Wednesday, February 08, 2017

Freedom of Speech Threatened! Harper Opposes the Internet!

Speech Given on 19 January 2017!

Stephen Harper - Internet Major Threat To Globalization
Published on Jan 21, 2017
Former Globalist Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper talks about the internet giving people the ability to get and share information and 'develop their own views' is causing a huge problem for Globalization and the 'Global Order'. Praises China for their extreme internet censorship laws. Brexit and the election of President Donald Trump is a direct result of nationalist ideology spread on the internet. 'I think this is going to get worse' Harper says.
The Raisina Dialogue 2017, a conference of the Observer Research Foundation January 19, 2017
Bill C-51 aims to 'remove terrorist propaganda' from internet
Free speech, privacy concerns raised about anti-terrorism bill's internet clauses
By Daniel Schwartz, CBC News
Posted: Jan 31, 2015
Last Updated: Feb 01, 2015
Prime Minister Stephen Harper announces newly tabled anti-terrorism legislation, which includes provisions to 'remove terrorist propaganda' from the internet. (Frank Gunn/Canadian Press)
The anti-terrorism bill unveiled Friday by Prime Minister Stephen Harper includes a section that gives his government the power "to order the removal of terrorist propaganda" from the internet.
That would still require a judicial order, as well as the attorney general's support to push for the removal of such web content.
If the proposed legislation becomes law, a judge could order an internet service provider, or the "custodian" of "the computer system," to remove web content the judge considers terrorist propaganda.
Government backgrounders on Bill C-51 point out that the Criminal Code already permits the removal or seizure of hate propaganda or child pornography.

The Department of Justice says the draft legislation is similar to laws that already exist in the United Kingdom and Australia.
Reporting terrorist propaganda in the U.K.
In 2010, the U.K. government set up a "Counter Terrorism Internet Referral Unit," which removes "terrorist material" from the internet. In November, the British government said it had taken down more than 65,000 "pieces of unlawful terrorist-related content," 80 per cent of them about jihadist groups in Iraq and Syria.
Police forces or the public can submit a report via the government website if they see terrorist material online.
The internet counterterrorism unit prioritizes websites for review, with English-language web content at the top of the list. If the unit decides a website has breached British law, it takes action.
British Prime Minister David Cameron, left, walks with Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott in Canberra, in November 2014. While visiting Australia, Cameron spoke about efforts to block and remove terrorist material on the internet. (Mark Graham/Associated Press)
Last year, the U.K. government reached an agreement with internet service providers (ISPs) to voluntarily block outside material at the request of the counterterrorism unit, with no court order required. If the web content is on servers in the U.K., action can be taken against the host to remove the terrorist material.
In Australia, for locally hosted content, ISPs can be ordered to remove content, and action taken against them if they refuse. If the content is outside the country, Australia's domestic spy agency, ASIO, or the federal police, can order websites to block the content. As in the U.K., no court order is required.
Free speech advocates in both the U.K. and Australia have been critical of both governments' approaches to fighting terrorism on the internet. One concern in Britain is that there's no requirement for public disclosure about how often and what content gets blocked or taken down.
While the Canadian bill uses the phrase "computer system," Australia's new law uses "computer network," which, critics say, gives the government the authority to monitor the entire internet.
The Australian Lawyers Alliance says legislation which became law last fall would have "not just a chilling effect but a freezing effect."
More safeguards in Canada
Kim Carlson, international co-ordinator of the U.S.-based online rights group Electronic Frontier Foundation, views the Australian and U.K. governments as "racing to see which country can introduce the worst restriction as quickly as possible."
Videos from groups like Nigeria's Boko Haram could be targeted for removal from the internet by Canada's proposed anti-terrorism legislation. (Associated Press)
While also critical of Canada's draft legislation, on the issue of removing internet content, she says Canada's proposal would have more safeguards than in those two countries. But she argues it would still "have a chilling effect on speech, as people fear that their words are going to be misconstrued in some way."
Bill C-51 also would give a judge who has reasonable grounds to believe that a website contains terrorist propaganda the power to order an ISP to "provide the information that is necessary to identify and locate the person who posted the material."
In June, the Supreme Court ruled that Canadians have the right to remain anonymous on the internet and that ISPs cannot disclose their identifying information to law enforcement unless they first obtain a warrant.
Disclosing identities
Christopher Parsons, the managing director of the Citizen Lab's Telecom Transparency Project at the Munk Centre for Global Affairs, says that given the top court's ruling, he's concerned about ISPs handing over subscriber information.
Before that happens, he says, some sort of judicial process is needed to ensure that Canadians' personal information doesn't get disclosed to government unless they get warrants.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper takes part in a roundtable discussion with law enforcement officials regarding issues related to national security on evolving threats of terrorism and extremism, in Aurora, Ont., on Jan. 29 . (Nathan Denette/Canadian Press)
Parsons also expressed worry about how expansive the  government's definition of terrorist propaganda will be, especially at what he calls the margins of political and artistic speech.
"Advocacy and promotion is the test," Justice Minister Peter MacKay explained on CBC's Power and Politics.
Given the extent online of what the government calls terrorist propaganda, there's also a question about the staffing required to find and remove that content from the internet. Parsons noted the challenge the RCMP has getting the resources to take down the vast quantity of child pornography.
Rozita Dara, a computer science professor at the University of Guelph, doubts that technology alone can identify terrorist propaganda. She says that doing subjective searches in data mining is still very tough, and even with algorithms as good as Google's, humans will still need to look at every suspect web page.
Dara raises the question about distinguishing between someone expressing an opinion and someone who's recruiting or publishing propaganda. She worries that before the distinction is clear, people expressing opinions will be put under online surveillance and their social media information checked out. For her, linking different sources of information or databases with personal content raises privacy concerns.
CBC is not responsible for 3rd party content
Google Exposes Harper Government’s Growing Internet Censorship Appetites
Obert Madondo
by The Canadian Progressive
June 18, 2012
Canada has joined the ranks of countries aggressively stepping up efforts to censor online political dissent through “censorship requests” to the giant search engine.
In a report released late Sunday, Google tells us that Passport Canada authorities asked Google to block public access to “a YouTube video of a Canadian citizen urinating on his passport and flushing it down the toilet”. The case is one of the highlights in Google’s semi-annual Transparency Report for the period July – December, 2011.
Now the question is: would you have wanted to watch the video and understand the protester’s motivations? I would have. When a Canadian or American or Russian urinates on a government-issued national identity document as precious as a passport, they’ve got something real big to say. And when they flush the document down the toilet, there is a serious political protest thing going on.
The Canadian citizen’s creative stunt was a legitimate form of protest. Under Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, protected free speech. Google agreed. It turned the down the request. Kudos.
At a time our political engagements are increasingly migrating to the Twitter and other cyber universes, the report highlights an upsurge in requests by governments to remove Internet content for political reasons. The governments of India, the world’ largest democracy, and the U.S., top the list of culprits.
While Canada has fewer reports by comparison, the great white north joins the club of established suppressors of free speech on the Internet, which includes China, the U.S. and, possibly, all dictatorial regimes. Indian bans offensive political and religious content. In Thailand a lese majeste law prohibits criticism of the Thai monarchy.  Turkey has a law against insulting the Ataturk.
Harper’s Canada joins this infamous club at a time governments are aggressively increasing their attacks on the Internet. An “alarming trend”, according to senior Google policy analyst, Dorothy Chou. In a posting on the official Google blog, she said: “It’s alarming not only because free expression is at risk, but because some of these requests come from countries you might not suspect – Western democracies not typically associated with censorship.”
The point is: Canada ain’t what it used to be. The Harper government’s appetite for information regarding our Internet lives may just be as robust as China’s appetite for our dirty oil. For example, Public Safety Minister Vic Toews has hinted at reviving Bill C-30, the government’s widely-condemned proposed Internet surveillance legislation soundly rejected by Canadians recently.
The backward-looking and anti-democratic legislation, also curiously named “Protecting Children From Internet Predators Act“, seeks to force you and I to leave the door wide open while online. It would grant the police unprecedented powers to acquire the whole nine yards of an Internet user’s online identity – including name, address, email address and telephone number. It would require Internet service providers (ISPs) to install surveillance equipment on their networks, keep records of their customers’ activities and, when required, surrender the info to the authorities.
Of course, the police would be allowed to obtain this information without a search warrant.
The irony, though: the Harper government claims to champion free speech. Last week, the House of Commons passed Conservative backbencher Brian Storseth’s private members’ Bill C-304, which repeals Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. The legislation bans so called “hate speech” transmitted over the Internet or by telephone.
A victory for freedom of speech, according to Canadian conservatives. And white supremacists.
Photo credits: New Media Rockstars
Obert Madondo is an Ottawa-based progressive blogger, and the founder and editor of The Canadian Progressive. Follow him on Twitter: @Obiemad

How the ITU is threatening Internet freedom and access
Published on Dec 3, 2012
Learn more and join us in speaking out at
The world's governments are currently meeting to update a key treaty of a UN agency called the International Telecommunication Union (ITU). Some governments are proposing to extend ITU authority to Internet governance in ways that could threaten Internet openness and innovation, increase access costs, and erode human rights online.
Original video viewable at The Stream: