Tripling Down on Women's Rights

The US Congress seems to be having a competition over who can come up with the most outrageous anti-choice legislation.

Most recently, there is the Let Women Die Bill.

And now there's the You Can't Talk About That Here Amendment.

Seriously, radical misogynist TeaBagger Jim DeMint has just come up with a doozy.

Anti-choice Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) just filed an anti-choice amendment to a bill related to agriculture, transportation, housing, and other programs. The DeMint amendment could bar discussion of abortion over the Internet and through videoconferencing, even if a woman’s health is at risk and if this kind of communication with her doctor is her best option to receive care.

Under this amendment, women would need a separate, segregated Internet just for talking about abortion care with their doctors.

Spiteful, misogynist, hoop-hopping and, for extra bonus points, sneaky.

Amanda Marcotte has a great post at RH Reality Check on the War on Women today. Here's a sample (emphasis mine):

Both the activist and political behavior of anti-choicers lately has made one thing excruciatingly clear: shame is the name of the their game. The vague principle of “life” has always been a farcical cover story for anti-choice sentiment, of course, and much of this website lately has been dedicated to drawing a line between recent anti-choice antics and how little relationship they have to this cover story about “life”. If anything, however, the response to being so exposed hasn’t caused anti-choicers to retreat and look for new ways to convince people that they aren’t the anti-sex misogynist obsessives that they are. They’ve just been doubling down lately, as two recent news stories show.

The two stories are the Let Women Die Bill and the outing of an anonymous abortion doctor by Troy Newman and Operation Scumsuckers. Effectively targetting her as they did Dr. Tiller.

Amanda should have waited a few hours. Make that TRIPLING down on women's rights.

YIKES! The Internet Campaign Issue That Should Have Been

You thought User Based Billing was the Internet-related campaign issue? Well, maybe it was, but it should have been this.

Writing before the election, Michael Geist sums up the various parties' platforms related to the Internet. Then he goes on to critique the Conservatives new Tough on Internet Crime Act.

And YIKES! the issues go waaay beyond the 'speechies' concerns.

First, the process problems: the bill was never debated extensively; there were no committee hearings; and privacy commissioners have deep concerns about it.

Second, more important than process is the substance of the proposals that have the potential to fundamentally reshape the Internet in Canada. The bills contain a three-pronged approach focused on information disclosure, mandated surveillance technologies, and new police powers.

Warrantless wiretapping, real-time surveillance, data storage for police purposes.

All in the name of fighting Internet crime and, of course, those evul evul child pornographers.

'But I don't have anything to worry about. I'm not a criminal.'

That's the kind of thinking that led to the biggest mass arrest in Canadian history.

This could be a terrific issue for the Fucking Useless Opposition®.

Go read the whole thing.

Then, find your (new?) Member of Parliament and let him or her know what you think. Act fast. The Contempt Party of Canada intends to pass this in its first 100 days. Has the clock started ticking yet?

h/t Mark Francis in the comments.

Are the 'Speechies' Right, er, Correct?

Mark Fournier of Free Dominion is conducting on-line seminars on Bill C-51: Investigative Powers for the 21st Century Act.

Today's instalment (bold in original; one typo fixed): Canadian government plans to outlaw internet anonymity.

Yesterday we examined how the Canadian government is planning to effectively outlaw internet linking by making Canadians permanently legally responsible for the content of any webpage they link to using the Investigative Powers for the 21st Century Act. Today we will look at how the same Act will outlaw internet anonymity.

Clause 11: The existing provisions of the Code regarding the offences of sending a message in a false name and sending false information, indecent remarks or “harassing” messages (the French term “harassants” currently used in subsection 372(3) of the Code is replaced by “harcelants” in the bill) refer to certain communication technologies used to commit those offences, such as 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.

This is an exact duplicate of the process that brought thought crimes legislation, Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, to the internet and enabled the Canadian Human Rights Commission to engage in acts that were finally ruled to be unconstitutional by the very Canadian Human Rights Tribunals that rubber stamped convictions in 100% of the cases brought before it. Only this time it is to be expanded upon and enshrined in the Criminal Code of Canada. If this Bill is passed the Canadian government can throw out the reviled Section 13 of the CHRA, they won't need it anymore because they will have something even worse to use against us.

Look very carefully at the wording of Clause 11 above. The key word is “and” which follows the words in bold text (text not bold in original document). It would be bad enough if the new law proposed making it an additional offense to use a false name (an internet alias) “while” “sending false information, indecent remarks or “harassing” messages”, like using a firearm in the commission of a robbery, but this wording makes “sending a message using a false name” a stand alone crime. Think long and hard about the implications and dangers of this part of this proposed bill.

Where are internet aliases most commonly used by Canadians today? They are almost universally used in internet forums, bloggers' comments sections, and comment sections of other websites. This law will make using an alias a crime. It is not likely they will try to prosecute everyone using an alias online but it will give the government the means to identify and criminalize anyone who writes anything the government disapproves of. Imagine an internet where Canadians were forbidden by law to speak anonymously.

Think it would never happen in Canada? Never forget what happened with the CHRC and never give those who enabled that disaster the means to do it again.

Yesterday, Fournier pointed out the dangers of linking contained in the same bill. He quotes Clause 5.

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

And goes on to explain.

Hyperlinks are at the very core of the internet, they are what enables every internet user to view any available page on the internet and direct others to view pages. This bill will put the control of all hyperlinks into the hands of government bureaucrats and put all Canadian internet users in legal jeopardy.

This clause essentially makes any Canadian posting a link on the internet legally responsible for the content of any web page linked to even though the person posting the link has no control over the content of that page. If the person who does control the page you've linked to changes the pages content you are still legally responsible because you posted a link.

This will make it unsafe for any Canadian to post a link to any page on the internet that he does not control.

This bill will also make it impossible for any Canadian to operate a forum or a blog that allows for public comments. Even if a blogger vets every posted link on his blog with a bevy of lawyers at his side he still will be held legally liable if the content of the outside web pages changes. The only way to safely operate a blog will be to disallow links to other sites and pages.

Beyond the dangers of this bill as it is supposed to function lies the massive potential for abuse by government agents and private individuals. A person who dislikes you for political, competitive or personal reasons could easily set you up with legal problems. Using readily available proxy servers and disposable emails anyone could set up a simple webpage outside of Canada with a theme of “I hate [enter favoured group here] and then post a link to it on your forum or blog. A screen shot of both the created page and the hyperlink on your page is all the evidence needed to show the new law has been violated.

I am no kinda expert on human rights tribunals/commissions (paging Dr. Dawg), but I do know that the speechies loathe them. (And today, we find out that Ontario Top Con Man, Tim Hudak, has backed off from his promise to axe the tribunal here. Building a 'big tent' party ain't so easy, is it, Timmie?)

But if Fournier's reading is correct -- if a little paranoid -- then blogs like DJ! are in beeeg trouble. Not to mention Facebook pages, Tweets, and whatever new fangled toys the Intertoobz geniuses come up with.

Given that we are facing four or five years of authoritarian, liberal-loathing Harperism, shouldn't we progressives be a tad worried?

And, for that matter, shouldn't the telcos and ISPs be howling at the expense of such monitoring?

It seems to me that this could be a great issue for the Fucking Useless Opposition® and a way to make some new and old Con MPs veeeery uncomfortable under a deluge of outraged letters, emails, tweets, and phone calls.

But, as Fournier points out, we'd better act quickly. SHithead vows to pass his omnibus Stoopid on Crime bill within 100 days.

Oh-oh. Brian Lilley is on it. I like his last paragraph.

The Harper Conservatives won a majority Monday, they can pass this bill without relying on any other party for support. But they still need your support and your donations and the Canadian public should tell them they will get neither if they put forward bills like this that attack liberty.

UPDATE: HOLY CRAP! Link to Michael Geist from reader Mark Francis.

. . . more important than process is the substance of the proposals that have the potential to fundamentally reshape the Internet in Canada. The bills contain a three-pronged approach focused on information disclosure, mandated surveillance technologies, and new police powers.

The internet ate my homework.

This morning, while I was surfing the Weird World Web in search of inspiration for blogging, I started reading 50 Things That Are Being Killed by the Internet.

Number 4 is Sarah Palin.

Her train wreck interviews with NBC's Katie Couric were watched and re-watched millions of times on the internet, cementing the Republican vice-presidential candidate's reputation as a politician out of her depth. Palin's uncomfortable relationship with the web continues; she has threatened to sue bloggers who republish rumours about the state of her marriage.

Eeep! Didja hear that, fern hill? Does she mean DAMMIT JANET! do you think? Naw, it's more likely to be The Mudflats. Although .... oh my, I just peeked at our tags and it would appear that DJ! has produced close to 50 blogposts that mention the travellin' freak show that is Palin, her family members, her acolytes and her political sycophants.

Has the internet killed Palin's political career? It's a double-edged sword, really. Even when she has control over the medium AND the message *cough* Death Panels *cough* it only seems to magnify her liabilities. And surely even a narcissist must sometimes get tired of being at the centre of such invasive, overwhelming, non-stop attention?

Internet Shopping for Burglars

When Facebook was first hitting the general consciousness, I had an oldish computer. I was curious and tried to have a look. Facebook snottily informed me that my system was too old and that I had to upgrade. I was a tad pissed, so I started a thread at the discussion board I used to belong to titled 'Fuck Facebook'.

Well, looky here.

Users of social networking websites could face higher insurance premiums because burglars are using them to 'shop' for victims' personal details.

Experts from leading insurer Legal & General warn that parents could eventually see their premiums rise even if only their children are members of popular sites such as Facebook and Twitter.

Many of the millions of users of these sites post details about their home, whereabouts and holiday plans on them - effectively an invitation to a burglar.

The warning comes in the wake of a report called The Digital Criminal, commissioned by Legal & General and prepared by reformed thief Michael Fraser, star of the BBC's Beat The Burglar series.

Mr Fraser said: 'There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that burglars are using social networks to identify likely targets.

'They gain confidence by learning more about them, what they are likely to own and when they are likely to be out of the house.

'I call it "internet shopping for burglars". It is incredibly easy to use social networking sites to target people, and then scope out more information on their actual home using other internet sites like Google Street View, all from the comfort of the sofa.'

But Facebookers and Twits were 'unconcerned' about security.

In an experiment, 100 friend requests were issued to strangers selected at random.

On Twitter, 92 per cent accepted the stranger as a friend, as did 13 per cent of Facebook users, potentially allowing the stranger to learn about that person's interests, location and movements.

And what's the result?

Burglaries rose in 2008-09 for the first time in six years. Police recorded 284,445 house break-ins, up 1 per cent on the previous year.

Well, duh.

Good.

Every once in a while a judge renders a decision that is simply so just and appropriate that you wonder why it took so long for something to happen in this regard.

For years now, a few spiteful men have been getting even with former girlfriends and ex-wives by posting shared moments of consensual sexual intimacy online without the women's permission.

One brave young women undertook a civil suit against her ex-partner for doing this and the judge recently handed down her decision.

In a brief four-page ruling, Quebec Superior Court Judge Sylviane Borenstein held that the man breached her fundamental rights by intentionally and illicitly invading her privacy, and that his conduct cannot be tolerated or trivialized by the courts.

“The actions were ignoble and the Court expresses its indignation over these actions. One can understand that the woman, who is only 20 years old, feels betrayed and humiliated.”

The Court issued a publication order that forbids media from identifying the parties in order not to aggravate the harm she has suffered. Judge Borenstein barred the man from communicating, distributing, publishing, reproducing, or transmitting pictures, e-mails or videos of the filmed events as well as prohibited him from reaching her in any way. Further, the Court prohibited him from having in his possession photographs and videos of the plaintiff.

The decision also forbids him to contact the woman in any way or to approach within a kilometre of her workplace or home.

You can check out any time you want

... but you can never leave. Yes, this post is about f***ing Facebook and its continued flouting of privacy regulations.

User photographs can still be found on many social networking sites even after people have deleted them, Cambridge University researchers have said. They put photos on 16 popular websites - noting the web addresses where the images were stored - and deleted them. The team said it was able to find them on seven sites - including Facebook - using the direct addresses, even after the photos appeared to have gone.

Facebook claims that photos deleted by its subscribers are removed from its servers immediately.

To perform their experiment, the researchers uploaded photos to each of the sites, then deleted them, but kept a note of direct URLs to the photos from the sites' content delivery networks. When they checked 30 days later, these links continued to work for seven of the sites even though a typical user might think the photos had been removed. [O]ne of the PhD students who carried out the study, said: "This demonstrates how social networking sites often take a lazy approach to user privacy, doing what's simpler rather than what is correct."

Last year, when Facebook attempted to change the terms of use, subscribers objected and some even sought legal recourse.