// Internet Duct Tape

The Great Firewall of Canada

The title of this article is, of course, a reference to the Internet censorship that is rampant in China.

Mark Goldberg
pointed me to the press release of “Project Cleanfeed Canada”. Canadian carriers Bell Aliant, Bell Canada, MTS Allstream, Rogers, SaskTel, Shaw, TELUS, and Videotron have all opted in to a blacklist provided by Cybertip.ca, the Canadian tip-line against child exploitation. Mark is an advocate of putting censorship in place against websites that would be deemed illegal by Canadian Law (such as those promoting hate speech or sexually exploiting children).

I first came across Mark’s website when he was filing an application requesting the CRTC to authorize Canadian carriers to block internet content. I morally support blocking hate speech and child porn (who wouldn’t?), but the idea of having a national blacklist sends shivers down my spine. I would always prefer that illegal websites be shutdown rather than putting into power national filters that have the potential to be abused. I’m a pessimist, I believe that any form of censorship will eventually be abused despite its good intentions.

Nart Villeneuve has an excellent article that sums up my fear of government sponsored filters:

“Increasingly, states are adopting practices aimed at regulating and controlling the Internet as it passes through their borders. Seeking to assert information sovereignty over their cyber–territory, governments are implementing Internet content filtering technology at the national level. The implementation of national filtering is most often conducted in secrecy and lacks openness, transparency, and accountability. Policy–makers are seemingly unaware of significant unintended consequences, such as the blocking of content that was never intended to be blocked.

Once a national filtering system is in place, governments may be tempted to use it as a tool of political censorship or as a technological “quick fix” to problems that stem from larger social and political issues. As non–transparent filtering practices meld into forms of censorship the effect on democratic practices and the open character of the Internet are discernible. States are increasingly using Internet filtering to control the environment of political speech in fundamental opposition to civil liberties, freedom of speech, and free expression. The consequences of political filtering directly impact democratic practices and can be considered a violation of human rights.”

Project Cleanfeed Canada is an offshoot of Project Cleanfeed UK. From the Wikipedia entry on Internet Censorship:

“United Kingdom set a deadline of the end of 2007 for all ISPs to implement a “Cleanfeed”-style network level content blocking platform. Currently, the only web sites ISPs are expected to block access to are sites the Internet Watch Foundation has identified as containing images of child abuse. However such a platform is capable of blocking access to any web site added to the list (at least, to the extent that the implementation is effective), making it a simple matter to change this policy in future. The Home Office has previously indicated that it has considered requiring ISPs to block access to articles on the web deemed to be “glorifying terrorism”, within the meaning of the new Terrorism Act 2006.”

Cybertip.ca has been in operation for four years and has led to 20 arrests and 1100 websites being shutdown. From their website:

“Cybertip.ca content analysts review, prioritize and analyze every report they receive. After the report has been reviewed, the content analysts verify the report by collecting supporting information using various Internet tools and techniques. If the web site or other subject matter in question is assessed to contain potentially illegal material, a report is referred to the appropriate law enforcement agency. Cybertip.ca also gathers critical statistics and information for use by law enforcement and in public policy development.

If the subject matter of the report falls outside of Cybertip.ca’s mandate or is assessed to be legal, although perhaps offensive in nature, Cybertip.ca provides Internet safety information to the complainant.”

That’s fine by me. From the Internet Watch Foundation / BT Project Cleanfeed website:

“We believe that everyone is entitled to an abuse free online environment. Our child abuse image database contains details of websites, which if knowingly accessed by UK consumers could lead to them committing criminal offences under UK law. By preventing access to that content, BT are protecting their services and their customers.” – Peter Robbins, CEO, IWF

If the definition of what is blacklisted is limited to “websites which if knowingly accessed by customers could lead to them committing criminal offence”, then I have no issue with it.

What I am afraid of is:

  • The list of blocked website will remain secret.
  • There will be no way for a site to find out if they’re on the list.
  • There will be no way for a user to find out they’ve encountered the list.
  • There won’t be watchdogs in place to check what is added to the list.
  • Sites will be added to the list without a proper investigation.

