Jesse Brown

Jesse Brown offers critical thoughts on technology and what it means. Follow Jesse on Twitter: @JesseBrown

Categories: Jesse Brown, Science & Technology, Technology

Will anonymity and hyperlinks be illegal in Canada?

by Jesse Brown on Tuesday, May 10, 2011 5:20pm - 90 Comments

I’ve blogged before about Stephen Harper’s tough-guy campaign promise to bundle up and ram through a bunch of crime bills within 100 days of gaining his majority. One of the three bills he’s mushing together deals with online crime, focusing of course on the usual boogeymen: child porn and hate speech. I’ve pointed to one atrocious aspect therein—Lawful Access, which will allow police to demand all sorts of information about Canadians from their ISPs without having to bother with pesky warrants.

Here are two more reasons to be very concerned about/appalled with the upcoming legislation:

It can make linking illegal.

From the Library of Parliament’s legislative summary:

Clause 5 of the bill provides that the offences of public incitement of hatred and wilful promotion of hatred may be committed… by creating a hyperlink that directs web surfers to a website where hate material is posted.

That’s just stunningly ignorant. Let’s put aside the ridiculous leap of reason that equates linking to something with saying something, and instead direct our attention to the sheer stupidity of this law on technological grounds. Namely, we usually do not have control of the things we link to. They can change. So if something I link to later becomes “hate material” then I will suddenly be guilty of a hate crime. Any sound legal advice in a country where such a law exists would be to stop using hyperlinks entirely, as they present too great a liability. And that would sort of kind of make the Internet itself illegal.

It can make anonymity and pseudonyms illegal.

Here’s the Library of Parliament explaining a change from an earlier version of the bill:

…regarding the offences of sending a message in a false name (via) telegram, radio and telephone. 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.

Wow. No “false names” on the Internet (or through telegrams, which bothers me less). Real names only kids—that’ll thwart the perverts!

To be clear: I do not believe that the Harper government is plotting to criminalize the Internet itself. Hey, Lawful Access started as Liberal legislaion! But whoever wrote it, it’s a terrible and stupid piece of law, and one that would never have survived committee in one piece. But Stephen Harper has promised to ram this stuff through, and now he has the majority to do it.

Shouldn’t someone tell him what’s in there?

Tags: child porn, conservatives, hate speech, Lawful Access

More by Jesse Brown

http://profiles.google.com/lxmilne Alex Milne

Dear Libertarians,
How do you like me now?
Love,
Steve

Anonymous

There had/have been and will always be questionable bills being sponsored and passed, no matter who and what the elected government happen to be. There is no such thing as perfect government or governance. That is the very reason why we should be alert and should exercise our rights to speak up. It is even more important that freedom of speech should be treasured as this the only way we could defend and protect our rights and freedom.

Anonymous

Bill C-51 Clause 5 is an example of how good intentions do not always lead to good/well intended results. Their intended purpose on this might be to discourage those who are actively recruiting and brainwashing prospective Al-Qaeda/Jihadist/Terrorist/Anarchist members in Canada by using internet links/hyper links directing them to sites outside of Canada’s jurisdiction. However with the passing of this law, there will be greater risks in netting, punishing, and scouring innocents more than the guilty. We already have enough abuses and stupidity from Human Rights tribunals; we do not need to give them more ammunition to screw common sense and regular folks who are minding their own businesses. Government should push for freedom of speech legislation instead of curtailing them. There should be a clarity act on what constitutes hate speech. It should be limited to those speeches which advocate violence, so as not to mistake those that are just merely offensive on one’s sensibilities.

As for Clause 11, privacy is becoming a rare commodity nowadays. We do not need the government to erode that even further. Taking shortcuts to get the bad guys is not enough of an excuse to penalize the rest of the population.

The government should clarify, if not get rid, those broad, ambiguous, and sweeping phrases (such as “intent to alarm”). While they are it, abolish Human Rights Tribunals and transfer the budget from the kangaroo courts and move it to our Canadian Justice System.

And to you Macleans, you should walk your talk. Changing your commenting system to this new intrusive system is a violation to what you preached.
Anonymous

Outlawing “hate speech” in itself is offensive. The current definition is so broad that it can be leveraged for vexatious purposes, as evidenced by MacLean’s and Ezra Levant. It is enforced by a Human Rights Tribunal which admits it operates with no heed to due process.

Freedom of speech is important. No ideas or knowledge should be forbidden – if an idea has no merit it will gain no traction in the marketplace of ideas. If you find ideas ‘offensive’ or ‘dangerous,’ then you should be allowed to say so.

Outlawing ideas is an act of an especially dull person, who can’t grasp logic, can’t reason, can’t discuss, can’t debate. “Hate speech” is a slippery slope, and it’s upsetting to hear they’re working harder to quell freedom of speech.

modster99

I agree, but we should be able to outlaw speech that asks that we hurt others, or break the law. ie “Lets get together and kill Mr. Smith”

http://twitter.com/eshajouri Eshajouri

Did I already mention he has a nuclear bomb (3)?

There, I’ve filled not only 1 but all 3 criteria for section 372 and if this law had been enacted today I would be punishable by up to 2 years in jail.THAT is why this crime bill is ridiculous.
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1493666214 Anonymous

While I am concerned with what this, bill C-51 is
dead. As with all bills that were in progress with the 40th parliment.
With the 41st parliment, there will be a new comittee that will draft a
new bill. The new bill will not be the same as C-51. Rather with a
conservative majority, it is likely to be much worse.
http://profiles.google.com/fluxfox24fps chris cater

I don’t think this is well written. I would like to be able to read the bill myself before my opinion is made. portions of this text could be taken out of context of the bill. The False name bit might only refer to people soliciting under flase names in order to commit fraud. I am pretty sure it does not mean usernames.

Anonymous

See above.

http://profiles.google.com/fluxfox24fps chris cater

I don’t think this is well written. I would like to be able to read the bill myself before my opinion is made. portions of this text could be taken out of context of the bill. The False name bit might only refer to people soliciting under flase names in order to commit fraud. I am pretty sure it does not mean usernames.
http://profiles.google.com/fluxfox24fps chris cater

I don’t think this is well written. I would like to be able to read the bill myself before my opinion is made. portions of this text could be taken out of context of the bill. The False name bit might only refer to people soliciting under flase names in order to commit fraud. I am pretty sure it does not mean usernames.
http://profiles.google.com/stingreay1 Kevin Reay

Hey cons, why try and make free speech illegal? Isn’t Canada supposed to be democratic, because free speech is a democratic ideal.
http://profiles.google.com/stingreay1 Kevin Reay

And technically this would make any form of reworking of digital art illegal, if part of the bill is the DMCA, then it’d effectively shut down Newgrounds in Canada, as the brunt of stuff on there is versions f game music and parodies of games — all versions of copyrighted material. Good job, Steve.
tim lash

Anonymity is about privacy, like the secret ballots we are all used to. Courts have said privacy is an essential foundation for freedom of expression and assembly.

The Canadian government is on track to a bad precedent. In an omnibus crime bill it will mandate state invasion of internet & cell phone privacy without a warrant, requiring telecoms to keep records accessible to the government.

The state cannot open our letters and read them unless a court approves that there’s a valid reason. But letters are giving way to internet and emails as our standard way of communicating. These deserve the same privacy. The proposed legislation ditches it. It’s against the unanimous advice of Canada’s federal, provincial and territorial Privacy Commissioners. It hasn’t been discussed in Parliament. With the 2 May Conservative majority in the House of Commons, debate in Committees and in the House may be little more than a formality.

There are plenty of reasons why this is bad for Canadians of all political persuasions. It may even infringe Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

There’s a reason for international concern too: a Canadian precedent for surveillance of private citizens without a warrant will create a difficulty for champions of privacy and liberty elsewhere in the world.

This note just draws attention to the issue. Please see http://voices-voix.ca/en/node/272 for links to the more important information from others that it’s based on.

Please talk this up with your friends and representatives. Internet privacy is a global issue, so don’t be shy about searching for and speaking to people and authorities in other nations too.
tim lash

Anonymity is about privacy, like the secret ballots we are all used to. Courts have said privacy is an essential foundation for freedom of expression and assembly.

The Canadian government is on track to a bad precedent. In an omnibus crime bill it will mandate state invasion of internet & cell phone privacy without a warrant, requiring telecoms to keep records accessible to the government.

The state cannot open our letters and read them unless a court approves that there’s a valid reason. But letters are giving way to internet and emails as our standard way of communicating. These deserve the same privacy. The proposed legislation ditches it. It’s against the unanimous advice of Canada’s federal, provincial and territorial Privacy Commissioners. It hasn’t been discussed in Parliament. With the 2 May Conservative majority in the House of Commons, debate in Committees and in the House may be little more than a formality.

There are plenty of reasons why this is bad for Canadians of all political persuasions. It may even infringe Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

There’s a reason for international concern too: a Canadian precedent for surveillance of private citizens without a warrant will create a difficulty for champions of privacy and liberty elsewhere in the world.

This note just draws attention to the issue. Please see http://voices-voix.ca/en/node/272 for links to the more important information from others that it’s based on.

Please talk this up with your friends and representatives. Internet privacy is a global issue, so don’t be shy about searching for and speaking to people and authorities in other nations too.
http://twitter.com/driftnote Omar

i don’t think they are talking about facebook. the topic is sex offenders on line. the example of making a fake name punishable seems to me that it makes it easier to hold sex offenders responsible for more charges.
http://twitter.com/driftnote Omar

i don’t think they are talking about facebook. the topic is sex offenders on line. the example of making a fake name punishable seems to me that it makes it easier to hold sex offenders responsible for more charges.