Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Against Online Surveillance? You Must Be 'For' Child Porn, Says Legislator

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the i-didn't-know-canadians-could-be-that-rude dept.

Canada 583

An anonymous reader writes "Following up on yesterday's story about the Canadian government's internet surveillance legislation, one of the bill's proponents is now accusing those who oppose it of standing with child pornographers. Those against the legislation include: Law professor Michael Geist, Open Media, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the Council of Canadians and many others. 'Public Safety Minister Vic Toews told a Liberal MP he could either stand with the government or "with the child pornographers" prowling online.' Toews is enjoying his Parliamentary Privilege, which grants him the freedom to say pretty much anything he wants without fear of a slander suit."

cancel ×

583 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Come on! (4, Funny)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | more than 2 years ago | (#39035577)

Won't someone think of the children?!?!?!!?!

Re:Come on! (2)

tysonedwards (969693) | more than 2 years ago | (#39035681)

I think that we have discovered a logical fallacy.

Re:Come on! (5, Funny)

Stargoat (658863) | more than 2 years ago | (#39035761)

In the United States, we call our logical fallacies Texans. What do you call them in Canada?

Re:Come on! (5, Funny)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 2 years ago | (#39035797)

In the United States, we call our logical fallacies Texans. What do you call them in Canada?

Politicians.

Re:Come on! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39035991)

Democrats

Re:Come on! (2)

onkelonkel (560274) | more than 2 years ago | (#39036091)

Actually Mr. Toews is a member of the Conservative Party

Re:Come on! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39035803)

americans

Re:Come on! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39035869)

I thought we called them Obama...

Re:Come on! (5, Informative)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | more than 2 years ago | (#39035883)

Albertans. Imagine Texas with snow, and you have Alberta. Culturally the province is more conservative than most of the US: oil, attempts at privatized health care, silly hats, rodeos, fear of taxation, the whole shebang. Sometimes even the accent!

Re:Come on! (5, Interesting)

theshowmecanuck (703852) | more than 2 years ago | (#39035981)

Justice Minister Vic Toews comes from Mennonite-land Manitoba (he is literally a bible belt politician). And he is a divorced philanderer and has fathered children outside his own marriage.

Re:Come on! (5, Insightful)

eternaldoctorwho (2563923) | more than 2 years ago | (#39036045)

Why, he's the Canadian version of Gingrich!

Re:Come on! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39036079)

Aren't Mennonites opposed to any form of political participation?

Re:Come on! (2)

Champion3 (599877) | more than 2 years ago | (#39036087)

You have never actually been to Alberta, have you?

Re:Come on! (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 2 years ago | (#39036089)

That's a popular central Canadian meme, yes.

Re:Come on! (1)

cod3r_ (2031620) | more than 2 years ago | (#39035977)

cmon who scores this funny.. this is not funny..

Re:Come on! (2)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 2 years ago | (#39035979)

We call them politicians in the US, actually.

Re:Come on! (2)

webheaded (997188) | more than 2 years ago | (#39036003)

In the United States, we call our logical fallacies Texans. What do you call them in Canada?

From my experience with Canadians...Newfies. :p

Re:Come on! (1)

Tsingi (870990) | more than 2 years ago | (#39036037)

In the United States, we call our logical fallacies Texans. What do you call them in Canada?

From my experience with Canadians...Newfies. :p

Careful. We love our Newfies.

Re:Come on! (3, Insightful)

idontgno (624372) | more than 2 years ago | (#39035793)

I'm sorry, Parliamentary Privilege renders the Minister immune to logical fallacy. Or maybe to logic. It's hard to tell.

What Parliamentary Privilege doesn't immunize The Honorable Mr. Toews from is much-deserved mockery. So let's make sure he gets a full dose of that.

Re:Come on! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39036015)

So what we learned from this is that he's against child pornography and very much for facism.

As much as I hate child pornographers, I'd rather stand shoulder to should with them against a facists than stand with a facists. All the verterans of WWI and WWII are now spinning in their graves. I guess the upside of all this is perhaps the mass of all those spinning bodies can be used to produce energy.

Re:Come on! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39035725)

People that thinks about or use children too much should be put to jail. That includes Politicians that use that line to take away our rights and pedos.

Re:Come on! (5, Funny)

Skapare (16644) | more than 2 years ago | (#39035775)

The pedophiles think of the children all the time.

Re:Come on! (1)

Kenja (541830) | more than 2 years ago | (#39036043)

They give me pills to stop me thinking about them...

Child pornography is not an excuse (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39035583)

The stuff is so vanishingly rare it should never be used as a justification for anything as sweeping as a government power-grab like this one.

Re:Child pornography is not an excuse (5, Insightful)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 2 years ago | (#39035623)

The correct response is to ask Vic Toews to give the public access to all his Internet and credit card usage.

After all, he's not doing anything wrong...he's got nothing to hide.

Re:Child pornography is not an excuse (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39035847)

And what if he gave you access? Would that make things all better? the logic you have here leads nowhere and isn't valid.

Re:Child pornography is not an excuse (1)

TheRealMindChild (743925) | more than 2 years ago | (#39036019)

I can say feeling pretty certain that NO politician will come up clean.

Re:Child pornography is not an excuse (5, Insightful)

Again (1351325) | more than 2 years ago | (#39035965)

I just sent him an email telling him that we need to ban curtains because obviously only people that murder other people in their living rooms have any use for curtains. So if you support having curtains, you are supporting mass-murderers.

Now I'm worried that this analogy is too complex for him to grasp.

Re:Child pornography is not an excuse (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39035949)

Nah, CP is exceedingly common, as long as you redefine what CP to mean "anything that looks like a minor, regardless of context" [slashdot.org] . It's amazing what difference a few days make, since there were a disturbing number of Slashdotters in that last thread all for censoring images of fully clothed possibly-minors. Thankfully the majority were against the move.

Incidentally, SomethingAwful, the site that ran that little "for-the-children" crusade? Has their own version of /r/jailbait [somethingawful.com] . Since you have to pay $10 to view the actual threads (no, seriously, it's an Internet forum you have to pay to use), I can't find the specific thread, but if you were dumb enough to pay $10 for a service that countless other sites offer for free, you can certainly find it. Maybe they should clean their own house before throwing stones.

Indeed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39035597)

I'd much rather stand with a child pornagrapher than a tyrant.

And if you're against the wars and the TSA. . . (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39035609)

You want the terrorists to win.

Gimme a break.

I hate the "You are in league with the enemy" garbage attack. Why is it a problem for these people when anybody believes in privacy, due process and civil liberties?

Ooh! Ooh! I want to try! (5, Insightful)

RyoShin (610051) | more than 2 years ago | (#39035617)

Alright, gimmie a second...

"Against warrantless entry of your home? You must be abusing a child!"
"Against public cameras tracking your every move? You must be planning to abduct a child!"
"Against drug prohibition? You must want to give drugs to children!"
"Against warrantless wire-tapping? You must be talking about internet surveillance legislation!"

Wait, that last one needs work.

Re:Ooh! Ooh! I want to try! (5, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 2 years ago | (#39035909)

It wasn't quite that bad. He said you were either with the child pornographers or with the government. Given those two options, I'm not really sure which one is less bad. With the law-abiding citizens doesn't seem to be an option. Given that these days child pornographers includes teenagers who send naked photos to each other, parents who photograph their children in the bath, and people who distribute illustrations of nude fictional children, I think on balance I'd rather be with them than with the power-crazed sociopaths.

Re:Ooh! Ooh! I want to try! (2)

Tsingi (870990) | more than 2 years ago | (#39036075)

Alright, gimmie a second...

"Against warrantless entry of your home? You must be abusing a child!"
"Against public cameras tracking your every move? You must be planning to abduct a child!"
"Against drug prohibition? You must want to give drugs to children!"
"Against warrantless wire-tapping? You must be a Nazi

FTFY.

In that case... (4, Funny)

Shoe Puppet (1557239) | more than 2 years ago | (#39035619)

In that case, fuck the children.

Re:In that case... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39035679)

I'm actually beginning to agree.

I'm getting a bit sick of these "children", who do they think they are, Jesus?

I say kick'em out and see how they like the big world.

Re:In that case... (1)

stanlyb (1839382) | more than 2 years ago | (#39035889)

And don't forget: Who wanna play KICK THE BABY.

Re:In that case... (4, Insightful)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 2 years ago | (#39035921)

That's crazy talk. It's talk like that which would take us back to that horrific era when kids didn't have to be put in a full suit of armor just to ride their bikes.

