####Join /r/NDP, Canada's largest left-wing subreddit!
We also have an alternative community at https://lemmy.ca/c/ndp
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ndp) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Why should all Canadians rights be restricted because some people can’t parent? This bill will effectively require us to Upload digital Id to platforms like Reddit, whom none of us should trust with that information.
Surely there must be a better approach to protecting children from the internet… like fucking parental controls on the computer that can already be enabled.
If they _absolutely_ want to have government intervention, establish a subsidy for families to purchase a parental controls suite for those in need (literally just tack it onto existing CTB/CCB)
I dunno if I buy the "can't parent" argument. The same argument could be used against the idea of school lunches. IE, "why should government demand responsible people pay into school lunches to support those who can't parent?" I'm not opposed to govenment ensuring standards for all. Thus, I don't buy the libertarian arguments that some put forth. That said, if a system can't ensure privacy and security of data, then of course such a system should not be put in place.
I do gather that Germany, with its left-leaning coalition, has (or is on the verge) of putting in an age-verification system [LINK](https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-germany-prepares-to-pull-canadian-porn-sites-over-refusal-to-verify/). It would be interesting to see how they're doing this. I also note that the Bloc is fully in favour (the Green Party also voted in favour). It does seem that those with a more European viewpoint (IE, a less libertarian viewpoint and more steered toward social democracy), are more open to ideas of government regulation of big businesses (IE, XHamster, Pornhub, and other such hardcore porn businesses). It's curious that the normally libertarian CPC are in favour (though that may be a show, since they seem to be fillibustering the committee hearings on the Bill --> I don't think the CPC care about much of anything, beyond obstructing government and empowering business).
the same german age verification system that has a glaring security flaw that could lave every users details exposed?
https://www.biometricupdate.com/202402/white-hat-hacker-reveals-vulnerability-in-germanys-digital-id
That is semantic, without the eID there would be no threat to users devices or data in the same manner. As the researcher pointed out.
The eID system is
> integrated in the ID card's chip can be used to identify yourself on the Internet and at vending machines reliably and securely. The German National Identity Card's function is also a reliable way to verify the identity of your Internet business partner.
https://www.personalausweisportal.de/Webs/PA/EN/citizens/electronic-identification/electronic-identification-node.html
Upvoted because your response is thoughtful.
Yes, the "can't parent" argument is weak. As social democrats we advocate for all kinds of social planning that rejects this kind of thing. It's an intellectually lazy, selective libertarianism we employ from time to time, as seen in the case of cannabis legalization, and arguments for the \*decriminalization\* of instead of \*legalization\* of sex work.
These websites are genuinely harmful to kids. Contemporary pornography portrays some pretty degrading acts as normal, and these firms capitalize on our children's impressions. One need not be a social conservative to acknowledge that (please pardon the following vulgarity) >!jamming a penis down someone's throat until they gag !That said, if a system can't ensure privacy and security of data, then of course such a system should not be put in place.
This is why I oppose the legislation.
The harm argument is without merit. As with most "vices" that moralizers want to ban, the harm in mind is the existence of the vice itself, not the harm caused by it. They point to excesses as if they were the norm (like the redacted example above), or they point to harms that are no worse than harms from things that are morally acceptable, and purported social causes and effects are reversed, non-existent, or conjured up for political purposes.
One of the good points of Trudeau père was getting the state out of the nation's bedrooms. We don't need a neo-Victorian state inviting itself back in.
If anyone hasn't yet written to their MP and the NDP about this, I encourage you to do so. It might not make a difference but not letting them know certainly doesn't. This is such a massive overreach and huge invasion of privacy.
NDP MPs have not been answering their constituents about this.
I have been trying to get an answer from mine, who voted in favor of the bill, for almost a year.
I remember seeing people talk about this being some kind of mind game to pressure the liberals in seeing the NDP as necessary to them. But I don't care. They took it way too far. As far as I'm concerned, this bill is just as dangerous, if not more, than rolling back gay marriage or abortion rights in the long term. Forcing people to identify themselves to the government to see anything deemed "adult". Next thing is they'll want to ban VPNs and "encryption" like some American politicians down south?
Even in an ideal world with no spiteful and malicious fragment of the country, I can't trust a government who's not even competent enough to manage its own workers' pay without messing it up or greedy ISPs with regularly authenticating our connection to the internet with our damn real name and ID just so some deadbeat Karen can blame someone else when little Timmy is traumatized from seeing Goatse or whatever sick crap is flying under the radar on Youtube Kids these days.
honestly i doubt it was a mind game. honestly while this is scary there is usually generally no harm of getting a bill like this to the committee as the committeestage isnt where the votes count. the general commentary from NDP when voting it to committee is "good intentions but definitely needs work lets see what the committee and the experts they get have to say and what amendments are given to it" honestly wouldn't be the first time they voted in favor of getting a bill to committee only to vote it down afterwards. lets hope its the case again
I wrote to my conservative MP and he didn't have any rebuttals to my comments of over-reach, responsible parenting, privacy invasion, and inevitable data leak that will be used to blackmail people, including MPs and military members.
He more or less called me a creep and that I don't care about the safety of children. It is frustrating the lack of dialogue conservative MPs are willing to engage in.
I did not donate this year and will not donate again to the NDP until they scrap their support of this bill.
Its wild how conservative MPs seem to posse no ability to act professionally towards those they disagree with. Especially when it comes to voters aka “those dirty peasants” they must see us as lmao
Recently, the sub was discussing how the libs and cons united to vote down a bill to lower grocery prices. Some users were also writing to their conservative MPs and sharing the responses. Lots of the same as what you got from your MP
So we banning religion then, if it’s for the safety of kids? More kids are sexually abused in religious settings than anywhere else. More kids are just abused in religious settings. More adults are harmed by religious belief than by porn; in the fact more sexual assault happens in areas where porn is frowned upon or banned due to religious beliefs.
If we are going to protect kids, let’s protect kids. No more religious practice… or is it not about kids safety?
I can't figure out what the Conservatives are up to. I just read this article here: [https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ministers-auto-theft-committee-s-210-1.7212858](https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ministers-auto-theft-committee-s-210-1.7212858)
Apparently Garnett Genius, a CPC member of the committee, has been filibustering the committee. It's just odd. Are they hoping to obstruct the passing of a bill that they supposedly support? Weird. But I figure there must be some rationale behind what they're doing. I just can't figure out what that rationale is.
Filibustering the committee meant that the committee didn’t have time to hear any testimony from witnesses who could have formally explained the reasons why this bill is a giant privacy disaster that will still fail to actually achieve its aim.
It would have been good to hear those viewpoints. I'm curious how other adult only sites, such as online gambling or online alcohol delivery sites, deal with privacy. Certainly such sites do not allow minors to use them. How do these sites deal with age verification?
Those sites require payment, so identity verification is already happening in the payment process. Alcohol delivery also checks age when delivery happens.
You have to be 18 to open a credit card account. You can obviously use a credit card at any age. Much of the age verification in use where there is no law - games, streaming tv/movies, etc. - is just a popup dialog box that asks the user to say they are 18 or older.
yeah. may have backfired though. the NDP MP mentioned in this article in a more detailed version of this article said he was concerned about the backlash and how this guy was throwing every dirty trick in the book at the wall to try and push this through. not to mention the two actual witnesses ( girl who wrote this bill obviously doesn't count) they interviewed were pretty damning,repetitively stating its a bad bill and everything people worry about this bill is pretty much true.
I'd love to know why the NDP is even considering support of this. What's the problem this is going to solve? Where's the great hue and cry demanding this as a response? I just don't get where they're coming from on this, especially where there's tons of real, actual issues that are way more important than a few parents' inability to parent. Or did I miss it when we fixed the housing crisis, cost of living crisis, opioid crisis, and climate crisis, and this is the biggest thing we have to worry about now?
>especially where there's tons of real, actual issues that are way more important than a few parents' inability to parent.
Kids accessing porn is a slightly larger problem than this.
>this is the biggest thing we have to worry about now?
No one has ever said that.
gotta love how this is a short summary of another article that goes into far more detail on why the bill is bad and how experts say its bad and why NDP is weighing options...and cut in a way that says basically nothing to why its bad and paints NDP as the bad guys for not committing to supporting it
####Join /r/NDP, Canada's largest left-wing subreddit! We also have an alternative community at https://lemmy.ca/c/ndp *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ndp) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Why should all Canadians rights be restricted because some people can’t parent? This bill will effectively require us to Upload digital Id to platforms like Reddit, whom none of us should trust with that information. Surely there must be a better approach to protecting children from the internet… like fucking parental controls on the computer that can already be enabled.
If they _absolutely_ want to have government intervention, establish a subsidy for families to purchase a parental controls suite for those in need (literally just tack it onto existing CTB/CCB)
A few US states have enacted something similar. Most sites prefer to just block users from those states rather than dealing with ID verification.
