×

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's Online Surveillance Bill: Section 34 "Opens Door To Big Brother"

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the watching-you dept.

Canada 178

Saint Aardvark writes "Canada's proposed online surveillance bill looked bad enough when it was introduced, but it gets worse: Section 34 allows access to any telco place or equipment, and to any information contained there — with no restrictions, no warrants, and no review. From the article: 'Note that such all-encompassing searches require no warrant, and don't even have to be in the context of a criminal investigation. Ostensibly, the purpose is to ensure that the ISP is complying with the requirements of the act — but nothing in the section restricts the inspector to examining or seizing only information bearing upon that issue. It's still "any" information whatsoever.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

178 comments

Slashdot's silly double standard (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39094527)

Slashdot on Google: "They're just a friendly, do-no-evil web search company! I willingly hand them them all my personal data and believe every one of their apologies when there's another privacy intrusion!"

Slashdot on governments: "Down with Big Brother and his constant surveillance!"

Re:Slashdot's silly double standard (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39094569)

One difference might be that Google's motivation is obvious. They just want your money, and money's easy enough to get.

Governments, on the other hand, want security, which is something you can't ever completely reach... so they'll keep reaching.

Re:Slashdot's silly double standard (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39094581)

The motivations don't matter if the net effect is the same.

Corporations doing evil vs Govt doing evil (5, Insightful)

fyngyrz (762201) | more than 2 years ago | (#39094791)

The net effect isn't the same.

A corporation has to ask you for your data, and you can say no -- at which point the corporation is SOL, regardless of your perceived goodness or badness of that corporate use. In addition, the corporation has at least some stake in your continued good will, and so they are likely to give you something back in return if in fact you choose to opt in. But if what they do makes people opt out... without customers, the corporation will cease to exist.

A government can -- and in the case of the US government, already will, the Canadians are well behind us -- take your data. Once it has it, it can, and will, jail you, take your life, and so on. They don't have to give you anything back, and typically, they won't. They have no significant investment in your good will. You can bitch all you want, but you can't opt out and they won't stop existing because they're annoying some of the citizens. Nor is there any hope of them annoying enough of the citizens for such a thing to happen.

You're been taught that corporations that do not know right from wrong are bad, thoughtless entities, and they certainly are, but they are nothing compared to a government that does not know right from wrong.

Also, in the final analysis, it is the government that enables or prevents any particular corporate behavior. If you get control of the government (good luck, too late in the USA.. but Canada... perhaps not) then you get control of the corporations.

Re:Corporations doing evil vs Govt doing evil (5, Insightful)

currently_awake (1248758) | more than 2 years ago | (#39094883)

Corporations don't care about your goodwill, they don't run for re-election. If something they do is unpopular they will create a new company to do that like RIAA is a branch of the recording industry companies. Once a corporation takes something from you (privacy) they can sell it or use it to harm you and there's nothing you can do to stop them. Politicians only keep their jobs if we let them. If government takes something from you (privacy) you can (collectively) take it back. Americans have a huge blind spot about corporations, they think they are more trustworthy than government when in reality it's the other way round.

Re:Corporations doing evil vs Govt doing evil (5, Insightful)

Mitreya (579078) | more than 2 years ago | (#39094985)

Politicians only keep their jobs if we let them.

If by "we", you mean a few hundred people who donate 80%+ of the politician's budgets, then I agree with you. Running for election has gotten way, way too expensive (it was never cheap, but costs apparently are rising exponentially). As I understand it, currently about 96% of the politicians who had more money than their opponent win the election.
A number of things that have very broad support of population majority on both Republican and Democrat side clearly have no chance of passing. How's _that_ for democracy?

Re:Corporations doing evil vs Govt doing evil (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39096549)

If your electorate can't be bothered to skim everyone's Wikipedia pages before voting, then your democracy is a lost cause. Too much money being spent on elections is a red herring; it shouldn't matter if the voters care about being informed.

Re:Corporations doing evil vs Govt doing evil (1)

chentiangemalc (1710624) | more than 2 years ago | (#39095151)

Currently awake, is that really you? Sure it isn't Currently Naive? While corp bashing is certainly a popular pastime reality is they cease to exist if they continue to screw customers. Govts get re-elected.on promises they don't keep and wasteful spending.

Re:Corporations doing evil vs Govt doing evil (2)

Cruciform (42896) | more than 2 years ago | (#39095371)

All a corporation has to do is maintain a good PR image while it screws customers and citizens to be able to survive.

Re:Corporations doing evil vs Govt doing evil (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39095299)

Corporations don't care about your goodwill, they don't run for re-election

And once the government slaps a felony conviction on you, you play no further part in its re-election.

Re:Corporations doing evil vs Govt doing evil (4, Informative)

Barbara, not Barbie (721478) | more than 2 years ago | (#39095951)

And once the government slaps a felony conviction on you, you play no further part in its re-election.

The Fine Article is about Canada, where it's unconstitutional to prevent people convicted of a crime from voting.

In fact, only two adult Canadian citizens are not eligible to vote - the Chief Electoral Officer, and the Deputy Chief Electoral Officer.

Re:Corporations doing evil vs Govt doing evil (4, Insightful)

dryeo (100693) | more than 2 years ago | (#39096553)

Google etc I can stop using any time without much effort, at that I've already got extensions installed to stop much of their data gathering.
The Canadian government or as they like to now call themselves, Harper's Government, with a majority, has up to 5 years in which they have a dictatorship. They have way more power then the American government has. They can even invoke the not withstanding clause of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and take away most basic civil rights.
The Supreme court rules against this invasion of privacy, well they can override (for 5 years) our right not to be unreasonably searched, which our Supreme Court has interpreted as a Right to Privacy.
They're also appointing new Supreme Court Justices who are more friendly to their right wing views.

Re:Corporations doing evil vs Govt doing evil (3, Insightful)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 2 years ago | (#39094929)

Added bonus, whats the worst that can do either of them?

Google could send you (or help others to do so) spam not so easy to ignore.

Government will find a joke you did, meant to be a joke, understood by all the involved parts of the conversation as joke, and still punish you [coupmedia.org] for that.

Now put that to really private conversations. Or any try to warn others about corruption/abuses/mass killings or whatever of people or companies somewhat related with your government. And that the one doing that with your private conversations could not be your government, but US one if you happen to be citizen of any other country.

Re:Corporations doing evil vs Govt doing evil (2)

darkonc (47285) | more than 2 years ago | (#39095509)

There's not much of a difference between a government and a corporation that has an effective monopoly. A (democratic) government that gets bad enough can be tossed out at the next election. It can take a whole generation, or more, to unseat a monopolistic grouping.

Companies don't care about your well-being. They just care about your money. Tobacco companies make money by killing people -- and they spent decades and millions of dollars on 'scientific' studies that questioned the conclusion of other scientists that tobacco was seriously bad for your health. Some of those same 'scientists' are now pooh-poohing Climate science.

It's shocking what you can convince people to do when you spend enough money generating an environment of general agreement. Even now, women are spending billions of dollars a year to get themselves insanely thin, even though , pound for pound, being under-weight is more unhealthy than being over-weight.

The reason why government has such a bad wrap is that it's the captains of industry who control the media outlets.

Re:Corporations doing evil vs Govt doing evil (2)

joocemann (1273720) | more than 2 years ago | (#39095799)

It is hardly as simple as you're stating, but I won't cut you for that because walls of text are time-consuming and most people don't actually read them.

It is important to recognize that there is no distinction between corporations and the actions of the US Federal Government, most state governments, and even county/city governments in many cases. Corporations are, in nearly all cases, the beneficiary to US policy in one form or another -- one only needs to be paying attention to the motivations for bills, those who benefit, and those who lose. By and large, nearly every policy move in the US is a pro-corporate move -- it is because of this, though not always recognized, that many of us paying attention say that the Republicans and Democrats are two sides of the same coin.

85% of politicians are/were lawyers, all judges are/were lawyers--- can we expect the US Gov't to crack down on litigious activity? LOL.

The *MAJORITY* of campaign contributions are coming directly or indirectly from corporate sponsors (either the corps themselves, or those running the show) -- should we expect the US Gov't to *NOT* be biased to helping corporations? LOL.

------

Sadly, 300 million americans, many of which, for circumstances beyond their control, work for these corporations, are the second in line for consideration from a political standpoint. We the people do not get them elected.... they noticed that the money got them elected, and the dumb people sent the votes that the money was used to influence them for.

Re:Slashdot's silly double standard (4, Insightful)

alendit (1454311) | more than 2 years ago | (#39094597)

No the difference is - i don't have to use Google. And I don't even have to leave for another country to opt-out, unlike in the case of the goverment.

Re:Slashdot's silly double standard (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39094715)

The counterargument to that would be that you can vote out politicians, but corporate monopolies last for generations. We're STILL dealing with a Windows monopoly. The problem is that you often don't even know that you're using Google. For example, check out sometime how many sites are quietly submitting your usage data to Google Analytics.

Re:Slashdot's silly double standard (1)

durrr (1316311) | more than 2 years ago | (#39094839)

Stupid people have a monopoly on government, have been that way longer than any windows monopoly.

Re:Slashdot's silly double standard (2)

0123456 (636235) | more than 2 years ago | (#39094865)

The counterargument to that would be that you can vote out politicians, but corporate monopolies last for generations.

You can't vote out politicians. You can only vote in another politician, and if they're not as corrupt as the one you threw out they probably will be after a few years.

We're STILL dealing with a Windows monopoly.

Thanks to copyright, patents and other monopolies granted to them by governments.

Re:Slashdot's silly double standard (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39094867)

How are we still dealing with a windows monopoly? If there are any tech companies that are close to running monopolies, its google and apple.

Re:Slashdot's silly double standard (2)

jamstar7 (694492) | more than 2 years ago | (#39095015)

Take a good look at what the majority operating system in use in desktop computers is. It ain't OSX, not by a longshot. Unless your computer has that lil Apple logo on it, or you decided to penguinise, it's running some version of Windows. All non-Apple computers ship with it preloaded. How is this not a monopoly? And don't give me the 'Apple Exists!' excuse, Apple is still interested in total vertical control of their product as to not 'dilute the Apple brand', which is why they freak out over the 'Hackintoshes'.

Re:Slashdot's silly double standard (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39095261)

I choose to run Windows. You are just a retard.

Re:Slashdot's silly double standard (2)

Requiem18th (742389) | more than 2 years ago | (#39094983)

Stop making this about you. What about less technically inclide people? And how do you know you are not using Google? Google knows you home SSID, and correlates it to your iPhone's MAC address. And unless you use pretty agressive blockers they have a pretty good list of all websites yhou have visited, even if you never visit youtube/gmail/google.com

There's nothing preventing the Google AND the goverment from fucking you over, except the fact that you have never done anything important ever.

Re:Slashdot's silly double standard (1)

dryeo (100693) | more than 2 years ago | (#39096631)

There are laws that are supposed to stop Google from invading our (Canadians) privacy. While there are also laws to stop the government from invading our privacy, it is very easy to change them by passing a new Online Surveillance Bill. We also have way fewer checks and balances then the USA, basically the government is a dictatorship for up to 5 years when the ruling party has the majority of parliamentary seats.

Re:Slashdot's silly double standard (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39095787)

"Governments, on the other hand, want security ..."

Perhaps you work for a government, in the propaganda department ?

In any case those of us who are not fools understand only too well
that what government wants is POWER. Power to control the population,
power to control the opposition, power to control dissent, etc.

Only a fool believes such a government is good. A wise man knows that
governments which want too much power must be removed from power,
period.

Re:Slashdot's silly double standard (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39094647)

Google can't throw you in jail forever.

Re:Slashdot's silly double standard (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39094735)

But Google has enough information on you to hand over to the government so that THEY can throw you in jail forever. And Google has no problem complying with government requests.

Re:Slashdot's silly double standard (1)

JBMcB (73720) | more than 2 years ago | (#39095055)

But you don't have to use Google. Government has the power to aggregate *everything* - tax records, banking records, property records, health records, insurance records, travel records, along with whatever they can glean from Google. Living without Google is relatively easy. Try functioning in modern society without a bank account, paying taxes, or using health services.

Re:Slashdot's silly double standard (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39094753)

No, but they can make your name synonymous with something disgusting pretty easily. They can besmirch your name in many ways. Beware the ire of the Google Bomb.

Re:Slashdot's silly double standard (1)

Soluzar (1957050) | more than 2 years ago | (#39094781)

Google didn't do that. The people who did that are the ones who created links to the website in question. Google's default behaviour has not been changed in any way in the case to which you refer. It does seem to be the case that some of those links were created with the intention of gaming the pagerank system, but I fail to see how Google took any direct action in that case. I'm not entirely uncriticalof Google, you understand. Although I use their websearch, and their mobile phone OS, I don't use their mail product, and it will be a cold day in hell before I use their browser product, but I also don't blame them for things they didn't do.

Re:Slashdot's silly double standard (2)

dryeo (100693) | more than 2 years ago | (#39096651)

The government can charge you with something disgusting like raping babies, then drop the charges. What will that do to your reputation?

Re:Slashdot's silly double standard (2)

Mitchell314 (1576581) | more than 2 years ago | (#39094661)

Double standard? That's one of the dumbest things I've heard here (and that's saying something). Obviously there are many conflicting opinions here, some believe the former statement and some the latter. That's not double standard. Also, /. is an aggregate news site with many different article and comment posters; there's such a diverse group that there isn't a whole lot of consensus to be expected.

I bloody swear, there are as many blokes complaining about whatever groupthink [x] is going on as the actual supporters for [x]
[/rant]

Re:Slashdot's silly double standard (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39094763)

You're being naive if you think the limited moderator pool combined with narrow story topics doesn't enforce groupthink. There were posters actually defending Google for breaking into a rival's server and calling their customer list. If Microsoft had done all the things Google has done in 2012 alone, there would be a massive uproar.

Sux to be Canad..... (2)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 2 years ago | (#39094531)

.... earthling .... since this isn't new, nor the end of it. Eventually all of us will be under this sort draconian rule.

Freedom. It was fun while it lasted.

Re:Sux to be Canad..... (0, Troll)

bonch (38532) | more than 2 years ago | (#39094543)

Unfortunately, most people have been conditioned to accept that they have no rights.

Re:Sux to be Canad..... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39095297)

Why do you continue to post when everyone knows you're a mentally challenged manbaby with a ton of puppet accounts?

Don't worry (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39094583)

Section 34 was introduced merely as negotiation fodder. It will be thrown out so that opponents will be more willing to accept the other terms of the bill, which are the ones actually desired.

Of course, over time this practice is repeated, and the net effect is the same. Frog in the kettle and all that. Eventually it gets too hot and people revolt and murder their leaders. But we probably have a while to go yet before that happens.

Re:Don't worry (1)

tqk (413719) | more than 2 years ago | (#39095191)

Frog in the kettle and all that.

I don't like that game; no humans like that game, and we're not amphibians. We can't play that game.

Eventually it gets too hot and people revolt and murder their leaders.

"Eventually" is a pretty amorphous word. It might mean milennia, centuries, decades, or nanoseconds. Are we really going to roll those dice?

I can't believe this. Who hired these !@#$holes? :-( Sedition is the flavour of the day?

Re:Don't worry (1)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 2 years ago | (#39096561)

Section 34 was introduced merely as negotiation fodder. It will be thrown out so that opponents will be more willing to accept the other terms of the bill, which are the ones actually desired.

Don't get the reasoning on this. Most people seem to be up in arms over the exigent circumstances part. But we already have that on the books, covering entry to a home, phone taps, mail, fire arms, etc. There's rules governing it if you do it. Serious penalties if you fail to follow the rules including long jail times. There's a reason why there's an exigent circumstances clause, the FLQ. [wikipedia.org] Canada has a pretty good, long history of home-grown terrorists who like doing nasty shit to pretty much anyone they decide they want to.

What I have a problem with, is everyone under the sun having the the ability to do this instead of just law enforcement. Exigent circumstance as it stands now isn't abused, you're risking 10 years in jail. It's automatic.

Re:Sux to be Canad..... (4, Interesting)

symbolset (646467) | more than 2 years ago | (#39094617)

SOPA sponsor Lamar Smith, under the guise of protecting childred from online pornographers, has proposed a new bill [businessinsider.com] that requires every Internet Service Provider to spy on every customer, logging every thing that they do online and keeping records for an entire year. Just in case. So... yeah. It's getting pretty bad.

