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!

Pirate Party of Canada Promises VPN For Freedom

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the at-least-we-don't-need-it-in-the-u.s. dept.

Privacy 98

An anonymous reader writes "The Pirate Party of Canada has announced that it will extend a VPN originally set up to allow people in Tunisia to browse freely while internet censorship was imposed there. Canada may soon be added to that list since the ruling Conservative Party has vowed to introduce a bill that would provide unprecedented systematic interception and monitoring of Canadians' personal communications. So the Pirate Party of Canada has announced it will extend that service to Canadians."

cancel ×


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

I think I know the Problem (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35914048)

Blame Canada


ae1294 (1547521) | more than 3 years ago | (#35914056)


Conservative party 'vows' (3, Funny)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#35914058)

See, non-conservative parties also perpetrate shit. but, they do not take their filth perpetrating and public-enemyness to a level of 'vowing' for something that is so anti-people.

but you cant go wrong with conservative. they will even vow to take away your freedoms and do not flinch in the process. if you challenge them, they will say they are doing the right thing.

Re:Conservative party 'vows' (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35914390)

The actual article does not contain the word 'vow'.

Re:Conservative party 'vows' (1)

airfoobar (1853132) | more than 3 years ago | (#35914534)

Your comment contains the word 'FAIL'.

Re:Conservative party 'vows' (2)

creat3d (1489345) | more than 3 years ago | (#35914758)

Yours also contains "fail", but mine has "fail" twice :(

In 10 years... (2)

Hultis (1969080) | more than 3 years ago | (#35914082)

...1984 will seem like a utopia to us.

Re:In 10 years... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35914268)


Re:In 10 years... (1)

angelwolf71885 (1181671) | more than 3 years ago | (#35915188)

in 15 years the gulag will be a vacation

Re:gulag (1)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 3 years ago | (#35918164)

If they're really nice to you they'll kick you in the quadraceps muscle instead of the spine.

this party is a joke (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35914106)

ya off the united hackers association page for 4 days they got labeled anti p2p why? cause they wold not also endorse non commercial file sharing, its leader a friend of musicians and cbc govt reporters, well you get the idea now dont ya ....DONT waste your votes
all you do doing it is hand conservatives power longer which defeats the purpose.

Whats the use? (1)

mjkloiu (184787) | more than 3 years ago | (#35914110)

I dont see the benefit of this VPN.

Given any slightly savvy government or ISP can intercept all traffic you send down a VPN or HTTPS connection using a simple man in the middle attack with easily available commercial software, whats the big deal?

Sure they could provide a VPN, which could then be easily broken by either the ISP or Govt, so its not of much use is it?

Re:Whats the use? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35914142)

Uh if they have proper key verification thats gonna be super hard. ISPs can block it, but MITM is for all practical matters impossible if done right

Re:Whats the use? (1)

clang_jangle (975789) | more than 3 years ago | (#35914840)

True, but in a near-monoculture of proprietary software powered devices, it won't matter what clever scheme is employed. "I encrypted it on my pwned system" is just another way to fail.

Re:Whats the use? (1)

badkarmadayaccount (1346167) | more than 3 years ago | (#35927994)

CyanogenMod, DD-WRT, Rockbox, and Ubuntu don't agree - those who are stupid enough to trust corporate, will get what's coming. Typed from an old XP SP2 laptop :D.

Re:Whats the use? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35914154)

That's not true, if the VPN _doesn't_ use a cert from one of the major SSL cert providers (which may already be compromised by governments) and you check the cert. It's trivial to use openssl (possibly with a wrapper like TinyCA) to issue your own certs, so if the VPN provider is doing that, it's much harder in some ways for a government to MITM (in fact, if they do manage it, it means either (1) they've compromised the VPN provider itself or (2) RSA is broken)

This is why gpg security is "better" in some ways than SSL CAs - no central CA authority to compromise. It's weird that we haven't seen a gpg encryption option for TLS yet though, there's no technical difficulty I can see.

Re:Whats the use? (1)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 3 years ago | (#35914230)

Gives the end users a feeling of been safe, protected and encrypted. The question about who is paying and who gets to see the 'plain text' logs would be good.
Recall TOR and the "The International Broadcasting Bureau" "InterNews Network" []
Honey pot, color revolution?

Re:Whats the use? (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 3 years ago | (#35914238)

If I remember correctly, CA Cert had a web-of-trust method of verifying X509 certificates, which can theoretically be used for TLS. Additionally, you can probably write a simple program that uses GPG to verify a certificate and then import that certificate into your browser's certificate DB (GPG can export X509 certificates, I think).

Re:Whats the use? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35915846)

Gnutls have a option for pgp keys and have had that for a few years now.

Re:Whats the use? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35916242)

It's weird that we haven't seen a gpg encryption option for TLS yet though, there's no technical difficulty I can see.

Actually there is support for using gpg keys for TLS key exchange, see RFC 6091 [] for reference. It is supported by GnuTLS and described on their website [] , but not in widespread use as far as I know.

Re:Whats the use? (1)

Nuitari The Wiz (1123889) | more than 3 years ago | (#35916402)

It will be our own SSL CA, initially the launch will only support OpenVPN, but other technologies might be added later if we're confident that they are secure.

A conservative no doubt (4, Insightful)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 3 years ago | (#35914304)

What is the use of one man standing in front of a tank? That one man stood. You would have folded. That man may be dead but he is a man. You are not.

Sometimes a symbolic action has value. Just to show not all people fold as easily as you do.

Re:A conservative no doubt (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35914336)

This statement brought to you by a pasty, obese, oily nerd typing it out with cheetos-encrusted fingers from his parent's basement.

Re:A conservative no doubt (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35914412)

Mod parent way up.

There are two kinds of humans:
1. NPCs/cattle/sheeple
2. Leaders / real humans

The former always use circular reasoning to excuse their own cowardness.

Wey,re at war. And WE will win.

Re:A conservative no doubt (1, Insightful)

Desler (1608317) | more than 3 years ago | (#35914512)

Yeah, I'm sure the politicians are quaking in their boots over you "real humans" who write all this screed from your parent's basement while not actually doing anything.

Re:A conservative no doubt (2)

Skidborg (1585365) | more than 3 years ago | (#35915624)

And being mocked by fat guys who sit in their parent's basements and don't even talk about doing anything because even the idea scares them too much.

You should encourage these people, that way when the time comes they'll be confident enough to stand in front of tanks so you don't have to.

Re:A conservative no doubt (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35916214)

If I'm a fat guy sitting in my own basement, am I allowed to stand in front of a tank?

Re:A conservative no doubt (1)

Skidborg (1585365) | more than 3 years ago | (#35917090)

If you can fit a tank in your basement, by all means.

Re:A conservative no doubt (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35917952)

And being mocked by fat guys who sit in their parent's basements and don't even talk about doing anything because even the idea scares them too much.

You should encourage these people, that way when the time comes they'll be confident enough to stand in front of tanks so you don't have to.

+1 for this one, read it fat boy

Re:A conservative no doubt (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35915702)

Tell us more O' Internet Tough Guy!

Incidentally, if you're referring to 'Tiananmen Square Tank Man' the last speculation I'd read was that he'd survived and simply walked away....


Re:A conservative no doubt (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35916964)

Umm, not sure if you ever watched that video of the man standing in front of the tank... he folds and walks away... or convinced by others to get out of the street...

still doesnt diminish the power of the action... im just saying... he didnt die there..

Re:A conservative no doubt (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35917734)

Your fundamentalist passion is a pleasant 10 second diversion for me, but really, you aren't seriously fucking comparing this to Tienanmen Square, are you?
Your psychotic opinion doesn't instill confidence in the non-conservative vote.

Could be a honeypot... (1)

elucido (870205) | more than 3 years ago | (#35914914)

Any secret police, intelligence agency or local undercover cop can set up a VPN and claim it's safe for "pirates".

It would be a smart way to encourage large groups of individuals to commit piracy and other crimes over a completely and thoroughly monitored network. The police will have an easy job getting search warrants and making cases and when it's time to conduct their customary stings and raids they'll sync them for maximum affect on the file sharing community.

Re:Could be a honeypot... (1)

Magic5Ball (188725) | more than 3 years ago | (#35915522)

Why go to that much effort when TPP has conveniently concentrated much dissident activity into a small number of open text egresses into the public internet that can be easily monitored under existing technologies and legislation domestically or by allied agencies?

Re:Whats the use? (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 3 years ago | (#35915878)

It is true that a VPN can be intercepted by a MITM attack unless keys are first exchanged via a secure channel. But that does not mean it's an easy thing to pull off - the hardware requirements mean it's prohibitative to go trawling with this method. You can't just statelessly intercept all traffic and search it for interesting data like bittorrent requests. Intercepting VPNs is something that a law enforcement agency could do, but they arn't going to do without a good reason to go to the expense - eg, if they were investigating someone suspected of terrorism, large-scale fraud or distribution of child pornography. It isn't something they'd do just to trawl for P2P users. Also, if they did intercept all traffic or even a substantial part, then it wouldn't be difficult to detect - all the operators would need to do is establish some connections and compare the keys at each end. So any interception effort against non-specific targets would risk detection.

Put briefly: Yes, they can. But no, they won't. Pirates just arn't that important.

planet not prepared for earth based deities (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35914194)

so no more idolatrous outbreaks of spontaneous praisiacal off key vocalizations in public, thanks. if there's need for stand-up accompaniment, we have the organically manufactured mormormonic boys choir cd, thanks. & thanks for the money. god's crusaderious profitseize are coming to fruition before our all seeing eyes. praise be,,, except for those who are not out on baal, & the still uncharged & unchosen. on to mebotuh.

hymenology scandal; premediated solicitation? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35914300)

yet another gift from god, or some kind of (population) control (alteration) freaks? some of our self-appointed rulers use perceived divinely installed 'virtue' as a salable commoddity? all kidding aside, do some of us really have to be auctioned off, even by ourselves, frequently fronting some type of misrepresentation, even to ourselves?

some of it is in the genuine native elders teepeeleaks etchings, from over 400 years ago. there's a more recent movie too; unrepentant. a more actual history of our much touted 'discovery' by 'explorers'. turkeys? thanksgiving parades? never opening in any theater anywhere, ever, that we'll ever see. thanks.

Good Luck... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35914216)

Good luck, I'm behind 7 proxies!

Re:Good Luck... (1)

MoeDumb (1108389) | more than 3 years ago | (#35918672)

Have of which are honeypots for all you know. And btw, why?

Re:Good Luck... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35918748)

-1 FAIL.

I'm behind 7 Boxees myself.

Need link to Conservative promise (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35914278)

Can someone please provide a link to where the Conservatives "vow" to introduce this bill? Just more FUD from the losing parties.

Link to Conservative promise to monitor internet (4, Informative)

davecb (6526) | more than 3 years ago | (#35914752)

First mention of bundling "lawfull access" (aka monitoring) and crime bills for passage within 100 days. []

Link to Conservative platform containing the promise []
Search for "100 days"

Subsequent comments: []

"The first prong mandates the disclosure of Internet provider customer information without court oversight. Under current privacy laws, providers may voluntarily disclose customer information but are not required to do so. The new system would require the disclosure of customer name, address, phone number, email address, Internet protocol address, and a series of device identification numbers.

While some of that information may seem relatively harmless, the ability to link it with other data will often open the door to a detailed profile about an identifiable person. Given its potential sensitivity, the decision to require disclosure without any oversight should raise concerns within the Canadian privacy community.

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."

Re:Link to Conservative promise to monitor interne (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35915012)

What's the big deal?

We've already rolled over the entire x-ray scanners. Revealing some customer's name online nothing in comparison. Privacy died with the x-rays. Now it's just time to bend over.

Re:Link to Conservative promise to monitor interne (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35915132)

Vidkun! Good to see you! How's Mrs. Quisling?

Re:Link to Conservative promise to monitor interne (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35915752)

Are they using the xray scanners to steal your bodies precious bodily fluids?


PS - Fucking Crazy People, How Do They Work?

Re:Link to Conservative promise to monitor interne (1)

dual eyes (1248666) | more than 3 years ago | (#35915616)

I searched the sites you gave and I could not find the content you mentioned. Perhaps they have retracted those comments?

Re:Link to Conservative promise to monitor interne (2)

Semptimilius (917640) | more than 3 years ago | (#35916286)

No, it's all there, as davecb stated. The Conservative platform is disturbingly vague (I'm sure details would dampen the spirit of many who currently support the ideas), but page 50 of it is what you are looking for. You need to expand the story on Geist's site to see the more detailed info about what is intended.

Re:Link to Conservative promise to monitor interne (1)

GrannyPanties (2064810) | more than 3 years ago | (#35916920)

This is what I see on page 50 of their platform I think you are referring to: "Give law enforcement and national security agencies up-to-date tools to fight crime in today's high-tech telecommunications environment;" Your right, its kind of vague but it also does not say anything about monitoring internet traffic of individuals as lead to believe. It isnt the bible where people interpret passages in their own way and state them as fact.

Re:Link to Conservative promise to monitor interne (2)

lonecrow (931585) | more than 3 years ago | (#35919530)

The text of the first reading of the bill is here: []

It says that officers can intercept private communications without a warrant if they fell that an offense is or would be committed immediately. (this part is probably in response to a real world case where officers were witnessing a child being molested in real time via internet video and needed to track the offenders location through ISP's in a hurry in order to stop the offense in process)

Further on in the bill is says that other exigent circumstances may allow interception without a warrant.
It reads like a bunch of other laws that are "Safe when used as directed".

Of course another solution would be to fund the courts so that proper judicial oversight can be in place *even* when your in a hurry.

Re:Link to Conservative promise to monitor interne (1)

GrannyPanties (2064810) | more than 3 years ago | (#35985248)

Finally, we get some meat on the subject. Thanks for link. Now only if I had the brain power to understand it. Is there any non-biased interpretation anywhere? I have my own opinions on it, which are meaningless if I don't understand it completely.

Re:Link to Conservative promise to monitor interne (1)

lonecrow (931585) | more than 3 years ago | (#35985506)

Is there any non-biased interpretation anywhere

Sadly there is no such thing. People are welcome to beleive any interpretation of the law they like and act accordingly. Any law is simply a prediction of how a judge will rule so if they think they can convince a judge of their interpretation that's it..

On the positive side, any un-warranted surveillance has to justified after the fact. Law enforcement is required to report actions taken which can then be audit by the courts. Not excusing this bill in any way, just saying...

