Quebec Introduces Bill To Mandate ISP Website Blocking (michaelgeist.ca) 137
An anonymous reader writes: The Government of Quebec has introduced new legislation that requires Internet service providers to block access to unlicensed online gambling sites. The provisions are contained in an omnibus bill implementing elements of the government's spring budget, which included a promise to establish website blocking requirements. The bill provides that "an Internet service provider may not give access to an online gambling site whose operation is not authorized under Québec law." The government's lottery commission will establish the list of banned websites.
wow that's pretty blatant (Score:1)
government gambling system will decide which other competitors' gambling systems are to be allowed.
I'm sure there's no opportunity for misuse or graft here either....
what's the old bit of bumper-sticker or bathroom stall wisdom?: "Don't steal, the government hates competition!"?
Re: (Score:1)
And it's a one-way blacklist because they won't be able to reevaluate a blocked website due to it being blocked on their own ISP (unless Quebec's lottery commission relocates to Ontario?)
monopolies and utilities (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't think you understand what a government is. The primary function of government is to an entity that can provide Utilities and grant monopolies. Seriously, that is the primary function. Utilities are for cases where it's in each (or collectively most) persons advantage for the service to exist as deemed by the government but that no one would individually pay for given a choice. e.g. the armed forces or the highway system. The other is to monopolize certain powers such as the power to imprison. Monopolies are useful when many prviders would create chaos but there is no market force that would correct that. In the early days the buildout of rural phone and electric services and train service was aided by monopoly grants to bussinesses.
When governments do something other than offer utilities or monopolies this should be questioned. But those two things are it's purpose.
Proxies? (Score:2)
I wonder how the gov't proposes that ISPs deal with proxy sites. Can't just ban the proxy site... or maybe they will? Proxy sites may be out of their jursidiction.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
They will be illegal soon enough.
Re: (Score:2)
The primary function of government is to an entity that can provide Utilities and grant monopolies.
You must have seen/heard a different version of that Schoolhouse Rock song/episode, The Preamble [imdb.com]. Here's what I saw/heard:
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
I guess your PBS station sucks.
Re: (Score:2)
1) Quebec is not America. Quebec is part of a country whose entire reason to exist is to restrict the import of American ideals. In particular, Canadian Constitutional law is based on two principles anathema to American thinkers: the usefulness of a hereditary monarchy, and the necessity of heavily restricting the free speech rights of English-speakers in Quebec.
2) Defense, "domestic tranquility," and Justice in the US are utilities and monopolies. The "general welfare" is a bit more nebulous, but most thi
Re: (Score:2)
There, FTFY.
The only thing our
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting logic, but who's supposed to arbitrate disputes, if there is no bigger entity? Just let the winner be the one who kills first?
I prefer the current system, since I prefer to spend my money on something other than the biggest weapons and highest walls.
Re: (Score:2)
I would think that it's obvious that stopping people from killing each other falls under "securing our liberty".
Preventing people from killing each other and dispute resolution obviously doesn't fall under "creating monopolies and public utilities".
Re: (Score:2)
You are flat out wrong. A governments role is to govern the wider population. It's where the damn name comes from.
Stop making shit up and asserting it as fact because you think it should be.
Re: (Score:2)
If you think about it, utilities and monopolies are pretty much the method by which a government governs.
The utility of defense against foreign governments, for example, is provided by the monopoly of force of the local government. Security against crime/riots/etc. is both a public utility (it is useful to the public), and guaranteed by the above-mentions monopoly of force. Standard contract law and other civil procedures are in the same category.
Hell, you have a monopoly on your property enforced by the go
Re: (Score:1)
I don't think you understand what a government is. The primary function of government is to an entity that can provide Utilities and grant monopolies. Seriously, that is the primary function. Utilities are for cases where it's in each (or collectively most) persons advantage for the service to exist as deemed by the government but that no one would individually pay for given a choice. e.g. the armed forces or the highway system. The other is to monopolize certain powers such as the power to imprison. Monopolies are useful when many prviders would create chaos but there is no market force that would correct that. In the early days the buildout of rural phone and electric services and train service was aided by monopoly grants to bussinesses.
When governments do something other than offer utilities or monopolies this should be questioned. But those two things are it's purpose.
Re: (Score:2)
Telecommunication is of federal jurisdiction. Quebec province is blatantly abusing its power.
only Id10T's will be blocked.. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:only Id10T's will be blocked.. (Score:5, Insightful)
The government wouldn't care. If it blocks 90% of the users, it's a big win for Loto-Québec.
Re: (Score:2)
The government wouldn't care. If it blocks 90% of the users, it's a big win for Loto-Québec.
I predict that the Mohawks who are running many of the sites will NOT be happy.
Re: (Score:2)
Yay! It's been a while since we had a nice armed standoff or riot. Of course, when the Mohawks are unhappy it can be difficult to get to the beach, so I hope they work it out by next summer.
Re: (Score:1)
Oka incident version 2.5 perhaps? Different situation, same players.
I wouldn't be surprised if such a showdown occurred once again, Province of Quebec vs. First Nations once again will not be a pretty sight. Never was and likely never will be given the dregs which have been fought over due to colonization.
Re: (Score:2)
The previous confrontation was over land. The Mohawk gambling stuff will be harder to motivate all natives, because it only benefits the people running it, and there's no real "target" that they can block. Sure, they can block route 132 and the Mercier bridge, but we've been through that before. Of course, doing that hurts their illegal trade in tobacco products, and the government can use that as a way to search all vehicles entering and leaving to find smuggling of alcohol, cigarettes, and firearms.
Re: (Score:2)
According to the law:
“An Internet service provider that receives the list of unauthorized online gambling sites in accordance with section 260.35 shall, within 30 days after receiving the list, block access to those sites.“
So, not limited just to end-user access.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The government wouldn't care. If it blocks 90% of the users, it's a big win for Loto-Québec.
Once the block list is established, it's only a matter of time before the web sites of political movements those in power dislike somehow make it on the list, as has happened with most of the "think of the children" blocklists in the UK and EU thus far. Any such grant of power to the government is the camel's nose under the tent. It's only a matter of time before a party comes to power with no qualms about abusing such tools (and, usually, not much time at that).
Re: (Score:2)
yeah. the hell with the slippery slope.
Re: (Score:2)
At least King Canute knew he couldn't hold back the tide.
Re: (Score:2)
VPN much? Tor much?
We're talking about gabling addicts pas,t present, and future.
Perhaps not rocket scientists.
Re: (Score:1)
Honestly the law make sense (Score:5, Insightful)
Gambling is a government monopoly by law in the province. So either repeal this law and allow competition, or be consequent and enforce the law whether online or in brick and mortar casinos.
Not justified (Score:4, Insightful)
Gambling is a government monopoly by law in the province.
That's not an adequate justification for forcing ISPs to expend substantial resources defending that monopoly. The ISPs are a neutral party here and dragging them into the issue is unfair.
Re: (Score:3)
That's not an adequate justification for forcing ISPs to expend substantial resources
Substantial resources? Seriously? That's a basic shell script to run a bunch of DNS resolutions and then add the addresses into an existing Firewall drop policy. That's sys/net management 100 level stuff.
If you are a bad admin you have to run the script on each Firewall. If you are a good one you have a central place to update such policies that can then be pushed out as desired.
If you are expending "significant" resources on such a task, you are doing it wrong. Seriously wrong.
Note: I'm not defending what
Re: (Score:2)
When someone tells you to do something you don't want to do, you play stupid. e.g. someone subpoenas something, do you give them a thumb drive or do you print it out using an old lineprinter with a dead ribbon for them.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless you're the government. Then it's par for the course.
Yes, substantial resources (Score:2)
Substantial resources? Seriously?
Yes, substantial resources. But frankly even if it were just a penny I would have a problem with it just on principle.
That's a basic shell script to run a bunch of DNS resolutions and then add the addresses into an existing Firewall drop policy.
