Slashdot Mirror


Canadian Censorship Takes Down 4500 Sites

uncadonna writes "According to activist group The Yes Men, the government of Canada has shut down two parody websites criticizing Canada's poor environmental policy. The article goes on to claim that 'In response to Environment Canada's request, Serverloft immediately turned off a whole block of IP addresses, knocking out more than 4500 websites that had nothing to do with the parody sites or the activists who created them. Serverloft was shown no warrant, and never called the web hosting company about the shutdown.'"

227 comments

  1. Works for me by FPCat · · Score: 5, Informative

    Umm, http://ec-gc.ca/ is working for me.....

    1. Re:Works for me by epiphani · · Score: 4, Informative

      I can somewhat understand where the Canadian government is coming from on this one. The .gc.ca domain is Canadian Government sites. This site is obviously designed to look like an official government site - using a domain that could confuse people.

      I have a problem with censorship, but I also have a problem with intentionally misleading people, then screaming censorship when the folks you're trying to quietly impersonate come after you.

      --
      .
    2. Re:Works for me by compro01 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Both sites appear to be working fine from here in Canada also. This is either some quick backpedaling or bogus.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    3. Re:Works for me by uncledrax · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Ditto.

      Either they turned them back on really quick, or the article itself is hoax-ad-ware? or something.. i'm sure there's some pre-ordained term for this from the Elders of the Internet

      --
      ----- The internet has given everyone the ability to have their voice heard equally as loud.. even if they shouldn't be
    4. Re:Works for me by Nos. · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yup, both sites are working for me as well.

      So a few questions pop to mind. Did Serverloft shutdown the sites? Or was there a temporary outage that these "yesmen" interrupted as a deliberate take down? If Serverloft did take the sites down, why were 4500 other sites affected? Can they not shut down one or two sites without taking down every other site that shares the same IP? Why would a German ISP respond (briefly) to a request from "some guy" in a government job in another country, and then enable them again, within a matter of hours?

    5. Re:Works for me by puster2 · · Score: 1

      Why would a German ISP respond (briefly) to a request from "some guy" in a government job in another country, and then enable them again, within a matter of hours?

      Well I can say that (as a German) a demand from "some guy" would not just be met. If the claim is legal and backed by the appropriate institutions then I would believe it happens.

      But then the question remains: Why would they shut down an entire IP-segment so that 4500 other pages are affected?

      --
      Don't argue with idiots. The pull you down to their level and beat you with experience.
    6. Re:Works for me by Abcd1234 · · Score: 2

      Yeah, I'd agree, except using government muscle to come after people who mislead others is kind of a crappy thing to do.

      Uhh, isn't that precisely what trademark law, and the enforcement thereof, exist to do?

    7. Re:Works for me by genner · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ditto.

      Either they turned them back on really quick, or the article itself is hoax-ad-ware? or something.. i'm sure there's some pre-ordained term for this from the Elders of the Internet

      Nope no pre-ordianed term. We didn't need one back in the day, since internet censorship was the feavered dream of a mad man back then.

    8. Re:Works for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seems YANAL heh.

    9. Re:Works for me by Angst+Badger · · Score: 1

      I have a problem with censorship, but I also have a problem with intentionally misleading people, then screaming censorship when the folks you're trying to quietly impersonate come after you.

      I can't disagree with that, but the real misdeed here is the lack of due process and the negligent clobbering of the unrelated 4500 sites. I'm not a Canadian lawyer, but I sure wish I was one right now.

      --
      Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
    10. Re:Works for me by uuddlrlrab · · Score: 1
      I can understand anyone or any group not wanting to be impersonated and having said impostors make false statements or claims on your behalf, but this is ridiculous on the part of both the Canadian gov't & that hosting company. I don't know the specifics of Canuck law, but considering it's a parliamentary democracy, I can't imagine there aren't some due processes of law by which an aggrieved party, whether government department or private citizen, can ask the police/justice department to look into just that one specific website doing the impersonation, ask that just it and it alone be suspended/removed, not have a basic request not backed by any warrant result in an entire block of IP addresses being shut down. That is outrageous. If the article is to be believed, the government's next request is downright absurd...

      Landreville also asked the ISP to "make every effort to prevent any further attempts concerning other environment-related domains (enviro, ec-gc, etc.) originating from your servers."

      It's like the RIAA attitude is rubbing off everywhere. "Please act on our behalf to protect our image/intellectual property/etc, because we just don't feel like getting off our lazy asses to manage our own affairs." Ludicrous. I'm not advocating belligerence toward the law, but this kind of blind, sniveling compliance verges on the sort of grovelling a lackey does at the feet of his master. Whatever happened to "Get a warrant?"

      --
      Odi profanum vulgus et arceo
    11. Re:Works for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Misleading for what purpose?

      If misleading to gain by foul means: tricking people into buying something they think is something else, providing personal information they wouldn't otherwise provide; etc. then yeah, shut that down.

      If misleading to draw attention to a social ill by pulling a prank, then no, that's a very clever use of freedom of speech, even if somebody doesn't happen to think the prank is funny.

      I think the "grandma test" is the best way to assess the situation. I wouldn't want my grandma to inadvertently give her credit card number to identity thieves. I wouldn't mind if my grandma was tricked into believing that Canada was going to pave the entire country. The former is malicious and harmful, the latter is just good clean confused-grandma fun.

    12. Re:Works for me by JWSmythe · · Score: 3, Informative

          They're not operating very far away from the phishers. Well, except they'll accept your invitations to speak at events, and get paid for it, as if they were the real people.

          They're not doing any good. They're actually very intentionally trying to pick fights with the government, and large corporations.

        The only thing they're not doing quite yet is accepting the money from online places. They are still actively committing fraud, under the guise of parody.

          It's folks like this that endanger free speech for everyone. I won't say to stop them, but I will strongly suggest that they shouldn't do it any more.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    13. Re:Works for me by JWSmythe · · Score: 4, Informative

          I can't believe anyone is believing a press release done by a group who intentionally does bogus press releases and web sites. No one else sees the problem with this??

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    14. Re:Works for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seems YANALE heh.

    15. Re:Works for me by Hurricane78 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      While I agree a bit, you apparently don’t know the Yes Men.
      They are known for stunts where they impersonate government agencies, and then go e.g. to conferences and look how far they can go, until the audience starts to complain.

      Turns out they can go further than even the tinfoil hat crowd could imagine.
      They for example presented how one could catch the shit that’s going down the toilet, and making re-burgers out of them, to feed the 3rd world. Or how slavery is too expensive and the current model of letting them work there where you don’t even have to feed them at all, is much better.
      And they got a whole room applauding at them.

      They aim for a seriously presented but blatantly obvious and over the top parody.
      And their point is, that people don’t get the parody and think it’s actually real.

      Seems they won again. And we can all laugh at the Canadian government. The only reason we don’t laugh at you too, is because we can’t assume you did read TFA or saw their work. :) So I give you that.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    16. Re:Works for me by azgard · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's not really a fraud. If you are a fraudster, you do it for personal profit. This more like a variation of civil disobedience.

    17. Re:Works for me by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 5, Informative

      Yeah, I'd agree, except using government muscle to come after people who mislead others is kind of a crappy thing to do.

      It was a German company that pulled the plug. They were under no obligation whatsoever to honor the request. It's them who screwed up most in this affair.

    18. Re:Works for me by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is either some quick backpedaling or bogus.

      Or some nimble work finding another hosting provider. Hehe, wouldn't it be funny if 4498 unrelated sites were offline, but the two sites that were targeted were online again at a different provider :-)

    19. Re:Works for me by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 3, Informative
      Indeed, it seems to:
      # tcptraceroute enviro-canada.ca 80
      Selected device ppp0, address xxxxxxxxx, port xxxx for outgoing packets
      Tracing the path to 188.138.4.45 on TCP port 80 (www), 30 hops max
      ...
      8 tge-4-0-0-0a.cr1.fra.routeserver.net (80.81.193.21) 21.938 ms 23.390 ms 21.860 ms
      9 sl6.fra.routeserver.net (62.75.135.6) 23.359 ms 24.462 ms 23.199 ms
      10 vm5.pi.dk (188.138.4.45) [open] 23.449 ms 22.716 ms 25.587 ms
      ==> so it's hosted in Denmark now!

      I recommend that the 4498 unrelated sites should do likewise, and find a hosting provider with a spine.

    20. Re:Works for me by Eightbitgnosis · · Score: 1

      Yeah! Fuck the Onion!

    21. Re:Works for me by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1

      Either they turned them back on really quick, or the article itself is hoax-ad-ware?

      ... or the sites picked another hosting provider? Indeed, tcptraceroute shows that enviro-canada.ca is now hosted in Denmark, whereas serverloft is in Germany.

      I hope that the 4498 unrelated sites that have been clobbered along with them will find another hosting provider as well.