If the list is limited to websites that have been deemed illegal after proper legal investigation – websites where the operators would be jailed if they were operated within Canadian jurisdiction – then I have no strong argument against this. My concern is that won’t be the case. From the Wikipedia censorware page:

Frequent subjects of content-control software include web sites that, according to the company providing the control, are alleged to:

  • Include illegal content with reference to the legal domain being served by that company.
  • Promote, enable, or discuss hacking, software piracy, criminal skills, or other potentially illegal acts.
  • Include sexually explicit content, such as pornography, erotica, and non-erotic discussions of sexual topics such as sexuality or human reproduction.
  • Promote, enable, or discuss lifestyles which some might consider immoral, including promiscuity, sexual orientations other than heterosexuality, or other alternative lifestyles or sexual activity outside of marriage.
  • Contain violence or other forms of graphic or “extreme” content.
  • Promote, enable, or discuss bigotry or hate speech.
  • Promote, enable, or discuss gambling, recreational drug use, alcohol, or other activities frequently considered to be vice.
  • Are unlikely to be related to a student’s studies, an employee’s job function, or other tasks for which the computer in question may be intended.
  • Are contrary to the interests of the authority in question, such as web sites promoting organized labor or criticizing a particular company or industry.
  • Promote or discuss politics, religion, or other topics.
  • Include social networking opportunities that might expose children to predators.

Blocking MySpace on a national level? Maybe I should reconsider my stance. :)

Michael Geist sums up the issue more eloquently than I ever could:

“[T]here is likely wide agreement that Canada must begin to grapple with the Internet challenge of balancing free speech rights with rules that outlaw certain forms of speech that have been judged harmful to our multicultural society.

A policy framework that addresses these competing goals would likely include complaints mechanisms, a presumption that the content is lawful and must be disproved by a high standard of evidence, an opportunity to challenge blocking requests, appropriate judicial oversight, and full transparency about blocking activities. The job is not the CRTC’s alone – law enforcement and the judiciary must surely be involved in the process of determining what may constitute unlawful content and the remedies that follow – but the regulator can assist in the process.

Critics are quick to draw parallels to Internet censorship in countries such as China. However, those countries involve state-based content blocking, with no transparency or legal recourse. In fact, several democracies – most notably Australia – have established limited blocking rules, while British Telecom, the UK’s largest ISP, voluntarily blocks child pornography as part of its CleanFeed program.

Even with various legal safeguards, many Canadians would undoubtedly find the blocking of any content distasteful. Yet to do nothing is to leave in place an equally unpalatable outcome that silences those would speak out against unlawful hate speech for fear of personal harm.”

Continued in Project Cleanfeed Canada

Related Links

UPDATE 2006/11/24: Italicized the quotes since the blockquote tag isn’t obvious using this theme.

43 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. David Sanftenberg said, on November 24, 2006 at 9:52 am

    “* The list of blocked website will remain secret.”
    As it should, otherwise such a list is pretty pointless.
    “* There will be no way for a site to find out if they’re on the list.”
    Their website not resolving with DNS should be a clue.
    “* There will be no way for a user to find out they’ve encountered the list.”
    Again, a website they know to exist will not resolve. That should be a clue.
    “* There won’t be watchdogs in place to check what is added to the list.”
    Anything wrongfully added will be brought to the public attention fairly quickly. We are not China, here, after all.
    “* Sites will be added to the list without a proper investigation.”
    Perhaps, but as long as it’s possible to have them removed if they’re wrongly added, I see no problems.

    Rest of comment removed because commenter erroneously thought this was written by Michael Geist.

  2. engtech said, on November 24, 2006 at 10:07 am

    In http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3797563.stm, they talk about Project CleanFeed UK.

    if you are a BT broadband customer and you follow a link to a website that is suspected of hosting images of child sexual abuse then you will get a “page not found” error.

    and they compare it to being blocked in Saudi Arabi:

    if you try to visit one of the thousands of banned sites, you will get an official government page instead, telling you that it is blocked.
    You can even fill in a form explaining why you think the site should be unblocked, and the government’s Internet Services Unit will consider your request.
    It is censorship, but it is honest censorship.

  3. Watching Them, Watching Us said, on November 24, 2006 at 10:28 am

    Dr. Richard Clayton’s paper


    shows how systems like British Telecom’s CleanFeed are inherently vulnerable to reverse engineering attacks, which can reveal the list of censored websites.

