Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Canada To Mandate ISP Deep Packet Inspection

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the that's-not-cool-eh dept.

Canada 313

An anonymous reader writes "The Canadian government has proposed new legislation that would require ISPs to install deep-packet inspection capabilities. The proposal includes a laundry list of surveillance requirements, police review of ISP employees and technologies, and the mandated disclosure of a broad range of subscriber information without any court oversight."

cancel ×

313 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Let's Just Hope... (1)

Barrinmw (1791848) | more than 3 years ago | (#34244016)

....that it fails.

Re:Let's Just Hope... (-1, Offtopic)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 3 years ago | (#34244082)

Well, I'm at work on IE6, and there was no FA. I got to the linked page, which had nothing on it but links.

TFA failed, that's for sure.

Re:Let's Just Hope... (-1, Offtopic)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#34244686)

>>>at work on IE6, and there was no FA

Ditto. So I installed SeaMonkey 4. Not only does it render the frakkin' article perfectly, but it loads about five times faster. I can't believe our employers are still forcing us to IE6. They should at least upgrade to IE7 (like my last employer did).

Re:Let's Just Hope... (3, Interesting)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 3 years ago | (#34244342)

It's very easy to look at the short story and go "The government wants to read my packets?!?!? Oh Noes this must be bad!" Usually that can get a +5 insightful.

I opened the Article to find it was another one from Michael Geist. Now, normally he puts me off, it seems like there was a week or two there where he kept flooding the world with news about ACTA, and I was getting tired of hearing about it because it was the same old thing, bad bad bad. So I started reading the article and the bills that were being proposed - and he actually seems to be on the mark with this one. Basically what the whole thing boils down to is this:

The Law Enforcement Agencies want to be able to read internet traffic, real time, and have access to the information the ISP has on whoever is in that conversation. While some of these details are already within the ISP's ability to give out voluntarily should the Police ask for it, basically they want it set in stone that they MUST. Makes me wonder if there was an issue where an ISP refused to hand over data recently, or if they simple said "We can't sniff their traffic".

Now - I have a strong feeling that this will fail. Why? It seems that they want ISP's to foot the bill. An ISP isn't going to want to pay any more money than they have to. They won't be getting any kind of a kickback from the government - law enforcement isn't exactly a money making industry. So I see Telus and Shaw and Bell and whoever probably starting to grease some palms to make sure this thing doesn't pass.

Unless there is some odd reason that ISP's would willingly want to comply with this (which would mean they're likely getting refunded somehow) then I would be a little more worried. If Geist can find evidence of that, well, that'd be quite a story!

Re:Let's Just Hope... (5, Insightful)

Barrinmw (1791848) | more than 3 years ago | (#34244380)

The problem is, that when governments get an ability to do something, they have a bad habit of misusing that power.

Re:Let's Just Hope... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34244544)

When anyone gets the ability to do something, they have a tendency to misuse that power. It is the story of our race.
The problem is, in concept, democratic governments are supposed to be unbiased and not misuse power, but in reality,
they have a bias, and they misuse their power accordingly. That is the concerning part.

Re:Let's Just Hope... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34244554)

So do Non-Governments. At least in theory, the one is willing to be held accountable on the surface.

The other will vent and fume at the indignity of being challenged. Effectiveness of such rising in direct correlation with power.

Re:Let's Just Hope... (3, Insightful)

ShaunC (203807) | more than 3 years ago | (#34244560)

law enforcement isn't exactly a money making industry

Canada just needs to start up a War on Drugs. Law enforcement is quite a profitable industry in the US.

Re:Let's Just Hope... (1)

gman003 (1693318) | more than 3 years ago | (#34244632)

Law enforcement isn't. Supplying and training law enforcement is.

Re:Let's Just Hope... (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#34244872)

>>>Supplying and training law enforcement is profitable.

There are companies that do this?

Re:Let's Just Hope... (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#34244642)

The War on Some Drugs is a big money loser. We spend billions on it and on incarcerating non-violent offenders.

Re:Let's Just Hope... (5, Insightful)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 3 years ago | (#34244744)

The War on Some Drugs is a big money loser. We spend billions on it and on incarcerating non-violent offenders.

