ISP wants to censor the internet: Canadian edition.

[mr moose]

Any banning or blocking of websites should only be authorised by a court under full transparent review and only when fully open to the people.  No single private entity or association should have that power.  Yes I do believe some websites should be blocked at all levels (child porn, drug trafficking etc) but not at the bequest of a private company, at the end of a proper police investigation where criminal activity has been proven.

 

6 hours ago, wkdpaul said:

This whole thing could easily be summarized by this quote;

 

 

Not sure I want an equivalent of the Chinese Great firewall

 

The problem with slippery slope reasoning is that it is based on as much solid evidence as "think of the children" reasoning.   Remember we can't have being gay legal because it will result in pedophilia being normalized. 

 

6 hours ago, Oshino Shinobu said:

The expectation is that things like VPNs would eventually be banned, once companies and more so, governments, realise the laws can just be bypassed. It's ultimately what happens when you have people making legislation based on just what they want to achieve and don't actually understand the technology behind it. 

 

The UK's government is trying to ban encryption, making it out to be this terrible tool used by terrorists and child molesters (because no one wants to argue against that kind of thing) to do bad things, despite the overwhelming amount of positive uses for it. You often see politicians saying they either want it banned or they want it so that only the government can break it whenever they want to. Thing is, we obviously can't trust government agencies to keep their own data safe, given how the CIA and NSA have both been hacked multiple times with massive data breaches. As soon as the encryption backdoors get stolen or leaked, encryption becomes useless. 

So you get what the US currently has, which is any law you want so long as you can pay for it to go through parliament.

[Master Disaster]

They banned Kodi streaming services in the UK and started to prosecute people who were responsible for setting the services up.

 

For about a week Kodi wen't dead then slowly it came back and now its stronger than it was before the ban.

 

The reason people use Kodi has to be because we're pirates, not because they're charging us hundreds per month just to watch fucking TV, right?

[mr moose]

24 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

The reason people use Kodi has to be because we're pirates, not because they're charging us hundreds per month just to watch fucking TV, right?

There are only two reasons people use Kodi,  A, the content isn't available in their country, or B, they can't/don't want to pay for said content.

 

 

 

 

[RagnarokDel]

Quote

Bell's written statement suggested one way to make NAFTA work better for Canadians and our economy would be stronger copyright enforcement.

Let's criminalize copyright infringement so we can send "criminals" to jail and use them as slave labor. That's going to help the economy!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

/s

 

PS: @BellPerhaps if It didnt cost $130/month to get access to HBO (gotta pay $18/month on top of that to actually get it) people might still be interested in cable.

[Master Disaster]

2 hours ago, mr moose said:

There are only two reasons people use Kodi,  A, the content isn't available in their country, or B, they can't/don't want to pay for said content.

Exactly, Kodi allows me to watch the 2 TV shows I actually give a shit about without paying the £40 per month it would cost me to watch them legitimately.

 

Honestly I could afford £40 per month but I don't see why I should be forced to pay for 200 channels that I have zero interest in so I can watch 2 shows that are literally weeks behind what the states are watching and are spoiled all over the internet because everywhere else in the world has already seen them.

 

I would even be OK with a subscription service where I could pay per show, I'd happily pay to watch them but I am not being forced into paying for channels I don't care about and will NEVER watch.

[LAwLz]

5 hours ago, mr moose said:

Any banning or blocking of websites should only be authorised by a court under full transparent review and only when fully open to the people.  No single private entity or association should have that power.  Yes I do believe some websites should be blocked at all levels (child porn, drug trafficking etc) but not at the bequest of a private company, at the end of a proper police investigation where criminal activity has been proven.

 

 

The problem with slippery slope reasoning is that it is based on as much solid evidence as "think of the children" reasoning.   Remember we can't have being gay legal because it will result in pedophilia being normalized. 

 

So you get what the US currently has, which is any law you want so long as you can pay for it to go through parliament.

The problem is that it does not work in practice.

Yes, the slippery slope argument is a fallacy, but at this point I think it is pretty safe to say that for this specific purpose, it is a slippery slope.

Just look at the UK.

 

First they introduced an opt-in anti-porn filter (also blocked things like drugs and so on).

Then they made it opt-out.

Then they started including other things too such as research about drugs.

Now they have started banning certain types of porn such as bondage, face sitting and so on.