It won't be anywhere near that simple. I'm an accountant (among other things) so let me fill you in on where the costs will land. There will be administrative costs to this. There will be documentation and reports. There will be management reviews. It takes time for the network administrators to deal with. The lists will have to be updated and maintained. There will likely be legal co
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah that'll get em. So now Dad will just have to ask his middle school aged kid how to circumvent the block. With alternative hostnames, IPs, VPNs, proxies, etc..., not to just mention new sites, it's not like people are going to be slowed down much. At best, it will just prevent the casual curious user fr
Re: (Score:2)
Substantial resources? Seriously? That's a basic shell script to run a bunch of DNS resolutions and then add the addresses into an existing Firewall drop policy. That's sys/net management 100 level stuff.
You have no clue what you are talking about.
Hundreds of thousands of websites can share an IP address.
The only way to properly block a particular website is by intercepting the protocols (HTTP and HTTPS, by forcing SNI) and then permit or deny access. And that will definitely need a substantial amount of resources.
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody needed to access the other web sites on those shared IPs anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, and wait until one of the DNS addresses listed on the ban list changes their IP to various Quebec's government sites or anybody else they do not like. Allowing someone else to modify your drop rules is always a good idea.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry - I thought that the purpose of the TPP was to make it so that these offshore gambling sites could sue the Quebec government for creating legislation that would impede their expected profits?
Re: (Score:1)
All laws are relative. The government does not have permission to go all out to enforce every law. They're not Danson and Highsmith from The Other Guys. The damage they do has to be weighed against the benefit of enforcing the law. And really, what law are they enforcing? That people overseas may not operate gambling sites? Does Canada have jurisdiction there? Or is it that Canadians may not gamble overseas? Does the law actually say that? But even if blocking access actually helped enforcing a law, the dam
Re: (Score:3)
Gambling is a government monopoly by law in the province. So either repeal this law and allow competition, or be consequent and enforce the law whether online or in brick and mortar casinos.
Your argument would be a valid reason for the Quebec government to shut down online gambling services in Quebec. But they are trying to force ISPs to block the traffic to these sites. A brick-and-mortar analog would be to forbid taxi or bus companies from driving passengers if they might be headed towards an illegal casino. Or to require car manufacturers to install GPS and locking hardware to prevent people from driving themselves to these casinos.
Re: (Score:2)
Your argument would be a valid reason for the Quebec government to shut down online gambling services in Quebec.
They can't shutdown web sites hosted outside of Quebec.
Do you think web sites hosted offshore should be allowed to sell child pornography even if it is illegal in Quebec?
I think in the case of gambling, it's better to block the access to illegal web sites than to spend resources to track and arrest those who use them.
Re: (Score:2)
1. yes
2. are you suggesting they should implement a great firewall in order to save the ISP's ressources?
Re: (Score:2)
That would be unfair competition from abroad. If a Quebec based company can't run a gambling web site, why would a foreign web site get this privilege?
Re: (Score:2)
No private casino has house odds as bad as a typical state lottery.
If you have choice between a state lottery and an illegal numbers game. Play the illegal numbers game.
Would you call the fungability of money and bullshit shell games involving 'funding schools' a 'typical problem'? CA lotteries for example have added exactly zero dollars to the education budget. They added dollars of course, for each one added one from the general fund was removed.
Re: (Score:2)
No private casino has house odds as bad as a typical state lottery.
Yeah right. Because when you play poker online, you are 100% sure your hand isn't being sold to someone else.
I don't gamble, but if I did it would be on Loto-Quebec's web site, or the equivalent from any other government I trust.
Re: (Score:2)
When I gamble it's over drinks with my friends and neighbors.
Re: (Score:2)
then no need to do it online
Re: (Score:2)
I was comparing state lotteries vs. numbers games. You are the one who brought online casinos into scope.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, a lot of private casinos/lotteries, online or not, have worse odds than state lotteries.
At least I trust the state lotterie's published odds. If I do not agree with those odds, I do not play.
With offshore online casinos, who knows what are your real odds? Who knows they aren't cheating?