And of course these records would be discoverable by his Big Media sponsors.

Re:Sux to be Canad..... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39094637)

Freedom can only be taken away from you if you allow it. In fact you can take freedom _back_ if you so choose. The question is, do you care about your freedom enough to actually bring about some change, or are you so consigned to failure and apathetic that you're just not going to bother and let things go even further down the toilet?

Always keep this in mind, because it's what every dictator, faux-democracy elected official and Gestapo wannabe wants you to forget -- there are a hell of a lot more of you than there are them. People are starting to forget about the value of "strength in numbers," they're afraid to speak the word "revolution" aloud. These people are only in power because no one is doing anything to stop them.

Are you willing to step up and defend your freedom, even if it means defending it from the government that's trying to take it away from you? Or are you just going to sit on your thumbs and let it happen? People like Bradley Manning, they're willing to make the ultimate sacrifice in order to bring about the end of these oil-sucking politicians, at their own expense. Are you willing to do the same? Or is your "we'll never win" attitude a self-fulfilling prophecy stoked with cowardice?

Doing waht is needed (4, Insightful)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 2 years ago | (#39094697)

Sure, I will be there when the time comes, but there is no sense being a martyr at this point as the act will just go unnoticed.

Pick winnable battles, in their proper time and place.

And what battles are those? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39094803)

Got any ready examples of "winnable" fights? Elections don't count, not under the current system anyway.

Re:And what battles are those? (2)

tqk (413719) | more than 2 years ago | (#39095867)

Got any ready examples of "winnable" fights?

The Nazis thought they could just waltz into Stalingrad once they bombed the crap out of it. All that bombing did was provide cover for the defender's snipers.

Ha, ha, ha, ha, haaaa! Unintended consequences; gotta love 'em! :-|

What's this "you" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39094799)

Freedom can only be taken away from you if you allow it. In fact you can take freedom _back_ if you so choose. The question is, do you care about your freedom enough to actually bring about some change, or are you so consigned to failure and apathetic that you're just not going to bother and let things go even further down the toilet?

I would love to take back my freedom. Unfortunately, the ignorant masses feel free and they are under the impression that if you do nothing wrong then you have nothing to worry about. After all, these laws are for our protection from the terrorists and a government would never do anything to harm its lawful citizens.

Right?

And if I decide to take back my freedom, this is what you will see on the TV:

Bulletin:

Home grown terrorist tries to overthrow government. After prolonged negotiation, the terrorists fired upon police and police, in self defense, fired back and ended up killing the terrorist.

Before that, he wrote anti government tirades. Now, we'll speak to our resident psychologist about how people become so delusional - such as the Uni Bomber. Doctor?

and it'll go on ....

I have come to the conclusion that as long as people feel safe, have enough creature comforts, and their big screen tv to watch the game and Jersey shore, they are perfectly happy being slaves to the system: work your ass off, buy shit, sit around with some recreation, in order to back to work to buy more shit.

The sad part, is everyone is a slave - even the billionaires.....stopping now before I go on with my secular preaching about existing vs. living.

Re:What's this "you" (1)

tqk (413719) | more than 2 years ago | (#39096035)

The sad part, is everyone is a slave - even the billionaires ...

No, that's not how it works. Push too far, expect the unreasonable, and even regular people will stand up and die for what they believe. They owe it to their children, or grandchildren. Besides, killing tyrants can be fun (or at least profitable).

"'Should'a taken the money, Toombs."

Or: "Do you know what your sin is Mal?"
"I'm a fan of all several, but right now, I'm going to go with wrath. I'm going to show you a world without sin."

Don't push me! Don't tread on me! You will be sorry.

Re:Sux to be Canad..... (2)

thereitis (2355426) | more than 2 years ago | (#39096085)

If you hate the laws you can leave the country. But when all countries have implemented the same shitty laws, there's nowhere to turn to. Same as trying to boycott a company by shopping elsewhere, only to find out both stores are owned by the same parent company. I thought about this years ago but figured it was me being cynical.. yet we seem to be on that very path.

Re:Sux to be Canad..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39096555)

Only the rich and or very poor/human rights people can move to other countries now.
You can apply to be a farm laborer but the waiting time is upwards of 8 years(and you can't visit during wait or they assume you will stay illegal). If you want to move under professional grounds, it's about the same.. 3-4 year degree minimum plus 3+ years working experience and even then you still need a company to want to go to the extra effort to hire you vs a local.

Retirement visa for Australia requires $750,000 visible assets to be granted the visa.

I don't drink, smoke, do other drugs, or believe in new cars or renting; Once basic assets are purchased I live comfortably on less than $5000/year. (much of that goes to Taxes for which I get nothing GOOD in return)

I'm a Canadian who would love to move to a warmer english country, the best I can hope for is wintering in the US(even that is tricky). I'd much prefer Australia but they don't allow foreigners to own land/houses for personal use; not to mention they have the classic land/real estate scam seen on the west coast. "The government owns all the land, only releases choice lots at high prices to developers" to keep existing housing expensive and most people renting vs owing/building themselves.

If only people were smarter... Doomed!

Mod manipulation by GreatBunzinni, aka Rui Maciel (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39094535)

GreatBunzinni [slashdot.org] , real name Rui Maciel, has been using anonymous posts [slashdot.org] to accuse almost 20 accounts of being employed by a PR firm to astroturf Slashdot, without any evidence. Using multiple puppet accounts, he mods up these anonymous posts while modding down the target accounts in order to censor their viewpoints off of Slashdot. GreatBunzinni accidentally outed himself [slashdot.org] as the anonymous troll who has been posting these accusations to every Slashdot story. For example, he wrote the same post almost verbatim, first using his logged-in account [slashdot.org] followed by an anonymous post [slashdot.org] days later. Note the use of the same script and wording.