    22. Re:Works for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      I know it's unfair to expect an AC to RTFA, but if you had - it stated that the government requested Serverloft "make every effort to prevent any further attempts concerning other environment-related domains (enviro, ec-gc, etc.) originating from [their] servers." Serverloft responded by shutting down a block of 4500 IP addresses. While this request from the government is arguably overreaching - Serverloft's actions in response to the request were basic incompetence. Serverloft is where most of your complaint should be directed. The government's request may be naive, but Serverloft was plain stupid.

    23. Re:Works for me by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1

      If the claim is legal and backed by the appropriate institutions then I would believe it happens.

      Point is, in this case the claim was not legal. The claim was issued by a foreign government which has no jurisdiction in Germany.

    24. Re:Works for me by Intron · · Score: 5, Insightful

      1) Saying something - speech.
      2) Taking money or goods under false pretenses - fraud.

      I don't understand your confusion here. There's already laws against 2). No need to bring 1) into a legal discussion at all.

      --
      Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
    25. Re:Works for me by MacGyver2210 · · Score: 0
      Just FYI, picking a fight with the people you want to confront is sometimes the only way to get a reaction, especially in politics.

      I'm a little disappointed with Canada for just shutting down the domain block instead of proactively going after these guys specifically.

      --
      If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits
    26. Re:Works for me by dimeglio · · Score: 1

      Lies or deception coming from government or from lobby groups are the same. It should not be tolerated. I'm glad our government is taking action and I would expect the same from anyone who is being misrepresented. This is not a freedom of speech issue but a trade name issue.

      --
      Views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the author.
    27. Re:Works for me by palegray.net · · Score: 3, Funny

      The government's request may be naive, but Serverloft was plain stupid.

      Serverloft is obviously too big to fail.

      /me runs.

    28. Re:Works for me by palegray.net · · Score: 1

      Ah, the wonders of keeping your DNS records set to a low TTL.

    29. Re:Works for me by grcumb · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They're not doing any good. They're actually very intentionally trying to pick fights with the government, and large corporations.

      But you contradict yourself.

      --
      Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
    30. Re:Works for me by SlashDread · · Score: 1

      "Joe job" may cover it.

    31. Re:Works for me by joocemann · · Score: 1

      I can somewhat understand where the Canadian government is coming from on this one. The .gc.ca domain is Canadian Government sites. This site is obviously designed to look like an official government site - using a domain that could confuse people.

      I have a problem with censorship, but I also have a problem with intentionally misleading people, then screaming censorship when the folks you're trying to quietly impersonate come after you.

      On another note, I'll say that maybe people shouldn't use Serverloft if they can't rely on them to at least make an effort to stand up for their customers.

      Don't do business with businesses that don't respect you.

    32. Re:Works for me by dangitman · · Score: 1

      i'm sure there's some pre-ordained term for this from the Elders of the Internet

      Yes. We call it "Robert" (pronounced "Wobbert").

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    33. Re:Works for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, I'd agree, except using government muscle to come after people who mislead others is kind of a crappy thing to do.

      What the hell is government for, if not to enforce fraud laws? It's not to provide post-office level health care.

    34. Re:Works for me by oldspewey · · Score: 2, Funny

      Do either of you know of any good restaurants and guesthouses in Yanale Heh? I'm backpacking in that direction and plan to arrive there sometime early next week so long as the buses can make it through the roads during monsoon season.

      --
      If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
    35. Re:Works for me by epine · · Score: 1

      We need to take censorship seriously. This begins by refusing to position fraud masquerading as parody as a freedom of speech issue, which is terribly disrespectful of real censorship. Freedom of speech was never meant to be used as a day pass to Dorkville.

      I can well imagine the childhood of someone who signs up the domain ec-gc.ca to engage in serious debate. I was played against his likeness in an online poker room yesterday, a fellow playing under the identity "Custard Pump" with a unkempt mop of hair over a naked upper torso icon posed with a conspicuous, demure, downward gaze.

      Cluster Hump goes all-in on the first hand, and miraculously doubles up. Mustard Sump goes nearly all-in again on the second hand, and this time gets busted down to 100 chips. The next hand Cluetard Rump craftily bids himself down to 1 chip, whereupon he does nothing but sit there on every bid opportunity running down his bid clock (15s per bid plus his one-time 60s extra time clock), to express the emotional futility of his existence to everyone else at the table. Took half a dozen deals for the blinds to come around and knock him out.

      Climate change is an important debate. If you've got something serious to say, show up and play, and stop hiding behind a daffy-ass parody pretence.

    36. Re:Works for me by JumperCable · · Score: 1
    37. Re:Works for me by EnviroCanada · · Score: 1

      Umm, http://ec-gc.ca/ is working for me.....

      You'll do better by going to Google and putting this in the search box:

      site:enviro-canada.ca

      site:ec-gc.ca

      and then, of course, clicking on the "cache" links.

    38. Re:Works for me by darthflo · · Score: 1

      Apparently, the affected sites were not clients of Serverloft but of a web hoster whose servers are located in Serverloft's datacentre, connected through Serverloft's routing system. Serverloft apparently got really impressed by the Canucks' request for a takedown and, not having electronic access to the servers just shut down the entire IP range of their client, that hosting company.

    39. Re:Works for me by UnderCoverPenguin · · Score: 1

      ""If the claim is legal and backed by the appropriate institutions then I would believe it happens."

      Point is, in this case the claim was not legal. The claim was issued by a foreign government which has no jurisdiction in Germany."

      A business's management might very well determine it is prudent to honor the request of a foreign government. After all, they have their own political interests just as any other people do.

      --
      Don't try to out wierd me, three-eyes. I get stranger things than you, free with my breakfast cereal. --Zaphod Beeblebr
    40. Re:Works for me by Kernel+Kurtz · · Score: 1

      The line between parody and impersonation is very much a matter for legal discussion. You want to make fun of GM or IBM on a website, have at it. You want to pose as an official GM or IBM website, I would expect you to not last long. All they really needed to do was include "sucks" in their URL.............

    41. Re:Works for me by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

            The difference is that The Onion is a well known parody site, running news that's generally so out there you couldn't mistake it for reality.

          These guys are portraying themselves as government agencies or commercial companies, and spreading potentially dangerous false information, apparently including the news report of their own demise. For the businesses involved, there could be distinguishable monetary losses because of what they do. For the government agencies, there could be a lost of trust in the state (no surprise there), or disinformation being spread by word of mouth.

       

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    42. Re:Works for me by angus77 · · Score: 1

      Sure, but there are procedures (starting with getting a warrant) for doing so.

    43. Re:Works for me by MBGMorden · · Score: 1

      While I can see your point, I think the reaction to such stunts should be limited to calling them douchebags. There is a serious problem when we decide to let the government censor things because they're controversial or offensive, even if they dip pretty dip into either (or both) of those categories.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    44. Re:Works for me by SilverEyes · · Score: 1

      No, "Rarnaby Budge" by Charles Dikkens. That's Dikkens with two Ks, the well-known Dutch author.

      --
      Interesting.
    45. Re:Works for me by Genwil · · Score: 1

      I agree that I can understand it a bit. The satire uses too much misdirection. They could have made the point even better by not copying exactly the look and domain. A very large majority of people recognize that there are legitimate limits to free speech (e.g. the famous "can't yell 'Fire!' in a crowded movie theatre"). I think the Yes Men made a tactical error. However, it is good that people see the backwards approach being taken by the Canadian government on the issue of global warming. It all fits in with the philosophy of the people in the Conservative party who do not believe in a progressive role for government, much like members of the second Bush administration.

    46. Re:Works for me by S.O.B. · · Score: 1

      I know it's unfair to expect an AC to RTFA

      I would take TFA with a huge grain of salt. The "article" is actually a press release from the people who claim to be targeted and who routinely put out false information to get attention. Their claims of being shut down and impacting 4500 other sites have yet to be confirmed by an independent source.

      --
      Some of what I say is fact, some is conjecture, the rest I'm just blowing out my ass...you guess.
    47. Re:Works for me by Geheimagent · · Score: 1

      ==> so it's hosted in Denmark now!
        I recommend that the 4498 unrelated sites should do likewise, and find a hosting provider with a spine.

      the hostingprovider has a spine and was danish from the beginning. The serverhoster (serverloft) has no spine and is located in Germany.

  2. Re:in soviet russia web site Censors you! by FooAtWFU · · Score: 1

    in soviet russia web site Censors you!

    URL or it didn't happen!

    --
    The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
  3. hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... this is an odd play for the federation

    1. Re:Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, well, once they cross the border they're shipped off to Nunavut.

    2. Re:Hmmm by oldspewey · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Under the current conservative party government, we've been on a slow, quiet, insidious slide toward fascism. Suppression of information is a frequent and favourite tactic of this government - which is ironic considering they campaigned on "openness and accountability" during the '06 election.

      --
      If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
    3. Re:Hmmm by bbhack · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Under the current conservative party government

      I don't think that word means what you think it means.

      --
      The next thing to remember is to put next things next.
    4. Re:Hmmm by causality · · Score: 2, Informative

      Under the current conservative party government

      I don't think that word means what you think it means.

      I am not Canadian but I believe the name of the party is The Conservative Party. The word "conservative" lost its meaning a long time ago, particularly in the USA. How else do you explain the politicians who self-identify as "conservative" who are so eager to expand the size and power of government?

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    5. Re:Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think that word means what you think it means.

      Social "conservatives" are anything but.

    6. Re:Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think that word means what you think it means.

      Conservative Party, the name of the current ruling party. So it means exactly what he thinks it means

    7. Re:Hmmm by compro01 · · Score: 1

      Which word? Their legal name is the Conservative Party of Canada (or Parti conservateur du Canada).

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    8. Re:Hmmm by MadnessASAP · · Score: 5, Informative

      As a Canadian I can confirm that they are in fact called "The Conservative Party of Canada" or more colloquially "The assholes who somehow managed to win an election and try to claim divine mandate with less then 25% of voting Canadian behind them."

      --
      I may agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to face the consequences of saying it.
    9. Re:Hmmm by BlueStraggler · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How else do you explain the politicians who self-identify as "conservative" who are so eager to expand the size and power of government?

      That's an easy one. The core philosophy in conservatism is maintaining the existing power structures in society. The size of government is immaterial, and will be increased when necessary and decreased when unnecessary to the achievement of this aim. The existing power structure in the USA is based around the military industrial complex, which dictates big, big, big government (but which spends very little on actual social programs). The power structure in Canada is based around the resource economy, which dictates government small enough that the energy, mining, and forestry companies can override popular opposition. That pretty much explains everything you need to know about the differences between American and Canadian conservatives.

    10. Re:Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      could not agree more ..

      and ironic as steven harper big complaint was that john chretien was running the government out of the prime minister's office .. and that the liberals were not forth coming enough with information to the people ..

      while the current consevative government is completely controlled out of the PM's office .. and are probably the most secretive government in canadian history ..

      but it is just the old basic politrick bait and switch ..

      and in harper's case we most often dislike in others what we most dislike about our selves ..

    11. Re:Hmmm by causality · · Score: 1

      and decreased when unnecessary

      They forgot that part. Perhaps that happens in Canada only. In the USA, I have never once witnessed a significant decrease of the size and power of the federal government during my entire lifetime. Ever. I have seen this on the state and local levels, but never on the federal level.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    12. Re:Hmmm by eddy+the+lip · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Succinct, cogent and accurate. Are you sure you're on the right site?

      --

      This is the voice of World Control. I bring you Peace.

    13. Re:Hmmm by uuddlrlrab · · Score: 1

      Inconceivable!

      --
      Odi profanum vulgus et arceo
    14. Re:Hmmm by bbhack · · Score: 1

      ... The existing power structure in the USA is based around the military industrial complex, which dictates big, big, big government (but which spends very little on actual social programs)....

      Very little? The entitlement mentality will be the end of the US. What seems like a little only seems that way because there is never enough for those who want the fruits of someone else's labor.

      --
      The next thing to remember is to put next things next.
    15. Re:Hmmm by bbhack · · Score: 1

      Words become corrupted, but concepts survive. We continue to use the old corrupted words until better ones come along.

      --
      The next thing to remember is to put next things next.
    16. Re:Hmmm by Beardo+the+Bearded · · Score: 1

      As a Canadian I can confirm that they are in fact called "The Conservative Party of Canada" or more colloquially "the fuckers."

      FTFY. (I am also Canadian.) They got in riding the anti-gay-marriage ticket. The next two elections were done when the other parties were hurting, hoping that they'd win a majority. (Turnabout is fair play -- Cretin did this years ago.) No issues have been brought forward in any way that makes the citizens of this country go out and vote.

      It pisses me off when they (and I mean any party) call us "voters", "constituents", or "taxpayers". We aren't any of those things. We're citizens, and they exist at our whim.

      The problem we have is that not one party up here is worth voting for. Our choices are:
      1. Sweatervest,
      2. Clueless,
      3. Dr. Moustachio,
      4. La Wall Briq, and
      5. Outcast.

      None of these people deserve to run the country, and none of them have done a thing to impress the Canadian public.

      --

      ---
      ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
    17. Re:Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Under the current conservative party government

      I don't think that word means what you think it means.

      What word? 'Under' or 'the'?

    18. Re:Hmmm by SteveFoerster · · Score: 1

      The word "conservative" lost its meaning a long time ago, particularly in the USA. How else do you explain the politicians who self-identify as "conservative" who are so eager to expand the size and power of government?

      Well, we still have the word "libertarian" so we can tell who actually wants to make government smaller, although even that one has to be taken with a bit of skepticism sometimes.

      -=Steve=-

      --
      Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
    19. Re:Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a Canadian I can confirm that they are in fact called "The Conservative Party of Canada" or more colloquially "The assholes who somehow managed to win an election and try to claim divine mandate with less then 25% of voting Canadian behind them."

      Ummm, no. There are many reasons to dislike the Conservative party, but outright lies just mark you as an idiot. The Conservative party has never claimed a divine mandate.

      The Conservative party won the election because they won more seats in parliament than any other party. And far more than 25% of voting Canadians voted for the Conservative party.

      And if you look at raw vote percentages, the Conservative party got more votes in recent elections than Chretien did with his majorities.

      If the opposition parties want to bring down the Conservative government, then go right ahead - it's very easy to force a non-confidence vote. But looking at the polls, it is likely the Conservative party would be re-elected with even more seats.

    20. Re:Hmmm by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1

      I thought Canada was a bastion of civil liberties.

      Haha. Coffee-splutter! You owe me a new keyboard.

      In Canada you can get imprisoned for 3 months without seeing a judge, attorney, your embassy, or even a doctor, and without access to a telephone, simply for criticizing how the Rotary Club runs a Shelterhouse. After these 3 months, when your visa (luckily) runs out, you're shipped back to your home country sans luggage.

      Now, good luck on getting any redress or compensation. Or even getting your luggage back.

      No, Canada is not the fairy-tale land of civil liberties that everybody believes.

      If you're a hippy (especially if you're a hippy...) don't set foot in Canada under any circumstances, if you value your backpack and its contents :-) Or if you absolutely must, don't offer up any environmental advice that might upset powerful locals. And make sure your visa is not one day longer than needed.

    21. Re:Hmmm by BlueStraggler · · Score: 1

      That simply means that smaller federal government has never served the aims of the military-industrial establishment. It's not that they forgot, it's that smaller government is actually contrary to their aims. The US military alone spends more than all state and local governments combined, and that is only one federal department. Conservatives who think conservatism has anything to do with small government are borderline romantics, thinking back to a pre-WWII America, even a 19th-Century America where the USA was individualistic, isolationist, and still driven by the pioneer spirit. It's an appealing national myth, but a myth nonetheless in the 21st Century.

    22. Re:Hmmm by oldspewey · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That's why we need electoral reform and proportional representation. When the cast of characters you list above are forced to work with 2-3 other parties as well as a handful of independent MPs in order to get measures passed through parliament, they will suddenly discover that autocratic, partisan bullshit will harm their ability to get things done and to remain in power.

      --
      If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
    23. Re:Hmmm by SilverEyes · · Score: 1

      Ummm... I can't seem to find information on the story you're talking about. Could you provide a link, please?

      --
      Interesting.
    24. Re:Hmmm by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Just the obvious question since I live in Canada and have been involved in politics for 15 years, but..where were you when the Liberal party was in power and were actively censoring everyone and everything that could get them removed from office and interfering in official investigations at the federal level. Including shutting down agencies that do that investigation.

      You really sound like another party hack that's upset that the liberal didn't get a 20yr majority. Too bad they were fucking the entire country over and using it for their own personal play thing.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    25. Re:Hmmm by Pence128 · · Score: 1

      Yeah! Greedy taxpayers, build your own roads!

      --
      404: sig not found.
    26. Re:Hmmm by bubkus_jones · · Score: 1

      They won the election because, despite how crappy of a policy they may have had, and with people complaining about Harper all the time, he/they were still better than ANY OTHER CANDIDATE/PARTY running in either election. Martin lost because he was terrible, Dion couldn't even convince his own party that he was good enough and got booted out (not before trying to force the GG to topple the rightfully elected Conservative government with a coalition farce). I don't know too much about Ignatieff, but what I have seen of his speeches, I wouldn't vote for him.

      Also, in the last election, the Conservative party increased the number of seats they controlled in the House, taking them primarily away from the Liberals. If you have a problem with the leading party having less than 25% of overall votes, then howabout we do away with this bajillion-and-a-half party system and work it more like the Americans and their "Two Party" system.

      None of the other parties have any possible hope of getting even a minority government in the near future.

      So, say whatever you want about the Conservatives, enough voting Canadians think they're the best option to keep them in Minority power.

    27. Re:Hmmm by mevets · · Score: 1

      5 minutes with a spreadsheet and any system can be gamed.

      57% of the Canadian population lies within a 75000 km^2 urban area between Windsor and Quebec City, throw a bone to BC and 99.25% of the area of Canada have no voice. Arguably a good thing, but fairness and equity aren't its strengths.

      The only meaningful electoral reform would be 90+% voter turnout; but in a world of milquetoast politicians afraid of being beaten by their masters, it isn't likely.

    28. Re:Hmmm by oldspewey · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'm pretty sure Harper has done more to dismantle transparency in the last 3 years than Chretien/Martin did during their tenure.

      Just a sampling of things I can recall off the top of my head since 2006: This, this, this, this, this, this, this, and this.

      And I'll repeat again what I said above: all this (and more that I suspect I've mercifully forgotten over the last 3 years) has taken place under the watch of an autocrat who explicitly ran on the promise of transparency and accountability in the 2006 election.

      ... and people wonder why the general public thinks politicians are a bunch of assholes ...

      --
      If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
    29. Re:Hmmm by oldspewey · · Score: 1

      far more than 25% of voting Canadians voted for the Conservative party.

      Well, to be pedantic it depends how you want to define "voting Canadians." If we take that to mean "Canadians who are eligible to vote" then the 25% figure is probably pretty close since voter apathy keeps many people away from the polls.

      --
      If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
    30. Re:Hmmm by oldspewey · · Score: 1

      None of the other parties have any possible hope of getting even a minority government in the near future.

      The federal Conservatives better hope and pray nothing like the Wildrose Alliance ever appears on the federal scene ... because then the vote on the right will be fragmented (once again) just as the vote on the left is today.

      --
      If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
    31. Re:Hmmm by dangitman · · Score: 1

      In the USA, I have never once witnessed a significant decrease of the size and power of the federal government during my entire lifetime. Ever.

      That's because the military-industrial complex has also been increasing in size. Did you not read/comprehend the post that you replied to?

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    32. Re:Hmmm by SiberiaSam · · Score: 1

      How else do you explain the politicians who self-identify as "conservative" who are so eager to expand the size and power of government?

      That's an easy one. The core philosophy in conservatism is maintaining the existing power structures in society. The size of government is immaterial, and will be increased when necessary and decreased when unnecessary to the achievement of this aim. The existing power structure in the USA is based around the military industrial complex, which dictates big, big, big government (but which spends very little on actual social programs). The power structure in Canada is based around the resource economy, which dictates government small enough that the energy, mining, and forestry companies can override popular opposition. That pretty much explains everything you need to know about the differences between American and Canadian conservatives.

      The core philosophy in conservatism is maximizing individual liberty. The problem is there aren't anymore American conservatives left.

    33. Re:Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "As a Canadian I can confirm that they are in fact called "The Conservative Party of Canada" or more colloquially "The assholes who somehow managed to win an election and try to claim divine mandate with less then 25% of voting Canadian behind them.""

      And as a Canadian you know full well our system of government almost never results in any governing party getting the majority of the votes even when they get a majority of the seats. Oh and as much as I despise the current government you do yourself or your rant no favors by lying about the facts.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_federal_election,_2008#Results

    34. Re:Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The core philosophy in conservatism is maximizing individual liberty.

      No, that's liberals. Conservatives want to keep things from changing.

    35. Re:Hmmm by DarthVain · · Score: 1

      As a Canadian, I respect your right to say whatever idiocy you like.

      I myself have never voted for them, and agree that in many respects they are "asshats".

      However, that is both the political system we live in and the government model we have been using for well over a 100 years now.

      Your choices are to vote for an alternative system, which already happened, and failed, or to join the system and try to propagate change from within, or to try and mobilize the citizenry into demanding change.
      Otherwise quit your bitching and if you have that much of a problem you can always leave. As I have said, as flawed as you might think it might be, the current system certainly predates you.

      In all likelihood, you voted for one of the other opposition parties (if you voted at all, in which case really shut up), which at any time could have toppled the current government and forced another election (unless you voted for the Green Party, in which case you have my condolences for being silly). So write your representative and encourage others to do so as well. The other parties are at this point just as responsible for keeping the Conservatives in power as the Conservatives themselves, and together they certainly have a majority, both in seats and likely in popular vote, as per the law and the system, so your arguments are groundless.

    36. Re:Hmmm by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      You mean like Chretien/Martin dismantling the oversight offices? Removing the powers of the AG office to investigate, shifting powers away from internal investigation units to secondary units which have no regulatory power. Giving more power to other regulatory agencies to stifle information and flow access. That's just the stuff off the top of my head.

      And if you're going to argue points, next time don't use our most left-wing-anti-conservative media outlets as a source either. Try for something unbiased they're out there, and editorials don't really count in the frame of it either. Unless you're a hack.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    37. Re:Hmmm by oldspewey · · Score: 1

      Any of the news items I referenced (because some of us "hacks" are still stuck on the notion of providing references in support of the assertions we make in argument - I see you are far above such plebeian tasks) can easily be found on alternate channels. Those URLs were just the ones that came up first in google.

      And are you seriously calling CBC, the Globe&Mail, and CTV left-wing-anti-conservative outlets? I'll grant you the fact some Toronto Star columnists have a left-of-centre bias, but you do realize that the whole "bash the messenger" routine doesn't exactly enhance your credibility don't you?

      Anyhow, I'll close with yet another brilliant piece of anti-democratic behaviour by the governing conservatives - hiding behind the Governor General in order to avoid transparency and accountability. And this time I'll reference the National Post and the Wall Street Journal ... unless you also consider those outlets to be left-wing rags?

      --
      If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
  4. Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I thought Canada was a bastion of civil liberties. What, with all the whiny hippies claiming they would move there if $event happened.

  5. Offshore by bbhack · · Score: 1

    Offshore your servers. Just for fun.

    --
    The next thing to remember is to put next things next.
  6. Happy Ending by Servaas · · Score: 1, Insightful

    So it does work out in the end? There is bound to be some high profile sites out there that got shutdown and will now switch to another provider that will shows some *sunglasses* backbone?

  7. Worth about as much by Mikkeles · · Score: 1

    Just goes to show you that our Bill of Rights is worth about as much as this.

    (Yeah, we're not much different in that from anywhere else; just in what's censored.)

    --
    Great minds think alike; fools seldom differ.
    1. Re:Worth about as much by rickb928 · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'm not sure Canada has a Bill of Rights. Here in the U.S., it's worth as much as you want it to be.

      Remember, the three boxes.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    2. Re:Worth about as much by Beardo+the+Bearded · · Score: 2, Informative
      --

      ---
      ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
    3. Re:Worth about as much by wumingzi · · Score: 1

      Well, you do need to work on that bit in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which allows for prior restraint. (i.e. you have freedom of speech until a judge rules that you don't).

      The issue here is that an ISP outside of Canada got a nastygram from the Government of Canada and folded like origami paper rather than saying "We're sorry. This is not Canada. Please feel free to seek legal remedy from a court in this jurisdiction and we will comply with that request immediately!"

    4. Re:Worth about as much by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Our charter of rights and freedoms works fine. S.1 however states that the government can override any part of it for a 'just' cause. Seriously they need to stop teaching kids in highschool criminal and civil law and teach them government policy instead.

      Oh you might have noticed that the website(s) aren't censored either. You've just happily flown off the handle for a well known hack-group that does this stuff. OTOH the Federal Government can get them shut down for use of a domain name/site that looks close to an official government one. That type of stuff isn't looked highly on by anyone, not even the courts here.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    5. Re:Worth about as much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which three boxes?

      The Cracker Jack Box (Where Libertarians seem to pull their ideas from)

      The Tissue Box (Democrats seem to whine and cry the loudest, but get the least accomplished)

      The Cash Box (Republicans only seem to care about money, all else be damned)

      You choose. I gave up on that three-card-Monte long ago.

    6. Re:Worth about as much by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Remember, the three boxes.

      To misquote Picard, "There are FOUR boxes!" Ballot, jury, soap, and ammo boxes.

  8. Invoking John Gilmore by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

    "The net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it." The solution is obvious: Move your servers to a more free-speech friendly country. When the US and Canada start to see that taking down sites at the drop of a hat is very harmful to their hosting businesses, then maybe they will do something about it.

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    1. Re:Invoking John Gilmore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have nothing to worry about when a western democratic government's crackdown on free speech results in your entire subnet disappearing unless you're some kind of deviant criminal.

    2. Re:Invoking John Gilmore by uuddlrlrab · · Score: 1

      I think your irony is a bit rusty.

