What is Digg?133 Comments
- farfromsubtl, on 10/12/2007, -4/+65This is really scary.
- SuperM, on 10/12/2007, -0/+56I agree with you completely. There should be no nation wide firewall it'd be asking for disaster.
- bballguy2757, on 10/12/2007, -0/+39Just like China....
- engtech, on 10/12/2007, -0/+32uh, he's posting the blog that was linked from an article on slashdot.
- hohead, on 10/12/2007, -1/+29"I morally support blocking hate speech and child porn (who wouldn’t?), but the idea of having a national blacklist sends shivers down my spine. I would always prefer that illegal websites be shutdown rather than putting into power national filters that have the potential to be abused. I’m a pessimist, I believe that any form of censorship will eventually be abused despite its good intentions."
Totally agreed. This needs to be stopped. - elnerdo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+23No, but I am. Use the freaking reply button.
- rynoon, on 10/12/2007, -17/+36I for one don't trust our New Conservative Party (aka: Old Reform Party) from abusing this system. So long ndp.ca.
- millixaw, on 10/12/2007, -0/+19"China has state controlled media, where as this is simply a filter of illegal content such as child pornography."
It always starts that way, just to get your approval. Once their foot is in the door, there's no stopping them. - tdawson2012, on 10/12/2007, -2/+20@rynoon
I agree, the basic premise seems to be about blocking child exploitation sites, but with absolute secrecy, you never know what else will be lumped in there.
I would assume there are agencies and organizations in place to take down these horrible people that abuse children, I don't see the purpose in simply blocking the content. In my 13 years or so of surfing the web I've never stumbled on that type of material, though I know it must be out there. The point being, who are they protecting? perverts from them selves? - joe90210, on 10/12/2007, -13/+30this isn't a government program moron
- Virak, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15@SickFinga:
Yes, and I'm sure they're not at all biased on this.
The problem with this is that such systems are commonly abused, and even if it isn't, there's the problem of deciding whether or not a person in a picture is underage. Even in cases where it's blatantly obvious that the picture is illegal, with the growing popularity of sites which allow user-contributed content, this could result in legitimate sites getting blocked as a result of the actions of a single malicious user.
And that's not even considering the absurdity of trying to block *any* type of content on the internet; there's simply too much out there to get it all if you're trying to block a whole category of something, and even if you're trying to block just a single site, such measures can be trivially circumvented with easily obtainable encryption software. - fac3less, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16@joe,
It isn't a government program?
MUCH WORSE.
It's private companies looking to kill off competitors in 10 years by blocking access to their sites. - elnerdo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13Because the people who decide what sites have child porn on them or sites that have hatespeech on them are MORONS. While there's no good reason for child porn sites to be online, it's simply too risky to let those complete morons decide what should or should not be blocked.
As for extremely hateful racist stuff, I've got NO problem with that being allowed online. Free speech shouldn't be "Free speech so long as you don't say anything hurtful" - elnerdo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11Ahh yes, as long as it's for protecting kids and stopping hatespeech. That's a good idea. Oh wait, no it's not!
It's not at all! Who's to say what websites exploit kids or not, or what websites have 'hatespeech' Maddox has 'hatespeech' Hell, I"VE had 'hatespeech.'
Censorship is bad, PERIOD. Find another, less retarded way of protecting the children. - misteral, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13Hm
It's acting on tips. I wonder how long until the fundies (yes, we have those here in Canada) start submitting regular porn, or athiest websites, or anything they don't agree on? Quickly, good intentions will be overwhelmed - neoform, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10You should know better than that.
Canada is way too liberal to allow the banning of Athiest websites and porn.. - pdajunkee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7A waste of time and money. The people that are looking for the distasteful content will find other ways to get it. This will ony have an effect on everyone else, e.g. tax money. Imagine the paperwork and time involved for websites that are incorrectly banned?
This also raises lots of suspicion of what else will they start to block? What about piratebay? :)
Don't filter the content... go after the individuals creating and posting the illegal content. - xutopia, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7First they put in place a system for reasons you totally agree with (protecting kids). Then out of convenience they start using the same system to enable other filtering and then they start controlling us like blind sheep with a fair and balanced view of the world.
NO THANK YOU. - funkydude101, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7I could see these providers eventually wanting to block torrent sites and other popular websites as a)it's a hassle for their network and b)most of them provide entertainment content (PPV, television, video rental stores etc). It's very noble that they want to stop child pornography but how is it right that they can all get together and decide that they will blacklist certain things all on their own with no permission from the government? I guess they own the communication lines but there are certain regulations with that in mind. This is only the first step people. And no it has NOTHING to do with the government, it's all individual companies.
If the government does back this, then later the group of providers will come back asking to block copyright infringers, and who knows maybe that'll get passed, then they'll block other items etc etc. Regardless we'll be damned if we do or we don't eventually down the road. Fair use will be a thing of the past. - Uranium118, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Why not spend the money in something more useful?
Sure there are pedophiles, but they are a very small group. For example, they should spend the money for the poor people, much bigger group of people and a bigger problem than child porn.
(and no, I don't approve child porn, but I think there are more important things to take care of before) - Jescro, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10@joe90210 .. the CRTC is the equivalent to the FCC in the US... The big Canadian Cable Co's wouldn't all team up and do this voluntarily...
- tdawson2012, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Thats sounds way to smart for a government program, sounds more like paranoid rantings.
- tysonkad, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Any form of censorship is bad, this is a horrible idea. Hopefully this doesn't become a reality.
- rikcando, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6I am a Canadian and I do not think this is a good idea either. Although I agree with the necessity to stop child exploitation, this is not the methods. If they wish to filter out those sites, put up a warning first that their activity will be monitored if they continue. Allow us to decide what to do. I predict 99% of the people would hit the 'back' button as fast as the mouse can go. And those that don't will get reported, as they were warned. Weed out the few bad ones and the problem goes away.
As for 'hate' sites, they have no business telling me what I can view. Humor comes in many forms, and what might be offensive to some may be the joke of the week to others. - elnerdo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Actually, I, and probably most intelligent people who program, frequently use microsoft.com for the help files and documentation. It's also great for downloading tools (TweakUI comes to mind).
- biotique, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@Ub312g0d
[quote] "This should be implemented asap, although I cant see it having a large impact in any of the things its trying to stop.."
So you consider it useless but still support censorship. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.
Today they gather support by claiming this is to filter out hate and child pornography. Tomorrow you won't even know what else they filter out or which self-righteous bastard is making the call.
I trust nobody enough to make moral judgments for me. - lukehh, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5It's not about Child Porn or Hate. It's about being able to control information. It's about a central tennet of why the internet works being disregarded.
The Internet is different than traditional media becasue of the lack of filters. That's what makes it great. That's what makes it horrid. For it to work however, it needs both, it needs universal accesibility.
Child porn is wrong. How they are attempting to curb its vewing is also wrong - but it is very difficult to see that with the KIDDIE PORN headline blasted in your face. ULtimately the issue becomes one of the makeup of the net: filtered, restrictive, authorised or unfiltered, completely open and free.
I personaly think they should use the technology and list to arrest and de-balltate those who peruse its sites......but info (however horirble) shouldnt be striken form the record for the public good. - beercosoftware, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5BeerCo Software Canada is against the great firewall of Canada.
It's fine for some porn, ok, but I can see this eventually leading to any comment against the Harper govt being banned in Canada, ala Saddam Hussein. We're also part of ITAC Canada, so maybe I can bring it up with some of the member companies ???
Who ever wrote that is right, it won't stop at child porn or racist remarks. - kodek, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6"heres what will happen, they'll set up the national blacklist, and people will use proxies and other ingenious ideas to circumvent the firewalls and access the content anyways."
Yeah, and make abortion illegal, and people will have back-alley abortions. What an ingenious idea! /sarcasm - RevHelix, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Lets see,
Thankfully the major issues he planned on revoking that I think are progressive are a no go because he has a minority government.
Granted I do think the liberals got too comfortable and needed a time out, and one day I look forward to their return. Thus I voted NDP, because in my area that was the only real choice, and our NDP MP in this area isn't bad at all.
Sadly in a couple of statements he's made have stated that he wants to bring HIS church into Canadian Government, No church is supposed to be preferred over another or have a direct influence. Thus making Canada a Church state. Churches have a purpose, but not in my ideal government. As soon as I noticed "God talking to Harper", I don't trust him, he's a ***** sheep.
And I find sheep tasty. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7heres what will happen, they'll set up the national blacklist, and people will use proxies and other ingenious ideas to circumvent the firewalls and access the content anyways.
you can't stop a determined hacker from accessing the content hes after, you can only hope to slow him down long enough to catch him(or her, i know there are hacker ladies) - TehDoctor, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5What's to stop people from using proxies?