It turns out GreatBunzinni is actually a 31-year-old C++/Java programmer from Almada, Portugal named Rui Maciel, with a civil engineering degree from Instituto Superior Técnico and a hobby working with electronics. He runs Kubuntu and is active on the KDE mailing list. Rui Maciel has accounts at OSNews, Launchpad, ProgrammersHeaven, the Ubuntu forums, and of course Slashdot.

Most of the users who Rui targets have done nothing more than commit the sin of praising a competitor to Google at some point in the past. Many of them are subscribers who often get the first post, since subscribers see stories earlier than non-subscribers. After one of Rui's accusations is posted as a reply, the original post receives a surge of "Troll" and "Overrated" moderations from his puppet accounts, while the accusatory post gets modded up. Often, additional anonymous posters suddenly pop up to give support, which also receive upmods. At the same time, accused users who defend themselves are modded down as "Offtopic."

Rui Maciel's contact information
Email: greatbunzinni@gmail.com [mailto] , greatbunzinni@engineer.com [mailto] , or rui.maciel@gmail.com [mailto]
IM: greatbunzinni@jabber.org [jabber] (the same Jabber account currently listed on his Slashdot account)
Blog: http://rui_maciel.users.sourceforge.net/ [sourceforge.net]
Programming projects: http://www.programmersheaven.com/user/GreatBunzinni/contributions [programmersheaven.com]

Known puppet accounts used by Rui Maciel
Galestar [slashdot.org]
NicknameOne [slashdot.org]
Nicknamename [slashdot.org]
Nerdfest [slashdot.org]
Toonol [slashdot.org]
anonymov [slashdot.org]
chrb [slashdot.org]
flurp [slashdot.org]
forkfail [slashdot.org]
psiclops [slashdot.org]

tl;dr: An Ubuntu fan named Rui Maciel is actively trolling Slashdot with multiple moderator accounts in an attempt to filter dissenting opinions off the site.

Re:Mod manipulation by GreatBunzinni, aka Rui Maci (1)

maroberts (15852) | more than 2 years ago | (#39094613)

Thanks for cutting and posting this turd yet again, I have just posted a similar large log to you in return to show my feelings on the worth of your public information broadcast

Re:Mod manipulation by GreatBunzinni, aka Rui Maci (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39094807)

I am BONCH!

Re:Mod manipulation by GreatBunzinni, aka Rui Maci (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39094811)

No, I'm Bonch! And so is my wife!

Re:Mod manipulation by GreatBunzinni, aka Rui Maci (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39095269)

no, it's "confidant"

Yet another Lighting Rod (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39094541)

I swear lobbyists put stuff like "section 34" in as a lighting rod for activists.

Later on they can drop this provision as a "compromise" to appease the opponents.

Canada is twice the country we are. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39094545)

From health care to the military to the economy to fossil fuels ... I am making my million and moving north.

SSH Tunnel (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39094567)

When I first heard of this, I setup an SSH tunnel to a fast VPS in Europe.

I call rule 34 on section 34 (3, Funny)

Brucelet (1857158) | more than 2 years ago | (#39094571)

There must be Big Brother porn somewhere...

Re:I call rule 34 on section 34 (2)

maroberts (15852) | more than 2 years ago | (#39094645)

There must be Big Brother porn somewhere...

featuring Hitler, no doubt

Re:I call rule 34 on section 34 (1)

jamstar7 (694492) | more than 2 years ago | (#39095065)

There must be Big Brother porn somewhere...

featuring Hitler, no doubt

That spread he did with the midgets and the giraffe was pretty funny.

Canada.... (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39094601)

As an American, I honestly thought we lost our title of "Land of the Free" to you. Now we are watching you turn down the same dark road we fell down. Hopefully your people have more balls than the majority of the American people so they actually fight for it since you at least have us as an example to point to where that road leads.

If not, I guess the next Civil War just might end up turning into something beyond just civil. I honestly foresee an American civil war within my lifetime with how things are going. If our neighbors to the north are going the same route we do, they might actually use that opportunity to take back theirs as well if they fall like we have.

Now, time to mod me as troll or flamebait. Have at it.

Re:Canada.... (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 2 years ago | (#39094657)

No civil war in our life time.

My reasoning is that the majority of the population doesn't understand/care/know about stuff like this. Just because WE ( 10% perhaps ) do, that isn't enough to do anything about it other than wave our flag as our rights and freedoms get flushed down the drain.

By the time the general pubic get to the point of wanting to take action, it will be too late.

"general pubic"... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39094717)

amusing. intentional?

Re:Canada.... (3, Insightful)

youngone (975102) | more than 2 years ago | (#39094821)

I suspect it's really because the majority of the public are well fed and sheltered. Sure they're being milked financially by the corporate elite, but the situation isn't quite bad enough to provoke actual violence yet. Maybe if people are going hungry they'll start shooting. I wonder if there are parallels with the revolutions of 1848 here?

Re:Canada.... (4, Interesting)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 2 years ago | (#39095057)

10% is enough to get things started, though. The American revolution was fought with fewer than 30% supporters at its peak, and most really didn't care.

Which suggests that the real number is far, far less than 10%. Indeed, when you talk to people about, say, the freedom-of-travel impediments (of, say, TSA et al), most will actually get upset that you're upset about it.

