Beta
×

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

Thank you!

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

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

Canadian Police Recommend Online Spying Tax For Internet Bills

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the complicit-in-your-own-surveillance dept.

Canada 110

An anonymous reader writes "One of the major unanswered questions about Bill C-30, Canada's lawful access/online surveillance bill, is who will pay for the costs associated with responding to law enforcement demands for subscriber information ('look ups') and installation of surveillance equipment ('hook ups'). Michael Geist recently obtained documents (PDF) from Public Safety under the Access to Information Act that indicates the government doesn't really have its own answer. But he reports that the police do — a new 'public safety' tax to be added to Internet and wireless bills."

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

who will pay? (5, Insightful)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 2 years ago | (#39389455)

Its *always* the consumer. Be it from direct taxes and fees, or just passing the cost down from the companies, we, the consumer, always pay the cost.

Re: who will pay? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39389583)

Its *always* the consumer. Be it from direct taxes and fees, or just passing the cost down from the companies, we, the consumer, always pay the cost.

I'm sure this is a popular sentiment, but it simply isn't true for most products and services. Try learning economics from someplace *other* than your fellow Randroids before spouting off next time.

Re: who will pay? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39389759)

You are both wrong. Most taxes are levied on goods that end up costing more to the consumers because those taxes generate the most revenue. The "consumer pays" expression isn't strictly true but it does capture reality better than you have.

Re: who will pay? (-1, Troll)

Surt (22457) | more than 2 years ago | (#39390071)

There's a simpler way to look at it:

Taxes, prices, consumption, production, it all comes down to labor producing assets and those assets (proxied by money) flowing around the system. In the end, who winds up with the assets that are produced by the labor? The 1%. Arguing over any of the rest is just fighting over the scraps. If you're unhappy with the way the world works, find a way to kill a 1%er. It's the only way things will actually improve.

Re: who will pay? (-1, Flamebait)

davester666 (731373) | more than 2 years ago | (#39390293)

Killing a 1%er is like killing a drug lord in Mexico. There's somebody standing right behind them ready to take their place.

It's not like you kill them and their wealth gets redistributed to everybody.

Re: who will pay? (0)

Surt (22457) | more than 2 years ago | (#39390387)

Yeah, but do it for long enough, and people will start to think twice about getting in line.

Re: who will pay? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39391927)

Yeah, right. They'll think twice about getting in line. Behind you. In jail.

Killing a 99%er is nothing. Killing a 1%er is a crime against humanity. Always remember that if you have few assets, nobody cares, but if you have many assets, everyone's your friend.

HA! Captcha is fellatio.

Re: who will pay? (1)

ILongForDarkness (1134931) | more than 2 years ago | (#39390747)

Yeah except the 99% feed themselves, went to school, had vacations, raised kids, fought wars, drove on roads, went to hospitals etc, and then yeah the 1% gets the rest. A big problem with this concept of "the 1%" is that the 1% changes year to year. Similarly the bottom 20% are about 1/2 new workers and students. They don't stay at the bottom 20% their whole life and it seems pretty obvious that the people that have no experience and are just starting out "at the bottom" will have "at the bottom" wages.

I'm not arguing that a large income distribution doesn't exist it just isn't as bad as it is made out to be and a lot of the bottom are people that are temporarily at the bottom and who might very well have come from somewhere much higher up the year before. Since the statistics are usually quoted as salary for example that fat cat CEO that got 40M in 2007 might have been working for $1 for a couple years. He's not poor but he is low income. Also the truly poor if you actually account for the cost of the services they get for free (at least in the US, can't really count it in more socialist countries where everyone gets it) the cost of their healthcare is covered, food programs etc, several thousand dollars a year of goods in kind which often is more than they earn in salary (so if accounted for would divide the top 1%/bottom 1% at least in half).

Re: who will pay? (2)

Surt (22457) | more than 2 years ago | (#39391527)

Statistically speaking, the problem is that the 40M CEO never worked for $1. Most (and we're not even near 50% here) of the rich were born that way. If mobility into the 1% were significant, people would be much less upset about it.

Re: who will pay? (1)

ILongForDarkness (1134931) | more than 2 years ago | (#39392637)

It is amazing though how people criticize the billionaires' for doing so well but it is very rare the ideas that found companies at the size that they have to make their billions. It isn't "unfair" unless they got an uncommon reward for a common skill.

Re: who will pay? (1)

Sabriel (134364) | more than 2 years ago | (#39392845)

Which is easier? To make $10,000,001 with $1, or $20,000,001 with $10,000,001?

The saying "there but for the grace of god go I" works in more than just the one direction.

Re: who will pay? (1)

ILongForDarkness (1134931) | more than 2 years ago | (#39392985)

Please. You see how shitty discussions people made with the real estate bust. Just because you have money doesn't mean you automatically don't make stupid mistakes with it. As well people that come up with the bs stories about how they came to country x with $100 and made their fortune for the vast majority of cases it is crap. Yeah they might have only had $100, then they worked their ass off, saved like crazy. Came up with an idea gambled on it with what they saved and it worked. So that $1 wouldn't just be $1. It would be 60hrs a week of labour for the next 10 years say. Oh and they'd have to be smart enough to come up with an idea same as that guy with 10M would have to, even if it is just an idea of what company he should buy next.

Besides the 1% isn't 10M networth (though they might have that too, the 1% quoted is usually 1% income. Which will throw in most specialist doctors, CEOs, investment bankers, the top half of lawyers probably etc. For example doctors yeah their well off. But they are also 35-40 by the time they've paid off their school loans. Income isn't networth.

Re: who will pay? (2)

Surt (22457) | more than 2 years ago | (#39393279)

Big companies are rarely based on big ideas. Instead, they are based on ruthlessly destroying competition. Take Google for example. Lots of people had their ideas, but Google had the funding to put down their competitors.

Re: who will pay? (1)

ILongForDarkness (1134931) | more than 2 years ago | (#39393655)

Yeah and people chose to use their browser, and they convinced advertisers to advertise with them. It is amazing with MS search yahoo etc until recently somehow Google is the bad guy. It is the rare case where a company exists without competition. MS might be the closest in the tech world and look how that is working out for them (though to be fair until the last 6 months or so they were hugely undervalued IMHO versus increased revenue. For the last 10 years MS has been written off as doomed but they piled on the billions (probably more like 10s of billions) of revenue in the enterprise space to make up for losses from fewer PC sales.

Anyways the point is there were always Macs, there was Sun workstations, there was linux, early days OS/2 etc etc. Was MS anti-competitive? Yep. Was there still other options for customers? Yep.

Re: who will pay? (2)

m1xram (1595991) | more than 2 years ago | (#39393443)

You lost me, who pays for things? If it's not the consumer then who?

Re: who will pay? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39390079)

Can you elaborate? nurb's comment seems to make perfect logical sense. It is not as if CEO's will take a paycut when costs go up. All costs just get passed on to the consumer.

Re: who will pay? (1)

Unoriginal_Nickname (1248894) | more than 2 years ago | (#39391095)

Adding taxes increases the price of a good. Increasing price causes a decrease of demand. In order to return to a profit-maximizing price, firms must then decrease the prices of goods (and reduce output*.) The firm's share of the tax is the amount they need to lower the price. The household's share of the tax is the cost of the tax, minus the price decrease.

Households never pay the entire amount of any sales tax, because demand always responds to price. Arguably, households don't even pay the entire amount of income taxes either, because the supply of labour responds in a similar way.

(* An astute reader will note that, due to the reduction of supply and demand, the total cost of the tax to the economy is greater than the amount which is actually paid to the government.)

Re: who will pay? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39393175)

Typically internet users will just put up with an ISP's bullshit. I don't think a slightly increased price would decrease demand too much for it to matter.

Re: who will pay? (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 2 years ago | (#39394183)

An even more astute reader will note that everything depends on the elasticity [wikipedia.org]

Re: who will pay? (1)

reboot246 (623534) | more than 2 years ago | (#39390081)

<quote>I'm sure this is a popular sentiment, but it simply isn't true for most products and services. Try learning economics from someplace *other* than your fellow Randroids before spouting off next time.</quote>

Okay, then who pays? Be detailed and specific.

Re: who will pay? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39390211)

Transference of payments in this way results in a circular argument where everyone pays and no one pays.

Tax on business is transferred to increase in prices to consumer is transferred to business by required increases in wages for workers which is transferred to consumers as increased prices.......... it never ends and it really only makes sense to apportion it to the immediate payer. Of course, in reality prices aren't directly set by costs so this whole argument is kind of dumb anyway.

Think about this, if an increased cost to a business does not change their maximized price x volume calculation then their price will not change unless they want to go out of business faster. This is still a simplistic model for pricing but it is much closer to reality than thinking that prices = costs * markup.

Re: who will pay? (1)

ILongForDarkness (1134931) | more than 2 years ago | (#39390789)

Exactly. If everything stayed the same and companies were free to just increase their prices the whole argument for higher gas taxes, CO2 taxes etc would fail because people would continue to buy those services. If they price the internet to the point where it becomes more expensive for me to have a connection to pirate my movies than I'll start buying DVDs, renting them, or spend more time trying to track down people that have it already. The government isn't trying to make the tax so large that it reduces the usage of the internet but more of a usage based billing way of funding their spy efforts. The sad thing here is even though you often pay for services you don't like this one is explicit. Really rubs me the wrong way that there is a good chance the tax would be on a percentage basis and I'd get paying more for something I don't want than the average person because I'm a heavy user with a top of the line package. I might be wrong but Assad Al bin Boom probably doesn't need the porn bandwidth I do to send his emails back to Al Qaeda.

Re: who will pay? (2)

MitchDev (2526834) | more than 2 years ago | (#39391239)

And with each new little tax, the citizen's burden slowly climbs higher and closer to 100% of their earnings...

Re: who will pay? (1)

ILongForDarkness (1134931) | more than 2 years ago | (#39392643)

Canada has it bad because our liberals think they know how to better spend our money than us and so do our conservatives. There is always a program that is essential for security, helping immigrants, helping the french, helping the natives, etc etc, it never ends.

Re: who will pay? (1)

MitchDev (2526834) | more than 2 years ago | (#39396949)

Our Democrats and Republicans are the same way in the us

Re: who will pay? (5, Interesting)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 2 years ago | (#39390383)

Riiight, because all those CEOs are gonna give up their coke and hooker bonuses so they don't have to stick it to the consumer...oh wait, that's not what they do, they simply jack up the price! I hate to break the news to ya sparky but even in areas where there is supposedly competition we have seen what happens is companies simply collude to raise prices together. Every time the government tries to stick it to a corp thanks to globalism if they don't raise prices they simply move but there is no way in hell they are gonna just eat the cost as that would cut into profits and with Wall Street being Vegas with nicer clothes if you do that then your stock takes a nosedive.

Whether you like it or not any gouging of the corps just ends up being dumped on the back of the poor consumer. Hell in my own area the working poor simply can't even have Internet as the cableco and teleco have been matching each others price raises one for one so now the cheapest usable Internet (I don't consider a WISP that offers 512Kb down with towers that go down for days at a time really usable and even that is $60 a month and a $125 hookup fee) is $75 a month and that is if you can even get it as even though its a college town and the city has grown by over a third neither the cableco nor the teleco have moved a single inch as far as coverage in over a decade.

This is why we need to nationalize the lines and open them up to REAL competition as what we have here in the states now is a bad joke unless you live in one of the megacities. We already paid 200 billion [pbs.org] to have the nation wired for high speed and all we got in return is a Goatse from the corps so we should demand they pay the money back with interest in 90 days or we take the lines. if they want a monopoly? We'll give them a decade on every house they run FTTH, 25 if those homes previously had no service. Because the whole "greed is good" mantra that has infected this country like a cancer has killed any chance of getting anything vital like nationwide broadband done by private corps, hell they don't even upgrade their own systems and instead simply slap caps and other crap on instead of increasing capacity.

Re: who will pay? (2)

lexsird (1208192) | more than 2 years ago | (#39391717)

Preach it! Yeah!

What we seem to be glossing over is how outnumbered we are in the world. India and China each have populations that crush ours like a bug. They are catching up to us at such a crazy fast pace. China will soon be the number one consumer on the planet as they raise their standards of living up. They will demand a lion's share of the resources.

We aren't competing. We don't even know how to compete. We have let our politicians become such whores that they have sold out to people that want our economy hamstrung. I often wonder is it because of the bankers? They have our national policies wrapped around their fingers so that they can be the world banking system. I think they fucked our dollar up so that other countries who's money was shit compared to ours, could then afford to bank with us, or use our money as their system. After all, if you have people working for pennies, you can't have the penny worth too much. Debt is slavery and control, and what does that make bankers? Ponder that and look up who runs the banks in this country. Jefferson warned us about this kind of banking system.

The politics of pure greed in this country has wrecked us as a nation. We don't think as a people. We don't compete as a people. We have no sense of community or real national identity. We are handed some shitty canned version of a national identity when it serves the purpose of those in power. They define our values. They march our poor kids off to whatever fucked in the head war they cook up to bilk the tax payers out of war dollars, and they let the oil corporations rape us to a bloody pulp. The people of this country are livestock and abused livestock at that.

These fuckers head us off at the pass every time we try to make positive change. God only knows how many good people they have chewed up and spit out when they made too much noise or could be a threat to these oligarchies that rule from the shadows. Politicians are either corrupted or destroyed. Judges are bought off. Filthy dirty lawyers like an army of demons waiting to strike anyone who threatens their realm. Not to mention the money and means to just make anyone disappear off the face of the Earth if all else fails.

What is sick is as the country becomes more desperate as we are sinking, they will find it easier and easier to drum us up for more idiotic wars. Our industry is war. They pissed as many of our industries away until we produce little and have few jobs. Now they just seem to want to clean up the population by purging it of poor by sending them to wars that will make them money and make even MORE poor people to send off to war.

If we have another "war" or "military action" we need to demand the draft. Perhaps when the 1%'s and the politicians children are being maimed and killed, they might pause before committing us to more warmongering.

Re: who will pay? (2)

jamstar7 (694492) | more than 2 years ago | (#39392433)

If we have another "war" or "military action" we need to demand the draft. Perhaps when the 1%'s and the politicians children are being maimed and killed, they might pause before committing us to more warmongering.

Not likely. More likely, the kids of the 1% will just go to school in Europe and stay there at the European subsidary's office until they pass draft age. Back in the day, during Vietnam, the only 1% kids we saw in uniform were officers. The 'enlisteds' were all middle class & lower class kids.

Re: who will pay? (3, Insightful)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 2 years ago | (#39393213)

I truly believe that even though I am atheist that there are a handful of companies that are truly evil. That they are run by those that take sick delight in causing real suffering and misery upon their fellow human beings, your Goldman Sachs, your Halliburton, your Monsanto, companies that if they could increase their profits 15% by throwing live babies in a meat grinder they would. I don't see how anyone can not believe in real evil when seeing these pigs living like kings off of the misery and suffering they have caused with zero remorse. Hell if I walked into any of those companies and saw actual demons in three piece suits going to meetings like Wolfram & hart frankly I wouldn't even be surprised, these companies do nothing but profit from suffering.

But you seem to forget we had the draft for ages and the rich simply either went to college or some reserve unit in some cushy location like Dubya in Alabama. The 1% may cause the misery but they aren't about to let their delicate selves get dirty like the peasants. look how many chickenhawks are pushing for a war with Iran, notice how none of their kids are in harm's way?

Sadly it WILL change, but only after you see the rich fleeing the country like the fall of Saigon after the whole thing falls apart. Even an 8th grader with 2 economics classes can see the situation is simply unsustainable, you have nearly half a billion people and all the factories were sent overseas. As Huckabee pointed out even our military can't function anymore without CCC (Cheapo Chinese Crap) and we make less tech now than we did in 1975! if you have a strong stomach you might want to look at these numbers [businessinsider.com] and realize that they are over 2 years old and the downward trends they are listing have accelerated since that time. How anyone can believe that there is any other path in our future but an Arab Spring is beyond me, because the poor simply aren't gonna go crawl off into a corner and slowly starve like they did in the depression. Things are gonna get ugly, I believe after the student loan bubble bursts followed by the stock market bubble you'll see US money become practically worthless and at that time their little red VS blue distractions simply won't placate the masses anymore. If the conspiracy theorists are right they are building "FEMA camps" for just this eventuality, some nice out of the way concentration camps to put the teeming masses. But nobody is gonna put up with camps thanks to the Germans so when that happens will be when the shooting starts.

Re: who will pay? (3, Interesting)

lexsird (1208192) | more than 2 years ago | (#39393401)

We are on our own too. Just think about it. We are the ones that ride to the rescue of people from evil stuff like this. Who's going to rescue us? Nobody, that's for sure.

I'm too old and out of shape for this shit. But my younger self would have loved it, and kicked the Revolutionary War 2.0 off already. (at least in my addled memory/imagination, it's fun to talk shit when your old) But yeah, it's coming. You can smell it in the wind almost, like before a big rumble, the calm before the storm.

Enjoy the calm, everyday little things, because if we snap and go postal on this system, the world as we know it will change, and not for the best or a long time. I think we should embrace the violence of the vote before we go to the sword. We need to redeem the system on it's merits, or else we need to throw it as well on the failed ash heap of history's failed governments. The damn thing will work because we all made it work, or not.

I'm afraid you are right though. Here's how I see it playing out as well. This coming election is a lightning rod for crazy amounts of trouble. I've never seen this country so divided. in my life and I was born in the mid 60s. I have seen some shit, but nothing like this. Neither side will be happy with the results. I am afraid that voter fraud will be rampant, then discovered, then outrage will spiral out of control fast. There is so much anger and hate, we have fed it with hate filled radio and "news". You have to go back to Nazi Germany or the Soviets to find the intensity of hateful propaganda going on. It's a simmering pot, about to boil over.

Another thing to take careful note of is women's rights. Women's civil rights are under attack in ways I couldn't believe. It's like we now have a Christian Taliban, hell bent on dragging us back to the dark ages. I know this sounds crazy, but darkness is falling on us. The shadows are growing long.

The darkest day we have had was when the Supreme Court ruled that corporations are people, and their bribing was free speech. I say behold, something evil was born of this country on that day. Until we take that ground back from them, we have fallen.

As far as faith is concerned, seeing is believing. I'm afraid you might become a believer, sadly not because of the light you seen radiating from a real Christian in your life, but instead from seeing the faces of evil and recognizing the shocking reality of it all. Not today of course, but in that fearsome future that we both strive to avoid. May we both be barking lunatics and wrong, wrong wrong.

Re: who will pay? (1)

gottspeed (2060872) | more than 2 years ago | (#39390107)

Out government equals products and services offered at the barrel of a gun. They have a monopoly on it too, I can't think of very many monopolies where the price of service goes down and the quality goes up.