Yes, but his point is that for the agencies and private-sector corporations who are maintaining and supporting that "War" ... it is extremely profitable. Those billions are going somewhere, and those groups have a vested interest in lobbying Congress to keep the "War" on for as long as possible. Corruption of the highest order, when you get right down to it.

Re:Let's Just Hope... (1)

EasyTarget (43516) | more than 3 years ago | (#34244870)

It certainly costs the taxpayer a fortune. ... but believe me, it is very profitable for those who run the law enforcement and incarceration operations.

Just goes to show... (1)

TheRedDuke (1734262) | more than 3 years ago | (#34244022)

...you don't need a department of Homeland Security to trample on your rights.

Re:Just goes to show... (2, Funny)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 3 years ago | (#34244084)

However, you do need one to molest your children and Grandma at the airport, and take naked pictures of your family

Re:Just goes to show... (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 3 years ago | (#34244186)

However, you do need one to molest your children and Grandma at the airport, and take naked pictures of your family

No, you don't even need one for that. You just need people who believe that such things are in your best interests. They'll naturally form whatever Departments and other 3-letter organizations are necessary to achieve their goals. Note: those may not be the same goals as those of the population at large.

Amazing what one (albeit largely successful) terrorist attack can achieve, and it didn't even happen in Canada. There was a time, really not that long ago, when any such proposal would have been greeted with much-deserved laughter, on either side of the border.

Re:Just goes to show... (1)

causality (777677) | more than 3 years ago | (#34244154)

...you don't need a department of Homeland Security to trample on your rights.

No, it just streamlines the process when everything is organized under one umbrella.

The average Canadian should start using end-to-end encryption. And why not? It's what the criminals are already doing. May as well achieve parity with them.

Re:Just goes to show... (4, Insightful)

rwa2 (4391) | more than 3 years ago | (#34244192)

Oh, I think this is actually kind of a good thing...

Next up: Canada leads in public adaptation of strong encryption while engaging in all online activities.

Re:Just goes to show... (3, Insightful)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 3 years ago | (#34244782)

Oh, I think this is actually kind of a good thing...

Next up: Canada leads in public adaptation of strong encryption while engaging in all online activities.

Everybody thinks that, until the use of encryption for other than officially-approved activities is outlawed, or until keeping your passwords private becomes a serious crime. See how the UK has been handling that for an idea of how bad it can get (and it's not as bad as it's going to get, yet.)

Re:Just goes to show... (5, Informative)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#34244290)

Nope. I cant access youtube at the moment, but there's a video of Canadian Ezra Levant being interrogated by his own government. His crime: He published a cartoon with a Muslim.

So much for free speech. Looks like Canada is becoming even more tyrannical than Australia.

Re:Just goes to show... (0, Troll)

ice_nine6 (1149219) | more than 3 years ago | (#34244652)

Nope. I cant access youtube at the moment, but there's a video of Canadian Ezra Levant being interrogated by his own government. His crime: He published a cartoon with a Muslim.

So much for free speech. Looks like Canada is becoming even more tyrannical than Australia.

From Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ezra_Levant]: "Soharwardy's complaint was ultimately withdrawn, and a complaint he filed with Calgary police came to naught." Looks Canada isn't very good at being tyrannical.

Re:Just goes to show... (4, Insightful)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#34244784)

You make it sound so innocent but here's the facts:

- 3 years of Mr. Levant's life wasted trying to defend himself
- $50,000 of " " money wasted " "
- $600,000 of taxpayer dollars wasted on the investigation, interrogation, and later backpedaling by the government
- hours of video of interrogations on youtube - priceless

Re:Just goes to show... (1)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 3 years ago | (#34244708)

Go look up the HRC and the kangaroo court system. The HRC tries to operate "above" government, and the courts.

Re:Just goes to show... (5, Informative)

Gribflex (177733) | more than 3 years ago | (#34244720)

Please be aware that we don't have 'Free Speech' laws in Canada like those protected by the First Amendment in the USA.

What we have instead is a freedom of expression (Section 2b of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms). The Freedom of Expression is very similar, but not quite as wide reaching as those rights protected by the 1st Amendment in the US Constitution.

