American ISPs to launch massive copyright spying scheme on July 12
-
![]()
Thanks for that link. I had not heard of this Canadian law.
A quote from that link:
Canada's Radio Act requires that "a licenser may not broadcast ... any false or misleading news."
Hmmmm...........Gee, I wonder who decides what is "false and misleading"? Hmmmm.......let me think about that. Hmmmm......
Has anyone been locked up for violation of this law?
The law would be a requirement for tyranny, so I can understand why it has its supporters.
For the sake of Canadians and democracy, I would hope it is widely ignored.
To be fair, the law specifies "... knowingly broadcast any false or misleading news"
Last I checked the
CRTC is the regulator that enforces this rule, and has the ability to revoke a news company's right to broadcast. I'm not aware of any incident where the CRTC had actually invoked this ability. Probably because the beauty of this law is that major lies would get caught fairly quickly, so no use trying.
Such a law in the USA (properly followed and enforced) would make a night and day difference in politics. Ironically, such a law would have a snowball in hell's chance of being passed in the USA.
I would not care for a law such as that here. First because it would be ineffective. Second, because if no one could say or print anything, unless they knew that it was true, then we would all need gags and gloves that would make it impossible to say or type anything.
I know that the freedom of speech and of the press are often abused, but I cannot think of any means to prevent it. If someone intentionally says something that does harm in some fashion, or is libelous or slanderous, the law already have legal means of addressing any issues that arise.
The First Amendment of the Constitution:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
If this provision were discarded, it would nullify the Constitution itself, and that would mean dissolving the government of this country.
While there are a lot of things about our legal system that I wouldn't mind dissolving, this is not one of them.
-
-
![]()
Thanks for that link. I had not heard of this Canadian law.
A quote from that link:
Canada's Radio Act requires that "a licenser may not broadcast ... any false or misleading news."
Hmmmm...........Gee, I wonder who decides what is "false and misleading"? Hmmmm.......let me think about that. Hmmmm......
Has anyone been locked up for violation of this law?
The law would be a requirement for tyranny, so I can understand why it has its supporters.
For the sake of Canadians and democracy, I would hope it is widely ignored.
To be fair, the law specifies "... knowingly broadcast any false or misleading news"
Last I checked the
CRTC is the regulator that enforces this rule, and has the ability to revoke a news company's right to broadcast. I'm not aware of any incident where the CRTC had actually invoked this ability. Probably because the beauty of this law is that major lies would get caught fairly quickly, so no use trying.
Such a law in the USA (properly followed and enforced) would make a night and day difference in politics. Ironically, such a law would have a snowball in hell's chance of being passed in the USA.
I would not care for a law such as that here. First because it would be ineffective. Second, because if no one could say or print anything, unless they knew that it was true, then we would all need gags and gloves that would make it impossible to say or type anything.
I don't know, blocking someone from broadcasting because it has a proven track record of altering data is kina effective. And "not knowingly broadcast falso or misleading news" is very different from "not broadcasting until exhaustive reaserch proves the news is true"
I know that the freedom of speech and of the press are often abused, but I cannot think of any means to prevent it. If someone intentionally says something that does harm in some fashion, or is libelous or slanderous, the law already have legal means of addressing any issues that arise.
The First Amendment of the Constitution:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
If this provision were discarded, it would nullify the Constitution itself, and that would mean dissolving the government of this country.
While there are a lot of things about our legal system that I wouldn't mind dissolving, this is not one of them.
That law does not specify honest media. And when you can get a competetor to lose votes because the media says he's a bad man or makes bad laws, you can do whatever you want.
The government gets it's power from the people, and the people base their decisions on what the know or learn from news sources.