    Failures in a Hybrid Content Blocking System

    Richard Clayton

    University of Cambridge, Computer Laboratory, William Gates Building,
    15 JJ Thomson Avenue, Cambridge CB3 0FD, United Kingdom


    Abstract. Three main methods of content blocking are used on the Internet: blocking routes to particular IP addresses, blocking specfic URLs in a proxy cache or firewall, and providing invalid data for DNS lookups. The mechanisms have diferent accuracy/cost trade-offs. This paper examines
    a hybrid, two-stage system that redirects tra±c that might need to be blocked to a proxy cache, which then takes the final decision. This promises an accurate system at a relatively low cost. A British ISP has
    deployed such a system to prevent access to child pornography. However, circumvention techniques can now be employed at both system stages to reduce effectiveness; there are risks from relying on DNS data supplied by the blocked sites; and unhappily, the system can be used as an oracle to determine what is being blocked. Experimental results show that it is straightforward to use the system to compile a list of illegal websites.

  4. James said, on November 24, 2006 at 2:23 pm

    I find the whole idea that I have to have big brother screen what I view on the interet as very distastful.

    What bothers me more is I know this will be abused. Especailly since there will be no public discussion on which sites are blocked.
    I see hiding behind Child Porn as the cheap cherade it is. It’s a excuse nothing more, its not the real motive. Which bothers me even more. It serves a dual purpose, 1 it gives a immediate way to attack and margnilise any argument against this Net censorship. 2 It give motivation to push it into service.

    I really hope this is shotdown before it takes flight, It’s just a really bad idea with psudo good intentions.

    What more ironic is it will within a few months if not days of it being impemented it will be rendered usless. If people can make it though China’s firewall (and they do regulary) whats perposed here is a joke. A waste of time, money and effort. As I mentioned Good psudo intentions, but nothing else. This will not stop the people its ment to stop. it will only hinder thoes who are ignorant to it.

  5. Mike Potter said, on November 24, 2006 at 3:27 pm

    This really bothers me. My isp is on the list and they have not mention this in any of their messages to me. While their goal may be laudable they are in no position to make judgments on anything. Frankly they are just to incompetent and amoral for this kind of task. Life to them is nothing more than “the bottom line”. Now I have to go to their website and investigate this more. thanks for the info

  6. bananasfk said, on November 24, 2006 at 4:09 pm

    We once used BT broadband, at the time i had some yahoo geocities webpages most of the time I could not access them but i still could upload my updated content.

    So did i write ‘bad pages’ ? no, but apparently i was associated with all geocities ‘badness’. We moved isp and I’d not recommend british telecom. When a service provider cannot provide service then its time to find something better, this argument works for customers shareholders and bt.

  7. Sam said, on November 24, 2006 at 4:20 pm

    I really hope Canada doesn’t fall flat on its back doing this. Getting websites removed from this list will be like getting a passport or new birth certificate here – a long wait and some hassle, (even for a person BORN here.)

    Unresolving DNS isn’t a banner saying “blocked” – although, in order to find the websites to block the properly, they need to be found out about first, which is what cybertip.ca was doing in the first place..

    …and if you ask me, they were doing a fine job too.

    Shutting down the kiddie porn is better than blocking it for other countries to check out. This could be a step in the wrong direction for creating a bigger ‘black market’ underground style internet all over the globe to protect basic individual privacy.

  8. Syed Rizwan Abbas said, on November 24, 2006 at 5:07 pm

    what are thw fire walls me want to know about fire wallas can u send me little info about firewalls

  9. Albert said, on November 24, 2006 at 5:12 pm

    The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

  10. Russell said, on November 24, 2006 at 5:42 pm

    >“* There won’t be watchdogs in place to check what is >added to the list.”
    >Anything wrongfully added will be brought to the public >attention fairly quickly. We are not China, here, after >all.

    Somehow I doubt that the general populace will care if a particular website is shut down. It would have to be a heavily travelled site to garner any publicity. While we may not be China I think removing a site from this list will be similar to removing a name from the US’s No-Fly list all the while the politicians tell everyone it’s in their best interests.

    The creation of this list may have a definitive benefit, however I can see abuse looming. On top of that, it won’t stop the problem anyway and will probably establish a false sense of security. It’ll only create a stumbling block and possibly open another door, perhaps even one that makes it easier to access such material.

    As long as there is a demand for such sites the problem will remain, just like drugs on the street. A ‘list’ will not make the problem go away.

  11. retireoncsco said, on November 24, 2006 at 5:46 pm

    I agree that no one wants child porn or anything ‘offensive’ on the Net, but shouldn’t it be up to the client to decide what they do and don’t want to see?

    Rather than forcing me to use the list, why don’t you provide a service that I would most certainly want to use, and if by chance a website I frequent is on there, and I need to get to it, I can turn off whatever filter, browse the site, and everyone is happy.