One of the subtle differences is that you are free to express anything you like, as long as neither the message, nor the means of conveying that message, is considered illegal under another law. There aren't many cases where another law infringes on the freedom of expression, but one notable example is the Canadian Hate Crimes laws, which prohibit the proliferation of hate material based on ethnicity, religion, sexual preference, etc.

Re:Just goes to show... (1)

tycoex (1832784) | more than 3 years ago | (#34244824)

So stuff like South Park and Family Guy are illegal in Canada? Ouch.

Who foots the bill? (2, Insightful)

markatto (1893394) | more than 3 years ago | (#34244058)

This sounds expensive. Who is going to pay for it? The ISPs? The government?

Re:Who foots the bill? (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#34244112)

Of course not. The consumer of course. They will have to pay a nice Internet Monitoring fee. It will be a fee so the ISPs can still advertise a price of $49.95. Nevermind that no one ever gets a bill less than $60.

Re:Who foots the bill? (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#34244284)

I've always wonder about that. While I can understand them not advertising the price inclusive of all taxes and fees, one would think that it's reasonable to at least include the ones that apply across all of the states or provinces that you're providing service to. Why the government allows that sort of deceptive trade practice is beyond me.

Re:Who foots the bill? (1)

Dalzhim (1588707) | more than 3 years ago | (#34244562)

Even if there was no specific fee, you'd end up paying for it through your taxes.
Bills are always payed by individuals indirectly. A government cannot have any money without individuals paying taxes. A company cannot have any money without customers buying products.

Let's assume the bill is going to be OVER 9000! The government says: Hey, don't worry folks, you won't have to give in a penny, we'll assume the whole bill. In the end, they'll be paying with money that could have been spent on services you actually wanted. So yeah, your taxes didn't change, it's what they're being used for that has been slightly changed against your own interest.

Re:Who foots the bill? (1)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 3 years ago | (#34244128)

This sounds expensive. Who is going to pay for it? The ISPs? The government?

Um, the ISP's customers. Either in the form of a rate increase or a "Packet Inspection Tax".

Re:Who foots the bill? (1)

Lucky75 (1265142) | more than 3 years ago | (#34244540)

Except that it won't be that obvious. More like the "Internet Security Tax" or "This is for your own good Tax", or "We're just creeps who like to spy on everyone Tax". Wait...maybe that last one wouldn't fly either.

Re:Who foots the bill? (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 3 years ago | (#34244136)

The ISPs.

Re:Who foots the bill? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34244162)

ISPs who want to do business in Canada.

Re:Who foots the bill? (1)

Jaysyn (203771) | more than 3 years ago | (#34244168)

Canadian citizens, ultimately.

Re:Who foots the bill? (5, Interesting)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 3 years ago | (#34244246)

news: its not expensive. networks TAPS are commodity these days. dpi is something 'every box' does (or plans to do). no longer really a differentiator.

I work in the networking field and over the last 10 yrs I've seen a burst of boxes that offer 'security' and other things but mostly they are there for LI and DPI. its the new fad in datacomm and all the governments are into spying on their people. its profitable to supply boxes to such governments and corporations.

since everyone (vendors) are offering port monitoring, tapping and DPI triggering, it won't be too expensive.

cost is not what we should care about, here. its the widespread use and 'well, everyone else is doing it' acceptance of DPI in our lives. that's what annoys and scares me the most; the fact that its so 'everywhere' now. and it seems only us techies really know this.

Re:Who foots the bill? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34244716)

So the box is cheap, what about the people who'll have to be payed to handle request to access specific logs and provide the data? What about the people who'll have to be payed to create software to make the job simple so that companies can hire lower-salary workers to do the previously described job?

Re:Who foots the bill? (1)

dcollins (135727) | more than 3 years ago | (#34244762)

Hmmm, maybe there are already computers with software provided to run said hardware, ya think?

Re:Who foots the bill? (1)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 3 years ago | (#34244874)

outsource the IT labor. its not expensive or difficult.

also, boxes these days have 'local apis' which means users (no, not you; the owner of the box is the user) can write 'apps' that run on the fabric platform. they can play with the bits and do things via special hardware. they are all heading there. this means that buyers of the box and deployers can write custom high-speed 'scripts' if you will. think of the potential power in that (use and abuse, both).

that's a LOT of power. are the good guys the only ones using this? how good are the good guys, btw?