-
The concept that the government derives it's power from it's citizens, is more academic than fact. The majority of people are not capable of sorting through stories, rumors, etc. to determine if they are true or not. The press is no different, because it is also composed of people, which are fallible. What it boils down to is that each person must use their own judgment to decide the truth in any matter. Not even a court is any insurance of obtaining the truth. If a candidate loses votes due to misinformation, that is the nature of the beast, regardless of how any law is structured. The law is not intended or capable of preventing any form of crime, it can only punish the wrong doer after the fact.
If you feel that the law of any country has greater potential than that, you are misguided. The only power of deterrence that any law has, is the fear that it instills in a potential criminal, which hopefully will discourage them in advance.
-
Well, I tend to think if America does it, other countries will soon follow the trend quickly.
This is what others need to understand just because there not in the usa doesn't mean it can't effect them in the future that's why they should be giving more opposition to this then simply saying it's not going to effect me.
-
-
![]()
It would be very messy
How can you ban "Encrypted email" -- you'd have to intercept and analyse every single email -- not really possible.
You ISP runs "Application Filtering" on your connection (e.g. MS TMG).
If it can't recognised the "MIME type vs message content", it drops the packet.
In any case a Plain text email in Icelandic or Cantonese for that matter might appear as "Encrypted" to some servers anyway.
I never meant to imply that such a system would be 100% effective and foolproof.
An Icelandic ISP would understand the message content, a US ISP probably wouldn't.
Obviously, that would cause all sorts of horrendous problems (e.g. transmission slowdowns, legitimate messages dropped), but that doesn't mean it can't be done.
Also, "false positives" would be of no concern, to those who would push for such a scheme. 
This doesn't mean that you couldn't write a coded message (just like in the old days).
It wouldn't stop you sending screenshots of text messages. 
Last edited by lehnerus2000; 26 Mar 2012 at 23:34.
Reason: Fixed Quotes, Layout
-
![]()
"Any person without law that does what is required by the law, having the law in their heart, conscience bearing wittness, and own thoughts condemming, is a law to them selves". This all means that we all instinctively KNOW right from wrong, it was built into us as it were. If we should set aside our own selfishness, greed and lusts to choose with that inate knowledge we will choose correctly-or not. The above quote is from a book that by opinion has no place in this discussion but contains all the governing wisdom you will find in the laws of any civilized society-check that as a fact you will see it is accurate. If in nature all matters of judgement must come from an authority higher than the subject, who then shall judge man/woman. If Deity is then removed from the issue then there is only one authority left to judge man/woman. The collective(society). The problem with this is, if society is headed for a cliff, like it seems most of American soceity is, will I take the plunge with them? Not likely....just sayin
-
But the media is by law supposed to be truthful
Really?
Tell me more about this law.
Then tell me why the media should obey it.
Everywhere I look, the media is as culpable for the decline and fall as the government or any politician or political party you care to name.
Fox News' Lies Keep Them Out of Canada
Note that this is an American article, which is why the language isn't neutral.
What is sad is we now have Fox News North (SunTV) which means they can lie. What is even more sad is people believing the lies, then if you tell them "it's lies" they reply "why would they lie, they are the media".
How we are in trouble as a society people are extremely gullible, they will believe anything the TV tells them. We have Radio hosts trying to impose their right-wing views on society, I hear it everyday, why are the right so damn eager for everyone to hear them and ignore all others do they want a MadMax world ?
-
-
What happens if someone uses there neighbors unpretected wifi to download copyrighted movies and music? who goes to jail?
-
Odds are people that go over x amount of monthly bandwidth will just get a message about copyright violation. I got one last month for using netflix, told comcast to suck it, that's what their service is supposed to be for.
It's great when the rep on the phone went speechless.
-
The copyright spying enforcement isn't what bothers me so much, it's the fact that they now have the Permission TO SPY ON ALL OF US is what bothers me the most.
I mean where does this end?
The patriot act and government spying wasn't bad enough I suppose, now they are giving the power to our own ISP's to spy on us all....really?
I wonder how many more excuses they will make up in order to circumvent the privacy rights of the people which are supposed to be guaranteed by constitution.
Quote