Re: (Score:2)
I think any online casino that maintained 50% house odds would be a ghost casino. Nobody would go there in short order.
Granting you can't trust them, gamblers keep statistics on online casinos. Several have been caught 'selling your cards' that way.
Re: (Score:2)
yeah, and of course I should trust a random dude claiming to have statistics on a casino?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't spend any time there. But I know the community is keeping some degree of track of them. It's not like gamblers are inherently trusting people.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not like gamblers are inherently trusting people.
Gamblers are irrationals. But yes, they trust that they can win money when they play. Most do not really care about their ods, otherwise, they wouldn't play.
Re: (Score:2)
You question isn't limited to web sites. You can't run a private casino in Quebec either. The answer is the courts.
Comment removed (Score:3)
It's a tricky situation ... (Score:2)
Every jurisdiction has the rights to create laws within its mandate. In Canada, gambling seems to fall partially or entirely into the mandate of the provinces. Now you have a technology that makes it both possible and convenient to circumvent the laws by placing the activity in a jurisdiction where it's legal while allowing participants to remain in jurisdictions where it is illegal (may that be due to outright prohibition or it needing to fulfill certain legal requirements). Now you have law enforcement
Re: (Score:2)
Every jurisdiction has the rights to create laws within its mandate.
[citation needed]
Every jurisdiction claims that right, since it's fundamental to the nature of government. That doesn't mean such a right actually exists.
Re: (Score:2)
Note that governments to not have Rights. Only people have Rights. Governments have Powers.
Note also that a government's Powers extend pretty much as far as their firepower extends. If the men with guns can make you obey, then the government's laws matter. Otherwise, not so much.
Re: (Score:2)
The internet makes outlawing a bunch of illegal activities, like unregulated gambling, absolutely moot. Not that it should be illegal anyway.
Governments will either have to give up, and understand they can't enforce this stuff now, or stoop to low levels and ban the technological methods that allow this, like Tor and VPNs.
Unlicensed Sites? (Score:4)
The actual casino servers were illegally hosted in downtown Montreal. They were owned and operated by a couple of convicted Jewish fraudsters. Their 'customer service' team were almost exclusively family members, and were the only ones who actually dealt with the customers. Nearly everyone else was 'technical support' - web developers; DBA's; third party marketing agencies and software developers.
There were also a large number of 'real' (money) gamblers who worked for the Canadian government and who all used their *.gc.ca email accounts to register at the casinos. The opportunities for blackmail here are quite obvious. Then the casino operators built Mohawk Internet Technologies on the Kahnawakee reserve to 'legalize' their business - by operating on native soil. The natives are given pittance in return - a little cash and employment as gun-toting security guards. From the outside, the whole operation looks likes a Columbian drug cartel's compound.
According to the article, ISP's are supposed to block 'non-licensed' casinos. Considering that most online casinos are 'technically' licensed, it seems to be a moot point. The article doesn't mention what the Quebec government considers a legitimate license. One would assume that a legitimate license is one issued in the province of Quebec.
FTA: "...the best solution for the government is to establish clear rules and open up the online gambling market to private operators."
Interestingly, that was always the wet dream of these casino operators. I suspect that this whole licensing issue is the brainchild of the casino operators themselves.
I'm guessing that the Kahnawakee Gaming Commission will be the official gaming license standard for Quebec. That way, only casinos that these shady crooks own or are profiting from will be the only ones that get past the filters.
Also, if you are thinking about gambling online - don't. It is a scam. Big time. And if you absolutely MUST throw your hard-earned money away then throw it into the fireplace. At least it will keep you warm.
Re: (Score:1)
[I]f you absolutely MUST throw your hard-earned money away then throw it into the fireplace. At least it will keep you warm.
Buy a boat. It won't keep you warm, or even dry, and it will quickly stop to be any fun at all, but goddammit, you'll own a boat.
VPN (Score:2)
Are they going to block E-Trade? (Score:2)
Implied content filtering? (Score:2)
I would assume that to comply with this law most ISPs would choose to just block by IP using a DNSBL.
