"Natural
Parents have NO RIGHTS.... ONLY RESPONSIBILITIES....
"Natural
Parents' Rights now gone with my Homosexual Marriage
bill"
16.10 Maximum Contact & Friendly Parent Rule
has to go to conform to Judicial Practice, or Judges may be
held in criminal BREACH OF TRUST"
FYI,
the ideas that the State grants
Rights
Responsibilities Citizen is straight from pre-war Nazi
Germany. Under the British system rights are not
State-given, but God Given.
Buying into the Court's position that what
rights remain are Children's Rights, is buying into the same
position that "<Natural> Parents have no rights", and
Canadian Children are at birth the property of the Courts.
In
"Women and the Process of Constitutional Reform"
McLellan warns that <Horrors!>
"Provincial
Legislatures may impose a presumption of Joint Custody...
and perpetuate the domination of men over women"
Ask a lawyer what "Common Law" is and
they will likely tell you it is
"Judge Made Law", and expand up this to say
"Common Law is whatever the Judges are commonly saying these
days".
This is completely FALSE. The Judges
are Agents of the Crown and they BY DEFINITION Judges are WITHOUT
CAPACITY to make any law whatsoever. Since
1649, only
PARLIAMENT has the Capacity to make Law.
British Common law was NOT created by Judges, it was
only observed and documented by individuals sent out by the
newly Norman Crown after the
Norman Conquest of 1066 to observe and codify the
laws and customs of the various peoples of Britain..
This was done with a view to aggregate existing customs
which may vary across the land, into a unified body of
Laws. The Authority quoted by the Commoners in their
administration of
Common Law were frequently direct quotations from the
Bible and
principles of
Danelaw
The process of documentation took only a
couple of hundred years, and the product was a STATIC body
of Law which was historical, popular, and has served in the
intervening centuries as a Benchmark against which
Statutory Law may be measured for "Fairness".
It does NOT change.
Instead their position to promote the
"rights" of a "Parent" in the widest sense of the
word, making NO distinction between
NATURAL PARENTS and
wannaabe
Legal Parents. They have bowed to
University of
Victoria's assertion that the SCC's
Trociuk
Decision
"endorses a Heterosexual View of the Family and must be
ignored", legitimizing the ongoing
Child
Trafficking by the State which views
Canadian
children as State Property and merchandise for sale in
the lucrative Child
Adoption Market They refuse to be hampered by prior
obligations to that pesky Natural Parent who thinks they can
Veto an Adoption.
It appears that many
"Fathers Rights" groups commonly fall in with the United
Nations and Liberal
Irwin Cotler's assertion that the
Child's Right is to be protected, but the Natural Parent
has "NO RIGHTS",
making the State, not the Natural
Parents the Protector of the Child..
Without Cause or
Consent, no Child shall be removed from a Natural Parent!!!
"In spite of credible revelations
dating back to April 2002 about Bill Graham, a sex addicted
bi-sexual sodomizing a 15 year old male prostitute named
Lawrence Metherel,
Paul Martin allowed Graham to remain
Canada’s Foreign Affairs Minister - and eventually named
him to the portfolio of Minister of Defense.
"On Sept. 28/2005 a vote was held in Parliament to raise the
age of consent from 14 (one of the lowest age of consents in
the world) to 16 (an age which many still consider too low).
"Bill Graham, Paul Martin, and Anne
McLellan, on Sept. 28th, voted against raising the age of
consent to 16
We apologize that the
following figures have not been developed for the Province of BC
specifically. We hope to do this over time. We do know,
however that women often move to BC from Alberta and the rest of Canada
to have their divorces done here in BC where the
misandry of the Family Courts will
maximize their powers to destroy their husbands.
Children from fatherless homes account
for:
63% of youth suicides. (Source: US Dept.
of Health & Human Services, Bureau of the Census).
71% of pregnant teenagers. (Source: US
Dept. of Health & Human Services)
90% of all homeless and runaway
children.
