Have you heard about INDECT?

December 5, 2011 — xanthippa

If you haven’t heard about INDECT ( Intelligent Information System Supporting Observation, Searching and Detection for Security of Citizens in Urban Environment), you are not alone – especially if you are on this side of the pond.

Or you might have heard of it and dismissed it as some sort of a paranoid conspiracy theory…which is exactly what some, including Wikipedia, imply it to be.

On the other hand, WikiLeaks takes it deadly seriously.  As does European Digital Rights (EDRI).

If you happen to be unaware that items like phones send constant streams of information about you – including installing a hidden keylogger – back to corporations you may have no commercial relationship with, here is an article with a video that shows, step-by-step, how this is being done. (Yes, when this information was first published, CarrierIQ tried to shut the source up with threats of lawsuits.)

And just to help you relax when you bring home a new video-game console…consider their enhanced sensory abilities (lip-reading, facial expression analysis to measure emotional states, enhanced speech recognition) in conjunction with the ‘back doors’ being built in to so many of our digital devices.

But, I digress…

The EU is planning to gather information about its citizens from ‘open sources’ (social media, chat-rooms, blogs) as well as public surveillance systems (like CCTV cameras to the GPS devices that they wish to legislate to be mandatory in every vehicle in order to ‘monitor traffic patterns’), their surfing habits, their shopping habits (remember all those ‘loyalty cards’?), to all other policing methods.  Then they plan to run this mass of data through some algorithms which will analyze the language used by specific citizens with their public behaviours (say, like sitting in a public place for longer than ‘normal’) and online preferences, cross-reference it all and come up with ‘automated dossiers’ which will alert police officers to go check out specific citizens deemed to have ‘abnormal behaviour’.

All this is to be done by an arms-lenght (translation:  completely unaccountable) agency which is as transparent as tar, overseen by a police-agency dominated board.  As this agency is an EU creature, all the member states would be compelled to give it full access to citizen information, from financial to DNA databases.

Of course, we know this is the direction our society is moving in – but I suspect most of us have not been aware of the degree to which this has already been happening and just how lacking we are in any privacy rights.

Perhaps we ought to pay more attention…

H/T:  HackerNews

Posted in corruption, freedoms, opression, society, technology. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , . 2 Comments »

The Fourniers will set another Canadian legal precedent

October 12, 2011 — xanthippa

It is the nature of laws – at least, in free societies – to be passed in response to new developments in society.  That is why, in the common law tradition, legal precedents affect not only how old laws are applied but also how new laws evolve.

This creates a feedback mechanism:  the laws affect how the rules of society evolve, the rules of society affect how the laws evolve.

Currently, the courts are trying to interpret the existing laws to accommodate the changes due to our ‘communications revolution’.  Since more and more of our public and private communication as well as our public and private information is online, the impact these ruling will have over the coming decades is truly profound.

This makes Connie and Mark Fournier’s ongoing legal battles very important to all of us:  if you are reading this on a computer, then the rulings in their legal battles will affect the rules under which you live your life.  And not just in Canada – the world is fast becoming one electronic family and slowly but surely, internet-affecting legal precedents set in one Western country reverberate in the whole world.

That is why I have started to document the Fourniers’ legal journey – even though I have no legal training and my understanding of what is being said in court is imperfect.  But, if I document it to the best of my ability, perhaps others who are more knowledgable will be able to comment  on what I have witnessed and explain it better to all of us!

Last week, the Fourniers were in Federal court in Ottawa – charged with copyright infringement by Richard Warman.

To my mind, some of the things the Fourniers are charged with are difficult to understand – but one of them is very clear and will very likely set the legal precedent for Canada on a very hot topic: ‘inline linking’.  The legal precedent on copyright issues regarding the insertion of an inline web link has been ruled by the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, clarifying that inserting them does not violate US copyright laws.  For search engines, anyway…

There has not been a comparable ruling in Canada – yet.

Richard Warman has brought a lawsuit against the Fourniers for violating his copyright in 3 separate ways.

One – and, perhaps most important regarding the abovementioned legal precedent – is for having permitted the insertion of an ‘inline-link’ on the Free Dominion forum they operate which linked to a picture of Richard Warman, on his own website.

In other words, the picture was always posted only on Richard Warman’s own personal website and he had full control over it.  An inline-link was posted on Free Dominion which would show the reader Richard Warman’s picture from Richard Warman’s site.  The picture was, at all times, on Mr. Warman’s server and under his complete control – he could have, at any time, blocked inline-linking to the picture…yet he chose to permit inline-links to the picture to function.

Inserting the inline-link on Free Dominion, according to Mr. Warman’s claim, constitutes displaying his image without permission and thus infringes on his copyright.

Therefore, the ruling on this will have important implications for internet use in Canada, perhaps further.  Should the ruling go against the Fourniers, then any time anyone inserts a hot-link when they comment on something on a blog or site you control, you could be liable for copyright infringement.

The other two counts of copyright infringment Mr. Warman is suing the Fourniers for are regarding words, not images, and words which were posted on the Free Dominion site and not words that were simply linked to.

Jonathan Kay had written an article for National Post in which documented how, at various court hearings, it was revealed that Mr. Warman appears to have made some highly inflammatory racist, misogynistic and anti-immigrant comments (specifically targeting Senator Anne Cools) on a white supremacist website/forum.  (I myself have heard the same assertions during the ‘Vigna v Levant’ defamation hearing, where Mr. Levant had clarified that to the best of his knowledge, it was not Mr. Vigna but rather Mr. Warman who was the card-carrying member of a neo-nazi organization and the author of this most vile hate speech directed against our first black female Senator.)

This newspaper article was re-printed (with credit – but it was not stated during the hearing if fully or partially) on the Free Dominion forum.

Mr. Warman sued the National Post for publishing that article and the National Post and he reached an out-of-court settlement with them.  As part of this settlement, Mr. Warman got the copyright of the article.

Once he owned the rights to the article, Mr. Warman’s lawyers contacted the Fourniers and demanded that they remove the article from their website.  This they complied with immediately, as was confirmed by Mr. Warman’s lawyers.

Despite this, at some subsequent time, the Fourniers were contacted by Mr. Warman’s lawyers and were requested to pay some sum of money to Mr. Warman to avoid a lawsuit for having posted the article in the first place.  The Fourniers believed that they had complied with the request to remove the offensive material in a timely manner and therefore did not think they were obligated to pay any money as well.  Subsequently, Richard Warman filed a copyright violation lawsuit against them on these grounds.

The last, third count of copyright violation has me puzzled more than the previous two.

The Fourniers had posted on Free Dominion sections of court documents – public documents, to the best of my knowledge – which had contained the phrases on the basis of which Mr. Warman was taking legal action against someone (the phrases he had found offensive) which had also been published in the article from point two.  Even though the Fourniers had clearly published these phrases as part of a public document, as they were also part of the article which Mr. Warman’s lawyers asked them to take down, Mr. Warman had charged them with copyright infringement for having posted them.

This, in a nutshell, is the background to this particular lawsuit Mr. Warman is pursuing against the Fourniers.

The Fourniers had filed their defense statement with the court – representing themselves.  Mr. Warman’s lawyers had informed the Fourniers that some of the things which they listed in their documents were inadmissible in court and asked the Fourniers to remove them.  The Fourniers refused to do so, because they believe this information to be relevant to their defense and would like the judge in the case to be the one to decide what is admissible and what is not.

Mr. Warman’s lawyers then filed a motion to have parts of the Fourniers defence statements struck from the record (not all the bits they had originally wanted removed, but still a significant amount)- something the Fourniers believe will affect their defense not only in this copyright violation lawsuit but also in three additional lawsuits (for defamation, I believe) that Mr. Warman is pursuing against them.

Last week, there was a hearing in federal court for this motion – a most interesting event in its own right (which I had gone to see for myself and will write up very, very soon, I promise!).

Posted in corruption, freedoms, opression, politics, society, technology. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , . 2 Comments »

Thunderf00t: ‘Amenakin, Censorin’ for Islam’

October 3, 2011 — xanthippa

For those who are not frequent users of YouTube or are simply unaware of this particular issue, Thunderf00t is one of the most prominent members of the informal YouTube atheist community.  As a scientist, he has consistently criticized theocratic dogma, dispelling their claims with science and reason.

Not surprisingly, there has been some friction between him (and other YouTube-active atheists) and theocrats, usually of the monolatric bend.  Usually, this friction has been limited to exchanges of videos and comments – which is really quite entertaining, regardless of where one falls opinion-wise:  it’s like a fine boxing match, but fought with ideas and words.  Ray Comfort, a prominent Christian theist, has even hosted long one-on-one debates with Thunderf00t which both of them then posted on YouTube.

What I am trying to say is that yes, there is an ongoing battling of ideas – and while tempers may rise, both sides are capable of civilized discourse.

Or, rather, most members of both sides…

…because there are people who are using the DMCA to make claims that are intended to force YouTube to shut down channels of people whose views they disagree with.  This is a sort of a mini-SLAPP suit…

Which is what this video is about:

Posted in atheism, debate, freedoms, politics, religion. Tags: , , , , , . Leave a Comment »

Government-free internet

January 31, 2011 — xanthippa

For years, on and off, I have brrm ranting about the need to create an internet-type thing which would be outside the grasp and control of the powers that be – be they governments or large corporate interests (though, the lines between them have been so blurred lately, it is impossible to tell where one ends and the other begins).

And, no, I am not a complete conspiracy nut.

I have just ben paying attention – with all the ‘bailouts’, so many governments now have a physical stake in various corporations, it would be foolish to deny that the separation between our law-makers and the largest corporate ‘players’ has been eroding quite a lot.  To put it mildly…

That is never a good thing!

It is an especially bad thing when it comes to communications:  that is why I keep going on about the importance of free speech.  And, I also keep going on about the dual dangers to free speech:  government censorship AND corporate censorship.

Because BOTH of these are extremely dangerous to freedom of speech – and to the ability of regular, non-privileged citizens like you and I, to communicate with each other, to exchange information, to compare thoughts….

Without the ability to find out what is truly happening in the world around us – and without being able to discuss it amongst ourselves – we will be divided and powerless.

Isolated.

Easy to control…

This is well understood by those who would like to be rulers, everywhere.

That is why governments try to control media.

In the West, where people believe they have freedom of speech and where we would protest direct censorship of the media, more devious tools, like ‘political corectness’, are used to filter, distort and, yes, censor information that reaches the populace.  It is ‘censorsip by sneak’. so to speak.

It is also understood by the corporatists: hence the repression of all the freedoms we hold near and dear in, say, large areas around the spot where The Olympic Games are held, and so on.  (I have long held that the fascism inherrent in corporatism – the collusion between government-corporations-labour unions necessary to make this system function – is an incarnation of evil much worse than most others, because it pretends that it looks after ‘everyone’ and, if some person does not like it, there must be something wrong with them.  It thus oppresses both the body and the soul…)

But, I am rambling…..

Time has come for us, the ‘unwashed masses’, us, the rabble, to start taking things into our own hands.

Taking to the streets with pitchforks – except, I suspect we will be uch more effective if we can figure out an electronic equivalent to a pitchfork and take to the electronic equivalents of the streets and village squares.

First, of course, we have to build these electronic equivalents.

There are some who have started.

Please, read the following two links – they say it better than I could and are well documented and chock full of links with good info.

Both of these have come about because of what has happened in Egypt – and what could easily happen here.  (And, do not kid yourself – the groundwork has been laid for it….)

H/T: Tyr

 

Posted in corruption, freedoms, opression, politics, society, technology, war. Tags: , , , , , , , . 1 Comment »

Iranians censor a film-showing in Canada

January 18, 2011 — xanthippa

The Freethinking Film Society – a very, very good organization which shows movies and films we all ought to be aware of – was planning to show a movie tonight.

A simple movie.

At the National Archives of Canada – a place where obscure but wothwhile movies have been shown for, as far as my memory holds, for almost half a century.

Until tonight!!!

The Freethinking Film Society was planning to show a movie about Iran.

Until an hour ago, it was still ‘ON’!!!

Now, without warning, it appears to be ‘Off’!!!

Censored.

By some mysterious effect the Iranian government has over what we, free-thinking Canadians, are permitted to see!!!

What the HELL is going ON???

UPDATES:

Blazing Catfur has the scoop!

Vlad Tepes has details and photos!

(I’ll insert links and add updates as I learn more!)

Fred Litvin of the Free Thinking Film Society will be interviewed this morning, to tell us exactly what happened, between 9 and 10 am this (Wednesday) morning on CFRA – listen on the web!

Caller to CFRA asks:  is there an Iranian agent running the National Archives of Canada?

This is the question just raised by a caller to CFRA, while talking about the cancellation of “Iranium”.

According to the caller, whenever the Iranian embassy has a big do, it is at the National Archives.  Like, movies, their new year’s celebration last March, etc.

And, this is the SECOND time Archives found a pretext to cancel the showing of a movie the Iranian government did not like…..

Another caller is guessing that the target of the cancellation was Claire Lopez – that she was, so to speak, ‘Ann-Coultered’!

You can call the National Archives people to tell them what you think:

613-996-5115

866-578-7777

Posted in corruption, society. Tags: . 1 Comment »

Richard Warman v Free Dominion: the ‘prima facie’ hearing, part 1

December 7, 2010 — xanthippa

Today, I spent observing more ‘courtly manners’.

In the court-room, that is.

With Madam Justice Blishen presiding over the next installment in the ‘Warman v Free Dominion’ saga.

Background:

  • FreeDominion is the oldest, longest-running online message board in Canada which deals with political matters.
  • Richard Warman is a former Canadian Human Rights Commission lawyer and the most frequent user of Canada’s Human Right’s Legislation’s controversial ‘Section 13’, often described as ‘the censorship clause’.  Richard Warman has also personally pursued complaints under ‘Section 13’ where he was not the ‘injured party’ – on the grounds that there could, one day, be an injured party – and collected a tens of thousands of tax-exempt dollars in ‘damages’ as a result.
  • Richard Warman has also initiated tens, perhaps hundreds, of civil lawsuits against people whom he perceives as having slandered or defamed him
  • Many people on the internet call Mr. Warman all kinds of things….some of them not nice things.
  • Several people have made posts on FreeDominion which Mr. Warman believes defame him – and he has attempted to sue them, as well as the people who run the FreeDominion site, Mark and Connie Fournier.
  • As they have posted under pseudonyms, Mr. Warman has not been successful in discovering the identity of all the people who posted the comments he believes to be defamatory.  He has therefore demanded that the Fourniers reveal to him the identities /IP addresses of these anonymous people, so he can sue them
  • Earlier this year, in an appeal, FreeDominion successfully argued that they should not be expected to just hand over this information when asked:  a ‘prima facie’ case has got to be made that there are indeed grounds for a lawsuit for defamation there, first!  There were two ‘other parties’ permitted to speak to the appeals court about this:  the Civil Liberties people and Michael Geist’s ‘Internet Freedom’ people.
  • THIS HEARING was to determine whether or not the conditions for the disclosure of identities of anonymous bloggers (including a ‘prima facie case’ for a defamation lawsuit in these posts) have indeed been met.

 

And what a hearing it was!

Since this hearing was to determine whether there was there was sufficient reason for the disclosure of the identities of anonymous bloggers, perhaps it is best to re-state the conditions, as per the above-mentioned appeal.  From Defamation Law Blog:

After surveying previous decisions, Justice Wilton-Siegel set out four considerations, aimed at preventing abuse of the Rules and respecting the privacy of internet users, that should have been considered by the motions judge in deciding whether to order disclosure under the Rules:

  • whether the unknown alleged wrongdoer could have a reasonable expectation of anonymity in the particular circumstances;
  • whether the Respondent has established a prima facie case against the unknown alleged wrongdoer and is acting in good faith;
  • whether the Respondent has taken reasonable steps to identify the anonymous party and has been unable to do so; and
  • whether the public interests favouring disclosure outweigh the legitimate interests of freedom of expression and right to privacy of the persons sought to be identified if the disclosure is ordered.

[Warman, at para. 34]

To reduce the anticipation a little, let me first state that the third point was not much discussed:  everyone agreed that Mr. Warman had indeed done a lot to ferret out the identities of the anonymous bloggers.  So, the arguments revolved around the other 3 points:expectation of anonymity by the posters, whether there is enough material there to proceed with a defamation suit (as in, not just a nuisance lawsuit) and last but not least, balancing of ‘legitimate interests’.

The morning arguments opened a little late:  there was another motion scheduled ahead of this hearing – one involving an almost 30-year lawsuit over some inheritance, which was in the 2nd and 3rd generation of litigants.  I suppose this set the tone a little…

This earlier motion hearing meant that Madam Justice Blishen did not begin to hear this case until two minutes to noon.  To my untrained, layman’s eyes, it looked like this was very good news for Warman and his legal team (headed up by the eloquent and expressive Mr. James Katz).  Mr. Warman kept leaving the court-room and coming back with more and more papers, which he quietly discussed with his lawyers.  Mr. Katz’s student also kept running into the room, bringing in reams of paper and passing them to her boss.

I wondered what this was all about… and I suspect the reason might have been the second lawyer, sitting on the Free Dominion side of the lawyer’s table.  The ever-loyal and very intelligent Barbara Kulaszka was, again, representing Connie Wilkins-Fournier and Mark Fournier of Free Dominion.  The other lawyer was representing several of the other co-defendants in the lawsuit – and was none other than the formidable ans wholly unexpected Mr. Doug Christie!

No wonder there was some serious scrambling from the Katz team!

As the hearing opened, Mr. Katz argued that as this is a hearing to determine if the conditions for revealing the identities of the anonymous posters has been met and not the defamation hearing itself, it only concerns the Fourniers and not the other co-defendants in the defamation suit.  Therefore, Mr. Katz suggested, Mr. Christie had no standing there and should not be permitted to address the court.

In my completely legally untrained mind, it looked like ‘they’ really really really really did not want to give Mr. Christie a chance to speak at all – more than just mere procedural jostling for position or some type of lawyer-bickering.  It almost smelled like ‘they’ were afraid of M. Christie.  And here, I thought he was best known for making good cookies…

All right – I am getting silly.  It has been a very long and exhausting day for me – if I continue now, the likelihood that I will craft my report to accommodate as many puns as possible will increase with every new line.

So, please, forgive me:  I will sign off for now and continue my tale tomorrow.

 

Posted in freedoms, opression, politics, society, technology. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , . 9 Comments »

Obama to get power to turn off the internet – worldwide

June 18, 2010 — xanthippa

Sit up and pay attention.

I have been ranting on and on, that we need to set up a parallel system to the internet:  one so diffuse that it could not be controlled by any authority.

Why?

Because various governments have been attempting to strangle the freedom to exchange information which people all over the world have been exercising:  and which has been a powerful weapon against suppressing information that various governments would rather not make public.

This coming Sunday will be the first anniversary of the murder of Neda Agha-Soltan.  If her death was not caught on video and posted on the internet for all the world to see, would we know as much as we do about the protests against the rigged elections in Iran?  (On this note – the demonstration which is taking place in London, England, to mark the anniversary of her death this Sunday has had its location moved by the police at the last minute:  instead of Trafalgar Square, it will be held at Richmond Terrace junction with Whitehall opposite Downing Street.)

Of course, this is just the tiny tip of a huge iceberg!

It’s EVERYTHING!!!

It usually starts with ‘protecting children’ – after all, who could be against protecting our children?!?!

So, filters and tracking traps go on.

Then it’s pornography.

And black lists.

Of course, history has shown us (the last revelations were from Australia, were they not?) that most of the sites that are blacklisted and censored do not actually have anything to do with paedophilia or even pornography.  Rather, most have been political sites critical of the ruling government and/or the censorship bodies.

After these two biggies comes ‘security’.

Again, it is an emotional appeal that precludes any reasonable argument without being accused of siding with terrorists and criminals and other ‘enemies’.

And it is exactly this reasoning that lies behind the PCNAA (Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act) that Joe Lieberman, with vigorous support from Jay Rockefeller (the guy who thinks the world would be better off without the internet) is pushing through!

This bill – once law – would give Obama the power to shut down the internet.

Everywhere.

Remember that saying – the one about people who are willing to give up freedom for security not deserving either?

So, any ideas on an alternate method of connecting up?

If we get a few good ideas, we can take this off-line:  you know, before the line goes dead….

Posted in corruption, freedoms, opression, politics, society, technology. Tags: , , , , , , , . 2 Comments »

CUPE union member attacks the prominenet Canadian blogger BlazingCatFur!

May 30, 2010 — xanthippa

This defies belief!

CUPE – Canadian Union of Public Employees, according to its website, represents 600,000 civil servants and is Canada’s largest labour union.

The important bit here is that it represents civil servants.  Only civil servants.  These are the people who put public policy into action.

As in, these are the ‘Agents of the state’!

This, of course, does not mean they are not ‘their own person’ in their ‘free time’.  Of course they are, free to express their views and all that.

Still, since their role as Agents of the State is known, their actions necessarily reflect on the state, too.  This places ‘greater-than-average’ responsibility on them to uphold the laws of the State and not breech them in their public conduct.

I guess what I am trying to say is that breaking laws is always bad.  But, if it is broken by someone who is not just ‘an average citizen’, but by someone who is either charged with enforcing the laws (like, say, a police officer), or enacting the laws (like, say, a public servant), it reflects badly  not just on the individual, but on the State as a whole.

So, when a well-know CUPE member Ali Mallah assaulted BlazingCatFur, a blogger who was acting in the role of a journalist and filming/photographing a public protest in which Mr. Mallah was taking part, it reflects badly not only on Mr. Mallah personally, but also on CUPE and on all the civil servants of Canada!

What was the provocation?

Mr. Mallah did not like that BlazingCatFur was taking images of a public protest, in a public area.

In other words, this CUPE member, this civil servant, this Agent of the Canadian State, wanted to muzzle a journalist – and when he failed, he assaulted him!

This is a very serious thing.  It is not just ‘one guy getting annoyed’ and, in the heat of the moment, loosing his temper.

This is a reflection of the attitudes of the Civil Service – and a very bad PR situation for CUPE.

The attack is documented:

Quoting from the video, the CUPE member demands:

“Who gave you permission to take a picture?”

On a public street, at a public event, this public servant wants to deny citizen journalists the very right to take pictures?  What a frightening attitude for an Agent of the State to take!

And, when he is not immediately obeyed, he assaults the picture-taker:  BlazingCatFur!

Mr. Mallah clearly recognized BlazingCatFur and the role as citizen-journalist which he plays – so his action was not simply an attack on one person: it is an attack on every Canadian journalist!

Once this has occurred, it is really irrelevant what the public protest was about, or what the various political views of whatever actors in this event or any bystanders are.  Because once violence occurs, it is no longer the ‘beliefs’ or ‘convictions’ which motivated someone to one-sided display of violence and attempt to muzzle the press, it is the behaviour – and only the behaviour – which must be the subject of investigation!  Attempting to censor and physically intimidate journalists is not a matter that can be taken lightly.

This is Canada – we do NOT tolerate violence!  And, we demand that reporters and journalists of all types must not be muzzled, intimidated, attacked, or otherwise interfered with!

An internal investigation (of CUPE by CUPE) is needed, so that violent elements within the union can be expelled and, if necessary, brought to criminal justice.  Nothing less than that can restore CUPE’s reputation as a respectable organization.  I call on CUPE to take this action, clean up their ranks, to expel and publicly denounce those of its members who would use intimidation and violence to silence journalists and reporters!

Failing that, the various levels of government who employ CUPE members will need to re-evaluate CUPE’s eligibility to represent members of the Civil Service.

And, I am not joking about this.

We cannot tolerate Civil Service Unions which permit their members to intimidate and do violence to members of the press!  And, we must demand that all levels of our governments expel from its ranks any and all unions which tolerate their members to assault this cornerstone of freedom of the press, of freedom of speech, on which our society is built!

Posted in freedoms, opression, politics, society. Tags: , , , , , , , . 2 Comments »

Canadian ‘climate scientist’ sues National Post

April 22, 2010 — xanthippa

Fit reading on ‘Earth Day’ – the watermelon subversion of ecology, originally launched to mark the 100th  birthday of Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (aka Vlad, the Lenin):

VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA–(Marketwire – April 21, 2010) – University of Victoria Professor Andrew Weaver, the Canada Research Chair in Climate Modelling and Analysis, launched a lawsuit today in BC Supreme Court against three writers at The National Post (and the newspaper as a whole), over a series of unjustified libels based on grossly irresponsible falsehoods that have gone viral on the Internet.

…

Dr. Weaver’s statement of claim not only asks for a Court injunction requiring The National Post to remove all of the false allegations from its Internet websites, but also seeks an unprecedented Court order requiring the newspaper to assist Dr. Weaver in removing the defamatory National Post articles from the many other Internet sites where they have been re-posted. [emphasis added]

This, after Dr. Mann (I think it’s still ‘Dr.’ – can one be stripped of a doctorate for committing scientific fraud?) has threatened to sue ‘MinnesotansForGlobalWarming’ for their wildly successful ‘Hide the Decline’ video about Dr. Mann’s role in the biggest scientific fraud of our generation…

And now, not just kooks like David Suzuki are calling for jailing anyone who speaks up against the ACC fraud – now, legislators are lobbying the UN (which has never ceased to seize an opportunity to silence ‘pesky critics’) to pass international laws that would force national governments to jail those who speak up against their ‘carbon-trading-gravy-train….

Is it getting chilly here?

Posted in freedoms, opression, politics, scientific fraud, society. Tags: , , , . 1 Comment »

What the ‘Warman vs. FD/internet privacy’ case is all about

April 13, 2010 — xanthippa

When the ruling in this case was released in March of 2009, there was much commentary by smart and learned people of what this case is all about and what its implications are on our society.

Michael Geist is a law professor at University of Ottawa, where he holds the Canada Research Chair in e-Commerce and Internet law.  He is also the founder of Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC), an intervenor in the appeal hearing.  This is what he had to say:

Protection for anonymous postings is certainly not an absolute, but a high threshold that requires prima facie evidence supporting the plaintiff’s claim is critical to ensuring that a proper balance is struck between the rights of a plaintiff (whether in a defamation or copyright case) and the privacy and free speech rights of the poster.

Read the full post here.

Don Butler has a piece on the appeal:

Their decision could chill whistleblowers and others who use pseudonyms to post controversial comments, say civil libertarians.And, they maintain, if the judges support unmasking anonymous posters, that could erode their privacy by allowing others to piece together vast amounts of personal information.

Read the rest here.

So, yes – the implications of this ruling are ‘big’.

Please, keep in mind that I have no legal training whatsoever – so I am only commenting on what I saw and heard, as I saw and heard it.  But, having watched the appeal hearing, this is what I understood to be the issues this case revolves about:

  • Mr. Warman saw a number of posts on FreeDominion, a conservative discussion forum, which posted either comments that Mr. Warman considered defamatory, or which linked to a completely different website, where some other people made statements Mr. Warman considered defamatory
  • Mr. Warman decided to sue the anonymous posters – and Mark and Connie Fournier, the administrators of FreeDominion
  • The Honourable Mr. Justice Stanley Kershman decided in favour of Mr. Warman and ordered the Fourniers to release the information sought
  • The Fourniers have appealed – hence, this hearing.

It is important to understand Justice Kershman’s ruling, so we can understand the grounds of the appeal.  From the ruling (the links are mine):

[13] The Plaintiff relies on the case of Lillie v. Bisson, [1999) OJ. No. 3677 (CA.), a case
in which the Ontario Court of Appeal says that courts should encourage a liberal interpretation of
Rule 76 in order to reduce the cost of litigating modest sums.

…

[15] Tue Defendant relies on Irwin Toy for the proposition that disclosure should not be
automatic upon the issuance of a Statement of Claim:

If such were to be the case, the fact of the anonymity of the internet could be
shattered for the price of the issuance of spurious Statement of Claim and the
benefits obtained by the anonymity lost in inappropriate circumstances.

(16) The Defendants argue that the Plaintiff must establish a prima facie case by way of
affidavit evidence before disclosure is ordered.

…

[33] In the case before the court, we are dealing with an anti-hate speech advocate and
Defendants whose website is so controversial that it is blocked to employees of the Ontario
Public Service.

The Honourable Mr. Justice Stanley Kershman ruled that the Fourniers (of the ‘controversial website’) must ‘automatically’ hand over all information which could lead to the identification of the ‘John Does’ to the ( ‘anti-hate-speech advocate’):  hence, the appeal!

Posted in freedoms, opression, society, technology. Tags: , , , , , , , , , . 1 Comment »
« Older posts
Newer posts »