That's how kids at my school got around the firewall.... - sedition, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4During the Telus strike last year, Telus Internet blocked access to Union websites. Considering that most Telus Union members were Telus customers.. You can see how a company like Telus cannot be trusted with this kind of power.
- RevHelix, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Simple,
digg.com is unaccessible because of content violation [Child Pornography].
This site has been deemed in violation of The Canadian ***** Content Act of 2006.
Nuff said.
Take action against the site owners, not my rights.
There can be a much better solution for this. - PinkoCommie, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Down the slippery slope we slide...
how long before this is abused no one can say. - Reddog_x2000, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Several years ago, US Presidential candidates Bill clinton and Bob Dole were schedueled to debate. Several minor party candidates wanted to be a part of that debate but were denied because they had no "realisitic chance of winning". (Then why was Dole allowed to participate"?
My fear is that the same thing will happen on the net. I can see someone deciding that those (Libertarians, Communists, homosexuals, Christians, Muslems etc) are just ridiculous and that no one needs to hear their silly rantings. - mnmnk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I say no to a nation wide firewall. It won't be long before it gets out of hand and Canada starts blacklisting various forums and websites which provide interesting comments that actually make one think, (blogs that give an opinion on the government or certain cultures, etc.) Also, I think it won't be long until sites where I can download "bonzi buddy" become blacklisted. I am not quite sure about how computer illiterate will take programming sites, will they assume, and then report the site for malicious programming?
A quick question: does shaw block port 6667 (IRC) for incomming traffic? - pixelfox, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7to make the common tie-in, nobody ever said Hitler wasn't effective.
- tadda, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I give it 10 minutes before the abuse begins to happen.
- inkubux, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5huuh wordpress.com link .... it's going down in 5.4.3.2.1....
No to nation wide firewall... Better vote yes to have a Quebec country then :) - rynoon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@joe california
So who decides what content is to be considered illegal? The CRTC and judiciary or the telecoms? If it's the CRTC and judiciary than it is in at least part a government program. If it is not, well... that's just scary.
Name calling and lack of punctuation makes you sound incredibly intelligent, by the way. - antifreeze11, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3and blocking hate speech just seems completely wrong. I am against racism but they got it wrong in Canada when they stopped allowing to express peoples opinions on race, gender, and sexual orientation. Canada really needs to think about what Freedom of Expression means.
- neoform, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I think the difference will end up being in this case the list of banned sites will be public.. unlike the Chinese firewall which I'm certain is kept very secret in China..
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Get back to ***** work!
- thenewmadmax, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3well, im not fond of this, its MY choise to hate kittie porn, not theres
- glafira, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Grade A Censorship
- Woofcat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Because, someone posts a link to a child porn image on Digg. Then digg gets blocked.
- WhiteRaven, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"I morally support blocking hate speech and child porn (who wouldn’t?),"
"Hate speech" is speech and should be protected. There is no *free* speech if you're only willing the defend speech you like. Besides, driving the kinds of groups that perpetuate hate speech underground is just stupid. Let them strut and shout, their ideas do not fare well in the light of day.
Child pornography should be treated as evidence of child abuse or molestation, not as a crime in and of itself. - tadda, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@neoform: Check http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/1548/125/ for further detail... this is all going to be unaccountable and invisible.
It will also be utterly ineffective at blocking content (for reasons mentioned in many other posts) and the potential for abuse is incredible.
This is a poorly thought out solution with more holes in it than the average sieve, and should be scrapped immediately. - rynoon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I have to agree. Hate speech laws in Canada are modeled after those in Britain. It prohibits hate speech based on color, race, religion, ethnic origin and sexual orientation. However, it is completely legal to say "Lets commit genocide of the handicapped population because they are a drain on society!" or "Women are inferior and should keep their god damned mouths shut." Replacing the word handicapped with Jewish and the word Women with Blacks would on the other hand, be illegal.
There are also loopholes which allow you to commit hate speech if it is religiously motivated. So an Imam could call for the genocide of the Jewish race and it would not be considered illegal in the eyes of Canadian law.
To make it simple... Canadian hate speech laws are ***** stupid. American style free speech laws are by far superior. -
Show 51 - 100 of 131 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is