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!

Canadian Government Seeking New Net Snooping Powers

Unknown Lamer posted about 3 years ago | from the security-above-all dept.

Canada 77

An anonymous reader writes "A bill being considered by the Canadian federal parliament includes two clauses specifically to reduce the 'due process' imposed when the police need information from ISPs. Under the proposed bill, law enforcement officers will not require a warrant to acquire information about internet subscribers from Canadian ISPs ... Paul Ducklin has criticized the bill saying that it 'doesn't even seem to propose that the requests be based on any sort of specific identifier, such as a name or an email address ... This suggests, in the worst case, that an ISP might be compelled simply to hand over information about all subscribers. No warrant needed, and thus no proactive oversight by the judiciary.'"

cancel ×


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

Disgusting. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37134790)

The US and Canadian governments illustrate more and more every day how the interests of big money outweigh the duty to the public.

Re:Disgusting. (2)

bonch (38532) | about 3 years ago | (#37136006)

Slashdot on Google: "So what if they have all my personal info? We're living in the internet era. I'm not concerned that they can index my email or track my browsing habits."
Slashdot on governments: "How dare law enforcement be able to track criminals without a warrant. What happened to the public's right to privacy?"

Re:Disgusting. (4, Insightful)

cab15625 (710956) | about 3 years ago | (#37137916)

You seem to be suggesting that there is some sort of double standard. So tell me, when was the last time that you heard of Google sending their armed law enforcement agents to a private residence to arrest someone? We hold corporations and governments to different standards because they have different powers and different duties. Part of the duties of a government are to protect the rights of citizens and individuals (often from corporations). This sort of legislation betrays the trust that we are supposed to be able to have for our government.

Re:Disgusting. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37138912)

I have been a happy Google user, but I start to turn to a somewhat pissed Google user. It is obvious, at least to me, that Google would be the perfect cover for NSA and friends. Google know everything about everyone, cause everyone happily tells Google, say that the reason for Google shows such a good expansion and gold money, maybe Google gets government money as backing, would it be so surprising? Wouldn't it be a general Wrong of NSA, CIA, with friends, NOT to support Google?

I strongly believe that Google started as only a Search Engine, and that it still operates only as one.

However, it would be a general Wrong from our friends NSA, CIA not to try to get into Google databases.

Laws after 9/11 does lean to, forcing security on top of all, I wounder where Google stands when the security guys comes with "We hand you a fat bonus, if we can look in your databases".

Re:Disgusting. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37143852)

Slashdot on Google: "So what if they have all my personal info? We're living in the internet era. I'm not concerned that they can index my email or track my browsing habits."
Slashdot on governments: "How dare law enforcement be able to track criminals without a warrant. What happened to the public's right to privacy?"

bonch on Slashdot: "I sure do love lying about you in a transparent and futile bid for your approval!"

Re:Disgusting. (4, Informative)

Shark (78448) | about 3 years ago | (#37136160)

Actually, from requests I've had (I work from a small ISP), they already have something on the books for this and it doesn't require a warrant. The RCMP officer refered to section 7(3)(c.1)(ii) of the "Pursuant to the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Document Act" (PIPEDA). Apparently it requires no warrant in cases where disclosure is required to enforce a law... That leaves an aftertaste of gigantic loophole in my mouth but I'm no lawyer.

Re:Disgusting. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37140412)

Contrary to the movies, RCMP officers can lie. You should have demanded either a warrant or written statement from him.

Re:Disgusting. (1)

Syberz (1170343) | about 3 years ago | (#37140552)

IANAL, but my understanding of PIPEDA is that personal information can be gathered without the individual's consent when this information is required for law enforcement. This is NOT the same as you (your company) handing that information over freely, i.e. the RCMP can snoop around and find that information on their own without having to tell the individual that they collected his info. Your company on the other hand, asked for the individual's consent before collecting and part of that consent covers the fact that this information will not be shared.

Honestly, your company should definitively consult a lawyer to clear that up if it hasn't already because if my interpretation is correct, they've opened themselves for quite a liability.

Disclaimer: I'm in Canada and work for a company that has to gather personal info as part of its operations.

Re:Disgusting. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37136556)

More backward policies from the dictators of Solviet Canuckistan.

Re:Disgusting. (1)

damnfuct (861910) | about 3 years ago | (#37137474)

In Soviet Canada, internet searches you?

Cool (1)

beefoot (2250164) | about 3 years ago | (#37134796)

That's just great. What else are on the table?

Re:Cool (1)

dryeo (100693) | about 3 years ago | (#37138332)

Updated copyright laws including DMCA like provisions as written by America (Wikileaks leaked a document showing our glorious leader responding to the American ambassadors pressure to pass the law before the election as saying it would make them unelectable. This shows who they're representing).
Tougher crime laws including 3 strike type laws and building more prisons even though the crime rate has been seriously dropping.
Getting rid of most government scientists because they keep making business unfriendly reports.
And of course the usual right wing practice of cutting taxes for the rich while increasing spending. I like tax cuts but only when we can afford them.

What injustice (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37134858)

At least State-side you have to call them a terr'ist first.

Wow (1)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | about 3 years ago | (#37134880)

Canada seems to be picking up the US's bad habits lately....

Re:Wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37135042)

What do you expect with a Conservative majority? Democrats say "Jump!", Conservatives say "How high?". Same reason Canadians have been sacrificing their lives in Afghanistan and Iraq, while not a single Canadian supports those missions.

Re:Wow (1)

Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) | about 3 years ago | (#37135892)

Same reason Canadians have been sacrificing their lives in Afghanistan and Iraq, while not a single Canadian supports those missions.

Even leaving aside the massive overgeneralization, this is simply not true. Particularly for Afghanistan. On 9/11, I remember very anti-american Canadians saying "Basically it's the same country." The war in Iraq has terrible support--of course it does, it had bad support even in the US--but Afghanistan is a different war, and I would expect it to have much higher support numbers.

Re:Wow (2)

aldragon (782143) | about 3 years ago | (#37135054)

Lately? The Canadian govt is always trying to catch up the the US govt's bad habits. Tis always been true, and is true regardless of which political party is winning on either side of the border.

Re:Wow (1)

rikkards (98006) | about 3 years ago | (#37135142)

And none of this was a surprise. The Tories were completely open about the Omnibus bill which this contains. You know we are under extreme assault by terrorists and pedophiles. And pretty much there is nothing anyone can do since they have a majority. Sure you can contact your MP and all they will do is tow the line about how it is keeping us safe, blah blah blah.

Re:Wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37135388)

I don't think many portions of the Omnibus bill would actually survive a constitutional challenge (in my non-lawyer view) as many of the sections in the Omnibus bill seem to be in stark contrast with section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms [] (the section that specifically limits police powers - specifically search and seizure and a reasonable expectation of privacy).

The unfortunate part of this isn't the Supreme Court overturning the offensive sections of this bill, but the legal hassles of getting the Supreme Court to hear the case and (possibly) being in and out of jail over several years plus mounting legal expenses.

Re:Wow (1)

Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) | about 3 years ago | (#37135956)

Can you not bring something like a declaratory judgment action in a Canadian Court?

Re:Wow (1)

Tacvek (948259) | about 3 years ago | (#37136230)

Would the Grandpartent have standing to file such an action? After all, similar challenges to various laws in the United States have been denied for lack of standing, since the filer was unable to show that their rights had been violated or would most likely be violated in the near term future.

Re:Wow (1)

Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) | about 3 years ago | (#37136588)

I'm not sure--quite aside from YMMV by judge and IANAL, I think the question would be whether you could show that the breach of police powers in some way caused you "injury in fact." I think you wouldn't have standing if you're just someone random, but you might have standing if you could show that the government violated your rights personally--so maybe if you are a subscriber to an ISP that you know shares some piece of information about you personally with the government, if you believe that sharing to be unconstitutional.

It would not be a particularly good case for standing, but it might be enough.

The problem, of course, is that governments are generally not transparent about this sort of thing. I suppose everyone could issue FOIA requests, but I don't know how thoroughly they would be responded to. (Or the Canadian equivalent.)

Re:Wow (1)

Dr. Hellno (1159307) | about 3 years ago | (#37139760)

You're right to worry about transparency. From Ars Technica [] :

To get that information, law enforcement won't necessarily need a warrant. Each agency can designate up to 5 percent of its total employees as authorized to request the information, and it can ban telcos from admitting that they have provided any such information.[emphasis mine]

In other words, you can make FOIA requests until you're blue in the face, but it won't get you anywhere.

Re:Wow (1)

Shark (78448) | about 3 years ago | (#37136316)

The first paragraph of the charter of rights says we only have any of the listed rights long as the government thinks they're reasonable. All they have to say is that they don't think it's reasonable that we have them on the internet.

Re:Wow (1)

thirty-seven (568076) | about 3 years ago | (#37137922)

The first paragraph of the charter of rights says we only have any of the listed rights long as the government thinks they're reasonable.

(1) It's not about whether the rights are reasonable, it's that any restrictions of those rights need to be reasonable.

(2) It's not the government that gets to decide what limits are reasonable, it is the judiciary.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

Re:Wow (1, Insightful)

Bahamut_Omega (811064) | about 3 years ago | (#37135416)

Pity; Harper keeps on thinking he's the Fuhrer whilst causing a furor in the country. Just had to have idiots combined with first past the post bullshit for this idiot to get in again. With Harper and his constant lying to the public; it is no wonder that he is making even Brian Mulroney look good.

Re:Wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37179454)

Well, even if you contact your MP and he agrees with you and disagrees with the Government's decision, he cannot do a thing because the votes of all MPs are controlled by their party leader. So they can speak out against it and risk being kicked out of their chosen political party, while their vote goes in a direction that they don't believe in. I think that all votes MP votes should be free votes so that MP can actually represent their riding's interests.

It's obvious, internet is over (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37134908)

The governments of the world clearly do not like the free flow of information. They gave lip service to it during the Arab uprisings, but the agenda has always been pretty clear. An informed public is a threat to those in power. At the very least, we need to legitimize thoughtcrime, so we can proactively harass dissidents.

"Flash mobs" will be the excuse, as if protests and riots are all organized on facebook.

But, it's done. Just like the US economy is done. The world changed in every aspect, seemingly overnight. We're way the fuck through the looking glass at this point.

Re:It's obvious, internet is over (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37135640)

To be honest, I'm much more scared of where our economy is going. The American economy has nothing on ours. :( /uk

Re:It's obvious, internet is over (1)

Fluffeh (1273756) | about 3 years ago | (#37135838)

They gave lip service to it during the Arab uprisings

You got to be kidding me. They put ona brave smiling face, but when the camera was off, it was much more along the lines of "Oh SHIT! People can really just toss us out of office, power and into prison or exile when enough of them get together! We need to really nip this information thing in the bud NOW!".

Re:It's obvious, internet is over (1)

Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) | about 3 years ago | (#37135992)

It's not done. The *unmonitored* flow of information may be approaching nonexistence, but the vast majority of information flows freely. You can tell because you're posting on slashdot without any significant fear that a guy is going to show up and take your life away with a bullet or pen.

Wait, what? (1, Informative)

Samalie (1016193) | about 3 years ago | (#37134960)

You pulled a bill from a year ago, that has been effectively tabled by the fact that we just had an election? And where no current bill of the same authority is under consideration?

There is no bill, hence no discussion anymore, hence NO FUCKING STORY. Way to factcheck.

Re:Wait, what? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37135024)

Well, it was posted by "Unknown Lamer"...

Re:Wait, what? (3, Insightful)

causality (777677) | about 3 years ago | (#37135102)

You pulled a bill from a year ago, that has been effectively tabled by the fact that we just had an election? And where no current bill of the same authority is under consideration?

There is no bill, hence no discussion anymore, hence NO FUCKING STORY. Way to factcheck.

Yeah that is pretty lame.

Still, it is definitely a problem that anyone holding any public office would even think of doing this.

The legal definition of "treason" needs to be expanded to include "any elected official, appointed official, or employee or agent of either, who makes any effort to subvert, reduce, eliminate, or work around due process for any reason or no reason at all". For both the US and Canada. It's hard to think of more effective ways to permanently damage a nation.

Re:Wait, what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37136574)

While the idea of adding this to the definition of treason is good, it would cause as many problems as it would solve. The legal system here in America is screwed up and if you end up in court it can cost you thousands or more, because of the various layers already in due process. Adding this wording would effectivally make it illegal to fix the current problems. The system needs to be fixed i agree, but not in this way.

Re:Wait, what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37140860)

The government has said it would take all of the so-called law and order bills that died on the order paper when the election was called, and bundle them together unchanged into one big omnibus bill within the first 100 days of forming the government after the election.

At what point do you suggest we start taking steps to head this off at the pass?

Re:Wait, what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37135240)

This isn't from last year at all you idiot, this is a CURRENT omnibus bill that is being tabled. You should do some fact checking yourself before you go shooting your mouth off.

Re:Wait, what? (1)

revnoah (2441036) | about 3 years ago | (#37135278)

Yeah, this is useless as it is a first reading under a different government. Although the Conservative Party of Canada now has a majority government, the official opposition is now the New Democratic Party, not the Liberal Party of Canada. The Liberals tried pushing similar legislation through themselves while the NDP have been more vocal about net neutrality and privacy than their middle-of-the-road pro-business predecessors. So, we'll see how this goes on second reading. However, it should be noted that Bell Canada and Rogers, our major telcos in this oligopoly, already bend over for the government in compliance with just about any request. It's the small independents that actually attempt to protect consumer rights and privacy, although they make up a tiny segment of the industry.

Re:Wait, what? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37135494)

The NDP stand on the issue will be almost irrelevant now that the Conservatives have a majority. The government can ram through whatever they want after respecting the token amount of opposition comment that they have to tolerate in parliamentary procedure. The ONLY way that the NDP or any other opposition is going to have an influence is if the general public takes an interest in the issue and loudly voices an opinion on what is being said. Even if the public does take an interest, the Conservatives can still pass the legislation as-is. All the good intentions in the world aren't going to stop that unless the Conservatives think the issue is going to affect the next election, and it seems unlikely that net neutrality and privacy are going to be deciding issues for most ordinary voters.

The same goes for another pending bill for copyright reform, which the Conservatives have also said is going to be tabled more-or-less like the previous legislation that didn't get passed. How much do you want to bet that they change it to address the broad public complaints about the previous bill? I doubt it's going to change much at all, and it will be passed regardless of whatever the NDP says. I'm not looking forward to the Canadian DMCA either.

If people are going to have any hope of influencing either of these pending bills when the September session of Parliament starts, the time to start talking about it and organizing opposition to what was presented previously is now. Then there would be some tiny chance they would start worrying about the public reaction and change the legislation before it is tabled. I think the chances they'd change it between tabling and the vote are pretty much nil, because that would be perceived as giving in to opposition demands.

Re:Wait, what? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37135332)

You pulled a bill from a year ago, that has been effectively tabled by the fact that we just had an election? And where no current bill of the same authority is under consideration?

There is no bill, hence no discussion anymore, hence NO FUCKING STORY. Way to factcheck.

You mad bro. How much you get from haarpers goons to post this? Just because its first reading was a year ago doesn't mean it isn't currently under consideration, or can't be revived at a moment's notice and passed very quickly once the proper representatives have been paid off.

Re:Wait, what? (0)

topham (32406) | about 3 years ago | (#37135512)

Yes, it is highly likely a new version will be tabled.

But it is stupid to try and stir up shit over a version of the bill that is defunct. Call up your MP and mention this bill and they'll laugh at you. When the new bill is tabled and you can identify the sections you have issues with then your MP might actually listen to what you have to say. Most of them aren't even smart enough to correlate what is in the old bill with what may appear in a new bill. Assume they are all stupid and wait for the new bill to be tabled first.

Anything else is just stirring up shit without a purpose.

Re:Wait, what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37136176)

Anything else is just stirring up shit without a purpose.

Okay, let's wait until the bill is tabled, rushed through, and signed into law before we even start raising public awareness of the issues it's highly likely to deal with. Great idea.

Re:Wait, what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37143386)

This bill will be introduced this fall as part of the Conservatives' (Stephen Harper) Omnibus legislation.

stale info (1)

Chirs (87576) | about 3 years ago | (#37135036)

This was from last year.

This will be pushed and refuted for as long as ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37135204)

This will be pushed and refuted for as long as Stephen Harper's Conservatives will be in power. Luckily, the CRTC would never allow it without having the full support of the population.

Personally, i don't care, i have an agreement with my ISP, they would never divulge my name and address, unless they had a proclamation signed by a judge. Even if the Tories were able to amend such law that authorities would request personal consumer information without a warrant.

Re:This will be pushed and refuted for as long as (2)

causality (777677) | about 3 years ago | (#37135374)

This will be pushed and refuted for as long as [ ... ]

This is what bothers me. I consider it a serious flaw in all forms of government.

The advocates of this kind of fascism can just keep trying, again and again, defeat after defeat, to get this into law. They know that eventually they will find one set of legislators who will pass it. It's just a matter of persistence. Once it becomes law, it will never be repealed. No amount of protesting or lack of popularity will change that.

Don't like this but...... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37135264)

When our country is being compared to China in copyright issues that is just bad. Too many cheap people out their stealing.

Re:Don't like this but...... (3, Insightful)

causality (777677) | about 3 years ago | (#37135360)

When our country is being compared to China in copyright issues that is just bad. Too many cheap people out their stealing.

You must be trolling, or you decided that complete ignorance about a subject shouldn't stop you from taking a position concerning it.

This bill is for law enforcement officers to obtain ISP information with less due process. Copyright infringement is generally not a crime. Therefore, it generally wouldn't involve police.

Instead, the vast majority of copyright infringement cases would involve discovery/subpoenas issued during a civil suit. That implies authorization by a court for such information to be obtained.

Even if you had a point, and you don't, I'd rather see every last copyright cartel go out of business and sell its assets at auction. In the scheme of things, that would be a far lesser loss compared to liberty and privacy.

Where to now? (1)

xerxesVII (707232) | about 3 years ago | (#37135378)

So for those who always play the "Baw, I'm moving to Canada" card... where to now?

Re:Where to now? (1)

corychristison (951993) | about 3 years ago | (#37135576)

There is no way this will get passed... come on over! We have excellent beer!

Re:Where to now? (1)

rikkards (98006) | about 3 years ago | (#37137626)

Umm... you understand what a majority government is right? If Harper says to pass it, it will get passed. It was one of their platforms for the election.

Re:Where to now? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37137562)

They don't want us, policies such as this are their pre-emptive strikes against those who want to move to Canada.

How about... (1)

Deliveranc3 (629997) | about 3 years ago | (#37135444)


Information is information, violence is violence, theft is theft. Canada is fortunate to have one of the broadest freedom of speech policies in the world.

Dangerous information:
Bombs: Yea, good for preventing fascism.
Yelling fire: No one takes the Internet that seriously.
Child porn: This is an interesting one. Apparently viewing child porn has a high incidence of creating child molesters. This is based off a study conducted by the CIA and FBI to justify wire tapping, in the 80s. I'd really like to see this one revisited.

Harper should have had Jack Layton cancer (1)

JonySuede (1908576) | about 3 years ago | (#37135460)

Harper should have had Jack Layton cancer !

Re:Harper should have had Jack Layton cancer (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37135804)

He does doesn't he?

Re:Harper should have had Jack Layton cancer (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37142434)

someone mod this the fuck down - don't fucking wish ANYONE cancer you motherfucking asshole!!!

Easy Fix (1)

IonOtter (629215) | about 3 years ago | (#37135546)

Just have the chief of police, or whomever, come before Parliament and state, for the record...

"I have a team of 100 officers, standing by to make phone calls to the ISPs of every single one of you, and will be requesting ALL information regarding YOUR accounts. Where you've been, who you've been chatting with, what sites you've been browsing. Because past behavior has given us MORE than enough reason to investigate you all."

Re:Easy Fix (1)

mirix (1649853) | about 3 years ago | (#37135672)

Except the police are in bed with the ruling conservatives. That's generally how fascists operate.

Four more years (1)

mirix (1649853) | about 3 years ago | (#37135588)

'You won't recognize Canada when I get through with it,' -Harper

I'm also looking to the mandatory minimum sentences and other idiocy they'll be cooking up. I really wish we had PR.

Re:Four more years (1)

Scott64 (1181495) | about 3 years ago | (#37135650)

You can get all kinds of other absurd quotes/actions he's said/done with sources cited here: []

Monitor politicians actively (1)

failedlogic (627314) | about 3 years ago | (#37135646)

The bill will be dropped fairly fast if all Canadians agree to it on one condition: real time uncensored logs of all Internet use (work and private) of all federal and provincial politicians, judges and anyone invovled in law enforcement or the court system. See how long the bill lasts.


Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37135682)

Yes, friends, the weasels of Fascism are all but impossible to kill.

Smacked down and laid out on the table last year, the Canadian Bill to Americanize (note the spelling here) Canada by implementing in Canadian law American-Style due-process avoidance exceptions was thought, by the naive, to be dead.

But in an effort not unexpected by the cynical, the new government has brought the body back from the morgue and has reintroduced the tabled bill, with all its due-process dodging paragraphs intact. It is making another press to, within 100 days, fling the warmed-over corpse across the goal and into law.

If this were the other kind of f***ing the politicians were attempting, coming on again and again, refusing to accept demurrer and polite decline and even firm slapping down of the reaching hands and sharp 'NO!' from those who wish to live free of big-brother's incestuous intrusions, attempt to rape could accused.

Reintroduction (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37135848)

A lot of people here are whining that this is old news from last year. However, if you read the article you'll see that the government is reintroducing this bill as a part of their "vow" to get tough on crime. This bill will likely get repackaged in the next few weeks and pushed through. It's a concern for those of us north of the border.

maybe no bill, but just in case... (1)

iceaxe (18903) | about 3 years ago | (#37135868)

As others have noted, this (anonymous) submission may be pointless. (I haven't verified that, though.)

With that said, Canadians, please look to the future and learn about your options.

There is a great article/tutorial on Surveillance Self Defense [] at the EFF. Although it is aimed primarily at US citizens, much of it also applies to you - and the technical tools described are equally effective in any country.

I really want Canada to be a place of enlightened freedom, so I have someplace to go when the Corporate Snakes of America becomes too onerous to stomach any longer. Get to work on that, will ya?


Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37135934)

There has been something called PIPEDA which the local police used all the time (which has been around for quite sometime) and has been longer than 1 year probably over 5 or more years I know I have been served PIPEDA requests for information from the local ICE squad

The real bill is worse (1)

genkernel (1761338) | about 3 years ago | (#37135974)

While the bill from the article is from a year ago, and therefore the summary sucks, the basic premise of the story remains very much intact under the current Harper government. The real story is as follows and is only six months old, as opposed to a year, so its good for slashdot:

"A bill [] will soon be passed into law by the Canadian government, which will require that ISPs disclose customer information such as name, phone number, email address, IP address, house address, and more, and furthermore require ISPS to allow for the monitoring, interception, and isolation of internet communications in real time. This will be brought forward in an omnibus collection of other bills by the majority government."

If you think the idea of the linked bill was bad, enjoy the one that will *actually* come to pass.

The Eternal Jew... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37136272)

The Eternal Jew has taken over Canada, just like they took over Germany in the early 20th century, and almost destroyed it.

Let me see...

Total control of the fraudulent fractional reserve banking system, thus allowing them to print as much money as they want - check.
Total control of the media, thus allowing them to control everything the public sees and hears about the world - check.
Total control of the government, who bend over backwards to do anything the Jews tell them - check.
Unwanted mass immigration of millions of non-whites, coupled with terrorising the native population into submission - check.

Leading to: the total destruction of society - white society. Check.

Leading to - Jews being found out and expelled - for the hundredth time. Let's bloody hope so.

Petition to stop this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37136752)

To my fellow Canadians, there's a petition at [] to hopefully prevent this sort of crap from happening. Or at least, to raise our voice..

There Is No Such Thing As 'Due Process' In Canada (1)

stoicio (710327) | about 3 years ago | (#37136962)

There is no such thing as due process in Canada. There never was. Authorities can decide on a whim what they will do to you.
There is also no recourse, no accountability, no freedom from intrusion. The 'reasonable grounds' dictate for search and seizure are based on some drones best imaginings of you at the time.

The Canadian government also collects information about the population on a regular basis ans stores it away in
CPIC and among various vestigial databases.

There are no real controls over how CPIC data are used. Any disgruntled police officer can diddle the database with impunity.
Any non-active or ex police member can still gain access to private records at any time.

Many police officers use the public databases for personal searches, outside the bounds of actual casework. They then pass this
information on to private individuals, family and friends. Some do it for money.

The Canadian databases have serious data quality problems. Any complaint is placed in public databases and may later be used as evidence or

Since complaints are logged and remain in databases for years. People use the complaint process as a way to harass others.

There is no logging of WHO entered data into Canada's public databases. This means that if there is an error or illegal manipulation of the database, no employees can be fired.

There is also no logging of WHO VIEWS Canada's public databases. This means that there are no employees fired for misusing Canadian databases.

As you can see I am not a big believer in Canada's privacy and human/civil rights performance when it comes to it's citizens.

I believe applicable the term is G.I.G.O. (wikipedia) []

The Canadian Charter of Rights contains no reference to " due process of law" it substitutes for the Phrase " fundamental justice". The court interpreted "fundamental Justice as the substantive concept" . Main Problem: vague concept.

source: []


Open Media! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37138240) is a good resource for current news on the Harper government's act of terrorism on this country's internet. show your support and send one of their message to the people in power. lets use our best tool (Internets! ) against Harper and his gang of idiots.

busy corrupt concervatives (1)

TwinGears (615184) | about 3 years ago | (#37138250)

Well since the conservatives have managed to grind the medical greens to the point of uselessness, trust me - no paper work will ever get done any more. They don't follow up with any thing they put in print, nor do they encrypt any thing. Now the expansion of prisons and soon the mandatory minimum will be in place, and so I guess the rich decided the pharmaceuticals are worth protecting aggressively rather than giving a shit about us normal Canadians. Lets face it, how many times have you seen the full page 'cops for cancer' bull in your newspaper, lets face the facts here people. Cancer was cured in 1974-75! and this breaking down of the monetary system is really making those in power behave rather poorly towards the rest of us. Also the watching over our Internet use doesn't surprise me any more than most of you people. So what's next for social camouflage? Parading around on our bikes with pink shits stating we are just as stupid as the normal clowns. I guess it's a little late to finally read 1984 as it just would not be as fun as the real thing.

Canadian Gestapo searches (1)

thesquire (1268220) | about 3 years ago | (#37138984)

I have one word to describe the proponents of warrantless searches: Neo-Nazis. Well, its really 2 words. It is noteworthy that the Chinese Nazi dictatorship praises Britain and countries like Canada that adopt such measures, since it serves to legitimize China's regular policy of oppression of free speech and civil liberties. The Nazis in Iran are solidly behind such moves, as well. Good company to keep!

Redux (1)

DarthVain (724186) | about 3 years ago | (#37147636)

This was tried a few years ago under the auspices of "Save the children from kiddy porn"...

It didn't fly then, and was defeated.

Now that the Conservatives have a majority, and are making silly decisions in an effort to "look tough on crime"...

I hope it doesn't pass, but if it ever will, now is the time.

buy cheap rolex watches online (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37150490)

In 1908 Wilsdorf registered the trademark " rolex watches [] " and opened an office in La Chaux-de-Fonds, Switzerland. The company name "Rolex" was registered on 15 November 1915. The book The Best of Time: watches for men [] : An Unauthorized History by Jeffrey P. Hess and James Dowling says that the name was just made up. One story, never confirmed by Wilsdorf, is that the name came from the French phrase horlogerie exquise, meaning "exquisite cheap rolex watches [] " or as a contraction of "horological excellence". Wilsdorf was said to want his swiss watches [] brand's name to be easily pronounceable in any language. He also thought that the name " luxury watches online [] " was onomatopoeic, sounding like a watch being wound. It is easily pronounceable in many languages and, as all letters have the same size, allows to be written symmetrically. It was also short enough to fit on the face of a rolex watches sale [] .

In 1914 Kew Observatory awarded a OMEGA watches [] a Class A precision certificate, a distinction which was normally awarded exclusively to marine chronometers.

If you like luxury watches [] , is your best choice.

Canada's Conservatives are Right Wing Monsters (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37164460)

I am nearly 60 years old. The Harper government is the worst, and most frightening government to hold power in Canada in my lifetime.

Their right wing ideology is extreme indeed. They routinely dismiss evidence provided by Statistics Canada that shows that crime rates have dropped significantly in the past decade or three. They are determined to get "tough on crime" by emulating the most egregiously idiotic and unsuccessful methods used in the United States, primarily by imposing ridiculous sentences and imprisoning vastly increased numbers of people.

The Conservatives want to remove the discretion of courts to impose sentences that fit the circumstances. They want to increase police powers, and to roll back three decades of rights jurisprudence under the Canadian Charter of Rights by stacking the Supreme Courts with right wing toadies. They love the military, the police, and white, wealthy businessmen.

The Conservatives will succeed in ruining Canada's traditionally (relatively) fair-minded liberal constitutional democracy. They are politically astute, extremely well funded, and face opposition parties that are fractious and inept. (I include the New Democratic Party in my assessment). Canada's populace is the real ace in the hole for the Conservatives. Moderate or left-leaning Canadians are either dozy and apathetic, or fixated on identity politics in a way that barely slows the right wing down. It appears to be trivially easy to silence all debate when it comes to "getting tough" on sexual offences. No politician from any party dares to make a peep about whether increasingly draconian measure to combat child pornography are *actually effective* and make the vulnerable in society safer. The attack adds would virtually write themselves, so Canada wanders down the path toward a lynch mob mentality whenever sex crimes are involved. Nobody, but NOBODY has the guts to ask "will these measures work"? No - just let police do whatever surveillance they want, and use a rubber hose on suspects, because ya know "there are pedophiles out there".

Not to mention Islamic terrorists, and all that.

These fascists will dominate Canada for another generation at least.

Stand by for enormous increases in warrantless surveillance by cops in Canada. Stand by for decades of whittled-down Charter protection in the case of unreasonable search and seizure, assault by the police, coercion of those arrested or charged, and all kinds of horrors.

Check for New 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>