    Im more in favor of choice than forcing issues like this.

  12. engtech said, on November 24, 2006 at 8:46 pm

    Thanks for the comments guys, especially the link from spybot.org.uk (that was caught in the mod queue for a while).

    @David Sanftenberg: Instead of unresolved DNS I’d like to see a landing page that says why the content is blocked and who to contact (it could be boilerplate). It makes the process transparent, it alerts the end user that they were trying to access illegal content (which may be enough of a scare for casual surfers), and it could be used to gather referrers (although cybertip doesn’t actively search for child porn, instead they rely on tips).

    @spybot.org.uk: Great technical link! Thank you very much. I was looking for information like this before I wrote this post but I couldn’t find it. I haven’t digested it yet, but I’m looking forward to the read. http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/%7Ernc1/cleanfeed.pdf

    @james: I wouldn’t say that hiding behind child porn is a cheap facade. I agree that it is when a government politician brings up child porn, but cybertip.ca is a *very* necessary organization that serves (an unfortunately) real service. Also, there is no opportunity for this to get shot down before it takes flight — it’s already live.

    @james, @mike, re: The potential for abuse by ISPs. It’s illegal for ISPs to make that kind of decision (like Telus and the website of striking workers). The list will be provided by cybertip.ca, independent of the ISPs. But if an ISP did add something to the list illegally, how would they be caught?

    @sam: Great comment about how shutting down these sites is better than blocking them. I assume that Cybertip is going to keep working with law enforcement to shut down sites like it did to the 1100 before Cleanfeed. Actually the CBC article says that they aren’t blocking domestic sites, only international ones. They are still working with law enforcement to shutdown domestic sites.

    @russel: Great comment, I agree. I was a little bit worried at first that I wasn’t hearing *any* publicity about this at all. But now I’m seeing news reports. Worth reading for more info on the story.


    @retireoncsco: The argument is that you could be criminally charged for accessing these websites.

    Another concern that I hadn’t thought of when I wrote this post is will there be “list trading” between the Canadian ISPs and BT?

  13. Donovan Hill said, on November 24, 2006 at 8:46 pm

    Scary stuff…

    All this will do is push systems “underground”. It’ll cause more people to misuse systems like TOR – which is intended to ensure anonymity for POLITICAL speech.

    The fact is, people to go after child porn are sick and they are addicts. It is said that an addict will do anything to feed his habit. Sex addicts are no different than drug addicts or alcoholics. They’ll do anything they need to to feed their habits.

    All this system will do is punish honest, otherwise law-abiding users while doing essentially nothing to actually prevent child abuse as it relates to child pornography.

  14. Fantasy said, on November 24, 2006 at 8:47 pm

    What I read or not is not up to anyone else to decide.

  15. Tim Williams said, on November 24, 2006 at 9:10 pm

    …websites, which if knowingly accessed by UK consumers could lead to them committing criminal offences…

    This is precisely the vague wording that gives concern in censorship issues such as this.

    What, exactly, defines “could lead”? Let’s consider an XXX bondage site. Does that mean that since some rapes are committed using physical restraints, access to this site “could lead” to the commission of a criminal act?

    Or, taking a recent example, if someone reads a Dutch news article covering the banning of the burqa, and becomes sufficiently inflamed to go out and shoot a politician or to join a terrorist or political dissidence group – does that mean that the Dutch news coverage “has led” to the commission of an illegal act?

    Or if someone meets someone on a sex chatroom and ends up raping them – does that mean the chatroom “has led” to the commission of an illegal act?

    Used with this wording, you could justify banning almost any site in existence should you want to. These people ask that we essentially “trust” the powers that be to apply these filters with justice in mind. Essentially this is the same as saying “give the police full jurisdiction to do anything they want to anyone with or without evidence and “trust” that they’ll manage that appropriately”. The fact that they don’t is why we have laws and courts in the first place.

    I would feel much more comfortable if this was phrased as “a website which, if accessed, would directly and immediately lead to them committing a criminal offence”. But it’s not phrased or implemented that way – a huge undermining of everything democracy and law stands for.

  16. Tom said, on November 24, 2006 at 9:32 pm

    “All this system will do is punish honest, otherwise law-abiding users while doing essentially nothing to actually prevent child abuse as it relates to child pornography”.

    “All this system will do ~ ” ?
    Huh ?