Re:Who foots the bill? (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 3 years ago | (#34244302)

This sounds expensive. Who is going to pay for it? The ISPs? The government?

If you're Canadian ... you are. In more than one sense of the phrase "pay for it".

I'm truly sorry to see Canada heading down this garden path, for a long time I looked towards Canada and its central government as being, in many respects, far more trustworthy than mine. I sense a rising level of paranoia, and concomitant need to control, amongst your leadership, much has been happening with ours (yes, I'm an American.) That and the undue influence provided by the media companies, who no doubt are a big part of this "proposal". Certainly they will benefit from it.

Re:Who foots the bill? (1)

Lucky75 (1265142) | more than 3 years ago | (#34244568)

That was somewhat true, until we installed this NeoCon government that's currently in power. Harper and friends seem to want to pander to Bush and Friends, except that Bush isn't in power any longer. Guess they missed the memo.

Re:Who foots the bill? (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 3 years ago | (#34244830)

That was somewhat true, until we installed this NeoCon government that's currently in power. Harper and friends seem to want to pander to Bush and Friends, except that Bush isn't in power any longer. Guess they missed the memo.

Ha ... well, if I'd had to recommend a President that your officials should look up to, or in any way attempt to emulate, it would not have been George Bush. Or Barack Obama either, for that matter. Or Bill Clinton. In fact, you have to go quite a ways back to find a President that really had the best interests of We the People in mind, and acted accordingly.

One more reason to insist on end-to-end encryption (2, Insightful)

davidwr (791652) | more than 3 years ago | (#34244070)

Strong encryption, it's not just for financial/health/etc. transactions anymore!

Re:One more reason to insist on end-to-end encrypt (2, Insightful)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#34244200)

Yeah, and get ready to be flogged with a wet noodle until you give up your passwords... And if that doesn't work, just expect an outright ban on "unauthorized" encryption... unreadable packets will be dropped

Re:One more reason to insist on end-to-end encrypt (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#34244360)

>>>Strong encryption

Tell me how to implement it on Firefox and Utorrent. Please and thank you.

Re:One more reason to insist on end-to-end encrypt (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#34244434)

Firefox supports https, not sure on utorrent, but most of them support talking to only encrypted peers.

Re:One more reason to insist on end-to-end encrypt (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 3 years ago | (#34244860)

Firefox supports https, not sure on utorrent, but most of them support talking to only encrypted peers.

Ah, but the majority of Web sites do not. Although it is nice that Google supports it now, it only matters until you click on a link that takes you to a site that does not.

Yes, I think all the major torrent clients support required encryption, with different levels of encryption in some cases.

Re:One more reason to insist on end-to-end encrypt (1)

Lucky75 (1265142) | more than 3 years ago | (#34244592)

Check the "Enable Encryption" checkbox in setttings. I thought that it was defaulted to enabled for years? Maybe I'm mistaken.

Aarr (1)

TheCycoONE (913189) | more than 3 years ago | (#34244086)

I hope the Pirate Party of Canada runs in my riding this year. Digital privacy is obviously not a priority for the current government.

Re:Aarr (1)

TheCycoONE (913189) | more than 3 years ago | (#34244114)

(I mean in the next election. Lately they've been nearly annual so it's easy to confuse)

Re:Aarr (1)

doconnor (134648) | more than 3 years ago | (#34244268)

There is one way to guarantee that: Run as a Pirate Party candidate yourself.

Re:Aarr (1)

rwa2 (4391) | more than 3 years ago | (#34244300)

runs in my riding this year.

Was that English? Or does that have some kind of association with "mountie" that I'm unfamiliar with?

--
Please help a poor, intellectually destitute US American by donating to a knowledge bank this year.

Re:Aarr (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34244528)

"Riding" is apparently Canadianese for "district".

-- American that grew up right near Canada.

Re:Aarr (1)

Lucky75 (1265142) | more than 3 years ago | (#34244606)

An electoral district in Canada, also known as a constituency or a riding, is a geographically-based constituency upon which Canada's representative democracy is based. It is officially known in Canadian French as a circonscription, but frequently called a comté (county).