70% of juveniles in state-operated
institutions come from fatherless homes (Source: U.S. Dept. of
Justice, Special Report, Sept 1988)
85% of all children that exhibit
behavioral disorders. (Source: Center for Disease Control).
80% of rapists motivated with displaced
anger. (Source: Criminal Justice & Behavior, Vol. 14, p. 403-26,
1978).
71% of all high school dropouts.
(Source: National Principals Association Report on the State of High
Schools).
75% of all adolescent patients in
chemical abuse centers. (Source: Rainbows for all God's Children).
85% of all youths sitting in prisons.
(Source: Fulton Co. Georgia jail populations, Texas Dept. of
Corrections 1992).
Children from fatherless
homes are:
11 times more likely to exhibit violent
behavior than children from intact "married" homes.
5 times more likely to commit suicide.
32 times more likely to runaway.
20 times more likely to have behavioral
disorders.
14 times more likely to commit rape.
9 times more likely to drop out of high
school.
10 times more likely to abuse chemical
substances.
9 times more likely to end up in
state-operated institutions.
20 times more likely to end up in
prison.
"37.9% of
fathers have no access/visitation rights."
(Source: p.6, col.II, para. 6, lines 4 & 5, Census Bureau
P-60, #173, Sept 1991.)
"40% of mothers reported that they had interfered with the
non-custodial father's visitation on at least one occasion, to punish
the ex-spouse." (Source: p. 449, col. II, lines 3-6, (citing
Fulton) Frequency of visitation by Divorced Fathers; Differences in
Reports by Fathers and Mothers. Sanford Braver et al, Am. J. of
Orthopsychiatry, 1991.)
"Overall,
approximately 50% of mothers "see no value in the father's continued
contact with his children...."
(Source: Surviving the Breakup, Joan Kelly & Judith
Wallerstein, p. 125) Only 11% of mothers value their husband's input
when it comes to handling problems with their kids. Teachers & doctors
rated 45%, and close friends & relatives rated %16.(Source: EDK
Associates survey of 500 women for Redbook Magazine. Redbook, November
1994, p. 36)
"The former
spouse (mother) was the greatest obstacle to having more frequent
contact with the children." (Source:
Increasing our understanding of fathers who have infrequent contact with
their children, James Dudley, Family Relations, Vol. 4, p. 281, July
1991.)
"A clear
majority (70%) of fathers felt that they had too little time with their
children." (Source: Visitation and the
Noncustodial Father, Mary Ann Kock & Carol Lowery, Journal of Divorce,
Vol. 8, No. 2, p. 54, Winter 1984.)
"Very few of
the children were satisfied with the amount of contact with their
fathers, after divorce." (Source:
Visitation and the Noncustodial Father, Koch & Lowery, Journal of
Divorce and Remarriage, Vol. 8, No. 2, p. 50, Winter 1984.)
"Feelings of anger towards their former spouses hindered effective
involvement on the part of fathers; angry mothers would sometimes
sabotage father's efforts to visit their children." (Source:
Ahrons and Miller, Am. Journal of Orthopsychiatry, Vol. 63. p. 442, July
1993.)
"Mothers may
prevent visits to retaliate against fathers for problems in their
marital or post-marital relationship."
(Source: Seltzer, Shaeffer & Charing, Journal of Marriage & the Family,
Vol. 51, p. 1015, November 1989.)
In a study: "Visitational
Interference - A National Study" by Ms. J Annette Vanini, M.S.W. and
Edward Nichols, M.S.W., it was found that 77% of non-custodial fathers
are NOT able to "visit" their children, as ordered by the court, as a
result of "visitation interference" perpetuated by the custodial parent.
In other words, non-compliance with court ordered visitation is three
times the problem of non-compliance with court ordered child support and
impacts the children of divorce even more. Originally published Sept.