    Can you produce an honest, law-abiding victim of this system who has been wrongly “punished” ?
    When you can, perhaps the debate will open up, but until then all I see is a group of people worried about what has not, and quite possibly will not happen.

  17. Mike Wagner said, on November 24, 2006 at 9:42 pm

    With this blacklist in place you take people that are essentially operating out in the open just waiting to be caught, and force them to establish darknets which will be virtually undetectable to law enforcement.

    The amount of actual child exploitation will most likely not be curbed by these measures.

    I would rather see an open internet where people have the freedom to slip up and get caught for despicable acts.

  18. […] Anyway, read the article Here […]

  19. timethief said, on November 25, 2006 at 12:20 am

    I was utterly shocked and appalled by the images I found on the internet as a computer newbie and wanted to see some effective censorship. But that being said I have done an about face in these last 8 months.

    Once unnoticed by society, pedophiles who traffic in child pornography have come out into the open on the internet in increasing numbers over the past decade, and law enforcement have pounced them as well they should.

    Successful prosecutions for child pornography offences have surged and the primary reason for the increase, according to law enforcement officials, is that the net has made it easier than ever for pedophiles to exchange pictures and movies of exploited children, and easier to get caught doing so.

    I agree with Donovan who has said:

    The fact is, people to go after child porn are sick and they are addicts. It is said that an addict will do anything to feed his habit. Sex addicts are no different than drug addicts or alcoholics. They’ll do anything they need to to feed their habits.

    However, like Tom I’m not particularly concerned about “honest” parties being unjustly punished until the existence of such an “innocent” has been bona fide.

    The fact is that criminal convictions are costly, labour intensive and not easily achieved. These perpetrators of crimes against kids are men with an incurable addiction that they will take to their graves with them, and those of us in the cyber space community ought to do everything we can to help apprehend these predators.

    My preference is for a wide open internet without censorship of any kind. I believe it will make enforcement easier because the openness will result in the sickos becoming even more brash and bold. I also believe that a wide open internet will give rise to even more informants who will eagerly “tip” authorities to what they see that they know or suspect to be illegal.

    However, if this must be then I would rather have:

    … being blocked in Saudi Arabia:

    if you try to visit one of the thousands of banned sites, you will get an official government page instead, telling you that it is blocked.
    You can even fill in a form explaining why you think the site should be unblocked, and the government’s Internet Services Unit will consider your request.
    It is censorship, but it is honest censorship.

    Thanks for blogging on this timely and important topic. :)

  20. Justin Cook said, on November 25, 2006 at 12:24 am

    I would like to know if we can put an email address of an acquaintance on that blocklist, to stop him from sending me and my friends all his annoying emails

  21. […] Canadian ISP’s seek to implement a nation-wide firewall to block certain content.read more | digg story […]

  22. Todd said, on November 25, 2006 at 12:44 am

    Unless this list also includes anonymizers, proxies, VPNs, and basic *ROUTING* around the block I fail to see how it will succeed. Remember IPv6? That’s 2^128 addresses and a computer can rotate them *much* faster than you can manually filter them. Is there any other reason besides political grandstanding for this foolishness? How do you measure its effectiveness, btw? Can you count the number of times something doesn’t happen? I am outraged that this money is not being spent on police enforcement so that the people who would commit these acts could be caught and punished.

  23. Randy said, on November 25, 2006 at 1:03 am

    Any form of censorship other than self-censorship is contrary to the very foundation of freedom. Keep your hands off my Internet connection.

    And this will be abused, for the simple reason that it exists. Those who are affected by the abuse will be vilified (guilt by association) while those who the system intends to catch will find ways around it.

  24. phrenseed said, on November 25, 2006 at 1:08 am

    Dear Anonymous Engtech (In support of your call for accountability in the-almost-free exchange of information, posting your real name may not help your employability from a quantitative point of view, but it does put your professional community on notice regarding your level of ethical responsiveness): Your bloggette reminds me of an ordained minister with whom I played handball. At the end of every game he used to say, “I prayed that you would lose.” To which I replied, “Why bother? Just pray that you will win.” It is strange how conciliation often converges on the highest moral ground.

  25. […] read more | digg story […]

  26. […] It just confounds me. A bunch of Canadian ISP’s have decided to start filtering “child pornography sites”. Great idea? I wonder. […]

  27. shind jander said, on November 25, 2006 at 6:07 am

    This will all end with crying

  28. James said, on November 25, 2006 at 7:14 am

    One question I was courious about, is how is this going to stop perverts that use Proxys? Just use a open proxy in another country and suddely you have open access again?

