Date: Fri, 20 May 1994 22:00:16 -0400 (EDT) From: [anonymous EFF member] Note: due to the current political climate in Ontario, please do not forward this story over the net with my name on it. Reading the story will explain why. There is increasing evidence that with in the next two years we may see in Canada a similar situation as has been taking place in Italy over the last few weeks with the shutting down of 'amature' BBS sites. As reported in Toronto's EYE Newspaper [eye@io.org] (similar to New Yorks Village Voice) dated May 19. 1994 The London Ontario detachment of the Ontario Provincial Police have begun a campaign of harassment against local University Internet users who are attempting to use the 'net to gain information on the Karla Homolka trial. A University of Western Ontario (London) student had his Internet account frozen by the university computer staff when requested by the Police. The reason for this lay in the student's name being left on the text of a FAQ of the details of the trial. Another student in Toronto had Faxed this material (which had been Emailed to him) to the Toronto media, and the offices of the Premier of Ontario and the Attorney-General as an act of provocation against the Ban (his regular anonymous forwarding site was not working). The problem was that he had forgotten to remove the other persons name and account number from the original E-mail that was sent out. The police action against the student's account was done without a warrant, and also involved the questioning of the student at the local police station. Likewise the students home computer was searched without a warrant by using the threat of criminal charges. The Student's computer account was re-instated, but he was required to turn over all incoming Email to the police under the threat of criminal charges if he did not cooperate. A list of about 50 people who had received Homolka FAQ's were passed on to the police. The important part of this entire situation is that no one, including the Ontario Attorney-General office is certain that the ban applies to the Internet. The ban states that details of the trial cannot be published in the print media but there is no ban on possession of information. There is no mention of the Internet, nor the use of computer systems in the ban. Further, there is no official investigation of the Internet on the part of the Ontario Provincial Police, except for this one detachment. One of the questions raised is the ethics of the University of Western Ontario's computer department. Their cooperation with the police was based on a fear of having their computer equipment confiscated (similar to the case of the University of Cambridge in England). If the situation had taken place with in the library system of the university, it would not have been tolerated by the library staff due to the long held tradition in that profession of the defense of freedom of speech. If the Internet is to remain open this set of values will have to become part of the professional commitment of the MIS staff of universities as well.