1992
Child Support
Information from multiple
sources show that only 10% of all non-custodial fathers fit the
"deadbeat dad" category: 90% of the fathers with joint custody paid the
support due. Fathers with visitation rights pay 79.1%; and 44.5% of
those with NO visitation rights still financially support their
children. (Source: Census Bureau report. Series P-23, No. 173).
Additionally, of those not paying support, 66% are not doing so because
they lack the financial resources to pay (Source: GAO report:
GAO/HRD-92-39 FS).
The following is sourced from: Technical Analysis Paper No. 42, U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Income Security
Policy, Authors: Meyer and Garansky.
Custodial mothers who receive a support
award: 79.6%
Custodial fathers who receive a support
award: 29.9%
Non-custodial mothers who totally
default on support: 46.9%
Non-custodial fathers who totally
default on support: 26.9%
Judges and their elite
Star
Chamber entrench their power and status to rule over Canadians with
impunity and unbridled
narcissism.
Feminist and Homosexual Activists as Judges effect
their political agenda without the consent of the Canadian demographic.
They with full knowledge and intent (scripted in the sixties & seventies
by their Activist writers) circumvent due democratic process and
knowingly contravene the founding legal constructs of Canada in the BNA
& in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Activist Judges happily
and routinely breach the Trust placed in them by their employer, the
Canadian Taxpayer.
Lawyers routinely Entice into self-destruction and
financial rape vast numbers of families entering their doors.
Because of the Statutory self-regulation of the BC Law Society, we know
of no limiting factor to cap the Activism of the Judiciary other than
prosecuting Judges and Lawyers who exceed the powers granted them by
Statute.
The BC Law Society pimps BC women, and use them as
their hookers. With others (also conspicuously funded by the
Taxpayer), Law Society members instruct women to hook fathers and
families into the Courts and the financial ruin a "Legal Marriage"
entails. Children NEED this threat to their security to be
EXTERMINATED.
Faced with the entrenched Father Hatred and
Affirmative Action of the burgeoning civil service, boys and young men
despair. Having no vision for a Future or a university education,
they become prone to fulfill the Father Hatred prophecies of BC
university's Women's Studies faculties and Feminist Activists.
"Children of single parents were at
higher risk of physical abuse and of all types of neglect and were
overrepresented among seriously injured, moderately injured, and
endangered children. Compared with their counterparts living with both
parents, children in single parent families had:
a 77% greater risk of being
harmed by physical abuse (using the stringent Harm Standard) and a
63% greater risk of experiencing any countable physical abuse (using
the Endangerment Standard);
an 87% greater risk of being
harmed by physical neglect and a 165% greater risk of experiencing
any countable physical neglect;
a 74% greater risk of being
harmed by emotional neglect and a 64% greater risk of experiencing
any countable emotional neglect;
a 220% (or more than three
times) greater risk of being educationally neglected;
an approximately 80% greater
risk of suffering serious injury or harm from abuse or neglect;
an approximately 90% greater
risk of receiving moderate injury or harm as a result of child
maltreatment; and
a 120% (or more than two times)
greater risk of being endangered by some type of child abuse or
neglect."
2006-11-10
Top judges rebuke Tories Federal plan would allow police to help
appoint judiciary - workopolis.com; "Beverley
McLachlin, Canada's Chief Justice, along with a powerful council of
the country's top judges issued an unprecedented rebuke yesterday to
Justice Minister Vic Toews for hatching a plan to arbitrarily change
the way judges are chosen. The Canadian Judicial Council
expressed dismay that Mr. Toews is planning to introduce "significant
changes to the composition and functioning of the Judicial Advisory
Committees," secret groups which are set up in each region to vet
candidates for the 1,100 federal judgeships across the country.
Chief Justice McLachlin, who chairs the council, urged Mr. Toews to
include the judiciary and key legal bodies in any discussion of
changes to the committee vetting process."
