Slashdot Mirror
Against Online Surveillance? You Must Be 'For' Child Porn, Says Legislator
An anonymous reader writes "Following up on yesterday's story about the Canadian government's internet surveillance legislation, one of the bill's proponents is now accusing those who oppose it of standing with child pornographers. Those against the legislation include: Law professor Michael Geist, Open Media, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the Council of Canadians and many others. 'Public Safety Minister Vic Toews told a Liberal MP he could either stand with the government or "with the child pornographers" prowling online.' Toews is enjoying his Parliamentary Privilege, which grants him the freedom to say pretty much anything he wants without fear of a slander suit."
The stuff is so vanishingly rare it should never be used as a justification for anything as sweeping as a government power-grab like this one.
Alright, gimmie a second...
"Against warrantless entry of your home? You must be abusing a child!"
"Against public cameras tracking your every move? You must be planning to abduct a child!"
"Against drug prohibition? You must want to give drugs to children!"
"Against warrantless wire-tapping? You must be talking about internet surveillance legislation!"
Wait, that last one needs work.
Just think what heinous acts of child abuse could go on behind those curtains. Perhaps the honourable member would leave his curtains open at all times or stand with those who commit child rape behind them.
Anyone who says something like that is probably diddling children in his spare time.
that he's having to hide behind Parliamentary Privilege?
Works both ways, does it not?
Sadly, some politicians will read your letter and think: "He said that criminals use anonymizers and encryption (whatever those things are), so we should ban those next!"
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
I'm sorry, Parliamentary Privilege renders the Minister immune to logical fallacy. Or maybe to logic. It's hard to tell.
What Parliamentary Privilege doesn't immunize The Honorable Mr. Toews from is much-deserved mockery. So let's make sure he gets a full dose of that.
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
Don't try to rationalize it. Call it out for what it is: a money grab. It's all about money.
They want you to keep focused on their justification (child safety) and their method (oppression of innocents). That's how they win: by keeping you focused on their carefully-prepared "syllabus". So forget all that. Instead, follow the money, and bring it to the forefront. The money is what this is all about, same as any expansion of government.
Power is merely a stepping stone to riches.
In the UK this only applies to things said within the house of commons. I have seen people challenge MPs to repeat such allegations on programmes like Question Time & Newsnight - basically "I fucking totally dare you". The usual response is "no comment" or similar obfuscation.
Does Canada's work the same way? Perhaps someone should ask Vic Toews to step outside.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
I would argue it's better to expose a few children to sex way before they're ready for it, than it is to expose all of them to an invasive government that scrutinizes their every action "for the greater good".
That's crazy talk. It's talk like that which would take us back to that horrific era when kids didn't have to be put in a full suit of armor just to ride their bikes.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Being an upstanding citizen and a person to lead by example, I look forward to Vic Toews releasing his web browsing history to the public.
Why, he's the Canadian version of Gingrich!
I stand with child pornographers. When they came for the communists, I didn't speak out because I was not a communist. When they came for the trade unionists, I didn't speak out because I was not a trade unionist. When they came for the drug users, I didn't speak out because I wasn't a drug user. When they came for the terrorists, I didn't speak out because I wasn't a terrorist. When they came for the child pornographers, I didn't speak out because I wasn't a child pornographer. When they came for me, there was nobody left to speak out for me.
So yes, at some point we should all be speaking out, even if we don't belong with the group targeted at that point.
Learn to love Alaska
If someone has impulses that they want to repress, that person will assume that everyone else has the same impulses. Normal people aren't worried about those things because they don't have the impulses and assume (probably rightly) that most people don't have those impulses.
Anyone who strongly wants to control other people is someone whose personal behavior should be watched very very carefully.
Never allow your children to be near anyone who walks around proclaiming that the world is full of child rapists.
Cow Cube
See, the thing is, he did "get it". "It" of course, being a large infusion of cash from the industry benefiting from the DMCA.
So all they need is an excuse like pulling you over for speeding, then they sift through your entire life's history and pile on more fines!
-- By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.
how they define CP is so broad now a days that a Father video taping his own daughter Ballet dancing could be considered CP
I would think that unless it includes
1 full nudity
2 Intercourse (or related activities)
3 some other crime
4 is otherwise devoid of artistic/diagnostic merit
it should not be legally considered CP
and i would rather see a thousand "modeling" sites than have anything on the books that can be used to censor/track EVERYTHING AND ANYTHING
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
Reasonable thought out arguments don't get as much airtime, those that do are generally not "simple" enough for the general populace to grasp, so it's easier to say "if you aren't this then you're this" and in the US our media excels at this type of reporting, dumb down and free of depth or rational thought.
A sample of headlines:
"POLL: Catholics turn on Obama..."
"MURDOCH HIT BY FEUD OVER SUN"
"Obama justice continues investigation...Witch hunt"
"OUTLAW COUNTRY: Naked Texas cowgirl, 18, arrested after police chase..."
*sigh*
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
Be nice. I think he's mentally ill.
I am not a great fan of crypto nerds because I know just how idiotic the idea of a darknet is in a dictatorship. A darknet lights up light a christmas tree at your ISP if they can be bothered and in places in the world, they can be bothered. So what if it is encrypted? That never stopped the goons.
So... what do we need a free internet for? To AVOID getting that far. It would be nice if humanity always veered towards doing what was right for the greater good, if all journalists always could be counted on to ask the hard questions. That politicians don't look away because they think it helps their cause in the long term.
A free internet is a new tool to share information outside the main stream, it is as revolutionary as the printing press and the post office (For women's lib, the post office suddenly allowed them to communicate with anyone without needing permission) before. But the printing press was used to reproduce child porn and the post office was used to distribute it. Not so long ago (70's) child porn (and I am not talking David Hamilton style stuff) was produced fairly openly and sold. But this was done through tech that allowed Martin Luther to take the bible out of the church and into the domain of the common people AND to spread his anti-semitism that would on day lead to the holocaust.
Tech isn't good or bad but banning tech because there are not so nice uses for it, that is silly and dangerous. Silly because you can't put the cat back in the bag. People have tried it. The printing press, mechanical harvesters, cars. They all been attacked and are now a part of our lives. The internet allows anyone to communicate with anyone else at a near neg-liable cost. But this also means spammers and scammers can reach an audience in the past even Hollywood could not dream off. 911 from Nigeria might have negative overtones but it also means that people from what is not one of the most developed nations in the world can deal as equals with those developed nations. Ever tried calling Africa on the phone? Sent a wire? A letter? Sure, a percentage uses that connection for scams but how much information is being shared for the good of both sides as well?
And you can't have one without the other. Either you allow everyone to communicate or you don't. The makers of Freenet faced this, the simple fact is that the only real use for Freenet in the west at the moment is to share files that you can't share anywhere else and for a LOOOOOOONG time, that only was child porn. If you ever use Tor you can see just what it contains, hate (nazi wannabe's), a tiny bit of drugs for those who think the police has nothing better to do and under aged porn.
You can say you want to get rid of that part of Freenet but you can't. Either you have free communication or your don't. Child porn is even nastier then terrorism, I can say I am willing to take the risk of being blown up but I can't accept that risk on behalf of someone elses child.
Child porn is real and it is big, torrents are pretty clean and usenet can be realtively easy administred but as said, Tor and Freenet are full of it and so are other P2P programs. You can combat it easily, just restrict all traffic to non-encrypted, known content that is filtered and block any unknown traffic. Hiding data in data? Can't be done if the data is known, just make the Internet the Internet Microsoft and Apple dream off, all content pre-approved.
Do you think that is impossible? HA! IT IS ALREADY HERE. The movies you watch, the TV you watch, the music you listen to, the articles you read. ALL have been screened to make sure it is "safe" for you to consume. Hell, we don't even need the state for it, we do it ourselves right here on Slashdot all the time.
That is how tempting it is. If you are for a free internet, browse slashdot at -11.
It is tempting to want to get rid of child porn and you can do it, you just have to sacrifice everyones freedom and make it just a bit easier for a wannabe dictator to one day get away with it. But how do you def
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Oh, come now. If I had a full suit of chainmaille when I was a kid I'd have happily and eagerly rode my bike all over the neighborhood with it. Of course I'd also be brandishing a lance and vanquishing evil but...
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once
*extra text to allow me to yell*
Yet another prime example of Slashdot's lameness filter doing its job and properly labeling posts. Sadly, human stupidity came by and was determined to force that... "addition" to the discussion to occur.
Really added a lot there, buddy. The capital letters totally helped me hear you better. Listen to the filters sometime, they'll make you look less lame.
They can pass all the laws they want. It doesn't make them legal.
How long did it take for a judge to say, "No, these mandatory sentences are not acceptable!"? Not too long.
Canada has a Charter of Rights and a Constitution. No law can be passed that violates those. The Constitution itself says that it is the supreme law of the land. This proposed law clearly violates Section 8 and simply can't stand. They'll pass it anyway because they're authoritarians that want to find out any little detail that can be used against you if you ever want to run for office. Look at what they tried to do to Jack Layton last election: "HE GOT A MASSAGE!".
But this law will be struck down hard and fast by the first judge that sees a case where this evidence is used.
---
ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
That is utter nonsense. There are no "inherent human rights." The only way you get "rights" is (a) someone has to define them, either specifically or in general, (b) someone has to have the power to defend them, (c) and then they actually have to be defended.
As long as people confuse the real situation with this "inherent" meme, they'll fail at actually solving the problem. For instance, in the USA, (c) above is where we fail. We've defined them specifically (those mentioned in the bill of rights and a few others), we've defined them generally (the 9th amendment), the government certainly has the power to defend them... but it rarely does -- in fact, it is much more likely to be the very party abusing them. This happens specifically because rights are not inherent -- they are simply grants supported by power. When power is focused on other issues, rights often mean nothing at all, other than you're proceeding under a set of incorrect assumptions.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Well I figured this would happen after the terrorism meme ran its course. Next up watch as any act which gives the corps or government more power will be given a "protect our childrenz!" name to ensure they can pass it as no politician will want his opponent to be able to come with with ads like this...cue dramatic music..."When congressman porkman was given a chance to protect our children from the criminals that prey on them by passing the "Watch out for the kids" act of 2012 he turned it down and actually worked to block it. if I am elected I will ensure that I, John Kickbackus will ensure that the entire power of the government will be used to watch over our children, our most precious of resources. Won't you help me protect them?" (Kickbackus is surrounded by a bunch of adorable tykes).
You watch, after they are done ramming down the "protect our precious IP...err children!" crap the next to go will be any tools that can allow privacy or security like Truecrypt. They will have talking heads like Nancy Grace wallpaper the airwaves with pictures of some perv and say "This is nothing but a tool for child molesters!" and then you'll be looking at 10 years for even having a copy of software that the government doesn't have a master key to. Kinda sad how the west spent all that money and lives fighting the great totalitarian communist regimes only to slowly become fascist regimes once the wall fell huh? But I'm sure no matter what happens our corporate master will enjoy immunity and make out like robber barons and as long as the 1% have ever increasing wealth its good right?
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.