Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
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.
A game has objectives and is competitive, anything else is just play
How does a process tell the difference between two images, nonetheless two nude people, one 16 and the other 18?
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
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.
I reserve the right to think for myself. Others' opinions are optional. Puppy on lap = typos...not illiteracy.
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.
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.
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.
[]'s Victor Bogado da Silva Lins
^[:wq
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...