Right now, Theresa May are making proposals eerily similar to that in China.

 

China is another example.

 

The problem with your way of thinking is that it removes the power from the public, and gives it to private companies in collaboration with the government. Not to sound like some conspiracy theories but the government can not be trusted with regulating the Internet. Partially because they don't understand the consequences of the legislation they pass, and partially because a lot of them sees the Internet as a threat to themselves.

Let's face it, both sides stand to gain power by censoring the other side. A left wing politician will push for banning things which agrees with the right wing, and vice versa.

 

Obviously some things on the Internet has to be banned. Child porn like you mentioned. But these are private companies asking for the ban of websites which are not 100% illegal. The Pirate Bay contain a lot of legal things too for example.

 

Kodi is a freaking media player and it was attacked. That makes as much sense as attacking Microsoft because Windows Media Player allows people to watch pirated videos.

Kodi is actually a great example because it shows how little understanding the government (and the general public even) has about this. Wanna outlaw Kodi (which they tried to)? Great, you just also outlawed VLC, Windows, OS X, MPC-HC, and many more programs.

 

All of this is also based on the inaccurate assumption that piracy is harmful. As the EU research shows, it isn't. So who are we actually trying to protect here? To me this seems like a pure power grab from the ISPs. They are worried that they might lose control over their customers and they don't like that. Money? Phh... There is no evidence that they are losing money from this. They just want more control over what their customers can view and when, on top of raising the barrier to entry for other companies that might want to compete with them.

[linustouchtips]

come to south canada we welcome pirates and villainy 

[TidaLWaveZ]

4 minutes ago, linustouchtips said:

come to south canada we welcome pirates and villainy 

Nice, I'll have to look at houses to steal in the area.

[System Error Message]

problem is that businesses are stuck in their old ways rather than learning to compete. Look at what happened with taxis and uber, american ISPs and google fiber, and many more examples.

[PlayStation 2]

>canada

>complains about trump and republicans

>has the same bullshit going on without it

>lul

 

Also, look into why I didn't support net neutrality. Hint, it has to do with the involvement of big corporations that aren't on the ISP's sides.

[thorhammerz]

1 hour ago, Dan Castellaneta said:

it has to do with the involvement of big corporations that aren't on the ISP's sides.

Corporations (not necessarily these ones in particular) whose support (er, money) you need to get anything moving in the government.

 

Gotta pick and choose your political marriages of convenience .

[mr moose]

8 hours ago, LAwLz said:

The problem is that it does not work in practice.

Yes, the slippery slope argument is a fallacy, but at this point I think it is pretty safe to say that for this specific purpose, it is a slippery slope.

Just look at the UK.

 

First they introduced an opt-in anti-porn filter (also blocked things like drugs and so on).

Then they made it opt-out.

Then they started including other things too such as research about drugs.

Now they have started banning certain types of porn such as bondage, face sitting and so on.

Right now, Theresa May are making proposals eerily similar to that in China.

 

China is another example.

 

The problem with your way of thinking is that it removes the power from the public, and gives it to private companies in collaboration with the government. Not to sound like some conspiracy theories but the government can not be trusted with regulating the Internet. Partially because they don't understand the consequences of the legislation they pass, and partially because a lot of them sees the Internet as a threat to themselves.

Let's face it, both sides stand to gain power by censoring the other side. A left wing politician will push for banning things which agrees with the right wing, and vice versa.

 

Obviously some things on the Internet has to be banned. Child porn like you mentioned. But these are private companies asking for the ban of websites which are not 100% illegal. The Pirate Bay contain a lot of legal things too for example.

 

Kodi is a freaking media player and it was attacked. That makes as much sense as attacking Microsoft because Windows Media Player allows people to watch pirated videos.

Kodi is actually a great example because it shows how little understanding the government (and the general public even) has about this. Wanna outlaw Kodi (which they tried to)? Great, you just also outlawed VLC, Windows, OS X, MPC-HC, and many more programs.

 

All of this is also based on the inaccurate assumption that piracy is harmful. As the EU research shows, it isn't. So who are we actually trying to protect here? To me this seems like a pure power grab from the ISPs. They are worried that they might lose control over their customers and they don't like that. Money? Phh... There is no evidence that they are losing money from this. They just want more control over what their customers can view and when, on top of raising the barrier to entry for other companies that might want to compete with them.

