[quote=“herbie_popnecker”]
how do you cut & paste from the command prompt?[/quote]
Either select the text then simply right click in the window or right click click mark select the text and then right click in the window 
Interesting read in this months Utne Mag about China’s other great wall (that I was reminded of when I read this Telus discussion). To quote: “the Chinese government sought out a number of US tech companies, including Cisco Systems, which has developed cutting edge word recognition and filtering techniques that bar access to more than 250,000 web sites…and scans e-mail, online chat forums, and blogs for offending information.” Plus they have 30,000 human monitors who track internet usage.
thx. It never used to work on Win2000 so I just tried the highlight CTRL C, CTRL V thing and it does it for XP…
still can’t access those sites!
Here is a link to file a complaint to the CRTC:
CRTC doesn’t take ISP complaints.
The CRTC takes individual complaints. There’s a convoluted filing thing for ISPs to go thru as “Internet” is not regulated by CRTC but “network access” purchased to get Internet is.
Telus will take the ISP complaints seriously. voices-for-change came back on this afternoon when we called and asked WTF was up.
has anyone emailed citytel about this? I would actually like to follow the postings on these websites… without having to view them through a proxy
Check out “Telus shuts down pro-union website” on page 10 of Monday’s Daily Snooze.
Since you have to sign up to read some of the articles, these are the most recent headlines about Telus blocking the sites.
http://www.canada.com/search/results.html?searchfor=telus
Just wondered if you can access the sites yet from citytel?
Half a dozen people in the Fort filed online complaints to the CRTC that I heard about.
Nope, still blocked here…
hackingthemainframe got on the front page of the Daily Snooze today… as the “North Coast’s web forum.” Menino.com got the mention too.
Smartass wrote:
Now that’s cool man. “The Gateway to The New North Coast”
I don’t believe this… five minutes after I setup a free dialer so the TWU guys in the area could see their own website (they have to call LD though), I go out for a smoke and some scab pulls out of the C.O. across the street.
So I start to walk over to see who he is, but when I call out “Who’s the fucking scab?” he backs up out of the lineup for the stop sign and buggers off real fast down the alley.
Dirtbag 
and I SURE AS HELL don’t believe this. The very instant i submitted that last post, I lost all connectivity. The phones started to ring with people on ADSL and wireless ccts that lost connectivity, too (all different VLANS).
Talk about Instant Karma
I find it kind of ironic how they (assuming they use telus long distance) now have to pay telus long distance fees to find out how their fight against telus is going 
Both sites are now accessible.
Telus reached an out of court settlement yesterday and unblocked the sites in the afternoon. Voices did get served with an injunction that says they will be blocked again if they name names or post photos.
That would imply that a court thinks it’s ok to censor the Internet ‘a little bit’ and will not rule on the overall blocking.
"The ball of ‘censorship’ is now in another court."
Is it okay to censor the Internet at all?
By the way: if you have $5000 and a lawyer you can file an injunction on anything. The figure is to prevent ‘frivolous’ lawsuits. Now only rich people and evil corporations can file frivolous lawsuits.
Solution to “internet censorship” – host your site in Russia, or the Netherlands. Use an alias.
[quote=“MiG”]Solution to “internet censorship” – host your site in Russia, or the Netherlands. Use an alias.
See: thepiratebay.org/legal.php[/quote]
Hosting your site in Russia to avoid censorship. If that’s not the epidome of irony, I’d like to know what is!
RUPERT MENTIONED IN TORONTO EDITORIAL:
Copied this post from voice-for-change.com as it specifically mentions Rupert:
[quote]Aug. 1, 2005. 01:00 AM
Telus breaks ISPs’ cardinal rule
Internet service providers always seem to get the first call when a problem arises on the Internet. Lawmakers want them to assist with investigations into cybercrime, parents want them to filter out harmful content, consumers want them to stop spam, and copyright holders want them to curtail infringement.
Despite the urge to hold ISPs accountable for such activities, the ISP community has been remarkably successful in maintaining a position of neutrality — the digital successor (in spirit and often in fact) to the common carrier phone company.
Adopting a neutral approach has always required strict adherence to one cardinal rule: that ISPs transport bits of data without discrimination, preference, or regard for content. That rule has served ISPs very well in Canada.
When the federal government amended the Canadian Human Rights Act to remove lingering uncertainty about its application to hate on the Internet, ISPs were exempted from liability. Similarly, when Ottawa established rules to address child pornography online, it consciously avoided placing ISPs in the role of judge and jury by requiring them to take down offending content only after receipt of a court order.
Most recently, Bill C-60, Canada’s proposed copyright reform, envisions the creation of a “notice and notice” system for allegedly infringing copyright material online. That system mirrors the child pornography approach by leaving it to the courts to determine when content should be taken offline.