We
need in the very least some kind of JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY ACT
which will look something like::
Divide the Law Society into two groups of
Judges and Practicing Lawyers to protect the Lawyers who would
make Cases against Judges. There would be some Law Society
Members who may practice as Barristers, and some as Solicitors,
but a Judge must RETIRE from the Practice of Law and
become unable to affect the Law Society while they act as a
Judge. On removal of a Judge for
Judicial Activism,
the Law Society may deny their return to Practice from
Retirement for specified cause, such as the case made during
an unsuccessful Criminal Charge of
Breach of Trust or Treason.
The Judges naturally divide into two bodies,
the Provincial and Federal Judicial Societies to parallel the
Provincial and Federal Courts. Membership in both Judicial
Societies must be precluded. Federal Judges would be tried
by Provincial Judges according to the
JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY ACT, and the Provincial Judges would
be tried by the Federal Judges. They could be tried both
in Tort and in Criminal Court for
Breach of Trust and for
Treason.
Make Judicial Appointments for a FIXED TERM
of no more than five years (Jimmy Pattison where are you when we
need you?)
Judicial Re-Appointment must meet a Test for
Judicial Re-Appointment which demonstrates the prescribed
Impartiality (that is an Activism Free record.) and Non-Infamy
with the Electorate.
Automatic Temporary Suspension Without Pay
for a Judge who is going to Trial in Tort or in Criminal
Court, pending its outcome.
Eradication
of
Freemasonry from the Judiciary and Law Societies. Both
are granted special privileges by Parliamentary Statute which
they receive In Trust.. Judicial Candidates and sitting
Judges must be vetted for Occult
practices resulting in Public Safety concerns such as
Pedophilia.
Pedophilia is an established part of Occult worship
(See
Malachi Martin among others) and is reported to be a
tolerated practice of some high ranking Judges.
Trial by Jury of Judges before non-allied and
non-associated Judges, e.g.. Federal
Judges
tried before Provincial Judges, visa versa..
NO SPECIAL
PROSECUTORS for Judges or other Public Servants being
tried.
Under the "federal" division of powers in the BNA
(Constitution Act, 1867)) Education falls into the Provincial
domain. A parallel Provincial Statute to amend the licensing
and Suspension of Teachers
would be necessary to stop the present use of our Schools for
Political Indoctrination by Activists. See also
Four Missions
Removal of judges from office, Oklahoma
Constitution
(a) In addition to other
methods and causes prescribed by the Constitution and laws,
the judges of any court, exercising judicial power under the
provisions of Article VII, or under any other provision, of
the Constitution of Oklahoma, shall be subject to removal
from office, or to compulsory retirement from office, for
causes herein specified, by proceedings in the Court on the
Judiciary.
(b) Cause for removal from
office shall be: Gross neglect of duty; corruption in
office; habitual drunkenness; commission while in office of
any offense involving moral turpitude;
gross partiality in office;
oppression in office; or other grounds as may be
specified hereafter by the legislature.
(c) Cause for compulsory
retirement from office, with or without compensation, shall
be mental or physical disability preventing the proper
performance of official duty, or incompetence to perform the
duties of the office"
"The Family Courts
are <generally> a bunch of second rate hangers-on
... build each other's businesses through
referrals...Family Law is a <parasitic> self-sustaining
Industry"
Habeas
Corpus : "literally, "you
may have the body". A Habeas
Corpus is a legal writ that protects an individual against arbitrary
imprisonment by requiring that any person arrested be brought before
a court for formal charge. If the charge is considered to be valid,
the person must submit to trial; if not, the person goes free. When
the law is suspended, then individuals can be imprisoned
indefinitely and without charge."
.....
"This
is one of those moments when you want to grab liberals by the lapels
and demand, "Well, what did you expect?" ... A group called the
National Center for Men has filed a lawsuit they are calling "Roe v.
