Slashdot Mirror
Canadian MP Calls For ISP Licenses, Content Blocks
An anonymous reader writes "A member of Canada's ruling Conservative party has pledged to "clean up"
the Internet with new bill that would mandate ISP licensing,
know-your-subscriber rules, and allow the government to order ISPs to
block content. ISPs that fail to block would faces possible jail time
for the company's directors and officers."
Is it me, or is Canada going completely mad?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Trying to regulate content on the internet is like trying to make politicians work pertinent issues.
--The universe will not be altered by forum threads, even those which are very wry. --Tycho Brahe (Penny Arcade)
Were Australia not building up a filter service to allow customers to block porn sites a while ago? What is to stop this technology being used to filter out political writtings that they don't want people to be able to access?
It's not up to government to decide what we can and can't see, and I feel it is a very bad idea to build them the weapons to do so, no matter how much they promise to not use them for their own advantage.
Free software, free thought, free society.
Just as every villian dreams of world domination, I guess every government keeps dreaming of controlling the internet.
I'm much more funny, interesting and insightful than the moderators think
Yet another attempt to curb criticism on governments? How can we protest or criticize when we are no longer anonymous ? I don't mind spewing vitriolic comments on slashdot under my account because IRL I remain anonymous. It wouldn't surprise me if this legislation is being pushed under the guise of protecting us from evil terrorists and child pron. I'd rather have those in need of such protection be kept off the net than exposing everyone's private information to government officials. To be honest, I don't trust any govt to have its people's best interests as their first priority.
that a good portion of internet traffic is encrypted, and that ISPs cannot know what is contained within it? How can an ISP living under this bill possibly coexist with encryption? And if we outlaw encryption, how can we possibly compete on the global marketplace?
And because it hasn't been said yet; it's violence against women and child porn now; but before the ink on this bill dries, it will be turned toward copyright enfringers, and peole who promote the end of marijuana prohibition.
GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
It just amazes me that a generation of politicians whos parents grew up fighting WWII seem to want to emulate the Nazi's as much as they can get away with. It's not just Canada, it's everywhere.
There is a war going on for your mind.
Perhaps Joy Smith does not understand, but the Internet is a global system, i.e. most of the content exists somewhere else than Canada, eh. She can try to regulate ISPs all she wants, but she can't actually touch most of them, and those that don't want to be bothered simply won't operate in Canada, or will flout the law and dare the Canadian government to come after them.
GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
it makes us Canadians look like a bunch of jackasses (I fear I've left an opening for mockery here). Anyhow, I'll be writing my MP about this (again).
SEO Copywriter. Just Say ON
It doesn't take a law degree to understand that almost nothing in this bill would pass constitutional muster. Besides, this is a private members bill meaning it was introduced entirely on the volition of the MP in question and without the support of cabinet or caucus. Without that support, it has zero chance of passing and amounts to nothing more than grandstanding for their constituents. It should also be noted that several private member bills along the same lines have been introduced in years past, all without success.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't be concerned or silent. Concerned Canadians should write their MP and the author of the bill, Joy Smith.
Right now there is a push to force ISPs to use content filtering, in fact the Fed Govt has a tender out now to evaluate effectiveness or otherwise of filtering technology.
Unfortunately the problem isn't just the right-wing Family First wackos, it's also the plethora of unethical IT consultants in search of a good pork barrel telling them: "Censor the Internet ? Sure, no worries, we can have that up and running in 6 months if you just give us $millions".
The more they try to muzzle the Internet public, the more foolish they look.
Only to the tiny minority of people who realise how impossible it is.
> I'm wondering about material that promotes violence against men.
Not important. Remember, it's a tragedy when women are beaten or raped or molested as girls by men, but a joke when men are beaten by women or raped in prison (much less women, since most people believe that isn't possible) or molested as boys by women.
It's the old double standard: "Men are strong and supposed to be able to take anything and want any sort of sex even when their infant or their not men, they're pussies. Women are weak and suppose to require help for even the most minor things and hate sex and when this is occationally not the case, it must either be because a man corrupted her or she's had mitigating circumstances.".
Then problem with double standards is that they cut both ways. In this case, it's against men but in others, it's in favour.
Fortunately, since the Charter of Rights (the Canadian constitution) explicitly focuses on human rights (not men or female rights) and explicitly goes against discrimination against gender, race, creed, or religion, so it should be possible to strike down this law (or at least broaden it to "that promotes violence against people") on constitutional grounds.
We can't get politicians to do a goddamn thing to owners and managers of corporations when their companies kill and exploit other human beings, but now they suddenly want owners and managers of ISPs to be held accountable and face jail time for content? What in the fuck? They're not even really attempting to hide the fact that this is really about censorship.
"We may face a scorched and lifeless earth, but they're accountable to their shareholders first."
Let's not lose track of reality. Only government holds the keys to oppression -- THEY are the organization holding the unique "right" to employ coercion as their means. Since anyone else who does so is a criminal, how can an IT consultant possibly employ organized coercion against you? Sure they're crooks, cheaters, scumbags for making deals with the devil -- but in the end, only government holds the keys. (Unless you believe in that tired old fairy tale "for the people, by the people" where individuals somehow oppress themselves, forcing themselves to pay for things they would never pay voluntarily, hauling themsleves off to jail for engaging in various peaceful activities, etc, etc.)
Please note that the bible as we know it today is publication that was created as a result of various 'government projects' initiated by various governments down through the ages starting in 553 ad, with the councel of Nicea in Constantinople.
Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
If you're going to follow Moseic law, you'd better follow all of it. Not interested in becoming a Jew? Then you might be interested to know the rules changed about 2k years ago:
"But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.""
John 8:7
This is so ridiculous; I am (as I think most slashdotters are) opposed to any form of censorship, especially state mandated censorship.
Aside from the obvious wrong of trying to restrict ideas and content, the other point that I think can be made which shows how wrong this is - is the following:
Who decides what is inappropriate content? The standard is in the eye of the beholder:
I am sure that there are a lot of people who find nudity, sex, art, controversial discourse, etc. beautiful; (as I do), and find a lot of what many organized religions (and the other things these people use as their personally defined self-righteous "moral" authority) to be profane and harmful, especially when used in the political/governmental sphere - as do I.
An argument can be made that children shouldn't watch porn (and violence is worse IMO) and I agree with this, but this is something that the parents or guardians are responsible for. Don't attempt to take away freedoms and discourse by claiming that you are protecting children or "cleaning up the net."
So we can then see that this isn't about protecting anyone from anything - this is about controlling ideas, controlling possibilities and getting a handle around the internet - I think governments have realized that the net is one area where these masses actually have organizing potential that is difficult to squelch - they don't like not being able to control it.
There is also the obvious political side too IE promising some political bullshit which is impossible to deliver - because even if they get away with this the technological libertarians (not the political party per se, I am referring to those in our community who will use their skills to protect the freedom of the net) - will use encryption and/or hopefully develop tools to try to circumvent most of these restrictions.
Well, rather than reducing 'violence against women,' wouldn't it be better to reduce violence? Rather than fighting for 'equality of women,' wouldn't it be better to fight for equality?
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.