That wouldn't require much, if any, extra hardware and would work with HTTPS.
But what if IPs are shared or change often?
From TFA it sounds like this is not a real time BL so I am sure there are going to be lots of cracks.
Seems like a lot of effort for no real gain since all a user has to do is to run a VPN or TOR...
Re: (Score:2)
I hope they try this. How long will it take for the gambling sites being blocked to realize that they can now add IPs to the block list?
I should start investing in VPN stocks (Score:2)
By the time the governments are done blocking sites, plus people in general just wanting to torrent and browse anonymously, VPN providers must be making bank.
Re: (Score:3)
No, but you can organize a referendum on the separation of the rest of Canada from Quebec.
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
The problem for the quebecies is that half of Quebec would secede and join the rest of English speaking Canada.
They will have a French sign burning party that will last a week. They will ban the speaking of both French and whatever they speak in Quebec (which I have on good authority is a Creole, not true Frogish.)
Re: (Score:2)
"The dialect name you are looking for is Joual."
LMAO! Nice catch.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Even if Quebec actually got a majority provincial government in favour of secession, it will take much more than just a single provincial referendum for them to separate. It's a foregone conclusion that if the secession is to be legal, then *EVERY* province in Canada will have to unanimously agree to it, and even then it would probably require a 75 or 80% majority to be considered for each province. The odds of this happening of are so staggeringly unlikely, that I'd wager it is more probable we will achieve faster-than-light interstellar travel in our lifetime.
This is just plain wrong for so many different reasons.
Imagine country A invade and annex country B. Country A then write into the new constitution that any separation requires the agreement of every citizen of the whole country. Then country B makes a referendum on independence. 100% of them vote yes. A single person in country A oppose. Country B can't secede? Wait? According to what? Not international law. According to a constitution which was never democratic or agreed with the same standards that it is
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps you failed to notice my caveat...
I'm not saying Quebec could not even try to secede without unanimous agreement from other provinces. only that it cannot do so legally without such agreement, and actually attempting to do so would land the leaders of such a movement in prison, unless the separatists were literally wiling to wage war on Canada. A war they could not possibly win.
Which, by the way, still would not be legal.
Re: (Score:2)
If by "legally" you mean in accordance with the canadian constitution, then I agree.
But the whole point is to get out of the canadian constitution, therefore it would no longer apply. Just like Canada chose that the UK constitution stopped to apply in 1982. According to UK law, the UK parliament could still change the constitution of Canada. But Canada doesn't care. That's what is called independence.
By the way, agreement from all provinces is required to amend some parts of the constitution of Canada. But
Re: (Score:2)
Uh... no. The Canadian Constitution act of 1982 was signed into law by Queen Elizabeth herself, and as such was legally recognized by the UK.
Re: (Score:2)
Yup. But as any other law of the UK parliament, it can be repealed.
Re: (Score:2)
Well yes, of course.... my point was that it was legal. You appeared to be suggesting that the whole point of secession was to get out of the constitution, and likened that to what Canada did with the UK in 1982.
Now, if Quebec goes and does something illegal and attempts to declare independent sovereignty without the other provinces approval, then for all intents and purposes, we would be talking about civil war. However, it's foregone conclusion that the separatists would lose any war they try to wage
Re: (Score:2)
It was "legal" (in accordance with UK law) but what wasn't is the conception that Canada is now fully independant from the UK. There is no such provision in UK law. Even if the UK sign a law saying that Canada is now independent, it isn't, since the UK can repeal that law "legally".
But all that is BS. Quebec can get its independence under both Quebec and international law and this is what counts in the end, not Canadian law. Canadian law can only affect Canada's recognition of an independent Quebec.
And no,
Re: (Score:2)
You are right.... ringleaders would just go to prison. This nearly happened in the 90's, when separatism reached a peak.
It is bizarre that you should think there is a greater likelihood of success that Quebec could secede from Canada illegally than through legal channels (which itself is so staggeringly unlikely to happen that I have no words at the moment to describe it).
Re: (Score:2)
It would happen legally. Under both Quebec and international law. The only law that would be broken would be the constitution of Canada, and it wouldn't matter since it would no longer apply.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, everything is not in English, even here in the US. Go into any good Italian restaurant, and the menu will be filled with Italian terms and writing. Any intelligent diner is educated and smart enough to be able to pronounce these terms; it's not like you need to learn the whole language. Same for any Greek restaurant: all the food names are in Greek, like galactoboureko. At some restaurants, you'll even see stuff in Greek letters, though of course they also print the Latinized versions. Again, same
Re: (Score:2)
Québec wants to maintain its own identity and not become just another place on the globe that's just like every place else. I don't see anything particularly wrong with that. It's different than the melting pot style policies that the province is surrounded by, but it doesn't "defy all reason". You could argue whether or not that's a noble goal, but the reasoning seems pretty clear to me.
Re: (Score:2)
Québec wants to maintain its own identity and not become just another place on the globe that's just like every place else. I don't see anything particularly wrong with that. It's different than the melting pot style policies that the province is surrounded by, but it doesn't "defy all reason". You could argue whether or not that's a noble goal, but the reasoning seems pretty clear to me.
I remember when touring through Canada, where the identity seeking Quebecois mandated that bilingual was the law. Okay, I guess that is alright. Seems a little clumsy. Certrainly if I was living in a country where a language was spoken, I'd learn what was spoken rather than demand everyone placate me. But, whatever
Touring through Ottawa was pretty nice. Loved the architecture. Liked the very casual atmosphere, considering it was the capital of a country. Enjoyed the cathouse outside of Parliament. The bil
Re: (Score:2)
There is a historical reason for that though. A portion of the population believes that the province should be its own country, separate from Canada. They don't consider themselves Canadian and they don't want to deal with Canadians. Canada gives Québec more liberties than the other provinces as a way of sidestepping the issue. My thought on that is that Canada is a weak negotiator.
I've spent a lot of time in Québec as an American and I never felt like anyone treated me as an outsider, even wh
Re: (Score:2)
That's all fine and well, but why exactly do you need a *law* to force this on everyone? If you don't want to try to learn any Greek food names, then don't eat at a Greek restaurant; it's pretty simple. It's not like you even need to learn the Greek language; the server probably doesn't speak it either. At the last Greek restaurant I went to, the server couldn't even pronounce "gyro" correctly. But at least they weren't required to make up some stupid English name for a Greek dish that's had a Greek nam
Re: (Score:2)
So the Quebecoi is worried about the culture being ruined by the Italians??? Or the Ethiopians (I'm sure their restaurants have the names of their dishes in Ethiopian)?
Re: (Score:2)
It's easier than fighting over who gets exceptions to the law and who doesn't.
Re: (Score:2)
The obvious conclusion here is that the law is *stupid*. Repeal the law and let people use whatever language they want. We don't have that problem here in the US; there's plenty of areas where all the shops have their signage in, and do business in, Spanish, because that's what their customers want.
Re: (Score:2)
As English speaker you don't see any problem with this because everything else is in English. What harm could do a little menu in Italian when it is the Italian peoples that are forced to learn English for work.
If they emigrate to the US or UK, then of course they need to learn English for work. Why should it be any different?
If they're living in Italy, then no, they don't need to learn English to work. I'm quite sure Italians still generally speak Italian in Italy, just like French generally speak French
Re: (Score:1)
It's Richmond, not Vancouver, that's trying to encourage english in the business sphere. The reason is because there are so many chinese only signs that many non-chinese aren't even going into the city and it's hurting the city. I know that I only go into Richmond when I absolutely have to, and there's no reason for me to go. I haven't been there since I quit my last job that was in Richmond over a year ago.
As for the Quebec referendum, the only problem I had with it is no one asked the rest of the country
Re: (Score:2)
It's you _duty_ to evade taxes by all means possible, legal or illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's also legal for ISPs to (voluntarily) block access to online gambling sites which ARE authorized by the government, yes?
That would be a net neutrality issue. I don't think an ISP should have the right to block any legal web site.