jan normandale
Film is the other way
A new internet law in the US has been signed into law. It is a modification of the Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act, which made it a criminal offence, with up to two years for any person using the internet "without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person".
The law was included in an unrelated bill to fund the Department of Justice.
US residents should be aware of this since it can now be used against people and also be used as legitimate reason to close down discussion forums any time the government chooses. What First Amendment?
“Annoyance” has already been described as being a chasm as wide as the Grand Canyon
http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-ann...3-6022491.html?part=rss&tag=6022491&subj=news
The law was included in an unrelated bill to fund the Department of Justice.
US residents should be aware of this since it can now be used against people and also be used as legitimate reason to close down discussion forums any time the government chooses. What First Amendment?
“Annoyance” has already been described as being a chasm as wide as the Grand Canyon
http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-ann...3-6022491.html?part=rss&tag=6022491&subj=news
C
ch1
Guest
jan normandale said:
With all due respect and while I generally sit on the left side of the political spectrum - this sounds like another Toronto Star or Globe and Mail far left-wing "over the top" analysis of the doings down here South of the Canadian Border.
For goodness sake, down here we can't even get our act together enough to keep the water from overflowing New Orleans.
We're so bogged down in a stupid war that no one wants and everyone knows there's no easy way to get out of it.
The "feared" NSA wiretapping effort is so ineffectual that if failed to "uncover" the fact hat a cable television station's fictional series on an Al Queda "sleeper cell" had already figured out NOT to use telephones to communicate in one of its shows! [As we say down here: Duh, do you think perhaps Osama already did so too?]
And now you think these clowns are capable of regulating communication on the Internet?
When everyone with the time and software can set up a blog or a website etc.?
Unlike the Parilmentary system you have in Canada (and the rest of the former British Commonwelth) we have a written constitutional system* that separates all branches of government (executive, legislative and judicial). This means that our esteemed Congress can pass all the friggin' laws it wants to - whether or not they will "pass constitutional muster" in the end.
And the Executive Branch (yes, "W") can sign off on thos laws.
But, ultimately, it is up to the courts to determine in they meet constitutional muster.
Perhaps this law does, or perhaps it doesn't. But, unlike the parlimentary system - it's passage does not mean it will "stick"
Sorry for the legal lesson but please - don't suggest that RFF should now "shut down" in the US over this!!! :bang:
* Yes, I know that Canada finally re-patriated the BNA and has a form of written constitution but it derives its system from Britain which doesn't
Last edited:
John
Well-known
Could this be a divide and conquer tactic? First it becomes unlawful to anonymously annoy. Later it could become unlawful to annoy at all.
Just a thought
Just a thought
FrankS
Registered User
copake_ham, are you there? Are you there?
I think he's been disconnected!
I think he's been disconnected!
C
ch1
Guest
FrankS said:copake_ham, are you there? Are you there?
I think he's been disconnected!
Sorry - did some editing.
Anyway, this is politics not RF.
I'm outta here on this thread after this...
T
Todd.Hanz
Guest
Whop-Whop-Whop-whop...whop...... damn, I here the black helicopters again
kmack
do your job, then let go
I was just reading about this on BoingBoing There are some interesting links and commentary --> Here <--
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
Wow. With this law, defined as is, they could round up a lot of people over at the Leica forum in PNet.
Privacy, we knew ye so hardly...
Privacy, we knew ye so hardly...
peterc
Heretic
I guess the up-side is that if we say who we are we can "annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass" to our heart's content. ;->
Peter
Peter
F
Frank Granovski
Guest
Thank Ala that I'm a Canadian..., for now. (Never know if we're gonna be gobbled-up by the apple pie eaters.)
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
Hey, maybe if whitehouse.gov annoys me enough, I can get it shut down?
This law will be unmanageable, as George suggests, but I sorta disagree with him on the other hand ... I think it is insidious enough to have the potential to be misused.
This law will be unmanageable, as George suggests, but I sorta disagree with him on the other hand ... I think it is insidious enough to have the potential to be misused.
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
jan normandale said:
Bear in mind that the source for this, along with all the alarming implications and solicited quotes, was in an editorial column, not a news story. Make of that what you will.
This thread is seriously off-topic, having nothing to do with rangefinder news (isn't this why we have a "And Now For Something Completely Different" forum?) and this is all I'm going to say about it.
bobofish
Two-fisted Atom Smasher
I think it's important to understand that not any one of these kinds of legislation will be the nail in the coffin, so to speak.
One particular stipulation on your freedoms, seemingly incongruous and insignificant as it might seem, in combination with other stipulations, will eventually bite us in the bum.
The general trend these days is towards a lessening of freedom in the US, and a strengthening of the government's ability to smack us. A little law like this one only closes the door in one particular hallway...eventually and with time, both the entry and exit could be blocked as well.
The big scandal with the warrentless wiretapping thing has little to do with the fact that it is ineffective to stop terrorism...there's been plenty of ineffective tactics in that vein already. The real crux of the matter is whether or not the President has the authority to create legislation, and enact policy on an ad hoc basis, as it suits his will. His argument is that he has ultimate authority, thanks in part to executive priveledge and the "authority" that congress gave him (illegally I might add) to wage war where and when he chooses fit.
If allowed to get away with this wiretapping thing, it will show that the presidency is not one of three equal branches of government, but rather the most equal of the three, unchecked by legislative or judicial.
Don't let these kinds of things slip by you folks, they mean a lot more than you think.
Even though I love to talk politics, it can be a slippery slope in a forum like this. I sure hope that stuff like this can be debated peacefully, with no hard feelings on any side...it would be a pity to let political emotions sour this forum.
One particular stipulation on your freedoms, seemingly incongruous and insignificant as it might seem, in combination with other stipulations, will eventually bite us in the bum.
The general trend these days is towards a lessening of freedom in the US, and a strengthening of the government's ability to smack us. A little law like this one only closes the door in one particular hallway...eventually and with time, both the entry and exit could be blocked as well.
The big scandal with the warrentless wiretapping thing has little to do with the fact that it is ineffective to stop terrorism...there's been plenty of ineffective tactics in that vein already. The real crux of the matter is whether or not the President has the authority to create legislation, and enact policy on an ad hoc basis, as it suits his will. His argument is that he has ultimate authority, thanks in part to executive priveledge and the "authority" that congress gave him (illegally I might add) to wage war where and when he chooses fit.
If allowed to get away with this wiretapping thing, it will show that the presidency is not one of three equal branches of government, but rather the most equal of the three, unchecked by legislative or judicial.
Don't let these kinds of things slip by you folks, they mean a lot more than you think.
Even though I love to talk politics, it can be a slippery slope in a forum like this. I sure hope that stuff like this can be debated peacefully, with no hard feelings on any side...it would be a pity to let political emotions sour this forum.
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
Belarus, China and now the U.S. -- I think I'm going to speed up my plans to move.bobofish said:
jan normandale
Film is the other way
I think that the posted news item has been made something it was not. The reason I posted this was in reference to the ‘annoy’ factor. That was it. It was stated in my opener. I am not a constitutional expert. I’ll leave the US Constitution to experts. I’m sure they will be discussing this.
What I was trying to point out was that ‘the annoyance’ or harassment of someone while using an ‘avatar’ could be the basis of a charge. Well intentioned comment on the internet may now be open to ‘harassment or annoyance charges’. Time will tell. I never intended this to be a political piece just a heads up. I prefer being informed.
I think I’ll comply. Feel free to test the newly signed law. I have no more to say.
Regarding the sources, they are American and not Canadian media.
http://www.cnetnetworks.com/
American company listed on NASDAQ
http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-ann...3-6022491.html?part=rss&tag=6022491&subj=news
linked news item
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/01/20060105-3.html
A new federal law states that when you annoy someone on the Internet, you must disclose your identity. Here's the relevant language.
"Whoever...utilizes any device or software that can be used to originate telecommunications or other types of communications that are transmitted, in whole or in part, by the Internet... without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person...who receives the communications...shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."
What I was trying to point out was that ‘the annoyance’ or harassment of someone while using an ‘avatar’ could be the basis of a charge. Well intentioned comment on the internet may now be open to ‘harassment or annoyance charges’. Time will tell. I never intended this to be a political piece just a heads up. I prefer being informed.
I think I’ll comply. Feel free to test the newly signed law. I have no more to say.
Regarding the sources, they are American and not Canadian media.
http://www.cnetnetworks.com/
American company listed on NASDAQ
http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-ann...3-6022491.html?part=rss&tag=6022491&subj=news
linked news item
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/01/20060105-3.html
A new federal law states that when you annoy someone on the Internet, you must disclose your identity. Here's the relevant language.
"Whoever...utilizes any device or software that can be used to originate telecommunications or other types of communications that are transmitted, in whole or in part, by the Internet... without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person...who receives the communications...shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."
C
ch1
Guest
Gosh, I didn't want to do this.
Oh Great Pumpkin - please forgive me!
Now lemme see.
A thread here reporting the latest from the long-time anti-US Tory stronghold of Ontario (yes, that is where most of theLoyalists went after the Revolution of 1776) says that our American freedoms are now being destroyed.
Now, historically, these are the descendents of those who wanted to prevent our freedoms - but, hey that was then, this is now.
Add to this mix a very anti-American Toronto news media, primarily consisting of the English language version of the CBC; together with the print media consisting of the Toronto Globe and Mail (kind of serious newspaper) and the Toronto Star (a joke in newsprint) and you have all of the makings for a thread like this.
Now add in the fact that Canada is currently going through the throes of another federal election only 18 months after the last one.*
Politially, Canada is in gridlock. Quebec (the Francophone province) is always on the verge of splitting off (last big attempt was in 1995 - and many there still dipute the outcome of the referendum that said they should stay in Canada).
The Eastern Provinces are financially bankrupt and welfare dependent on everyone else. Thus they cling to the Federal government for support lest they lose all of their population elsewhere.
The prairie provinces (Manitoba and Saskatchewan) are now also approaching bankruptcy because grain farming requires such huge government subisdies that even the rest of the country is "balking"
Alberta is filled with oil wealth (it has paid down all its debt) and is the "conservative province" that is increasingly at odds with the "liberal" east and west. To use an old 19th Century concept, it would be a ripe fruit ready to fall from the tree into the US!
BC, out in the far west, is Canada's California. An admixture of leftish politics and natural resource exploitation (they're still chopping down old growth forest there and fish farming) while scolding us on global warming! BC (at least Vancouver) is as diverse as LA (and, for now, at least - still more peaceful) but seems intent on becoming a drug haven thus ensuring it will have its borders sealed off and constrict its commerce even further from the duties on soft lumber.
But the big O, though, really rules the Canadian roost.
That's O as in Ontario. It accounts for about 40% or so of the population now.
Originally founded by Loyalists, O still "defines" Canada. So when the T.O.'s left wing media "likes" America ( think Carter and Clinton administrations) we down here in the US are okay.
But when the T.O. media sees US conservatives in office - well there you have it - they are sitting on the edge of the abyss.
Funny thing is, if you know the history, you know that in the end, it all goes back to those Loyalists vs. those Reveloutionaries - even after 230 years!
Now don't get me wrong, I am a Canadophile and love you.
But, please, get a grip here.
Oh, BTW, does anyone here realize that as soon as the NY Times "broke" the story of the NSA wiretaps - the efficacy of them was destroyed?
* Oh, and let's not forget that by "distracting" you good Canadians with US news you are expected to forget about the Gormley hearnings. You are "expected" to keep Paul Martin in office - and if the "boogeyman" of Harper doesn't scare you - they the T.O. newsmedia will use the "boogeyman" of Bush to accomplish the task!
Oh Great Pumpkin - please forgive me!
Now lemme see.
A thread here reporting the latest from the long-time anti-US Tory stronghold of Ontario (yes, that is where most of theLoyalists went after the Revolution of 1776) says that our American freedoms are now being destroyed.
Now, historically, these are the descendents of those who wanted to prevent our freedoms - but, hey that was then, this is now.
Add to this mix a very anti-American Toronto news media, primarily consisting of the English language version of the CBC; together with the print media consisting of the Toronto Globe and Mail (kind of serious newspaper) and the Toronto Star (a joke in newsprint) and you have all of the makings for a thread like this.
Now add in the fact that Canada is currently going through the throes of another federal election only 18 months after the last one.*
Politially, Canada is in gridlock. Quebec (the Francophone province) is always on the verge of splitting off (last big attempt was in 1995 - and many there still dipute the outcome of the referendum that said they should stay in Canada).