Wade for Men." ... More than three decades
ago Roe vs. Wade gave women control of their reproductive lives but
nothing in the law changed for men. Women can now have sexual
intimacy without sacrificing reproductive choice. Women now have the
freedom and security to enjoy lovemaking without the fear of forced
procreation. Women now have control of their lives after an
unplanned conception. But men are routinely forced to give up
control, forced to be financially responsible for choices only women
are permitted to make, forced to relinquish reproductive choice as
the price of intimacy."
COMMENT: Roe
V. Wade was a "Femi-Narcissistic" decision, looking after the
interests of the Mother only. The principal established there
established was extrapolated into a Mother's "murder rights"
expressed in minimal sentences when murdering their children.
Equal Parenting eliminates much of this.
Father dealt difficult hand by the system
"Even last week, when the family court file of
Elaine and Leo Campione was released to the press -- in
significant measure because Mr. Campione didn't oppose the
media's bid to see it .. There is, to be frank, an
underlying perspective of feminist oppression from which all
else springs. .. Women are seen first as victims --
generally of male power and particularly of husband power -- and
presumed to be truth-tellers and good mothers until proven
otherwise. The starting point for men is that they are abusers
and deadbeat dads in the making unless they can prove the
contrary, and if it takes years for them to demonstrate that, oh
well."
ACTA = Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement: Full
Time, All Time Surveillance & Search of your digital activity
"The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA)
is a proposed plurilateral trade agreement which is alleged by
its proponents to be in response "to the increase in global
trade of counterfeit goods and pirated copyright protected
works." The scope of ACTA is broad, including counterfeit
physical goods, as well as "internet distribution and
information technology"
The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade
Agreement negotiations continue in a few hours as
Seoul, Korea plays host to the latest round of
talks. The governments have posted the
meeting agenda, which unsurprisingly focuses on
the issue of Internet enforcement [UPDATE 11/4: Post
on discussions for
day two of ACTA talks, including the criminal
enforcement provisions][UPDATE 11/5: Post on
discussions for
day three on transparency]. The United States
has drafted the chapter under enormous secrecy, with
selected groups
granted
access under strict non-disclosure agreements
and other countries (including Canada) given
physical, watermarked copies designed to guard
against leaks.
Despite the efforts to combat leaks, information on
the Internet chapter has begun to emerge (just as
they did with the other
elements of the treaty). [Update 11/6:
Source document now posted] Sources say that
the draft text, modeled on the U.S.-South Korea free
trade agreement, focuses on following five issues:
1. Baseline obligations inspired by
Article 41 of the TRIPs which focuses on the enforcement
of intellectual property.
2. A requirement to establish third-party liability for
copyright infringement.
3. Restrictions on limitations to 3rd party liability (ie.
limited safe harbour rules for ISPs). For example, in order
for ISPs to qualify for a safe harbour, they would be
required establish policies to deter unauthorized storage
and transmission of IP infringing content. Provisions are
modeled under the
U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement, namely Article 18.10.30.
They include policies to terminate subscribers in
appropriate circumstances. Notice-and-takedown, which is
not currently the law in Canada nor a requirement under WIPO,
would also be an ACTA requirement.
4. Anti-circumvention legislation that establishes a WIPO+
model by adopting both the WIPO Internet Treaties and the
language currently found in U.S. free trade agreements that
go beyond the WIPO treaty requirements. For example, the
U.S.-South Korea free trade agreement specifies the
permitted exceptions to anti-circumvention rules. These
follow the DMCA model (reverse engineering, computer
testing, privacy, etc.) and do not include a fair use/fair
dealing exception. Moreover, the free trade agreement
clauses also include a requirement to ban the distribution
of circumvention devices. The current draft does not
include any obligation to ensure interoperability of DRM.
5. Rights Management provisions, also modeled on U.S. free
trade treaty language.
If accurate (and these provisions are
consistent with the U.S. approach for the past few years in
bilateral trade negotiations) the combined effect of these
provisions would dramatically reshape Canadian copyright law and
to eliminate sovereign choice on domestic copyright policy.