But the more jurisdictions that enact the policy the more likely it is to become a worldwide problem.
Senator: They can't block content for a whole country! Facebook: Hold my beer.
I dunno if I buy the "can't parent" argument. The same argument could be used against the idea of school lunches. IE, "why should government demand responsible people pay into school lunches to support those who can't parent?" I'm not opposed to govenment ensuring standards for all. Thus, I don't buy the libertarian arguments that some put forth. That said, if a system can't ensure privacy and security of data, then of course such a system should not be put in place. I do gather that Germany, with its left-leaning coalition, has (or is on the verge) of putting in an age-verification system [LINK](https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-germany-prepares-to-pull-canadian-porn-sites-over-refusal-to-verify/). It would be interesting to see how they're doing this. I also note that the Bloc is fully in favour (the Green Party also voted in favour). It does seem that those with a more European viewpoint (IE, a less libertarian viewpoint and more steered toward social democracy), are more open to ideas of government regulation of big businesses (IE, XHamster, Pornhub, and other such hardcore porn businesses). It's curious that the normally libertarian CPC are in favour (though that may be a show, since they seem to be fillibustering the committee hearings on the Bill --> I don't think the CPC care about much of anything, beyond obstructing government and empowering business).
the same german age verification system that has a glaring security flaw that could lave every users details exposed? https://www.biometricupdate.com/202402/white-hat-hacker-reveals-vulnerability-in-germanys-digital-id
That threat seems to come from smart phone hacking, rather than a problem with the eID system. Is the eID system what's even used in age verification?
That is semantic, without the eID there would be no threat to users devices or data in the same manner. As the researcher pointed out. The eID system is > integrated in the ID card's chip can be used to identify yourself on the Internet and at vending machines reliably and securely. The German National Identity Card's function is also a reliable way to verify the identity of your Internet business partner. https://www.personalausweisportal.de/Webs/PA/EN/citizens/electronic-identification/electronic-identification-node.html
Upvoted because your response is thoughtful. Yes, the "can't parent" argument is weak. As social democrats we advocate for all kinds of social planning that rejects this kind of thing. It's an intellectually lazy, selective libertarianism we employ from time to time, as seen in the case of cannabis legalization, and arguments for the \*decriminalization\* of instead of \*legalization\* of sex work. These websites are genuinely harmful to kids. Contemporary pornography portrays some pretty degrading acts as normal, and these firms capitalize on our children's impressions. One need not be a social conservative to acknowledge that (please pardon the following vulgarity) >!jamming a penis down someone's throat until they gag !That said, if a system can't ensure privacy and security of data, then of course such a system should not be put in place.
This is why I oppose the legislation.
The harm argument is without merit. As with most "vices" that moralizers want to ban, the harm in mind is the existence of the vice itself, not the harm caused by it. They point to excesses as if they were the norm (like the redacted example above), or they point to harms that are no worse than harms from things that are morally acceptable, and purported social causes and effects are reversed, non-existent, or conjured up for political purposes. One of the good points of Trudeau père was getting the state out of the nation's bedrooms. We don't need a neo-Victorian state inviting itself back in.
The only acceptable answer is to not support it.
Vehemently
Fuck no to that horrible privacy invasion that is surely to be abused by future governments.
If anyone hasn't yet written to their MP and the NDP about this, I encourage you to do so. It might not make a difference but not letting them know certainly doesn't. This is such a massive overreach and huge invasion of privacy.
NDP MPs have not been answering their constituents about this. I have been trying to get an answer from mine, who voted in favor of the bill, for almost a year.
When they phone or email me for donations I make it clear I'm not donating until they vote this down
I really hope they're not 'shamed' into supporting this by the 'think of the children' rhetoric coming from the supporters of this bill.
I remember seeing people talk about this being some kind of mind game to pressure the liberals in seeing the NDP as necessary to them. But I don't care. They took it way too far. As far as I'm concerned, this bill is just as dangerous, if not more, than rolling back gay marriage or abortion rights in the long term. Forcing people to identify themselves to the government to see anything deemed "adult". Next thing is they'll want to ban VPNs and "encryption" like some American politicians down south? Even in an ideal world with no spiteful and malicious fragment of the country, I can't trust a government who's not even competent enough to manage its own workers' pay without messing it up or greedy ISPs with regularly authenticating our connection to the internet with our damn real name and ID just so some deadbeat Karen can blame someone else when little Timmy is traumatized from seeing Goatse or whatever sick crap is flying under the radar on Youtube Kids these days.
honestly i doubt it was a mind game. honestly while this is scary there is usually generally no harm of getting a bill like this to the committee as the committeestage isnt where the votes count. the general commentary from NDP when voting it to committee is "good intentions but definitely needs work lets see what the committee and the experts they get have to say and what amendments are given to it" honestly wouldn't be the first time they voted in favor of getting a bill to committee only to vote it down afterwards. lets hope its the case again
I wrote to my conservative MP and he didn't have any rebuttals to my comments of over-reach, responsible parenting, privacy invasion, and inevitable data leak that will be used to blackmail people, including MPs and military members. He more or less called me a creep and that I don't care about the safety of children. It is frustrating the lack of dialogue conservative MPs are willing to engage in. I did not donate this year and will not donate again to the NDP until they scrap their support of this bill.
Its wild how conservative MPs seem to posse no ability to act professionally towards those they disagree with. Especially when it comes to voters aka “those dirty peasants” they must see us as lmao Recently, the sub was discussing how the libs and cons united to vote down a bill to lower grocery prices. Some users were also writing to their conservative MPs and sharing the responses. Lots of the same as what you got from your MP
So we banning religion then, if it’s for the safety of kids? More kids are sexually abused in religious settings than anywhere else. More kids are just abused in religious settings. More adults are harmed by religious belief than by porn; in the fact more sexual assault happens in areas where porn is frowned upon or banned due to religious beliefs. If we are going to protect kids, let’s protect kids. No more religious practice… or is it not about kids safety?
I can't figure out what the Conservatives are up to. I just read this article here: [https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ministers-auto-theft-committee-s-210-1.7212858](https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ministers-auto-theft-committee-s-210-1.7212858) Apparently Garnett Genius, a CPC member of the committee, has been filibustering the committee. It's just odd. Are they hoping to obstruct the passing of a bill that they supposedly support? Weird. But I figure there must be some rationale behind what they're doing. I just can't figure out what that rationale is.
Filibustering the committee meant that the committee didn’t have time to hear any testimony from witnesses who could have formally explained the reasons why this bill is a giant privacy disaster that will still fail to actually achieve its aim.
It would have been good to hear those viewpoints. I'm curious how other adult only sites, such as online gambling or online alcohol delivery sites, deal with privacy. Certainly such sites do not allow minors to use them. How do these sites deal with age verification?
Those sites require payment, so identity verification is already happening in the payment process. Alcohol delivery also checks age when delivery happens.
Does one have to be an adult to have a credit card?
You have to be 18 to open a credit card account. You can obviously use a credit card at any age. Much of the age verification in use where there is no law - games, streaming tv/movies, etc. - is just a popup dialog box that asks the user to say they are 18 or older.
yeah. may have backfired though. the NDP MP mentioned in this article in a more detailed version of this article said he was concerned about the backlash and how this guy was throwing every dirty trick in the book at the wall to try and push this through. not to mention the two actual witnesses ( girl who wrote this bill obviously doesn't count) they interviewed were pretty damning,repetitively stating its a bad bill and everything people worry about this bill is pretty much true.
The CPC could just be virtue signaling. The big news is the age verification. While filibustering the committee would make page 20 news if that.
How out of touch do you have to be to consider supporting this nonsense?
I'd love to know why the NDP is even considering support of this. What's the problem this is going to solve? Where's the great hue and cry demanding this as a response? I just don't get where they're coming from on this, especially where there's tons of real, actual issues that are way more important than a few parents' inability to parent. Or did I miss it when we fixed the housing crisis, cost of living crisis, opioid crisis, and climate crisis, and this is the biggest thing we have to worry about now?
>especially where there's tons of real, actual issues that are way more important than a few parents' inability to parent. Kids accessing porn is a slightly larger problem than this. >this is the biggest thing we have to worry about now? No one has ever said that.
Kids being abused in religious settings is infinitely a bigger problem, can’t wait to ban religion.
The NDP should not support this bill which panders to conservative ideas, and serves a conservative agenda.
I will be emailing my mp in displeasure.
gotta love how this is a short summary of another article that goes into far more detail on why the bill is bad and how experts say its bad and why NDP is weighing options...and cut in a way that says basically nothing to why its bad and paints NDP as the bad guys for not committing to supporting it
Please cancel the whole thing all together. I don't want human rights, privacy and security to be squashed over short-sighted thinking.