

Re:Um, come again?

[voice_of_all_reason]

Given that there exists such a thing as unlawful speech, you'd be hardpressed to find objections to blocking it

I think that expecting people to have moral opinions because of what the law is is amazingly strange.

Re:Um, come again?

[voice_of_all_reason]

or actually commit genocide against certain specified groups

It's good that they codified that. I was unsure of the legality of genocide in Canada until they cleared it up.

Re:Um, come again?

[voice_of_all_reason]

Why not allow them to block obviously illegal material?

Guy: "Your honor, I beleive my site has been blocked unfairly. It is not illegal."

Judge: "Sure, let me just check it out on my lapt-- oh, wait...."

Re:Um, come again?

[voice_of_all_reason]

if you find it report it to the cops (or your MP) as evidence of a possible crime.

Problem: Even if you accidentally stumbled upon it, it is now in your cache. That means you are also guilty of the crime.

Re:Um, come again?

[Azarael]

I'll also point out, as stated in the article, that no more than 800 site will be affected. As long as the number of sites stays small and is limited to child pornography, then I don't have a problem with it. If they start adding different types of sites, that's another issue entirely.

Re:Um, come again?

[jacksonj04]

This never ceases to amaze me - if you can deny the Holocaust ever happened *and produce evidence to support your claims* then you have just as much right to voice your opinions as anybody else.

Disclaimer: I personally am of the opinion that the Holocaust certainly happened, although it is quite possible some figures were subject to dubious rounding in the process of the winners writing down history.

Re:Um, come again?

[rcamans]

Yes, no firewalls = free speech. It also allows perverts, criminals, scamm artists, 411, etc. I am quite sure that you will find many things to complain about for any method the gov tries to limit the child abusers and criminals. But do you have any ideas that would combat crime? No, you just naysaym shoot your mouth off, hold back progress.
Shut the f*ck up, As*hole

Re:Um, come again?

[orgelspieler]

Putting aside for a moment my belief that speech cannot cause violence, who defines whether a certain speech incites violence? Is it inciting violence to say "LET'S KILL BABYRAPERS!!"? That calls for violence, but not against a "protected group."

What about "A JEW ATE MY BABY!!" or "THAT DARKIE RAPED YOUR WIFE!!!"? Those don't explicitly call for violence, but many people may consider violence a reasonable response to these things.

What about "REPUBLICANS ARE FASCISTS!!" or "MEXICANS ARE STEALING OUR JOBS!!!"? Again, some people might think that violence is a reasonable response to these claims. Yet even if these statements incited violence, shouldn't they be protected political speech?

Incremental erosions of our freedoms is a Bad Thing (TM). What starts as a good natured attempt to keep the peace, only succeeds in giving the government power to control what we say and, eventually, how we think. Even if we agree that certain things should not be said, we should still support people's right to say them.

Re:Um, come again?

[chef_raekwon]

We Canadians don't tend to get so worked up about individual freedoms when the common good is at stake.

speak for yourself bub, individual freedoms are the cornerstone of our democracy. I get worked up when someone starts stripping my freedoms in name of security. (i'm Canadian)

please read, and digest :
Those who suppress freedom always do so in the name of law and order. - John V. Lindsay
or this one
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

this is a post about liberties, not about CP. I am very much against such travesties.

Re:Um, come again?

[Shelled]

"We Canadians don't tend to get so worked up about individual freedoms when the common good is at stake."

What? Since you're so in favour of it, please exercise a little self-censorship here or at the very least make it clear you speak only for yourself and not Canada. I know no other Canadians who are pro-corporate run censorship. The irony is I found this a particularly American approach, using outside government entities to apply remedies outside the government's powers. Make no mistake, the major ISPs like Rogers , Bell and Chorus all have large broadcast media wings heavily reliant on the CRTC's favourable rulings for survival. The CRTC will use this to force ISPs into become their contract censors. You may be the only of we Canadians who think this is grand.
My guess: old regime Ottawa Liberal?

Re:Um, come again?

[bbagnall]

Wait a minute... I thought they were talking about blocking child porn! Why are they throwing "hate speech" into the mix? The whole hate speech thing is a farce to begin with, and now they want to start blocking content that they deem politically incorrect? Once again the United States seems to be the only country on earth serious about free speech, only because their founders were wise enough to include it in their constitution. (I'm Canadian by the way.)

Re:Um, come again?

[Tempest429]

Obviously then we should simply say nothing by your logic.

Re:Um, come again?

[Wes Janson]

I wish it were possible to mod a post up to +6 Essential Reading. More people truly need to read those words and think about the issues at hand.

Re:Um, come again?

[wrecked]

I find it pretty hard to get worked up about. It doesn't sound like it is one person in a basement deciding what Canadians can and can't look at, but rather an attempt to keep world-wide recognized child exploitation off the net. The submitters reaction sounds very American. We Canadians don't tend to get so worked up about individual freedoms when the common good is at stake. I run a filter at the school I work at. I can understand the need to block content for the kids who are our responsibility. Legal issues fall under the government. Why not allow them to block obviously illegal material?

You would be surprised at how censorship schemes like this result in unintended consequences or outright abuses. While censorship decisions won't be made by "one person in the basement", these schemes typically involve bureaucrat decisionmakers who are essentially unaccountable, and likely untrained, for the complexity of these tasks.

One need look no further than the case of Little Sister's Book and Art Emporium, a bookstore in Vancouver that caters to the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered (LGBT) community.

Little Sister's has been fighting ongoing harassment from Canada Customs for over a decade now, regarding the importation of LGBT erotica. Canada Customs has the authority to impound and confiscate imported material, whether it is visual or just plain text, that it believes violates the obscenity provisions of the Criminal Code. However, there was evidence that Canada Customs specifically discriminated against Little Sister's (probably because of its status as an LGBT vendor); for example, Canada Customs impounded copies of Madonna's Sex coffee-table book destined for Little Sister's, even though this book was carried by all the mainstream bookstores in Canada.

In 2000, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that Canada Customs violated the Canada Charter of Rights and Freedoms in its conduct towards Little Sister's, but did not remove the authority of Canada Customs to censor material at the border. The consequence is that Canada Customs continue to harass Little Sister's to this day, and Little Sister's has to go to court each and every time it wants to get material released. Needless to say, this is rather expensive for an independent bookshop.

The lesson of all of this is that these censorship schemes typically do not have adequate oversight to prevent or correct civil liberties violations and/or human rights discrimination. You, at least, are accountable to your employer regarding your school library internet filters. However, with this proposed "child porn" internet firewall, what mechanisms will the telcos have to resolve these disputes? How effective and expensive will they be?

Given the conduct of the major telcos in the marketplace (see the other post on this page about how Telus blocked the union internet sites of the Telecommunications Workers Union during the strike last year), I personally don't have much confidence in them.

Re:Um, come again?

[Atlantis-Rising]

Absolute and total lack of empathy?

Seriously, I don't care. I call the law as I see it, and yeah, sometimes I'm wrong. Being wrong, however, doesn't bother me overmuch- it means my arguments weren't sound enough or my reasoning was flawed.

By the way, however, you forgot the most important part of 319- 319(3).

(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)

(a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;

(b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;

(c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or

(d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.

Given what I know about viable interpretations of 'religious text', that right there is a loophole wide enough to fly an airbus through.

Re:Um, come again?

[incom]

But is this firewall not being sold as a counter to child porn? To use it for hate speech, even the illegal variants, is disingenuous . Using the plight of child porn victims as a cynical tool to covertly accomplish the less supported goal of silencing unwanted speech. I really hate by-any-means agenda mongers, the lowest of the low, like political ads that abuse the memory of 9-11 victims.

Re:Um, come again?

[Anonymous Coward]

What many people (usually americans, I find, although that in no way implies you are one) mistake about Canada is that hate speech is illegal. It is not. Hate speech inciting violence or hate speech advocating genocide is illegal.

IANAL, but there's a little more to it than that. Hate speech inciting violence or advocating genocide is illegal (318 & 319(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada), but so is hate speech in general in a public place:

319. (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in a public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace if guilty of

        (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
        (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against an identifiable group is guilty of

        (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
        (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Re:Um, come again?

[Atlantis-Rising]

It's not that simple. Read the rest of that section, 319(3); basically, it has to be malicious and known to be untrue.

Essentially, its pretty much the same thing as 319.1.

Re:Um, come again?

[k8to]

In a sane society, posession is not the crime, but creation. Is it not so in canada?

Re:Um, come again?

[Anonymous Coward]

>It's not that simple. Read the rest of that section, 319(3); basically, it has to be malicious and known to be untrue.

You don't have to read the rest if you read this first, IMHO.

James Keegstra has been convicted under section 319 (2) of the Crminal Code. His crime was "teaching his social studies students that the Holocaust was a fraud and that Jews are 'treacherous, evil and responsible for depressions, anarchy and war.'" This is illegal in Canada. The Supreme Court has said so. Case closed. No more appeals. Telling others that the holocaust did not happen and that Jews are evil is ILLEGAL IN CANADA. PERIOD. This issue has been BLACK AND WHITE for SIXTEEN YEARS.

Although you don't believe the Ernst Zundel arguments, hopefully that one will strike a chord with you, as it is under the exact section and done in the exact manner and without any violence, just as I was mentioning.

Okay, anyways, here's 319 (3), the section defining some limitations to 319 (2):

319 (3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)

(a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;

(b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;

(c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or

(d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.

Quick translation:

You are exempt from the broad scope of 319 (2) if your speech meets the following criteria:

(a) Your hatred is provably true (how much hatred have you found ever is?)
(b) doesn't really apply anymore, see this (the actual ad was a stick picture of two men holding hands under the international "no" symbol beside a copy of whatever verse of the bible bans gayness). The charge has stuck despite 319 (b) rebuttals.
(c) yeah, because we know how many times people have gone to jail from a DEBATE CLUB for ANYTHING.
(d) isn't hate speech at all, it should be a criminal offence to pollute the criminal code like this.

So, tell me, what of sections (a) - (d) allow the Klu Klux Klan or Black Panthers to march down the street in a non-violent protest against blacks/whites? None of them.

You know why I'm so serious about stopping your myth?

I've actually tried to have someone convicted under 319 (2). It's a long story, but the short of it was that I would have been successful, according to the judge, at at least brining the person to trial if it weren't for the length of time between the party bothering to bring the case to court and it happening (It was past the 8 months that Canada had, a few years earlier, basically allowed case law to set). Had that not been the case the judge would have been very happy to implore the crown (in another jurisdiction, the judge did not feel a local courtroom was the right venue) to prosecute.

The specifics of the case were that the person's landlord called him a terrorist. That being hate speech is because he is muslim. End of story. No threats of violence, nothing of the sort. Just someone being a loudmouth jerk in public because they didn't want a deadbeat (*) muslim living in one of their apartments. Note that in no way does shouting such an epithet at someone protect you from 319 (3).

Now, again, I beg of you NOT to risk jail time for other Canadians over this. You are dead wrong and I advise you to either speak to a lawyer to confirm what I have said or rather simply ask a court if you can read their specially annotated c

Re:Um, come again?

[Atlantis-Rising]

...as I pointed out in a seperate comment, the reason I practice my law the way I do is this...

Absolute and total lack of empathy?

Seriously, I don't care. I call the law as I see it, and yeah, sometimes I'm wrong. Being wrong, however, doesn't bother me overmuch- it means my arguments weren't sound enough or my reasoning was flawed.

I've never had to defend a hate speech case (and it's doubtful I ever would... too much trouble to get involved in that kind of slippery issue) but it's nowhere near as black and white as you make it sound.

For example, an Anton Piller order is not just a random search warrant- it requires an extremely strong case to already have been assembled and presented to a judge before being executed.

"We are prepared, therefore, to sanction... but only in an extreme case where there is grave danger...of vital evidence being destroyed.

The proposed order is at the extremity of this court's powers. Such orders therefore will rarely be made and only when there is no alternative way to ensuring that justice is done to the applicant."

Further, the difference between an anton piller order and a regular search warrant (in execution) is simply that the searching comes before the legal argument. If the legal argument strikes down the order, the evidence is null and void.

Re:Um, come again?

[Anonymous Coward]

Waitwaitwait. If anything, the First Amendment protects more speech than it used to. The Alien and Sedition acts weren't ever challenged in the Supreme Court, it was assumed that they were constitutional.

The Supreme Court's "clear and present danger" test for what speech was not allowed was only adopted in the twentieth century. (Previously, speech that wasn't a clear and present danger might also be restricted).

This was originally fairly broad in its restrictiveness; see Debs v. US (1919) for an example of the denouncement of militarism and the draft being considered advocating treasonous overthrow of the government, It actually wasn't until the late sixties that advocating communism was decided to be anything other than nonprotected treasonous speech.

Don't assume that just because an amendment has sweeping language that it's always been interpereted as broadly as you'd like to think.

Re:Um, come again?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's when they can be punished. Even when Canada did not have a written constitution or bill of rights, this speech was still protected extensively.

Hate speech is in fact legal. it is inciting violence which is not legal, and, to my knowledge, is not legal in the US either. If that is the case, can you explain what happened to this man?

Re:Um, come again?

[Atlantis-Rising]

Canada Customs operates under a different set of rules than most government agents, and in fact, they apply a very different metric to what they consider legal and not legal.

A) Canada Customs is not bound to permit any material they like to enter the country. There is absolutely no requirement for them to permit you entry to the country under any circumstances at all.

B) Canada Customs is able to confiscate any material they feel necessary.

C) The only way, to the best of my knowledge, to appeal a Canada Customs declaration is via the court system.

-However-

I know that in at least one case, Canada Customs makes a point of confiscating everything borderline to one shop, and every time the shop wanted to get it back, they had to appeal to the court- which, of course, pointed out that Canada Customs was being an ass and ordered it released.

That didn't stop Canada Customs from doing it the next time... and the next time...

Canada Customs is a special case, for some reason. I don't know exactly why.

Re:Um, come again?

[Anonymous Coward]

who makes the "no fly list" (humans being censored) ?
some guy in a basement somewhere. otherwise why so many "errors"(senator kennedy?) that cant be identified ? that are ( you have the same name as somebody else?)

hahahahahaahahaahahahaha be safe, dont complain, always agree, never question................

Hold on there, Cowboy

[dsanfte]

The idea of having a national blacklist sends shivers down my spine. I'm a pessimist, I believe that any form of censorship will eventually be abused despite it's good intentions.

I'm sure the outrage has you foaming at the mouth, and is palpably dripping from your chin as we speak. But hold your horses.

We are not talking about silencing political speech here. Canada is not China, period. We have had laws against hate crimes and child porn for quite awhile now, and there are specific exceptions allowed in our constitution such that there can be no hiding behind the banner of free speech for these things. They are, unequivocably, criminal acts.

If any sites of note are wrongly blocked, you will hear about it very quickly. Again, we are not China, and news travels fast. The potential for abuse here is small.

Re:Hold on there, Cowboy

[timmarhy]

unfortunately for you, it is only a matter of time before they start blocking other "distastful" sites, such as competing companys or politicals. internet blocking simply does not work, especially not against pedo's who are well known to be tech savvy and organised, the telco's know this, so why are they really doing it?

Re:Hold on there, Cowboy

[Cheapy]

I hear this new fangled thing...this...Google...can be used to find child porn. Whaddya say, allow pedos to jerk it to children or block the whole site? Eh eh?

Re:Hold on there, Cowboy

[ForumTroll]

unfortunately for you, it is only a matter of time before they start blocking other "distastful" sites

Do you have any evidence to support that assertion? Without any evidence that is nothing more than a slippery slope argument.

Re:Hold on there, Cowboy

[Anonymous Coward]

hardly a trusted source, I realize, but check out: http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/08/04/12 19223
and
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/07/25/10 48247

Re:Hold on there, Cowboy

[Kadin2048]

Well, this whole issue got started because of a one guy's campaign against white supremacist groups and "hate speech," so I don't think it's much of a stretch to assume that these sorts of laws are going to be used against more than pornography pretty quickly.

When Richard Warman asked the CRTC to order Canadian ISPs to block certain U.S. sites that allegedly threatened him, one of the reasons they refused was because of the "unprecedented nature of the relief sought in the Application."

If such blocking was more common, as it would if it was used daily against other sites, then the 'unprecedented action' defense wouldn't exist. Judges are unlikely to create new blocking systems where none exist already, but adding a site to an already extant one is a far lower standard.

It's naive in the extreme to simply assume that systems like this, regardless of the reasons for their creation initially, won't be extended to other ends. When you give someone a hammer, don't be surprised if they start looking for something to pound with it.

Re:Hold on there, Cowboy

[Anonymous Coward]

your articles support his case not yours. ie that if a site is wrongfully blocked the voices will be loud and clear and it will quickly be undone as was the case in the articles you pointed to.

Re:Hold on there, Cowboy

[Anonymous Coward]

Canada isn't the USA. There is a VERY strong separation between the church and government. Nobody here will start makings laws as they recently have in the USA - the kind of laws that forbids credit card companies to process payments for porn sites with 'distasteful' content (and whatever that is is totally up to them). It only happens in the USA because of all the overly religious-oriented government. I cannot see it happen here, ever. Besides, the day an ISP blocks my porn [normal stuff, that is] - or warez - is the day I dump 'em.

But to say the whole measure is very useful... Not so sure. It'll stop some people, but with networks like freenet, tor, proxies and what not, my guess is it'll still be easy for sickos to find illegal and immoral stuff. But I see no reasons not to block the bad stuff, so why not?

Re:Hold on there, Cowboy

[blincoln]

Eh eh?

Watch out, if you make fun of the Canadians they might come burn down Washington, DC again.

Re:Hold on there, Cowboy

[gowen]

Shhh. You're breaking out of the groupthink that censorship in any form is an absolute evil. This is slashdot, and there's no need for nuanced comments like yours. Keep your ethical thinking black and white, please. We don't understand the concept of "the lesser of two evils".

Fact: if fingerprint identification were invented tomorrow, 90% of slashdotters would be against it as an infringement of civil liberties.

Re:Hold on there, Cowboy

[Anonymous Coward]

"The potential for abuse here is small."

That's the first cry of the totalitarian apologist.

The potential for abuse is small? You're advocating the abuse itself. You're advocating a centralized, mandated blacklist. Yes, I understand you promise it will be only used for good, but such promises are rather ridiculous to believe. That's like pointing a gun at my head and promising you'll never pull the trigger. Why did you point the gun at my head in the first place?

Re:Hold on there, Cowboy

[ceoyoyo]

They're talking about blocking sites that are illegal in Canada. Such content is already not allowed in magazines, newspapers or on radio or TV. Is there a difference between blocking web sites with illegal content and other publications with illegal content?

Re:Hold on there, Cowboy

[Anonymous Coward]

They are really doing it because we have asshats who don't know the first thing about how the internet actually works and what it is (a series of tubes, remember?) making all the decisions. It is much easier for an ISP to just say fine Mr Politician, yes, we'll get right on blocking those sites rather than try to argue that something like this could actually be bad since it's child porn we're trying to block here. Who could publicly be against that now?

Think of the children, please!

Re:Hold on there, Cowboy

[Anonymous Coward]

To a Canadian "eh eh" sounds like a guy elbowing you after telling a joke.

Re:Hold on there, Cowboy

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe. Maybe they'll act in good faith. Who knows?

Re:Hold on there, Cowboy

[strider44]

The main problem is people are seeing this as an "in" for people who just want to block anything they disagree with. First you block illegal material, then since people are totally fine with blocking illegal material why wouldn't they also want to block "hateful" material? Finally, all you then need to do is expand the definition of the word "hateful" ever so slightly.

One of the most insightful slashdot comments I've ever seen, though I've lost the source, said something along the lines of "if a legislator says 'but it will never be used this way' they are lying. It is meant to be used that way and as often as possible."

Re:Hold on there, Cowboy

[jman451]

Ya, retaliation is a bitch eh? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burning_of_Washington

Re:Hold on there, Cowboy

[jonwil]

Its all well and good to say "its ok to block this very limited set of sites" (child porn, hate speech etc). But what happens when the copyright cartels (MPAA/RIAA/etc) say to the ISPs (and government) "if you can block child porn, you should be able to block other illegal content such as illegally copied music and movies" and then use their lobbying power to force such blocks?

Re:Hold on there, Cowboy

[RsG]

Watch out, if you make fun of the Canadians they might come burn down Washington, DC again.

What on Earth makes you think most Americans would mind?

Re:Hold on there, Cowboy

[Anonymous Coward]

we understand "lesser of two evils", and this censorship is the greater evil, compared to some moron's password-less ftp who got filled with 30 year old childporn

if you don't understand freedom of speech and how can't have just "some" freedom of speech, then I don't see how you can lecture us on censorship

Re:Hold on there, Cowboy

[badfish99]

So magazines with illegal content are blocked in Canada?

How does that work? Does everyone who wishes to publish any magazine or newspaper have to have each copy examined by the official censor before it is allowed to be sold? Are the decisions of the censor secret, so no-one is allowed to know what is being censored?

That's the difference. There's actually no attempt being made here to discover whether the sites are illegal or not: that's a decision for the courts, and they are not being involved. Instead, web sites will simply vanish at the whim of whoever is running the block list.
Of course, if a major web site, or one of particular interest to Canadians, were censored by mistake, then there would be an outcry and the matter would be put right. But if (for example) my own personal blog were invisible in Canada, I don't suppose anyone would ever notice, and if they did I hardly have the resources to fight the matter in a foreign court. So there's the potential for all sorts of stuff that the censor happens to dislike to simply vanish, without anyone in Canada ever being aware of what they've lost.

Re:Hold on there, Cowboy

[elgaard]

Well, we have seen the slippery slope in other countries.

Here in Denmark we have had such a system for more than a year.
The police get secret blacklists from the "Save The Children" organization. The polices have signed contracts with all Danish ISP's.
There are government reports talking about blocking hate speech, racism, and threats of violence.
Last month a danish ISP was ordered to block allofmp3.com by a court ruling, referring to the these filters. http://itpol.dk/sager/nyheder/Allofmp3En

In Italy they are blocking foreign gambling sites.

Having a system where the police are supplieng list of sites for ISP's to block is not a good thing.

Re:Hold on there, Cowboy

[Anonymous Coward]

How does that work? Does everyone who wishes to publish any magazine or newspaper have to have each copy examined by the official censor before it is allowed to be sold? Are the decisions of the censor secret, so no-one is allowed to know what is being censored?


No, but fines are imposed if there are violations.
The only magazines I know are subject to it are pornography. The basics are you can't import a magazine which violates a Customs Officers idea of morality. The solution to that is to publish the magazine within Canada, but that subjects you to other, but more consistent, requirements.

The only mainstream magazine I know which had issues over the years is Hustler; and having read descriptions of what the issues were I can't say I disagree in the majority of cases. Sounded to me like Hustler enjoyed having some very disturbing images on it's covers, never mind within the magazine.

Canada isn't the United States, and has a more consistent enforcement of certain decency laws, in the U.S. such interpretations are based on the local community, not federal regulation. Of the two, I know which I would prefer. Fighting it at the national level is actually easier.

Re:Hold on there, Cowboy

[Shaper_pmp]

"We are not talking about silencing political speech here. Canada is not China, period."

You're exactly right in every respect, but you forgot one word: yet.

Even if you trust the present incumbent implicitly, in four years you've got someone totally different. In thirty years you can go from a stable government to a civil war, or a totalitarian fascist state.

Given this unavoidable risk, why gamble at all if it isn't necessary? You can't ever "win" at this gamble - only draw level (for the time being) or lose in a big, big way.

"We have had laws against hate crimes and child porn for quite awhile now, and there are specific exceptions allowed in our constitution such that there can be no hiding behind the banner of free speech for these things. They are, unequivocably, criminal acts."

Indeed. However, by putting an unnecessary and powerful system into place to fight crime, you also open it to abuse should anyone redefine what "crime" means. Kind of like how the PATRIOT act was only ever to fight terrorism, and people were shocked and horrified at the idea that anyone would abuse such hallowed powers... and then five years later it's being used as a matter of course to harrass peaceful demonstrators, evict dissenters from political rallies and mass-spy on regular american citizens.

If a law enables something, somebody, sooner or later will use it for that purpose. Against human ingenuity, the corrupting nature of power and the entire weight of human history "honest injun" doesn't count for shit.

We have the process of law. We have checks and balances for a reason - reasonable, competent people understand this, and can work within those restrictions.

Anyone who wants to increase their power or gut those restrictions is either pathetically misguided, more interested in accruing power than doing their job, or simply incompetent.

"If any sites of note are wrongly blocked, you will hear about it very quickly. Again, we are not China, and news travels fast. The potential for abuse here is small."

Riiight. And do you know why "news travels fast"? Because there's no way to prevent its spread. Like, say, a national censorship system. Oh, wait...

Why did places like North Korea and China lead the way in national internet censorship projects? Why do places like Sweden and Holland not feel the need? Do you see any connection there?

I don't imply that setting up a national censorship system will lead to a totalitarian police-state overnight.

In return, don't imply that the guy you vote for will remain in power for ever and always be reasonable, don't imply that increasing the power of governments doesn't make it more tempting to misuse, and don't imply that there's no connection at all between the freedom of communication of a country, and the freedom of communication of a country.

Plus, the aim here is to block off information. Either the systen's good at it or it's bad at it. If it's good at it it's useful, but the potential for abuse is great. If it's bad at it then there's little potential for abuse... but there's also no point in wasting time and money setting it up. You can't have it both ways.

Of course, I could also troll briefly about whether restricting child porn is even a good idea, or whether it provides a release-mechanism preventing abuse, but that's both a more open question and off-topic.

Re:Hold on there, Cowboy

[Shaper_pmp]

You do the crime, you accept the consequences.

Point me to anyone who thinks that fingerprinting convicted criminals is wrong.

Point me to anyone who thinks fingerprinting anyone charged with a crime is wrong, as long as those records are destroyed when they're acquitted.

However, the police (certainly here in the UK) are now fingerprinting and DNA-sampling innocent people who aren't even suspected of a crime, then retaining those fingerprints and samples "just in case they ever do something". That's a violation of privacy, a violation of the assumption of innocence, a violation of data protection legislation and ethically fucking wrong by any measure.

Again, these aren't people suspected of a crime - some of these samples are from widely-publicised rapes and murders in small towns, where the entire population volunteers to be tested to be eliminated from the enquiry and help to catch the perpetrator... on the understanding these samples would be destroyed when they were shown to be innocent. Guess what - they were, the samples weren't, the Police refused to honour their obligations and the Home Office backed the Police.

What was your point again?

Re:Hold on there, Cowboy

[Pig Hogger]

We are not talking about silencing political speech here. Canada is not China, period. We have had laws against hate crimes and child porn for quite awhile now, and there are specific exceptions allowed in our constitution such that there can be no hiding behind the banner of free speech for these things. They are, unequivocably, criminal acts.

Really?

Currently, in Montréal, there are several controversies:

- A YMCA blanked out windows to a gym because the sight of lycra-women doing aerobics was "distracting" to hassidic boys in the rabbinical college accross the lane. (1, 2, 3).

- Hospital and other health center violate the law by preventing fathers from attending neonatal classes, because it upsets muslim women. Likewise, muslim men won't let male doctors touch their wives.

- The Montréal police union is up in arms over an article published in an internal paper, which says that women police should avoid talking to hassidim jews, and let their male colleagues do it instead.

Now, if I go around and say that jews are a bunch of assholes by thinking they can shove their fucking dirty garbage values down the throats of everyone else, I can be jailed. And if I the same thing about islam, I can be jailed, too. But now, some political leaders are starting to slowly raise a stink about it. Now what's gonna happen? They gonna be jailed too? Their websites will be censored?

(Yes, I think that jews are assholes; 20 years ago, the same hassidic jews outlawed bathing suits in a Montréal suburb; they could not bear the sight of human beings sunbathing in city parks!!! They found a very attentive ear in the same mayor who, 15 years earlier, as justice minister, thought nothing of suppressing individual freedoms and liberties by declaring martial law (and for which 400 people were jailed without trial).

Re:Hold on there, Cowboy

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean I'd actually have to buy music instead of downloading? Oh, the horror.

Re:Hold on there, Cowboy

[TubeSteak]

an old post by meringuoid from the "DMCA Abuse Widespread" article:

Whenever a controversial law is proposed, and its supporters, when confronted with an egregious abuse it would permit, use a phrase along the lines of 'Perhaps in theory, but the law would never be applied in that way' - they're lying . They intend to use the law that way as early and as often as possible.

Possibly the only thing worse than Gov't censorship aka 'filtering' is the exact same thing done by a Non-Governmental Organization/Corporation.

Furthermore, the boundary lines get very fuzzy when filter/censorware groups starts working hand-in-hand with the police. Perhaps someone could expand on that with a bit more eloquence, but I hope you get the general idea.

Of course, in your country, mileage may vary.

Re:Hold on there, Cowboy

[badfish99]

By talking about "fighting it", you've missed my point. If you've tried to import a magazine and it has been impounded by Customs, at least you know what has happened, and you are in a position to argue against it. But with this sort of censorship, in 99% of cases you never know it has happened. You click on a link in a web page and nothing happens: most people will just assume "it's broken", not "it's been censored". So there's no way to fight it. And you might not like Hustler, but many other people do: but I can guarantee that the people who get themselves jobs as censors will be the sort who will object to far milder stuff than that.

Re:Hold on there, Cowboy

[RealGrouchy]

Yes, we live in Canada, so we're the benevolentest of all countries and our governments can do no wrong.

That's why our government holds people in jail without charging them (federal), and denies access to representation by those who cannot afford it themselves (Ontario) because we are too busy charging more and more people of crimes.

It is at best naïve, and at worst xenophobic, to trust every action of your country's government simply because it is your government. It is every government's duty to serve its citizens and to act in the names of its citizens; it is every citizen's duty to ensure that his or her government does not abuse the power that is used in his or her name.

- RG>

Re:Hold on there, Cowboy

[Gabesword]

Eh eh?

[I'll keep my fingers crossed]

Re:Hold on there, Cowboy

[Anonymous Coward]

well, being as no music store within 50 miles carries the music i like, nor does itunes and various other place have it, yes, it would be a horror.

Re:Hold on there, Cowboy

[0jjjjjjjjjj0]

How about the United States' approach, fingerprinting everyone entering the country?

From Department of Homeland Security (PDF)

US-VISIT Increment 1 will store fingerprint images, both in the IDENT database and transiently on the some POE workstations and departure kiosks. These images are, of course, sensitive, and their storage could present a security as well as a privacy risk. Because retention of fingerprint images is functionally necessary so that manual comparison of fingerprints can be performed to verify biometric watch list matches, appropriate mitigation strategies will be utilized, including encryption on the departure kiosks and physical and logical access controls on the POE workstations and on the IDENT system.

Re:Hold on there, Cowboy

[BgJonson79]

Burning of Washington, DC: 1814.
Canadian "Independance": 1867.

How can Canada burn down DC when Canada wasn't invented yet?

It's like saying India won WWII because they were the UK's Jewel of the Empire.

Re:Hold on there, Cowboy

[radtea]

We are not talking about silencing political speech here

One of the most tired canards of the old left, which I'm betting you are repeating unwittingly, is that "political speech" is somehow special. This argument was used by the old left to argue for various types of artistic and ideological repression because artistic, philosophical, even simply factual speech was deemed to be not "political speech", and therefore not subject to protections.

In this argument, free speech is not a right (that is, a political condition necessary for the life of a moral autonomous being) but a limited grant given to some kinds of speech that are deemed necessary for a particular public good. This justification for free speech is no different from a patent grant: patents are granted to further the useful arts; free speech is granted to further political discussions.

Most modern advocates of free speech, from Orwell on down, are clear that this is not what they mean. Orwell famously wrote, "Freedom is the freedom to say two plus two equals four. Grant that, and all else follows." Conversely, suppress any form of expression and you will find yourself on a slippery slope to the point where some guy in some governement office somewhere is deciding what two plus two equals.

The Canadian solution has been to restrict speech that a) starts to look like action ("where it is likely to result in a breach of the peace") and b) restrict forms of artistic expression that cannot be created legally (child porn.) There are some questionable restrictions even here, as non-photographic child porn has been found to violate the law. However disgusting we find such things, we need to understand that once we start saying that certain types of expression are in and of themselves illegal, we are in a very dangerous place.

Re:Hold on there, Cowboy

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a very optimistic view, but also one which in the UK has already been proven wrong. Currently, 4chan's /b/ is blocked by the CleanFeed filter (not linking it for a reason). Now, it's hardly the most savoury place on the web, but it does have strict rules against child porn which are strictly enforced (and, given the size of the place, remarkably swiftly as well). The overwhelmingly vast majority of contents on there is not child porn. Repeated posts of child porn by trolls and the resulting reports thereof, however, where enough to get the site blocked.

This is roughly akin to blocking slashdot because some troll keeps posting religious hate speech, some forms of which are illegal in the UK.

Worse yet is the way in which it gets blocked. Rather than a page explaining that the user is attempting to access supposedly illegal content, they are served up with a (fake) 404 page. In other words, not only is content being censored, the very act of censoring is being hidden. I find that rather disturbing.

Re:Hold on there, Cowboy

[Trillan]

What's your evidence?

Re:Hold on there, Cowboy

[ceoyoyo]

I believe the way it works is that someone has to make a complaint about offending material. It is then evaluated, and if it does actually fall afoul of the hate speech laws it is removed, or not allowed into the country. I believe there was a case a while ago of a magazine issue published outside the country not being allowed into Canada, which is very similar to what would happen with the web. I think this list is primarily for international sites -- if a hate speech site were based in Canada it would be removed and the author prosecuted.

The decisions of the censor are not secret. When something IS censored the story tends to make the news.

As for not having the money to defend your blog in court, if your blog made it onto the blacklist it's because it would be illegal in Canada. If you lived in Canada your biggest worry wouldn't be getting your blog reinstated, it would be keeping yourself out of jail.

Re:Hold on there, Cowboy

[NetHead026]

Eh eh?

Watch out, if you make fun of the Canadians they might come burn down Washington, DC again.

Really? Or, should I say: Eh eh?

Re:Hold on there, Cowboy

[Anonymous Coward]

Would you terribly mind? I think it would actually make things better in the long run.

Re:Hold on there, Cowboy

[Anonymous Coward]

Same people... different name.

So yeah... it was the Canadians.

Re:Hold on there, Cowboy

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, by that same logic, all of the events in the 13 colonies prior to 1777 or so were done by British citizens. After all, there were no United States back then.

Yet I think if you asked the average American who established the colonies in what is now the US, or who was responsible for the Boston tea party, or who wrote the declaration of independence, they'd say "Americans". It's sorta like asking a christian what religion Christ belonged to (trick question - most of them won't realize that he was, in fact, Jewish).

Most people will happily accept the idea that important national events can precede the founding of the nation in question by quite a few years, or even decades.

Re:Hold on there, Cowboy

[badfish99]

The decisions of the censor are not secret.

I would be very surprised if this were the case. It certainly isn't the case for the UK version of Cleanfeed.
Remember that this is touted as a child porn filter. If a government agency published a list of child porn sites, the pedophiles would all rush to look at them (using non-Canadian proxies or the Google cache or whatever is necessary to circumvent the filter). So the people running this sort of censorship always keep the list of censored sites secret.

Re:Hold on there, Cowboy

[crabpeople]

"We are not talking about silencing political speech here. Canada is not China, period. "

Ah, spoken like someone who hasnt been to asian columbia..

Re:Hold on there, Cowboy

[ceoyoyo]

We were talking about hate speech. As for the child porn, there weren't any details but I expect there is a means of recourse, but not published. You would have to contact the organization directly.

Re:Hold on there, Cowboy

[Anonymous Coward]

You seem overly enamoured of the concept of "the lesser of two evils." You have come to see the world as full of such binary choices, to the degree that you're now blind to the possibility of anything less. When you see something that isn't evil, you immediately attack it as impossible, and happily, comfortably run to the "lesser evil" while pretending you were forced into it. You can justify it to yourself as realism, but it is more aptly characterized as weakness.

Overwhelmed by cynicism, you have decided instead of fighting it to give in and actually support it. It is fine, and actually quite important, to be cynical in the sense of skepticism. But when you become cynical in the sense of crying out for injustice and stupidity just because "everyone else is doing it" or "it's always worked that way," you've become part of the very problem your original skepticism brought to light.

Re:Hold on there, Cowboy

[makomk]

In fact, in the case of the UK's Cleanfeed scheme, not only is the list of censored sites a secret, how the sites are blocked also seems to be a secret. (Though, if reports from 4channers back when /b/ was apparently blocked by Cleanfeed are to be believed, it involves fake 404 errors and the like rather than an obvious "this site is blocked" page. Back then the closest thing to a confirmation that it was blocked that anyone got was a message in the Google results - the rest was very much circumstantial evidence.)

Re:Hold on there, Cowboy

[badfish99]

Giving a "this site is blocked" message would allow people to put together parts of the censorship list, which is supposed to be secret. So they don't do it. On the other hand, this (warning: pdf) claims to describe how the system works, including a vulnerability which would allow the list of blocked sites to be discovered.

Re:Hold on there, Cowboy

[Comboman]

I'm sure some brave Indian solders contributed to the winning of WWII but it's hardly equivalent. In 1812, most of the regular British army and navy had pulled out of British North America (i.e. pre-independent Canada) to fight the French in Europe. That's why the Americans thought the time was right to exercise their "manifest destiny" and expand northward (don't buy into the American history book cause for the war, that the British navy was shanghaiing American sailors; that's the 19th century equivalent of "we're invading Iraq because Sadam has WMDs"). The defense of Canada was left to mostly the civilian militia and their Native allies. Despite being outmanned and outgunned, they repelled the invasion and kicked some ass. Burning D.C. was not nearly as embarrassing as Detroit which was surrendered to a smaller force without firing a shot.

Re:Hold on there, Cowboy

[HomelessInLaJolla]

No one thought to try a tracepath from multiple different locations around the globe and check the connections to the destination IP address?

Re:Hold on there, Cowboy

[Cheapy]

That's funny. I didn't even mean the 'eh eh' to make fun of the Canadians.

Re:Hold on there, Cowboy

[makomk]

No one thought to try a tracepath from multiple different locations around the globe and check the connections to the destination IP address?

Not as far as I know. I suspect /b/tards aren't exactly the most technically-minded of individuals. Besides, it looks like all the tools of that sort use UDP, which probably passes through unimpeded (Cleanfeed appears to be based on transparent HTTP proxies)...

Re:Hold on there, Cowboy

[Abcd1234]

This is Canada. The power of the lobbyists is *greatly* reduced, thanks to laws which limit things like campaign financing (in fact, all financing for parties comes from a central pool, calculated using some formula based on the size of the membership (IIRC)). Thus, the danger of copyright cartels manipulating the system is significantly less than what you'd see in the United States.

Further, the ISPs have already fought back against the copyright cartels (ie, they refuse to release customer information to such organizations), and so I'm not yet concerned.

Re:Hold on there, Cowboy

[hr raattgift]

Burning of Washington, DC: 1814.
Canadian "Independance": 1867.

How can Canada burn down DC when Canada wasn't invented yet?

Well, in fact, it had been invented some years earlier...

Sure, Confederation happened in 1867. That was simply the consolidation of several colonies into the federal political system that has remained essentially intact since then.

Confederation united the Province of Canada, which had been established by the Act of Union (1840) with two other colonies, namely Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.

Prior to the 1867 Act, the Province of Canada had itself been administered as two federated subunits, Canada East (now in modern Quebec) and Canada West (now in modern Ontario).

Earlier still, until the 1840 Act, Canada East was called Lower Canada (because it was closer to sea level, and farther down the St. Lawrence River from Lake Ontario) and Canada West was called Upper Canada.

Upper and Lower Canada formally acquired their names in 1791 and Canadians were styled as such from 26 December 1791 per the Constitutional Act passed a year earlier by the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Informal use of the term, particularly in French, dates even earlier.

So, legally speaking, the people in what is now central Canada were calling themselves Canadians for a generation. Most of the militia and many of the troops involved on the non-USA side of the war of 1812 were born in what was actually called Canada even before the time of their births.

The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union (USA, Second Continental Congress 1777, ratified 1781), in article XI says "Canada acceding to this confederation, and adjoining in the measures of the United States, shall be admitted into, and entitled to all the advantages of this Union; but no other colony shall be admitted into the same, unless such admission be agreed to by nine States." Note the "C" word.

More generally, the term Canadian was in widespread general use by both English and French speakers in the then Province of Quebec from the 1760s, and maps described the area around the St Lawrence River as "Canada" from as early as the mid-1550s.

Re:Hold on there, Cowboy

[Pig Hogger]

The troll moderation is ample proof that the jews will not tolerate criticism.

Re:Hold on there, Cowboy

[mre5565]

How will you know if any sites are wrongly blocked?

I noticed when I visit relatives in Canada who have Shaw Cable as their ISP that when I try to access google.com, I am redirected to google.ca. Don't be surprised if google and other search engines filter the web sites that cybertip.ca tells them to filter.

Besides, will cybertip.ca filter fictional stories, such as what Senator-elect James Webb wrote? Will cybertip.ca filter images of children that are artificial and nor derived from real people?

Re:Hold on there, Cowboy

[Shaper_pmp]

And that's why I won't be visiting the US any time soon.

Shame, because I'd quite like to do it someday.

Re:Hold on there, Cowboy

[Guppy06]

"Watch out, if you make fun of the Canadians they might come burn down Washington, DC again." /sigh

First off, even ignoring the question of Canadian sovereignty, there's the little matter of the fact that the troops that participated in the burning of Washington were European. The commanding officer (County Down) and the troops under his command (Shrewsbury, Essex, Lancaster, Glasgow) were all from the British Isles and had come across the Atlantic after the latest bout of fun and games with Napoleon had calmed down. Those living in Canada participated in the war along the US/Canadian border, but no units from Canada participated in the UK campaign on the US Atlantic seaboard.

And beyond that, what happened shouldn't be so much a testament of the skill and cunning of UK troops on the field (be they British or Canadian) but more a demonstration that the US federal government has had its head up its ass for at least 200 years; the US Secretary of War refused to believe that DC would be attacked until it was too late to do anything. When defense of a US city is left in the hands of non-idiots, things didn't turn out so well for those under the Union Flag; the British officer who had taken Washington was killed days later trying to take Baltimore.

Re:Hold on there, Cowboy

[Guppy06]

"I'm sure some brave Indian solders contributed to the winning of WWII but it's hardly equivalent."

Why not? India spent most of that war under threat of occupation, while half of the attention of that war was turned elsewhere, much like Canada in 1812.

"That's why the Americans thought the time was right to exercise their "manifest destiny" and expand northward"

We thought "the time was right" when we were still dabbling with our "We don't need no standing army" philosophy? If the US was always hell-bent on annexing Canada, the time would have been more right after 1848, when we had an army flush with success in Mexico City, or after 1865, when we had both a larger force as well as genuine grievances with London over their behavior during our civil war ("We don't like slavery, but we'll build warships for the Confederacy because we hate the US more"). In fact, it was your fears that the largest army in history would turn north after marching south that prompted your desire for confederation to begin with.

Seriously, Canada, it's time for you to learn that we just don't care about you. If we cared about you as much as we did about, say, Mexico, you'd have gotten the same treatment: a dispute over contested land (Aroostok? Oregon?) being blown out of all proportion and turning into a war where we occupy your capital and annex half your territory. Instead, we decided that having to wait at two border crossings to drive to Alaska was better than actually having to put up with British Columbia.

"don't buy into the American history book cause for the war, that the British navy was shanghaiing American sailors"

It wasn't "Shanghaiing," that's something different (essentially conscription). What the British were doing on US ships was refusing to recognize that some formerly British (particularly Irish) subjects were now naturallized US citizens and trying to enforce domestic British law on them in internaional waters. Additionally, the Royal Navy was harassing US merchant ships trading with France in spite of our declared neutrality.

"Detroit... was surrendered to a smaller force without firing a shot."

There were more Welsh there than Canadians there, though the natives outnumbered either by about 2:1.

Besides, something similar had happened to Montreal not 40 years prior, as I recall. Pre-industrial warfare, fog of war, such things happened and were not unheard of.

Re:Hold on there, Cowboy

[BgJonson79]

>>Well, by that same logic, all of the events in the 13 colonies prior to 1777 or so were done by British citizens.

Yes, I completely agree with you.

Except those in NH, who declared war from and left the UK in 1775.

Hmmm...

[Anonymous Coward]

"despite it's good intentions."

Are they already blacklisting grammar sites?

Re:Hmmm...

[ampmouse]

From Englishchick.com, A questionable grammar website:

I am a feminist bisexual Jewish pagan techno-geek with delusions of grandeur.

Of course it's blocked. You don't want a pervert like that teaching your children grammar. Think of the children!

</sarcasm>

Slippery slope

[phorm]

I remember when the Telus (which is both an ISP and a telco) strike was on, a big issue was raised because they blocked the webpages of their workers' union from those using their internet services. I'm not sure if Canada has the same common-carrier laws as the US, but it seems to me that with or without them, these steps towards having a third party able to decide what is "acceptable" speech or not is a dangerous one.

Apparent age of females, intent of speech or hatred therein, and many other things are open to wide interpretation. So who gets to decide what is standard vs hate speech, what is pornographic, what girls/boys appear underage? The same companies that block a disagreeable union webpage... that isn't a good sign to me.

Re:Slippery slope

[gatesvp]

Fortunately, Telus doesn't maintain the list, we do, these guys are federally funded.

If problems come up we (the public) file complaints and the issue gets handled. Sure, we can insert comments about poor response times, red tape, etc. But that's neither here or nor there.

Point is, this is a government-sponsored list from a group with a good track record. If you don't like it, write to your local government reps and tell them about it.

Re:Slippery slope

[geobeck]

...who gets to decide what is standard vs hate speech, what is pornographic, what girls/boys appear underage? The same companies that block a disagreeable union webpage[?]

...a blacklist...provided by Cybertip.ca, the Canadian tip-line against child exploitation.

So, no, it won't be Telus. Or Shaw, or Rogers, etc. Cybertip.ca has a pretty well-focused mission, so they're only likely to block sites that (maybe) can't produce standard model release forms (including proof of age) that all legitimate adult-oriented content providers have to have (ever since the Traci Lords scandal years ago). And if these sites are outside of a jurisdiction that requires model release forms, I'm sure the Canadian "tubes" can benefit from having some bandwidth freed up from the lack of some sleazy sites.

This is just speculation, of course. I don't know how Cybertip.ca decides who to blacklist, but lack of model releases would be a good place to start.

Re:Slippery slope

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah tell them about it, then next thing you know there's this black van parked in front of your house

Re:Slippery slope

[RsG]

OTOH, when they did this with BT in the UK (as mentioned in TFA), there were significant problems with the blacklists. The organization providing the list of "child porn sites" had very little transparency, all in the name of "protecting the children", since if they allowed people to have a list what sites were blocked, they'd be letting the site owners relocate. They were also apparently apathetic when it came to unlisting innocent sites.

I don't know squat about this Cybertip organization. Maybe they're on the level. But I do know that letting somebody else make blacklisting decisions for me isn't wise. There is potential for abuse, regardless of what proponents say, and I'm not sure what good this will do.

Who exactly are we keeping away from these sites? The pervs would get thrown in jail anyway for collecting child porn (illegal under Canadian law), and your average citizen wouldn't come into contact with these sorts of material anyway, barring accidents or "accidents". And if the only materials affected are web sites, doesn't that leave P2P, usenet, email lists, and all other manner of distributing illegal material online? That's a pretty big oversight, more than large enough to render the blacklists irrelevant.

In short, I view this as little more than a PR move. Likely irrelevant in its intended purpose, and inconvenient for those who get wrongly blacklisted, but it'll give the corporations involved brownie points among the technologically illiterate public.

Re:Slippery slope

[gad_zuki!]

The slippery slope will eventually end with them making it illegal to even have kids, as thats the only way to fully protect against victimization. Then we'll all win (or lose).

Re:Slippery slope

[Noishe]

The reason they blocked the website was because the union was posting pictures of every worker that crossed the picket line and advocating violence against them. Stop the SCABS!!! As soon as the union removed the pictures, the website had it's access restored.

Re:Slippery slope

[Anonymous Coward]

Advocating violence against them? Would that that were true, the union's web overseer would have been criminally prosecuted. Since it is not true, the censorship has no reasonable justification. Unless you can make up another one...

Re:Slippery slope

[phorm]

I'm not really all that knowledgable on how the model release forms work, but do all countries have them?

Let's say I have a fetish for girls from "Country X", how do I know that country will have said form, or are they fairly standard internationally?
What about amateur porn sites?

Re:Slippery slope

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, our vans are white with a big red maple leaf on each side.

Re:Slippery slope

[geobeck]

I'm not really all that knowledgable on how the model release forms work, but do all countries have them?

From my post:

And if these sites are outside of a jurisdiction that requires model release forms, I'm sure the Canadian "tubes" can benefit from having some bandwidth freed up from the lack of some sleazy sites.

If a country doesn't police its porn, block their porn sites. The less porn flying around the Canadian backbone, the more bandwidth there will be for everything else.

Before you start saying what a dangerous trend this would be, there is a parallel: You can't import many types of physical goods into many countries unless those goods meet certain standards. CE and CSA standards spring to mind. If porn suppliers can't verify that they're not exploiting underage models, perhaps they should not be able to export their product to countries that care about that sort of thing.

Note that I'm not advocating blocking all sites from a country that doesn't require model verification. If two out of a hundred porn suppliers in West Elbonia conform to "CanPorn"(1) standards, then two West Elbonian porn sites will be visible in Canada.

(1) Not a real organization

Re:Slippery slope

[jjthegreat]

As a frontline agent answering calls in those days, it was rather hard to explain what the hell was going on with that, especially to other TELUS employees. The rationale for blocking access to the site was because TELUS said they had to protect their own employess. They tried to take the lesser of two evils: Either risk getting sued by a TELUS employee who got physically harmed because they were identified as a scab from the TWU website, or open the floodgates as losing the common carrier status.
Either way, I wish they blocked the site using DNS versus null route. There were about 150 other domains being virtually hosted on the same ip all complaining TELUS was blocking them out.

Doesn't seem that bad

[thedarknite]

From the description of what the ISPs have opted into, I don't see too many problems with it. However, there should be some way of being able to review who is on the blacklist and why, so there is some recourse for sites that are listed without actually violating any laws.

Re:Doesn't seem that bad

[Sinbios]

How are you going to review the list if you can't VIEW the sites ON the list? If it's just government officials/telco assigned people doing the reviewing, what good is it?

Re:Doesn't seem that bad

[thedarknite]

Think about it, you access websites based on search engines or from provided links, both of which will provide you with a context of what should be on the site. That will give you enough reason to query the powers that be over the listing, besides there are enough proxy servers around that you can get to any website even if your ISP is blocking that domain.

Re:Doesn't seem that bad

[ameoba]

I think they'd be doing much of the rest of the world if they were to publicly publish the list. I would, personally, undertake the duty of reviewing every offensive site that gets posted.

Re:Doesn't seem that bad

[Anonymous Coward]

How are you going to review the list if you can't VIEW the sites ON the list? If it's just government officials/telco assigned people doing the reviewing, what good is it?

Were you to view a child pornography site for the purpose of "reviewing" it, you would be guilty of possession of child pornography. Remember Pete Townshend's case?

If there is any doubt whatsoever about the age of models on a pornography site, then I say block it, its not like there's a shortage of porn out there. Plus, I don't recall access to pornography being in our charter of rights anywhere.

The North American obsession with sex is pretty damn sad when you look at it objectively.

The genetic future of North America: Powerful blond women with big tits and stupid black men with big dicks. Natural selection has been replaced with a perverted and unnatural sexual selection and is a genuine threat to the genetic future of North America. Thankfully there are other cultures in the world that are not subject to this perversion of evolution.

Re:Doesn't seem that bad

[Anonymous Coward]

How are you going to review the list if you can't VIEW the sites ON the list? If it's just government officials/telco assigned people doing the reviewing, what good is it?

This is easily circumvented by using Tor. It's a complete waste of time and money.

So how do they identify child porn?

[A beautiful mind]

How does a process tell the difference between two images, nonetheless two nude people, one 16 and the other 18?

Re:So how do they identify child porn?

[RuBLed]

I believe they would build a robot to do that job. Just give them time.

Re:So how do they identify child porn?

[westlake]

How does a process tell the difference between two images, nonetheless two nude people, one 16 and the other 18?

there is a reason why they call it kiddie porn.

we are not talking about mature teens. we are not talking about artistic nude photographs. we are not talking about the age of consent.

we are talking about the rape of a child for the sexual entertainment of an adult. we are talking about infants and toddlers. we are talking about boys and girls age twelve and younger.

Re:So how do they identify child porn?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, your personal interpretation aside, that's exactly what we're talking about, sexually explicit pictures of anyone under the age of 18, with or without consent, with or without 'maturity'. Artistic photos are the exception.

So yes, they will need to know the difference between a girl that is 16 and one that is 18.

And to answer the grandparents question, I'm assuming they have some kind of documention identify the models in pornography, or something like that. What I'm afraid of is the telcos block all 'suspicious' porn sites (could be anything distasteful to the censor), leaving lose blocked to go through an unnecessary appeals process. Even that is a misuse of their power.

Re:So how do they identify child porn?

[tenchiken]

Law enforcement has a large database from convictions of people who this kind of crap. Part of that database is a fairly complex hash. If that has can be made significantly difficult to fool, you have a easy way to build a 90% tool...

And frankly, someone needs to do this. The rule of the internet is being forgotten, which is that it is far better to regulate yourself, then to let your government do it for you.

Of course, the usual suspects started this article with the same age-old trick of comparing Canada to China, and the United States to Nazi germany for daring to do something that they might not like.

Re:So how do they identify child porn?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because one says "Fresh barely legal teens!" and the other says "Get yor k1dd1e pr0n from the best site on the net!". More importantly, if the kids involved are clearly about 4 or 5 years old...

Re:So how do they identify child porn?

[RsG]

Ay, that's the definition of child porn espoused by you and me. Is it the definition espoused by this "Cybertip" organization?

Put another way, I have a simple definition for child porn. Child porn to me is porn made by or for predatory pedophiles. Simple nudity doesn't qualify, nor does a 16 year old engaging in sexual acts (the former because nudity doesn't have to be sexual in nature, and the latter because most pedos wouldn't find a 16 year old to their liking). There are gray areas to be sure, but there is a distinction to be made.

I'm all in favour of arresting people who make or consume porn involving children (ie sexually explicit photos/movies involving very young subjects). I'd also be in favour of making sure they get a fair trial; that means ensuring things like the privacy of the accused (since the mere accusation would be ruinous for an innocent person).

That being said, how do I know that the organization in TFA uses the same definition as I do? Maybe to them "child porn" is any pornography involving women who may or may not be adults. Without transparency and public oversight, I wouldn't trust them with such a responsibility. Neither should you.

And, as I mentioned elsewhere, I have serious doubts as to the effectiveness of blacklisting websites as a solution. This whole thing reeks of a PR stunt by the ISPs involved.

Re:So how do they identify child porn?

[Anonymous Coward]

I like my women how I like my wiskey... aged 8 years and mixed up with coke

Re:So how do they identify child porn?

[Duds]

I volunteer for the job of ruling on borderline cases.

Re:So how do they identify child porn?

[d^2b]

I like my women how I like my wiskey... aged 8 years and mixed up with coke

You would drink whisky only 8 years old, and mixed with cola? You are a sick
bastard.

Re:So how do they identify child porn?

[ChunkyLoverYYZ]

Who's laws would they use? Canada's? 14 is the age of consent. So a 15 year old would be fair game? Scary.

Re:So how do they identify child porn?

[Anonymous Coward]

The of consent is 14 in Canada, but don't get caught trying to pickup a 14 year old online.

Re:So how do they identify child porn?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ay, that's the definition of child porn espoused by you and me. Is it the definition espoused by this "Cybertip" organization?

Apparently their definition is "If there's grass on the field...play ball!"

Re:So how do they identify child porn?

[Anonymous Coward]

How does a process tell the difference between two images, nonetheless two nude people, one 16 and the other 18?

See, this is the really ingenious part:

Say I'm a pedophile, right? Well, I go hunting around the net for child porn, like I usually do, and then, when I find a site that has child porn, I call the authorities and they blacklist it!! Problem solved!

No wait..

Say I'm a law enforcement officer, right? Well, I go hunting around the net looking for child porn, like I usually do, and then, when I find a site that has child porn, I order that the IP be put on a blacklist!!! Problem solved!!!!

No wait...

Say I'm a child porn trafficker, right? Well, I go hunting around the net, looking for child porn, like I usually do, and then, when I can't find a site that has child porn, I make my own. The catch is: when I publish it, I don't just put it on a website because I know of the blacklist, so I distribute it on Usenet too......just like I usually do!!! Problem solved!!!!!

This firewall blacklist idea is so fucking stupid, it boggles the mind. Any LAN admin who has tried to stop p2p filesharing with a firewall alone could tell you that.

Re:So how do they identify child porn?

[Anonymous Coward]

we are not talking about mature teens. we are not talking about artistic nude photographs. we are not talking about the age of consent.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. That's exactly what we're talking about. Many people such as yourself seem to have an idealistic view of child pr0n enforcement, assuming that law enforcement and corporate/government entities only go after the most severe cases of child molestation. This is simply not true. The law is not 12 and under, it's 18 and under.

Besides, to have a vague law selectively enforced is just as bad as having no law at all.

Re:So how do they identify child porn?

[westlake]

Many people such as yourself seem to have an idealistic view of child pr0n enforcement.

and many people here have no idea of what child porn is. it is not art photography. it is not consenual sex among teens. it is the sexual exploitation and abuse of minors. whatever their age.

Re:So how do they identify child porn?

[Anonymous Coward]

and many people here have no idea of what child porn is. it is not art photography. it is not consenual sex among teens. it is the sexual exploitation and abuse of minors. whatever their age.

You're kidding, right? Pictures of a 17-year-old couple having consenual sex is indeed child porn. A 15 year old taking a pictures of herself and posting it on the internet can be charged with distributing child pornography (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/04/05/girl_char ged_with_child_porn/).

Re:So how do they identify child porn?

[ben there...]

18 is the minimum age for pornographic photos in most of the world, regardless of the country's (often lower) age of consent.

Great Firewall

[brasspen]

I'm Canadian. I'm for it. We believe in authority up here more than in America it seems. It's unlikely to be abused, especially if there is some transparency. It's very American to automatically respond to this kind of thing as though it was a threat. Stop acting like a teenager.

Re:Great Firewall

[crossmr]

Then obviously you've completely forgotten what just happened with the liberals. As a Canadian I'm opposed to any kind of censorship, period. Its more preferable to take down the sites than block them.

Re:Great Firewall

[timmarhy]

maybe your just a navie idiot, ever considered that? "It's unlikely to be abused" my if i could have a $ for everytime some conservative put forward an opressive law and made that claim, then had it broke, i'd be a rich man.

Re:Great Firewall

[fabs64]

What magical distinction do you make between taking down a site and blocking access to it?
Presumably the only difference should be that the site isn't hosted in your country.

Re:Great Firewall

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm Canadian. I'm for it. We believe in authority up here more than in America it seems. It's unlikely to be abused, especially if there is some transparency. It's very American to automatically respond to this kind of thing as though it was a threat. Stop acting like a teenager.

So you believe that you, a lone subject^H^H^H^H citizen, are unfit to rule yourself? Do you need someone smarter and stronger than you to control you, and make you do as you're told? Is that your point?

Stop acting like an irresponsible young adult that won't move out of his parents' house and get his own life.

Re:Great Firewall

[alshithead]

I think there is a big distinction. Taking legal action to disable someone's site is definitely different than just blocking access. A legal process must be navigated to remove a site versus blocking access because some entity believes their content MAY be illegal. Legal ruling versus opinion. Of course, I can block anything I want on PC's I control as long as I take responsibility. Getting a site taken down is a horse of a different color...

Re:Great Firewall

[Rakishi]

We believe in authority up here more than in America it seems.

That is rather frightening really or naïve, believing that others somehow want what is best for you by the simple fact that they managed to cheat and lie their way to the top. Then again humans seem to love to give criminals big guns and then wonder why they got shot in the head.

It's unlikely to be abused, especially if there is some transparency.

Of course it will get abused sooner or later, everything is once someone with a potential gain finds a way to do it.

It's very American to automatically respond to this kind of thing as though it was a threat.

No, it's the safe way of doing things. See unlike say Great Britain we feel that losing all our freedoms gradually by "small but increasing steps" is not a good things.

Stop acting like a teenager.

No, unlike you we understand human nature and the nature of those in power. Only the naïve and stupid think that things will not be abused or that those in power should be blindly trusted at all.

Re:Great Firewall

[adaminnj]

I'm an American in Canada and I think your comment is just the type of America bashing that abot 50% of the population dose just to be against America. I read the child's book that calls America a spoiled teenager too.

Look you self richeous Snowball if it was not for us Teenage Americans covering your ass all thees years you would not have your F'ed up medical system (you would actually have to have a defense system and pay for it) and have been able to have discussions in English or French (you would all be speaking Russian) comrade.

as for you all being so flipen peaceful and PC up here I see 300K immigrents holding up your economy of American company's and paying huge Taxes for urban sprawl and over inflated housing prices. to add insult to injury there is no infrastructure here I mean 4 lane Roads intersecting with stop signs and over passes falling on cars killing familys WTF is that aboat eh.

with the amount of immigration that is going on here it's funny how the "White Canadians" do not involve them self with the immigrents and the immigrants all cluster together Chinese cluster with Chinese, Indians cluster with Indians, and so on and so forth. Canada is setting up for an all out race war in the next 10-15 years

with the 300K that immigrate here every year (and you guys would not have let this happen if you dident have NAFTA given to you by Uncle Sam) less than 10% of them will ever be able to vote or become citizens in Canada.
Talk about human rites violations what Canada is doing is close to TAX slavery.

if you are going to talk smack about how Americans Love there free speech you had better learn about your own country first.

you are never going to stop some one from braking a law they want to brake by removing one avenue they will find another way.

I mean you guys are even infighting, Alberta won't let oil revenue out of Alberta, Quebec wants to be it's own nation and Harper is considering letting them be a nation inside of Canada the nation (now that is a bit redundant) the French had a tantrum and left Louisiana to run up here now they are having another tantrum if. America is the Teen then Canada is the coward infant who ran up here to hide while the U.S and by the way America is the contanet not the country my country is the United States. fought for freedom while Canada kind of got it's freedom by proxie from the U.S.

as a mater of fact next time you see an American you kiss them right on the ass and say thank you for my life as an uppity but free Canadian idiot.

Re:Great Firewall

[Brett Buck]

>It's very American to automatically respond to this kind
>of thing as though it was a threat. Stop acting like a
>teenager. /. is not remotely representative of average American values. Neither are any media US reports you might hear.

          Brett

Re:Great Firewall

[GoatPigSheep]

As a Canadian who actually believes in free speech, I am against any kind of censorship or filtering on the internet.

"Hate speech" is a broad term that could apply to many things. I could be deemed a distributor of "hate speech" for saying I am an atheist who thinks all religions are wrong (since I'd offend the followers of some major religions with that statement).

Protecting us from "thought crime" is not democratic.

Re:Great Firewall

[Anonymous Coward]

That was by far one of the dumbest comments I've ever read here. I really hope English isn't your native language.

Re:Great Firewall

[Arivia]

Canada has a good track record on this sort of thing. Look at the War Measures Act: predates the PATRIOT act, is arguably even *worse*, and has no record of abuse due to careful monitoring.

Re:Great Firewall

[aevan]

All fair and well, provided you have jurisdiction to remove the site, or don't mind footing the taxes for the legal battle if not (if even illegal at all in their host country).

I'd rather them just block it so it can't enter the country, let the host country deal with the site themselves, and have our tax money spent on things inside the country that need help. There's more than enough things that money could go towards instead.

If however the source of the child porn is inside our borders, then certainly don't just block: pursue, prosecute and punish the perverted paedo perps.

Re:Great Firewall

[aevan]

It isn't, he said he's american :P

Btw, we love NAFTA...now mind honouring it? That softlumber bullshit is amusing.

Quebec wanted independence ever since the dust settled on the Plains of Abraham. They also want the perks of staying...think of Quebec more as a prima donna throwing a tantrum rather than seditionists. The west has been noisy every since they got oil and the novelty of the railway wore off.

Canadian freedom was gained the Canadian way:

Canada: Um..hey, Queen?
Queen: Yes Dear
Canada: Can we um..try this Independance thing? Sounds kind of fun and well you've been so busy lately...
Queen: I don't know...
Canada: We'll even keep you on the money, and you can put a Governor General here to watch over us...pullleeeezzzeee?
**May not be entirely historically factual

4-lane roads intersection with stop signs? They work. Hard part is determining whose "You go first" takes precedence.

As for 'saving your life'? Um...if this is another 'we single handly stormed Normandy and liberated the planet' crap, WWII started in '38...you guys were a few years late showing, showed up fresh, and took the credit for the North African campaign, Lenningrad, and the Battle over Britain. Probably want credit for the convoys in the Atlantic too.

I won't disparage the deaths and efforts of the Americans who served and fought, it wasn't their fault the timing, and they did the best they could and assuredly helped immensley. But the idiots who weren't there, thinking they are owed for the actions of others? If you aren't a vet, stfu.

Re:Great Firewall

[dgregory1981]

"We believe in authority up here more than in America it seems. It's unlikely to be abused, especially if there is some transparency. It's very American to automatically respond to this kind of thing as though it was a threat. Stop acting like a teenager."

1. Please don't speak as though you speak for a nation, you don't represent me.

2. Don't say that it is "very American" to do anything. You just said you're Canadian, so how would you know?

3. It will get abused, things of this nature always get abused, ESPECIALLY where ANY special interest group is involved.

4. We're talking about child porn here, the only REAL way to combat it is to stop it at it's source, not throw a blanket over it any pretend its not happening. (out of sight out of mind)

5. To the American user (sorry i didn't catch your handle): I believe it's an American colloquialism "Love it or leave it". I suggest that you follow that. I don't recall bad-mouthing your country the last time I was there. I went there, met some great people, had a good time. If you don't like Canada, no one is keeping you here against your will, leave.

