'Lawful Access' Rhetoric Rings Hollow When The Facts Are Wrong
from the muddled-analogies dept
Ever since our Public Safety Minister made the infamous claim that his opponents were standing "with the child pornographers", support for Canada's proposed "lawful access" legislation—which would force ISPs to turn customer information over to police without a warrant, and install network surveillance equipment—has been characterized by two things: sensationalism and a lack of clarity. This is hardly surprising in a debate that opened with accusations of supporting child porn (a seeming corollary of Godwin's Law) and nowhere is it better exemplified than Lorna Dueck's tragically confused column in Friday's Globe and Mail.
[Full disclosure: I work for one of the Globe's main competitors, but not in an editorial capacity.]
Dueck makes the bizarre claim that what should be a discussion about protecting children was "transformed" into a debate about privacy, as though there is no room to consider both. She then attempts to brush off all concerns about the bill, claiming it is akin to driving your car:
The car is your private property and you know how to use it, but some people keep making the road dangerous. You appreciate the radar gun or spot checks at the side of the road, and you take down a licence-plate number when a driver needs to be reported. It's a public service that keeps us safe. That's how police see access to your IP address – it will help them to identify lawbreakers.
The metaphor fits for why Bill C-30 is applauded by those on the front lines of child protection. Like using a radar gun, hackers employed by the police have developed software that catches images of child sexual exploitation. It's illegal images that are being tracked. Police will take that digital evidence to ask who's trading this, and that leads to an IP address – the licence plate of your car, if you will.
Unfortunately, Dueck has things backwards. C-30 is not about making IP addresses more accessible. Although the text of the bill does include them as one of the pieces of information that ISPs must hand over without a warrant, that is rarely, if ever, how online investigations proceed. Rather, police monitor networks to collect IP addresses that are exchanging child pornography, then investigate those addresses. In a way, IP addresses already do work like license plates (including the fact that they are not enough to positively identify an individual user/driver).
Currently, only a warrant can compel an ISP to hand over information, but they can also choose to cooperate with police. There are conflicting accounts as to how this plays out: supporters of the bill (including some police) claim that criminals are going uncaught thanks to the difficulty of obtaining warrants, while opponents, like Ontario's Privacy Commissioner, claim that ISPs already comply with the vast majority of warrantless requests when child pornography is involved. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle.
Bill C-30 would force ISPs to hand over customer information without the warrant. Amusingly, Dueck's car analogy could have been more appropriate if she used it correctly, since the police do not need a warrant to trace a license plate back to its owner. But even this misses the key point that vehicles are publicly licensed by the government, while ISPs are private companies offering a service to private citizens. It's well-established that there is no right to drive anonymously, but C-30 legislates the end of anonymity online, and sets a disturbing precedent against the right to privacy when using any form of communication. Should the police be able to obtain customer information from printing shops without a warrant, just because some people distribute obscene or libelous flyers? That is a far more analogous question, and one that underlines the fundamental concept of privacy that C-30 violates.
We all want to prevent the exploitation of children, but the proposed methods for doing so would have unintended consequences, and that conversation can't be hidden behind emotionally charged rhetoric. An urgent goal does not justify a reckless solution—nor a reckless column that confuses the facts. Dueck calls the conflict over C-30 a "sideshow" and hopes to "elevate the debate", but in fact all she has done is join one of the existing sides—those who let the emotional resonance of child pornography override their sobriety, and believe that laudable motives excuse them from examining their methods or even understanding the details of the problem.
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
Filed Under: canada, child porn, internet, lawful access, spying, surveillance, vic toews
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Close - but for the surveillance equipment in C-30 the police do need a warrant to actually check the information - but they can request that ISPs start collecting the information without one. So it's like police being able to put a tracking device on your car whenever they want, then go ask for a warrant to check what it records.
But the surveillance and the warrantless access to customer information are two separate issues (somewhat) and since Dueck's (bad) analogy was attempting to explain the latter, I just stuck to that part.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"Section 487.0195 states the following:
(1) For greater certainty, no preservation demand, preservation order or production order is necessary for a peace officer or public officer to ask a person to voluntarily preserve data that the person is not prohibited by law from preserving or to voluntarily provide a document to the officer that the person is not prohibited by law from disclosing.
(2) A person who preserves data or provides a document in those circumstances does not incur any criminal or civil liability for doing so.
This provision opens the door to police approaching ISPs and asking them to retain data on specified subscribers or to turn over any subscriber information - including emails or web surfing activities - without a warrant. ISPs can refuse, but this provision is designed to remove any legal concerns the ISP might have in doing so, since it grants full criminal and civil immunity for the disclosures. "
And that doesn't even get into Section 34, whereby the Minister can appoint inspectors who can then go in under the guise of ensuring everything is working as expected, peruse any data at any time and even take copies of that data.
The inspectors may "enter any place owned by, or under the control of, any telecommunications service provider in which the inspector has reasonable grounds to believe there is any document, information, transmission apparatus, telecommunications facility or any other thing to which this Act applies."
And, once he or she is in, anything goes.
The inspector, says the bill, may "examine any document, information or thing found in the place and open or cause to be opened any container or other thing." He or she may also "use, or cause to be used, any computer system in the place to search and examine any information contained in or available to the system."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
AHOY BOOTY AHEAD!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You pirates.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Canadian Papers Suck at "teh intertubez"
Aside, Marcus, are you writing for a paper? And if so, can you disclose which one? I certainly haven't seen your name on the Star, so I'm guessing it's not that (but to honest I don't always pay close attention to bylines).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Canadian Papers Suck at "teh intertubez"
I actually didn't really follow the Globe's or Star's coverage of SOPA/PIPA - though I was pleasantly surprised when the Post came out strongly against them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Canadian Papers Suck at "teh intertubez"
More likely he delivers them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Canadian Papers Suck at "teh intertubez"
And... at least he *has* a job. Try leaving your mummy's basement sometime ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Canadian Papers Suck at "teh intertubez"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: These laws are more dangerous for Christians
These kinds of laws are more dangerous for Christians because it becomes very much easier to target them as being anti-society, particularly when the government of the time wants to gain and then maintain close control on its citizens. Case in point try being a Christian in a communist country.
There are many who go by the name "christian" but are by no means Christian. They exhibit all the characteristics that are in opposition to what Jesus Christ taught and lived. it appals me that we would bring such disrepute upon Him who has provided a way for us to live.
There is a vast difference in telling people that the lifestyle they choose to live brings bad consequences for them and those they influence and they need to change how they live and treating them as contemptible people who do not deserve to live.
Adultery, fornication, homosexual activities, drug use and child sacrifice are all signs that a society is focussed on pleasure for pleasures sake and not on building a better society. There are consequences for these kinds of lifestyles and if one looks into history and observes what happens to the societies that allow these to become acceptable and tolerated, one sees those societies disappear into the mists of time. These lifestyles are no different to societies that dictate that specific groups are superior to others, or that one political and or religious belief system is superior to another and so bring about persecution of those who are different.
It is one thing to disagree with what another believes and to say that a particular lifestyle or belief system brings about serious consequences. It is another to say that they as people are not worthy of being treated as people.
Those who want to bring in such legislation using the excuse that those who disagree with them are low-life scum child predators are themselves full of hate and their actions are no better than those they ostensibly want to punish. They are to be pitied and we should be trying to find ways to help them get out of the pit of darkness they are in.
Remember always that there is a difference between hating the actions that a person does and hating the person.
regards and good day to all
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: These laws are more dangerous for Christians
Ummmm, wait a minute... fornication is bad? Maybe you're doing it wrong?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: These laws are more dangerous for Christians
"Adultery, fornication, homosexual activities, drug use and child sacrifice are all signs that a society is focussed on pleasure for pleasures sake and not on building a better society."
and raise you -
The Dark Ages.
