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)."

9 of 39 comments (clear)

  1. 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. 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: 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.

    2. 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
  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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
  6. 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.