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."
They tried this crap here in Australia a few years ago. Banned gambling sites so we all now send our casino $$s to Barbados. 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. The more they try to muzzle the Internet public, the more foolish they look.
As if we didn't waste enough money on the gun registry debacle, now they want to create another registry? I'm guessing there are more internet users in Canada than gun owners. This would be a logistical nightmare; luckily, it has little chance of becoming law.
What was once true, is no longer so
Some lowlights: So if I let my flatmates share my internet connection, that makes me an ISP without a licence? Which makes telling a paedophile to get help an offense. On the upside, this could cut down on some of the vigilantism.
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.
Apparently, they will to be able to block material "that promotes violence against women"
I'm wondering about material that promotes violence against men. Or, hey, why not violence against people. Or, better yet, they could simply stop walking the authoritarian path of banning everything that moves and poke fun at people who promote violence against [insert group of your choice here] instead. People rarely want to emulate individuals who are widely derided.
Oh, sorry, poking fun requires wit. The folks who want these kind of laws only have half of what is required.
"Cursed is he who rises early in the morning..." Isiah 5:11
Especially the bit about violence against women (but not against men) being grounds for a license to be revoked. And the bit about censoring my access to information.
The internet loses value if we start filtering it. Granted there are laws that prohibit sexual exploitation (of minors) and violence against anybody, but this is not a reason to give anybody such a high level of control over our (not mine, not his, not yours, but our) medium.
I don't think this will make it through as law... I hope. But I worked as a Legislative Page for a while, and you'd be amazed what gets voted on.
will we humans learn that restricting something without any chance of respite only makes it worse?
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.
What if I post the Holy Bible on my webpage? I'm a little blurry on details; (I haven't read it in, oh at least 10 years now), but I'm pretty sure there's explicit violence against women within it's sacred pages. If my online library(accessible through gnutella, usually) contains this work; will my hosting the Word of God cause me to be a criminal under this bill? To the point that I am essentially banished forever from connecting to the internet in Canada?
GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in Canada, we shall fight on the LAN's and WAN's, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the fibre, we shall defend our Internet, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the Servers, we shall fight on the Routers, we shall fight in the DNS and in the Backbones, we shall fight in the Computer Rooms; we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Internet or a large part of it were subjugated and censored, then our Industry beyond the 'Net, coded and staffed by the Valiant Geeks, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, Internet2, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old."
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.
I don't think that only happens in Soviet Canada...
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
Encryption is only legal anymore for businesses, and they have to provide the unencrypted data at request. You'll have to store it for, say, 7 years just in case...
Huh? What do you mean, "impossible"? Since when's that been an issue with laws concerning the 'net?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
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.
A canadian concerned citizen filed a petition at the supreme court asking it to clarify the credentials required to be an MP.
The request contained, amongst other things, "...MPs should be graduates with IQ above 110...must not present any bill for consideration without concurrence of 80% of his/her constituents...and should provide for hardcore jailtime if the MP is found falsifying records about education, IQ, etc..."
No, am serious. Who is this guy? Does he know a thing about internet, beyond "series of tubes",??
"Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
Nothing to see here. Move along please, eh.
As a Canadian who has some interest in these matters, I can tell you that there is at least one serious proposal for Internet regulation every couple of weeks. This week, it's licensing ISPs and demanding content be filtered. Two weeks ago, it was union demands that Canadian content regulation be enforced on YouTube and other online video services. (Broadcast media available in Canada must show at least 30% content developed in Canada). A month ago, it was yet another proposal to try and force Canadian companies to use the .CA TLD rather than .COM (fat chance).
Canadian governments at all levels love to float trial balloons such as this (as, I suspect, do governments everywhere). Fact is none of them ever really make it to the law books. Or in the occasional case where something silly does in fact make it into regulations, it is discovered to be silly and ignored from then onwards. An example? Because Canada spans 5 time zones, it is against the rules to broadcast interim election reports in those parts of the country where the polls have not closed. Theoretically, this includes Internet reports. But it is not enforced because regulators discovered, much to their annoyance, that servers in the Tonga Islands are not within the jurisdiction of the Canadian courts.
This will blow over, just like every other ill conceived Canadian government plan to stick its regulatory proboscis where it is not welcome.
Send an email to Joy Smith (the MP who introduced this half baked bill). Here's mine:
I would like to voice my objections to the "Clean Internet Bill" recently introduced by Ms Smith. This bill will be totally unenforceable as any traffic can and will be encrypted on the Internet. And an ISP licence? I thought one of the goals of this government was LESS bureaucracy. This would be yet another arbitrary and unenforceable regulation. Do I become an ISP for sharing a connection with other members of my household? Canada currently has a reputation as a leader in the high tech field, but this reputation will be eroded by such poorly thought out pieces of legislation as this.
I don't listen to the NDP on anything. I can see massive military spending increases and jingoistic speeches for myself. My information comes straight from the mouths of the conservatives themselves who were just spouting the tired empty rhetoric that following the Kyoto protocol would result in economic disaster, they have engaged in multiple round of anti-gay marriage rhetoric. Charles McVety (CFAC, Canadas Jerry Fallwell) has a strong working relationship with the harper conservatives, and was drafted by Harper to sell his "child care plan".
_ ID=52904
This McVety:
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE
Though I'm not from Canada, the same nonsensical prattlings occur from time to time here in the U.S from our elected officials. From now on, whenever I hear this clap-trap being spouted, I'll reply with the following:
I'll give you my support for "cleaning up the internet" when you clean up the bribery, corruption and kickbacks in your profession.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
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."
"We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old."
- Winston Churchill
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
Such madness is allready in effect in Denmark, where ISP's have been forced to deny their customers access to the russion MP3 music store "AllOfMP3". Not surprisingly, this step was forced by the music industry (IFPI). - Jesper
My security clearance is so high I have to kill myself if I remember I have it...
Joy Smith, MP
424 Confederation Building
Ottawa, ON, K1A 0A6
This is a private member's bill, and despite the fact that it came from a Conservative MP, the same sort of nonsense has come from Liberals and the NDP. Indeed, this is the sort of bill that usually comes from a Liberal (because they're all about talk and no action, and everyone with any brains knows this won't ever lead to action).
I am disturbed by the ignorance of some of my fellow Canadians are.
The Liberals did NOTHING to achieve Kyoto targets, despite having a majority party for over a decade.
Nothing.
Being pragmatic about Kyoto, and actually talking about the reality of it is quite a bit different than "bashing" it. Personally I find such honesty a lot more acceptable than the rhetoric and lip service we'll-say-what-gets-us-voted Liberal policy.
Increased desire to use the military? You mean like how the conservatives sent us to Afghanistan? Oh, right, that was the Liberals. Oh, maybe it's that we're in a new, offensive capacity? Oh, wait, the Liberals sent us in as front-line special forces and head-exploding snipers.
Hrmm...now I'm confused.
And wait, don't I recall the Liberals preparing to go on a military spending spree to buy themselves out of the mess they created? Why yes, I do.
As for the "anti-gay marriage rhetoric" -- yeah, those damn Conservatives believe in a democracy, and allowing each riding to voice an opinion. Damn them! So they've banned gay marriage, right? Oh yeah, not even close.
Actually it is. NATO has a requirement that if one of our allies is attacked, and wants us to join the fight, we have no choice in the matter. If we didn't honour our obligations and join the US in Afghanistan it would be very bad for our national defense. Iraq has never attacked the US, so we had a choice in that one.
It's the weekly speeches about how Israel is so great and wonderful and just, combined with the increase in military spending that scare me. Steven Harper is a nut job with far too much power already.
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.
...I'd recommond every Canadian to go to here:
n MPsCompleteList.aspx?TimePeriod=Current&Language=E
http://webinfo.parl.gc.ca/MembersOfParliament/Mai
Find their member of parliament and tell them that they will not tolerate motions like this under any circumstance.
Censorship is a word that causes many slashdotters to see red. I agree that an open Internet is a good thing. But where do you draw the line on obscenity issues. I don't want to see child prostitution shops set up in my country (I am Canadian) even if they are tucked out of the way. Neither do I want some obscene material on the Internet (personally, I don't want to see any obscene material on the Internet, but I also believe in supporting democracy because morals are relative and subjective, so the majority _must_ decide), so how is it that some laws against obscenity are "ok" censorship (i.e., no child-porn stores or child prostitution shops) but other kinds of censorship is "bad" (i.e., blocking a child-porn website).
I think a big part of the debate that needs to be discussed is what is the nature of the stuff that is being censored. Certainly big brother shouldn't get too big that freedom of speech is lost, but then anything goes isn't a good idea either.
(of course the Canadian strategy seems to be make everything legal but tax is to death.)