Having just concluded a national copyright consultation, these
issues were at the heart of thousands of submissions. If Canada
agrees to these ACTA terms, flexibility in WIPO implementation
(as envisioned by the treaty) would be lost and Canada would be
forced to implement a host of new reforms (this is
precisely what U.S. lobbyists have said they would like to
see happen). In other words, the very notion of a
made-in-Canada approach to copyright would be gone.
The Internet chapter raises two additional issues. On the
international front, it provides firm confirmation that ACTA is
not a counterfeiting treaty, but a copyright treaty. These
provisions involve copyright policy as no reasonable definition
of counterfeiting would include these kinds of provisions. On
the domestic front, it raises serious questions about the
Canadian negotiation mandate. Negotiations from Foreign Affairs
are typically constrained by either domestic law, a bill before
the House of Commons, or the negotiation mandate letter. Since
these provisions dramatically exceed current Canadian law and
are not found in any bill presently before the House, Canadians
should be asking whether the negotiation mandate letter has
envisioned such dramatic changes to domestic copyright law.
When combined with the other chapters that include statutory
damages, search and seizure powers for border guards, anti-camcording
rules, and mandatory disclosure of personal information
requirements, it is clear that there is no bigger IP issue today
than the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement being negotiated
behind closed doors this week in Korea.
Update II: InternetNZ issues a
press release expressing alarm, while EFF
says the leaks "confirm everything that we feared about the
secret ACTA negotiations." Electronic Frontiers Australia
provides an
Australian perspective on the ACTA dangers.
Obviously
we don't want to see central governments and cable
companies choking the independent news offices and radio
frequency transmitting stations. FYI there has
been talk for a decade about converting the offensively
FREE INTERNET to a fee based platform which can have
it's content and consumption regulated. in micro scale.
Obama is presently working on this and is getting
himself the powers to regulate content on the internet
into the President's Office.
Negotiators from the United States, the
European Union and nine other countries said on Friday (20
August) they planned to finish work in September on a proposed
pact to crack down on trade in counterfeit and pirated goods.
Background
The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), which began in
Geneva two years ago, is a plurilateral trade agreement to
establish international standards on intellectual property
rights.
According to former trade negotiators, countries attempted to
clinch an agreement under the banner of the World Intellectual
Property Organisation (WIPO), but as members could not agree,
like-minded nations formed ACTA.
In March, the European Parliament defied the EU executive by
casting a vote against an agreement between the EU, the US and
other major powers on combating online piracy and threatening to
take legal action at the European Court of Justice (EurActiv
10/03/10).
An overwhelming majority of MEPs (663 in favour and 13 against)
voted to approve a resolution criticising the
Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), arguing that it
flouts agreed EU laws on online piracy.
More on this topic
News:EU-US food fight hampers ACTA talks
News:EU defends itself from attack on ACTA
News:EU seeks global anti-counterfeiting pact
The countries also pledged to publicly release the final text of
the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, which has raised
concerns among Internet and digital rights advocates, "before
deciding to sign it".
US movie, music, software and other copyright-based industries
calculate that they lose more than $16 billion (12.5 billion
euro) in sales each year from pirated versions of their products
sold around the world. Many of these counterfeit and pirated
goods are made in China.
In a joint statement, the participating countries addressed a
number of worries that have surfaced about the pact, saying it
would not require members of the agreement to take steps that
violate "fundamental rights and liberties".
Some digital rights advocates feared that provisions aimed at
reducing online piracy of music and films could empower Internet
providers to deny service to repeat offenders.
The trade agreement "will not hinder the cross-border transit of
legitimate generic medicines," the joint statement also said.
The agreement "will not oblige border authorities to search
travellers' baggage or their personal electronic devices for
infringing materials," it added.
Some were concerned that the agreement might allow customs
officials to seize generic versions of patented drugs and to
confiscate laptops and music listening devices that contain
pirated material.