THANKS CHRISTIANITY.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: These laws are more dangerous for Christians
Just remember, politicians and power mongers will describe themselves in whatever way they think is necessary and use whatever propaganda they they think is needed to get their desired outcome. So if they think that being called a Christian is required that is what they will do irrespective of what their life and actions really are. It was no different then to what is happening today.
regards and good evening to all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: These laws are more dangerous for Christians
Also, Christians have no problem calling Mormons or Scientologists nut-jobs but don't seem to have any ability to process the irony. In 2000 years magic tablets, and alien spirit cleansing will be considered "facts" just like Jesus the magician.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: These laws are more dangerous for Christians
hehehehehehe I think you mean LeVar Burton. But that error made my day :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: These laws are more dangerous for Christians
CHILD SACRIFICE!!!!???
Oh, you mean like that Abraham fellow was intent on doing with little Issac? Yeah, I get it now.
Incidently, I'm more worried about folks that are focused on PAIN for pleasures sake. Or those that decree that pleasure is forbidden. If you are determined to live in pain and sorrow, just let the world run along as it is doing now. You won't be disappointed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: These laws are more dangerous for Christians
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: These laws are more dangerous for Christians
oh. my. god. I think you actually believe this.
I've got a bridge for sale if you're interested. Riddle me this, do think the beliefs of Mormons or Scientologists are accurate?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: These laws are more dangerous for Christians
"and child sacrifice are all signs that a society is focussed on pleasure for pleasures sake" ... :O
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unintended?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bitching about the copyright world as you make you living off of it. Damn, I bet your bosses wouldn't love you if they knew how you feel about heir products. You are probably a union member too!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
How a discussion of an unlimited spying bill touches on the copyright issues of a paper seem confusing. Explain yourself.
Unions sometimes have their place, or are you just trying to throw out all possible insults to try and make a point that he is somehow unqualified to make observations on legal issues and statements made by people who are twisting the truth?
I hold some copyrights in another life, does this mean I am supposed to fall into lockstep with an industry that is completely backwards thinking in my viewpoint?
Your not very good at this are you?
1/10 - pity point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Bitching about the copyright world as you make you living off of it. Damn, I bet your bosses wouldn't love you if they knew how you feel about heir products. You are probably a union member too.
If you consider putting together the ads for the big sale on ladies undergarments working in the copyright world, I guess you're right. But few people bother to infringe upon, much less read those annoying ad circulars.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Haha! That was pretty good. Way more clever than most of your insults. +1 Funny!
It's almost gratifying to watch you develop as a troll. One day you're an adorable little AC recycling stale bile, and the next you're all grown up and making witty comebacks! Awww....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Oh look, dentists 'take away' too, just like the content controllers!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But due process safeguards must be put in place with any law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
so where is this FULL disclosure ??????? mansick ?
How is that a FULL disclosure, tell us who YOU work for !!!
that would be a full disclusure, to disclose your interests, you have not done that, all you have disclosed is that for some reason (being financial) you are specifically BIASED..
it is possible for you to be honest masnick ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: so where is this FULL disclosure ??????? mansick ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: so where is this FULL disclosure ??????? mansick ?
Your really slipping, do you think maybe its time to admit you have a problem and seek help?
We are concerned about you and just want you to get the help you obviously need.
The first step is admitting you have a problem.
Your here among friends, tell us the truth...
Where did the bad PR firm touch you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: so where is this FULL disclosure ??????? mansick ?
Pot... kettle... face!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"but not in an editorial capacity" !!! HAHAHA,, SO !!! ???
your also work for TD, and you honestly believe you work for TD in an aditorial capacity.