Link [wikipedia.org]

Re:Aarr (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34244410)

That's why Canada is sticking to the Riding and First-Past-The-Poll system... guarantees near-zero participiation for any of the non-major parties (including I'm afraid, the Pirate Party of Canada)

Re:Aarr (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 3 years ago | (#34244478)

I hope the Pirate Party of Canada runs in my riding this year. Digital privacy is obviously not a priority for the current government.

Oh ... it's a priority all right. It would be okay if it weren't a priority (that's how I look at government anymore, as an American. I prefer our Elected Representatives to spend time arguing over stupid things like "flag burning measures" and other such tripe. We the People are usually better off they don't get too focused) but in this case I'd say your government is making your lack of privacy a major priority. That ought to concern all of you, as it concerns me, because every time some other country (the UK, especially) does something likes this it gives Congress and our three-letter organizations some bad ideas: "well ... if it worked for Canada ..."

I understood Canada's Charter of Rights (did I get that right?) as having protections against unreasonable search and seizure, much like our Constitution. Of course, our Federal Government has been ignoring those protections at will for some time now ... I guess if it's on a computer it doesn't count as "unreasonable" when you search for and seize it.

Time to start clinical testing for megalomania, sociopathy, and other relevant psychological disorders amongst corporate and political leaders. Weed them out before they ever get into a position of authority.

We test school bus drivers to make sure they aren't nuts. Why should a politician be treated any differently in that regard?

Time for all websites to go https (4, Insightful)

Viol8 (599362) | more than 3 years ago | (#34244110)

And use ssh or equivalent for everything else. The criminals/terrorist will already be doing this , its only ordinary Joe Public who the authorities will be snooping on. As usual.

Re:Time for all websites to go https (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | more than 3 years ago | (#34244604)

HTTPS is too computationally expensive for the average Pentium 133mhz shared server from 1995 to perform on every connection.

If the websites are to all use SSL, we'll have to upgrade all of... oh, wait.

Re:Time for all websites to go https (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34244702)

It still is. Compare the difference in speeds with Gmail SSL and without (if they still offer that option). It's very noticeable on that first time in. If google have performance issue, smaller sites (that have real users) may well suffer too.

Another form of tyranny from Canada: (-1, Flamebait)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#34244116)

Apparently "deep packet inspection" is just one piece of a major crackdown by the Canadian government.

Recent rules require customs officials to scan your computer or phone (if they think you are suspicious) when you carry it across the border, either by car or plane, and if it has a single photo of pornography, you will be charged with "trafficking" and sent to jail. It doesn't matter if it's just some photo from a topless beach (which is legal), you'll still be spending several months inspecting the inside of a Canadian jail cell.

Sounds like Canada has turned even more puritan than the Puritan U.S.
- source: infowars.com

Re:Another form of tyranny from Canada: (1)

Arterion (941661) | more than 3 years ago | (#34244270)

- source: infowars.com

Way to drain all credibility from your post. :P

Re:Another form of tyranny from Canada: (2, Interesting)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#34244582)

I'm sure there's a video floating-around to back-up the website..... if not that specific event, then another one where a citizen is having his/her computer scanned for nudie pics. Doesn't Australia have a similar law that carrying even one photo of a topless woman across international border is a crime? I wouldn't be surprised if Canada has the same restriction.

Just now I heard on the radio that an American is being punished $11,000 by the U.S.G. because he refused to be scanned, or prodded, and they told him, "You cannot fly." So he canceled his ticket, got a refund, left the airport, and was arrested.

Apparently once you enter an air terminal, you no longer have any rights... except to submit to the US Gestapo.

Re:Another form of tyranny from Canada: (1)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 3 years ago | (#34244758)

Infowars? Okay. Maybe you can point to me where in the criminal code this is, because it's sure not in my 2011 edition. And it's sure not part of the CBSA code.

Let 'em inspect my packets.... (1)

c1ay (703047) | more than 3 years ago | (#34244144)

it won't do them much good without my PGP key. Packet inspection will just trample the rights of those with nothing to hide in the first place. Those with something to hide will just use encryption and/or other concealment methods like steganography.

Re:Let 'em inspect my packets.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34244260)

it won't do them much good without my PGP key. .... Those with something to hide will just use encryption and/or other concealment methods like steganography.

