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."
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.
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.
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.
occultae nullus est respectus musicae - originally a Greek proverb
"despite it's good intentions."
Are they already blacklisting grammar sites?
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.
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
"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.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
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...
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.
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.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
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.
"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.
The unexamined life is not worth living
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."
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.