World Police
Posts: 4,440 
Videos: 1
Location: toranna
Videos: 1
Location: toranna
April 20th, 2007, 11:11 AM
Sigh... Good luck with cleaning up the "internet" Joy.
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/1884/125/
Conservative MP Introduces 'Clean Internet Act'
PDF | Print | E-mail Thursday April 19, 2007
Conservative MP Joy Smith yesterday introduced the Clean Internet Act (Bill C-427). The private member's bill would establish an Internet service provider licensing system to be administered by the CRTC along with "know your subscriber" requirements and content blocking powers. Just about everything associated with this bill is (to be charitable) rather odd. Smith introduced it by warning against the use of the Internet to support human trafficking and added that "the bill would address the fact that child pornography is not okay to put on the Internet throughout our nation," though the Criminal Code already does that.
The bill itself includes (and I am not making this up):
Sigh... Good luck with cleaning up the "internet" Joy.
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/1884/125/
Conservative MP Introduces 'Clean Internet Act'
PDF | Print | E-mail Thursday April 19, 2007
Conservative MP Joy Smith yesterday introduced the Clean Internet Act (Bill C-427). The private member's bill would establish an Internet service provider licensing system to be administered by the CRTC along with "know your subscriber" requirements and content blocking powers. Just about everything associated with this bill is (to be charitable) rather odd. Smith introduced it by warning against the use of the Internet to support human trafficking and added that "the bill would address the fact that child pornography is not okay to put on the Internet throughout our nation," though the Criminal Code already does that.
The bill itself includes (and I am not making this up):
- an ISP licensing system to be administered by the CRTC that is defined so broadly that it would seemingly capture anyone offering a wifi connection
- a "know your subscriber" requirement where ISPs would be required to deny service to past offenders (though the ISP would escape liability if upon learning of an offending customer, it terminated service and notified the Minister of Industry)
- a new power that would allow the Minister of Industry to order an ISP to block access to content that promotes violence against women, promotes hatred, or contains child pornography. ISPs that fail to block face possible jail time for the company's directors and officers.
- the Minister of Industry can prescribe special powers to facilitate searches of electronic data systems (ie. lawful access)
Hawkings former plumber
Posts: 8,444
Videos: 1
Location: RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia Drive Apt 911
Videos: 1
Location: RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia Drive Apt 911
April 20th, 2007, 11:17 AM
Durka, as per the conversation the other night about this subject, they (the suits) want the control maybe they can't do it but I think they're going to try. I was talking to a friend of mine yesterday who said much the same as you did, he dosn't think they can exert control, as a matter of fact he maintains that it's the independents (hackers) who make the rules.
Durka, as per the conversation the other night about this subject, they (the suits) want the control maybe they can't do it but I think they're going to try. I was talking to a friend of mine yesterday who said much the same as you did, he dosn't think they can exert control, as a matter of fact he maintains that it's the independents (hackers) who make the rules.
World Police
Posts: 4,440
Videos: 1
Location: toranna
Videos: 1
Location: toranna
April 20th, 2007, 11:18 AM
oops, Joy I meant. my bad.
oops, Joy I meant. my bad.
World Police
Posts: 4,440
Videos: 1
Location: toranna
Videos: 1
Location: toranna
April 20th, 2007, 11:22 AM
What amazes me is that these MP's, who haven't a clue how the internet works, think they can just enact rules and expect the private sector to enforce them.
These sort of Bills are wrong in so many ways... privacy invasion, censorship, technically unfeasible, having ISP's enforce the gov agenda, the list goes on.
What amazes me is that these MP's, who haven't a clue how the internet works, think they can just enact rules and expect the private sector to enforce them.
These sort of Bills are wrong in so many ways... privacy invasion, censorship, technically unfeasible, having ISP's enforce the gov agenda, the list goes on.
Hawkings former plumber
Posts: 8,444
Videos: 1
Location: RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia Drive Apt 911
Videos: 1
Location: RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia Drive Apt 911
April 20th, 2007, 11:23 AM
delete
delete
what green dots?
Posts: 3,157
April 20th, 2007, 11:27 AM
silly, silly, silly
Quoting DurkaDurka
that's ok. Judy's spearheading the ATM thing out of the NDP camp. Her heart's in the right place, too.
oops, Joy I meant. my bad.
silly, silly, silly
Hawkings former plumber
Posts: 8,444
Videos: 1
Location: RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia Drive Apt 911
Videos: 1
Location: RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia Drive Apt 911
April 20th, 2007, 11:29 AM
Porn's big money, they ain't going to touch it.
Porn's big money, they ain't going to touch it.
what green dots?
Posts: 3,157
April 20th, 2007, 11:31 AM
Quoting DurkaDurka
Its doomed, impractical, misses the point and would only create the need to enforce minimum distribution standards.
I hope she gets somewhere with that. 
A modern nomad
Posts: 1,118
Location: Berlin, Germany
Location: Berlin, Germany
April 20th, 2007, 11:31 AM
Quoting DurkaDurka
I just read the act at first reading. So the way it is supposed to work is, someone informs the minister of industry of a child pornography or hate propaganda website, then instead of, you know, arresting the criminal or deregistering the domain, the minister of industry then has to individually order internet sevice providers to use reasonable means available to them to block access to the offending webpage. So effectively, even if the bill was passed it could be circumvented simply by connecting to a proxy outside of Canada and reaccessing the offending website from there. Good job, Joy.
What amazes me is that these MP's, who haven't a clue how the internet works, think they can just enact rules and expect the private sector to enforce them.
These sort of Bills are wrong in so many ways... privacy invasion, censorship, technically unfeasible, having ISP's enforce the gov agenda, the list goes on.
These sort of Bills are wrong in so many ways... privacy invasion, censorship, technically unfeasible, having ISP's enforce the gov agenda, the list goes on.
World Police
Posts: 4,440
Videos: 1
Location: toranna
Videos: 1
Location: toranna
April 20th, 2007, 11:39 AM
Quoting Niflmir
Exactly, there are also pay services now that allow you to create an encrypted IP tunnel to a provider in another country... effectively bypassing any sort of censorship or logging of their IP. So many holes in these plans, these MP's really should consult people in the "know" before forwarding these moronic schemes to the house.
So effectively, even if the bill was passed it could be circumvented simply by connecting to a proxy outside of Canada and reaccessing the offending website from there. Good job, Joy.
what green dots?
Posts: 3,157
April 20th, 2007, 11:42 AM
Quoting DurkaDurka
Which only goes to show you they never really learned anything from the whole gun registry cost thing.
...these MP's really should consult people in the "know" before forwarding these moronic schemes to the house.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Posts: 6,464
Videos: 5
Location: Newfoundland!
Videos: 5
Location: Newfoundland!
April 20th, 2007, 11:49 AM
Quote:
Violence against women? you know there are lots of sites which promote violence against men. this woman is obviously a sexist.
a new power that would allow the Minister of Industry to order an ISP to block access to content that promotes violence against women, promotes hatred, or contains child pornography. ISPs that fail to block face possible jail time for the company's directors and officers
Bright Spark
Posts: 315
Location: Atikokan, Ontario
Location: Atikokan, Ontario
April 20th, 2007, 12:54 PM
It's too bad a little bit of foresight and control wasn't exercised as the Internet rose in popularity. Blocking engines to prevent children from viewing questionable materials would have been infinitely easier had domain names simply been doled out based on the actual content (which was the actual intent, but never followed through) instead of allowing everyone .com addresses.
Say, had all porn sites been given .xxx domains, all a blocking program would have to do is be set to block all *.xxx sites. Too little, too late though.
That aside, C-427 needs to die a quick death on the floor. Even if it passes though, I envision the very minimalist of enforcement on the part of ISPs; there's simply no way for them to enforce an unsecured wireless connection. The hassle of encrypting these connections (and having to give out individual usernames, passwords and network settings to each who wanted to access the network) at places like airports, hotels, schools and universities would be mayhem.
Seriously, Michael Geist should be anointed Minister of Technology for life. He seems to be the only one with both a knowledge of technology, and a respect for rights and the law. On this issue, politicians of all stripes seem to be lacking largely on both counts.
It's too bad a little bit of foresight and control wasn't exercised as the Internet rose in popularity. Blocking engines to prevent children from viewing questionable materials would have been infinitely easier had domain names simply been doled out based on the actual content (which was the actual intent, but never followed through) instead of allowing everyone .com addresses.
Say, had all porn sites been given .xxx domains, all a blocking program would have to do is be set to block all *.xxx sites. Too little, too late though.
That aside, C-427 needs to die a quick death on the floor. Even if it passes though, I envision the very minimalist of enforcement on the part of ISPs; there's simply no way for them to enforce an unsecured wireless connection. The hassle of encrypting these connections (and having to give out individual usernames, passwords and network settings to each who wanted to access the network) at places like airports, hotels, schools and universities would be mayhem.
Seriously, Michael Geist should be anointed Minister of Technology for life. He seems to be the only one with both a knowledge of technology, and a respect for rights and the law. On this issue, politicians of all stripes seem to be lacking largely on both counts.
Mighty Intellect
Posts: 1,535
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Location: Calgary, Alberta
April 20th, 2007, 01:03 PM
Porn producer wants to maximize her market: does she use a .xxx domain name, where she can easily be blocked, or does she do the smart thing and get a .com address and call it art, not porn? The 'net isn't anarchy, unless you try to tell people they cannot do something with it.
Pangloss
Quoting snowles
Snowles, you funny guy.
It's too bad a little bit of foresight and control wasn't exercised as the Internet rose in popularity. Blocking engines to prevent children from viewing questionable materials would have been infinitely easier had domain names simply been doled out based on the actual content (which was the actual intent, but never followed through) instead of allowing everyone .com addresses.
Say, had all porn sites been given .xxx domains, all a blocking program would have to do is be set to block all *.xxx sites.
Say, had all porn sites been given .xxx domains, all a blocking program would have to do is be set to block all *.xxx sites.
Porn producer wants to maximize her market: does she use a .xxx domain name, where she can easily be blocked, or does she do the smart thing and get a .com address and call it art, not porn? The 'net isn't anarchy, unless you try to tell people they cannot do something with it.
Pangloss
