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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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