Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

CIPS Chimes In On Internet Predators Act

Posted by timothy on from the not-the-predators-you-were-looking-for dept.

alphabet26 writes "The Canadian Information Processing Society has formally responded to the Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act introduced in February of this year. Bill C-30 would grant authorities extended powers to monitor and track Canadians online. In the statement CIPS recommends that the Government of Canada 'prohibit access to personal information, related records/data, content, communications or records of internet use without the safeguard of a warrant.' CIPS is a non-profit organization that represents Canadian IT professionals and is a member of the International Federation for Information Processing (IFIP)."

39 comments

  1. Correct website is cips.ca by awehttam · · Score: 4, Informative

    The correct website for CIPS is cips.ca, not cips.com as linked in the article.

  2. The Progression by lazarus · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It's interesting the way that we (as a collective civilization) have gone from attempting to block dangerous activity on the Internet for children, to creating safe "playgrounds" for them, to giving up completely on user-based controls and instead just doing semi-autonomous monitoring of country-wide Internet traffic looking for "dangerous" on-line activity.

    We so desperately want to make our children's safety a government problem so we don't have to do anything ourselves and have someone to blame/sue if they are ever in danger. Governments desperately want to exercise their control over us because that is what governments all seem to move towards at the end of the day (taking their responsibility to keep us safe a little too much to heart (or just an extension of the power play that people in the business of government seem drawn towards)).

    How is a minority of responsible citizens ever to stand in the the way of the majority that want to be controlled and the governments who are willing to control them? I wish I knew the answer. It doesn't appear that a democratic system of government is enough.

    --
    I am not interested in articles about life extension advancements.
    1. Re:The Progression by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well, you're first mistake here is in believing that we live in a democratic society. The Oath of Allegiance of the United States makes it clear that they, and so anyone who models their government on them, are actually a republic. The citizens do not get a say in passing the legislation of the country, only the elected representatives and they don't have to follow what they promise once they're safely ensconced in office. The only time they'll come back and listen to the people is to find out what they need to promise so they'll be elected again. Unfortunately, the bulk of the population's memory is so short that they don't remember that the same representative broke all their promises last election and that means they have a good chance of being elected again as long as they make the right promises.

      Eventually, if we're going to have a free internet as we have been used to and is slowly being closed off and censored, it's going to have to be in the form of independent dark meshes run by criminals who will be defined as criminals merely because they are running a network that the government cannot monitor. It will be a little like the old small power pirate radio stations of the old days.

    2. Re:The Progression by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's not mistaken at all about democracy. We live in a democracy. It has become progressively more democratic over time. In a republic, there may be an oligarchy at the top, but they have to move against the representatives in the republic who are generally more well-informed than the average person and who have their own interests at stake too. In a democracy, you only have to fool a majority of people, most of whom will not take the time to understand the issues and who are easily duped. In our case, our democratic republic has become increasing more democratic (such that, for instance, Senators are elected directly by the people). Representatives controlled by the people are easily controlled by an oligarchy at the top because the people are easily duped.

    3. Re:The Progression by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We need to hire mercenaries and conquer an island nation, turn it into a dictatorship (or simply replace the dictatorship with another), form a constitution which prohibits censorship or the creation of new law thereof which prohibits the banning/censoring/limiting/deterring/saftifying (created to "protect") of anything which can be created on paper, digital, or equivalent communicative form. No person shall be limited, restrained, held, with or without there consent of there free movement under any conditions whatsoever with one minor exception.

      Those who wish to have such laws passed in violation of said constitutional protections shall be made to move to a tiny little area on said island. No government/health/food/school or any other necessity should be built within this area. No person should be forced to live, move, eat, sleep, shop, jailed, in this area. What this does is force violators of the law within said area out of said area. Nothing can be built on the protected area without there being an equivalent on the almost lawless area.

      Then there could be a little bit larger area with a bit more law.

      So you end up with three areas. The largest area is basically completely unrestricted, the 2nd area is mostly unrestricted, and the third area is for nutcases who like to be controlled. :)

    4. Re:The Progression by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Slight problem: Eventually, that dictator is going to die. Even if you get a good, uncorruptable, competant idealist once, how are you going to ensure you can get them time after time for hundreds of years?

    5. Re:The Progression by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're an a place where representatives are listening to the people and voting in accordance with their wishes then I wish I could live on the planet you're living on. I see representatives who promise, much deliver little, often hide unpopular legislation or spending inside of other bills and even cross the house in order to make sure they're on the winning side. No, this isn't a democracy.

      As for whether Canada is a democracy, republic or oligarchy, let's look at our Canadian Oath of Allegiance ...

      "I, [name], do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors. So help me God."

      No mention of democracy, republic or any other than a plain monarchy. It's a pledge to a single individual, not a constitution, country or an other abstract political idea.

      Sorry, not a democracy. It's all just window dressing.

    6. Re:The Progression by YodasEvilTwin · · Score: 1

      TBH, I think we'd be better off if Elizabeth II were running things. At least as far as matters of sovreignty and personal dignity go. The economy's doing alright, we just need to stop mimicking US policies (copyright, TSA-style gropings, etc.).

  3. All you need to know by TubeSteak · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The bill does not mention children, or internet predators, other than in its title

    --
    [Fuck Beta]
    o0t!
    1. Re:All you need to know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And there was an EARLIER omnibus bill that's crime related that passed just a few months ago. One of the very few good measures it contained was codifying the ability for police to get internet-related information in emergency situations like where there's imminent harm to children, but still with judicial oversight.

      All of the "think of the children" stuff was fulfilled in March. This legislation is about passing sweeping state surveillance powers that Himmler and Stalin could only wish they'd had.

    2. Re:All you need to know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That's true, the bill was renamed because the government thought they could slip it in under the radar by titling it such that it seemed to be "protecting the children". It's always amazing to think what rights people will give away if they think they are protecting the children.

      You'll soon find that it be suggested that parents turn their children over to government run residential schools so they'll be protected from all the evils out in the world. Looking back at the residential schools run for the aboriginals, I already know how well that will work out. Of course, as it would concentrate virtually of their generation in a close setting it will be easier to eliminate them by pandemics in the schools when the population reduction programs start.

    3. Re:All you need to know by arthurpaliden · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The title was change to its current form the night before it was tabled.

      --
      Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
    4. Re:All you need to know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      I heard it initially changed to "Protect Canadians from Indiscreet Philanderers Act", but Vic Toews thought it sent the wrong message.

  4. Don't be fooled! by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 1, Insightful

    CIPS really stands for Child Internet Porn Society. They're clearly a bunch of pedophiles, because otherwise, why would they be trying in any way to limit efforts to PROTECT THE CHIIILDREN?!?

    --
    The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
  5. The bill is unconstitutional by afidel · · Score: 5, Informative

    Since the Canadian supreme court ruled in April that even in exigent circumstances that the government must obtain a warrant the bill is unconstitutional on its face. This is just like the US Congress passing CDA, COPA et al, it's pandering to the conservative right even though anyone with a brain has to know it won't stand up to judicial review.

    --
    There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    1. Re:The bill is unconstitutional by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      Since the Canadian supreme court ruled in April that even in exigent circumstances that the government must obtain a warrant the bill is unconstitutional on its face. This is just like the US Congress passing CDA, COPA et al, it's pandering to the conservative right even though anyone with a brain has to know it won't stand up to judicial review.

      Yes, but until it's RULED unconstitutional, it's the law of the land. One needs to have a lawsuit filed against them and hope to pass the argument that the law is unlawful up before it'll be considered, which takes time and money.

      Someone will have to go with the defense that there's no evidence obtained as it was obtained unlawfully and convince the judge that the law really should be reviewed against the judgement.

      And that can be a long time - probably at least 5 years or so before the arguments are heard, while everyone else either rots in jail or settles.

  6. Why not a separate network? by aaaaaaargh! · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Why not just create a separate network for children only? With separate browsers, separate trafffic?

    The internet is no place for children anyway. It should be 18+ (or 16+, or whatever politicians and their voters desire) like alcohol and tobacco, and it could simply be prohibited for parents to allow their children to be on the "regular" internet in the same sense as it is prohibited to hand out large quantities of vodka to 8 year old kids. I fail to see why adults should be punished, surveilled, and harrassed by authorities just because of a few irresponsible parents. Technically, it's no problem, you can even build the net on top of the regular internet, make phones and tablets with "kid network" browsers (even more sales!), etc.

    The added benefit of separate networks would be that kids can no longer look up their homework solutions and there are no longer whiney little pricks on game servers for 18+ games.

    1. Re:Why not a separate network? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Child porn and child molestation existed long before the internet existed. It exists about as long as children exist. Whenever a law that cripples privacy needs to be passed, the government calls it an important tool to combat either terrorists or pedophiles. Now we have reached the point that protecting our children by banning dirty cartoons as child porn, and locking children up for producing child porn for taking a pictures of themselves... way to protect out children. Don't forget to arrest everybody that played doctor while being underage...

    2. Re:Why not a separate network? by bmo · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      But /. cannot even accept child pornography is a problem.

      So leave Slashdot.

      Just get the fuck out if you think we're all pedophile coddlers.

      Fucking seriously. Take your insult, print it out on oaktag, fold it until it is all sharp corners and shove it squarely up your ass.

      If it was possible to punch you in the nose through the fiber, I would.

      --
      BMO

    3. Re:Why not a separate network? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >If it was possible to punch you in the nose through the fiber, I would.

      sure you would, toughguy.

      instead of mitigating your real-life sense of powerlessness by making idiotic statements online, use the fucking websites controls, foe him, and do something more than take up space.

      dont like it? go fuck yourself.

  7. I hate how politicians exploit the children by elucido · · Score: 3, Interesting

    They always use child porn and fear mongering and pedophilia to get any bill they want passed without review. They know the word pedophile shuts down all rational centers of a parents brain and allows the politician to essentially do anything to them and their children so long as it's in the name of protecting them from pedophiles.

  8. What I cannot understand ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... is how the legislators of the day think that these obnoxious changes will not affect their own children in the future.

    One possibility is that somewhere in these new laws are hidden clauses that exempt certain members or classes in society. Would this be considered another case of the 1% taking care of themselves at the expense of the 99%?

    1. Re:What I cannot understand ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Privileged egoists are assholes even to their own children. But their kids will have lawyers and connections and won't be affected too much by any law. Of course when it comes time for them to be in charge they will follow their parents' example and shit on their own children even more. The spiral of abuse...

  9. Ridiculous by steveaustin1971 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This week, Public Safety Minister Vic Toews said that Bill C-30 would have allowed police to catch a killer who had posted his killing and dismemberment online. He wants us to believe that the fact that police need to take a few minutes to get a warrant prevented them from pursuing this guy who had posted the killing online and had for years posted his animal cruelty vids. Problem is this: People DID report it to the police who ignored it. If they had chosen to investigate they could have found him quite easily, but they chose not to use the rather robust powers they ALREADY have to investigate. Bill C-30 only really gives the government (even non-police entities) the ability to snoop on citizens without need for a warrant or even a suspicion of illegal activity without leaving any sort of paper trail or accountability. The current government has already been found to be hiring people to spread propaganda on forums and scour facebook to find people that might not agree with their policies and remove them from rallies. We should trust people like that to not abuse their power? A government embroiled in a voter fraud scandal, several finance scandals and the FIRST Canadian government to have been found in contempt of Parliament? No thank you Mr. Toews.

  10. constant surveillance by amoeba1911 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Would you install cameras in every street corner, every home, every bedroom so you can watch everyone at all times to prevent child porn? I think everyone would answer with a resounding NO, because anyone can see it is a clear violation of people's privacy. Why would you do the equivalent of that online?

  11. The Real Problem with Bill C-30 by arthurpaliden · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Bill C-30 Sections 33/34:

    Vic's Asst. 1: So have we had any luck tracing that person who sent those emails or who he is working with. You know the other people he has been in contact with.

    Vic's Asst. 2: Nope. All we have is the email address but that does give us the name of their ISP.

    Vic's Asst. 1: OK so get a warrant for that ISP and find who it was that sent it along with who he is working with.

    Vic's Asst. 2: Can't do that. What was done was not a criminal act.

    Vic's Asst. 3: Well then how about this. We get the Minister to appoint someone we trust as his agent as per Section 33 to check out this ISP for compliance to Bill C-30. They go there and then once they are in the ISP's premises we use Section 34, which states he can make copies of 'any' information found at the site regardless of where it is stored, to get everything. That gives us all the ISP's user account data as well as the contents of all current user emails, instant messages, voice over IP conversations as well as all the system backups which will contain everything even if has been deleted by the users. Then we bring it all back here and go through it at our leisure looking for 'compliance violations'.

    Vic's Asst. 1: And that is legal?

    Vic's Asst. 3:Getting it yes, although politically it could embarrass the Minister but then hey, isn't what Senate appointments are for.

    Vic's Asst. 1: Ok then, works for me.

    --
    Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
  12. No Warrant is the whole point by Maow · · Score: 1

    In the statement CIPS recommends that the Government of Canada 'prohibit access to personal information, related records/data, content, communications or records of internet use without the safeguard of a warrant.'

    Not having a warrant is the whole point of the bill.

    How else can Pierre Poutine scour the records of opposition candidates in order to smear them during election campaigns? Maybe find a damning email sent to the leader of the opposition by ... Pierre Poutine?

    They had a 2 year long negative attack ad campaign against Ignatief prior to the last election and have already begun one against Bob Rae.

    They just want to be ready for the next election -- they'll have to be a bit more careful with their election fraud this time -- but they will do what ever is in their power to win.

    Free and fair elections are a thing of the past.

    Quebec had their "Quiet Revolution", Canada has had a "Quiet Coup".

  13. Yeah sure, no one would ever lie online by witherstaff · · Score: 2

    People have been pretending to be a different age or gender on the 'net for a long long time. Everyone having digital cams has done away with some of this but in the 90s early 00s it could be a surprise meeting someone from online. Thank god I never ran across a different gender, realizing that a picture someone put up was probably taken 10+ years ago or 150 pounds ago were enough of shockers.

    In all seriousness I dislike any legislation that tries to impose morality. You know some books have some nasty things in them, should we bad kids from books? The bible talks about incest and sodomy and having emissions like like a donkey, should I dare let a kid read that? Even Over the Air TV can have some non-kid friendly things on it.

    As to technically it's a huge problem. You can't have a walled garden of random users otherwise how would you stop a single parent from using a kid account and breaking the system? If a parent is irresponsible that's their fault, why should I be paying tax dollars for cops to be trolling as 'CuteGirl18' just to ensure someone on the new network wasn't also trolling? Besides in the studies I've read the vast majority of child abuse happens by those the kid is close to and not random internet people. If a parent really wants to lowjack their kids they can already. Disney I think has cell phones the parents can setup to only call numbers they put in, and are GPS trackers. There are various kid friendly software browsers that have been out there for a long time. Netnanny, etc. Solutions already exist let's not make more laws that require more big brother oversight. It's worked so well with the "war on drugs".

  14. Re:I'm really glad by flyneye · · Score: 1

    No, Miss Latella, that's CIPS not CHIPS, but Erik has been spotted involved in other issues closer to the Mexican border. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CO8vBVUaKvk Big bust outside Driftwood ,TX turns out they were abusing pepper.

    On the other hand, in this Kansas town, a local 12 yr. old went missing with her internet boyfriend 20 from Canada, caught in Michigan on their way back, just yesterday. http://www.kansas.com/2012/06/01/2356613/amber-alert-issued-in-michigan.html Hmm, kidnapping, sex with child, I suspect he's going to end up doing time in the state supermax. Guess where? http://www.doc.ks.gov/facilities/edcf That's right, in the town he got the kid from. That's where they put P.C.(protective custody, aka punk city) little child molester mutants so they don't get punked in the general pop of other Kansas prisons. Supermax, where they get to walk around in the yard for a different hour a day with all the other little bitches so the bad old violent criminals and lifers they keep too don't pwn them in the yard. Bet he sleeps sound with Dennis Rader close at hand, eh? I bet he ends up wearing a 'depends' anyway.

    --
    *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
  15. How to join CIPS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So does anyone know how to join CIPS? I've been working in the industry for 25 years and know nobody who is a member to refer me. Is it that exclusive a club?

    1. Re:How to join CIPS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You require a university or college degree from an institution in Canada. And yes it appears to be an exclusive club much like the organization responsible for CISSP. Exclusivity breeds incest and therefore explains CIPS' position w.r.t. Bill C-30. [ /sarcasm only half in jest ]

    2. Re:How to join CIPS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      CIPS isn't exclusive. Anyone can join and you don't need a member to refer you. http://www.cips.ca/membership

  16. beatles- all we are saying ..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    beatles- all we are saying .....is give a warrant a chance.....

  17. ummmmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    WRONG....law passes you file an injunction in court that until such time as there is a ruling that , the law as is cannot void current charter of rights as blatant as this....ITS very very clear in the charter. THIS is HARD to ask for legally in a civilized land. Sorry....and me thinks a sane judge would grant a stay/injunction of that law until it was reworded to include a warrant OR was heard and struck down by the appropriate court.

    Costs a bit a doh but im game to do it ...i have some spare time to waste tax payers money on a law that SHOULD have included oversight....that is what a warrant allows for and if the example of above where a minister abuses warrants that can become an issue to get them ....

    Most judges actually take there jobs seriously....not like the 16$ a orange juice oda ministers and helicopter riding taxi service.