Can We Please Have Politicians Understand The Internet Before They Regulate It?
from the would-that-be-so-difficult? dept
Lots of folks have been submitting the story that a Canadian MP has introduced "The Clean Internet Act" which is a bizarre bit of proposed legislation that is typical of other "protect the children!" laws that politicians love to propose without actually understanding what they're talking about. This one is pretty ridiculous, basically requiring anyone who provides internet service (including if you have a WiFi connection) to register with the government (hello, bureaucracy). Then it includes all sorts of impossible to obey rules about censoring and blocking users and content. ISPs won't be allowed to allow "past offenders" to access the internet. They have to block all sites "that promotes violence against women, promotes hatred, or contains child pornography." Failure to do so can result in jail time. Also, they have to (of course!) allow easy access for the government to search records of what users are doing. We're almost surprised he also didn't include in the bill demands that the earth stop spinning and the tides stop rising and falling. The MP in question probably would have found it more effective to have written a bill that just said "I demand all bad stuff on the internet go away." With that in mind, is it really that much to ask that those who are regulating the internet actually have some clue about the thing that they're trying to regulate?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
What an idiot
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Holy maple!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Holy maple!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I propose...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Canuck, canuck!" "Who's there?"
Hey, don't be so quick to jump on the Canadians. This is just one idiot politician who has introduced one idiot bill. If it passes into law, then you can call the Canadians idiots. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
17 000 people voted for her :(
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Now really...
They have to block all sites "that promotes violence against women, promotes hatred, or contains child pornography."
So does that mean that men aren't going to be protected under this act? Violent acts are performed against men as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Assasination before its too late!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My representative?
On behalf of my representative and the area she covers... sorry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
PS: Don't take that the wrong way and assume that I'm saying that this makes them qualified to be politicians either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kinda like here in America.... lot's of politicians who know jack squat about education, always pushing new regulations and requirements to "fix the educational system", and all they end up doing is choking our teachers and poor kids to death on outrageous new standards.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
snowballs chance in hell
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Man, if this ever went through, there'd be only be porn sites left.
None-extreme porn sites, too. The net would suck.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
once again
IT GETS US PEOPLE MAKING LAWS ABOUT TECHNOLOGY THEY DO NOT UNDERSTAND.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Term Limits
Back in the early ninties ('94 I think) the Republicans vowed to get term limits for senate seats.
NOT!!!
Another reason to vote in a third party strong enough to disembowl the big power brokers that run the political engine right now on both sides of the aisle.
If everyone that believes this government system has become too corrupt voted these people out we might have a chance at surviving for another hundred years.
If this corruption continues, I don't think we will survive as a nation for even 50 years!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
once again
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't Legislate my life.
Protecting kids from an invisible predator (which could easily dissappear by a simple yank of a cord) from experiencing Right from Wrong does little more than create a mentality of folks who can't synthesize creativity, and ultimately grow up having a deterministic view of the world
I am growing increasingly annoyed with people who simply legislate something that looks helpful on the surface but in the end limits people's ability to experience free will.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
More Ranting from The Chef
Legislation is happening without understanding the root issues, and how to empower people. With the growth of the internet, we should start asking our politicians to include a Program Evaluation aspect to evaluate legislation before introduction.
There's great ideas out there, and a million stupid ones. How come the stupid ones always seem to get traction is beyond me.
I'm filing a patent on this on Monday. I'm going to call it "Program Evaluation for Legislation".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Email Her and Let her Know
It'd take maybe five seconds to fire off an email stating that you disagree with the Clean Internet Act (Bill C-427). Please for the love of God help get this woman out of a position where she can even come close to changing things she doesn't understand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Email Her and Let her Know
I'll send an email immediately after researching her bill so I don't start off by acting on prejudice, misinformation and ignorance like she did.
I do wonder why politicians try to completely control everything that makes living in a democracy so good while ignoring everything that makes it bad. It must be a mental illness.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: But...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: But...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You're Kidding, Right
No, apparently not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hmm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yet another waste of time
She's been told by some lobbyist that this would make her look good, and the lobbyist is representing some entity that would profit from this legislation.
Stupidity is not the question, this is gullibility.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sent her an email
Hello,
I've spent the last 20 minutes reading through your proposed bill C-427. Although I am an American I feel compelled to tell you that this bill is a bad Idea for several reasons.
1. An Act to prevent the use of the Internet to distribute child pornography, material that advocates, promotes or incites racial hatred, and material that portrays or promotes violence against women
You seem to have forgotten men in that clause. Further no where throughout the entire bill have I seen mention of violence against men. Although I do not have exact figures on hand, (again, I am American, I do not know how your constituents fall across the gender gap) it seems that this would alienate a rather large segment of your constituents.
2. “Internet service provider” means a person who provides a service that facilitates access to the Internet, whether or not the service is provided free or for a charge.
By grouping all people who allow access to the Internet in as a ISP (Internet Service Provider) and then later on holding them accountable for what their users do eliminates a lot of freedoms provided by the free world.
For example, if my friend comes over my house to say house-sit for two weeks while my spouse and I are away and goes online, he may access web-sites which violate this law. According to your bill the fact that I allowed him to use my computer to access the Internet makes me an ISP and therefor accountable for his actions while I was away.