      --
      Odi profanum vulgus et arceo
    3. Re:Invoking John Gilmore by cpghost · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Move your servers to a more free-speech friendly country.

      Yes... except that we are quickly running out of free-speech friendly countries (Canada was one of the most free). Soon we'll have to seriously think about putting pirate senders in orbit, just like the old off-shore pirate radio stations of the last century.

      --
      cpghost at Cordula's Web.
    4. Re:Invoking John Gilmore by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      And that’s why a “global government” is going to fuck us, hard.

      Where will you go, if there is only one country? Or a group, and they are all just as bad.

      To an island with a satellite dish? Just wait until they cut off the connection, the supplies, and come with a ship full of snipers, if needed.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    5. Re:Invoking John Gilmore by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1

      The solution is obvious: Move your servers to a more free-speech friendly country.

      That's what they did. Serverloft is a German company. But apparently, Germany is not free-speech friendly enough... so now the sites are hosted in Denmark! Hehe...

      Hmmm, but why doesn't the Canadian government simply lean on the .ca registry, that would be much easier...

    6. Re:Invoking John Gilmore by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1

      Canada was one of the most free

      Only as long as you don't upset the Rotary Club or other similar criminally corrupt organizations.

    7. Re:Invoking John Gilmore by dangitman · · Score: 1

      When the US and Canada start to see that taking down sites at the drop of a hat is very harmful to their hosting businesses, then maybe they will do something about it.

      Invade said countries?

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    8. Re:Invoking John Gilmore by macshit · · Score: 1

      Move your servers to a more free-speech friendly country.

      Yes... except that we are quickly running out of free-speech friendly countries (Canada was one of the most free).

      Eh?! Canada is a generally pretty liberal place, but they seem to be a bit trigger-happy when it comes to censorship -- I've seen an awful lot of news stories like this one over the years (not just internet, bookstores, etc too)....

      [usually for reasons of "obscenity" or "hate crime", e.g. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_Canada ]

      --
      We live, as we dream -- alone....
    9. Re:Invoking John Gilmore by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      The asteroid belt?

  9. Conservatives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Canada used to be free before the Conservatives

    1. Re:Conservatives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Welcome to the club.

  10. Re:in soviet russia web site Censors you! by negrace · · Score: 2, Funny

    Do you mean in Soviet Canada?

  11. Downhill slide in gov'ts? by ilsaloving · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Between USA's Bush, Canada's Harper, and long string of other bozos in other countries governments, it seems like this past decade has been filled with myopic, self-centered, stupid (more than usual, anyway...) politicians. And it looks like the coming decade won't be any better.

    My problem is that I can't tell if this is a new and disturbing trend, or if it was always this bad but the reporting just got more visible?

    1. Re:Downhill slide in gov'ts? by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      It isn't just Bush and Harper. It is most government officials. Just because you agree with the current (or do you?) administration (or opposition) doesn't mean they are any better. In fact, I would suggest that as stupid as you think Bush is, many people think the same thing of Reid, Pelosi and Obama.

      They are all bozos. I actually think it is a requirement for the job, and reflection of the population.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    2. Re:Downhill slide in gov'ts? by Obsi · · Score: 1

      [This comment has been removed due to legal action from the Government of Canada]

    3. Re:Downhill slide in gov'ts? by Shoe+Puppet · · Score: 2, Funny

      [This comment has been removed due to legal action from the Government of Canada]

      This comment will be, so I don't even bother to post it.

      --
      (+1, Disagree)
    4. Re:Downhill slide in gov'ts? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      I think it's always been this way. The power-hungry will be the first to run for office, and the first to win by nefarious means. Reading a little history will confirm this for you.

  12. Re:What's up, eh? by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

    No, no, that's not it... they are dumping toxic waste in the rivers and feeding fish oil to seals.

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  13. misleading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    How can you blame the Canadian government for the hosting provider incompetence? They sent the provider a letter with their grievance, the provider is the one responsible for following through without due process, a warrant and apparently then they screw it up?

    Sounds like hosting provider fail to me and the yes men crying like little whiners.

    1. Re:misleading by shentino · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The government never should have issued the letter in the first place.

      Wussy provider or not, issuing a bogus takedown notice is a dick move by itself.

    2. Re:misleading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      That isn't what I'm disputing.

      Subject: Canadian censorship takes down 4500 sites

      Actually, no, it wasn't Canadian censorship. Its a misleading and hyped up title that does little in way of giving credibility to the topic.

  14. Uh, More Hoax? by TrebleJunkie · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Uh, could the press release (from the Hoaxsters, no less) just be more of a Hoax?

    --

    Ed R.Zahurak

    You know, oblivion keeps looking better every day.

    1. Re:Uh, More Hoax? by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's what I'm starting to think, and I'm finding it absolutely hilarious, given that this is exactly the sort of stunt "The Yes Men" stage all the time. This particular stunt would be peanuts compared to some of their others.

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
  15. Question by kenp2002 · · Score: 1

    Is it me or is the Global Elite just getting lazy?

    At least for the last 120 years they put some effort into hiding the fact that we are in fact all powerless pesants under the heel of an elite in which the law only serves said elite. At least we had the illusion of "equality, the rule of law, and freedom."

    I for one an dissapointed in my ruling shadow government and would like to formally request that a new shadow government that plans to treat me like a pesant, rise up, over throw the existing elite, and establish a new global elite that will at least TRY and hide the fact there is a global elite that owns us, does as they please, and mearly offer us the illusion that laws apply to everyone equally.

    --
    -=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
    1. Re:Question by MarkvW · · Score: 1

      You are hilarious. If I'm living a peasant life, I wonder what kind of life those in 3rd world countries live!

      Fat, happy peasants of the world UNITE! You have nothing to lose except your consumer goods!

    2. Re:Question by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 1

      You know what's REALLY funny is that I recently watched a documentary comparing modern life to that of peasants in the middle ages, and when you strip away the comforts we have because of modern technology (plentiful high calorie foods, great medical care, comfortable cheap living materials, etc), the average peasant spent less time working for his lord than we do working for the government (i.e. taxes). Most all peasants had their own plot of land to work and a house that was their own, and they were generally more free to do whatever they wanted compared to us today. They didn't have the comforts we have, but that is simply a technological difference.

      We have far more distractions which help us ignore the fact that we are far more oppressed than those who lived in the fiefdoms of the past. That's sad, especially since we consider the average peasant of old to be a quite oppressed individual.

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
    3. Re:Question by MarkvW · · Score: 1

      We poor modern peasants work a LOT more than our peasant forefathers did, thanks to our ginormously longer life expectancy. How grossly unjust!

      The life of a middle age serf was nasty, brutish and short. My peasant life is fairly pleasant, protected from brutes by the cops and the army, and long-lived.

      Oh, how I yearn from the idyllic peasant life of yore! When a peasant knew his place and stayed exactly the fuck there!

    4. Re:Question by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and what's hilarious is that those peasants lived to the ripe old age of 30, if they were lucky. They were all eligable to be conscripted into whatever retarded war their lord involved his kingdom in, and these wars were non-stop. Hell, he could be stabbed in the stomach for no reason other than his lord wanted to test his new sword-- their lives had literally no value at all.

      I wish we have a time machine we could use to send people like you back in time to the era you love so much. Then you could happy die alone and afraid face-down in a pool of mud and your own blood.

    5. Re:Question by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 1

      You know what's REALLY funny is that I recently watched a documentary comparing modern life to that of peasants in the middle ages, and when you strip away the comforts we have because of modern technology (plentiful high calorie foods, great medical care, comfortable cheap living materials, etc), the average peasant spent less time working for his lord than we do working for the government (i.e. taxes). Most all peasants had their own plot of land to work and a house that was their own, and they were generally more free to do whatever they wanted compared to us today. They didn't have the comforts we have, but that is simply a technological difference.

      We have far more distractions which help us ignore the fact that we are far more oppressed than those who lived in the fiefdoms of the past. That's sad, especially since we consider the average peasant of old to be a quite oppressed individual.

      I hear you, man! Some girl down the block got married earlier this week and the local major was there exercising his droit de seigneur straight away! Oh, wait...

      --

      People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
  16. Duh, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ive always known those isps up in canadia dont no anything

  17. Re:What's up, eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, no, that's not it... they are feeding fish oil to seals.

    So what's the problem? Fish oil is organic and organic is doubleplus Good.

  18. Offshore your hosting and registration by efalk · · Score: 2, Informative

    This happens all the time in the U.S. The government even shut down a Spanish travel agency that arranged tours to Cuba -- they were foolish enough to register their domain name here. http://thespamdiaries.blogspot.com/2008/03/dont-register-or-host-your-domain-in-us.html

    1. Re:Offshore your hosting and registration by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1

      The site was offshore. I was hosted in Germany, not Canada. That makes the whole affair even more outrageous. Why serverloft didn't simply ignore the request is a mystery.

  19. BOLSHIVIK !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Commie bastard!! Your mother wear combat boots and your father drown in vodka !! You have merry turnstil jimp today !!

  20. Re:What's up, eh? by Gerafix · · Score: 1

    No, no, see they're dumping seals into rivers and feeding oil to toxic waste.

  21. Corporatism at its best by Gothmolly · · Score: 1

    So the Canadian government says "jump" and the ISPs ask "how high?" before any kind of due process.

    --
    I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
    1. Re:Corporatism at its best by Nos. · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'd like a little more confirmation before I believe the Canadian Government issued a take down notice. At best, its an employee of the Government. I didn't see it mentioned anywhere that an elected official had any part in this.

      Also, the ISP is in Germany. If an employee from some department in some other company sent me a take down notice, I doubt I'd jump. If this is being reported accurately (and I have some doubts), I'd have more questions for the ISP than I would for the Canadian Government. For example, why did taking down 2 sites interrupt service to 4500 other sites?

      That being said, ec-gc.ca is close enough to ec.gc.ca to cause confusion to a casual surfer. I don't think they should be allowed to use it, but in that case, the trademark/copyright holder should go through CIRA.

  22. Think hoax till proved otherwise. by stimpleton · · Score: 5, Informative

    From Wikipedia re The Yes Men: "...they create and maintain fake websites similar to ones they want to spoof, and then they accept invitations received on their websites to appear at conferences, symposia, and TV shows".

    I would be looking at this with tongue firmly in cheek.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_yes_men

    --

    In post Patriot Act America, the library books scan you.
    1. Re:Think hoax till proved otherwise. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      with tongue firmly in cheek

      That's what _she_ said...

    2. Re:Think hoax till proved otherwise. by derGoldstein · · Score: 1

      From IMDB re Yes Man: "...A guy challenges himself to say "yes" to everything for an entire year".

      I would be looking at this with tongue firmly in cheek.

      http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1068680/

      (yeah, that was the best I could come up with...)

      --
      Entomologically speaking, the spider is not a bug, it's a feature.
    3. Re:Think hoax till proved otherwise. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From IMDB re Yes Men: "Anti-corporate activists travel from conference to conference, impersonating member of the World Trade Organization".

      http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0379593/

  23. Re:What's up, eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    this is the downside to the ban on clubbing

  24. Sux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The only thing Canada doesn't suck at is:

    Views of Mountains
    Drinking Age
    Electronic Music propagation
    Roaming Wildlife though city streets in Banff
    Mostly cool citizens
    oh and $9 packs of smokes (being an x-smoker I like that idea although mainly affected by currency trends not to deter smokers)

  25. Wow! PR fail! by 91degrees · · Score: 1

    This is exactly the sort of the The Yes Menthrive on. Nobody was looking at the parody websites. Now everyone knows Environment Canada has a poor policy.

    The Yes Men's entire raisin d'etre is publicity. It would make sense for them to specifically choose ISPs that are willing to roll over easily.

  26. Heinlein should be rolling over in his grave by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    He loved casting the Canucks as free-spirited, tolerant, rigidly honest characters. Now they just seem as stupidly human as the rest of us.

  27. Why don't you blame the people who are REALLY by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Why don't you blame the people who are REALLY responsible? The voters.

    As long as people vote for the guy who tells them they can keep their 2 suvs and that he will lower their taxes (never actually happened anywhere) you will get these kind of guys.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:Why don't you blame the people who are REALLY by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 1

      Why don't you blame the people who are REALLY responsible? The voters.

      You need to extend the blame a bit further, to citizens in general. The sad fact is "the voters" is just a small subset of the citizenry, and the apathy of those who don't vote is more to blame than the misguided ideals of those who do.

      I remember the one time Bush actually attempted to reduce the automatic increase in the national budget one year (he did not, in fact, attempt to spend any less money, just not increase spending by as much as usual) and he was crucified for it on almost all sides. Ever since then he was spend spend spend. He'd cut taxes, sure, that would make him popular, but he realized cutting spending would be political suicide. It is very sad indeed, given the fantastic promises our current president makes along those same lines, and the fact that once an imperfect bill goes into law it is almost never fixed.

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
    2. Re:Why don't you blame the people who are REALLY by md65536 · · Score: 1

      You need to extend the blame a bit further, to citizens in general. The sad fact is "the voters" is just a small subset of the citizenry, and the apathy of those who don't vote is more to blame than the misguided ideals of those who do.

      Why not extend a bit further, and include all citizens of the world. If they do not apply pressure on Canadians to try to get them to vote for the right person, then their apathy is just as much to blame as ours.

      In fact, you could extend it to all of our ancestors, who sat idly by and let the world come to where it is now, instead of realizing what their action or inaction would mean for Canada in their future. They did nothing to steer the future of Canadian politics which was their responsibility.

      ON THE OTHER HAND, you could consider the complete opposite, and instead of saying that citizens are accountable for the leaders they elect, how about if leaders are accountable to the citizens they represent (voters and other)? Placing blame in a way that suggests it's too late to do anything about it, especially suggesting that a citizen's participation in their government ends with voting, is itself a form of apathy. The real blame goes to anyone who is not actively living up to their own responsibility in their country, whether it's an elected leader creating official policy that is bad for the country, or a citizen (voter or not) who sees his leaders making bad decisions but does nothing about it.

    3. Re:Why don't you blame the people who are REALLY by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Yes, lets blame the people who are REALLY responsible, and it's not the voters (at least here south of the Canadian border). The corporate owned media convinces the voter that a vote for any "third party" candidate is wasted, and the corporations give campaign bribes to both "major" parties. No matter which candidate loses, the corporation wins.

      In a climate like this it's simply one corporate entity against the other. The voters are meaningless (yet for some stupid reason I still vote).

    4. Re:Why don't you blame the people who are REALLY by SgtChaireBourne · · Score: 1

      Yes, lets blame the people who are REALLY responsible, and it's not the voters (at least here south of the Canadian border). The corporate owned media convinces the voter that a vote for any "third party" candidate is wasted, and the corporations give campaign bribes to both "major" parties. No matter which candidate loses, the corporation wins.

      In a climate like this it's simply one corporate entity against the other. The voters are meaningless (yet for some stupid reason I still vote).

      You might still vote but apparently you still can't do math. The way the elections are counted in the US, the third party votes split the vote for one of the other parties. If you want more than two parties, the simple majority rule has to be abandoned in favor of proportional representation or other similar methods.

      Do the math.

      --
      Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
    5. Re:Why don't you blame the people who are REALLY by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      The math says that in the last Presidential election the three major "third parties" were on the ballot in enough states to win, had they gotten enough votes. It doesn't matter if the Libertarians siphon votes from the Republicans or the Socialists siphon votes from the Democrats.

  28. Not to cross the streams here... by Cheerio+Boy · · Score: 1

    ...but this is one good reason why we need commercial space flight.

    With commercial space flight you collect money to put a pre-built server into orbit and serve pages from there.

    Now granted the bandwidth wouldn't be fast but for things like free speech related documents you really don't need speed just stable retention. You could still store video up there as well it would just be slow to get on and off the server obviously.

    As long as the system had power and a good antenna the data could be available for anyone with a satellite dish to point at it. (Though you could probably find a comsat company that would accept money to rebroadcast the signal if you could afford that.)

    --

    "Bah!" - Dogbert
    1. Re:Not to cross the streams here... by cpghost · · Score: 1

      You could still store video up there as well

      What do we do when bandwidth is not enough? We outsource the data and post only magnet links. I could easily imagine a server in space continuously broadcasting nothing more than pages and pages full of magnet links.

      --
      cpghost at Cordula's Web.
    2. Re:Not to cross the streams here... by neo-mkrey · · Score: 1

      And then the gov't calls you and says "It sure would be a shame if that nice shiny new satillite of yours were to 'accidentally' get hit by some flying space debris."

    3. Re:Not to cross the streams here... by Cheerio+Boy · · Score: 1

      And then the gov't calls you and says "It sure would be a shame if that nice shiny new satillite of yours were to 'accidentally' get hit by some flying space debris."

      While I can't argue against that I think it's not really all that likely in the short term. Especially since there's no easy way to forcibly de-orbit a satellite without either shooting it with something or bumping something into it.

      And you'd really have to piss someone in the government off for them to waste an existing million dollar satellite to get rid of yours.

      Though if we're discussing this in the framework of an existing cheap commercial space flight scenario you could easily put more than one up there.

      --

      "Bah!" - Dogbert
    4. Re:Not to cross the streams here... by dangitman · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't it be easier just to put the server deep underground? A satellite in orbit would be trivial for a government to take down.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    5. Re:Not to cross the streams here... by Cheerio+Boy · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't it be easier just to put the server deep underground? A satellite in orbit would be trivial for a government to take down.

