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."

26 of 583 comments (clear)

  1. Child pornography is not an excuse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Child pornography is not an excuse by Joce640k · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The correct response is to ask Vic Toews to give the public access to all his Internet and credit card usage.

      After all, he's not doing anything wrong...he's got nothing to hide.

      --
      No sig today...
    2. Re:Child pornography is not an excuse by Again · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I just sent him an email telling him that we need to ban curtains because obviously only people that murder other people in their living rooms have any use for curtains. So if you support having curtains, you are supporting mass-murderers.

      Now I'm worried that this analogy is too complex for him to grasp.

    3. Re:Child pornography is not an excuse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      no, it's a false dichotomy and you should not accept its premises, or you're legitimating it.

      Schneier provided a much better answer to the problem with surveillance:

      The most common retort against privacy advocates -- by those in favor of ID checks, cameras, databases, data mining and other wholesale surveillance measures -- is this line: "If you aren't doing anything wrong, what do you have to hide?"
      Some clever answers: "If I'm not doing anything wrong, then you have no cause to watch me." "Because the government gets to define what's wrong, and they keep changing the definition." "Because you might do something wrong with my information." My problem with quips like these -- as right as they are -- is that they accept the premise that privacy is about hiding a wrong. It's not. Privacy is an inherent human right, and a requirement for maintaining the human condition with dignity and respect.
      Two proverbs say it best: Quis custodiet custodes ipsos? ("Who watches the watchers?") and "Absolute power corrupts absolutely."
      Cardinal Richelieu understood the value of surveillance when he famously said, "If one would give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, I would find something in them to have him hanged." Watch someone long enough, and you'll find something to arrest -- or just blackmail -- with. Privacy is important because without it, surveillance information will be abused: to peep, to sell to marketers and to spy on political enemies -- whoever they happen to be at the time.
      Privacy protects us from abuses by those in power, even if we're doing nothing wrong at the time of surveillance.

  2. Ooh! Ooh! I want to try! by RyoShin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Ooh! Ooh! I want to try! by TheRaven64 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It wasn't quite that bad. He said you were either with the child pornographers or with the government. Given those two options, I'm not really sure which one is less bad. With the law-abiding citizens doesn't seem to be an option. Given that these days child pornographers includes teenagers who send naked photos to each other, parents who photograph their children in the bath, and people who distribute illustrations of nude fictional children, I think on balance I'd rather be with them than with the power-crazed sociopaths.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  3. Sent to the PM and related MPs by msobkow · · Score: 5, Informative

    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 consent to searches and spying by the government, CSIS, the RCMP, or any other police force in or out of Canada without a proper warrant.

    I have nothing to hide, but it is a matter of principal. I have a right to private communications unless someone can explain to a judge WHY I should be investigated and convince them to sign a warrant.

    This bill is useless in reality anyhow, because anyone but the most technically illiterate criminal will use an anonymizer and encryption, so the spying will net no proof of a crime, even if someone is surfing child porn like a psychotic fiend.

    This is nothing more than a fishing expedition and an attempt to violate Canadians fundamental right to privacy.

    Just say "NO" to politicians who stoop to claiming you support Evil Horrible Unimaginable Thing just because you value your own rights.

    Even the Nazi's "Stazi" had to report to someone.

    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    1. Re:Sent to the PM and related MPs by Jason+Levine · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.
  4. They doth protest too much by Zombie+Ryushu · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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?

    1. Re:They doth protest too much by HappyEngineer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

  5. Re:Come on! by Stargoat · · Score: 5, Funny

    In the United States, we call our logical fallacies Texans. What do you call them in Canada?

    --
    Hoist Number One and Number Six.
  6. Re:Come on! by Skapare · · Score: 5, Funny

    The pedophiles think of the children all the time.

    --
    now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
  7. How to explain the law to a non-techie by Lev13than · · Score: 5, Informative

    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
  8. Re:Come on! by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Funny

    In the United States, we call our logical fallacies Texans. What do you call them in Canada?

    Politicians.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  9. Parliamentary privelige by Hognoxious · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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."
  10. Clearly We Are Terrorists by ScooterComputer · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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."
    1. Re:Clearly We Are Terrorists by T-Bucket · · Score: 5, Insightful

      See, the thing is, he did "get it". "It" of course, being a large infusion of cash from the industry benefiting from the DMCA.

  11. Re:Come on! by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 5, Informative

    Albertans. Imagine Texas with snow, and you have Alberta. Culturally the province is more conservative than most of the US: oil, attempts at privatized health care, silly hats, rodeos, fear of taxation, the whole shebang. Sometimes even the accent!

    --
    Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
  12. Re:Come on! by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Justice Minister Vic Toews comes from Mennonite-land Manitoba (he is literally a bible belt politician). And he is a divorced philanderer and has fathered children outside his own marriage.

    --
    -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
  13. Re:Come on! by eternaldoctorwho · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why, he's the Canadian version of Gingrich!

  14. Fuck Yeah! by AK+Marc · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  15. what burns me is by RobertLTux · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  16. He is right, it is absolutely true by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  17. Re:Come on! by KhabaLox · · Score: 5, Funny

    In the United States, we call our logical fallacies Texans. What do you call them in Canada?

    Americans.

    --
    Ceci n'est pas un sig.
  18. Re:Come on! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    And conversely, most Texans have never been outside their own state. And despite being dead last in education, dead last in civilization, and dead last in culture, for some reason most of them don't WANT to leave their own state and think everywhere else is a "librul hellhole."

    Hell, they even think they invented barbeque... when it turns out it was imported to Europe (as barbacoa) from the Caribbean and traveled to the Americas with Spanish and French settlers. Not only that, but Texas barbecue is universally a dry, tasteless mess that is only edible by slathering it with a ton of sauce.

  19. History repeats. Or maybe the Minister studied it by arthurpaliden · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.