Australia, Canada, Japan, Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand,
Singapore, South Korea and Switzerland also are taking part in
the talks. US President Barack Obama has called the talks a key
element of the US strategy for fighting the global trade in fake
goods, estimated at more than $200 billion annually.
The agreement is expected to mandate that customs officials in
all the participating countries have authority to seize
counterfeit goods without a request from the right holders or a
court order.
US officials have said they do not expect the agreement to
require changes to US law so it would not have to be approved by
Congress. However, that has only heightened concerns about what
the pact would require.
One tough remaining issue is the 27-nation EU's demand that the
pact cover "geographical indicators," which are names for food
and alcoholic products drawn from a particular location, such
Champagne or Cognac, both in France.
But US business groups worry that would mean US products as
commonplace as Kraft Parmesan cheese could potentially be
treated as illegal items under the pact and subject to seizure
by customs officials.
The United States believes that issue is resolvable by the time
negotiators hold their next round in Japan in late September,
said Nefeterius McPherson, a spokeswoman for the US Trade
Representative's office.
Participants in the negotiations agreed that Japan would host
the next negotiating round in September and that they are
committed to resolving the remaining substantive issues at that
time, officials said.
Negotiators made progress this week in all areas of the pact
including general obligations, civil enforcement, border
measures, criminal enforcement and enforcement measures in the
digital environment, the group statement said.
Use a Firewall, Go to Jail, March 26th,
2003
The states of Massachusetts and Texas
are preparing to consider bills that apparently are
intended to extend the national Digital Millennium
Copyright Act. (TX
bill;
MA bill) The bills are obviously related to each
other somehow, since they are textually similar.
Here is one example of the
far-reaching harmful effects of these bills. Both bills
would flatly ban the possession, sale, or use of
technologies that "conceal from a communication service
provider ... the existence or place of origin or
destination of any communication". Your ISP is a
communication service provider, so anything that
concealed the origin or destination of any communication
from your ISP would be illegal – with no exceptions.
If you send or receive your email via
an encrypted connection, you're in violation, because
the "To" and "From" lines of the emails are concealed
from your ISP by encryption. (The encryption conceals
the destinations of outgoing messages, and the sources
of incoming messages.)
Worse yet, Network Address
Translation (NAT), a technology widely used for
enterprise security, operates by translating the "from"
and "to" fields of Internet packets, thereby concealing
the source or destination of each packet, and hence
violating these bills. Most security "firewalls" use
NAT, so if you use a firewall, you're in violation.
If you have a home DSL router, or if
you use the "Internet Connection Sharing" feature of
your favorite operating system product, you're in
violation because these connection sharing technologies
use NAT. Most operating system products (including every
version of Windows introduced in the last five years,
and virtually all versions of Linux) would also
apparently be banned, because they support connection
sharing via NAT.
And this is just one example of the
problems with these bills. Yikes.
UPDATE (6:35 PM): It's worse than I
thought. Similar bills are on the table in
South Carolina, Florida, Georgia, Alaska, Tennessee,
and
Colorado.
UPDATE (March 28, 9:00 AM): Clarified
the paragraph above about encrypted email, to eliminate
an ambiguity.
UPDATE: I now have a
page with information about all of these bills,
including the current status in each state.
Full Time, All Time Surveillance & Search of
your digital activity
A super-national global agency is being
created to monitor all your digital
information, purportedly to protect
"Copyrights". Minor offences will
result in your loss of internet services.
"This treaty is being negotiated in secret.
It will further erode privacy rights. The
government will have access to private
information without a warrant or
probable cause."
Disclaimer: EqualParenting-BC.Ca encourages exercising democratic
rights such as the freedom of expression, but does not by association or
reference to other materials condone or sanction violence or hatred.
Teachers
would be necessary to stop the present use of our Schools for
Political Indoctrination by Activists. See also