Re:Canada.... (2)

currently_awake (1248758) | more than 2 years ago | (#39094913)

Prediction of USA future: In ten years the USA will be bankrupt (can't pay bills), massive riots and such. The army (mostly recruited from the poor) will side with the poor and you'll have a the army overthrow the gov. Based on how that works in the third world, you'll have a succession of army dictators with the occasional short lived "elected" president. I can't see the fine details, but I'm pretty sure the 1% will be getting lined up against the wall.

Re:Canada.... (2)

will_die (586523) | more than 2 years ago | (#39095393)

If you look at numbers released for the US Government in 2006-2007 that is not the case. Recruits from the poorest quintile of neighborhoods make up less than 11% while those in the richest make up over 25%.
So don't sweat the fine details.

Re:Canada.... (1)

FairAndHateful (2522378) | more than 2 years ago | (#39094955)

As an American, I honestly thought we lost our title of "Land of the Free" to you.

Well, you haven't been reading enough of the news from Canada. The frequent abuse of innocent people by the Human Rights Council would surprise you.

Re:Canada.... (1)

kyrio (1091003) | more than 2 years ago | (#39095305)

We've already killed this entire proposal three times in the last 10 or 14 years. It's been under a different name every time. You can easily find it by searching and it's even on Wikipedia.

There goes my plans for fleeing tyranny in the US. (4, Interesting)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 2 years ago | (#39094653)

The list of countries I can go to that are neither 3rd world shit holes, police states, or both is becoming vanishingly small.

Re:There goes my plans for fleeing tyranny in the (1)

ctishman (545856) | more than 2 years ago | (#39094849)

That's because a great country is what you make of it.

You want your freedoms? You can pay for them in the sweat of your brow or the passion in your heart or the cash in your pocket like your ancestors did or you can settle for what you've got.

Now, I'm not saying this in a 'USA love it leave it' sense - Some countries are more ripe for the fostering of democratic progress than others - but moving to a place and looking to live off the benefits of its preÃstablished press and lifestyle freedoms is closing off a lot of your options right off the bat.

Re:There goes my plans for fleeing tyranny in the (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39095453)

I think that what he was meant is that the fraction of people in the U.S. who give a shit about freedom and fighting for it (or who even understand what freedom means) has become so small that putting up a fight would be futile. Saying that "a great country is what you make of it" oversimplifies things; he can't change things single-handedly, and effecting real change depends on there being enough other people to work with him toward regaining and protecting those freedoms. If those people aren't there, it ain't gonna happen. There were a lot of people fighting for protecting their freedoms in 1930s Germany, but it just wasn't enough, and it wasn't because they didn't fight hard enough.

Moving to a country with a higher percentage of sensible people who value freedom might make for a better future for him and his loved ones.

Re:There goes my plans for fleeing tyranny in the (0)

cold fjord (826450) | more than 2 years ago | (#39095339)

The list of countries I can go to that are neither 3rd world shit holes, police states, or both is becoming vanishingly small.

Do you think you would help us out with a list of the actual tyrannies you see in action - with a few stipulations?

Terrorism is involves actual violence, such as murder or mass murder, or assisting those who commit violence. It does not consist of voting for the political parties out of power, demonstrations and rallies, writing op-eds, books, plays or poems against government policy or actions.

Guantanamo Bay has never held even 1,000 people ever as prisoners.

Pretty much all of the fights about Habeas Corpus have to do with prisoners held as enemy combatants under the law of war. The US held hundreds of thousands of German prisoners in WW2 and they didn't have any right to Habeas Corpus either. The rules of war are different from the rules under criminal or civil law.

The US only water boarded a total of three people, the most recent of which was almost 9 years ago. To the best of my knowledge it still water boards US pilots as part of their Escape and Evasion training.

Al-Awlaki [youtube.com] was killed by a drone for joining Al Qaeda, assisting in planning attacks, and recruiting for them - not for legal dissent. There is no general right for Americans to take up arms against the US government to overthrow it by force of arms, or to otherwise engage in mass murder, or assist those who do. As a matter of war, there was no charge, conviction, or sentence needed under criminal law. He was treated no differently that other American renegades in other wars. He was treated no differently than the large numbers of men shot down en masse, as represented here [youtube.com] by the Federal government in a previous conflict.

There is no right to private communications between terrorists who are planning to commit actual violence and their headquarters.

Walking through a metal detector, or a pat down before boarding a plane is not the same thing as not being allowed to travel.

As you can see below the line (-----), there are a constant series of ongoing arrests and convictions for plotted terrorist attacks.

Or perhaps you are worried about the tax code not being progressive enough, but that doesn't hold up either [typepad.com] .

So now, what are all these tyrannies that you speak of? Did President Bush round up the Clinton voters? Did President Obama round up the Bush voters? Do people still worship or not worship in the belief of their choice? Do people still pick the school they will attend, or the profession they wish to pursue? Does the government mandate where people will live? Does the press no longer publish what it wants? Does the United States have a President-For-Live yet?

I'm willing to concede that government regulation continues to grow more burdensom - but that is not tyranny.

If the budget problem isn't address, that could lead to a real long term problem though.