In fact, Canadian courts have also respected the ISPs’ role as intermediaries, setting a high threshold for revealing subscriber personal information in the file sharing lawsuits and upholding their neutrality in last summer’s Tariff 22 decision, a Supreme Court of Canada case involving music streaming.
Given the importance of the neutrality principle, it came as a shock to learn last week that Telus, Canada’s second largest telecommunications company, was actively blocking access to Voices for Change, a website supporting the Telecommunications Workers Union. Telus has been embroiled in a contentious labour dispute with the union, yet its decision to unilaterally block subscriber access to the site was unprecedented.
The company argued that the site contained confidential proprietary information and that photographs on the site raised privacy and security issues for certain of its employees. Nevertheless, the blockage of the site was completely ineffective since it remained available to anyone outside the Telus network. Moreover, those within the Telus network could access the site with a bit of creative Internet surfing.
The appropriate approach for Telus would have been the same formula it advises law enforcement and copyright holders to follow — to obtain a court order to get the site removed. In fact, that was precisely what Telus ultimately did late last week when it obtained a court order barring the site from posting content with the intent of threatening Telus employees.
By first unilaterally blocking the site, Telus raised a host of challenging legal issues. The company argued that its subscriber contract granted it the right to block content. While that may be true for its roughly one million retail subscribers, the blockage occurred at the Internet backbone level, thereby blocking access for other ISPs (and their customers) that use Telus as their provider.
For example, Prince Rupert, a small city on the northwest coast of British Columbia, has established a community ISP to provide its citizens with municipally supported Internet access. Since their connectivity is provided by Telus, last week the entire community found itself unable to access the Voices for Change website.
Canadian law also raises some interesting questions. While not directly applicable to a private sector company, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees Canadians “freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression.” The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that those rights extend to both the speaker as well as the listener. Telus may not be subject to the Charter, but surely all Canadian corporations should aspire to abide by its principles.
The Canadian Telecommunications Act may also be relevant to this situation, though the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission’s 1999 New Media decision to take a hands-off approach to the Internet may diminish its applicability.
Section 27(2) forbids unjust discrimination in the provision of a telecommunication service. This section is primarily applicable to competing services, though the blocked website may well fit within the definition.
Moreover, Section 36 of the Act provides that a “Canadian carrier shall not control the content or influence the meaning or purpose of telecommunications carried by it for the public.” The CRTC has sought to limit the applicability of this provision to retail end-user Internet services, yet it is clear that the Telus action extended well beyond its own retail customers.
Irrespective of the legal situation, the website blockage was stunningly bad policy that may ultimately come back to haunt the entire Canadian ISP industry. Earlier this year the federal government launched its Telecommunications Policy Review, a comprehensive review of all aspects of the Canadian telecommunications regulatory framework, including the provision and availability of Internet services.
The Telus blockage, combined with ever-growing concerns about ISPs that engage in packet preferencing or discrimination against competitive Internet telephony services, as well as doubts about the effectiveness of ISP action against spam, and fears about ISP protection of customer private data in light of potential new law enforcement surveillance requirements, may lead to increasing calls for a new national ISP accountability framework.
The Policy Review is accepting comments until the middle of this month, leaving ample time for those affected by the blockage to contribute to the process.
Canadian ISPs have been supported for many years by a self-regulatory environment premised on network neutrality and non-discrimination of the traffic on their systems. In light of last week’s events, they may soon find the federal government stepping in to back this principle with the force of law.
Michael Geist holds the Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law at the University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law. He can reached at michaelgeist.ca.
[/quote]
If you don’t want to see this happen agian, the CRTC may not be the right avenue, but the Telecom Review Policy Panel is.
You have to phrase it in the form of an answer to the questions they ask in the Consultation Paper. The deadline is August 15.
It may seem like a lot of work – it’s harder than clicking on a link and sending an e-mail. But it’s worth it. If you look at the number of registered commenters, they are not going to be hearing from a lot of Canadians, so every well-reasoned intervention will matter.
My comments will be something along the lines of:
-
Regarding Internet access, ISPs should have to specify whether they are selling content-neutral or content-adjusted access when you sign up. If it’s content-neutral, they can’t be allowed to fuck with the content for non-technical reasons. And if it’s content-adjusted, they don’t get any of the protections that ISPs do – they have chosen not to be common carriers and are responsible for all of the content that goes over their network.
-
Regarding Internet backbones, any ISP who claims to offer content-neutral access is required to be hooked up to a content-neutral backbone. Same rules for content-neutral backbones
End result: CityLink would be selling content-neutral access. They’d be buying content-neutral upstream access. No more censorship – and if anyone’s lying, empower the CRTC to whack them.