So.. (1)

Moheeheeko (1682914) | more than 2 years ago | (#39035629)

By that logic if im against mustard im for handgun violence?

Anti-CP-Winning (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39035631)

No wonder, considering recent censorship on reddit, it seems you can push whatever agenda you want, by branding it anti-CP

Should be easy to handle... (4, Interesting)

alispguru (72689) | more than 2 years ago | (#39035643)

Minister Toews should be fine, then, with his office's internet access being logged and stored.

Should be perfectly safe - after all, you only have something to fear if you're doing something wrong, or if the government's records leak.

Right?

Barking up the wrong tree (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39035823)

Don't try to rationalize it. Call it out for what it is: a money grab. It's all about money.

They want you to keep focused on their justification (child safety) and their method (oppression of innocents). That's how they win: by keeping you focused on their carefully-prepared "syllabus". So forget all that. Instead, follow the money, and bring it to the forefront. The money is what this is all about, same as any expansion of government.

Power is merely a stepping stone to riches.

Curtains on your windows? (4, Insightful)

bjorniac (836863) | more than 2 years ago | (#39035647)

Just think what heinous acts of child abuse could go on behind those curtains. Perhaps the honourable member would leave his curtains open at all times or stand with those who commit child rape behind them.

Re:Curtains on your windows? (4, Interesting)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | more than 2 years ago | (#39035957)

Don't be silly. You can't profit from tearing down curtains!

Seriously: the minister probably has a stake in a privacy invasion company.

Re:Curtains on your windows? (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 2 years ago | (#39035975)

Well, you have to ask yourself why Vic Toews isn't allowing us 24-7 camera coverage inside his house. What exactly are you trying to hide from us, Vic?

Re:Curtains on your windows? (4, Insightful)

Splab (574204) | more than 2 years ago | (#39036005)

Isn't there something about the loudest proponent being closet cases? Perhaps someone, should check out his surfing habbits? Obviously, he wont mind since he is so into surveillance...

Sent to the PM and related MPs (5, Informative)

msobkow (48369) | more than 2 years ago | (#39035649)

Sent to Ralph Goodale (my MP), Stephen Harper (PM of Canada), and Vic Toews (the jackboot who insultingly claims I support child pornography because I won't kiss his ass):

I DO NOT consent to searches and spying by the government, CSIS, the RCMP, or any other police force in or out of Canada without a proper warrant.

I have nothing to hide, but it is a matter of principal. I have a right to private communications unless someone can explain to a judge WHY I should be investigated and convince them to sign a warrant.

This bill is useless in reality anyhow, because anyone but the most technically illiterate criminal will use an anonymizer and encryption, so the spying will net no proof of a crime, even if someone is surfing child porn like a psychotic fiend.

This is nothing more than a fishing expedition and an attempt to violate Canadians fundamental right to privacy.

Just say "NO" to politicians who stoop to claiming you support Evil Horrible Unimaginable Thing just because you value your own rights.

Even the Nazi's "Stazi" had to report to someone.

Re:Sent to the PM and related MPs (5, Insightful)

Jason Levine (196982) | more than 2 years ago | (#39035749)

Sadly, some politicians will read your letter and think: "He said that criminals use anonymizers and encryption (whatever those things are), so we should ban those next!"

Re:Sent to the PM and related MPs (1)

oldmac31310 (1845668) | more than 2 years ago | (#39035787)

Oops. The Stasi was not the Nazi police. What were you thinking?

Re:Sent to the PM and related MPs (2)

desdinova 216 (2000908) | more than 2 years ago | (#39035833)

the only thing I'd correct is that the Stazi was actually Post-WW2 East German (communist)

Re:Sent to the PM and related MPs (1)

ewanm89 (1052822) | more than 2 years ago | (#39035969)

Just file for a change of name, Vic Toews to Heinrich Himmler.

Really Canada? (0)

redmid17 (1217076) | more than 2 years ago | (#39035651)

You guys need Parliamentary Privilege to actually have freedom of speech? I am disappoint. I realize you have your own Bill of Rights, but the mere existence of the HRC makes me sad too.

Re:Really Canada? (2)

PIBM (588930) | more than 2 years ago | (#39035719)

Slander is not protected by the freedom of speech, but sadly it is with "Parliamentary privilege"

Re:Really Canada? (2)

spire3661 (1038968) | more than 2 years ago | (#39035731)

Freedom of speech DOES NOT include slander and libel and all kinds of other speech that his Privilege extends him.

Re:Really Canada? (2)

Anrego (830717) | more than 2 years ago | (#39036027)

As I understand it, you have defamation laws down there as well.

We have "freedom of expression" here in Canada, which is kinda sorta the same thing (watered down a bit with some not too unreasonable provisions). You can still get in trouble for saying stuff that is wrong, that you havn't made reasonable attempts to verify, and is harmful.

We let politicians get away with it in parliment so they can talk freely without worrying about a civil suit every time they open their mouth.

Well... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39035669)

Looks like Canada is a lost cause now too. Any rocket scientists out there want to build a shuttle for those of us who like our rights? I think our chances of entering a wormhole and coming out in Narnia are better than the chance that government actually asks for permission from this point on.

Judging from our experience with politicians (4, Insightful)

Anne_Nonymous (313852) | more than 2 years ago | (#39035683)

Anyone who says something like that is probably diddling children in his spare time.

What's he so afraid of (4, Insightful)

Goose In Orbit (199293) | more than 2 years ago | (#39035685)

that he's having to hide behind Parliamentary Privilege?

Works both ways, does it not?

Well, I guess if you're in favor of public schools (2)

MikeRT (947531) | more than 2 years ago | (#39035689)

You're in favor of putting kids in ready access of tens of thousands of pedophiles since:

1) We know that predators seek places where their prey goes.
2) There have been thousands of cases in the last few years of public school teachers in the US going to jail for having sex with minors.
3) Whatever the cops can find is usually only the tip of the iceberg.

So clearly, since you support ripping kids out of the loving arms of their parents and putting them in public schools, you MUST be in favor of putting them at risk for actual molestation by a pedophile.

They doth protest too much (5, Interesting)

Zombie Ryushu (803103) | more than 2 years ago | (#39035693)

Whenever I see these peope constantly banging the drums of how we have to continually make worse laws about controlling the Internet, one thing comes to my mind:

Why do these government officials keep harping on it? Ministers like Ted Haggard attack gays constantly, and turn out to be gay themselves. Me thinks the government officials might be producing or consuming this material. Otherwise, why, might I ask, are you harping on it so much?

Re:They doth protest too much (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39035773)

No, I don't think it's that sinister. No one wants to elect someone that is tough on crime, so you have to be tough on crime to get elected. If you don't mention it, your opponents will say you're soft on crime. They won't come out and say you're a criminal or hang out with them, but oh how they'll imply it. If we take the limit of this situation out to infinity, eventually we'll just start having mass executions because someone MIGHT have committed a crime somewhere in your lineage or family at some point.

Re:They doth protest too much (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39035791)

harping

pun!

Re:They doth protest too much (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39035919)

One of the most effective ways to quit smoking is to help others quit smoking.

Re:They doth protest too much (2)

jamstar7 (694492) | more than 2 years ago | (#39035923)

It's all about control. Find somebody you can make into an enemy, like Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, Arabs, whatever. Paint them to be the scum of the earth. Throw a little barbeque at the Reichstag with a handpicked 'scum' as the fall guy, then pack your pet legiscritters into session when the public demands you DO SOMETHING RIGHT FUCKING NOW and get your favorite piece of totolitarian legislation pushed through to maintain 'Law and Order'.

Now you can prosecute opposition politicians from Vegas for corruption under the PATRIOT Act.

Re:They doth protest too much (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39035967)

> Ministers like Ted Haggard attack gays constantly, and turn out to be gay themselves.
How often does this actually happen? Do you keep track, have any statistics, or anything like that?

Re:They doth protest too much (5, Insightful)

HappyEngineer (888000) | more than 2 years ago | (#39036057)

If someone has impulses that they want to repress, that person will assume that everyone else has the same impulses. Normal people aren't worried about those things because they don't have the impulses and assume (probably rightly) that most people don't have those impulses.

Anyone who strongly wants to control other people is someone whose personal behavior should be watched very very carefully.

Never allow your children to be near anyone who walks around proclaiming that the world is full of child rapists.

