My original statement was not a call to action, rather a historical highlight of how we kaboshed the opportunity to correct a bad deed. Seeing as this statement has devolved into an internet argument (my least favorite online activity), I am going to refrain from participating altogether. It's been fun Videosift.

If we, the people, were smart, we'd stop crap like the new XBox by simply not buying it. Unfortunately we're happy to bend over and spread our cheeks for the privilege to pay to be allowed to play the newest Halo game as long as they, the corporations, think we should.
I still remember how upset people were over Steam and their online activation for HL2. It's standard practice now.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^Jinx:
because ddos is hacking like crowding the entrance to a bank is a bank robbery.

Hacking is now an all inclusive term, it just means anything we don't approve of done with a computer. The news can't educate anyone, and the term keeps being used ad nauseam. Sometimes I get lectured by older people on the dangers of hacking, it's sad that they have know education on the subject yet they choose to inform others.
EDIT: By the way there is a documentary coming out about Anonymous and their effect on our society. It looks to me like it's full of itself, saying that Anon is now seriously influencing geopolitics. I don't see any changes brought about by Anon so I'm not really sure how the movie will present it's thesis. It seems to me that the world talks about Hackers with a sort of awe, and some of the hackers are buying into it.

It annoys me how full of it they seem to be. DDOS is the online equivalent of turning up on the street outside of a business with signs and protesting. Its fitting in this online world that we should have online activism but calling it hacking (ok, I guess if they are running a botnet then you might just about define that as hacking) really only serves to delegitmise any cause whilst simultaneously giving the anons a false sense of importance or power. They need to realise that their actions, while perhaps well intentioned, are still only really a mild inconvenience and they shouldn't let their message be distorted by the medias poor attempt to label them. My 2 cents anyway.

Below is a copy of the email I sent to Vic Toews, the sponsor of this terrible legislation. I again suggest that all thoughtful Canadians contact their Member of Parliament to voice their concerns.

MP's email addresses and other contact information can be found here: http://www.parl.gc.ca/MembersOfParliament/MainMPsCompleteList.aspx?TimePeriod=Current&Language=E

Dear Mr. Toews;

Thanks for taking the time to send an automated response to the automated email I had previously sent to you. In contrast to our previous correspondenced, this email represents my considered position and thoughts as a citizen of Canada, and not those of a robo-responder, nor of a political staff.

In response to the "Myths and Facts" listed below your correspondence, I respectfully submit that I don't buy a word of it. There's a common expression used to describe information which is not representative of the truth, which I'm sure that, coming as you do from an agricultural area like Provencher, you are quite familiar with. It's commonly used to fertilize pasture-land.

Bill C-30 is a poorly written, overly broad and dangerous piece of legislation. One thing which has been demonstrated over and over again is that when delegated powers that intrude on privacy, those in authority inevitably will abuse them. I have no doubt that the power resulting from C-30 will likewise be abused, and that it will, contrary to your statements, be used for non-criminal purposes. This legislation is fatally flawed and should be abandoned forthwith.

I'd also like to point out that though I vehemently oppose this legislation, I am certainly not "...with the child pornographers". I find your characterization of myself and other thoughtful Canadians to be offensive in the extreme. You remain unrepentant for this despicable comment, instead denying making it though one finds it readilly available in video and in Hansard. I would hope that at some time you might offer an apology to myself and those Canadians who might not agree with you. I suggest to you that it is un-Canadian to use such extremist rhetoric.


Paul Blank
Vancouver, Canada


From: vic.toews.c1@parl.gc.ca
To: xxxx
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 10:47:02 -0400
Subject: RE: Stop Online Spying

Thank you for contacting my office regarding Bill C-30, the Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act.

Canada's laws currently do not adequately protect Canadians from online exploitation and we think there is widespread agreement that this is a problem.

We want to update our laws while striking the right balance between combating crime and protecting privacy.

Let me be very clear: the police will not be able to read emails or view web activity unless they obtain a warrant issued by a judge and we have constructed safeguards to protect the privacy of Canadians, including audits by privacy commissioners.

What's needed most is an open discussion about how to better protect Canadians from online crime. We will therefore send this legislation directly to Parliamentary Committee for a full examination of the best ways to protect Canadians while respecting their privacy.

For your information, I have included some myths and facts below regarding Bill C-30 in its current state.

Sincerely,



Vic Toews

Member of Parliament for Provencher

Myth: Lawful Access legislation infringes on the privacy of Canadians.
Fact: Our Government puts a high priority on protecting the privacy of law-abiding Canadians. Current practices of accessing the actual content of communications with a legal authorization will not change.

Myth: Having access to basic subscriber information means that authorities can monitor personal communications and activities.
Fact: This has nothing to do with monitoring emails or web browsing. Basic subscriber information would be limited to a customer’s name, address, telephone number, email address, Internet Protocol (IP) address, and the name of the telecommunications service provider. It absolutely does not include the content of emails, phones calls or online activities.

Myth: This legislation does not benefit average Canadians and only gives authorities more power.
Fact: As a result of technological innovations, criminals and terrorists have found ways to hide their illegal activities. This legislation will keep Canadians safer by putting police on the same footing as those who seek to harm us.



Myth: Basic subscriber information is way beyond “phone book information”.
Fact: The basic subscriber information described in the proposed legislation is the modern day equivalent of information that is in the phone book. Individuals frequently freely share this information online and in many cases it is searchable and quite public.

Myth: Police and telecommunications service providers will now be required to maintain databases with information collected on Canadians.
Fact: This proposed legislation will not require either police or telecommunications service providers to create databases with information collected on Canadians.

Myth: “Warrantless access” to customer information will give police and government unregulated access to our personal information.
Fact: Federal legislation already allows telecommunications service providers to voluntarily release basic subscriber information to authorities without a warrant. This Bill acts as a counterbalance by adding a number of checks and balances which do not exist today, and clearly lists which basic subscriber identifiers authorities can access.

@marbles

Thanks for sharing your sources with us, I have not followed details of Syria's events, but I can respond to the articles about Iran.

Re: US trains activists to evade security forces
Offering tools that circumvent government censorship firewalls, is not instigation. Iran's government has strict rules for ISPs to share information with the government, much like the warrantless wiretapping in US. If HTTPS circumvents the wiretapping, then is IETF instigating revolution in US?

Re: 'US trains Jundullah members'
Jundullah is a terrorist group, has nothing to do with peaceful protests and civil movements in Iran.

Re: 'has intelligence agents working in Iran'
Duh, of course and Iran has intelligence working in US. Is the Wisconsin labour movement instigated by Iran? http://www.presstv.com/detail/168937.html

Re: Kissinger threatens regime change in Iran if coup fails
Kissinger said that if the government is NOT democratic, then US would work for regime change. US is doing that right now with the global sanctions on Iran. You can't take his words and say that the millions that protested after the election were all tricked by US propaganda and spies!

Re: Proof: Israeli Effort to Destabilize Iran Via Twitter #IranElection
Online activities such as twitter and facebook are reports of what's going on, not the actual events. People went to the streets and protested, they were shot, killed and prisoned. You need to look at the number of people that risked their lives to measure their force and influence, not twittes!

Re: Iranian Unrest: Evidence Of Western Intelligence Meddling
"CIA/Mossad flooding Iranians with contradicting SMS messages"
I never hear of any broadcast SMS messages in support of the protestors. Government did send threatening SMS messages to discourage people from going to protests. People SMSed each other, but that way you know the person that SMSed you. If I get a SMS from a number I don't recognize, I would just ignore it, but if my friend tells me something, then I would listen!

This is exactly how it happen (eye witness report), after they announced that Ahmadinejad won the election, it was late in the evening, people were in disbelieve, they walked out of their houses and talked with neighbors, once they saw that all around them were Mousavi supporters and no one that was cheering Ahmadinejad's victory. If Ahmadinejad has majority support in their riding, as the polling stations had reported, then where are those supporters? After that evening people knew that they has cheated, from talking to neighbors face to face, and NOT from a twitter fed for god's sake. The west learned about it from twitter, not people inside Iran!

Re: Iran busts another CIA network
Iran's government labels any dissenters as US backed agents or drug dealers. Are the people working to free Bradley Manning agents of foreign governments? Now the hard liners in Iran are accusing Ahmadinejad of initiating negotiations with US and are calling for his impeachment. US is the boogyman used to justify any action that the regime wants to take. Like the "terrorist" threat in america, used to take away people's freedoms, its not REAL!

Re: Soros, the CIA, Mossad and the new media destabilization of Iran
This article is a rehash of the previous ones, no new points here.

Just because governments are spreading propaganda against each other, it doesn't mean that the civil movements inside those countries are made up of manipulated and instigated people!
US caught off-guard by Iran sanctions
Iran to sue US over human rights abuse

Yeah, I'm not the first. But the Sift is addictive, we all know that. I love this place, I just need to concentrate on more productive online activities for awhile.