Online surveillance critics siding with child porn: Toews

Online surveillance critics siding with child porn: Toews

www.cbc.ca

Critics of a bill that would give law enforcement new powers to access Canadians' electronic communications are aligning themselves with child pornographers, Canada's public safety minister says.

"He can either stand with us or with the child pornographers," Vic Toews said of Liberal public safety critic Francis Scarpaleggia during question period on Monday, after Scarpaleggia asked about a bill expected to be tabled Tuesday.

(visit the link for the full news article)

In the bid to enact laws which would give Police powers the ability to go through nearly all types of communication without a warrant, Canada's Public Safety Minister has now publicly said, in paraphrased terms, 'You're either with us, or with the child pornographers.'

The bill is expected to contain provisions from previous similar bills that have raised the concerns of privacy watchdogs and consumer advocates. Those "lawful access" provisions would:

Require internet service providers to give subscriber data to police and national security agencies without a warrant, including names, unlisted phone numbers and IP addresses.
Force internet providers and other makers of technology to provide a "back door" to make communications accessible to police.
Allow police to get warrants to obtain information transmitted over the internet and data related to its transmission, including locations of individuals and transactions.
Allow courts to compel other parties to preserve electronic evidence.

www.cbc.ca
(visit the link for the full news article)


Tories on e-snooping: 'Stand with us or with the child pornographers'

Bout time they learned.
You can remove any and all liberties straight across the board with no issue whatsoever, so long as you end it all with the phrase "for the children".

right to carry arms? you know, child rapists also carry guns..why would you not want to ban guns, are you for child rapes? if you vote against me, you are clearly in love with molesting babys!

There is an argument that could be made about how anyone in office must remain completely anonymous...they may understand the strawmen nonsense arguments that are brought up..but their constituents will only hear "your local politician is pro-child porn".

I think there should be a law against politicians bringing up strawmen arguments willingly..this is disgusting

reply to post by boncho


Red Flag!!! Whenever they start making such absolutist statements as that, you always have to look much more closely at exactly what they're trying to do. Short of being a registered member of NAMBLA, no one is going to "stand with the child pornographers". Such language then always reveals something deeper. People communicate more than they know, you just have to listen...

Because of course they'll only use these powers to snoop on child pornographers......

Next they'll be be able to freely access anyone's house without a warrant under the guise of looking for kiddy porn citing the usual line of "if you've got nothing to hide then why do you care...."

oh the trolls, they just keep getting better.

If they had any clue about how the internet works, then this wouldn't exist.
It doesn't matter, this is being released, ONLY to spy on the the people, and will target 'dissenters' and etc. Not to mention cost to infrastructure that simply isnt there, i predict cuts in the telecommunications industry, which is where i work. wonderful.

Most child pornographers know how to use the internet properly to hide their trails, thats why its so damn hard to get them. It doesnt matter if the ISP logs all your browsing history, it wont know the difference.

The darknet is where it all happens. Im sure the FBI and CIA can use their super cyber security firms to get child porno off the darknets if they so chose. Didnt Anon recently take down a child porn ring on the darknets and release their info to the FBI or something?

And you thought Canadian politics couldn't get stupider than American politics...

Seriously this RIAA/MPAA shill needs to shut the hell up and put this bill where it belong, up his butt!

Well in the spirit of ATS I noticed the first two replies wrote of straw men and red flags.

In that spirit I'd like to say that TPTB often use emotionally appealing arguments to undermine our rights and freedoms. As other posters suggest, its meant to manipulate us into supporting their agenda.

Then i agree with the Child Porno guys.

There is a reason the government has "Warrants". Use them or go away.

Don't forget we could also pretty much end 90% of child abuse if we just allowed authorities to put camera in our homes.

I actually had a conversation online with what appeared to be on of these child abuse investigators. They actually said THEY wouldn't mind having a camera put into their homes because they have nothing to hide.
These same "investigators" had no problem using their position to find out the names of people who EVEN disagreed with them. They even called same of the posters employers.

reply to post by Daughter2


Don't you worry about that one, cameras will not be needed, once the drones that are now been manufactured for private and government use will start to invade our air space locally in the name of "for your safety and the littler children", very soon we will have them hovering over peoples of "interest homes" using technology to see what you are doing while sitting in your toilet.

But hey is all for our safety and the littler children.

And not this is not science fictions this drones are going to be available very soon, so much money to be made so much profits, anti freedoms has become a very profitable business.

I cant believe so many on ATS support child porn. For shame...















/sarcasm

reply to post by boncho

You all might be surprised who loves child porn (or then again, maybe not):

torrentfreak.com...

“Child pornography is great,” the man said enthusiastically. “Politicians do not understand file sharing, but they understand child pornography, and they want to filter that to score points with the public. Once we get them to filter child pornography, we can get them to extend the block to file sharing.”

The date was May 27, 2007, and the man was Johan Schlüter, head of the Danish Anti-Piracy Group (Antipiratgruppen). He was speaking in front of an audience from which the press had been banned; it was assumed to be copyright industry insiders only. It wasn’t. Christian Engström, who’s now a Member of the European Parliament, Oscar Swartz, and I were also there.

“My friends,” Schlüter said. “We must filter the Internet to win over online file sharing. But politicians don’t understand that file sharing is bad, and this is a problem for us. Therefore, we must associate file sharing with child pornography. Because that’s something the politicians understand, and something they want to filter off the Internet.”

“We are developing a child pornography filter in cooperation with the IFPI and the MPA so we can show politicians that filtering works,” he said. “Child pornography is an issue they understand.” Schlüter grinned broadly.

I couldn’t believe my ears as I heard this the first time. But the strategy has been set into motion worldwide.

According to that article, at least SOME claims about stopping child pornography are a ruse to implement legislation that TPTB want to implement for reasons that have nothing to do with child pornography.

They apparently just don't want you to share any files, regardless of the content, but in this case specifically content like music:

Schlüter’s plan worked like clockwork. Denmark was the first country to censor AllOfMP3.com, the (fully legal) Russian music store, and is now censoring The Pirate Bay off the internet. The copyright industry is succeeding in creating a fragmented Internet.

This is why you see the copyright lobby bring up child pornography again and again and again. They are using it as a battering ram for censoring any culture outside of their own distribution channels. You can Google the term together with any copyright lobby organization and see them continuously coming back to it. In Sweden, the copyright industry lobbyist Per Strömbäck has publicly admitted it being one of his best arguments.

So when these folks say "stop child porn", what they really mean is "stop people from cutting into our music profits...we're just saying child porn because it gets people's attention".

Sounds controversial (subterfuge), I wonder what the other hand is doing?

brice

Originally posted by brice
Sounds controversial (subterfuge), I wonder what the other hand is doing?

brice

Its playing below the belt.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


It is no coincidence that anti-piracy bills are being introduced all over the world at this very moment. If memory serves me correct, Canadian politicians have made a couple moves towards anti-piracy but the topic did not strike the chord with the public or the supporters. I believe this is why they are now highlighting a more heinous crime to get this legislation passed.

My opinion at least....

I have deleted my initially negative response to this, but I do not want the Internet to continue to be censored or surveilled.

Yea and this is exactly what the author of the bill wanted.

People to support it because if they don't they're seen as protecting child porn, or siding with child pornographers.

This is the exact reaction they were looking.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
reply to post by boncho

 

You all might be surprised who loves child porn (or then again, maybe not):

torrentfreak.com...

“Child pornography is great,” the man said enthusiastically. “Politicians do not understand file sharing, but they understand child pornography, and they want to filter that to score points with the public. Once we get them to filter child pornography, we can get them to extend the block to file sharing.”

The date was May 27, 2007, and the man was Johan Schlüter, head of the Danish Anti-Piracy Group (Antipiratgruppen). He was speaking in front of an audience from which the press had been banned; it was assumed to be copyright industry insiders only. It wasn’t. Christian Engström, who’s now a Member of the European Parliament, Oscar Swartz, and I were also there.

“My friends,” Schlüter said. “We must filter the Internet to win over online file sharing. But politicians don’t understand that file sharing is bad, and this is a problem for us. Therefore, we must associate file sharing with child pornography. Because that’s something the politicians understand, and something they want to filter off the Internet.”

“We are developing a child pornography filter in cooperation with the IFPI and the MPA so we can show politicians that filtering works,” he said. “Child pornography is an issue they understand.” Schlüter grinned broadly.

I couldn’t believe my ears as I heard this the first time. But the strategy has been set into motion worldwide.

According to that article, at least SOME claims about stopping child pornography are a ruse to implement legislation that TPTB want to implement for reasons that have nothing to do with child pornography.

They apparently just don't want you to share any files, regardless of the content, but in this case specifically content like music:

Schlüter’s plan worked like clockwork. Denmark was the first country to censor AllOfMP3.com, the (fully legal) Russian music store, and is now censoring The Pirate Bay off the internet. The copyright industry is succeeding in creating a fragmented Internet.

This is why you see the copyright lobby bring up child pornography again and again and again. They are using it as a battering ram for censoring any culture outside of their own distribution channels. You can Google the term together with any copyright lobby organization and see them continuously coming back to it. In Sweden, the copyright industry lobbyist Per Strömbäck has publicly admitted it being one of his best arguments.

So when these folks say "stop child porn", what they really mean is "stop people from cutting into our music profits...we're just saying child porn because it gets people's attention".

Great info on your reply.

It's exactly what i thought, and there's evidence to support the theory that there are big motives behind bills like this one. Motives to censor the internet entirely, and under false pretenses.