6. If you think stopping the transfer of images containing child porn shouldn't be illegal, i ask you this. What if it was your child? What if it was even you? How about that? These kids didn't ask to be put on the internet and exploited so some sick pervert can make a buck selling it to other sick perverts. I think a child's right for privacy and dignity supersedes your right to get a nut off looking at kiddie porn.

Sorry its a long post, this is my first, by I felt some of these things needed to be said outright. I know some of this was mentioned earlier in the post I just thought I'd bring some of the main points together into one post. Haha like I said, it's my first post, don't flame me!

Re:Great Firewall

[dukieduke]

As a mater of fact, dose it not suggest to anyone that adaminnj is perhaps trolling? The way he brakes all rules of grammar and spelling, and proudly declares himself an American? I am I the only one on the contanet that can see this? Dident anyone else? Is this rite?

Seriously though, there are a few points that need addressing: (I'll leave the spelling as it is)
"with the amount of immigration that is going on here it's funny how the "White Canadians" do not involve them self with the immigrents and the immigrants all cluster together Chinese cluster with Chinese, Indians cluster with Indians, and so on and so forth. Canada is setting up for an all out race war in the next 10-15 years"

There is no need to. 10-15 years down the road is a new generation. The ones born in Canada will bear that brunt, and I am optimistic. Perhaps blindly so, but history bears me out: How many large cities in the US advertise their own local "Chinatowns", "Little Italy", "Mexican District" and so forth? Heck, you might as well run the Irish out of town back in (name the city of your choice in the 20's). Maybe even today, if you could find them. To kill immigration is to kill your future. The Statue of Liberty had it right. Forgive my self "richeousness". (Hah!)

Re:Great Firewall

[Shaper_pmp]

Hey - don't blame Great Britain. If Blair wasn't so hell-bent on humping Bush's leg all day we'd still have some basic freedoms, too.

Before worrying about the splinter in your brother's eye, first remove the plank in your own. ;-p

Re:Great Firewall

[Anonymous Coward]

Your ignorance is simply astounding. Btw... please install and use Firefox 2.0. There's a built in spell checker. Perhaps you won't look like such a moron afterwards, but then, your content will give you away...

Re:Great Firewall

[adaminnj]

ok I alwasy get shit for spelling and grammer Ill take that, if that is all you got you got nothing. *Spelltards*

I'm not talking about any single campaine. I'm saying that America was for years sitting on one of the bigest and baddest Armed forces that shelters you as canadians and has for a long time. you are also baisly and effectivly a sububerb of the US.

at this point Canada has nothing but snow, and internet porn to export Well the soft wood thing but I meen hell I watched Parlement when they where talking about it and what a joke that is both parlement and the soft wood issue. (price fixing my arse)

if canada is so independant why dose it need the US to buy it's lumber at all?
I mean Canada can't even get it togather to have it's own fast food places. (just because you put a maple leaf on everything like McDonalds) donsent make it any less American

As a mater of fact if you where so flipen independant as a canadain why dont you try going thru your house and remove anything that is from an American company. not made in America but U.S. Companys (hell all our manufaturing has come up here and to Mexico)

I'm not George Bush nor did I vote for any Bush, and I'm not a great American. I'm realy just sick of hearing Canadians talk smack about all Americans while they have there own shit to deal with.

Step up be a great Canadian and shut up aboat Americans and start looking at your own issues EH.
one of which it this firewall thing do you really want your Gov pushing there will on you? I wish that the reason that the firewall is being set up diden't exsist but it dose. and if you realy think the firewall is going to work you are dreaming.

it's not like your not getting enough presure from your Gov. to wave flags and think the way they want to you to think. the schools here are properganda machines Be a good citizen wave the maple leaf and (HATE AMERICANS)

if you really hate the U.S. so much why don't you try closing your boarders(or just your house), and live with the rest of the world.
Americans are not the prob with the world it's the floks that think the U.S. owes them something (I hear wimpering soft wood, soft wood) that are making the world a screwed up place at some point you will be just as red, white, and blue as me There is no real reason for Canadia to exisit out side of the United States of America any more, and then you can all learn Spanish Just like us.
and that is all I have to say aboat that Eh, Soury if I agetated you no wories eh.
(am I allowed my own opinon in canadia)

Re:Great Firewall

[adaminnj]

truth herts eh so you pich at the spelling.

Hell that was spelle checked He, he, he eh

Well I must be doing something right I'm living in Canada for business :)

I'll get my PA to work my next post for spelling and grammer. LOL

Re:Great Firewall

[crossmr]

magical distinction? If a site is taken down, no one has access to it anymore. If its blocked by an ISP everyone else still sees it and you may as well through a proxy of some sort. It works fine until some idiot blocks a medical site of some sort because he only opened it long enough to see the nude picture of the 6 year old. Meanwhile the real criminals are still using proxies to view whatever they want. There are certain laws and things which do nothing to hinder criminals, this will be one of them.

Re:Great Firewall

[bri_eh]

I think a better analogy is that we would all be speaking German and be lined up for the latest swastika 3 instead of the ps3... By the way, maybe 50% of us speak out against some questionable foreign policies like idonno illegal acts of war but for the most part, living hear my in entire life, I've not heard anyone say I hate all Americans. And for the record we all have tons of social issues that need to be dealt with. P.S. Stop child porn any way possible!

Re:Great Firewall

[adaminnj]

no I'm in Canada and the fact that I know anything aboat Canadian politics should tell you that.

I guess I get to look at this from the outsiders point of view. The fact that allot of US citys have litte * or china* and sell that fact to tourists kind of tells you that the people in that community have and are asumilating in to US culture and yes there are first generation immigrents that never find there way into U.S. culture but with the poplation of Canada being only 4 times the population of New Jersey and the white canadians being displaced in business places, communitys, and jobs the writing is on the wall.

I hear allot of bitching from the white canadains about the unchecked immigration on the raido (granted it's in the most PC way that they can put it)

I've done my 6 months and I'm ready to go.
I have met MPs and business people here that I know that I will continue to be friends with and stay in contact with long after the memmorys of being brow-beaten by uninformed Canadians fades.

The firewall is going to put you in the catagory of China which Harper likes to dig at. just one step closer to big brother.

good luck to you with that.

Re:Great Firewall

[adaminnj]

O your just a stupid poopy-pants Blah, Blah, Blah, La lalalalalalalala

I'm not listening

Re:Great Firewall

[adaminnj]

I like you! a realist, I'm on a bit of a rant sorry. I actualy like living in Canada in allot of ways yes there is issues on both sides of the border. I don't like the War any more than you. and I don't think that Canada or any other country should have been left holding the bag in Afganistain. That is a U.S. issue and very personal to many people there. being from NJ I knew a few people who died and who where effeted by deaths in the attack on the WTC.

I have to tell you I agree stoping child porn is very important to me also I have a 5 year old and it makes me sick th think that some arse hole would even want to look at him for some sick gradification. I think that culling the gean pool would be a good idea if someone is convicted and due prosses find the person guilty.

I hope my likeing you is not the kiss of death for you.

Re:Great Firewall

[Anonymous Coward]

you would all be speaking Russian

Complete and utter bullshit, show me where the USSR even once considered invading Canada.

Think about this: were it not for the ferocity and hardiness of Canadian troops on the front lines of WWII (inevitably at the most challenging points) millions more American troops would have died, and you would probably be speaking German. Sieg Hiel! (ignoring the fact that over 60% of the US is already of German descent... surprise, surprise... the smart ones figured out that capitalism is the more effective and subversive way to control the world)

Not to mention that the science behind the bomb that won the war was German IP.

Canadian defense strategy involves ferocious hand to hand combat and not billions wasted on absurdly complicated and vulnerable military hardware.

Go home Yankee. (though I'm sure you're from the south and not a Yank at all). Dollars to Canadian doughnuts you have a gun rack and confederate flag on the back window of your gas guzzling pickup truck.

Re:Great Firewall

[adaminnj]

Uooowiii you are soooo ferocious!

Actualy I run my Mercedes on Vegetable Oil

30K troops are not going to defend your borders cupcake, it's the "complicated and vulnerable military hardware" brought to you by the U.S. of A that holds your bordes safe! Canada is a big old target for many nations. It has a weath of raw materials and oil that many nations would juss love to get there dick skinners on

think what you like and pick at only one issue but still your just an American waithing to happen.
(Shushhh on) dont tell him I'm just diging at him (/Shushhh Off)

you are the person who got me started on this RANT!

I at leat keep coming back to the real issue the firewall and why it's a bad thing.

you sound like you are from the southern U.S.A. "Go home Yankee" are you the big-headed boy playing banjo on a porch in Canada LOL
I've been to War, have you?

Yeah and you kicked our ass in 1812 but your still using the same wepons, and tactic. it wont happen again.

Re:Great Firewall

[dukieduke]

"no I'm in Canada and the fact that I know anything aboat Canadian politics should tell you that."

Huh? Good luck to you with that.

Re:Great Firewall

[Anonymous Coward]

Responding specifically to your point #6: What if it were you? But what you were over 18? Currently, there is no law preventing someone from posting such an embarrassing photograph on the Internet. Have you ever thought of why? Changing the case a bit, what if it were a child, but wasn't pornography... say it was a picture of them wetting their pants and crying because a (scary) clown got in their face. Such a picture is not illegal, and it would be hard to persuade anyone that it should be, even though the child would probably want to suppress said picture at least 5x as much as a picture of them naked (remember: the whole concept we're railing around is that children aren't sexually aware, and so don't really have the shame associated with their bodies that sexually "mature" people do--unless their parents have scared it into them).

Re:Great Firewall

[adaminnj]

LOL your right on.

Re: Great Firewall

[Anonymous Coward]

A firewall blocking child porn will work about as well as killing Napster to stop music downloads did.

Re:Great Firewall

[aevan]

*WHO* would have invaded Canada that supposedly being near the americans would prevent? American military presence didn't help China in WWII, Vietnam, South Korea (it helped them win, but didn't stop the attempt). I'd imagine had the old USSR really wanted to, they'd have made the attempt. Only country I can think of that 'hates' Canada would have been Spain and Portugal fishermen over fishing. Even the 'fight' with Denmark over Hans Island is sneaking up flags and hiding bottles of booze. Maybe Greenpeace would invade to stop the seal hunt.

As for exports: http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/gblec04.htm

More than snow and porn I'd imagine. Even more if you count perscription drugs and medical services to all those americans sneaking across :P

Remove american products? Already done and without trying...everything is made in china now days. McDonalds and fast food? It's Timmies I see the long lines at.

I do agree with Canada having its own matters to deal with, its own share of goverment corruption and scandals. Have yet to see some of the same magnitude, but there are problems. Ours seem more misuse of funds, kickbacks and the like.

Will the firewall work? Probably not overly. Equated to physical items, it's akin to at the border searching and seizing drugs. None tries to make a case on the Columbian druglord that doesn't step foot in the country, nor just sigh as it enters going 'oh well, freedom of choice'. Stop at the gate and deal with what happens in your own turf.

Americans are not the prob with the world it's the floks that think the U.S. owes them something

The issue with the americans most have isn't that others feel they lack their own troubles, it's american interests sticking their nose into things and disrupting them even more. That sense of entitlement is the american view, not the world. A lot of countries pride themselves on self-reliance, not feeling owed.

Softwood is more a matter of fact than one of supposed emo: FreeTrade is free trade, not collecting duty (over 5 billion dollars) on an item supposedly shouldn't be tariffed. NAFTA and the WTO agreed, but the US felt it isn't obligated (kind of like the UN and Iraq, or the Geneva Conventions and Gitmo). They did finally agree to pay back 80% of the 'illegally' collected duty.

As for the binlingualism crack, I believe the next up language after French in Canada is Chinese, although I can't recall if it's Canto or Mandy. I'm not adverse to learning.

Re:Great Firewall

[adaminnj]

Well said!

but its not Americans at the hart of the issue you speak of "it's american interests sticking their nose into things and disrupting them even more". it's multi Natinal Corps that sometimes are based in the U.S. or the US Gov. as a whole the U.S. just wants to live its life and earn a living. unfortunatly the U.S. Gov is kind of out of touch with what the people realy want.

but lets hope that with the last election that we can start changing the perception that everyone in the U.S. eats raw beef right off the cow and wan't to colonize the world.

many of us Love to travel and see other cultures without having to defend the actions of the idiots in office or agree that the idiots in office are idiots.

I'm in a very Asian comunity I'm gona bet the 3rd Language is Mandy :)

I guess getting bashed for the last 6 months has gotten to me and the first post I responded to I just went off the deep end.

  thanks for offering the exit rant.

Re:Great Firewall

[zuiraM]

Did your meds just run out? That rant was, spelling/grammar aside, not very constructive.

Re:Great Firewall

[adaminnj]

yeah, you figured me out.

Re:Great Firewall

[HomelessInLaJolla]

> 6. ... What if it was your child?

I would ensure that I had the proper resources and background necessary to raise my child properly and, barring some outlandishly unexpected test of faith provided by God, could reasonably ensure their safety. I would do all of this before having children rather than sleep with every makeup laden feminist who lusts after my Porsche and then hope that some little known special interest boondoggle is going to come up with a magical safety net for all the illegitimate children. Chalk one up for the majority of the population just being treadmill rats who are so busy keeping up with bills and taxes, or careless wealthy retards so self-centered they can't be bothered to look after the consequences of their actions, that they can't even take care of their own children, eh?

Seriously. What kind of society does as much to separate children from their families and trusted community as the debt-laden societies of today? Where did all this debt come from, who are we all in debt to, who is profitting from this debt, and why are they taking our children away and leaving them in areas where they can be picked up by child predators?

> I think a child's right for privacy and dignity

Should be looked after by their parents, immediate family, or trusted members of the community. Did you ever wonder where the victims of child pornography come from? What environment created them? Why were the parents unable or unwilling to properly care for and watch their child? How is it that the predators can hide their dysfunction so well as to make it to trusted positions in the community, or how is it that the predators are wealthy enough that the power and position commanded by their wealth hides their dysfunctional lust for them? How is it that we have a society that is so repressed in terms of sexuality that so many males cannot have a healthy sexual relationship and, confused by the biological need for sexuality and the social denial of the same, resort to pornography which, like any addiction, starts out small and spirals progressively to levels which are only defined by the limits of what is provided. Mark my words--many of today's online "pedophiles" are not pedophiles at all but rather males who, lacking the proper social status to attract a socially acceptable and healthy mate, are that many years down the road of addiction to pornography. As with any addiction, eg. alcohol, one drink used to be enough, two drinks used to be enough, five drinks used to be enough, ten drinks used to be enough, a fifth of 100 proof vodka used to be enough... next thing you know it's dogs and cats living together and mass hysteria.

To top it all off: How is monitoring child porn on the internet going to solve the very obvious underlying deficiencies in society as a whole which make the problem possible?

Re:Great Firewall

[Anonymous Coward]

Riiight, of COURSE the Government won't abuse or incorrectly implement this law.

Just like they did with the terrorism laws right?

Oh that's right - the Government is now bring sued for the ways they trampled on innocent people's rights and deported them to countries to be tortured.

That's the Government you put your trust in?! Something tells me you're Christian, middle-class, white and straight - otherwise you'd know better. Or maybe you're just ultra-naive.

Re:Great Firewall

[vtcodger]

***2. Don't say that it is "very American" to do anything. You just said you're Canadian, so how would you know?***

Without commenting on the rest of your post, this particular sentance would probably be characterized by much of the human race as "typically American". And I think they'd be right. The assumption that because you and your neighbors don't know much about Canada, Canadians are equally ignorant about the US, really IS peculiarly American.

In reality, a lot of Canadians know more about the US than many Americans (and, I suspect in many cases more than they want to). They watch the same television that you do and their National News looks at highlights from the US as well. You might not have a clue who Stephen Harper, Ralph Klein, or Jean Charest is, but many Canadians can tell you who Donald Rumsfeld, George W Bush, Newt Gingrich and Hillary Clinton are and what they represent.

You might want to Google "Rick Mercer" -- a Canadian Comedian who in the past has collected a lot of embarassing footage of otherwise intelligent Americans displaying a total ignorance of Canadian geography, culture and history.

If you'd like to get out a little, I'd suggest occasionally visting the web site of the Toronto Globe and Mail www.theglobeandmail.com. You could expand that to include the Guardian www.guardian.co.uk which almost always has a couple of worthwhile articles -- often things that no one else is covering. And don't miss an occasional visit to www.watchingamerica.com. That'll cure you of any illusions that you might have about the quality of news reporting in the US (it's pretty dismal), any belief that all foreigners are ignorant about the US, and -- on the other hand -- any belief you may have that there are not a lot of total fruitcakes in the world who do not reside in LA, NYC, Kansas, or Washington DC.

Re:Great Firewall

[dgregory1981]

I am Canadian...

Re:Great Firewall

[aevan]

:D

I count several americans as friends, and have stayed there for protracted durations (please don't hurt me but i LOVE Texas). On the balance was very pleasant.

Thing is, most aren't even aware of some of the issues that irk other countries, because it just doesn't make news unless you're directly involved. Rather hard to hold any blame on them for things they don't know and aren't responsible for.

Just also being European and Canadian, I get to see the perceptions from various other countries, and see how the 'international stance' of governments effect them. Trouble is people tend to not differentiate individuals from the group, and goverment attitude from the population's attitude. Which in-turn pisses off the innocent American, it quickly polarizes into an 'us versus them', and it's now a self-fufilling stereotype.

So easy to dismiss that too saying it's their fault for electing them, but well, to modify a saying: "You never really know someone, until after you elect them".

Re:Great Firewall

[Rotting]

No, unlike you we understand human nature and the nature of those in power. Only the naïve and stupid think that things will not be abused or that those in power should be blindly trusted at all.

How did the PATRIOT Act come to be?

Re:Great Firewall

[Rakishi]

Hey, don't blame them it's mostly a cultural and social difference. I mean look at the extent to which DNA evidence is gotten, whole towns could be forced to hand it over (not fully sure of that one) and it's held onto even from suspects even who get acquitted.

Re:Great Firewall

[edschurr]

Grandparent is a tool, but your attitude is wrong.

The health care system obviously has flaws, like wait time especially, but it's proportionally less costly than the American system. So to suggest that greater defense spending would destroy the health care system is silly. We spend it in taxes; you spend it out of pocket.

Where is the need for a larger Canadian military? Interestingly, we could barely come near to the American military, which is proportionally the biggest and most expensive in the world, and on top of that America is huge in every way. There is almost no need to bother, and country relations are much more friendly than before anyway. Besides, Canada is thankful for its 800-pound gorilla. However, you may want to remember Canada when it extended America's borders and acted as a buffer during the Cold War.

I would think immigrants largely segregate themselves. It's also hard to naturally mix when culture and language is different; the people just aren't interested in each other. I can't imagine America is any different. I know however that I would shop in a Chinese mall any chance I got—they are efficient and everything is very well-priced.

Naturally American companies will buy out Canadian ones because America is more populated and has a high GDP, so they have more wealth to leverage.

Lastly, States don't infight, eh? Every group ever will naturally try to get the best deal they can*, and the American Federal government is not that controlling. Oh, and Quebec is unique and stupid.

I'm sure someone has mentioned Canada's involvement in other wars already.

So let there be no American-Canadian animosity. It's dumb... except in the softwood lumber dispute. But that's largely politicians.

* Some exceptions in people trying to keep business in their community or country (although that is also selfishness within their group), and others spending their money partly as altruism.

Re:Great Firewall

[adaminnj]

it depends on how much you make that determins how much you pay for health care in Canada and how do you know it cost less that the U.S system?

based on my tax rate here and the tax rate I pay in the U.S. + Health insurene costs your system cost allot more. and I can see a doctor in the U.S. on a moments notice no wait, no fuss, I saw an artical about a walk in clinic opening in Canada and it will be running on a cash basis. this would not happen if the Health cares system was not compleatly broken.

If Canada had to increase it militery to say 130K troups (which is a low number based on it's border size) and equiptment, feed, and all the odds and ends that go into a big armed force. it would bring the Canadian system to a screaching halt. (not entirely true)

I'm sure if there was a precived thret that the Canadian people would make it work but to try to run it like the U.S. system (not saying that the U.S. system is the best or even a good way to do things) it would eat the wole of the tax system.

the States don't try to alineate them selfs from the federation. Actualy Canada runs more like the U.S. is supost to run basied on the constatution. and in the revolutinary war when people talked about there country they actualy ment the state they lived in.

in the U.S. it's becomeing more and more easy to live in a mini culture but for the longest time it was an english only country and people where encoraged to "asimbulate ristance is fertile" into American culture and live the American Dream.

The softwood thing is something you don't really hear about in the U.S. but since I have been here and hearing about it I'm confused how the U.S. could present NAFTA then do something like what they have done with Softwood. it's not fair to Canada and it's not fair to the U.S. population.

I am telling you that as an American here in Canada I have had to endure way more stupid comments than I should have to. and that the people who decide to open there mouths usaly have little to back up what they say.

We went out on the town last night here and it's not much different than being in a mid size / small town in the U.S. well actuly the big difference is the price of everything. but the look, the feel, the charm, is the same in both the U.S. and Canada.

really I'm sorry for going off on the guy who made the "American comment" I'm not anti Canadian I'm not Pro-U.S. I'm just tired of personal attack over shit I have no controle of.

Yes both countrys have a lot to deal with but we are not that far apart on allot of issues, cultural things, and geography.

australia

[timmarhy]

"several democracies - most notably Australia - have established limited blocking rules" completely untrue. the family first party of australia, a right wing christian fundamentalist group who unfortunately got a senator into our government was pushing a proposal, but nothing has been put into law or implemented to my knowledge.

Re:australia

[thedarknite]

It hasn't only been Family First. Blocking legislation has been pushed by various politians from all the parties.

Re:australia

[timmarhy]

i think labour latched onto it as well at some point but let it drop. to my knowledge non of howards ministers have put it forward, although they did take the rediculous move of outlawing online gambling in australia. it wouldn't suprise me that they have all talked favourably about internet censorship at some point to suit thier own agenda's.

Re:australia

[fabs64]

Australia has always had provisions for blocking specific servers from access across the international
links.
Apparently the things that are blocked are bad enough that noone has complained

Re:australia

[Anonymous Coward]

Brian Harradine got such proposals passed and implemented in the late 1990s.

Re:australia

[deek]

Agree with you here.

I _work_ for a mid-sized ISP in Australia, and we have our own international link. We have no blocking at all. There is no law that I know of, which requires us to block access to anything. I guess it's just one of those slashdot urban legends that catches the imagination of slashdotters everywhere.

Re:australia

[Anonymous Coward]

When I signed up for Internode, the signup conditions stated that Internode would provide me access to all websites except those from a blacklist Internode is required by law to block. They then had a comment saying that 'trust us, you do not want to see these sites.

Whether or not Internode actually are bound by law, I don't know. But it is written into my contract that they block sites from an existing governmental blacklist as required by law.

Re:australia

[deek]

That's interesting. I'd think the government would send out letters to all ISPs, concerning legal requirements, and we've never received anything. So, we don't block anything. *shrug* Oh well, all the better for our customers.

Re:australia

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you'll find that there are some Australian laws on blocking some content. The following is from the Internode news server FAQ (No link for this one. Sorry but I don't want /. to take down my ISP...)

Are there any newsgroups you block?

We generally carry everything Supernews has (which is almost all the groups there are...), with the main exception of the very small number of newsgroups that the Australian Government requires us (and all other Australian ISPs with news feeds) to block.

This is not at all a new thing, though the government are currently in the process of tightening the processes up to make sure all ISP's properly comply with them. We plan to comply with all lawful directions we receive, as we must (and should).

What groups does the Australian Government require you to block?

We can't tell you (!). The laws in this area require us to block the groups the government tells us to block and requires that we do not disclose the blocklist itself.

Trust me, you don't want to read them anyway. Really.

I am happy to have access kiddie porn blocked and I'm confident that there is little that is blocked that anyone will miss, even if the system is not transparent.

Lots of issues but...

[alshithead]

Here's the obvious problem first. What about sites that are blacklisted where it may not be justified? As an example how about a site that describes and depicts physical differences in human anatomy for educational purposes. I've seen pictures in medical texts that could be considered child pornography just because they showed full frontal nudity of subjects at different ages to compare physical development as humans age.

The other issue I see is that an ISP can block whatever they want. It is their choice as business. If the customer is not happy with their policies or practices then they can choose not to be a customer any longer.

Here in the US the government does censor at times despite the first amendment to the Constitution. But, I think the Supreme Court has historically done a decent job of ruling in favor of free speech.

Re:Lots of issues but...

[timmarhy]

"The other issue I see is that an ISP can block whatever they want" no, they can't, or they can't hold a common carriers license. this notion that "i'm a business i can do what i want" is just CRAP.

Re:Lots of issues but...

[Anonymous Coward]

I've never heard of a case where a medical textbook has been banned as childporn. As long as there is transparency, it should not be a problem, and if it is related to the Federal Government, any information can be accessed under FOIPA. The only other issue is that people trying to view the page, (willfully or inadvertently), get a page that tells them that is it blocked, why, and how to contact that agency responsibly.

Re:Lots of issues but...

[alshithead]

Respectfully, where does it say that you can't have "common carriers (sic) license and restrict content? TV, radio, and ISP's all restrict content to a certain extent.

Re:Lots of issues but...

[alshithead]

I'm positing a POSSIBILITY of the erroneous restriction of information.

Re:Lots of issues but...

[Urza9814]

um, I dunno where you live, but where I live, you CAN'T choose not to be a customer anymore. I'd LOVE to dump comcast. I'd pay an extra $20 a month to get rid of 'em. But unless I want dial-up, that ain't happening. Not everyone has a choice in their ISP. In fact, I'm pretty sure most people don't. There are still people that can't get anything better than dial-up. There are many people that have DSL because the cable companies won't put a line to their house. Must be nice wherever you live. I'd kill to be able to choose my ISP. fuckin' comcast....

Re:Lots of issues but...

[ZDRuX]

The other issue I see is that an ISP can block whatever they want. It is their choice as business. If the customer is not happy with their policies or practices then they can choose not to be a customer any longer.This would be true if only ONE of our Canadian ISP's was doing this. I think the issue that most are having with this, is the fact that this new "agreement" encompasses ALL ISP's who will block the same content from some questionable blacklist, leaving us with very little other choices in providers.

Re:Lots of issues but...

[alshithead]

That's a serious issue. If all ISP's are participating then you can't choose one who is not participating because of the possibility of false negatives. They could all be blocking a site that is legitimately providing "non-bad" content. Like I said...What about those sites that may be providing anatomy content? Hell, a picture of your kids in the tub become problamatical.

Re:Lots of issues but...

[alshithead]

Your choices are probably not all that limited. We have internet access for my wife's laptop through a cellular provider when she is not home. That's an option for anyone in the range of a cell tower plus you have may have dial up (and/or DSL), cable, satellite, or free wireless at a cafe. If Comcast is your only option then I feel for you.

Obligitory

[LackThereof]

In Canada, milk comes in bags.

Re:Obligitory

[crossmr]

Except it doesn't really anymore.

Re:Obligitory

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, it still does.

Re:Obligitory

[Shados]

(I'm canadian) I know its just meant to be funny, but the most ironic thing of this , is that the only place I've seen milk in bags in the last 20 years is during my countless trip to New York City!

Re:Obligitory

[sndtech]

Nova Scotia still has it in bags in every Sobey's and SaveEasy, Wal-Mart too. you can get it in the 4 litre jugs if you really want/need that much milk. Oh, and we have sunday shopping now!

Re:Obligitory

[Anonymous Coward]

WTF? I'm sorry to sound stupid and ignorant and waaaaaaaay the F off topic, but what are you guys talking about? Does milk really come in bags? What kind of bag? How is the milk removed from the bag? Have I just stepped into some trap by asking these question? I really do want to know as I have never heard of milk coming in bags. Sorry for the detour...

Re:Obligitory

[The Hobo]

Sure it does

I was going to go take pictures of it myself (I drink one of those pouches a day, almost), but it's easier to find it on the internets

This is exactly what it looks like, I have 2 of those bags downstairs (and a few empty ones I haven't taken out of the fridge yet)

The little thing on the bag is to cut open the milk, most pitchers have little holes specially made to fit the little clip on top

I also found this image. Tee hee. (Again, that's exactly as you find it in stores today). I think this is what others refer to as 'full cream' milk (not skim/1|2%/low fat)

There's a bit of a tribute site here but it's pretty old (based on what the bag of milk looks like).. The person also really sucks at cutting the hole, it usually comes out much nicer if you do it right

P.S. I believe British Columbia may use the jugs, Ontario uses the bags (which is why I was bothered by California's milk, which comes in jugs, I'm used to the bags)

P.P.S. In Australia, the norm is 'full cream' milk, and 2% (which is the norm here in Ontario) is not too normal there, another difference in milk I've experienced in the world

Re:Obligitory

[Shados]

What, you mean there's more to Canada than Quebec, Ontario and BC? And Quebec doesn't count, so Ontario and BC?

(i'm from quebec, before some sensitive moron flips)

Re:Obligitory

[Shados]

No no. In some places, you can get milk in bags (I think its cheaper). Its a plastic bag, and you dump the bag in a kind of "holder", then cut off one of the corners, by which the milk flows.

http://dylanb.wordpress.com/files/2006/06/milk.JPG

like that

Re:Obligitory

[Anonymous Coward]

...and in China milk also comes in bags. Coincidence? I don't think so.

Re:Obligitory

[ceoyoyo]

Ontario has milk in bags too. My grandparents use it. No milk in bags that I know of in western Canada though.

Re:Obligitory

[really?]

In the East still does.

Re:Obligitory

[green1]

only in the east... I grew up with bags of milk, but I haven't seen it in a store in western Canada in about a decade (maybe more), on the other hand, I took a trip out to montreal a couple years ago and it was still available at the grocery store...

Re:Obligitory

[OneSmartFellow]

I am trying to think of a good reason to have milk packaged this way.
I had never seen or heard of this until your post.
I am surprised that these bags don't come with a valve like the bags in 'boxed' wines, though, having to cut the corner off is LAME.

Re:Obligitory

[karolgajewski]

Surely you mean the Glorious Nation of Quebec.

(the above comment will only be recognizable for Canadians who follow the news that the Prime Minister declared Quebec a nation within Canada, which is actually still somewhat on topic, since Quebec has more aspects of tort law for personal affairs, which makes legislation a little different than the rest of the country, which in turn makes a number of crimes either unenforcable or makes other acts into crimes. This may be a little strange to understand, but it's one of the reasons why a lot of lotteries and contests have to specifically exclude Quebec.)

Re:Obligitory

[crabpeople]

Ontario does not equal canada. Westeren provinces have it in jugs and boxes.

Re:Obligitory

[azipsun]

I remember seeing milk in bags in Saskatchewan years ago, but not for a very long time. I seem to recall it being kind of a nuisance as the bags had a tendency to leak and weren't particularly convenient for storage in the fridge.

Re:Obligitory

[ceoyoyo]

They're actually quite nice if you're set up to use them. They hold 1L and my grandmother has a little pitcher that you just drop the bag into, clip a corner and away you go. They bags sit nicely in the meat drawer in her fridge. When you're done, the empty bag is tiny.

Re:Obligitory

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I imagine it's because a plastic bag is a fairly efficient form of packaging. It probably also recycles easier. As for "having to cut off the corner is LAME", whatever. It's not a big deal. It's about as difficult as opening a carton of milk, assuming you're in a kitchen.

As for the valve in the boxed wine idea, that really makes the concept of using bags for the milk useless. Wine is a luxury, and even cheap wine you're going to spend a couple bucks on. Milk is a bulk product, and cheap. Adding a 25 cent valve to the bags is actually a pretty huge increase in price.

Meanwhile in Denmark...

[nickos]

A Danish court recently ruled against a Danish ISP and ordered it to block all access to the site Allofmp3.com. According to the ruling, the ISP is willingly infringing copyright if it's customers use AllofMP3 to download music.

The verdict could have very strong implications for the future. It clearly states that an ISP can be held liable for temporarily (milliseconds) storing infringing data on their routers. This means that ISPs can be forced to block websites, if the court decides that these sites are mainly used to spread "illegal" content.

Read more here and here...

Re:Meanwhile in Denmark...

[kailoran]

By that logic, in Denmark, if I call someone and threaten to kill them, is the phone company guilty as well? Is it different if I use VOIP?
Also, if I mail someone a pirated DVD, is the post guilty of infringement?

Re:Meanwhile in Denmark...

[Anonymous Coward]

By that logic, in Denmark, if I call someone and threaten to kill them, is the phone company guilty as well? Is it different if I use VOIP?

Threatening someone does not fall under copyright law (and even if it did, being the copyright owner, you would be allowed to distribute that threat (under copyright law) to whoever you want). The problem is the copyright law, which - according to the judge - is so broad that it covers even the microscopic part of an MP3 file stored in a router for a couple of microseconds.

Also, if I mail someone a pirated DVD, is the post guilty of infringement?

No, because the post does not need to make a copy to transfer it from A to B. The copy arriving at point B is the same copy as the one sent from point A. It does not get copied from one network card to another inside a router.

Re:Meanwhile in Denmark...

[xenobyte]

What is the most troublesome thing about this verdict is that it has been established that ISPs must act as police in matters completely unrelated to their business - that IFPI has a dispute with AOM relating to copyright issues in Russia should not in any way affect how danish ISPs do business with their own customers in Denmark. I cannot understand how this court ruled AOM illegal as it must be legal until proved otherwise, and that can only happen in a russian court because AOM is a russian company located in Russia - and it hasn't so it must be legal in Russia and thus in Denmark.

But back to the real topic - in Denmark all ISPs have also opted in to a blocking system against child pornography. This system is dns-based so it's child's play (!) to circumvent.

Re:Meanwhile in Denmark...

[Husgaard]

This also started with a "voluntary" filter, meant to filter out foreign child porn sites. This filter has also blocked perfectly legitimate sites, but it looks like nobody can be held legally responsible for filtering the wrong sites although no courts or judges are involved when new sites are added to the secret filter list.

For the allofmp3.com filtering, IFPI Denmark wants to block the danish public from accessing the allofmp3.com site, although all legal experts agree that it is legal for danish people to buy their music there. So they went to the courts and got an injunction requiring one of the major danish ISPs to block access to the site. The court concluded that because there already was a filtering system in place the ISP could simply use that filtering system to block access to allofmp3.com. Suddenly the filtering system is no longer voluntary.

The court documents in this case (in danish only, sorry) are scary reading. It is obvious that the court knew nothing about technology. For example they consistently refer the DNS as "DSN". And various filtering technologies are discussed, some of which are being held out being as particularly good at blocking "radical political speech", whatever that is.

Re:Meanwhile in Denmark...

[nickos]

I wouldn't mind seeing those links so I can run a translation program on them. Also, do you know what's being done to appeal this stupid decision?

Re:Meanwhile in Denmark...

[Husgaard]

When looking for a link, I was shocked to see a new development in this case: Yesterday the ISP in question announced that they decided not to appeal as they had announced they would, and all other major danish ISPs have started blocking allofmp3.com too.

You can read more about this in danish at Piratgruppen.

The court decision is available in PDF format in danish here, and I found an unofficial english translation of the conclusion of the court decision here.

Further analysis of the court decision in danish can be found here.

Re:Meanwhile in Denmark...

[nickos]

Damn :(

Re:Meanwhile in Denmark...

[CKW]

Whew...

I guess I can cancel my planned vacation to Denmark. I mean I was planning on going there to support them wrt the whole Mohammed free speech issue ... but if they're going to do this ... screw them!

Personal Freedom?

[C0R1D4N]

What happened to personal freedom? There's nanny-bots for people who want it, do we really need the ISPs/Governments deciding what's best for everyone? The really bad stuff will find ways around it and all that will be truly blocked is that which probably shouldn't be.

Re:Personal Freedom?

[repvik]

"The really bad stuff will find ways around it and all that will be truly blocked is that which probably shouldn't be."

Yeah, one example: Norway blocks child porn. What they do is that all DNS-requests are checked, and those servers that hosts "bad stuff" are blocked, leading to a different page. Neat. So all one has to do to circumvent it is use a DNS-server not in Norway.

The manner *ips* are blocked is as far as I can tell unknown. Whether any sites are wrongly blocked is extremely hard to tell.

Re:Personal Freedom?

[Soko]

What happened to personal freedom? There's nanny-bots for people who want it, do we really need the ISPs/Governments deciding what's best for everyone? The really bad stuff will find ways around it and all that will be truly blocked is that which probably shouldn't be.

Hang on a second. You're talking about child pornography here. The sexual abuse of innocents for the profit or pleasure of people who (IMO) are sick, dangerous, sociopathic amd should be isolated from the rest of society. This is not a "Nanny" issue, it is the Canadian Government and these ISPs trying to end an easy means of importing illegal material into the country. It is not censorship, it is upholding our laws.

As for this disgusting material finding other ways in to Canada - fine. The "OMG, dunno how that got there" 'defense' will be quite a bit harder to use.

I don't like censorship, but there are those who abuse thier Freedom, so it becomes a distasteful necessity. I'm all for personal freedom too, as long as no one else gets hurt in any way.

Personal freedom - sheesh. I have the personal freedom to grab my 6ft bamboo LART and beat some sense into alarmists like you, but I don't because of certain laws. See the parallel?

Soko

Re:Personal Freedom?

[westlake]

What happened to personal freedom?

it ended when you began collecting photographs and videos of children being raped. every society sets limits. this is where many draw the line.

Re:Personal Freedom?

[HomelessInLaJolla]

> You're talking about child pornography here. The sexual abuse of innocents for the profit or pleasure of people who (IMO) are sick, dangerous, sociopathic amd should be isolated from the rest of society

Nicely contradicted. Yes, we're talking about child pornography. No, we're not talking about just abuse as any picture which doesn't come with enough legal documentation proving that it is artwork to stave off a court suit will be targeted. No, what we're talking about has nothing to do with pleasure or profit as the simple hosting or possession of the material, knowingly or unknowingly (as a random picture in a terabyte archive collection qualifies--but we already know that it would be bad business sense, both legally and on the stock exchange, to bother trying to target Google), qualifies as a violation of the law. No, we don't care one whit about the psychological makeup of whoever we manage to nab (producer, provider, intermediate, person in possession... doesn't matter--we'll nab whoever we can).

My favorite point to make: please attempt to explain to me how this magical internet filter (even if it could be properly applied and could block even 50% of the content) is going to do anything to solve the underlying problems in the makeup of today's societies which allow the problem, whether or not it's being filmed and distributed on the internet, to exist.

This approach is akin to waging a war on domestic violence by regulating the sale and possession of anything which can be used as a bludgeoning object, including frying pans (stereotypically wielded by a woman) and rolled up newspapers (stereotypically wielded against a dog). It makes absolutely no sense in trying to combat the actual problem and, to top it off, it is an enormous waste (or, more correctly, deliberate reapportioning for the purpose of political favors) of funding which could be more properly applied in other ways if politicians and special interest groups weren't so monumentally out of touch with street reality (and hopelessly addicted to their overembellished poster child stories).

Hate Speech?

[Anonymous Coward]

What the hell is this "Hate Speech" thing? In a free country, you should be allowed to say whatever the hell you wish besides inciting a riot or yelling fire in a crowded theater, or something like "I will murder so-and-so." Even for the last example, they should not be prosecuted for "Illegal Speech", but for planning a murder.

It is ridiculous, immature and naïve to think that someone could actually be HARMED by ideas or words. Has no one else ever been taught that Sticks and Stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me ?

Face it, outlawing "Hate Speech" is pretty much enacting Thought-Crime legislation. If you disagree with someone's obviously wrong ideas, such as something as senseless as racism, combat it with logic, common sense and better ideas. Don't make thinking or saying certain things illegal.

And even if it was possible to come up with a defense of anti-Hate Speech laws, the boundaries between what is and isn't hateful is arbitrary and would inevitably be abused.

Re:Hate Speech?

[fabs64]

Hate Speech is generally what you just said, things such as inciting riot.
To encourage people to persecute/harm a specific group would be considered hate speech.

Re:Hate Speech?

[LordEd]

What about slander? I believe that you can be sued for that in the states.

Re:Hate Speech?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not true.

If you say:

"I think Jewish people are responsible for cultural decadence in society" (a common thing said by many anti-semitic people), you can be prosecuted in many countries in Europe, and I think Canada too.

Or:

"There is clear proof that the Holocaust did not happen", you can get in lots of trouble for that too.

Or:

"Not all races are created equal, according to IQ tests, blacks are less intelligent than Whites and Asians" can even get you into hot water. There is a professor in Canada who does research on race and biology and has been investigated (but not prosecuted) for publishing that sort of research.

Re:Hate Speech?

[arth1]

What the hell is this "Hate Speech" thing? In a free country, you should be allowed to say whatever the hell you wish besides inciting a riot or yelling fire in a crowded theater, or something like "I will murder so-and-so." Even for the last example, they should not be prosecuted for "Illegal Speech", but for planning a murder.

I've never understood why planning something is illegal, when you don't do it. No-one gets harmed by a mental exercise, and where, exactly, is the limit between fantasy and intent?
Punish people for what they do, not what they potentially could do, or you're on a very slippery slope towards the thought police.

Regards,
--
*Art

Re:Hate Speech?

[mr_matticus]

It's not that planning itself is illegal, it's that planning is probable cause for the commission of a crime. Since the police try their best to prevent crimes before they happen, this is a dead giveaway. When the authorities get wind of a plan, they shut it down wherever possible, because they can't really know whether it's idle fantasy or the prelude to a crime. If you asked authorities to make that distinction, that would be policing thought. You wouldn't want a plan to kill 150 people to actually be set into motion before it was stopped by the police, and there'd be a riot if people found out that the police knew about the plan and did nothing.

If you have fantasies about committing crimes, it's best not to go to the trouble of documenting them, mapping them out, and communicating them with the outside world. It's hard to defend that behaviour as "healthy."

Re:Hate Speech?

[mr_matticus]

What the hell is this "Hate Speech" thing? In a free country, you should be allowed to say whatever the hell you wish besides inciting a riot or yelling fire in a crowded theater, or something like "I will murder so-and-so."

You can say whatever you want in the privacy of your own home, or in the discourse of your own publications/blogs/conversational comments. When you take that speech to a public place and in a conspicuous and impromptu manner (yelling on the street, etc.; in other words, not in public events for which you have a permit), you're disturbing the peace. You're also interfering with other people and creating cause for them to feel uncomfortable, when they have every right not to be attacked, verbally or otherwise, when they leave their homes.

It's not that the opinions or the words are made illegal; it's the public presentation of those views which is classified as "hate speech." You're protected in designated events, private events, and in your own publications (with some exceptions). Hate speech, as others have mentioned, is that presentation which is designed to incite unrest, violence, or cause others to feel threatened. Yes, there are other ways to prosecute people for hate speech, but putting hate speech laws down in explicit writing is one way to reduce evasion of charges based on technicalities.

"Disturbing the peace" for example may or may not stick to a given instance of hate speech based on the argument constructed by the lawyers--if one screws up the wording or introduces a logical framework with a vulnerability, it can change the outcome if the whole issue balances solely on "disturbing the peace" as a charge. If you add in the hate speech charge, you've got more leverage.

Re:Hate Speech?

[arth1]

It's not that planning itself is illegal, it's that planning is probable cause for the commission of a crime. Since the police try their best to prevent crimes before they happen, this is a dead giveaway. When the authorities get wind of a plan, they shut it down wherever possible, because they can't really know whether it's idle fantasy or the prelude to a crime. If you asked authorities to make that distinction, that would be policing thought. You wouldn't want a plan to kill 150 people to actually be set into motion before it was stopped by the police, and there'd be a riot if people found out that the police knew about the plan and did nothing.

One thing is stopping a plan, an entirely different thing is to sentence someone for something they haven't done. There are reasons why there's a clear division between law enforcement (police) and the judicial system. This is one of them -- it allows the police to prevent crime without worrying about whether the apprehended can be sentenced or not.