      And underground is always owned by some government when it comes down to it. By current policy space is owned by nobody.

      --

      "Bah!" - Dogbert
  29. Question about jackbooted thugs by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 1, Funny

    Wouldn't the Canadian authorities really be lumberjackbooted? If so, do they have pointy high-heels? Those could really hurt!

    --
    This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
  30. The real problem with ths site by arthurpaliden · · Score: 1

    Was that they infringed on copyrights and tradmarks.

    1. Re:The real problem with ths site by dakohli · · Score: 1
      I doubt it.

      If you look at the official Canadian Government Site: "http://www.ec.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=FD9B0E51-1" really looks nothing like the parody sites. Any one with experience with Cdn Gov Websites would know that it does not reflect the Treasury Board's CLF2 (Common Look and Feel 2) Website directives.

      These Parodies don't use any of the official insignia

      I suspect a hoax

    2. Re:The real problem with ths site by arthurpaliden · · Score: 1

      When they first came out they were a direct copy. You put them side by side there was no difference in the 'look and feel'. The structure was cut and pasted and only the editorial content was different.

  31. self-inflicted? by molecular · · Score: 3, Interesting

    since the site seems to be fine from anywhere and a whole ip-segment was screwed, maybe these yes-men screwed up one of their own routers, suspected some conspiracy and then made up this story?

    1. Re:self-inflicted? by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 1

      Or maybe they would just make the whole thing up, since their bread and butter is fooling dumbasses who don't check their facts?

      I'm pretty sure the OP, the editor, and 90% of the commentors on this post have been duped. No doubt The Yes Men find it absolutely hilarious.

      Incidentally, so do I. :)

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
    2. Re:self-inflicted? by AnteTempore · · Score: 1

      The suspend message on http://www.ec-gc.ca/ is updated. It explains the story more.

  32. Only in America! by GhostGuy · · Score: 1, Funny

    Wait, what? Oh fuck. Thanks, Canada, there goes my backup plan...

  33. Re:Wow! PR fail! by Rary · · Score: 3, Informative

    The Yes Men's entire raisin d'etre is publicity. It would make sense for them to specifically choose ISPs that are willing to roll over easily.

    It would make even more sense for them to just release a hoax announcement claiming that the ISP shut down their parody websites, even though the websites are actually still online.

    --

    "You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein

  34. Fake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shockingly the description is a bit off. They basically registered a domain very similar to the real domain with a very legitimate looking website to fool people into thinking it was the real thing. If they changed the domain name it would still be there. (which it seems to be anyway) No story.

  35. Link works fine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tried opening it from work, and I work at a Canadian federal government office (not Environment Canada)

  36. asked them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since the sites in question seem fine, I posted a comment on their site http://theyesmen.org/canadareacts?nocache=1#comment-7088, which is now queued for moderator approval... how lame is that.

  37. Re:Works for me.... not for long .... !!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Both sites appear to be working fine from here in Canada also.

    Now that we've submitted our false news article to /. we are expecting these sites to shortly no longer be available.... so who's going to get the last laugh now eh?

    Kind regards,

    Web team @ gc.ca

  38. Government of Canada Web Sites Use CLF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you visit any web site of the Government of Canada (GoC) there is a common look and feel (CLF) standard to which the web sites must comply for accessibility and other reasons. The two parody web sites in no way resemble nor utilize the GoC CLF and therefore could not possibly be mistaken for official government web sites.

  39. Re:What's up, eh? by Dishevel · · Score: 1

    Crude oil is also organic.

    --
    Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
  40. Hmm.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    What were the other 4500 related websites?

  41. I've Said It Before by b4upoo · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    The government of Canada has obviously gone stark raving mad. This disease appears to be an imitation of the Reagen-Bush mentality that pretty much destroyed the US.

  42. Re:in soviet russia web site Censors you! by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 2, Informative


    Do you mean in Soviet Canada?

    Nah, it fascist Harper's government. You guys had to put up with Bush for 10 years, while we get this Harper guy. The sad thing is the alternatives aren't much better.

    --
    Jumpstart the tartan drive.
  43. It's not Canada who screwed up this time, but by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Serverloft.

    Indeed, why did Serverloft, a German company (according to TFA) react at all?

    They should just have shown a huge phat finger to the Canucks, and say "you can't get us accross the huuuuge ocean". After all, it's not as if Canada was in a position of unleashing an Operation Desert Storm over Germany. One hosting company to avoid!

    And such behavior would be entirely appropriate: after all that's exactly how Canada behaves when German citizens that have been wrongfully imprisoned in Canada want to seek compensation.

    1. Re:It's not Canada who screwed up this time, but by palegray.net · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Germany has a sketchy concept of free speech to begin with. Perhaps they figured this would fall under "incitement of the people," albeit the Canadian people.

    2. Re:It's not Canada who screwed up this time, but by Angst+Badger · · Score: 1

      After all, it's not as if Canada was in a position of unleashing an Operation Desert Storm over Germany.

      Especially not with their navy tied up trying to intimidate mighty Denmark over the Arctic seafloor.

      --
      Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
    3. Re:It's not Canada who screwed up this time, but by managementboy · · Score: 1

      I am not sure if to agree with you or not. Maybe I don't get your definition of "sketchy". In Germany you basically are protected by the constitution, similar to the US version. But (there is always a but) history has left its mark. There is one big exception to freedom of speech in Germany due to the second world war: Holocaust Denial and Volksverhetzung (incitement of aggression against a group of people), both not allowed. I can follow why those exceptions where put in in Germany, even if I don't like them, being a freedom of speech purist myself. But I am pretty sure that the Canadian issue at hand has nothing to do with German law.

    4. Re:It's not Canada who screwed up this time, but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am sorry, if you don't understand the idea of a constitution, but it is not made to let the "government protect the right X", but to protect citizens against violation of (natural/god given) rights from the government. A constitution is the boundaries of government influence (but apparently not many cares any longer).

    5. Re:It's not Canada who screwed up this time, but by SilverEyes · · Score: 0, Troll

      I, am sorry, AC, if you don't, understand, how to, use commas. Thank you.

      --
      Interesting.
  44. Cut the head off. by Capt.DrumkenBum · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I am advocating that next election we simply remove the party leaders. They have shown over and over again that that are incapable of leading, and don't even seem to be able to work and play well with others.
    As you so rightly pointed out there are no good choices. I for one would vote for the first one that can show me they realize that if you have $10 you can't spend $20. This simple concept seems to be beyond most/all politicians.

    --
    If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
    1. Re:Cut the head off. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the problem with politicians is they themselves have $0 (to spend on issues of value for us), all they do is ask (ok, force) us to give them some of our money and then they give a little back to some of us in the form of services provided by us for us / ?.

      It's really quite strange if you think about it...

    2. Re:Cut the head off. by bfields · · Score: 1

      I for one would vote for the first one that can show me they realize that if you have $10 you can't spend $20.

      Err. Yes, you can.

    3. Re:Cut the head off. by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      What do you think fractional reserve banking is?

  45. And this is why you select your host properly by holophrastic · · Score: 1

    Yet another reason I can tell my clients to use us for hosting. Being their developers, we only host our own projects.

  46. In related news... by damburger · · Score: 1

    The Canadian government has decided to use RPGs to take out shoplifters.

    --
    If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
    1. Re:In related news... by Arimus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Rocket Propelled Grenades aren't too effective vs people... make alot of mess

      Now a good sized boxset of DnD or WoW collectors edition carefully aimed will take the shoplifter out without too much collateral damage so assume you mean the later use of RPG ;)

      --
      --- Users are like bacteria -> Each one causing a thousand tiny crises until the host finally gives up and dies.
  47. The bullies have to go... by TheRealGrogan · · Score: 1

    The current government in Canada needs to go. I don't give a shit about environmentalists and their agendas, but they have every right to publish them on their web sites.

    ServerLoft was most likely bullied into taking that action... it's the Harper government's MO. Behind closed doors, "or else" type directives. What a bunch of spineless fucks... they don't even have datacenters in Canada. Just the threat of being sued.

    We all know what hosting datacenter to avoid now. ServerLoft can go piss up a rope. The negative publicity from this will punish them.

  48. These Sites don't even look like Can Govt Sites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The sites are indeed still up, and look identical. However they look nothing like the Common Look and Feel (CLF) that Canadian Government sites are mandated by the Treasury Board to use. Environment Canada's site: http://www.ec.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=DA294545-1 shows a very different look. Anyone looking for a Government Contact or information would not be fooled. I think this whole thing is a bit of a hoax.

  49. HOAX (likely) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Yes Men are notorious for all kind of Machiavellian stunts with supposed good intent done "in the name of the people". I wouldn't believe anything spewing forth from their mentally twisted pieholes.