Sounds like an admission of guilt to me.

Good, they will love it (4, Insightful)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 3 years ago | (#34244394)

So basically, you are sending them a red flag that you got something to hide? SMART!

PGP-nerd: "Gosh, I got a 4096 key, nobody is ever going to break this, I am safe"

Agent A to Agent B: "We can't break his key, break his knees."

Freedom is NOT won by finding loopholes around laws but by fighting bad laws.

Re:Good, they will love it (1)

ajlitt (19055) | more than 3 years ago | (#34244660)

Mr. Munroe echoes your sentiment. [xkcd.com]

Re:Good, they will love it (2, Insightful)

cpghost (719344) | more than 3 years ago | (#34244770)

Freedom is NOT won by finding loopholes around laws but by fighting bad laws.

Freedom is won by being rich enough to afford buying legislators left and right, and having them make custom laws, tailored to your needs. That's real freedom.

Re:Good, they will love it (1)

cdombroski (1075539) | more than 3 years ago | (#34244772)

You could have summed that up just by linking to this: XKCD: 538 [xkcd.com]

Why... (1)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 3 years ago | (#34244148)

are so many governments so assholish?

Re:Why... (1)

wmbetts (1306001) | more than 3 years ago | (#34244210)

Because they can be.

Re:Why... (1)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | more than 3 years ago | (#34244222)

are so many governments so assholish?

Because their people allow it and doing otherwise generally takes strong will and sacrifice.

Re:Why... (1)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 3 years ago | (#34244310)

Because their people allow it and doing otherwise generally takes strong will and sacrifice.

Sure, but where does the basic inclination come from? I.e., why are they so much less interested in civil liberties than conscientious citizens are?

Re:Why... (1, Interesting)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#34244484)

The million-dollar question.

I got caught-up in a conversation with two "friends" who believe TSA patdowns of breasts and groins, or interrogating a passenger "Why are you carrying 4000 in cash?", is necessary and proper and the officers are doing a good job! I tried to explain this violates their 4th amendment rights (no search w/o warrant or articulable suspicion.). I cannot fathom why these people so willingly give-away their constitutional legal protections.

Re:Why... (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#34244608)

I would suggest you ask them to explain it. Maybe they have a good reason, or they are are dangerously stupid and you should stay away from them.

Re:Why... (1)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | more than 3 years ago | (#34244742)

why are they so much less interested in civil liberties than conscientious citizens are?

I don't believe that's the case, but standing up for what is right - or "your rights" - can be hard.

The last time I flew was the summer of 2005. I was hassled by a TSA agent who, when I (politely) asked him a few questions, asked me "Do you want to fly today?" I was with my wife and simply shut up so as not to get detained. Ya, I wimped out, so I guess I'm part of the problem. Now it's just me - my wife died in 2006 (brain tumor) - and I have yet to fly again.

As to the question of "why?" Governments - meaning the people in charge - are generally weak-minded and pander to the widest audience that keeps them in power. Perhaps some people actually believe they're doing what is best, right and necessary, but I believe many of those people are simply stupid and just want to get re-elected -- or, more sinisterly, get their party re-elected -- with the actual welfare of their people and country be damned.

Life is risk, get used to it. I have. I have nothing to lose.

Re:Why... (1)

suutar (1860506) | more than 3 years ago | (#34244748)

Because the people who get into political office are the kinds of people who want political office. Why do folks want political office? The only two reasons I can think of are (a) a desire to try to make things better for everyone, so they can feel good about having helped, or (b) a desire for power, so they can feel good about being powerful. (money is a form of power, so doing it for the money still counts.)
The ones who want power have to exercise that power, or it doesn't feel good. So they assert control over whatever they can, and voila! government control over things that don't need it and shouldn't have it. This gives politicians a bad reputation, which reduces the number of folks who are going to go into government service for reason A, both because they don't want to deal with being vilified and because it seems too difficult to work around the power-hungry types to get anything beneficial done. So over time, the proportion that's power-hungry rises, and the checks on them decrease, until either they've got complete control or everyone else gets fed up enough to kick them all out, clean up, and start over... which is never a smooth pleasant process.

Re:Why... (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#34244306)

I can't speak for the other ones, but in the US typically the people who complain about it the most vote for the politicians that are the most assholish. I really do think that there's something to the theory that America votes sarcastically.

Re:Why... (5, Insightful)

ShaunC (203807) | more than 3 years ago | (#34244322)

Power corrupts. Absolute power...

Re:Why... (5, Funny)

Nerdfest (867930) | more than 3 years ago | (#34244510)

... is awesome.

Re:Why... (3, Insightful)

Wonko the Sane (25252) | more than 3 years ago | (#34244476)

Because assholes are attracted to the levers of power, almost by definition.

Re:Why... (1)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 3 years ago | (#34244818)

And it takes being an asshole to ascend through the ranks for ballot placement come next election. Who the hell is surprised by that? Not me.

Re:Why... (1)

cpghost (719344) | more than 3 years ago | (#34244738)

Because they are governments. Tell me one government which isn't, and I'll move to that country instantly.

Offtopic (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34244150)

Hi. Can we stop using the term "laundry list" please? Nobody makes a list of their fucking laundry anymore because it's all disposable now. Thanks!

Welcome to Amerika, comrades! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34244218)

Looks like Canada will be "inspecting your packets" like the TSA here "gropes" and "x-ray's" our "packets".

Re:Welcome to Amerika, comrades! (1, Offtopic)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#34244350)

Which is why I won't be flying via the US anymore. If I really need to fly, I'll take a quick train ride up to BC and fly from there. I'm sure I'll be flagged as suspicious, but at least that way I won't be groped by some perv TSA agent.

And yes, anybody that forces you to show you themselves naked or allow you to grope them is a pervert, medical doctors excepted. The TSA agents don't have to do it, they could very easily refuse on the basis of it being illegal and/or sue the TSA for sexual harassment.

Re:Welcome to Amerika, comrades! (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#34244458)

I have been doing this for years. A simple drive across the border makes flying so much more tolerable.

Re:Welcome to Amerika, comrades! (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 3 years ago | (#34244682)

Which is why I won't be flying via the US anymore. If I really need to fly, I'll take a quick train ride up to BC and fly from there. I'm sure I'll be flagged as suspicious, but at least that way I won't be groped by some perv TSA agent. And yes, anybody that forces you to show you themselves naked or allow you to grope them is a pervert, medical doctors excepted. The TSA agents don't have to do it, they could very easily refuse on the basis of it being illegal and/or sue the TSA for sexual harassment.

I know airline pilots are not happy about this: apparently they don't get a free pass either. I live in the U.S. and I'm certainly not happy about it. I've been to Canada on both business and pleasure, and these policies are just utterly disrespectful to our Northern ally. I'd like to see some hard statistics on how the TSA has been stopping terrorism, so that we can determine if they are really worth the cost. But all of our major law enforcement operations are pretty damn close-mouthed about that.

It's the same mindset that rules the CRIA, RIAA and similar organizations: everyone is a potential criminal and should be treated as such until proven otherwise. How either your lawmakers or ours can square that attitude with the Supreme Law of either of our two lands is remarkable. Well, I do know how we do it: we call it a "Constitutional Exception", and I daresay our Founders would take exception to that.

Time to start buying stock in VPS companies? (1)

mlts (1038732) | more than 3 years ago | (#34244254)

I am starting to wonder when VPS companies will start taking off, stock-wise. With the screws tightening all around the globe, it is only a matter of time before the average person starts using a VPN for all their Internet traffic, most likely in another country.

Canada forcing this is stupid -- as of now, the crooks are fairly easy to catch (as few use encrypted services). However, if countries keep pushing, everyone (including the bad guys) will start moving their traffic offshore. Result, police work which was moderately difficult becomes completely impossible without international cooperation on even the smallest case. Even with treaties making it easy, there will be exit nodes (Tor or commercial VPNs) in countries who have not signed them.

Of course, the next step is trying to actively block VPNs, but that changes the game from passive eavesdropping to active censorship, and escalates the cat and mouse game.

Re:Time to start buying stock in VPS companies? (2, Interesting)

tinkerghost (944862) | more than 3 years ago | (#34244382)

Of course, the next step is trying to actively block VPNs, but that changes the game from passive eavesdropping to active censorship, and escalates the cat and mouse game.