          Geithner: Why, no, our new budget does nothing to address America’s long-term fiscal crisis [hotair.com]

---------------
FBI’s Top Ten News Stories for the Week Ending January 27, 2012 [fbi.gov]

Denver: Man Arrested for Providing Material Support to a Designated Foreign Terrorist Organization

Jamshid Muhtorov was arrested by members of the FBI’s Denver and Chicago Joint Terrorism Task Forces on a charge of providing and attempting to provide material support to the Islamic Jihad Union, a Pakistan-based designated foreign terrorist organization. Full Story

Baltimore: Man Pleads Guilty to Attempted Use of a Weapon of Mass Destruction in Plot to Attack Armed Forces Recruiting Center

U.S. citizen Antonio Martinez, aka Muhammad Hussain, pled guilty to attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction against federal property in connection with a scheme to attack an armed forces recruiting station in Catonsville, Maryland. Full Story

Washington Field: Man Pleads Guilty to Shootings at Pentagon, Other Military Buildings

Yonathan Melaku, of Alexandria, Virginia, pled guilty to damaging property and to firearms violations involving five separate shootings at military installations in northern Virginia between October and November 2010, and to attempting to damage veterans’ memorials at Arlington National Cemetery. Full Story

FBI’s Top Ten News Stories for the Week Ending January 13, 2012 [fbi.gov]

1.Tampa: Florida Resident Charged with Plotting to Bomb Locations in Tampa

A 25-year-old resident of Pinellas Park, Florida was charged in connection with an alleged plot to attack locations in Tampa with a vehicle bomb, assault rifle, and other explosives. Full Story

2.Baltimore: Former Army Solider Charged with Attempting to Provide Material Support to al Shabaab

A man who secretly converted to Islam days before he separated from the Army was charged with attempting to provide material support to al Shabaab, a foreign terrorist organization, and was arrested upon his return to Maryland after traveling to Africa. Full Story

FBI’s Top Ten News Stories for the Week Ending December 9, 2011 [fbi.gov]

Seattle: Man Pleads Guilty in Plot to Attack Military Processing Center

A former Los Angeles man pled guilty in connection with the June 2011 plot to attack a military installation in Seattle. Full Story

FBI’s Top Ten News Stories for the Week Ending December 2, 2011 [fbi.gov]

San Diego: Woman Guilty of Conspiring to Provide Material Support to al Shabaab

Nima Yusuf, 25, a resident of San Diego, pled guilty to conspiring to provide material support to al Shabaab, a foreign terrorist organization. Full Story

More here [fbi.gov] .

Toews surprised by content of online surveillance (5, Informative)

seyyah (986027) | more than 2 years ago | (#39094659)

That's the CBC headline after interviewing Toews about his own bill: Toews surprised by content of online surveillance [www.cbc.ca] .

It's worth listening to the interview that was aired on The House yesterday.

Re:Toews surprised by content of online surveillan (5, Insightful)

Beardo the Bearded (321478) | more than 2 years ago | (#39094817)

The real question, the one the CBC didn't hammer on, was:

"Then who wrote the bill, Minister? Who put that in there?"

Re:Toews surprised by content of online surveillan (4, Insightful)

seyyah (986027) | more than 2 years ago | (#39094971)

The real question, the one the CBC didn't hammer on, was:

"Then who wrote the bill, Minister? Who put that in there?"

Good point. I hope that the NDP will be raising that question in the House of Commons this week.

On the CBC, I sometimes wonder if they are a little hesitant to go after the Conservatives too much for fear of appearing partisan in the eyes of the government. I can remember the supporters' shouts of "Shut down the CBC!" during the election when CBC reporters asked Harper tough questions. My guess is that the CBC knows it is treading a thin line under the current government.

Re:Toews surprised by content of online surveillan (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39095649)

"Then who wrote the bill, Minister? Who put that in there?"

This isn't the first time that the Conservatives haven't even read their own legislation. The most recent was their Omnibus hard-on crime legislation. It contained conflicting language in separate parts of the bill about mandatory minimums for growing marijuana.

They, with a straight face, blamed the NDP (the opposition) for "that being in there". It's pathetic.

Look they have these bills pre-written (1)

Colin Smith (2679) | more than 2 years ago | (#39094823)

They are lobbyist porn. All they are looking for is a name to stick on it, the politicians are just puppets dancing in front of the crowd.

Re:Look they have these bills pre-written (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39094897)

"Lobbyists" is a lazy answer. There are real people behind this stuff. Who are they, and what's their motive for pushing it? You should be screaming for names.

Re:Look they have these bills pre-written (1)

Phrogman (80473) | more than 2 years ago | (#39096679)

It will be the media lobbies, they have been trying to chip away at Canadian law for years. They are making the same attempts at other countries and of course in the US. I am sure they own the Conservatives in the same way they seem to own or influence a lot of other governments.
This bill should be retitled "The Eliminate All Electronic Privacy Act" to reflect its real purpose.

A nice resource for hackers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39094685)

One of the main concern with this is that it will give a backdoor to hackers all over the planet. Building a backdoor and building a database of information of Canadians is a recipe for disaster. While the fight against C30 is still on, if this were to come to life in its current state, it would probably be only a matter of time before all members of parliament see their own information exposed to the world, which might teach them a lesson the hard way. Either way, they will be going down with the rest of us.

Sounds nice (2)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 2 years ago | (#39094691)

The warrant system works pretty well. It is not perfect but it was never meant to be. There are abuses and innocent people get affected but the justice system was designed like this. Only the naive think you can have a legal system that can at least be somewhat effective without ever inconveniencing anyone. You might get your entire house torn up because of a wrongly issued warrant and that bloody sucks and compensation may be way to low but it is the price for the legal system we got. Better hope that like most, you never notice how it is to be subject of a police investigation.

BUT why chance this? The warrant system WORKS. It is effective enough and has proven checks and balances. The only reason to change this is if you want to chance the way the legal system works. Now there are two reasons to do it. To make it better or to make it worse. Somehow I can't see how removing warrants and oversight and review from searches is going to make the legal system any better. More effective?

The legal system works because most of us have no real reason not to make it work. In holland a recent news story was that of a man in a car trying to abuct several kids and succeeding with one. The police investigate and during their investigation they encountered two men, one who refused to let the police into his house (had a hennep farm inside) and one who refused to show ID... this wasted police time if nothing else. Cops had to check out why these two men were refusing to cooperate rather then simply going on to the next house/person to search for the abductor.

It is safe to assume to police didn't just question these two men. The rest of the people investigated were innocent and had nothing to fear from the law, so could be easily eliminated.

If anything can be searched any time by anyone, encryption will become the norm, so even if the police get a warrant, they can't eliminate the innocent in a search and will have to spend a lot more time investigating. Make everyone a criminal and finding the serious criminal will become a lot harder.

I am not a privacy nutter, I think that the justice system having special powers is the correct way to go about them, but there must be check and balances and the process open to outside review to make sure abuses do not happen. This is not new, this is the current situation. I am VERY suspicious of anyone who claims this has to change. Extra ordinary powers require extra ordinary reasons. So far I have not heard any.

Core issue (5, Insightful)

SuperTechnoNerd (964528) | more than 2 years ago | (#39094837)

If you deconstruct this whole thing, both in US and Canada and all over the world in fact, it comes down to one thing. There are people our there that just can't stand the fact that they don't know what your doing behind closed doors. That the don't know who your screwing or in what position for that matter. That they don't know who your talking to and why. That they don't know your personal secrets. They can't stand this. They automatically think that the desire for privacy = criminal. I mean you must be a criminal if you send private love letters to your girlfriend. Thees people will stop at nothing and use any excuse to rid personal privacy. They use lame excuses like "Think of the children" and the like. And the internet makes their head spin - millions of people are using it - and we need to know why what for and what their doing.

If your encrypt your traffic, your a criminal.

Re:Core issue (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39094977)

"They automatically think that the desire for privacy = criminal."

Except when it comes to their own desire for privacy - or may not: maybe they are criminal and they think everyone is like them but they just want to have the upper hand.

Re:Core issue (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39095833)

Some people also think everyone is a criminal.

This is Canada not the Soviet Union (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39094899)

As a Canadian who's a swing voter I think not only should such an absurd bill be killed but the sanity of whichever MP backs it seriously put into question. Any MP that backs such totalitarian surveillance bill is no longer qualified to hold office and should automatically have their re-election campaign targeted.

EU Privacy Law Compliance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39094999)

Does anyone know if this would create legal conflicts with Canadian web sites, Internet businesses, or web hosts with EU customers?

STFU (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39095031)

I'm sick of these stupid bills being passed, blad-dee-daah that people think will violate their rights.

I don't know so much about Canada, but her in America we still have a trump card for our citizens that says you need a warrant to searching most any-fucking-thing. No matter what any, and I mean ANY FUCKING LAW passed therefore, says, it does NOT under ANY FUCKING CIRCUMSTANCES trump the rights already established.

In this country we have due process that also applies to the written law. And that means you would FIRST have to remove that right in the first place before anything else can apply.

We just have too many pussies not willing to fight for their fucking rights, and instead FUCKING SETTLE.

FUCK! STFU!

Harper's true colours (4, Insightful)

EmperorOfCanada (1332175) | more than 2 years ago | (#39095147)

Harper is not right wing. Harper is a technocrat. Technocrats need to control information. This would be the ultimate control. Harper doesn't care about reading Joe Nobody's email. A good example of what this bill would be used for would be to find who leaked the information about the Minister who's career just ended.

Where Joe Nobody will get nailed is that their communications will be run through filters and false positives will be generated. Then when you do things like board airplanes or cross borders you will be interrogated about the sales chearleading you did when you said to your team, "Go knock'em dead. Totally destroy them. Our product will be like a bomb stuck up their asses." Poof you find your computer's seized, your accounts frozen, and any attempts to clarify and correct meeting a wall of "national security".

Can you imagine what would have happened though before the G20 in Toronto. I suspect an email with "The police suck" might have gotten you arrested.

Re:Harper's true colours (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39095721)

Or even as simple as this:

Dear Bob,
There are the buildings I was talking about from my last trip to the capital. Can you blow that up for me?

This has no context. It could be actual pictures that needed to be enlarged or terrorist targets.

Canada's new law... (2)

Paracelcus (151056) | more than 2 years ago | (#39095725)

Is (if the US is a model) going to do any damn thing they want, any time they damn want, regardless of any "law"!

Guess what, governments don't follow "laws", they make (almost) everybody else follow them!

Re:Canada's new law... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39095739)

Criminals don't follow the law. What then?

I recall, everyone in the American Revolutionary Army, was considered a "criminal" of the British Empire. So, we said, F.U., we're doing things our way.

For this type of bill, in particular, give them NOTHING TO LOOK FOR and their efforts will be in vain.

Re:Canada's new law... (2)

Barbara, not Barbie (721478) | more than 2 years ago | (#39096279)

Criminals don't follow the law. What then?

So Joe and Jane Public will have to begin doing what the crooks are already doing - encrypting their stuff. Which threatens Google's "everything should be a web app" and "store your documents, etc. on our servers" and Facebooks "stay in touch with everyone and we can keep in touch with everything you do and who you do it with and sell it to advertisers".

major breach of privacy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39096665)

i live in Canada and i can tell you that nobody unless you are the government or the police or some company wants this to pass. their is no reason for my info to be accessible by anybody just for the hell of it. this is nothing but a major breach of my privacy piss of companies and government.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...