Here in the united states we have the communications decency act which exonerates any service provider should users post illicit, inappropriate, or illegal material.
Here is section C of the Communications decency act
(c) Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material
(1) Treatment of publisher or speaker
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
(2) Civil liability
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—
(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or
(B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).
This allows the Internet to flourish and grow because service providers do not have to be afraid of punitive actions against them should their users act inappropriately. Your bill will stifle Canadian Internet growth and usage as service providers will be in a constant state of fear of punitive actions.
3. 4. (1) No person may offer the services of or operate as an Internet service provider unless the person has been granted a license to operate as an Internet service provider in accordance with subsection (2).
By requiring people with so much as a wireless hot-spot to register as a licensed ISP you also inadvertently limit their use of current technology. If in order to run a wireless network I must first walk through miles of "red-tape" it is going to cause me to A) Not want said technology or B) remove said technology from my presence. This is also going to have a butterfly effect on the manufacturers of such technology.
Although I've only covered a few points here, I will await your response (and rebuttal if you should choose to make one) to cover any further points on this subject. I just wanted to shed some light on the more negative aspects of your proposed bill and I deeply hope for my northern friends that you strongly reconsider this bill.
You may reply to me at RSTR5105@gmail.com .
I look forward to hearing from you soon.
Robert Straitt II
And I am awaiting her reply.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sent her an email
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Definingn backbencher
Therefor she knows she's spinning her wheels politically, but look at all the attention she's getting! My son does the exact same thing this politician is doing by screaming in the Walmart toy aisle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
P word...
Parenting...
Who are these kids parents? The politicians? No, the parent. If the parent regulates what the kid can watch, then good. If not, then , well, that's that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You are a Hotspot simply by having the wireless connection, reguardless if you have WEP or WPA enabled or not. Letting people freely access your connection without encryption does not make you a Hotspot, you are a Hotspot reguardless.
-Drakk )))
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
very urgent
DRIVE, READING BERKSHIRE,
RG6 1RH ENGLAND.
www.ingdirect.co.uk
FAX: +44-203-031-1247
SIR/MADAM,
CONFIDENTIAL.
DURING AN ANNUAL AUDITING IN OUR BANK, THE (ING DIRECT) HERE IN ENGLAND, WHERE I AM PRESENTLY WORKING AS THE HEAD OF ACCOUNTS SECTION, A HUGE SUM OF MONEY WAS DISCOVERED STANDING UNCLAIMED, WHICH ORIGINALLY BELONGED TO A DECEASED CUSTOMER OF THE BANK , BY NAME, Albert Adams , WHO DIED IN A TRAGIC PLANE CRASH RE-CONFIRM THIS INCIDENT THROUGH: :( http://www.legacy.com/Obituaries.asp? Page=LifeStory&PersonId=1177881) and more details THIS FUND HAS BEEN DORMANT IN HIS ACCOUNT, IN OUR BANK, WITHOUT ANYONE PUTING CLAIM/CLAIMS OVER IT, EITHER FROM HIS FAMILY OR RELATIONS, HENCE HE DID NOT INDICATE ANY "NEXT OF KIN" OR BENEFICIARY , INCASE OF DEATH. HE WAS OPERATING THIS ACCOUNT SECRETLY BEFORE HIS SUDEN DEATH. ACCORDING TO FINANCIAL/ALLIED BANKING ACT IN UNITED KINGDOM, SUCH FUND, WITHOUT A CLAIMANT OR BENEFICIARY , WILL BE RETURNED TO THE BANK'S TREASURY MARKED AS, "UNCLAIMED BILL" THE SAID AMOUNT INVOLVED IS U.S. $2.1 MILLION (TWO MILLION AND ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND UNITED STATES DOLLARS ONLY).IN THIS REGARD THEREFORE, I SOLICITE YOUR ASSISTANCE, TO PROVIDE A BANK ACCOUNT AND DISGUISE AS THE "NEXT OF KIN" AND WITH THE HELP OF MY OTHER COLLEGUES IN OUR APEX BANK, (BANK OF ENGLAND) , WE WILL PERFECT THE PAPER WORK AND TRANSFER THIS MONEY INTO ANY OF YOUR NORMINATED BANK ACCOUNT, AND ARRANGE A MEETING FOR DISBURSEMENT. WE HAVE AGREED TO OFFER YOU 30% OF THE TOTAL SUM, 60% FOR US, WHILE 10% WILL BE KEPT FOR EXPENSIS BOTH SIDES AS THERE IS NO RISK INVOLVED.PLEASE KEEP THIS UTMOSTLY SECRET IT DESERVES , FOR WE ARE STILL IN ACTIVE SERVICE AND WOULD PUT UP FOR RESIGNATION AFTER THIS TRANSACTION AS WE WOULD NOT LIKE OUR GOOD IMAGES DENTED. I WILL BE DELITED TO WELLCOME YOUR RESPONDS THROUGH THIS EMAIL , OR MY PHONE AND FAX CONTACTS RESPECTIVELY. WAITING FOR YOUR RESPONDS. THANKS. ingdirectbank_plc@fsmail.net
REGARDS, Jeffery Rise
[ link to this | view in chronology ]