So you are a paid shrill ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "but not in an editorial capacity" !!! HAHAHA,, SO !!! ???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "but not in an editorial capacity" !!! HAHAHA,, SO !!! ???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "but not in an editorial capacity" !!! HAHAHA,, SO !!! ???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "but not in an editorial capacity" !!! HAHAHA,, SO !!! ???
AS for your "assertions", a paid shrill is a banshee, and you never want to hear one of those.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "but not in an editorial capacity" !!! HAHAHA,, SO !!! ???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "but not in an editorial capacity" !!! HAHAHA,, SO !!! ???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
OH BUT your all forgetting the copyright bill now
GET angry this is what they want to do....
NONE WANTS EITHER LAW.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good lord, I certainly hope not
This is one of the most breathtakingly-ignorant statements I've seen in a while...and having read the press releases from the RIAA, MPAA, etc., I've seen a lot of ignorance. How is it possible for anyone to be this amazingly clueless?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Good lord, I certainly hope not
That might be the answer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The truth is not one police force could come up with even one instance where they have been prohibited from an investigation under existing laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yeah, the more I've been looking into it, the more I realize there is a lot of misinformation out there about why this bill is needed. Most of the police complaints about getting warrants seem to be about arrest and seizure warrants long past the phase of identifying someone from an IP - for that, most ISPs co-operate.
I just wasn't ready to completely dismiss the concerns of the police - the Dueck piece quotes the head of the OPP's child porn division saying that they couldn't keep up, and I thought that did carry some weight. But now I realize that any problems with keeping up have little to do with what C-30 covers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In response to a few things: it's true, it was weird of me not to just state National Post from the get go in my disclosure. I'm not sure why I did it that way - I certainly wasn't trying to hide it! I revealed it immediately in the comments. I guess I just figured "National Post" wouldn't mean anything to American readers. So: valid point, so-called "Anonymous Coward" - I probably should have just included that at the beginning.
In response to "blah blah you make money off copyright blah blah" which I've heard a million times: I don't make money from copyright. I get paid for my ongoing services - there's no long tail on most of the things I do, and indeed very little of it is directly monetized content to begin with. It's support material for smarter, better ways of making money. And no, I'm afraid I don't build cheap flyers and underwear ads (though that is a fairly accurate description of my first design job about five years ago, so - pretty good guess!)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Is it not true that the money your employer pays you is derived from copyrighted content?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Yes, the content is copyrighted. So is this comment. So is your comment. So is practically every goddamn thing. That's not the same as making money from copyright. Newspapers sell scarce ad space. I suppose some go out on crusades trying to enforce their copyright over some misguided notions of charging for licenses or some shit, but National Post isn't one of them.
In any case, we've been over this. And you really have no idea what you are talking about, or any idea what it is I do for a living. It is pretty fun to watch you flail around and guess wildly though, so if you really don't mind looking like a fool, you are more than welcome to keep it up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Does the National Post charge money to get a copy, either at the newsstand or delivery? If so, how does that materially differ from other paid content?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Maybe you missed this in all the talk about selling content but: it's okay to sell packaging, if people want it. That's still a scarce good. It's just that, in the case of CDs for example, nobody wants that scarce packaging anymore. Most people don't want physical newspapers anymore either, but some do, and that's why they still buy subscriptions and single copies.
Is that so hard to understand?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Otherwise, you are just another one of those (to quote someone you might understand) "loud as a motor bike. But wouldn't bust a grape in a fruit fight"
You hate coyright, but take money for it. How stupid is that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Without copyright, it is unlikely that the newspapers as they are would exist anymore, as they would be unable to resell their product in any meaningful way.
So the National Post is a copyright newspaper, and you work from them. It's a simple conclusion that you make your living as a result of copyright.
So is it that your contract us up soon, or is your internship finally done?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Hahahaha. Yeah, further evidence that you haven't the faintest clue how the newspaper industry works. You are just like the hilarious industry studies that claim every dollar copyright touches is somehow completely attributable to copyright.
So is it that your contract us up soon, or is your internship finally done?
Actually it's that after two years of freelancing I turned down a full-time position with the parent company in favour of pursuing a more interesting opportunity. Nice try though, yet again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That doesn't even make sense. News sells because it is news, not a collected history. Copyright barely enters into it.
Further, your undefined "bashing copyright" is getting pretty old. I don't recall anyone here saying there shouldn't be any copyright. The problem is that copyright has far exceeded its original boundaries for no good reason in keeping with the purpose of copyright, especially over the last 30 years. Some people have a difference of opinion with what should fall under copyright, the laws governing copyright, whether infringement is a civil or criminal matter, how the laws are enforced and infringement litigated, and how the supporters of extensive copyright frequently misunderstand and abuse the current system and violate laws and copyrights with impunity themselves.
That is not "bashing copyright".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
People do not buy newspapers just for the adds,,, marcus..
Marcus, you are trying to play it both ways, you are saying that if you were a music executive, and as such do not create actual music or songs (others do that), then you do not derive your income from copyright !!.
and you know that is a blantant lie, so what are you doing trying on the same 'scam' ???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Marcus Carab (profile), Feb 22nd, 2012 @ 8:08am
Can you please explain how I earn my living from copyright?
Why ???
Can't you work it out for yourself ???
perhaps you dont know??? if so, maybe you writing about copyright issues is not 'you're thing' !!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
like a broadcast tv series does with commercials, a newspaper can be monetized by ads. Similarly, a series can be monetized by a (cable) subscription. All of the money still flows to the owner who then pays his bills with the money.
I know that he hypocrisy of you rooting at the copyright trough must be uncomfortable. But subscription money to the National Post does end up in your pocket. And, given the dire state of newspapers these days, subscriptions are probably the difference between staying in business or not. Its website indicates a circulation of over a half million. Not bad in a country of 33 million. On a percentage basis, that's a higher rate than any paper in the US.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I've never in my life earned a dollar that I wouldn't have earned just as well without copyright. Sorry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
My point was that some of the money you earn IS derived from the proceeds of your employer's copyrighted content. Why you are unwilling to admit that escapes me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Copyright
© Postmedia Network Canada Corp. 2010. All rights reserved.
This website is the property of Postmedia Network Canada Corp. (“Postmedia”). All information and content or other material (collectively, “Content”) found in the pages of this web site is protected under the copyright laws of Canada and other countries. Unless otherwise specified, no person has permission to copy, redistribute, reproduce or republish in any form any Content found on the pages in this web site. This includes electronically reproducing by “uploading” or “downloading” or otherwise transmitting onto the Internet or any other local or international computer system. Any infringement of the rights of Postmedia may result in appropriate legal action.
If you require further information on a permitted use or license to reproduce or republishing any Content, kindly address your inquiry to webmaster@postmedia.com. Postmedia disclaims any and all liability for any consequences whatsoever which may result from any unauthorized reproduction or use of the Content of this web site."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Indeed, if they really cared about copyright and thought their income relied on it, they probably would have updated that notice some time in the past two years, don't you think?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Newspapers are not books.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Paid adds ?, advertising products, adds that are subject to copyright, and selling products that are equally subject to copyright ??
you've found yourself trying to defend your own admitted bias, and how you gain financial advantage from the very thing your 'claim' you are against !!!..
painted yourself into a nice corner I note Marcus !!!!
watch you squirm !!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So you get paid by people who make their money from copyright, therefore you are paid with copyright earned money.
you cant understand that ????? !!!!!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't think the law is a very good law, but let's be fair here: internet access isn't any more of a right than driving a car is. The government(s) can and will have the power to address certain issues regarding their use, particularly in identifying who the actual users are.
I know you hate it, because you would hate to be liable for all the piracy you have done in your life. Too bad, Canuck.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Well, a hell of a lot of countries, and the UN, have said internet access is a right, but that's really beside the point. This is about the right of private companies to have private clients and respect their privacy. If we, as a nation, want to decide that you cannot surf the internet anonymously, and we are going to legislate against that, then fine: we can make that decision. But only if we actually have that conversation, and examine it from all angles. What we can't do is hide such an important decision behind a rushed, reckless response to a hot-button issue like "child pornography", characterizing every concern about privacy as support for child porn.
Nowhere in my piece did I claim internet access is a right (though i think there are solid arguments for why it is). But either way, it's also not a publicly regulated thing like vehicle licensing. If we want to change that, we have to address the issue head-on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Sadly, as you are using a public good (the communications networks which are regulated by the government) you are not specifically dealing with a private business, but a regulated government created service. You have the right to buy a car privately, but the government has the right to know when you purchase it, and limit your use of it without identification.
You need to accept that you will not be able to spend your life hiding online. It just doesn't work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Now, if we want to change the law, let's have that conversation - but let's not obscure it behind emotional child-porn rhetoric. That's what I'm saying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You understand that all communications networks and services operate under the watchful eye of the CRTC and others, and they have incredible powers to control and adjust the competitive landscape as they go. All communications that fall under their watchful eye are done "subject to regulation", and that regulation can easily change.
While a warrant may be currently required, it would not stop the government in imposing a monitoring scheme, a customer tracking scheme, and make retaining those records and making them available to valid court cases.
I think that the "emotional child porn rhetoric" actually comes from your guys side a lot, trying to do the old "they are playing the child porn card" as a way to hide out or to try to discredit those who want to write laws that generally make sense. There is no reason an ISP shouldn't know who is on a given connection at a given time, and there is no reason why this information should not be retained for a reasonable people of time. Child porn is just one of the many illicit and illegal uses of the internet that could be more easily prosecuted with such information available, all without causing any hurt or harm to honest citizens.
What are you afraid of Marcus? Hiding something?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So why does this require new legislation from the federal government? You really have no idea what you are talking about...
I think that the "emotional child porn rhetoric" actually comes from your guys side a lot, trying to do the old "they are playing the child porn card" as a way to hide out or to try to discredit those who want to write laws that generally make sense.
Oh please. The main supporter of this bill kicked this whole thing off by saying that ANYONE who doesn't support it is "standing with the child pornographers". Don't be an idiot.
Child porn is just one of the many illicit and illegal uses of the internet that could be more easily prosecuted with such information available, all without causing any hurt or harm to honest citizens.
So? Lots of things would be more easily prosecuted by scaling back privacy protections and due process. That doesn't mean we want to do so at every opportunity.
What are you afraid of Marcus? Hiding something?
So classy!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Don't you just automatically lose if you try to use this argument?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think you automatically lose when you wake up in the morning as that guy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In conclusion
2) Marcus has tried to argue black is white, and failed that argument.
3) Marcus claims he knows all about the "newpaper industry" and that NO ONE ELSE does.
4) Marcus thinks people pay money and buy newspapers not to read the copyrighted content, but to be exposed to the paid adds.
5) Marcus, thinks that the price the advertisers pay for those adds, is not proportional to the number of readers willing to pay for the content presented with those adds.
6) Marcus, thinks that you can work for a company that earns it's money from copyright, but if you do not create any content yourself, you pay somes from some other source !
7) Marcus, does not understand what the term "full disclosure" means !!!!!
8) Marcus, in the belief that 'he is only talking to Americans' would not be interested in who pays Marcus his income.. (ie, Marcus, dumbed it down for you 'yanks' !!)
9) rightfully, Marcus has been suitabily slapped around for his clearly deceitfull, false and misleading statements.
10) Marcus, tried to 'backpeddle' and squirm his way out of the argument, and again, was suitabily spanked for his efforts..
Kinda blew up in your face this one eh Marcus !!!! HAHAHAHA...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: In conclusion
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]