Canadian Legislator? (2)

istartedi (132515) | more than 2 years ago | (#39035711)

They lean pretty far left up there. Surely he must have had coffee with a communist or two. Stop him at customs and interrogate him the next time he enters the US.

(noted with sarcasm and reference to the HUAC. If you don't know what HUAC stands for, don't moderate).

Re:Canadian Legislator? (1)

OhHellWithIt (756826) | more than 2 years ago | (#39035873)

I was going to say he sounds like one of our U.S. legislators -- spouting off again. But I've been a fool to believe that the U.S. has cornered the market on jackasses.

You need special privileges to say that? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39035729)

Seriously? Whenever I think of how much the U.S.A.'s going down the shitter, things like this and Canada's Human Rights Commission wake me up to the fact that there's really no emigration option that looks better than staying put. (Which in no way contradicts that we're heading down the shitter, just to be clear.)

Going by that logic... (0)

neokushan (932374) | more than 2 years ago | (#39035757)

If you disagree with me, you must be a dick. Oh wait, that's probably true.

Double Standard much? (2)

Avarist (2453728) | more than 2 years ago | (#39035759)

How people fail to see the double standard these politicians hold is beyond me.

I'm so confused! (3, Funny)

ugglybabee (2435320) | more than 2 years ago | (#39035777)

Torn between my deep love of child porn and my long-held belief that online surveillance is also pretty hot.

How to explain the law to a non-techie (5, Informative)

Lev13than (581686) | more than 2 years ago | (#39035783)

The proposed bill is like the Government of Canada forcing the phone companies to keep a record of every call that you make or receive, and insisting that Canada Post keep a register of every piece of mail that you send or receive. They'd still need a warrant to actually open your mail, but they don't need anyone's permission to build a profile of who you correspond with including who, how often, at what time of day etc...

The minister has gone on record to say that if you don't want the government to have a complete list of the letters you send through the mail, then you support child pornography. There is apparently no middle ground.

Now take the phone/mail analogy and replace it with everything that you do online - all the websites you visit, Facebook posts you make and emails you send. If you think that's a reasonable limit on your freedom then you should support the bill. If you don't want the government poking around your history file then you should let them know.

Re:How to explain the law to a non-techie (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39035877)

Actually your analogy is closer to the truth than you think: the bill would make ISPs record phone calls for later use by police, or give the police wiretapping abilities without a warrant.

Someone start following him around with a camera. (1)

Kenja (541830) | more than 2 years ago | (#39035789)

If he protests, its proof that he's a child pornographer.

McCarthyism (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39035807)

It's sad how politicians are so willing to embrace something foul they understand in order to combat something beautiful they don't. They all seem willing to place the Internet in a permanent state of McCarthyism, rather than admit that they do not understand it. It's the same fallacy again and again, those who value their privacy must have something to hide, it only benefits those that do not attach themselves to the Internet in any meaningful way.

Logical Fallacy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39035827)

This approach is called "logical fallacy". I am not saying this to "make fun" of the creature that used that argument in public; he must know better if he is educated. Really, no point exists for us to comment on or argue with these statements to the extent that many here did. This man is using false logic and, therefore, it logically follows that we would ignore him. The only reason he makes news at all is because he finds himself elected; possibly by a public less educated than he is. This means he is taking advantage of his constituent's lacking education, which he probably had a hand in ensuring through lack of proper funds or initiatives to provide proper education. This demonstrates how politicians exploit people daily; if he genuinely does not know what he is doing then he is unfit for public life.

Re:Logical Fallacy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39035945)

This approach is called "logical fallacy".

The term you want is "false dichotomy", which is only a small subset of logical fallacies.

Parliamentary privelige (5, Insightful)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 2 years ago | (#39035829)

In the UK this only applies to things said within the house of commons. I have seen people challenge MPs to repeat such allegations on programmes like Question Time & Newsnight - basically "I fucking totally dare you". The usual response is "no comment" or similar obfuscation.

Does Canada's work the same way? Perhaps someone should ask Vic Toews to step outside.

Re:Parliamentary privelige (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39036073)

Yes, it does. And the fallout is basically the same as you've discussed there.

100 years!!! (0)

stanlyb (1839382) | more than 2 years ago | (#39035835)

100 years after the invention of the psychoanalyze, and after his father Sigmund Freud proved that all, i repeat: ALL "unusual" behavior of the human beings is either actually "normal" or result of trauma, which in one or another sense caused the mental illness, hence the before mentioned people are not criminal but MENTALLY SICK, and still we are trying to treat the normal people with the same receipt as we are treating the sick people!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
FOR GOD SAKE, i am not sick, as are all of us, until proven the opposite, and till then i DON'T want to drink all the legal drugs intended for the sick people, or be imprisoned in these special clinics, or be castrated, simply because I AM NOT SICK. ACCEPT it you m%^#$^%$#%^$# f%^$&%^$^. If you still insist that both the sick and healthy people should eat trough a tube attached to the vein, then i would be SICK to accept it.

Re:100 years!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39035907)

This was painful to try to read.

Since When (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39035843)

Did the Republicans invade Canada? I thought it was too cold for them up here!

Which is worse? (4, Insightful)

dbet (1607261) | more than 2 years ago | (#39035853)

I would argue it's better to expose a few children to sex way before they're ready for it, than it is to expose all of them to an invasive government that scrutinizes their every action "for the greater good".

Clearly We Are Terrorists (5, Interesting)

ScooterComputer (10306) | more than 2 years ago | (#39035867)

Eh, I was once told by Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter that I was advocating for terrorists breaking military encryption because I was against the DMCA. I was trying to explain to a Town Hall meeting how the DMCA made it illegal for purchasers to exercise the right of fair use to copy a DVD because the content industry had merely put on an invisible wrapper of encryptionbasically they paid for a Bill to fleece us in the digital age. Specter went on a rant that I was talking about wanting to allow terrorists to be able to circumvent military encryption. I tried to correct him, but he was too dumb stupid to correct. (I'd give him the benefit of the doubt that he was really being hyper-intelligent and deftly torpedoing my argument, if his rant wasn't so completely devoid of factual basis and comprised mostly of ignorant run-ons--so I can't even do that.)

Priceless was the 80-something year old lady who approached me in the parking lot while I was sitting in my car waiting to exit. I thought she was going to hit me over the head with her purse, you know, for having the gall to speak so bluntly with a Senator/Elder Statesman. Instead she said that she had no idea what I was talking about, but that was clear the Senator didn't know anything either, and that he should have instead listened to me. She was angry with him for having voted for something he clearly didn't understand. So, even if I didn't get Specter to "get it", at least one of his voters did!

Torn (1)

emagery (914122) | more than 2 years ago | (#39035895)

I do actually want a reworked internets that requires a unique honest 'token' for all users; not to surveil them, but to help services believe you are a real person and have something to do to the authorities with if you commit a crime using their service. The police know where your house is (or can find it easily enough) and yet, this doesn't mean they're looking in your windows all day every day watching everything you do. I want all sites, services, providers, and users of the internet to be ACCOUNTABLE and demonstrably not a bot or a virus or what have you. My job writing code trying to safeguard my organization's site against these contingencies would be a lot easier if not for 'privacy,' spoofed IPs, etc. /rant

If that doesn't work... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39035903)

He can always say, "Pro Terrorist" or maybe "Pro Kill-Women-and-Children-in-their-sleep-on-live-tv-while-wanking-and-eating-popcorn-with-the-same-hand".

Propaganda campaigns know no limits.

On a side note, we should never allow the fictitious issues to cloud the main issue: Liberty

Tomorrow someone else will declare that the system's in place to "protect" copyright work perfectly for their next "book burning" campaign because someone used the internet to find out the chemical composition of C4 and has also been known to purchase equipment that could be used in meth labs (cotton balls). Investigations reveals that the bloke has a half-pound of KaN in his locker what could have used along with other ingredients found in a hardware store to level a paper machet model of the new city landmark. And who cares because the profile fits and nobody else gives a damn about what happens to one more loser.

We should all stop exercising our liberty to do nothing.

Who is Vic Toews? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39035917)

Vic Toews is a complete and utter asshole. I'm a Canadian and I'm allowed to say that. It is isn't slander or libel, just the truth.

Either for child rape or for the abolition of RCC (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39035925)

Similarly, the minister must either be in favor of child rape or in favor of the complete abolition of the Catholic Church, amirite?

What's the problem? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39035927)

If you aren't into child pornography, then you should have nothing to worry about.

What are you trying to hide? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39035943)

I mean really, if the cops don't have enough evidence (which is next to nothing) to go to a judge & get a warrant, then the cops are trying to hide something...

Vic Toews browsing history? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39035963)

Being an upstanding citizen and a person to lead by example, I look forward to Vic Toews releasing his web browsing history to the public.

Sounds Very Familiar... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39035973)

“He can either stand with us, or with the child pornographers.” Canadian Public Safety Minister Vic Toews, February 13, 2012

"Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." US President George W. Bush, September 20, 2001

As a Canadian living in the US, it is very sad to see Canada adopting the US model for copyright, censorship, and civilian spying.

I ask all Canadians to demand an inquest into Mr. Toews copyright infringement of the American President, and demand a full retraction of his statement for failing to acknowledge its original source.

A false dichotomy if ever there was one, from a two faced-politician.

Canned Reply (4, Interesting)

tboulay (458216) | more than 2 years ago | (#39035983)

I sent a letter in protest to my MP and got a similar canned response. it appears to be an answer from any conservatives in government. Here was my reply from Pierre Poilievre, my local MP.

-------------
Thank you for your message.

As you point out, these Bills did not pass in an earlier session of Parliament, and will need to be re-introduced. As such, I cannot comment on them until that time and the text is available.

That being said, our message is clear: if people use technology to commit crimes, such as distributing child pornography, the police will apprehend them and they will be punished to the full extent of the law.

Sincerely,

Pierre Poilievre, M.P. Nepean-Carleton
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities
LP
-------------

This is just another Jewish Conspiracy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39035987)

It is a shame that we have high ranking Law professors OPENLY supporting child pornography. The only thing I can think of that comes close to this egregious violation of civil decorum is when Jewish Sympathizers were elected to the German Reichstag. I mean then you had Jew Lovers in the government, now you have Child lovers openly practicing law in Canada. We need to do something to round up these child predators before they corrupt our youth, just like they did in Germany. Keep them away from kids, and for god sakes, label them so we know to stay away. Right now the problem is that the systematic identification of child pornographers is mainly based on heresay. e.g. All catholic priests, are pedophiles. This is just not good enough, for a civil society. We need to come up with a board that will systematically categorize the population based on their likely hood of being a pedophile. White Mormans should come up on top of coarse, just under lawyers for the whatever child pedophilia organization these lawyers in the article were supporting.

Worry about Catholic churches, not the Internet (-1, Flamebait)

Animats (122034) | more than 2 years ago | (#39035999)

The real threat to kids is the Catholic Church. [wikipedia.org] They have a whole system designed to put repressed gay guys in contact with little kids, and a hierarchy willing to help cover up the results and pay for the damages. As of 2004, the Catholic Church itself had reports of 10,667 victims of clergy sexual abuse. 4% of US priests were involved.

We need surveillance cams in churches, not monitoring of the Internet.

Key words (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39036013)

The key word we touched on by the top commenter was "Legislator"
Legislator: n ~ person appointed by their "peers" to make ignorant and inflammatory statements with the aim of drawing attention to poorly reasoned and rarely fact based opinions.

Both (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39036029)

I'm for BOTH child porn AND internet surveillance

Fuck Yeah! (5, Insightful)

AK Marc (707885) | more than 2 years ago | (#39036049)

I stand with child pornographers. When they came for the communists, I didn't speak out because I was not a communist. When they came for the trade unionists, I didn't speak out because I was not a trade unionist. When they came for the drug users, I didn't speak out because I wasn't a drug user. When they came for the terrorists, I didn't speak out because I wasn't a terrorist. When they came for the child pornographers, I didn't speak out because I wasn't a child pornographer. When they came for me, there was nobody left to speak out for me.

So yes, at some point we should all be speaking out, even if we don't belong with the group targeted at that point.

1984 and Big Brother (1)

whoever57 (658626) | more than 2 years ago | (#39036093)

People don't understand or care about the implications of the surveillance. The only way to make them care is to raise awareness using an image that people know and understand.

That image is "Big Brother" from 1984. That's the message that has to be put across by the anti-surveillance campaigners. Move the argument from a rational one to an emotional one. The other side has already done this, the solution is to raise the stakes.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>