    While I so agree its neccacery to shut down these sites and Cybertip.ca may offer a way to do it. Censorship is never the correct answer. This is just like putting blinding flaps on a horse so they only see ahead. Hiding the problem dosen’t get rid of it.

    I still think this is just a means to a end, to create a content censorship system.
    This all leaves a very bad taste in my mouth. Theres a saying, how do you boil a frog? slowly. And unfortunetly the same seems to be true for Canadains.

    This system will be abused. I can predicet that much. but the question is when we fianlly catch on will it be too late?

  29. […] Today a number of large Canadian ISPs announced that they are partnering with Project Cleanfeed, meaning they will now actively block access to web sites that (supposedly) contain child pornography. This is accomplished using an actual list of sites that have been investigated by cybertip.ca and found to contain such content. […]

  30. […] By now you’ve probably heard of Project Cleanfeed Canada, a new initiative by participating Canadian ISPs to block foreign websites that engage in child sexual exploitation. Engtech posts a great overview of the program, and there’s also an excellent debate between Cory and Michael on the topic at Michael’s blog. […]

  31. […] Several critics immediately took issue with Michael’s support, however, including Engtech — who said that “the idea of having a national blacklist sends shivers down my spine. I would always prefer that illegal websites be shutdown rather than putting into power national filters that have the potential to be abused. I’m a pessimist, I believe that any form of censorship will eventually be abused despite its good intentions.” Engtech points to a good overview of the issues here. […]

  32. Project Cleanfeed Canada « //engtech said, on November 26, 2006 at 3:32 am

    […] (this is a follow-up to the Great Firewall of Canada) […]

  33. […] The move has generated quite a bit of debate.  Engtech published a lengthy piece titled The Great Firewall of Canada, and Michael Geist also wrote about it in his Project CleanFeed Canada (read the comments, they’re very good). […]

  34. Irlandes said, on November 26, 2006 at 11:01 pm

    Several years ago, a popular net filter for kiddies allegedly blocked the Boy Scouts of America material, because BSA has a strong training program for boys so they can avoid sexual abuse. The language on it was rejected by the computerized filter system.

    There will be a lot of such examples, you can bet on it.

  35. […] I find this blog post (found randomly on the front page!) very interesting. It’s about censorship on the internet, in particular a plan to block certain websites if you’re accessing the net in Canada. The blog is here and I recommend reading it, though it is quite subjective and anti-censorship. […]

  36. Marsha J. O'Brien said, on November 27, 2006 at 1:40 am

    I think your information here is outstanding. I only disagree with one thing you said: “I’m a pessimist, I believe that any form of censorship will eventually be abused despite its good intentions.”

    I don’t believe that makes you a pessimist. I believe it makes you are an intelligent realist. Big brother
    truly has his grip on too much already.

  37. Tomas said, on November 27, 2006 at 2:00 pm

    Its good somebody says this.

  38. Canadian City Direct said, on December 11, 2006 at 3:59 am

    I don’t support the Great Firewall of China, its not a good thing for all canadians.

  39. […] Project Cleanfeed Canada (this is a follow-up to the Great Firewall of Canada) […]

  40. Donovan Hill said, on December 31, 2007 at 12:54 am

    @Tom re: “All this system will do”

    The fact is that this system will be abused. It will be abused because it exists and because the governments can. It will be abused by well meaning people thinking that one little more thing won’t hurt anyone and by the time they realize it, those “little more things” will add up to being “one big thing” with the original intent of the system being tossed out the window.

  41. Mark said, on July 13, 2008 at 6:23 pm

    If the internet becomes censored or a subscription based system like TV, then why dont people revert back to the old BBS dialup system?

    BBS’s were there before the internet became famous, and all you needed was a computer, telephone line, and a BBS program and virtually hundreds and thousands of people would connect to this BBS system like a local internet.

    Some BBS’s went as far as connecting to one another and creating a mini-internet, so if all this crap comes true, why dont we all dump the internet and go back to BBS’s?

  42. Shadow said, on September 27, 2008 at 6:53 pm

    aaaaw fuc* it.. they are so going to abuse this and block everything they dont like that doesnt fit the current administration’s views.. Bye bye filesharing.. Alas, freedom of speech, i knew thee well.

  43. Merging Spree! | the StarOnion said, on June 07, 2009 at 11:38 am

    […] The Great Firewall in Canada, just like the one in China? :o [Read more…] […]

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: