Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Canadian Domain Registry Pulls Plug on Free Speech

Posted by Zonk on Sat Jun 03, 2006 12:00 AM
from the surprised-we-haven't-seen-that-here dept.
Government Censorship Politics
An anonymous reader writes "The staff of a Canadian political candidate bragged today that he had managed to shut down a website critical of his involvement in a fundraising scandal, by having the country's registrar of domains pull the DNS records for the site. Criticism from bloggers and free speech advocates has been negative, and is coming from across the political spectrum."
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Canadian Domain Registry Pulls Plug on Free Speech 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Framed? (Score:3, Funny)

    by ackthpt (218170) * on Saturday June 03 2006, @12:04AM (#15460281) Homepage Journal

    Appears scum are easier to frame than honest, upstanding people. Thanks for playing, but hope you and your filth go down in flames, spinning or otherwise.

    • Re:Framed? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Simon80 (874052) on Saturday June 03 2006, @12:31AM (#15460379)
      Agreed, this is completely untrue, the Globe and Mail likes to act like things are newsworthy, when they are not. See what Michael Geist has to say [michaelgeist.ca] about this.

  • Fails to explain... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by spiritraveller (641174) on Saturday June 03 2006, @12:06AM (#15460289)
    how he was able to accomplish this.

    However, the article does imply that noone is willing to admit to setting up the site.

    Maybe the site's operator didn't provide accurate information when registering it. If that is the grounds for deregistering it, then it's not quite the free speech issue it's made out to be.

    • apparently I'm right... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by spiritraveller (641174) on Saturday June 03 2006, @12:13AM (#15460311)
      from one of the blogs:

      UPDATE (supplemtary info): There's more information to the story. The deletion of the domain name was in full compliance of rules of the CIRA (just because it's a rule, doesn't make it right). Supposedly, if one registers a .ca domain name with anonymous details, the domain name can be removed under the CIRA's rules. However, one first needs to point it out (as Joe Volpe's campaign did).

      This doesn't necessarily make it right, however. . .

      Whatever. Everyone assumed that it was a huge abuse of power, when in reality it was just someone using a tactic that anyone can use. Complaining that someone isn't following the rules, and following an established procedure to remedy the situation.

      As usual, people get all up in arms, bloggers go nuts, emails and phone calls are made... and then we find out nothing really wrong was done.

      The big public relations screw up was bragging about it on a mailing list. But otherwise, he didn't do anything that ANY political campaign wouldn't have done in the same situation.

      • Re:apparently I'm right... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Xshare (762241) on Saturday June 03 2006, @12:28AM (#15460367) Homepage
        Exactly. It's like calling the fire department and telling them that your competitor's store isn't following the fire code. They have to go look, and then when they find a problem, they have to shut it down. It might suck, but that's how it is.
        • "store isn't following the fire code"

          Except that isn't the case, if you read the next update. The rule cited by the registrar was one where they feared they'd be sued for defamation, and that can't happen where they'd lose because there was no defamation present, just some good ol'e political parody of which is common in Canada.

          It's as if the store had a minor code violation that could be fixed, and then a phony trumped up charge was used to close it instead.
        • No, it's like calling the fire department and telling them that the newspaper publishing cartoons about your corruption is violating the fire code.
          • Yea, but the GP's point still stands.

            Whatever agency with authority would have a duty to investigate.

            If they find a problem, they are obliged to make sure it gets resolved within the applicable rules/laws.

            Notice that I'm not saying anything about the motives behind the original complaint. You (the aggrieved party) can go to court, provide evidence and have a Judge rule that the wankers who were after you really just wanted to suppress your free speech. BUT, that still doesn't change the fact that the DNS re
    • didn't provide accurate information when registering it. .... then it's not quite the free speech issue it's made out to be.

      Actually, it is a free speech issue, but not for the obvious reason. There are times when people critical of the government or corporations [wikipedia.org] often need anonymity. Especially if there is nothing illegal about the site, then I find its removal offensive.
      • But there's a proper way to get anonymity, and it doesn't involve providing false information to your registrar. I use an anonymizing service with a couple of my domains (it's cheap [nearlyfreespeech.net] too!) that provides valid information but doesn't reveal my identity. I'm sure something equivalent exists for .ca domains, though it's no lock that it's as cheap. These means of keeping your identity confidential fit within the registrars' frameworks and protect you cancellation by a malicious entity. If there's nothing illegal
    • Someone had to have been paying for the domain and ip address. I'm no expert on Canadian law regarding this sort of thing, but companies releasing information about customers has been a big issue in the US lately. Regardless of what the law says, I don't think that the organizations responsible for those should be forced to out the identity of the person responsivle. We should be allowed to say things and take actions in an anonymous fashion, legal things mind you, in order to protect ourselves from undese
    • It explains how he accomplished it in the first link. The CIRA pulls sites that are registered with anonymous info.

      UPDATE (supplemtary info): There's more information to the story. The deletion of the domain name was in full compliance of rules of the CIRA (just because it's a rule, doesn't make it right). Supposedly, if one registers a .ca domain name with anonymous details, the domain name can be removed under the CIRA's rules. However, one first needs to point it out (as Joe Volpe's campaign did).

      It's n

      • Re:Fails to explain... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Keebler71 (520908) on Saturday June 03 2006, @01:00AM (#15460441) Journal
        No, it is a free speech issue, or more correctly a censorship issue. The politician used a rule to have the site shut down (the site had been registered anonymously). How many other sites with incomplete or anonymous registration info did he request to have shut down? None? Just the one critical of him? That sounds like censorship to me... just because he worked within the framework of the system doesn't make it (morally) wrong.
        • woops... i meant "right"

        • Re:Fails to explain... (Score:5, Informative)

          by cgenman (325138) on Saturday June 03 2006, @02:59AM (#15460678) Homepage
          The politician used a rule to have the site shut down. How many other sites with incomplete or anonymous registration info did he request to have shut down? None? Just the one critical of him? That sounds like censorship to me...

          There are three parts of censorship. Part one is having an agenda of some sort. Part two is becoming empowered by the state to carry out that agenda through censorship. Part three is to find items and have them removed from circulation on the grounds that they violate that agenda.

          It doesn't sound like part two or the second half of part three has been carried out here. He was not authorized by a government body to further this agenda. He did it of his own accord. What was taken down was not done so because it violated the agenda, but simply because it violated something else.

          Again, the actions are morally reprehensible on the part of this politician, but does not qualify as censorship by the government of Canada.
  • "The staff of a Canadian political candidate bragged today that he had managed to shut down a website critical of his involvement in a fundraising scandal.."

    Shouldn't that read, "The former staff..."
    • Shouldn't that read, "The former staff..."

      Hey now, no stealing tomorrow's headlines...

        • Re:Shouldn't that read... (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward
          So truth isn't a valid defense any more, then?


          • Not the same incident - the comment from the staff member was made a month or so after Parrish's comments. And I don't remember the exact phrasing, but if I recall correctly, her apology was almost as insulting as the original statement.

          • sorry, but a memember of the PM's staff does NOT have the right to call the duly-elected leader of our largest trading partner a f..king moron in front of the collective national press.

            What do you think would happen if it was reported that his press secretary called Iran's leader a "f..king towelhead"?
            • Hold up! So if you accept a government job, are you forced to sign away your right to free speech? Of course he has the right to say it. There may be a political price to pay, but at least it wasn't libel where there could be a criminal offense. He just stated a fact.

              BTW, why don't elected officals have to take some sort of standardized test and have those reported to the electorate? Hell, everyone from prospective college students to prospective NFL athletes have to because people assume thier basic
              • Hold up! So if you accept a government job, are you forced to sign away your right to free speech? Of course he has the right to say it. There may be a political price to pay, but at least it wasn't libel where there could be a criminal offense. He just stated a fact.

                First - "George Bush is a f..king moron" is an opinion, not a fact.

                And yes, as a matter of fact, when you accept certain jobs, you DO loose your right to express your opinion (but not to HAVE it).

                The Official Secrets Act here in Canada a

                • If part of your job is in a higher level of government where you are concerned with the political ramifications of statements you make - where you can affect the political, economic, and physical safety of your country when your job is to ENHANCE it - you bet you ASS you give up the right to say anything except government policy.

                  You're confusing social and legal obligation. Certainly, giving away national secrets is illegal (you have no right), but ill-advised comments are not illegal, unless they are

            • BTW, lets not forget that the guy he called a moron had just recently called three entire countries "evil".

  • site mirrored (Score:5, Informative)

    by kratei (924454) on Saturday June 03 2006, @12:11AM (#15460303)
    Michael Geist's page (linked in the summary) contains this link to a mirror of the site that caused the furor: http://www.youthforvolpe.no-libs.com/ [no-libs.com]p

  • More info on why it was pulled (Score:5, Informative)

    by davidwr (791652) on Saturday June 03 2006, @12:15AM (#15460323) Homepage Journal
    Click here [stephentaylor.ca] for the whole scoop and some mirrors:


    UPDATE: I just got an email from the kids at youthforvolpe.ca. They received an email from their .ca registrar after they emailed them demanding which part of the Registrant Agreement that they were in violation of. It turns out that it had nothing to do with anonymous registration:

            From : CADNS.CA
            Sent : June 1, 2006 8:41:26 PM
            To : "Youthfor Volpe"
            CC : archive@cadns.ca
            Subject : RE: Domain registration for youthforvolpe.ca

            Article 3.1
            Paragraph (h) (i) and (ii)
            (h) not engage in any direct or indirect activity which in CIRA's opinion is designed to bring, or may bring, the Registry into disrepute, is designed to interfere, or may interfere, with CIRA's operations or designed to expose, or may expose, CIRA to prosecution or to legal action by the Registrant or a third party including, but not limited to, any of the following kinds of activities:
            (i) directly or indirectly, defaming or contributing to the defamation of any other Person,
            (ii) unlawfully discriminating or contributing to the unlawful discrimination of any other Person; or
            (iii) committing any other actionable wrong against any other Person including, without limitation, any other infringement of the Person's rights;

    Yep, the reason given was because the registrar believed that the website somehow defamed Joe Volpe and the registrar believed that it might expose CIRA to a lawsuit.

    This had nothing to do with a technicality of anonymous registration.

    If you are a crooked politician, your critics are like hydra - cut one down and 1,000 spring up in their place.
  • A CIRA news release on the subject [www.cira.ca] contains some non-rumour info. Basically: it was the register, not CIRA; the domain was cancelled because it wasn't properly registered.
    • That's not what this comment [slashdot.org] upthread says... the registrar (CADNS.CA ) pulled the registration as it was deemed potentially libelous and could expose them to liability... so if that's what they told CIRA they lied...
  • Articles tend to disappear off of the Globe and Mail site after a week or two:

    ----8<----
    Campaign gets tangled in website spoof
    JANE TABER
    It was all the buzz in official Ottawa yesterday -- a hilarious political whodunit in this age of websites, platforms and templates.

    Overnight, someone built a website spoofing Liberal leadership candidate Joe Volpe and his acceptance of thousands of dollars in campaign donations from children, including the 11-year-old twins of a former vice-president of a generic drug c

  • what a *crock* (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Gorshkov (932507) <gorshkov@o g h m a . o n . ca> on Saturday June 03 2006, @12:25AM (#15460356)
    This is not, in any way, shape or form, a free speech issue.

    CIRA's rules clearly state - and have for as long as *I* can remember - that annon registrations are not acceptable. THat was, and IS, grounds to pull the DNS records.

    If there is *any* story here, it should be how the hell did the site get registered in the first place, given that it didn't meet the most basic requirements.

    As for Volpe? He has my congradulations ...... this is the first rule he's since since he launched his leadership campaign that he had tried to have enforced. Hopefully, it's the start of a trend.
  • Some updates have come in, and apparently there has been no censorship of any kind whatsoever. The registrants provided false contact information [www.cira.ca], and Canadian registrars require valid contact information.

  • In Soviet Russia... (Score:4, Funny)

    by talkingpaperclip (952112) on Saturday June 03 2006, @12:34AM (#15460391) Homepage
    I was going to write an "In Soviet Russia" joke, but all my ideas already worked in their original order.

  • It's getting worse (Score:3, Funny)

    by Harmonious Botch (921977) on Saturday June 03 2006, @12:42AM (#15460412) Homepage Journal
    ...at least the cream cheese story had some substance.

  • Bye, Bye,, Slashdot (Score:3, Funny)

    by SEWilco (27983) on Saturday June 03 2006, @12:58AM (#15460437) Homepage Journal
    This commentary seems critical of that politician.
    Keep an eye on Slashdot's DNS entries...

  • A Bit of Background (Score:5, Informative)

    by OpticalPaul (936448) on Saturday June 03 2006, @02:40AM (#15460639)
    It might help to understand that Mr. Volpe, a candidate for the leadership of the Liberal Party, accepted donations in the maximum amount allowable by law from 11-year-old kids. Details are available from Elections Canada [elections.ca]. Current law in Canada does not permit election contributions to be given on behalf of someone else, so we can safely conclude that this was the kids' own money and not a company or parental donation in the kids' names.

    Volpe's acceptance of these contributions was widely mocked [macleans.ca] and derided. The website cited in this thread was launched, and got a fair bit of coverage online.

    Mr. Volpe subsequently decided to return the donations given by these kids. At about the same time, the website above had its DNS record SUSPD for one of many reasons (the Canadian Internet Registration Authority, CIRA cited a different reason in a press release [www.cira.ca] (failure to provide valid Canadian contact information, as required by CIRA rules for a ".ca" domain) than that apparently given to the domain registrant (disrepute).

    The interesting questions I find are (1) how influential were Volpe's minions in getting this site quashed, given that he was a member of the former Liberal government and CIRA operates under the authority of the Canadian Governmental department Industry Canada, and (2) what due process rights does any (".ca") domain owner have, given the speed with which this process executed (especially in light of all the legal expertise which is present on CIRA's board of directors, apparently not even bothering to ask for any court order or proper investigation against this site).

  • On what planet... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by kevin lyda (4803) on Saturday June 03 2006, @05:27AM (#15460904) Homepage
    Are Captain's Quarters, Pajama's Media and Little Green Footballs "across the political spectrum?" All three are so far to the right they make most American Republicans look like Trotskyites.

  • google's cache :) (Score:3, Interesting)

    by zimsters (978940) on Saturday June 03 2006, @05:35AM (#15460911) Homepage
    Google already cached it:
    http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:MW-vckW5UbEJ:ww w.youthforvolpe.ca/+&hl=en&gl=uk&ct=clnk&cd=1&clie nt=firefox-a [66.102.9.104]

    No images, but you get the text and layout at least!
    • Is he any relation to Dick Hertz, or the Dover twins, Ben and Eileen?

    • I've been outside of Canadian politics for a while now, so I can't comment on on Joe Volpe or how internet saavy he or his people are.. However, seems you've just discovered that the domain is owned by... Mike Hunt... Mike Hunt... say it out loud.

      I mean, there's always the chance that the person registering the domain had a very unfortunate name. On the other hand this lends credibility to another poster's claim that perhaps the domain was nixed thanks to inaccurate contact info.

      • I went to school with a boy names Mark, John and Mike Hunt. And yes we made fun of his name in much the same way you did. Wait until he gets hurt, wet from rain, sore from playing football or goes thru that spell were he didn't shave and grew a beard.

        I aint heard from him in a while, dubbo if it could be the same one.

    • Re:Apparently he did not even know who owned the s (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Xshare (762241) on Saturday June 03 2006, @12:26AM (#15460359) Homepage
      You are aware, aren't you, that Mike Hunt is a joke name? Like Mike Hawk, Dick Hertz, Ben Dover? Read it out loud, laugh a little, and then you can do some more snooping to see that the address and phone number are fake too.
    • The important question is... Will you come to the defense of Mike Hunt? Mike Hunt is clearly in need of help right now, and only the actions of truly altruistic individuals like yourself can make bare the facts of this obviously hairy situation.

      Reports have it that some of Mike Hunt's other staff members - namely Mr.s Jack Mehoff and Holden McGroin - are organizing and mobilizing a grass-roots defense. I suspect they'll be tempted to use some dirty tactics, but this is clearly not the time to be hitting below the belt. We must hold ourselves to the highest standards and refuse to sink into the deep, dank, stinky chasm of corruption.

      After all, that's what Mike Hunt would expect of us all.
    • I wonder is Mr. Hunt is an associate of Amanda Hugginkis?

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.