Canada no likey anonymity and hyperlinks!

[The_WHHAAAMMMM_Burgler]

I originally saw this on the POS! Congratulations are in order for the Canadian Parliament, as they have officially beaten out the United States on making the most: unenforceable, ignorant and outright stupid law EVAR. Now with MOAR surveillance!

openmedia.ca/blog/proposed-crime-bill-makes-anonymity-and-hyperlinks-illegal-canada

www2.macleans.ca/2011/05/10/will-anonymity-and-hyperlinks-be-illegal-in-canada/


RUH-ROH RSTDT is going to be illegal in Canada.

www.parl.gc.ca/About/Parliament/LegislativeSummaries/bills_ls.asp?Language=E&ls=c51&source=library_prb&Parl=40&Ses=3

"Clause 5 of the bill provides that the offences of public incitement of hatred and wilful promotion of hatred may be committed by any means of communication and include making hate material available, by creating a hyperlink that directs web surfers to a website where hate material is posted, for example."


The existing provisions of the Code regarding the offences of sending a message in a false name and sending false information, indecent remarks or “harassing” messages (the French term “harassants” currently used in subsection 372(3) of the Code is replaced by “harcelants” in the bill) refer to certain communication technol­ogies used to commit those offences, such as telegram, radio and telephone.12 Clause 11 of the bill amends those offences by removing the references to those specific communication technologies and, for some of those offences, substituting a reference to any means of telecommunication. As a result, it will be possible to lay charges in respect of those offences regardless of the transmission method or technology used.

[HarleyThomas1002]

How? Why?

[The_WHHAAAMMMM_Burgler]

May 19, 2011 20:00:26 GMT -5 HarleyThomas1002 said:

How? Why?

Because the Canadian parliament is not hard on crime at any cost!

[Undecided]

I'm not going to be whipped up into a civil libertarian frenzy just yet: at least one commentator implies that recent concern is fueled by a legislative summary that misrepresents both the bill's content and its likely judicial interpretation.

[Mlle Antéchrist]

Yeah, I'm gonna have to see more on this before I start sounding the alarms.

[HarleyThomas1002]

It would mean us Canadian folk would be screwed if we were to link to a site when submitting a quote to the main page or even on the board. Or at least it would be if it were possible to enfore such a law.

[stormwarden]

...and they plan to enforce this...HOW, exactly? What manner of legal diarrhea is this?

[Mlle Antéchrist]

I can't see how they could enforce it. It seems more likely that this is only directed to groups that are actively distributing hate literature online, rather than simply linking to a hate site.

Which brings us to another issue: Should hate sites be censored? Obviously, those that are directly inciting violence (e.g., "We should kill all the Jews!" is the site motto) should be liable, but what about sites like Stormfront, which don't directly tell people to go out and hurt anyone, but certainly encourage hate? Or the WBC's site?

[jackmann]

Well, as plenty of people have said, there's a good chance that this is a misinterpretation of what the law actually says. Let's wait until we've actually seen the law before passing judgement.

[CtraK]

May 20, 2011 2:01:04 GMT -5 stormwarden said:

...and they plan to enforce this...HOW, exactly?

My research has turned up the fact that, as of March 2009, the Internet had 25 billion indexable pages. If we assume some growth since then, and assume that an Internet browser (and indeed the user) can keep 10 tabs open and juggle between them reasonably at any given time, then the law is easily enforcable if half the population of the entire planet is employed towards policing the bill.

Of course, if half the world is constantly online, looking for something dubious, then there probably won't be any crime (of any sort) going on anyway, so the bill would almost certainly be a success, although the knock-on environmental and economic effects would curb this success somewhat.

[HarleyThomas1002]

What could possibly go wrong?!

Besides the enviromental and economic problems you mentioned.

[Thejebusfire]

May 20, 2011 1:27:26 GMT -5 Mlle Antéchrist said:

Yeah, I'm gonna have to see more on this before I start sounding the alarms.

This.

[D Laurier]

I did NOT vote for the tories.
I voted Green.
Our conservative candidate was an obvious wrigler, and a failure at life.
Our Green candidate was a successfull small business owner/opperator.

I still reject the Harper government's claim to be a "majority", They got 40% of the vote.

[Mlle Antéchrist]

Majorities and minorities are based upon how much power a government has (as in the number of seats). Regardless of how many people actually voted for them, there's no denying that the Tories control most of Parliament.