More importantly, it affects the way companies make money. No VPN & places like IBM have to run hard lines between offices rather than a VPN.

Re:Time to start buying stock in VPS companies? (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#34244474)

It also means no one can work from home.

Re:Time to start buying stock in VPS companies? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34244680)

I am starting to wonder when VPS companies will start taking off, stock-wise.

Forget VPS companies, I have a pile of stock on my desk from the company that sells Telus their deep packet inspection appliances. Whooo!

Ministry of Information (1)

digitaldc (879047) | more than 3 years ago | (#34244464)

The second prong requires Internet providers to dramatically re-work their networks to allow for real-time surveillance. The bill sets out detailed capability requirements that will eventually apply to all Canadian Internet providers. These include the power to intercept communications, to isolate the communications to a particular individual, and to engage in multiple simultaneous interceptions.

OUCH!
So who is Big Brother NOW? And what's the difference between this and tapping your phone and intercepting your mail?

Are they going to listen to every phone call too? (1)

DutchUncle (826473) | more than 3 years ago | (#34244468)

And open every letter and package in the postal system? Nobody would consider eavesdropping on every phone call acceptable, so why do sheeple accept the idea of eavesdropping every single internet connection?

Re:Are they going to listen to every phone call to (1)

mlts (1038732) | more than 3 years ago | (#34244584)

It is a heck of a lot easier to store indexes of people's communications via the Internet than it is to do physical objects. If someone wants to dig up dirt on a target (say to find charges to put them in jail as revenge for them dating an ex), it isn't hard to do. Disk is cheap, and it is easy to filter out chaff and store the juicy stuff indefinitely.

To boot, the information also has a lot of secondary value to marketers and advertisers.

Re:Are they going to listen to every phone call to (1)

mlts (1038732) | more than 3 years ago | (#34244650)

Bleah, hate to reply to my own post, but the reason why people don't care about DPI as a whole is because they don't know or don't care. They are also used to "well, SOMEONE knows what I do on the Internet at all times", and being watched constantly online, either by LEOs, or private companies looking to slurp knowledge about someone to sell for a buck.

Welcome to America! (1)

sabs (255763) | more than 3 years ago | (#34244516)

Congrats! Canada is now even more like the US. You guys must feel proud.

Re:Welcome to America! (1)

Philomage (1851668) | more than 3 years ago | (#34244810)

Sadly, Canada is becoming even more what the US never quite achieved. We have a very fundamentalist christian government that while having a minority mandate has been very agily manipulating both the opposition and the population with "tough on crime" "for the children" and "for the canadian economy" arguments. They don't actually follow through on any of these things and actually promote foreign economic interests over canadian ones while cracking down on our freedoms quite effectively, even if slowly (like the turn of a thumbscrew).

Fascist has been overused in describing this government, but it's sadly becoming more the case that it's true. Strong support of ACTA and foreign copyright interests while increasing surveillance and reporting measures along with laws that support only the very small "moral" minority makes it clear that this government does not have the interests of "canadians" at heart, but of only certain canadians which they feel belong to their "tribe" of christian conservative businessmen.

Everyday I fear I see more and more of the "Norsefire" regime (from "V for Vendetta") developing in my home and native land. And for once I don't think I'm a crackpot to see the resemblance.

Inspect This, $#@#$ ( (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34244668)

morons [huffingtonpost.com] .

Yours In Osh,
Kilgore T.

Kiss your low ping times goodbye (2, Interesting)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 3 years ago | (#34244774)

Gamers in Canada are fucked! That's right, filtering hardware will be over-subscribed for their network. At least at first. Then, your monthly bill is going to go up to pay for all that hardware and bureaucracy.

And the best part. American politicians are CRYING because they do not have that kind of POWER....yet. That's right, they're jealous of what Canada now has.

Winnipeg North by election and Pirate Party (2, Informative)

Nuitari (164005) | more than 3 years ago | (#34244844)

There is currently a by election in Winnipeg North, Dauphin-Swan River-Marquette and Vaughan.

The Pirate Party is present in Winnipeg North, and will stand against the spying on everyone mentality of the Conservatives and Liberals.

http://www.pirateparty.ca

The only way to get rid of bad politicians is to elect new ones.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>