 

I'm guessing you skimmed over my post:

 

14 hours ago, mr moose said:

Any banning or blocking of websites should only be authorised by a court under full transparent review and only when fully open to the people.  No single private entity or association should have that power.  Yes I do believe some websites should be blocked at all levels (child porn, drug trafficking etc) but not at the bequest of a private company, at the end of a proper police investigation where criminal activity has been proven.

 

 

The problem with slippery slope reasoning is that it is based on as much solid evidence as "think of the children" reasoning.   Remember we can't have being gay legal because it will result in pedophilia being normalized. 

 

So you get what the US currently has, which is any law you want so long as you can pay for it to go through parliament.

I don't see where I said private companies should have any say in what gets banned let alone that power is taken from the public.  I also said sites should only be blocked where criminal activity is proven.  I don't understand why you quote me and then go on a rant that seems to address a whole lot of opinions I did not express.

 

Also:.

China is hardly a democracy, so slippery slope reasoning doesn't exist there, they do what they want from the onset. And in the UK people can vote out Teressa may, but it appears they seem to like her shit and her parties policies.   

 

 

[LAwLz]

23 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I'm guessing you skimmed over my post:

 

I don't see where I said private companies should have any say in what gets banned let alone that power is taken from the public.  I also said sites should only be blocked where criminal activity is proven.  I don't understand why you quote me and then go on a rant that seems to address a whole lot of opinions I did not express.

I read your post, but my problem with it is that it sounds like it was dreamed up by someone who lives in a magical fairy land and not the political shithole that is the modern Earth.

 

This entire thread is about private companies wanting government to block websites they think are harmful to their business. You didn't say private companies should have any say in what gets banned, but that's what is happening in reality.

 

26 minutes ago, mr moose said:

China is hardly a democracy, so slippery slope reasoning doesn't exist there, they do what they want from the onset. And in the UK people can vote out Teressa may, but it appears they seem to like her shit and her parties policies.   

I don't want things getting political, but I strongly disagree with your view that the UK will vote Theresa May out because she is doing extremely bad things to the Internet which can be very harmful to democracy. I'll leave it at that.

[mr moose]

7 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

I read your post, but my problem with it is that it sounds like it was dreamed up by someone who lives in a magical fairy land and not the political shithole that is the modern Earth.

 

 

 

Not too sure if you are trying to be insulting or just read my post with a preconceived idea of what I meant.

 

7 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

This entire thread is about private companies wanting government to block websites they think are harmful to their business. You didn't say private companies should have any say in what gets banned, but that's what is happening in reality.

 

Hence why I said private companies should NOT be able to decide what gets banned.  I don't know how else to say that more plainly.

 

7 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

I

I don't want things getting political, but I strongly disagree with your view that the UK will vote Theresa May out because she is doing extremely bad things to the Internet which can be very harmful to democracy. I'll leave it at that.

I never said "will", I said they "can".  But they seem to like her shit.  Again you have taken the exact opposite of what I have said even though it cannot be written any more simply. 

 

 

 

 

[LAwLz]

2 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Not too sure if you are trying to be insulting or just read my post with a preconceived idea of what I meant.

Look

What I am saying is that however good your views sound on paper, they will not work in the real world. Even if the system would revolve around your suggestions of full transparency, no private corporation involvement, only courts were to decide which sites would be blocked etc, it would still not work.

That's what I am trying to say.

 

4 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I never said "will", I said they "can".  But they seem to like her shit.  Again you have taken the exact opposite of what I have said even though it cannot be written any more simply. 

The UK does not like Theresa May. Public opinion of her has dropped like a rock, and it seems like it continues to fall. According to a poll a few months ago, 61% of voters in the UK now view her less favorably than they did back in June. By the way, in June's election (which she herself called for) she lost the majority vote. The problem is that people don't realize they have voted a horrible person into power until it is too late.

[Bananasplit_00]

im all for an open intenet. once some sites get banned more will follow. Sweden hasent had any ideas like this yet but im pretty sure most of our goverment also dosent know what a computer reall is 

[mr moose]

20 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Look

What I am saying is that however good your views sound on paper, they will not work in the real world. Even if the system would revolve around your suggestions of full transparency, no private corporation involvement, only courts were to decide which sites would be blocked etc, it would still not work.

That's what I am trying to say.

 

 

My views will not work?  Hmmm.  Sounds like to me you just read my post and got all contrary, now you are trying to nullify such responses by extrapolating on general opinions as if they hold some concrete solution to a problem you don't even acknowledge exists.

 

 

20 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

The UK does not like Theresa May. Public opinion of her has dropped like a rock, and it seems like it continues to fall. According to a poll a few months ago, 61% of voters in the UK now view her less favorably than they did back in June. By the way, in June's election (which she herself called for) she lost the majority vote. The problem is that people don't realize they have voted a horrible person into power until it is too late.

If her popularity drops enough and she gets voted out then it will be up to the people who they vote in next.  This does not change what I said.

[LAwLz]

6 minutes ago, mr moose said:

My views will not work?  Hmmm.  Sounds like to me you just read my post and got all contrary, now you are trying to nullify such responses by extrapolating on general opinions as if they hold some concrete solution to a problem you don't even acknowledge exists.

Maybe I misinterpreted your post then.

I thought you were saying that if a website was going to be blocked it needed to be:

1) Authorized by a court.

2) The process needed to be fully transparent.

3) Private companies would have no input on it.

4) Proven to have broken the law before being blocked.

 

That's how I interpreted your post, and I believe that the system wouldn't work, even if the previous 4 points were followed to a T.

[paddy-stone]

It amazes me how this is even possible, that we have governments that are actively seeking to try and ban encryption.. just because terrorists "might" use it to evade authorities. Yet we have things like Cigarettes, alcohol abuse and especially cars that maim and kill people every day through misuse, yet they wouldn't dare to ban it.. and for one reason, they get tax from it - so basically bad things happening is OK as long as the governments get their cut. It seems to me right now that ALL governments are actively seeking to erode people's rights, under the guise of "making things safer" or simply because they are lobbied by media corporations. I an NOT saying people have a right to piracy, I am saying that having censorship is not the way to do it. I don't know what is, but it's not that... and just because we don't know how to do something without limiting everyone, is NOT an excuse.

I fear the end is nigh if stuff like this keeps happening. We will all end up broke AF, and businesses will have no reason to exist any more if the money has nowhere to go. Short hop away from that and the fall of civilization.

 

I hope that won't happen, but each erosion of security and freedom is taking it's toll.

[OmJo93]

Android TV Boxes are awesome.

 

Uh... Or so I've been told.

 

OG piracy is still a thing in parts of the world. This idea of stopping online piracy is a fantasy that will never happen. Ban the websites, ban VPNs. Somebody somewhere will still figure out a way. The only real option is to ban the internet. But even then, piracy will live on like it did prior to the internet.

 

Lower prices. Give people some sort of incentive not to pirate your crap. The Big 3 in Canada wouldn't understand these concepts. Their answer to anything is to try and ban whatever they don't like. 

[Jito463]

On 10/18/2017 at 12:03 AM, mr moose said:

Remember we can't have being gay legal because it will result in pedophilia being normalized.

I'm not sure I'd use that as evidence of the slippery slope fallacy, given that there's many people/groups out there already attempting to do just that.

 

Even worse, I fear that one day they may actually succeed.

[Mooshi]

Doesn't Canada have a broken economy that should probably be a higher priority than someone watching Game Of Thrones online?

[AshleyAshes]

1 hour ago, Mooshi said:

Doesn't Canada have a broken economy

No, our economy is pretty stable actually.

[Hellion]

28 minutes ago, AshleyAshes said:

No, our economy is pretty stable actually.

The Canadian dollar lost over 30 cents to the US in just over 2 years and is having trouble rebounding past the 80 cent plateau. Clearly you don't live in the prairies where jobs were lost by the thousands, are still struggling to be created and people have been out of work for so long many are losing employment insurance benefits.

 

Pretty ignorant comment if I've ever seen one. You must live out east. The general population out there are oblivious to what goes on past the Ontario border.

[mr moose]

2 hours ago, Jito463 said:

I'm not sure I'd use that as evidence of the slippery slope fallacy, given that there's many people/groups out there already attempting to do just that.

 

Even worse, I fear that one day they may actually succeed.

It is a fallacy all the same, because being gay doesn't lead to pedophilia or bestiality, but people are arguing if we normalize homosexuality then that is what will (not can but will) follow. Even though the facts are completely in opposition to that reasoning.