Where the system fails is when people can be sentenced to life -- or even death -- for something they didn't do. To judge on intent is to guess not only that person's thoughts, but future thoughts. I see this as a much greater threat to society than the people so judged.

No regards,
--
*Art

Re:Hate Speech?

[mr_matticus]

How does one stop a plan without punitive action? Without charges, you can't be held for a very long time, and there's no disincentive to commit the planned crime if you're simply put into a shitty motel room for a day or three and then let go. Moreover, I'm at a loss as to what sort of crime has the sentence of death without action. Perhaps you can enlighten me, but I suspect your mouth has outpaced your brain.

The system relies on both sides of the equation. The clear division you speak of also prohibits law enforcement from enacting any sort of sentencing or punitive measure without the judicial system's input--beyond arresting someone for a few days and then releasing them, law enforcement has no power.

Re:Hate Speech?

[arth1]

Moreover, I'm at a loss as to what sort of crime has the sentence of death without action. Perhaps you can enlighten me, but I suspect your mouth has outpaced your brain.

United States of America against Abu Khalid al-Sahrawi, for example? The death penalty was sought, but he ended up with life in prison without parole for conspiracy.
And it's not as if the government would have to let him go either; they presented evidence for several illegal actions. But instead of charging him for those, he was successfully prosecuted for the intent to commit crimes. That it's even possible scares me.

Re:Hate Speech?

[mr_matticus]

That's not an example that supports your conclusion. He wasn't executed. His sentence reflected his lack of action (he may well have been put to death had he actually gone through with it), and a good prosecutor levels as many charges as possible against a defendant. That's just the nature of the game. You don't choose one argument and hope for the best; you put forward as many arguments as you can (even if some of them are a stretch), and try to get enough of them confirmed to have an impact.

Re:Hate Speech?

[b0s0z0ku]

You can say whatever you want in the privacy of your own home, or in the discourse of your own publications/blogs/conversational comments. When you take that speech to a public place and in a conspicuous and impromptu manner (yelling on the street, etc.; in other words, not in public events for which you have a permit), you're disturbing the peace. You're also interfering with other people and creating cause for them to feel uncomfortable, when they have every right not to be attacked, verbally or otherwise, when they leave their homes.

But in no way can a Web site be compared to shouting abuse on the street. The viewers of a Web site *choose* to view it. If they don't like it, there's always that little "Back" button at the top of the browser window! If the Web site "incites" other people to harass (or worse) members of a certain group in public, then prosecute *those* people, not the site owners.

-b.

Re:Hate Speech?

[mr_matticus]

Yes, that is usually the case.

The exception, however, lies where popular websites with tangential or unrelated content become vehicles for hate speech. For example, a technology blog is not somewhere where one would expect to be derided or victimized by racist/sexist/homophobic/whatever remarks. The New York Times website and essentially all corporate sites likewise should be free of hate speech. A person not visiting sites related to issues which relate to hate speech should have the reasonable expectation not to encounter it.

This does work both ways, however. You can't complain that you're offended by a neo-Nazi forum, because the only reasonable intent for visiting said site would be to read neo-Nazi thoughts, comments, news, etc. You can't be indignant about the views being expressed if you're attending a KKK rally. (This is why I never understood the Christian crusade on abortion clinics--why gravitate toward things which piss you off?) Granted, there are plenty of people who are vocal about these groups being permitted websites at all--but they're people who long ago forgot about the mechanisms of the First Amendment: speech is free, so say what you want as long as you don't shove it in anyone else's face, because they're also entitled not to hear what you think.

It's not going to stop with child porn.

[Kadin2048]

Just in case anyone thought that this issue would remain just one of child pornography, it's worth reading the second linked article, which reveals that much of the current rulemaking was sparked by Ottawa's Richard Warman, a sort of Canadian answer to Jack Thompson, whose pro-censorship stance is centered mostly around "hate speech." His original petition to the CHRC was for censorship of U.S.-based sites that apparently threatened him, under the argument that by threatening someone in Canada, they came under the jurisdiction of the Canadian courts (think about that for a moment, particularly about how the U.S. could use it to grab 'jurisdiction,' and tell me that it's not a really dangerous idea).

The excuse for national censorship systems is undoubtedly going to be child porn, but it's absolutely naive to think that it won't be extended to other things. It's going to go from child porn, to "hate speech," to gambling and financial transactions ('when you gamble, you're financing terrorism!'), to downloading and copyright infringement. When you look at the motives of the people driving these programs, they are not going to be satisfied simply with ineffectually blocking some porn.

Re:It's not going to stop with child porn.

[Jack Action]

The parent is right. Much of the push for "regulating" the internet in Canada (where I live) comes from those who want to shut down "hate speech." This includes a former political staffer and lobbyist Warren Kinsella, whose has actually written books about white supremacists, debated them etc.

You might think then that with supporters like Kinsella, this is a noble crusade. Yet, this is Kinsella's argument for regulating the internet:

With the Internet awash in child pornography and hate propaganda - with the Internet facilitating the daily doings of stalkers, perverts, and the likes of al-Qaeda - this writer and other naïve liberals had clung to the primitive notion that the CRTC (which has the mandate to regulate Canadian telecommunications services) would have regulated, um, the Internet (a telecommunications service found here and there in Canada).

For the record, I support Canada's hate laws. But when the good guys start stooping to mischaraterizations, hysteria and flat-out lies -- the revolution's gone too far.

Re:It's not going to stop with child porn.

[mdielmann]

think about that for a moment, particularly about how the U.S. could use it to grab 'jurisdiction,' and tell me that it's not a really dangerous idea

Um, hello? Does the DMCA and Sklyarov ring a bell? I think one could say that the chilling effect of arresting someone for upholding the laws of his country while in his country is slightly higher than anything we can see coming out of this in the reasonable future.

For the record, I think this is a hopeless idea - there are too many ways to avoid it. But let's not paint the US as the paragon of freedom, they lost that title a number of years back.

Re:It's not going to stop with child porn.

[MarkCollette]

I hate all these damned slippery slopes situations. It's annoying to have to explain to people why we can't fight child porn with every tool because those tools will then be (mis)used for other purposes.

How about this: Instead of freakin blocking the child porn sites, we should just go to where the actual servers are, and use a bit of C-4 on them.

Re:It's not going to stop with child porn.

[Anonymous Coward]

"But when the good guys start stooping to mischaraterizations, hysteria and flat-out lies"

Kinsella is an asshole. He always was, and he always will be.

Because it is sometimes necessary to break the law

[Rix]

Cases in point: drug laws and copyright laws.

"Hate speech" shouldn't be banned

[ConfusedSelfHating]

I don't think it's such a big deal if sites with child porn are censored. I don't think that it is a big deal if the sites are nearly child porn. Ok, you can't masturbate to the images of adult women who are dressed up to look like children. Big loss.

I am much more concerned about who gets to decide what "hate speech" is. This is pre-emptive screening, before you get to a court battle. Who gets to decide what sites are hateful? Are activist groups able to get their people into the committees? What about sites that are critical of illegal immigration? Websites that claim to cure homosexuality? What about those critical of Islamic extremism? Israel? Scientology? What about a site that condemns the Catholic Church for being soft on priest pedophiles?

The evolution of society depends on ideas that are initially unpopular. Freedom is the ability to act without the permission of others. A society needs to show that your activities harm others before they should ban it. Oppression comes from the banning of political free speech, not from allowing it.

If a hateful person harms an innocent person, that criminal should be charged with a criminal offence regardless of their political ideology. If you are attempting to sow fear throughout a community, you should be charged with a terrorism offence. If a member of the Klu Klux Klan burns a cross on a black family's lawn, it's the same thing as someone calling in a bomb threat. I believe in the death penalty and I have no problem with the execution of neo-Nazis for killing blacks, Jews, etc.. I just don't believe they should be punished for what they believe.

Re:"Hate speech" shouldn't be banned

[ceoyoyo]

Hate speech is carefully defined in Canada. It's already illegal to do it in print, on radio or TV or on the soap box in the park. It's also currently illegal to do it online. Who decides? There are specific laws that cover that decision. Changes to those laws are ultimately decided by the people, as Canada is a democracy. It's kind of like every OTHER law.

Re:"Hate speech" shouldn't be banned

[Anonymous Coward]

"It's already illegal to do it in print, on radio or TV"

Ha! The "coverage" that Preston Manning and the Reform Party received from the Canadian Media Establishment was hate speech. Just because they "dared" to disagree with the Trudeau/Liberal notion of how the country should be. I have refused to look at any Canadian publication or media outlet ever since.

Re:"Hate speech" shouldn't be banned

[c-A-d]

>> Ok, you can't masturbate to the images of adult women who are dressed up to look like children.

My understanding is that counts as "child pornography" or at least is classified as illegal because of the _apparent_ age of the subject.

Just keep on saying that.

[Kadin2048]

Did you ever stop and think for a moment, that maybe -- just maybe -- it was attitudes like that, which got us into the mess we're in down here right now? Where a whole lot of people just blithely trusted the government, and a few years later it's like the place is in a handbasket, going southwards.

Your attitude reeks of "it can't happen here" arrogance, but history seems to indicate that if there is one single truth in government, it's that it can happen here, regardless of where "here" is.

Re:Just keep on saying that.

[A beautiful mind]

I'll most likely push a few hot buttons by this but I've been thinking about this for a while:

The overdemonization of fascist regimes like Hitler's or Mussolini's is really unhelpful in defending democracy locally, because it makes any kind of comparison between nazi Germany and other states seem very unrealistic. Branding Hitler pure evil, nazi germany pure evil and acting as if the demon just appeared there is very dangerous for our present, because we will not learn from history that way. If we would evaluate nazi germany in detail, get over the fucking holocaust (why single it out? how many of you had heard of the holodomor, the 19th century english concentration camps, etc?) then we'd be able to make objective comparisons and avoid plunging the developed world back into fascism again. Instead of that, black and white thinking dominates.

That"s one of the reasons why the holocaust-business (especially the part that involves using the sufferings of ww2 in the politics of Israel to label someone opposed to the policies of Israel antisemitic) pisses me off so much.

But why block "hate speech" at all?

[e9th]

If society at large, not just the govt. or a powerful few, finds someone's speech to be hateful, it shouldn't be necessary to block it. Society will take care of it without "official" help.

Just ask Mel Gibson or Michael Richards.

Re:But why block "hate speech" at all?

[Anonymous Coward]

The "outrage" against Mel Gibson and Michael Richards was about as manufactured as it gets. Such incidents were basically nothing but media hype. Of course the media was going to make a big deal out of it. They get notable figures to raise a ruckus. The media companies do it to try to get people temporarily enraged, so as to get more viewers and readers, and thus to make more from selling advertising space.

Most people don't give a fuck what Mel Gibson or Michael Richards might have said. Many other people think it's perfectly acceptable for them to make such comments, as that's just how things work in a nation that truly supports freedom. Others may directly support what those celebrities said. Regardless, the actual "outrage" is limited to a very, very, very small portion of the population. It's just magnified over and over and over and over again by the mass media, to the point where you end up thinking it's actually significant.

Dr. Michael Geist

[I Like Pudding]

What's with that name? Is he a super hero?

avoiding it doesn't stop it

[Man in Spandex]

When will they understand that just because you blacklist a website doesn't mean it fixes the problem. It's still there! Viewable by millions of other people. And what do they mean by hate speech? Isn't this fucking land where I'm allowed to say fuck you politicians and know that I won't have two men dressed in black with an ear-piece asking me to follow them?

Maybe I should build a giant reinforced concrete fence/wall because my neighbor 2 blocks away engages in gay butt sex and that may offend the squirrels in my backyard.

The slippery slope will happen, Murphy's Law will strike.

Re:avoiding it doesn't stop it

[Anonymous Coward]

And what do they mean by hate speech? Isn't this fucking land where I'm allowed to say fuck you politicians and know that I won't have two men dressed in black with an ear-piece asking me to follow them?

Hate speach is saying that Jews should be rounded up and killed in giant microwave-ovens, niggers should be hung and burnt, spicks should have their heads bashed in with a shovel, and nippers should be drowned -- it's not just telling someone to fuck-off.

Re:avoiding it doesn't stop it

[$pearhead]

When will they understand that just because you blacklist a website doesn't mean it fixes the problem. It's still there!

Exactly, it's just hiding everything under the carpet instead of dealing with the problem. Furthermore, I don't how the actual blocking is performed, but in Sweden the ISPs have DNS-based child pornography blocking which is really easy to get around if you want to, which means that the blocking is mostly "for show".

Re:avoiding it doesn't stop it

[hmccabe]

Squirrels love gay butt sex, btw

No "big loss" to whom?

[Kadin2048]

I completely agree with your comments on so-called "hate speech," but I think you're writing off the pornography argument too quickly.

I don't think that it is a big deal if the sites are nearly child porn. Ok, you can't masturbate to the images of adult women who are dressed up to look like children. Big loss.

Look at this issue from the other side; if you restrict "apparent porn," then you are saying that some women are criminals, just by putting on a particular set of clothes. Or perhaps not even that. What are you going to do about a woman who's well past the age of majority, but still has a particularly youthful appearance? You could easily deprive her of her right to work through anti-'simulated pornography' laws, just because some people think she "looks" too young. And it could easily become racial; Asian women in particularly are often perceived by Westerners as being younger than they actually are, and would probably be unfairly impacted. I could easily see the banning of "apparent child porn" as turning into a "human rights" issue on the part of people who are prevented from working in a legitimate occupation -- because nude modeling, regardless of what you personally think of it, is a legitimate occupation for those above the age of consent.

If you start to go down that road, you'd quicky end up with a situation where you've created a class of legal adult people who, by virtue of their appearance, can't take their clothes off without risking a "child" pornography charge.

Re:No "big loss" to whom?

[blincoln]

I would argue that the problem with restricting "apparent" child porn is more basic than that.

Kurt Wimmer said it well in the commentary for Equilibrium - that the very concept of making a distinction for "hate" crimes is flawed because they punish people for their thoughts, not their actions. How can you prove what someone was thinking? "Apparent" child porn is the same way - it involves believing that you can know that the people who consumed it did so thinking that it involved the exploitation of children, and that if they hadn't been, they wouldn't be guilty.

Thought crime laws are always wrong - even when they might be passed with the intent of doing real good.

Pennsylvania

[Anonymous Coward]

Pennsylvania's laws mandate that all ISPs that operate in the state must blacklist child pornography sites. As the blacklist comes from the state, from second hand accounts of the system I've heard over the years, it is laughably ineffective.

Nevertheless, the whole concept of a web-site blacklist seems atavistic and quaint in an age of bot-nets, p2p networks, darknets, rapidshare and other potential contraband distribution mechanisms that, by their very nature, render any bureaucratic solutions laughably ineffective.

Re:Pennsylvania

[b0s0z0ku]

Nevertheless, the whole concept of a web-site blacklist seems atavistic and quaint in an age of bot-nets, p2p networks, darknets, rapidshare and other potential contraband distribution mechanisms that, by their very nature, render any bureaucratic solutions laughably ineffective.

Not to mention anonymout web proxies...

-b.

How and why?

[delirium of disorder]

How do they plan on blocking any particular content? How can anyone who doesn't have an account on my machine know what is hosted and perhaps available to thousands of other people (who do have accounts) over ssh? How can anyone tell the origin of a IP packet sent over tor? How can an ISP block offending anonymous remailers or freenet sites? THEY CAN'T. Censoring the Internet is not possible without destroying the Internet.

Perhaps they want to censor the web, but most of the Internet would still be free. The dissidents will still get their message out and the porn lovers will still download whatever kink they desire. Attempts to censor the web will just make it hard for corporations to make money because the web is the user-friendly commercial face of the Internet and people will start using other services if they can't find the content that they want over http.

On a different note, what is so wrong about sharing "child" porn? People sexually mature several years before the legal age of consent, and during that "gap" they tend to have sex. Often they take pictures of these activities. Why should we throw innocent teenagers in jail just because they want to practice free love and share images of themselves doing thing that they enjoy? What if they want to share some of these images with a legal adult, what is wrong with that?

Certainly raping a young person is wrong, just as raping any person is wrong. But owning a picture of rape should not be illegal, just as owning a picture of any other crime (even murder or genocide) should not be illegal. If pictures were taken under conditions of coercion, it is the coercion that is wrong and illegal, not the pictures! If pictures of underage humans were taken under consensual conditions, no crime was even committed in the act of taking them. Why should these images be illegal?

Re:How and why?

[tomjen]

In Denmark they just have a lying DNS server (a blocked site will result in an ip to a "this site is blocked" message) - so OpenDNS can break it very easy.

Re:How and why?

[repvik]

"On a different note, what is so wrong about sharing "child" porn? People sexually mature several years before the legal age of consent, and during that "gap" they tend to have sex. Often they take pictures of these activities. Why should we throw innocent teenagers in jail just because they want to practice free love and share images of themselves doing thing that they enjoy? What if they want to share some of these images with a legal adult, what is wrong with that?"

IMHO, some young teenager sharing pics of themselves aren't that bad (Yeah, they're young and stupid, and they *will* regret it. So farking what? Life's hard, get a fucking helmet). It's the part where there's abuse that it is really bad. Would you feel comfortable with videos online of yourself as a child being anally raped by your father? How do you judge when there is abuse or not? An image can tell a thousand words, but it might tell a thousand words the photographer intended to tell you to make money off abusing a child.

"Certainly raping a young person is wrong, just as raping any person is wrong. But owning a picture of rape should not be illegal, just as owning a picture of any other crime (even murder or genocide) should not be illegal. If pictures were taken under conditions of coercion, it is the coercion that is wrong and illegal, not the pictures!"

In itself, owning such a picture isn't anything bad. But most of the pictures are taken because people *want* them. It's the free zarkin' market. Demand and supply. People make *money* (or other services) off of molesting children.

It's a complex problem that doesn't have a simple solution. I'm not pro censorship. Nor am I pro "free access to child pr0n". There's no easy way to deal with it. Censoring it just makes it go more underground.

Re:How and why?

[delirium of disorder]

In itself, owning such a picture isn't anything bad. But most of the pictures are taken because people *want* them. It's the free zarkin' market. Demand and supply. People make *money* (or other services) off of molesting children.

I'm sure there is a huge demand for pictures of consensual sex from people of all ages. So what if some people pay for these images? Creating a market for art depicting consensual sex is not a bad thing at all. Many people seam to think that most underage porn comes from Catholic Priests locking up some poor kid in their basement and then systematically abusing him or her. Sure this happens, but I think it's rather rare and only extremely rarely directly motivated by pure profit. Most porn is free in the age of the Internet. If you want to remove the profit motive, make selling porn illegal, but don't ban possession or sharing! I'm sure most underage pics of sex and nudity are taken by teenagers themselves. As a young person, I've found that most of my peer's have been sexually active for a while and many own digital images of themselves and their partners enjoying each other's company. Where do conservatives get this weird idea that people magically become sexual only after their 18th birthday?

I'm sure a minority of porn consumers want pictures of rape and molestation and this demand may occasionally fuel some evil activities. However, pictures of rape are only illegal to possess if the victim is a certain age. It isn't the illegality of the action that makes the picture illegal, it is the arbitrary quality of age. Moreover, even pics of consensual sex are illegal if the person pictured happened to be a certain age! Young women have been prosecuted for taking pictures of themselves! This is unjust discrimination and no free society should tolerate it.

Re:How and why?

[TempeTerra]

On a different note, what is so wrong about sharing "child" porn?

I'm no expert, but nobody else seems to have posted this so I'll chime in with what I know. The usual answer is that possession of child porn is glorifying or profiting from a criminal act, and even if the possession is not causing direct harm it should be banned because it encourages the (criminal) act of creating more. This covers rape etc. as well. This is a position that I generally agree with.

The interesting debate is around *simulated* child pornography or rape images, since they can be created without any criminal acts. IIRC, such images are usually illegal as well, but the above argument doesn't apply since the images are not 'real'. I think the usual justification then falls back on the tired old arguments about violent images leading to violent behaviour, which are not particularly persuasive. I think legislation against simulated images of illegal acts would fall over given a decent push, but it would be political suicide for anyone to champion the cause of pedophiles, so nobody will do it.

Re:How and why?

[delirium of disorder]

The usual answer is that possession of child porn is glorifying or profiting from a criminal act, and even if the possession is not causing direct harm it should be banned because it encourages the (criminal) act of creating more. This covers rape etc. as well.

On the Internet, there are plenty of images and videos depicting rape and murder (and even worse crimes like aggressive war and genocide). People will pay someone to rape and murder just so that they can get off watching a film of it (snuff films). I don't know if possessing films of real extreme violence is technically legal or illegal, but they are quite common on many sites and I have seen no effort to crack down on them. It wouldn't make any sense. The people downloading them are just normal voyeurs. Most of us are drawn to the twisted and absurd but are not rapists or killers. If you want to stop such crimes, you go after the people committing murder or rape, or those paying others to do it. You don't go after the people learning about the crimes by seeing recorded evidence of them. They are just consuming primary source media (think of it as history or news documentation). Yet there's all this focus on banning underage porn. Most underage porn is produced for personal use or use among friends. If we are so afraid of commercial exploitation of young people, why not ban the sale of underage porn (but not possession)? Aren't teens also being exploited by being thrown in jail when they try to take pictures of themselves?

Re:How and why?

[RsG]

It's the free zarkin' market. Demand and supply.

Actually, not so much. As many a SysAdmin has pointed out, one of the most common (if not the most common) vectors for illegal porn is P2P networks. I challenge you to show me how those obey the laws of supply and demand, or how anyone can make a buck off distributing pictures or videos via Bittorrent.

A bigger part of the problem is that most people are technologically illiterate. The ISPs can, in this case, sell their anti kiddie porn blacklist as a PR move, since 90% of their customers won't know that it doesn't actually work.

You'd get better millage with honeypots and proper law enforcement. Blocking helps nobody, and has the potential for abuse; actually catching predatory pedophiles with pornographic pictures of children on their hard drives would do some good. As long as common sense and due process are applied, of course (which, in a politically charged climate, they may not be).

Re:How and why?

[TempeTerra]

I'm not interested in defending a position on this quagmire of an argument, I only keep up with it because it bumps into censorship and ethics issues that I am interested in - but I am happy to report positions that I know others take.

People will pay someone to rape and murder just so that they can get off watching a film of it (snuff films). I don't know if possessing films of real extreme violence is technically legal or illegal, but they are quite common on many sites and I have seen no effort to crack down on them.

What can I say? Pictures of scantily clad children generate more outrage than murder, so there's more political mileage for being tough on child porn. Many people have commented on the absurdity that depictions of multiple murder are standard TV fare, but nipples are R18.

As for snuff films, there are plenty of faked snuff films or footage of accidental death. There are pornographers who specialise in simulated rape. I understand snuff films, in the sense of murder committed specifically to be recorded, to be an urban legend - it's so much easier just to fake it. Wikipedia agrees with me, and I'm honestly not interested in investigating any further. I leave it to you to consider whether whatever films you have seen were real or faked.

If you want to stop such crimes, you go after the people committing murder or rape, or those paying others to do it. You don't go after the people learning about the crimes by seeing recorded evidence of them. They are just consuming primary source media.

Well, one could (and many do) argue that consumers of the resulting media are 'paying', whether through cash or reknown, and fueling demand. My hazy understanding is that deliberate recording of crimes or possession of such recordings is usually illegal for the previously mentioned glorification reasons (with loopholes for legitimate researchers), but anything recorded accidentally like CCTV footage is fair game due to anti-censorship laws.

Most underage porn is produced for personal use or use among friends. If we are so afraid of commercial exploitation of young people, why not ban the sale of underage porn.

I've never heard anyone complaining about commercialism, the exploitation is the problem.

Aren't teens also being exploited by being thrown in jail when they try to take pictures of themselves?

There are many, many things wrong with age of consent laws. One of my favourite absurdities is laws which punish specifically under-age males who engange in consenting but under-age sexual activities. I don't think exploitation is quite the word you want though. From Merriam-Webster online: 2. to make use of meanly or unfairly for one's own advantage. This usage would be correct for child pornography (the children are being used for someone else's advantage), but wouldn't work for under-age people being jailed; Nobody directly benefits.

An aside: I don't think minors are ever jailed in most jurisdictions - police record, counselling, sure, but aren't minors usually exempt from jail? I'm no expert.

Re:How and why?

[compro01]

I challenge you to show me how those obey the laws of supply and demand, or how anyone can make a buck off distributing pictures or videos via Bittorrent.

in this case, we're basically having a currency-less system of supply and demand. no money being transfered, but it still follows "if there is a demand, there will be a supply".

A slippery cliff

[JymmyZ]

"Won't somebody think of the children!?!" It's of course a noble goal, but as a Canadian I've always taken a little pride in the fairly open and uncensored access to the world we seem to get(of course I don't know if this is the case since I don't know how much more or less the rest of the world gets) and to see any sort of infringement on this irks me. There's also the issue of what counts as child-porn; I understand we've categorized http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LoliconLolicon as being under this category. I didn't even know about the existence of Lolicon until last week but they could throw all sorts of silly things under that blanket. And of course they can use this as precedent to blacklist other objectionable subjects to those in power, a very slippery cliff indeed.

Error in article and summary

[malsdavis]

while British Telecom, the UK's largest ISP, voluntarily blocks child pornography as part of its CleanFeed program

Actually, NTL/Telewest is the UK's largest ISP.

from a recent BBC article http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6039740.stm:
"The UK's largest residential internet provider is currently NTL, which has 2.9 million home customers, followed by BT on 2.2 million."

You doubt our patriotism?

[Kadin2048]

Trust us, comrade! There is nothing to see on any of the blocked sites. You don't want to go around asking questions like that; someone might think you're a pedophile or something, and we wouldn't want that, now would we?

Go back and have yourself a nice Molson and watch some hockey. You'll feel better...

Re:You doubt our patriotism?

[aevan]

I would like to object to your obviously insulting tone and stereotypical comment...

..but there's a Leafs game tonight and need to hit the beer store before the weekend, so consider yourself lucky.

Questionable grammar.

[Kadin2048]

>> I am a feminist bisexual Jewish pagan techno-geek with delusions of grandeur.
> You don't want a pervert like that teaching your children grammar. Think of the children!

Yeah, with a teacher like that, they'll grow up never knowing the joys of the comma.

Caveat: I wasn't talking about "hate speech"

[Jerf]

Caveat: When I referred to the "stated goals", I mean with regard to blocking "child porn".

Hate speech is another topic entirely and one I find too scarily fuzzy and subjective for a government to be enforcing. Hate speech in many places is damn near "speech I disagree with".

True incitement to violence I can see continuing to enforce, but expanding that to "hate speech" is just asking for censorship. I try to read a wide range of sources on both the "left" and the "right", and I've seen on both sides the accusation of "hate speech" freely tossed about for things that really weren't. The problem with hate speech is that you get into the logic of "I like X because I love children. If you don't like X, you clearly hate children. Therefore, advocating against X is 'hate speech' against children." I've seen that argument used both for and against legal abortion. In neither case is it hate speech; in both cases the arguer genuinely believes they are advocating for children.

Re:Caveat: I wasn't talking about "hate speech"

[Anonymous Coward]

you kid yourself if you think there is a difference between censoring hate speech, child porn , 17yr old porn and political dissent

Expression should never be limited.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hate speech inciting violence or hate speech advocating genocide is illegal.

See, the problem with "hate speech" is that in itself, it is completely harmless. If somebody commits a violent act against others based solely on what you wrote or said, you shouldn't be held responsible. The person who committed the violent act is the only one who was in the wrong.

We must also consider why "hate speech" from Canadian politicians and media figures is considered acceptable. Take the war in Afghanistan, for instance. Many Canadian politicians from various political parties have openly shown a high level of support for it. Initially, it was state-sponsored violence targeted towards an identifiable group: the Taliban. It sounds like it fits the definition of a "hate crime" quite well. Why is it not considered a "hate crime" to advocate the killing of Taliban? Shouldn't news outfits like CBC and the National Post be held responsible for advocating violence against identifiable groups when they print statements from Canadian military commanders who speak in support of the killing that Canadian troops are involved with over there?

Re:Expression should never be limited.

[Atlantis-Rising]

Arguably because it does not fit the legal definition of 'breaking the peace.' The point of the Canadian codes against hate speech are not so much to prevent speech as they are to prevent violence.

Re:Expression should never be limited.

[Anonymous Coward]

You're so full of BS that its not funny.

"If the speech promoted hatred against an identifiable group, but was not likely to incite a listener to violence, then a person could still be convicted."

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_hat6.htm

(I'm not addressing the grandparent's post in particular, just your continued mis characterizations of Canadian law)

Re:Expression should never be limited.

[Atlantis-Rising]

You have no idea what you're talking about. Read Zundel's trial, for example. You are not allowed to incite violence. Period. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences.

Moreover, the section you are referencing is a rehash of a law that was struck down (In Zundel's trial, ironically enough), by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional. It won't stand up to a constitutional challenge the next time, either.

Re:Expression should never be limited.

[Anonymous Coward]

You have no idea what you're talking about.

Yeah, I guess the law I am reading is wrong, LOL.

Read Zundel's trial, for example.

You said yourself that Zundel's trial was about slander or some other non-sense, not hate speech.

You are not allowed to incite violence. Period.

Are you illiterate? I just quoted a phrase where it says you can be prosecuted for hate speech, even if it can be shown that it will not incite violence.

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences

I didn't ask for a lesson in civics.

Moreover, the section you are referencing is a rehash of a law that was struck down (In Zundel's trial, ironically enough), by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional. It won't stand up to a constitutional challenge the next time, either.

No, I am actually reading from the current law, not the struck down law.

Are you really this dense or are you just being a fucking idiotic troll?

Re:Expression should never be limited.

[Anonymous Coward]

Answer the earlier poster's question: why are the Canadian politicians who speak and vote in favour of the violence in Afghanistan (directly perpetrated in part by Canadian troops) not considered guilty of having committed hate crimes? Like it or not, they have directly encouraged, promoted, incited and funded the killing of a large number of people belonging to an identifiable group, in this case the Taliban.

Re:Expression should never be limited.

[Arivia]

It might have something to do with the Taliban and other foreign political groups not being a protected group according to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It also helps that virtually no one, and certainly no politician, says "Slaughter All The Taliban" up here. There was lots of talk of punishment and justice, but nothing that counts as hate speech under Canadian law.

Re:Expression should never be limited.

[tomstdenis]

And if the person you convince to commit violence is a minor? Mentally retarded (which includes a mob)?

Tom

Re:Expression should never be limited.

[voice_of_all_reason]

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences.

Actually, that's exactly what it means. This arguement is retarded. If you can be imprisoned for doing something, you are not free to do it. Hey, blacks were free to vote in the early 20th century too! They just had to watch out for those "consequences" at the end of a tree branch!

According to the other posters here, it seems Canada does not have freedom of speech.

Re:Expression should never be limited.

[LocalH]

Well, I would qualify that with "freedom from legal consequences".

Re:Expression should never be limited.

[is as us Infinite]

This is just patently untrue. I will agree that the argument is retarded, but only because of what you are arguing. As has been hashed and rehashed quite a few times on /., free speech does not mean that you are free to yell 'fire' in a crowded theatre, for example. Your freedom to yell random things is quashed by others freedom to remain alive and undamaged. Therefore, freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences.

This axiom is also shown in the legal definition of slander or defamation. You _are free_ to say things that are untrue about some entity you dislike, but if your freedom of wagging tongue steps on that entity's freedom from unwarranted persecution, you are liable. Again, freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences.

Are you getting this?

Are you seeing the point?

Your freedom of speech ends when it steps on others' freedoms we, as a society, have deemed more important. To say what you're saying, which is akin to something like 'I am not free to wave a knife wildly and randomly in public means I am not free at all.' is, as you have stated, a retarded argument.

Re:Expression should never be limited.

[voice_of_all_reason]

No, your (truthful) examples mean that the US does not have freedom of speech either. We just say we do. It's likely no country has freedom of speech.

Re:Expression should never be limited.

[DarkVader]

Freedom of speech means PRECISELY freedom from consequences.

Under your definition of free speech, China has free speech, as you can say anything you want there, but when you say some things, the police arrest you later.

It sounds like that's the case in Canada as well.

Re:Expression should never be limited.

[Atlantis-Rising]

No it doesn't. Freedom of speech means freedom to say what you like, regardless of content; it does not mean freedom to say what you like, regardless of intent, or freedom to say what you like, regardless of consequence.

An example for each of the above three:
You are equally free to espouse your love for coca-cola or pepsi;
You are equally unable to say anything that could be construed as insightment to a breach of the public peace in a public place, even if that incitement is as simple as yelling fire in a public theatre or as complicated as advocating racial genocide on national TV;
You are, to some degree, sheltered from the consequences of your actions if the words are true and spoken in good faith.

After all, libel is free speech too, isn't it? And yet that's totally illegal! Why, that's a violation of our right to freedom of speech!

No. It is not your speech being punished; it is the reprecussions of your speech that is being punished. There is a difference substantial.

Why firewall?

[Genocaust]

If the blocking is in effort to help transparently "remove" content like child porn from online, what good does it truly do out on the open web? Perhaps Canada will block out a handful of sickos from accessing their favorite sites, but the majority of things probably opperate on VPNs and anonymous networks like Freenet that are de-centralized and encrypted.

Good thing...

[Anonymous Coward]

I use cogeco.

Good For Us

[lordfoull]

I'm quite happy, as a Telus customer, and a father to know that the ISP's in Canada have a pact that transcends monitory motivations and will do us all, Canadians and their children that is, a greater good. Good on them.

Re:Good For Us

[Anonymous Coward]

What greater good?

As you're a father, I assume you're implying that you're glad the ISP's are taking steps to protect your child from viewing unsavorying things on the net. That's all well and good, but isn't that your job, not the governments?

Just a thought. (Apologies if I missed the sarcasm)

philosophical differences

[tezbobobo]

That's the difference between a country founded on the meanderings of John Stewart Mill, and one founded by a bunch of hippies.

The greatest sore point with all of these laws is

[Anonymous Coward]

That a lot of people in the first world, much like a drug addict, refuse to recognise a situation when it applies to them...for instance

There is one other country in the world that has passed laws comparable with America's regarding detention without trial...which one was it...well Apartheid South Africa..."Oh" I hear the masses cry..."but thats ok, we're not like those racist bigots so that makes it ok...we're not going to use it for ill, only to protect...so that makes it fine" .

What damn well happened to the first world? From the peoples that set out to end the third reich to basically "we'll let you do anything you want so long as you keep us safe"...

well folks this rant is all rather cliched and tired...but damnit it the point needs to be made....

1. in the 1920's, Weimar germany, a bunch of people basically let a man do what ever he wanted as long as they could be kept safe. Of one particular ethnic group, many refused to believe that that man would abuse his power, and failed to leave the country.
2. From 1948 to 1994 , a particular ethnic group in south africa gave up much of its freedom and responsibility, and placed it in the hands of n arrogant minority who pretty much did whatever they liked and ruled by fear. That, basically, is how 60 years of misguided thinking gets indoctrinated into a populace...most white people in S.A. pre 1990 were convinced by their government and believed wholeheartedly that ANC 'terrorists' were out to kill them all and handed over all their power in exchange for 'safety'...result...endless bloodshed, racism, violence and strife between ethnic groups

But well, it's ok, because we're canadian, we're british, we're american, it could never happen to us, let them pass that law, what the hell

what do you call this?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Canada fines 'racist' aboriginal"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4666663.stm

He wasn't promoting any future violence. He only commented on WW2 holocaust victims: "Jews were a disease that needed to be cleaned up"

FYI

[Anonymous Coward]

For those who didn't get what the parent meant, "it's" = "it is", so "despite it's good intentions" = "despite it is good intentions".

What should have been used was "its", without the apostrophe.

Finland

[Anonymous Coward]

Similar law was accepted just recently in Finland. It's point is that it allows the police to distribute a list of child porn sites to the operators so they can block them. The blocking is voluntary, but (almost) all operators are said that they will implement it. Some operators allow a customer decide if they want to use it.

Re:Finland

[and]

All major ISPs in Denmark have agreed(voluntary) to a national blacklist provide by the police and Red Barnet(Save the Children) to block child pornography

Sweden have had this for some time

[Jugalator]

There's a national blacklist here as well, and I've inadvertely ended up on it and got some harsh message from a police website about pedophilia or whatever it was. :-S

Which brings me to my point -- I hope they never log whoever are ending up on these blacklisted sites to somehow use the information, because with spam messages, scam sites, and the general reality of the web, one can easily end up on blocked sites without even intending to. In my case, it was about some misleading link on a regular legit webpage, or maybe the domain had expired and been bought up by some shady business. :-p

Personally I'd rather be without these blocks, and can't say the world have become a better place with them. It seems to in no way shatter e.g. pedophile groups with the continued problem. Someone who're really looking for this can also just head over to Freenet for example. I think the downsides of risking false positives aren't really worth it.

Re:Sweden have had this for some time

[Jugalator]

Oh, and here's a link just to give some substance to what I'm saying. :-)
http://www.thelocal.se/article.php?ID=2571&date=20 051125

thank God for corporate responsibility

[Anonymous Coward]

where ever would we be without it?

don't worry about big brother,
worry about big boss

andyestelusisevil

The danes already have it.

[monsted]

This is the exact same thing that was put into service by most major ISPs in Denmark in late 2005. The list is maintained by Red Barnet ("Save the child") and the danish police.

It is now being "abused" by our version of the RIAA to block access to allofmp3.com.

The same thing in Finland

[hopopee]

This month our legislators passed a law that allows secret blacklists to ISPs. This is of course "voluntary". This was passed using the all-powerful child porn veto that allows any stupid law to be passed without any opposition. Swedes have this too, and not surprisingly the copyright mafia (IFPI-affiliates) have been requesting to use the lists to blacklist piracy sites and anything else that infringes their copyright. And why not, since the technique is already there, eh?

Talk about a slippery slope..

David Icke, the Lizards and the Jews

[gd23ka]

It seems that sometimes Canadians are more propaganda proof than expected. Watch this video

http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=david+icke+l izard+jews

Let me give you some background here:

David Icke is an english sports commentator turned spokesman of the British Green Party turned
researcher into the occult and secret governments. According to Icke we are ruled by cruel
shapeshifting extraterrestials that look like two legged reptiles, hence the lizards. The ADL
"Anti-Defamation League" is a highly aggressive lobby organization of the B'nai B'rith ("Sons of the Covenant").
It's official charter is to protect minorities from racially motivated speech. For some reason
the ADL came to the conclusion that someone talking about two-legged humanoid reptiles ruling the world
that need to be stopped must be talking about Jews ruling the world that have to be stopped.
When Icke went to Britian to give public talks and lectures the ADL was there to attach the label
"antisemite" to his back. They tried hard to rally support for that idea. They failed miserably.

To get back on the subject here, the Canadian Firewall, first kick back, watch the video and see for
yourself what happens when a lobby like the ADL decides you're to be labeled, censored and shut up,
because as ridiculous as it sounds: Once that firewall goes up, antisemite talk like "Lizards from
Outer Space" is the first to go.

The summary is still right.

[ltrm]

Actually there's more to it than that.

I see your point about retail ISP size but BT is also by far the largest provider of wholesale broadband connections, which is what the article appears to allude to.

From the BT website: http://www.btplc.com/Thegroup/Companyprofile/TheBT story/TheBTstory.htm

You can see that they provide around 8 million connections.

Re:The summary is still right.

[malsdavis]

But do they also filter those wholesale connections?

I have no idea whether they do or don't but I would have thought it was only the retail connections they filter, otherwise they would surely be entering a legal minefield (although I guess it is doubtful that any other ISP is going to take them to court for blocking child porn websites).

Will This Picture Be Illegal Soon?

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

I've seen pictures in medical texts that could be considered child pornography just because they showed full frontal nudity of subjects at different ages to compare physical development as humans age.

What about pictures like this? Personally, I feel it's only a matter of time before the pedophile hysteria gets that picture banned.

People are getting reluctant to take pictures of their children in the bathtub nowadays, for fear of either being called a pedophile or having the pictures "get out" onto the internet. Most of our grandparents didn't get a set of clothes until they turned three or four. Today letting your toddler run naked around the house would be marked as "suspect" behaviour.

The child pornography hysertia is just that. Hysteria. Fueled mostly by right wingers unhappy with the freedoms of our society and by wide eyed neurotics who listen to them. Its a modern day witch hunt. The objective isn't to stop the pedophiles, it's to see them hang. The crowd wants blood, not justice.

Child porn - been there, blocked that

[Anonymous Coward]

Some time ago I was the System Administrator at a fairly small law firm in Australia. Fairly free access to apps and the internet, by request- the partners just have to have their freedom, but I was pretty strict on client-level security.

Anyway one day I happened to discover, while doing some routine maintenance after hours, a collection of images on a partner's PC which was certainly "child porn". Nothing terrible really, none of this rape stuff, seemed like old nudist magazines from the 70s mostly, when it was all still perfectly legal (and here's an obscure fact for you - only one child has ever died from her involvement in child pornography, she died of a heart attack, allegedly because her mother was encouraging her to work too much). Also there were images which I happen to know to be perfectly legal in somewhere like Japan, but illegal in Australia.

I believe pretty strongly in free speech, with basically no exceptions. The whole concept of an "illegal image" is totally insane to me, and so there was no way I was going to ruin this guy's life by making a big scene of it. I decided the best way was to quietly delete what I found, and take steps so he couldn't get any more. So I started discretely surveilling his behaviour with the view of blocking the vector by which the material had made it onto his PC. Breach of ethics? Maybe. But it's a tricky situation and I just wanted to "make it stop" without any unnecessary damage to anyone.

Anyway, after a couple of weeks of this, I knew precisely from where this material was sourced. It was all from common P2P such as eDonkey and BT. The BT trackers included Pirate Bay, believe it or not, and even some US web sites, but most of it in China.

To cut a long story short I blocked his access to P2P applications and wrote an email telling him that they were unsafe, dropping a few hints about legality - dressed it up as "you could be violating copyright using these kind of programs" but as an intelligent guy he got the message. He deleted his own "downloads" folder, uninstalled the apps, and didn't do it again, on any of my PCs anyway.

I cannot believe the guy is a criminal - he's mid forties, big fat and red in the face, with a big smile and ready laugh. No kids. Balding, always ready with a joke. One of my favourite clients! Who knows why he wanted to look at what he did, and who fricking cares. I'm sick of the climate of fear around "child porn" and there was no way I was going to do the most assholish thing of my life and absolutely screw this nice guy's whole life just to make some kind of self-righteous point about how much I'm "thinking of the children" - give me a fucking break!

Anyway, don't really know why I typed all this but hope someone found it interesting.

Re:Child porn - been there, blocked that

[Anonymous Coward]

All I want to ask is--why did you bother deleting it, monitoring him, blocking certain services and on and on? I'm guessing the goal was to "cover your client's ass," which could have been done much less invasively: tell him about ramdisks (and how you can set Firefox's cache folder to one) and TrueCrypt (and its doubly-hidden partitions). Much less work, same covering of ass (unless he got lazy). Or was there a rule against pornography at work? I'm guessing, if there was, that it's one that would never have been enforced on a "partner".

Oh Slashdot...

[Micklewhite]

It seems to me these days that people on Slashdot get up in arms if ANYBODY ever considers trying to 'censor' the internet. IT'S CHILD PORNOGRAPHY! IT NEEDS TO BE BANNED! I'd prefer it if the government took steps to go after those people. Perhaps you should be more concerned if the government starts banning things like regular wholesome porn. If that starts happening you could write an article on THAT.

These little 'moments' you keep having about your rights on the internet are really getting old. Rest assured some child pornographer will be smiling when he reads about your indignation.

Re:Oh Slashdot...

[ccool]

If they know what to ban, why don't they just arrest the guy/organisation?

I mean, child abuse is illegal in many contries, so why don't they just arrest the guilty. This way, you won't have to ban/censor a whole country!

Re:Oh Slashdot...

[Micklewhite]

Child porn is terrible no matter how you look at it. Would you be comfortable knowing there are pornographic pictures of your child on the internet? I'd say.. 99.9% of everybody would very much like to see anybody posting/looking at that crap to be fed through a wood chipper. The government is already cracking down on these sites, but if they went the next step and just outright banned them all it wouldn't harm anybody.

I'm not trying to be a troll here. It seems to me poeple get upset if anything on the internet gets censored, they somehow think that once one thing gets censored it's only a matter of time before everything else gets censored.

C'mon people, there's no such thing as real freedom.

As dumb as the bush government.

[Cyberpass]

Is it just me or are corporations and governments always trying to move away from the actual problem. Instead of fixing child pornography at its root, they try to make it harder for people to get child pornography (Which will obviously fail!). That doesn't exactly fix the problem. Man, after that f**cking right wing bastard came into power in Canada, "shits coming to shit". Hopefully, the loss of the conservative powers south of the border will wake Canadians up. To an uneducated, televangelist watching, anti-darwin, "West is good/East is evil" fool, my words may indicate i am advocating child pornography but this is obviously not the case.

Re:As dumb as the bush government.

[Anonymous Coward]

Canada was ruled by a f**cking left wing bastard for over a decade before Harper got in last year, and only with a minority at that. You are an asshole.

But where's the list?

[brunes69]

The problem with this whole scheme, and many similar ones, is this list is not available to the general public. I can't find the list of sites being blocked anywhere on Cybertip.ca or anywhere else. So how am I supposed to know if what is being blocked is actually a child porn site? Take their word for it? I think not.

I mean, how do I know they haven't blocked some whole site when only one hidden sub-page has child porn?

This whole scheme is ripe for abuse. Too bad you can't come down against it in mainstream media without being labeled a pedophile.

Re:But where's the list?

[zuiraM]

Reductio ad paedophilum.. Another interesting point is that if you *do* get ahold of the list, and it happens to have few false positives, you'll have the perfect "bookmarks" folder for someone looking for this stuff.

eventualism converges

[epine]

The idea of having a national blacklist sends shivers down my spine. I'm a pessimist, I believe that any form of censorship will eventually be abused despite it's good intentions."

All eventualists believe this, because, being eventualists, they unable to not project their eventualism on the behaviours of others. Amazingly, there are creatures in this world who thrive on sloped landscapes without sliding inevitably down hill--at least not until they are dragged into the barren crag below by all the eventualists around them pointing fingers at each other.

One problem

[alphax45]

The only problem with fighting this is that it makes you look like you have a reason to get that porn unblocked. I don't think anyone wants to be labeled someone that looks at child porn, no matter the cause.

The other side is when do you fight, and once you decide to, is it already too late?

It is called the slippery slope and..

[LWATCDR]

It is also considered a logical fallacy.
Blocking some sites doesn't have to be a bad thing. In the US and Canada and other countries child porn is illegal. If you publish a magazine full of 12 year old children having sex you will go to jail. Do you feel this is also wrong? I know of people that worry that even that is a violation of freedom of speech.
If the list is.
1. Made public.
2. That the methods required to add a site to the list require a court order.
I am sure that as long as it is done publicly that some Canada Civil Liberties group will act as a watch dog and take them to court for blocking any site they feel is legit.
Canada as well as several members of the EU already have some laws on the books about hate speech which in the US would definitely be violating the US idea of freedom of speech. And yes some of it is political speech. Ugly vile and disgusting political speech but political speech all the same.
A good example is France threatened to charge several Yahoo executives of crimes against humanity because a French citizen bought Nazi memorabilia off a US Yahoo auction site.

Every law can be abused. That is why public disclosure is so important.

Why distrust?

[sin(theta)]

I'm always amazed at Americans' endless paranoia about their government *doing* things. I assume that's what you get when your monolithic government repeatedly ignores you.

Canadians on the other hand, for the most part, have some faith in their government to do the right thing. A government's role isn't to just dole out money. If they don't act, what good are they for?

Re:Why distrust?

[amliebsch]

Canadians on the other hand, for the most part, have some faith in their government to do the right thing.

Well, I guess we know who's really using "faith-based" government.

Won't stop child-porn, will stop legit speech

[mouthbeef]

I think that Michael's being entirely too sanguine about a secret blacklist of content. Having had my own material censored by such blacklists at the national and local level, I'm a lot less trusting of these systems.

The idea is fundamentally broken. First of all, it seems to me that keeping a secret list of "evil" content is inherently subject to abuse. This is certainly something we've seen in every single other instance of secret blacklisting: axe-grinding, personal vendettas, and ass-covering are the inevitable outcome of a system in which there is absolute authority, no due process, and no accountability.

The appeals process is likewise flawed. If the self-appointed censors opt to block, for example, material produced by and for gay teens about their sexuality (a common "edge-case" in child porn debates), then teens will have to out themselves as gay to avail themselves of the appeals process.

Notwithstanding this, it's hard to imagine how an appeals process would unfold. How could someone who wanted a site unblocked marshal a cogent argument for his case unless he could see the content and determine whether it was being inappropriately blocked?

Likewise, there is no imaginable way in which such a system could possibly be comprehensive in blocking child porn. It will certainly miss material that is genuinely child pornography. The Internet is too big for such a list to be compiled, and the censorship problems are compounded as the lists grow.

If, for example, Canada were to import Australia's secret list of bad sites, then Canadians would then be subject to the potential abuses of unscrupulous (or unintelligent) censors in Australia, as well as in Canada. You'd have to trust the Canadian censor-selector process, and the Australian one. The longer lists that would emerge from the merger process would be harder to audit -- the haystacks of real porn larger, the needles of censorship smaller.

Worst of all is the problem of site-level blocking for user-created content sites like Blogger, Typepad, Geocities, YouTube, etc. These sites inevitably contain child porn and other objectionable material, because new, anonymous accounts can be created there by people engaged in bad speech. However, these sites are also the primary vehicle by which users express their own feelings and beliefs and are frequently posted to anonymously by whistle-blowers, rape victims, dissidents in totalitarian states and others who have good reason to hide their identities.

Site-level blacklisting can't cope with these sites. They can try to block by subdomain or directory (e.g. childporn.typepad.com or blogger.com/childporn) but these URLs are very easy to change. The general response of net-censors to these sites is to block them entirely, or demand that they adhere to some imposed code of conduct that calls for eliminating anonymity and close monitoring of content.

Finally, these methods only stop stupid child pornographers from gaining access. Smart child pornographers use Tor, or IRC, or BitTorrent, or Usenet, or email to get their material. Any dedicated child pornography collector will not be stymied by Cleanfeed.

Like so many other systems that "keep honest users honest," Cleanfeed will only serve to keep honest users in chains, and allow bad actors to skip off without any substantial inconvenience.

Re:Won't stop child-porn, will stop legit speech

[Socguy]

Your point is well made and were it any other issue I would agree with you. The case of child porn is so abhorrent to me, however, that I cannot resist this proposal. Yes, it is not a complete solution, nor likely even an overly effective one but it is a step against child porn. At the very least, it shows that we as Canadians will not tolerate this kind of crap. If it stops a casual or unskilled attempt or accidental exposure then I would consider it a success.

As for the potential of a slippery slope, I do acknowledge it is a very real possibility and I do believe that someone will eventually try to expand it to their own pet cause. However, when this occurs it will be up to us to blow the whistle and fight back. On balance, the benefit of this proposal outweighs the inconvenience the innocent may suffer.

Re:Won't stop child-porn, will stop legit speech

[mouthbeef]

I don't understand -- it's not effective, it creates real harm, and yet you support it because the thing it's meant to stop (that it won't be effective at stopping) is bad? If you really hate child porn, shouldn't you reserve your support for proposals that have a chance of working?

Logistically, it's implausible that this will be undertaken by Canadian ISPs. Looking at every page on every site on the Internet to decide if it's child porn or not isn't the kind of thing an ISP has the resources for. More likely, Canada will outsource its blacklist to the same companies that provide blacklists for US libraries and corporations, as well as repressive national governments in Syria, the UAE and elsewhere. These companies, like Secure Computing, make filters like SmartFilter, and hire roomsful of Middle-American bluenoses to make their own determinations about the Internet. Their criteria are opaque, their appeals process a closed book.

The list they produce will be kept secret -- but not because it will constitute a guide to child porn online. These companies treat their lists as trade secrets and refuse to disclose them to anyone, including their customers. Instead, you can query them to ask if your URL is censored, but not get a list of all censored links.

How will the appeals process (which you count as the only means by which this official censorship will keep from growing to encompass material that isn't child porn) work in this world? You won't be able to see the sites that are blocked, so you won't be able to argue for their blockage being inappropriate. Initiating the appeals process will require you to out yourself as a suspected consumer of child porn (and if your appeal is denied, then it means that you ARE a consumer of child porn, right?).

If a site is removed from the list, will it stay off? What if it had child porn yesterday, has no child porn today, and has child porn tomorrow. I'm sure that there are days when Blogger manages to get rid of all the child porn, and days when it can't. If you want to see the site today, but the appeal takes place tomorrow, when the porn is back, do you get to see it or not? Do you have to ask for an appeal again the day after, when the porn comes back?

As to inadvertent exposure to child porn: I am at least six sigmas above normal for adventuresome web-surfing. I edit an eclectica site (Boing Boing), that has me roving far and wide online. In all my years of web-browsing, I have happened on accidental child porn on a website maybe twice. Not little kids, but "Maybe the model in that pop-up window was more like 15 than 18." I have never, in all my days, happened on the classic kiddy porn online (spam is a different matter, but this system won't stop child porn in spam).

I suspect that if you get infected with spyware, this might happen more often, but the problem there is spyware. If that's the problem, then the government should put tax money into fighting spyware (of course, a good start would be if Heritage Minister Bev Oda would drop Bill C-60 and take a stand against spyware in DRM), not into making ineffectual blacklists that *only* pose a serious impediments for people who aren't engaged in illicit acts.

Industry leader Absent

[Anonymous Coward]

Note that the North American industry leader in broadband internet service is absent from the list of particpating ISPs: EastLink

EastLink is head and shoulders above every other broadband service provider in North America. They always have been and always will be. Their absence from this list of ISPs is particularly telling of the programs merit. If it was worthwhile and effective then EastLink would be participating. EastLink's expertise and knowledge is second to none.

EastLink is the result of the marriage of two family businesses: Shaw Cable and Dartmouth Cable. The combination of Shaw's customer service and Dartmouth Cable's expertise is unparalleled in North America in my experience.

I fondly recall the 5Mbit down and UP cable internet service complete with shell account I had with them back in 1992... sigh, the good old days.

Coax copper rocks! Go EastLink!

If they have a list?

[guidryp]

If they know where the child porn is, shouldn't it be a simple matter to shut them down, and/or track the downloaders/uploaders.

Once this list is established and the firewalling starts it will only be a matter of time before they add Allofmp3 (See Denmark), then piratebay then any and all torrent sites that have ever carried copyright material. Then you get an approved government controlled internet.

If it goes in Canada, Denmark and Britain, it will be a small matter of time before the USA gets one too.

I like downloading TV shows from around the globe(getting SG Atlantis, S03E11 right now), when that gets blocked, I am going back to dialup.

This has been going on in Norway for atleast 1year

[Anonymous Coward]

FWIW, this has been going on in Norway for at least a year now.

easily circumvented if enacted

[MooseTick]

If blacklisting becomes commonplace, then this will be easy to circumvent. The most likely method of catching people with such files will be to use lists of their hash values. People who post, trade, share, etc those pics or anything else that is deemed banned could easily put a few scripts on their site to make unpervievable midifications to those pics or files. Those modifications will totally change the hash value and make the files undetectable. This would be easy to implement and anyone nontechnical could do it.

Re:easily circumvented if enacted

[Anonymous Coward]

make unpervievable midifications to those pics or files

Your midifications need more work; they are quite pervievable.

Re:.. and in Denmark too

[Anonymous Coward]

Most if not all major ISPs in Denmark have agreed to block allofmp3.com.

[Offtopic] Translation

[empaler]

This... translation program of yours that handles Danish... Do you have a link?

Re:[Offtopic] Translation

[Anonymous Coward]

Værsgo :)

National Private Socialism

[Doc Ruby]

However, those countries involve state-based content blocking, with no transparency or legal recourse.

Government by corporations is fascism. The primary interest of fascism is control of the media, by which it rules a population usually by fear and intimidation.

Total control of what content a nation consumes is government of its media. Media corporations. Fascism.

blocking hate speech is the real issue

[Anonymous Coward]

The main danger of censorship lies in enabling governments/political elites to filter out political views and information opposing them. If political alternatives are not allowed to be promoted then our political system becomes ever more authoritarian and there will be no incentives for change. "Hate speech" is a concept that could apply to anyone who is passionately opposed to something or someone. It will not be established politicians and media promoting hate against their enemy of the day that will be censored but the political opposition.
While not principally against censorship of child porn I find the fervour shown by governments in their fight against online porn as opposed to real child abuse highly suspicious. I think child porn is used as a cover to build the infrastructure for political censorship.

mod parent up!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm canadian and don't currently have mod points, but parent's post is 100% correct.

Not eventual.

[Fantastic Lad]

All eventualists believe this, because, being eventualists, they unable to not project their eventualism on the behaviours of others. Amazingly, there are creatures in this world who thrive on sloped landscapes without sliding inevitably down hill--at least not until they are dragged into the barren crag below by all the eventualists around them pointing fingers at each other.

I wouldn't call it eventualism because the abuse of government power is with us right now. It has been for ages. There are countless examples of every system ever created by any government anywhere being misused. We know this; humans are imperfect. So typically, in a responsible government, we create counter-systems of oversight and appeal to balance out the human flaws, (of either judgment and morality), which is why systems lacking good error-corrective controls are so worrisome. It's never a matter of, "if it happens"; it's a matter of, "how bad will it be".

-FL

Why do they even need a blacklist?

[Xenographic]

What boggles me is why they need a blacklist? Surely it would be far more effective to simply shut down the site and put the operator(s) in jail?

I mean, why would you allow a site with child pornography (which is illegal almost everywhere) to remain up when you could contact the relevant authorities. Well, unless you really wanted a blacklist for unrelated things that aren't illegal... :-/

Re:Why do they even need a blacklist?

[Kesh]

Because they can't prosecute server/site owners who are outside of Canada. Sure, they could notify the legal authorities in that country, and might... but if nothing's done, what's their recourse?

I disagree with the entire concept of a national firewall, but I see their reasoning: block access to sites outside of Canada that have material illegal within Canada.

Just submit

[dognuts]

There's a sure fire cure for this, just do what I did & submit bogus tips to cybertip.ca
If everyone sends in bogus tips it's sure to cause them some problems.

Who cares if they have your IP address when you make a report,
what are they going to do sue you for filliing out their form.
I honestly thought the Globe&Mail article was promoting & advocating child porn.

The ads on the Bell Canada website looked like child porn to me, Roger's site even has some.

There's likely babyfood & diaper ads on other sites, isn't that child exploitation?
I better report those sites to.

The cybertip website has caused me to look for child porn so I can report it, isn't that reason
enough to block the cybertip site. It advocates & encourages people to seek out child porn,
it's turning me into a vigilante.

blocking webpages does not stop the actual abuse

[Imazalil]

Unfortunately, while I am no fan of child-porn, this doesn't stop the crime. It makes it a bit harder to track this stuff down, but don't think for one second that this will stop anything. It will stop access to child porn for the super lazy (or web-illiterate) pedo, but it does nothing to stop the actual abuse/exploitation.

Think along the lines of Napster (Yes I know it's awful to compare trading music and child porn). After it was shut down a whole bunch of alternatives came up that are faster, more secure, private etc. What I mean is that with Napster the *AA had a means to at least oversee the trading, check out what songs were popular, where they are coming from etc, now you can trade music completely anonymously. Unfortunately the same thing will happen with child porn. Right now, the police and quite a few watch groups know some of these sites and are able to track who visits them etc, if you force these people even further underground they will be much harder to keep tabs on.

Anyway, my main point is that the focus should be on catching the people that are abusing their/our kids not just putting up a wall around them and pretending that they don't exist. Yes by lessening the demand a percentage will stop the abuse/exploitation, but the majority I don't think are in the pedo field to make a quick buck, they are there because they have some major mental issues or are just plain monsters, blocking Joe Blow's access to their website will not stop them from doing the things they do.

First They Came...

[checkonetwo]

First the RCMP came for the kiddie porn
I remained silent
I was not a pedophile

Then they came for the German shaiza fetish porn
I remained silent
I was not into that shit

Then they came for the Barnyard fetish porn
I remained silent
I don't like animals like that

When they came for Busty Barely Legal Babes
There was no one left to speak out.

The reason they blocked the website

[Anonymous Coward]

Fascinating. Care to provide any references to support your claim?

Your education system is what happened

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.cantrip.org/gatto.html

For the last hundred years, your public education system has been dumbing people down and encouraging conformity. Entire generations have now been raised which don't have the values, beliefs or courage of the people who founded your country.

Retarded about freedom

[Anonymous Coward]

Im so amazed that so many people feel more free when child rapists are allowed to post their sh... Isnt it retarded?

It's funny that the mention "hate speech"

[leereyno]

Hate speech is a scam. Outlawing the expression of unpopular ideas strikes at the very core of the freedom to speak one's mind freely. Nazi's and KKK racists and islamofacist jihadis etc etc etc are all very distasteful people who believe things that are even more distasteful. But to forbid and criminalize the expression of their beliefs does nothing to refute or change those beliefs. The only thing this creates is a world where unpopular ideas are suppressed and their expression is subject to official sanction.

There are many people in this world who have bought into all sorts of destructive ideologies. The only way to keep these dangerous dogmas in check is by addressing them and discussing them and refuting them. Mainstream society is the culimination and the product of open dialogue where all ideas come together to vie and compete for an audience and followers. This process is the reason why mainstream western society is NOT under the influence of dangerous and/or extremist ideologies. Mainstream society in a culture of open discussion and dialogue converges upon concusions which, while not always the absolute best, are generally among the better conclusions and almost never among the worst. When mistakes are made they are quickly corrected.

But whenever this system of open discussion of all ideas is cast aside in an attempt to avoid the worst ideas, the result is that those ideas are never examined, and therefore not held in check. The irony is that this creates the very conditions under which those ideas can come to the forefront.

The best way to fight lies is not with a gag order, but with the truth. A gag order can give the appearance of victory over lies, but at the cost of sacrificing the very process by which the truth is discovered and preseved. If you shut your eyes to lies, they won't be open to see the truth.

Zonk,Im with you

[flyneye]

I've fought censorship as long as I've understood the word,as much as I can,with what I can.
I also understand the need to protect children ,what with being a parent and all.
I'd say society has finally come to a crossroads with this one.Time to choose,between freedom and political correctness.Rather than merely block sites with child porn,the information gleaned from the presence of these sites should be utilized to locate the owners,investigate and locate the contributors.Pedophilia is an incurable disease.This would be a chance to hunt find and eliminate the pedophiles on the entire planet.Politically incorrect,but who really cares?
It really is the final and only solution,worldwide complete culturcide of the pedophile.We already have a database of offenders here in the states.Truthfully,there is no-one who wants pedophiles around who isn't just part of the disease.Nazi-like as the idea may sound on the surface,even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Why should we pay with our freedom of speech only to let the peds among us thrive.We kill roaches,might as well kill the pedophile.
Is there really any genuine reason to protect them now that we have a solution to rid ourselves of this indefensible mutation? Where will it end arguments have no foothold here as it ends with extermination of the pedophile.

Hugh Owens

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

That may well be the way you want it to work, but check out the 2001-2002 report of the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission and look for "Hugh Owens". He faced legal action for buying a newspaper ad full of Bible verses. He went fishing in the bilges of the Bible for some nasty anti-homosexual verses, compiled a list and published them.

His case had an interesting course through the system that didn't really fit the narrative that the hate groups promulgated, which was "they've declared the Bible to be illegal hate speech". It started with him being ordered to pay CDN$1500 and went through some appeals.

Point being, it was not incitement to criminal activity, and if you were correct then the government would not have acted.

Good intention, but won't be possible

[SilverBlade2k]

I'm all for shutting down child porn sites, but it is damned near impossible to stop 100% of child porn. I think this is an excuse to block out sites like bitorrent sharing sites, and file sharing programs. As those methods *can* be used to exchange child porn. I think this was idea was manufactured by the Canadian versions of the MPAA and RIAA.

I never implied that.

[Kadin2048]

I'm not painting the U.S. as a "paragon of freedom." On the contrary; when people are considering the Canadian arguments about jurisdiction, they should take the same argument and see if they still like it, when they imagine the U.S. making it, in its usual heavyhanded way. Because if you make this sort of logic acceptable for one country to use, then other countries -- countries you may not like or approve of -- are going to do the same thing.

If Canada starts claiming jurisdiction over U.S. sites, then the U.S. is going to claim jurisdiction over other international sites for "defaming" or "threatening" U.S. citizens or companies, and that's not a road that I think we want to go down. (Insofar as we haven't already.)

Re:I never implied that.

[mdielmann]

Well, the problem with that whole theory is that the guy with the bigger stick wins. Canada will never be able to enforce these kinds of actions. The political penalties will be too high for them to be able to afford. Also, there's a vast difference between blocking a site because it doesn't fall within the laws of your country (whether that be speech, financial, etc.) and suing others for doing things that are legal in their countries.

We *know* where it's going.

[Kadin2048]

I hate all these damned slippery slopes situations. It's annoying to have to explain to people why we can't fight child porn with every tool because those tools will then be (mis)used for other purposes.

While it may be "annoying" to you, if using some "tool" against child pornography makes it more likely to be used in other situations -- as seems quite likely, or at least highly plausible -- then there is an immediate slippery slope.

In this case, there's practically no question that these same barriers that are being used against child porn are going to be used, almost immediately, for other purposes, as evidenced by the motivations of the people pushing for this.

This isn't even a slippery slope, it's walking directly off of a known precipice.

Well said.

[Kadin2048]

Thought crime laws are always wrong - even when they might be passed with the intent of doing real good.

You summed it up more succinctly than I ever could have. If only we could somehow drill that into the heads of the folks in Congress...

Hey Cupcake

[adaminnj]

the war of 1812 was concidered to be between England and the U.S.. the people who where in what is now called Canada where just Tory British simpathizers and cowards.

In the History books it says the brits torched the Whitehouse. Get it right. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_1812

your the same patriot that you bitch about when they are wraped in Red, White, and Blue.