The Eastern Provinces are financially bankrupt and welfare dependent on everyone else. Thus they cling to the Federal government for support lest they lose all of their population elsewhere.
The prairie provinces (Manitoba and Saskatchewan) are now also approaching bankruptcy because grain farming requires such huge government subisdies that even the rest of the country is "balking"
Alberta is filled with oil wealth (it has paid down all its debt) and is the "conservative province" that is increasingly at odds with the "liberal" east and west. To use an old 19th Century concept, it would be a ripe fruit ready to fall from the tree into the US!
BC, out in the far west, is Canada's California. An admixture of leftish politics and natural resource exploitation (they're still chopping down old growth forest there and fish farming) while scolding us on global warming! BC (at least Vancouver) is as diverse as LA (and, for now, at least - still more peaceful) but seems intent on becoming a drug haven thus ensuring it will have its borders sealed off and constrict its commerce even further from the duties on soft lumber.
But the big O, though, really rules the Canadian roost.
That's O as in Ontario. It accounts for about 40% or so of the population now.
Originally founded by Loyalists, O still "defines" Canada. So when the T.O.'s left wing media "likes" America ( think Carter and Clinton administrations) we down here in the US are okay.
But when the T.O. media sees US conservatives in office - well there you have it - they are sitting on the edge of the abyss.
Funny thing is, if you know the history, you know that in the end, it all goes back to those Loyalists vs. those Reveloutionaries - even after 230 years!
Now don't get me wrong, I am a Canadophile and love you.
But, please, get a grip here.
Oh, BTW, does anyone here realize that as soon as the NY Times "broke" the story of the NSA wiretaps - the efficacy of them was destroyed?
* Oh, and let's not forget that by "distracting" you good Canadians with US news you are expected to forget about the Gormley hearnings. You are "expected" to keep Paul Martin in office - and if the "boogeyman" of Harper doesn't scare you - they the T.O. newsmedia will use the "boogeyman" of Bush to accomplish the task!
paulfitz
Established
Next we will see a big programming project similar to Carnivore to crunch all the blogs and forums for "annoyances".
I don't know about Canadian politics, and leave that up to my friends up north. But I love Toronto, and please don't let them stop importing Havana Club Dark Cuban Rum. I smuggle it across every time I visit.
OOPS - the new carnivores will catch me!
I don't know about Canadian politics, and leave that up to my friends up north. But I love Toronto, and please don't let them stop importing Havana Club Dark Cuban Rum. I smuggle it across every time I visit.
OOPS - the new carnivores will catch me!
julianphotoart
No likey digital-phooey
copake_ham said:
"copake_ham"'s identity? -- counds anonymous.
copake_ham's message -- sure is annoying and harrassing (independent of the bias and numerous errors).
Has there not therefore been a violation of the new law? Or are professional trollers exempt?
Sorry, Jan. You had the best and most straightforward of intentions.
Please, someone, kill this thread before the OT monster kills me!
Bryan Lee
Expat Street Photographer
Being extra careful here seeing this thread is potentialy inflameable and since I have already been refered to as the Toyko Rose of the forum I will avoid contreversy and just make a couple observations. News is currently being supressed by all governments and photos in particler are heavily controled. That being said News and Images are still all available on the net if you dig around. It seems that lets say pictures of a riot in China are supressed in China but made available by every News Agency in America and Europe. Documentary pictures of Iraq are prevented from being shown on the nightly news in America but are shown every night on Al-Jazeera around the world which is banned in Saudia Arabia although the general public views Al Jazeera as a Saudi News Agency. The truth is Aljazeera has its biggest office outside of Qatar in Washington D.C.. The good news here is until someone comes and kicks in your door and drags you and your hard drives away you will be able to look at and read about anything you want.
C
ch1
Guest
julianphotoart said:
Hoo boy, here it goes.
The "troll" response.
Outta this thread like I wanted to be originally.
With just one query:
As per your avatar, why are your here (US) if you really want to be there (CA)?
Are you being held hostage by the:
NSA/FBI/CIA/wife/job/betteincome/lowertaxrate/higherstandardof living etc.?
Last I checked - you're still free to leave anytime you want to do so.
Oh, name here is George, BTW.
And now, definitely outta here - because they are here....