More conservative party actions viewed here (2)

yabos (719499) | more than 3 years ago | (#35914314)

Re:More conservative party actions viewed here (1)

GrannyPanties (2064810) | more than 3 years ago | (#35917328)

What a sad attempt at spreading FUD that site is. I feel embarrassed that that site exists in my Country, and even more sad about the obviously uninformed people commenting (not that I'm a political expert). But seriously, don't too me not to vote for Harper because he has pictures of himself in the Government lobby? WTF !

PPoC is a joke (3, Insightful)

billcopc (196330) | more than 3 years ago | (#35914380)

Having sat on one too many IRC meetings, I can quite firmly state that the Pirate Party of Canada is a joke, a very profound disappointment. Every single moment I've spent on their web site or in a chat room has felt like a colossal waste of my time. Nothing but a bunch of overgrown children fussing over inane trivia, trying to sell memberships and merch, and refusing to agree on any sort of official stance or direction. They can't promise shit, because they're too busy arguing over who's going to pay for the next batch of business cards. Appoint a goddamned treasurer, throw fund raisers and awareness rallies, take out ads in the paper or on progressive TV channels, you know, the usual political song-and-dance.

To put things into perspective, the non-partisan OpenMedia group has had great success in the battle against UBB (usage based billing), by leveraging those very same activities. They send an email, maybe once a month, asking for donations and listing off any upcoming meets in my area, and they have delivered RESULTS! If the PPoC put in one tenth of the efforts and professionalism demonstrated by the OpenMedia group, they'd have far more credibility and pull.

Even non-geeks tend to have the opinion that the PPoC are just a bunch of freeloading cyber-hippies, and that's insulting to hippies.

Re:PPoC is a joke (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35914674)

Since as of now they're really just LARPing as a pirate themed political party, I wonder if they'd be more motivated if they were asked to adopt silly pirate names and start appointing people to positions like Captain and First Mate of the Booty? Sometimes they just need a really well thought out scenario to get into character.

Re:PPoC is a joke (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35914726)

The problem with the PPoC is two-fold:

1. Canada has an undemocratic 'first past the post' system for their federal elections. This means you can get about 10% of the popular vote, but next to zero seats in parliament (= no representation, which you would have in a real democracy).

2. Pirate Parties around the world are one-issue parties, so even for geeks that are fully informed about this one issue, it needs to be sufficiently pressing to not care about something else. In this Canadian election, in ridings where the Conversatives have a smallish advantage, they might opt to vote for the runner-up (no matter who that is) or else see their vote en up in the trash bin (see point 1).

The PPoC would do wise to team up with the Greens and other interested parties to modernize the election system and work towards proportional representation. Once they have a real shot at political influence, they can attract quality talent that are then willing to invest time and effort.

Re:PPoC is a joke (5, Interesting)

Nimatek (1836530) | more than 3 years ago | (#35914974)

"Pirate Parties around the world are one-issue parties"

This is incorrect. The scope of the Pirate Party movement differs from country to country. In countries like Sweden and Germany they evolved from being one-issue parties and worked out programs that cover a whole range of political issues, while their membership and electorate keep growing steadily. Here is the party program of the German Piratenpartei, for example: []

You can't have a 'traditional' party right from the start, there need to be certain levels of momentum, manpower and support, for it to be able to branch out and compete with the established parties on their turf. The cool thing about new parties is that you can take part and contribute to shaping the program and course significantly, which is exactly what they need. If you agree with their general aims - contribute. Pirate Parties won't magically materialize out of thin air and change politics by people just waiting for them to do so.

Re:PPoC is a joke (1)

Skidborg (1585365) | more than 3 years ago | (#35915658)

The thing is that technically you're supposed to be electing individual people to Canadian government, not parties. If we were doing it the way you suggest, then some ridings would end up represented by a candidate that 90% of the people in that riding did not vote for.

Re:PPoC is a joke (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 3 years ago | (#35915908)

It's supposed to be electing individuals in the US too. Doesn't mean it works out that way. I have pondered before some form of politics that bans parties altogether, but concluded it would just result in 'unofficial' parties appearing - groups of politicians of similar stance who just happen to share campaigns, offices, staff and money and who support each other's efforts at advancement, but remain seperate on paper.

Re:PPoC is a joke (1)

Bureaucromancer (1303477) | more than 3 years ago | (#35916430)

Take a look at how well this has worked municipally. There are still essentially parties, but no one bothers to vote anymore.

Re:PPoC is a joke (1)

Tideflat (1858480) | more than 3 years ago | (#35916690)

No, They would merely be represented by a candidate that 90% of the people didn't have as there first choice, instead they would be represented by a candidate that was their second or third choice, because more people agree with that candidate that with any other.

Re:PPoC is a joke (1)

matunos (1587263) | more than 3 years ago | (#35916744)

You're talking about a ranked ballot system, which is more or less a modification on "first past the post", because the winner of a district is still the person who got at least 50%+1 votes. The difference is that voters are (theoretically) more likely to cast their first vote for a third-party candidate, because their second vote can be the backup for if/when the third-party candidate doesn't win. It resolves the problem of vote-splitting.

If a candidate still only had 10% support in a district, they'd be among the first ones out in the vote-counting rounds.

Re:PPoC is a joke (1)

kvezach (1199717) | more than 3 years ago | (#35919984)

There's such a thing as a PR ranked ballot system. The most well known one is the single transferable vote [] , but Schulze (for which the election method used by the German Piratenpartei is named) has devised a proportional representation variant called Schulze STV [] , too.

Unlike first past the post, STV does work in providing competition. When New York tried it in the late thirties, it proved to work so well that the corrupt machines had to red-scare it to death [] .

Re:PPoC is a joke (1)

Nuitari The Wiz (1123889) | more than 3 years ago | (#35916444)

Even though it looks like one issue, these issues reach deep into the other more mainstream issues.
Just in Quebec, faster generics can save at least 3 billion$ (that's a pessimistic estimate) on the cost of providing the publicly funded drug plan. That's all money that can be reused elsewhere.

Re:PPoC is a joke (2)

TrevorB (57780) | more than 3 years ago | (#35914858)

We Canadians are kings of strategic voting: voting for the candidate most likely to beat the person you like the least. Voting for the Pirate Party really is (almost) a vote thrown away. Three things though:

1) Not all "3rd party votes" are wasted. The NDP looks like they may be surging into second place ahead of the Liberals. Watch your local polls carefully and make an informed decision []
2) If someone calls up your house for polling purposes, by all means reply "Pirate Party".
3) If you *really* like the Pirate Party, donate to them. Or better yet, join them and try to make their message stronger/more refined.

ya only in quebec (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35916704)

where you have a bloc quebecois whose mandate is to basically scream at who ever is in charge and do nothing else.

Re:PPoC is a joke (4, Informative)

psema4 (966801) | more than 3 years ago | (#35915550)

Hi Billco. I'm a member of PPCA (PPoC was dropped as the acronym quite some time ago) and would like to address a couple of your concerns;

First, most of the time the IRC channels are full of unstructured discussion - but not always. We have structured meetings on a regular basis as well, something that has improved in the last few months. As we development continues on our meeting bot, it'll get better.

Second, we're a young party in Canada and many of us are not professional fund raisers, political science majors, or lawyers. We don't have a war chest, so throwing around what money we do have isn't something we want to do in a wanton fashion. I'm sure that as we grow and attract those with backgrounds (hint, hint) that include these skills, we'll be able to do the "usual political song-and-dance."

Outside of our core concerns, our "party line" (if you will) is to make sure that we represent local constituents the way they want to be represented. Not promise things we can't deliver.

At first, I was somewhat taken aback by your tone and perspective... A look at the big red warning your about page on help me understand though. Maybe you'd be up to stopping by IRC in the future and looking me up? I'd be happy to discuss your concerns further.

- Scott (PPCA Clerk)

Re:PPoC is a joke (1)

billcopc (196330) | more than 3 years ago | (#36015472)

You know what, Scott ? I'll take you up on that. It is only fair that I take another look and see what's changed over the past 12 months. I would love nothing more than to be proven wrong and reverse my negative stance, because I do believe this country has a pressing need to be informed and sensitized on the many topics largely ignored by blue, red, and orange.

Re:PPoC is a joke (1)

metacell (523607) | more than 3 years ago | (#35917280)

I'm sad to hear that. The Swedish Pirate Party has had more success. They've managed to agree on an a party line, built up an organisation, arranged funding from the government as a non-profit political organisation, won two seats in the European Parliament, won a number of seats in local (county) elections, and so on. I wish Canadians luck in the future.

More info (4, Informative)

a whoabot (706122) | more than 3 years ago | (#35914382)

The Conservatives Commitment to Internet Surveillance []

Interestingly: "None of this is to say the Liberals would be any better. They introduced their own lawful access package many years ago and the reaction of MPs like McTeague in 2009 was "what took you so long." The Liberals point to protection from digital threats in their platform, but do not specifically discuss lawful access. They should be asked about where they stand now (so too for the NDP which marshalled opposition in 2009)."

Looks like NDP are the ones to support on this issue.

Re:More info (1)

blahplusplus (757119) | more than 3 years ago | (#35915654)

Canada was bought and sold along time ago.

Mel hurtig - the truth about canada []

Oh canada our bought and sold out land (download torrent) []

The unmaking of Canada (Book) []

Mel hurtigs blog []

You have to understand all this is happening because canada is the last nation on earth with a huge amount of resources and there is no way Washington wants us to survive. Canada is being assaulted covertly and not so covertly by interests both domestic (US) and foreign.

Re:More info (1)

dcw3 (649211) | more than 3 years ago | (#35917156)

Canada is being assaulted covertly and not so covertly by interests both domestic (US) and foreign.

Yes, you better run for cover. We've secretly sent a team of commandos to steal the secrets to making a decent beer.

In all seriousness, take off the tin-foil hat, or come up with some evidence to back up your claim. I've heard other Canadians make similar unfounded claims in the past. I really believe it's mostly a love-hate relationship. We mostly love Canada, and you mostly hate us.

And a disclaimer...I have family on both sides of the border.

Re:More info (1)

blahplusplus (757119) | more than 3 years ago | (#35917414)

I doubt you have more then a passing interest in Canadian politics and Canadian/US relations. The liberals have been chipping away at Canadian social programs after Trudeau. The privatized national debt to foreign bond holders was the whole reason Bob Rae could not keep his promises regarding social spending (this is documented in the ohcanadamovie by elizabeth may on record but there are also other official sources besies may that also say the same thing).

A good place to keep up on the bs of the right. []

Here is a history of the right in Canada and it's a long read... []

Another good book for you would be George Grant's lament of a nation. []

Re:More info (1)

dcw3 (649211) | more than 3 years ago | (#35917554)

Okay, I didn't read your links, but is there evidence of your previously claimed assault by the U.S. somewhere in there? That's what I was responding to, not Canadian politics, or "the bs of the right". If so, it's something that most Americans are totally unaware of, and would most likely not be pleased with.

Re:More info (1)

blahplusplus (757119) | more than 3 years ago | (#35917802)

"but is there evidence of your previously claimed assault by the U.S.?"

Sigh.. the book by George Grant DOCUMENTS instances of the canadian government giving in such as american nuclear weapons on canadian soil (how we totally bowed to US pressure) another one was the NAFTA agreement. There is ABUNDANT evidence of the US exerting pressure on us, there are sections of the upper classes in parts of the US and canada that despise our humanitarian welfare state, which isn't even all that humanitarian anymore since Mike Harris froze disability and slashed welfare rates. Stephen harper is a prime example if you look at his own comments on canada (which you can find all over the net).

If you watch ohcanadamovie the guys who made it DID INTERVIEWS with former prime minster John turner (on record) and Mr turner says "they (corporate executives) are hell bent on selling out Canadian sovereignty".

Especially the Canadian council of chief executives. These powerful people share the same ideology as many american executives where any hint of social development is insulted as "communist" or "socialist" (typical of reactionary thinking of the hard right).

These rich business people are insulated from the real world having too much money which allows their ego to inflated beyond all reason and they think they know better then everyone else. It is a typical american trait especially of America's upper classes.

Re:More info (1)

dcw3 (649211) | more than 3 years ago | (#35918228)

I don't know where to begin, so forgive my rambling a bit here.

You're linking to a book that was written over 46 years ago, and claiming that it's documenting the U.S. assault on Canadian interests? Did the U.S. negotiators hold a gun to the Canadians heads, or did they get something in return for the agreement they made? I'm doubting that it was a one-sided deal.

As for NAFTA, the majority of Americans were against it to begin with. And, from Wikipedia:
Canada gained the most from NAFTA with Canada's GDP rate at 3.6%, growing faster than the United States at 3.3% and Mexico at 2.7%

You claim that sections of the upper classes in the US despise your humanitarian welfare state. While many in the US may not like that form of govt. I doubt you could provide evidence that they give to cents about it occurring across the border. If you want to have that social experiment, we're happy to observe at a distance. Unless it directly affects us, we don't give a hoot...most Americans don't know who your prime minister is, much less care about type of government you're running. It's the same reason many in the US prefer to have more rights for the individual states than for the federal government...50 experiments, and we can choose the one the we like the best...I'm personally watching several to figure out where I'll retire to in a few years.

On the John Turner Interviews...was that US corp execs? Corp execs are hell bent on one thing, and one thing only, and that's making a's what business does. Have you read (or seen the new movie, I just did) Atlas Shrugged?...I suspect you're not an Ayn Rand fan, but it raises some fascinating topics for debate.

As for the Canadian council of chief executives, blaming the US for them sharing an ideology isn't logical. I know many left wing Americans that share ideologies with Canada, and I can't blame Canada for that.

As for rich business people, I've known a few, my grandfather (mom's side), youngest uncle, and dad, all of whom were relatively poor earlier in life, started businesses and were very successful. Certainly there are those with huge egos, some are earned, and others inherited (those I generally could do without). Obviously, you and I are on somewhat opposite sides when it comes to political beliefs. The wonderful thing is, that we're able to do that, and hold a rational discussion. While I may disagree with your opinion, I personally enjoy discussing political topics with those who are willing to do so w/o it being a shouting, thank you.

Re:More info (1)

blahplusplus (757119) | more than 3 years ago | (#35918300)

I don't do ideology. But I do believe in protecting the weak from the strong and anyone who believes ideology (especially free market ideology) is the solution to all problems clearly is incapable of doing evidence based analysis. One should always do scientific (empirical analysis) and NEVER approach something in an ideological manner.

More importantly just because you have anecdotes of knowing business people 'working hard' doesn't mean anything there are plenty of other reasons people succeed or get rich that have nothing to do with ideology but rather with facts and counter-intuitive truths that are not obvious to armchair politics.

Suppose I told you there were ways to get fantastically wealthy without every touching the labor market or ever running a business and that because I used them to make myself wealthy I know for a fact that free market ideology is seriously in error because it does not take into account historical contingency as well as how human institutions are structured by interests in the world economy.

Re:More info (1)

dcw3 (649211) | more than 3 years ago | (#35918432)

Okay, well you seem to be implying that since I believe in the free market, I'm somehow "clearly incapable of doing evidence based analysis". I'll let that slight go by, and let you know that I'm an engineer by training, so I tend to have a very rational, logical, based opinion. If you can point out flaws in my logic, I'll gladly acknowledge them. I'm not a hardline lassie faire capitalist, otherwise the system becomes ripe for the abuses you're so concerned over. Certainly, while I tend to be in favor of smaller government, I didn't appreciate the screwing over our economy took at the hands of some jackasses in Wall Street (and I'm pissed that some didn't go to jail). You made a comment about rich people and their egos. My counter to that wasn't any broad sweeping statement to the contrary. Putting all wealthy business people in the same category is simply illogical, and a bit juvenile.

Re:More info (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35921024)

"Okay, I didn't read your links, " You can't do evidence based analysis if you don't examine the evidence.

Re:More info (1)

tlhIngan (30335) | more than 3 years ago | (#35930050)

Okay, I didn't read your links, but is there evidence of your previously claimed assault by the U.S. somewhere in there?

The CRIA (Canadian Recording Industry Association) is made up primarily of the big 3 US labels. The Canadian labels have withdrawn from CRIA a few years ago after CRIA expressed interest in suing music pirates. CRIA's also the big sponsor of the Canadian DMCA (which thankfully is kept out because of minority governments and elections).

When the Canadian labels have withdrawn from a Canadian trade group and left it mostly represented by American interests...

Re:More info (1)

dcw3 (649211) | more than 3 years ago | (#35936876)

Kind of off-topic there. Those companies are not the US government, and are doing what any other business would do if they could to make money...not that I agree with any of it. Your own laws are what either allow them to do it or not.

Re:More info (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35918178)

The NDP will flush your money down the drain. You might win the internet debate, but you'll lose on every other value you believe in. Welcome back Communism.

Re:More info (1)

DarthVain (724186) | more than 3 years ago | (#35942732)

I found this also. The Liberals for being the "Official Opposition" didn't really do too much opposing. Mostly I suspect because they were too afraid to force an early election (or its stuff they really don't care that much about). So when Harper and is cronies were spouting off all sorts of batshit crazy ideas and bills about the internet, privacy, and IP, the Liberals were oddly quiet. It was only the NDP that would make a stand on camera as to what their opposing views were. The Liberals would argue that the NDP had nothing to lose, but at least they were doing their damn job.

And this... (1)

MonsterTrimble (1205334) | more than 3 years ago | (#35914664)

is one of the reasons I will not be voting Conservative while I firmly believe in Conservative values - small government and low taxes (as possible). (I also believe in pro-choice and GBLT equality. Call me a Social Liberal / Fiscal Conservative.) Stephen Harper's government has been doing everything they can to stay in power while acting almost New Democrat in spending - two things I cannot accept. I also will not be voting Liberal (I don't think Michael Ignatieff will be any better in his role as PM), the NDP think you can spend yourself out of debt and I can't vote Bloc Quebecois (although I think their leader Gilles Duceppe is by far the most competent).

In this election I will vote Green Party. Granted, they are quite out there with some policies however I think they are the best choice.

Re:And this... (1)

Anthem1937 (813790) | more than 3 years ago | (#35914986)

It's a shame that Canada doesn't have a party that is simultaneously Progressive and Conservative. Card in my wallet says such a thing existed once upon a time.

Re:And this... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35915156)

Conservative party != fiscal conservatives

Conservatives inherited a 20 billion surplus from the Liberals. The proceeded to rape that surplus, before the entire "recession". When end of 2008 hit, they managed to dig us into another 50 billion deficit position. That's 70 billion swing (about 700 billion equivalent if it was US).

We are fucking lucky they didn't have majority in 2005 or around there, as they have already proceeded to deregulate the banking sector but they didn't have time or majority needed to do same changes as in the US. If they had done that, our banks would have been fucked. Instead, they only lost a few billion.

Conservative party has VERY LITTLE to NOTHING to do with being fiscally conservative. The only fiscally responsible political party was Liberals with Paul Martin.

I can't vote NDP for same reason you can't. I can't vote "Green Party" because of their stance against civilization (eg. against nuclear, but no plan to replace base-load coal/oil/gas). No Bloc here, though Duceppe is best candidate... No conservative for the same reason that Duceppe criticizes him - he's a LIAR ("we want elected senate" - Harper. Then he proceeded to appoint his never elected buddy-buddy is Quebec to the Senate and to the cabinet. That did it for me with Harper. For as long as he is the Great Leader of Conservative party, they will never get my vote).

So my only option is Liberal party. They will never win in my riding, but I will still go and vote for Liberals because CONservatives are lead by a CONman.

This is just my opinion on things..

Re:And this... (1)

multipartmixed (163409) | more than 3 years ago | (#35915470)

I think you need to vote NDP. The greens have no hope in hell of forming a government. We need to get a shit load of NDP seats to make the other two parties wake up and get theirs heads out of their collective asses.

So - I think an NDP government would be short-term pain for long-term gain. And NDP minority government would be almost perfect.

It doesn't matter (0)

mark-t (151149) | more than 3 years ago | (#35914688)

It's not like they will actually have to fulfill their promises. I'd be quite willing to put even money on that, if I thought that anybody who had the integrity not to welch if they lost would actually take the bet.

The only hope in hell they have of even getting a single seat, let alone elected, is to change their name... The term "pirate" sounds hopelessly juvenile in this day and age, and can't be taken any more seriously by the general public than the Rhino Party (which, I might point out, is also running in next month's Canadian election). Individuals may well find that the Pirate Party of Canada has some very solid sounding platforms, but the image that they convey by having a name that, at best, is most commonly associated with some relatively recent Disney movies, is invariably going to keep them from being taken seriously by the majority of people.

My 2c.

getcocoon firefox plugin proxy (1)

povertystruck (2063920) | more than 3 years ago | (#35914724)

Has anyone here tried the proxy service Cocoon? [] I like using it so far, but it does slow my browsing down a little (not much but it is noticeable).

It is a done deal (2)

mauriceh (3721) | more than 3 years ago | (#35914808)

The decision to intercept and monitor all internet traffic actually happened in the US and Canada shortly after 9/11.
They had decided well before that to plan for it, and once they had the boogey-man of terrorism to pave the way,
it was put it into place.
This has nothing to do with "Harper", "The Conservatives" or any party.
This is done by our military, our security establishment, and will not be disturbed by politics.

FYI the whole intercept technology was upgraded last year, and this is already in place and operational now.

Re:It is a done deal (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 3 years ago | (#35915956)

I have no doubt that all internet traffic in and out of the US is monitored, but the sheer volume of it makes any form of real-time processing impossible. The only thing the government can do - and I mean technologically, not legally - is specify individual hosts to sift from the multi-terabit stream and pay attention to. They won't be running a fishing trip for pirates. It'll be more along the line of 'This is Joe. Joe's brother's roommate's father has been talking with a known agent of the Taliban. We need to secretly intercept all of Joe's emails, forum posts and IM conversations in case he mentions something his brother told him his room mate told him his father told him that might hint at a possible terrorist attack."

Re:It is a done deal (1)

mauriceh (3721) | more than 3 years ago | (#35916370)

We were discussing monitoring of Internet traffic in CANADA..

In USA we assumed that this was already in place.
However, I have no doubt that monitoring all of it is possible
Nothing that a lot of computing resources and money can not handle

Re:It is a done deal (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 3 years ago | (#35917582)

US, Canada. Same thing, really. Both are countries with huge amounts of traffic. In theory you could search for keys phrases, but unless it's something very obscure you'd find it impossible to sort through the results. You can't even hunt for people transfering a specific file, because each packet only has a small piece and the lengths and offsets are unpredictable.

Re:It is a done deal (1)

mauriceh (3721) | more than 3 years ago | (#35917636)

You should volunteer your services to NSA, CSIS and DND Canada.

The JEW is behind all of this monitoring... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35915592)

It wasn't the Canadian people who decided to bring in laws to allow the so-called 'government' to spy on their every word, no, it was the JEW who controls the Canadian government.

The eternal Jew.
I wonder why they never do manual labour? Could it be because they think they are above that sort of thing, and besides, they've got millions of 'cattle' to do it for them (that means you and me)...

Kudos to the Pirate Party of Canada! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35915974)

The Pirate Party of Canada should be commended for their commitment to Internet freedom and free speech in general. There is a free VPN called HotspotShield by a company called AnchorFree that has become famous for providing anonymity and access to the free and open Internet to freedom loving people in China, Libya, Egypt and others living under totalitarian regimes. Perhaps if this threat to freedom in Canada becomes too big they can get together with AnchorFree. I read an article this week indicating that HotspotShield is supporting in excess of 9 million users at this time.

Does nobody else find this disturbing? (1)

doccus (2020662) | more than 3 years ago | (#35919946)

I don't care about posturing by 'pirate parties' or any others.. the fact that we allow this gross violation of basic liberties and freedoms to pass without a huge roar is SHAMEFUL.. And no 'if you've got nothing to hide' arguments either.. I can't believe people still use that as an excuse.. Why isn't this on the news headlines?

Comms in Canada (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35920058)

Sorry to burst your bubble but all comms in Canada have been systematically spied on since the cold war.
It's an essential part of the game.we check them , they check us.It's been going on for ages.
Noone can play offended virgin cause we all do it.Some just keep the lid on their pots better than others.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?