    1. Re:HOAX (likely) by RPoet · · Score: 1

      If it were a stunt, I doubt they would identify as The Yes Men while pulling it.

      --
      "Oppression and harassment is a small price to pay to live in the land of the free." -- Montgomery Burns.
  50. Re:What's up, eh? by wumingzi · · Score: 0

    I heard it was pretty good, but then it turns out they must be dumping oil in the rivers and feeding toxic waste to seals.

    It's good in the national mythology. Beautiful soaring mountains, pristine lakes. Verdant forests. I saw it on the CBC, so it must be true! (All those things do exist. I've been to them. They're really cool).

    The reality is that British Columbia is a giant clearcut once you go more than 100 km from Vancouver, and the prairie is being torn up as fast as possible in Alberta to get to the black gold that lies beneath.

  51. Re:in soviet russia web site Censors you! by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 1

    It was Bush for 8 years, and his replacement happens to have a virtually identical domestic policy, which means we are essentially screwed.

    --
    Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
  52. Defamation of Character? by gizmonic · · Score: 2, Insightful

    My first thought on reading the summary was that Serverloft was a bunch of tools. As I read more and realized the press release was probably a hoax, it made me think. I know the US and Canada have different laws, and IANAL, but if this were the US, I would tend to think Serverloft would have a decent case of libel against them. They can claim "parody" all they want, but if I had merely skimmed the surface, and not read deeper, Severloft woulda been stuck with a negative connotation for me all because these a holes want to screw around. How many of Serverloft's customers read that press release and immediately went and checked if their sites were up? How many are currently looking for a new provider right now? I am all for free speech. If I say "Company A sucks" then fine. Too bad for them. (In the US, of course, I'm sure some company's attorney would want to sue you over voicing that opinion.) But to say they killed 4500 customers in a knee jerk reaction when they didn't? That is not the same thing at all. That can have actual damages. And if I were Serverloft, I'd be consulting someone about it.

    --
    WWJD?
    JWRTFM!
    1. Re:Defamation of Character? by AnteTempore · · Score: 1

      http://www.ec-gc.ca/ has an updated version of the suspend message. It explains the story more.

  53. Re:What's up, eh? by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 1

    That's one thing I wish people would wake up about - just because something is "organic" doesn't mean it is good for you! There are a hell of a lot of deadly, toxic, nasty things out there that are organic.

    It drives me nuts, all this "organic" nonsense these days.

    --
    Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
  54. Re:in soviet russia web site Censors you! by countertrolling · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The sad thing is the alternatives aren't much better.

    Then I would suggest voting for better alternatives.

    --
    For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
  55. Only do business with ISPs with Warrant Canaries by enselsharon · · Score: 1

    I would like to do business with ISPs that have Warrant Canaries:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrant_canary

    Like my offsite backup provider maintains:

    http://www.rsync.net/resources/notices/canary.txt

    However, in absence of this (I realize this is rare) your ISP should at the very least have a stated policy as to how they respond to warrants and "requests".

    Turning off an entire block of IP space because some joker calls you on the phone is absolutely terrible. If you continue to do business with "serverloft" you deserve whatever you get.

  56. What happens when Yes-men really have a problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes-men: (dialing 911)
    911 operator: hello emergency services, do you need police, ambulance, or fire?
    Yes-men: Fire Trucks, right now, our offices are on fire and we have people trapped
    911 operator: ahhh sure, our records show the calling number is from the "Yes-Men" organization who frequently do hoaxes
    Yes-men: no! but this is for real! Oh no, Bob in accounting is on fire!
    911 operator: haha very funny

  57. scary slope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    we seem to be on a dangerous slope where governments are trying to censor every person who has an opinion that differs than theirs. Whats next? A list of banned words, sentences. 'No citizen shall use a negative verb and a noun representing a government person or place in the same paragraph....

  58. Re:in soviet russia web site Censors you! by yndrd1984 · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    It was Bush for 8 years, and his replacement happens to have a virtually identical domestic policy, which means we are essentially screwed.

    Hey, now! Bush wanted to take our clumsy, wasteful pyramid scheme of a social security system and make it slightly worse, while Obama wants to take our clumsy, wasteful hellhole of a health care system and make it significantly worse. We may still be getting screwed, but it really is going in a different orifice.

    Now, when it comes to foreign policy, it's all the same - spend absurd amounts of money bombing people until they learn to love us.

  59. Zork:"We're better than you". by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ""According to activist group The Yes Men, the government of Canada has shut down two parody websites criticizing Canada's poor environmental policy. "

    Isn't Canada suppose to be one of the countries better than the US?

  60. Re:in soviet russia web site Censors you! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Both of the above are off topic and trolling. Mods?

  61. Re:in soviet russia web site Censors you! by kenshin33 · · Score: 1

    do you mean we have no choice ??? elect this guy or we're doomed ???

  62. Re:What's up, eh? by Donkey_Hotey · · Score: 1

    this is the downside to the ban on clubbing

    Also, it forced all the douchebags out of the clubs and into public places...

    --
    (There is supposed to be a Sarcmark® here, but my $1.99 check hasn't cleared, yet...)
  63. Re:in soviet russia web site Censors you! by yndrd1984 · · Score: 1

    Off topic, sure - just like the post I was replying to. No argument there.
    But trolling? Pretty ballsy for someone Cowering behind Anonymity.
    And they really need to add a "-1 No Sense of Humor" mod.

  64. Re:Wow! PR fail! by kent_eh · · Score: 1
    While they are still technically online, their entire content (at least as viewed from my Canadian ISP) seems to consist of:

    Website suspended. Serverloft closed the IP-range for this server because of the content of the client's website and only re-opened the IP-range if we suspended the website. Serverloft did so without a warrant and without calling us and thus affected 4500 of our customers until we discovered the problem, and convinced Serverloft to re-open. For more information: contact Ole Tange

    --

    ---
    "I can't complain, but sometimes still do..." Joe Walsh
  65. nice astroturfing style by circletimessquare · · Score: 0, Troll

    get attention to a hoax site with a hoax takedown story

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  66. Government has not shrunk since 1776 by mykos · · Score: 1

    I have never once witnessed a significant decrease of the size and power of the federal government during my entire lifetime
    Same here. I think the last time there was a significant decrease in governmental power in the United States was when we declared independence from our previous government in 1776.

  67. lessons from SLOVAK POLICE? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    in Slovakia in 2007 did happen something simmilar, but the disconection was physical
    http://digg.com/security/Slovak_Police_disconnected_servers_with_websites_and_emails_of_3500_clients

    and was not because of parody

  68. The letter was not from the Government of Canada by Russell+McOrmond · · Score: 2, Informative

    I think you are missing that this is not a letter that was sent from "the government" of Canada. This was someone who is an advisor in the Intellectual Property Branch of Environment Canada. http://www.digital-copyright.ca/node/5100

    For all I can tell from the government directory, this could be a private sector consultant. His entry doesn't look much different than my own when I'm on contract to the government. Try looking up my name in January in http://sage-geds.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/ , as I am returning to a contract at Agriculture Canada doing Linux Sysadmin/GIS work.

    An email from me, regardless of what email address I use, should never be confused as an official statement from the Government of Canada.

  69. BREAKING NEWS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This just in! Eco-turds whining on the internet! Who saw THIS coming?!

    It's ok. Once some more data is made up the cult will be right back on track.

  70. Re:Wow! PR fail! by Rary · · Score: 1

    That was not the case at the time that I posted. The website was very much alive and kicking and serving satirical content.

    --

    "You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein

  71. Re:Wow! PR fail! by kent_eh · · Score: 1

    Sounds like this story is still in a state of flux.

    --

    ---
    "I can't complain, but sometimes still do..." Joe Walsh
  72. Re:Wow! PR fail! by yanos · · Score: 1

    The Yes Men's entire raisin d'etre is...

    raisin means grapes. The word you're looking for is raison.

  73. Re:in soviet russia web site Censors you! by mcgrew · · Score: 1

    How is one to do that when there aren't any on the ballot?

  74. Re:in soviet russia web site Censors you! by countertrolling · · Score: 1

    Don't know if it's the same in Canada, but in the states, ballot nominees are also determined by the voters during the primaries. And it's up to the voter to make sure they seek out and nominate the right lizard.. as opposed to waiting for FOX to present their endorsements to them. If we continue to refuse to take conscious control of our government and economy, we simply have no one else to blame...

    --
    For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
  75. Re:Wow! PR fail! by 91degrees · · Score: 1

    I'm not illiterate. Just inept at typing. Curse you Mr Qwerty and your typewriter layout!

  76. Re:in soviet russia web site Censors you! by mcgrew · · Score: 1

    I usually play it safe in the primaries. I pick the candidate I least want to be elected, select that party's ballot, and vote against him or her. I usually select the party that's not in office, as an incumbant almost always gets nominated.