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."
Won't someone think of the children?!?!?!!?!
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.
In that case, fuck the children.
(+1, Disagree)
Minister Toews should be fine, then, with his office's internet access being logged and stored.
Should be perfectly safe - after all, you only have something to fear if you're doing something wrong, or if the government's records leak.
Right?
To a Lisp hacker, XML is S-expressions in drag.
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.
Sent to Ralph Goodale (my MP), Stephen Harper (PM of Canada), and Vic Toews (the jackboot who insultingly claims I support child pornography because I won't kiss his ass):
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
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?
Whenever I see these peope constantly banging the drums of how we have to continually make worse laws about controlling the Internet, one thing comes to my mind:
Why do these government officials keep harping on it? Ministers like Ted Haggard attack gays constantly, and turn out to be gay themselves. Me thinks the government officials might be producing or consuming this material. Otherwise, why, might I ask, are you harping on it so much?
The proposed bill is like the Government of Canada forcing the phone companies to keep a record of every call that you make or receive, and insisting that Canada Post keep a register of every piece of mail that you send or receive. They'd still need a warrant to actually open your mail, but they don't need anyone's permission to build a profile of who you correspond with including who, how often, at what time of day etc...
The minister has gone on record to say that if you don't want the government to have a complete list of the letters you send through the mail, then you support child pornography. There is apparently no middle ground.
Now take the phone/mail analogy and replace it with everything that you do online - all the websites you visit, Facebook posts you make and emails you send. If you think that's a reasonable limit on your freedom then you should support the bill. If you don't want the government poking around your history file then you should let them know.
When you have nothing left to burn you must set yourself on fire
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".
Eh, I was once told by Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter that I was advocating for terrorists breaking military encryption because I was against the DMCA. I was trying to explain to a Town Hall meeting how the DMCA made it illegal for purchasers to exercise the right of fair use to copy a DVD because the content industry had merely put on an invisible wrapper of encryptionbasically they paid for a Bill to fleece us in the digital age. Specter went on a rant that I was talking about wanting to allow terrorists to be able to circumvent military encryption. I tried to correct him, but he was too dumb stupid to correct. (I'd give him the benefit of the doubt that he was really being hyper-intelligent and deftly torpedoing my argument, if his rant wasn't so completely devoid of factual basis and comprised mostly of ignorant run-ons--so I can't even do that.)
Priceless was the 80-something year old lady who approached me in the parking lot while I was sitting in my car waiting to exit. I thought she was going to hit me over the head with her purse, you know, for having the gall to speak so bluntly with a Senator/Elder Statesman. Instead she said that she had no idea what I was talking about, but that was clear the Senator didn't know anything either, and that he should have instead listened to me. She was angry with him for having voted for something he clearly didn't understand. So, even if I didn't get Specter to "get it", at least one of his voters did!
Scott
"Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid."
I sent a letter in protest to my MP and got a similar canned response. it appears to be an answer from any conservatives in government. Here was my reply from Pierre Poilievre, my local MP.
-------------
Thank you for your message.
As you point out, these Bills did not pass in an earlier session of Parliament, and will need to be re-introduced. As such, I cannot comment on them until that time and the text is available.
That being said, our message is clear: if people use technology to commit crimes, such as distributing child pornography, the police will apprehend them and they will be punished to the full extent of the law.
Sincerely,
Pierre Poilievre, M.P. Nepean-Carleton
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities
LP
-------------
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
TFA is trolling. Mod Toews down!
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
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.
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.
Public Safety Minister Vic Toews, refering to The "Act to enact the Investigating and Preventing Criminal Electronic Communications Act and to amend the Criminal Code and other acts" Said: "He can either stand with us or with the child pornographers," "Lawful access will aid child porn investigations. I call on the NDP to stop making things easier for predators and support these measures." Adolf Hitler himself, referring to such tactics, wrote: “The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation. ” -Mein Kampf, Adolf Hitler, Publ. Houghton Miflin, 1943, Page 403 Mr. Toews, I see you have learned your lessons well.
Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo