Previous  1 ... 477  478  479  480  481  482  483 ... 534  Next

I know that is what you are talking about, but Broadcasters can abide by a code of conduct because they create the content they produce. ISPs are just a middleman, where they relay data from one Data device to another, agnosticaly. And the data is usually encrypted, so there is no way for them to monitor the data to begin with. Rogers doesn't care what you watch on Porntube, nor is there a way for them to know. That's between you and your credit card company. Making the ISP conform to some sort of code about what data is allowed and what isn't is not only technically impossible right now, but it's possibly unconstitutional.

The way the internet is designed, an ISP can't 'block' a domain unless the ISP removes it from their DNS servers, but anyone can use another DNS server and connect to blocked sites. When the ISP DNS server doesn't have the answer, then the protocol is to use another Root DNS server. And that transaction can be encrypted, so the ISP is unaware what is being requested anyhow, and cannot block it. I do this as a matter of privacy, using the Cloudfare or Google public DNS servers by default with an encrypted connection to bypass any monitoring for adverting purposes my ISP might try.

The ONLY way to effectively block internet traffic would be the way that authoritarian governments use. Physically re-wire the internet so that there are single points of access that can be monitored, and force users to use a known encryption key that can be decrypted by the ISP.

Trust me man, I do this for a living on government networks. This the process needed to keep phishing and hacking attempts at bay, but it also allows us to watch people using Facebook and Instagram from inside the network.



Whoa! Which law is against misinformation? You are entering the narrow edge between fact and opinion, and bending the right to free speech.

I'm not saying the world won't be better without Facebook, Twitter and many other places, but they do have the right to express themselves.



ISPs won't comply with all the financial requirements needed to comply, and frankly I don't agree with giving them Government money to do it. There are many companies that comply with local laws, like you pointed out with Google. That we don't have anything like the GDPR means that they don't take our laws too seriously.

I see Microsoft breaking Alberta Privacy laws all the time. I put in complaints against them all the time. Nothing changes, because there is no incentive for them to. Why don't we try that, before we put impossible requirements on third parties that they will fight?

   

Same here. I thought I had given myself enough to deal with any after effects of the shot. My schedule this week was Thursday-Saturday and I got my shot Tuesday. I felt fine that day and it was only Wednesday morning that I woke up feeling like a truck had hit me.

Still better than getting the actual virus though.

   

Federal modelling suggests 'very intense' Omicron surge within weeks

   

   

Well the stepdaughter's old man who 'just never got around' to getting vaxxed and spent over a month at hospitals in the Mainland with Vax Clinics a=everywhere while the baby was born and still didn't get around to it now has Covid.
SO now he's off work and they're short of $$ with a new baby wah wah wah.... gee that's what Welfare's for isn't it?

And she still hasn't got her 2nd shot. Cuz ya know her doctor, unlike every other one in the country, advised her not to get it while she was pregnant.
Hope the prick doesn't infect her and the baby

   

Denmark preparing for a return to near normal……again]

   

If ISP sign on to the code of conduct the idea is that there is a tool in place to keep bad actors in check in the commercial space. In other words the THREAT of being blocked should be enough of a hassle to the big tech companies that they will actually enforce their terms and conditions or in the case of Spotify actually bother to create them. Right now there is no onus on them to be responsible AT ALL, rather it a race to the bottom as they will put out what ever creates the most clicks for their content regardless of the irresponsibility of it.

Going to the source of the offender and asking them to play nice when there is zero downsides for them isn't working. Fines are seen as the cost of doing business, we need a credible threat to CUT THEM OFF.

   

Thanos isn't totally wrong - I've travelled off and on to the US for 30 years, and everything changed after Dubya was elected and 9/11 happened.

The US went from an incredibly friendly and welcoming place with a few fringe nutjobs to one where scared and paranoid people terrified of non-white Christian Americans are no longer the fringe, but a very large and very vocal minority.

It's quite sad to see that those changes to the US were made by 'patriots' and not the 9/11 terrorists.

   

I used to take a camping trip down south every year. When the Orange Man threw his hat in the ring, things just changed. I haven't been back since, probably never will.

   

How can ISPs sign an code of conduct (that the CRTC already makes them follow) for content they don't produce or distribute? You are making Canada Post responsible for the racist literature.

Tech companies already follow a set of rules in places like Europe. Try that before you force a technically impossible thing on internet providers.

   

To be clear this would be a complaint process by citizens which in turn would be cataloged and reviewed by ombudsman. Upon sufficient volume of complaints determined to be valid would then be forwarded to the ISP for takedown as required IF the offending site is not responding to remedial actions. As to the HOW of the ISP removing the site there is a variety of options to delist such as removing the site from search engine results or a disclaimer sent to the customers advising that the site is in violation of the act and much like the napster was taken down by the RIAA and that they are may be incurring risk of lawsuit by visiting.

In short this is a lot of noise but would deter the vast majority of legitimate commercial traffic. The ultimate goal is to put the onus on remedial action back on to the offending site rather than a take down.

   

Meh.



-J.

   

Perhaps they could just wave their wand and say "Expecto Patronas", because that would be just as effective.

"The Internet sees censorship as a fault, and routs around it."

   

In many ways the terrorists won. They struck such a fear into the country that they have eventually turned on each other now that the threat has mostly passed. Add to that, the ability for state actors to fuel that fear and ideologues that have easy access to spread content and the US is a perfect example of an empire slowly collapsing before our eyes. Why wouldn't weaker actors like Russia, China, and NK want to take advantage of that? Europe won't step up - they equally divided and a mess.

   

This again? The internet may indeed see censorship as a fault and route a bypass but commercial interests that require to be seen to ply their wares are not the same thing. They are in effect a fixed target on the web and that can be used the reign them in. I'm not asking we ban the dark web, rather regulating commerce. If we can not regulate commerce we can not control our boarders and if we can't control our boarders we have no sovereignty.

   

Previous  1 ... 477  478  479  480  481  482  483 ... 534  Next