Re: who will pay? (1)

mallydobb (1785726) | more than 2 years ago | (#39390225)

and instead of the government actually doing something productive with these fee's they just use this issue as an excuse to grow and grow.

Re: who will pay? (3, Insightful)

ILongForDarkness (1134931) | more than 2 years ago | (#39390717)

While true I hate the continual addition of different types of taxes. It is horribly in efficient. Lets say the bill passes. Rather than add some revenue from existing taxes to pay for it (or the opposite: remove some unnecessary tax credits) they dream up another tax that than has to be collected, another dozen people get jobs doing nothing but making sure people pay this particular 0.1% of the governments revenue etc. Same thing with arguments for gambling as an alternative revenue source, horribly in efficient but sadly hidden tax everywhere distracts people from the total amount of their money that does to government.

Re: who will pay? (1)

caseih (160668) | more than 2 years ago | (#39391809)

Exactly. Since this is Canada we're talking about here, we can talk about privatization (Canada has privatized things the US likely would never do, ironically). The same "who pays for it" thing happens when publicly-owned monopolies are privatized. Sure taxes can be reduced, but now we're paying for the service *and* profit. So in the end things end up costing a lot more all around.

And finally, this principle is why corporate income taxes make very little sense. Corporations who sell consumer goods, for example, never pay income taxes (or most taxes); they simply pass them on.

Good, do it... (5, Insightful)

Fishead (658061) | more than 2 years ago | (#39389459)

Do it. That will make it a whole lot easier to drum up some outrage at the next election.

Re:Good, do it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39389489)

Do it. That will make it a whole lot easier to drum up some outrage at the next election.

May if the filth sacked a few desk jockeys they could afford to pay for it themselfs after all they are the ones that want it in the first place ..make em pay for it ..

Re:Good, do it... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39389885)

That doesn't work the way you would think. Here in the US, our president is responsible for killing 200 Mexican civilians, arming Mexican drug lords, killing US citizens without trial or even arrainment, signing ACTA, embezzeling around $50 Billion given directly to campaign donors, trying to destroy one of the only industries that is actually creating jobs (oil), signed into law that you could eventually end up in jail for not buying what the government wants you to, hiding dangers of Chevy Volts randomly catching fire, falsly accusing Toyota Priuses of being unsafe, not closing or even attempting to close Gitmo, and on and on.

Any three of these would prevent a normal candidate from getting reelected, but liberals in the US still support him fully. We have proven no matter what our president does about half the country will support him and blame someone else for what he did. At this point Obama could put live kittens in a pie, bake it in an oven and eat them on live TV and the next day I would be reading stories about how it was Bush's fault that he had to do it.

So like I said, don't expect it to work that way, you will be disappointed.

Re:Good, do it... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39390099)

You could just be an anonymous troll, but I get a feeling you actually believe your own line of bull. If so, you probably never read any of the "liberal" blogs. Liberals do NOT like Obama. Liberals do not trust Obama. Liberals wish they had a candidate who kept his word and was actually a little liberal himself.

Obama is a right-wing sell-out. He said all of the right things when he was running for the nomination and once elected, he sold out at the first opportunity.

The big argument in Democratic and/or :Obomabot circles is that you have to hold your nose and vote for the lesser weasel.

The only thing that makes Obama look at all good is that the potential Republican candidates are all certifiable insane - and mean too.

Re:Good, do it... (3, Insightful)

lexsird (1208192) | more than 2 years ago | (#39391891)

Let's say for sake of argument that this all true.

He's by far the better candidate, still.

Yes, it's all kinds of wrong, but what are the options? Republicans? Seriously? They have lost their minds. I used to be one. I didn't vote this last time for President because I was Republican and I couldn't vote for the shitbags they put up. The Bush Republicans all needed FIRED. It wasn't about voting for someone, it was about firing Republicans. How else do you think that a black man, with a name like Barrack Obama could get elected President? Holy shit, we would have elected a cartoon character over a Republican after Bush.

Then it's like we collectively woke up from a drinking bender and said "we elected who??" In the wake of this, the Republicans have been trying to gain traction and with the help of Rightwing media outlets like Fox News, drop the blame from Bush's atrocities onto this President. It's one giant case of denial as they try to gloss over the fact that this party produced one of the worse Presidents in human history.

Is Obama shitty? Yes. Do we have better options? No. We have even worse options, ones that will give you nightmares.

We are a fragmented people with our heads up our collective ass. If we ever take politics as seriously as we do sports or fashion then we might have a chance of making the correct choices for our democracy. But that isn't going to happen, we are fucking retarded collectively and will continue to be fed shit sandwiches by the powers that be until we snap and burn it all to the ground.

Re:Good, do it... (1)

m1xram (1595991) | more than 2 years ago | (#39393459)

Ignore all that stuff and VOTE OBAMA.

Re:Good, do it... (2)

Nemyst (1383049) | more than 2 years ago | (#39389983)

And then what? Do you think the Liberals will go against it? Do you think the NDP will get elected without Layton at the helm?

If this gets implemented, I'm afraid we'll be stuck with it for a long, long time.

Soon ... (3, Insightful)

PPH (736903) | more than 2 years ago | (#39389541)

... they will make you pay for the bullet at your own execution.

Re:Soon ... (4, Insightful)

someone1234 (830754) | more than 2 years ago | (#39389563)

I don't understand you. Government bullets were always bought on taxpayer money.

Re:Soon ... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39389607)

What if a person was given death punishment for tax evasion?
And I doubt serial killers would pay taxes where possible to skip them

Re:Soon ... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39390131)

In China, the government charge the family for the cost of the bullet(s) they use in execution. That's probably what it was referring to.

Re:Soon ... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39390315)

Not true! In China, a person is executed by firing a bullet into the back of the head. His (or her) family is billed for all execution costs including the bullet.

Re:Soon ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39391323)

Well, it's not like you can take it with you...

Re:Soon ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39391553)

We don't execute in Canada. See, we're building a bunch of new, really huge jails. And now we have to fill them. Hence, new laws criminalizing common behaviour. And the RCMP (police) have already stated that they don't want anything to do with online piracy. So, our government will have to create a whole new branch of federal police, I guess. And guess what? I'm guessing that it will be reported that Canadian citizens will be -ahem- "outraged" by being taxed to pay Big Brother's surveillance desires. So, the government will have to turn to private interests to fund the new enforcement agency. I'll give you one guess which acronymed group has already set aside that money, for that use.
It's a fucking sham. I don't have a single shred of trust left for the Cons; they're running us into the ground, and somehow, they're benefiting personally while they do it. My MP is a former RCAF pilot, and you know, I thought guys like him had enlisted to protect our country against he kind of people that are in power, now.
I really want another federal election, and some fucking form of proportional representation already.

Re:Soon ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39393011)

Here are a few new jails for us:
http://www.cryptome.org/2012/03/csc/csc-const-docs.htm

I have only this to say: (1)

stanlyb (1839382) | more than 2 years ago | (#39389547)

F^&$^$^$& YOU. I am not going to pay.

Re:I have only this to say: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39391241)

Seeing as your Canadian, when they get tired of your protests they will say the same to you for your medical bills.

Police Services are a scam (5, Interesting)

HeavyDDuty (2506392) | more than 2 years ago | (#39389549)

The police are an economical scam. With normal goods and services, supply and demand dictates spending. Well we here in Canada are experiencing the lowest crime rates since forever. Police know this and steadfastly refuse or make it nigh impossible to report or prosecute thieves and burglars (think break-ins) to skew crime statistics as best as possible It happened to me, a neighbour, and a grandmother. All separate incidents. So when have we EVER seen any significant cut to police services when demand (crime is at an all-time low)? Never. Frankly, what the police fail to realize is, if everything really went to plan, their reward for doing a excellent/perfect job would be a pink slip. Instead, we have them entrenching. And asking for more monies in new and trend setting ways. They have a budget. Now they want an ISP tax. Smells like MPAA and RIAA. This whole thing stinks. [sorry for ranting].

Re:Police Services are a scam (2)

FudRucker (866063) | more than 2 years ago | (#39389597)

mafia style protection racket... cops are bigger criminals than the ones in prison

Re:Police Services are a scam (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39389615)

the occupy movement got their mantra wrong.

government spending is nuts, especially in bc. now they want more money, and want to screw those that deserve a bit more. my wage has steadily declined since 1992 to the point where i can't even afford cable and internet, let alone desire it. hell, gas is getting harder to buy.

government entities are the first to give themselves a fat raise on a whim. icbc, translink, bc ferries, the mlas themselves. all got huge or multiple raises in recent years. and our taxes go up.

now the cops, who do jack shit but hand out road tax speeding tickets, want a tax on the internet?

screw that. DO MORE WITH LESS. i have to.

DO MORE WITH LESS

Re:Police Services are a scam (2)

Deathmoo (2578761) | more than 2 years ago | (#39389851)

I couldnt agree more. Why the hell would we have to bear more taxes so the govt can fucking SPY ON US. I AM NOT A CRIMINAL AND I DO NOT want to pay MORE TAXES just so the govt can SPY on us. This bill stinks of 1984 and totalitarianism, and I want it dead!

Also please go make yourselves useful RCMP and bust some more speeders, cellphone talking drivers and stoners, since those are theworst crimes you seem capable of stopping. Actually dont bother, lets slash the RCMPs budget and put the money towards heathcare. Since you have nothing better to do with our tax money than gathering more power for yourselves.

Re:Police Services are a scam (3, Interesting)

Wildclaw (15718) | more than 2 years ago | (#39390977)

Government spending as a total is actually to low. It is how you keep people unemployed in a fiat economy (in a non-fiat economy you keep people unemployed by simply being rich and withholding the currency), so that corporations can buy slaves cheaper.

That the government debt at the same time is high and rising is because the government is funneling money via both corrupt spending (as you mention) as well as a corrupt tax system that since the 1980s has been setup to allow the rich to slowly but surely drain money from the economy, hence forcing the government to inject more. (although as mentioned above, they deliberately inject less money than is needed to keep full employment rates)

It is the simple goal of supply side economy and always has been. Unemployment for the poor and government paying rent to the rich, all in one nice package.

And best of all. The left will defend the corrupt spending, while the right will defend the corrupt tax laws. It is the perfect fraud.

Re:Police Services are a scam (3, Insightful)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | more than 2 years ago | (#39389819)

Your logic seems to be flawed.

If a record low crime rate is due to the effectiveness of police, one would suspect that reducing the economic support for police would reduce their effectiveness, resulting in an increase in crime.

So no you don't want to cut their budget if they are doing a good job.

Re:Police Services are a scam (4, Insightful)

MacGyver2210 (1053110) | more than 2 years ago | (#39390323)

That's like saying "Just because there is no war on doesn't mean we should pull the soldiers back from the most recent battlefield. If they leave, surely the fighting will resume again!" It's flawed logic.

The real problem facing everyone in North America right now is that there are TOO MANY LAWS. Eventually, the 'lawmakers' and 'amenders' of law will need to stop. Otherwise, it is an eternal cycle of creating more laws without ever losing them. How long do you think it will take until breathing in a certain area is illegal? Until every single thing we do is so regulated, that a step 6" too far to the right will land us a ticket or in jail?

What we need is lawDESTROYERS, not lawmakers. The legal system in the US and Canada is completely overrun with trivial nonsense laws, and the current round of lawmakers is busy trying to find something to do. Instead of going back to reform clearly bogus laws which their constituents hate, they're trying to find the next hot topic for their fellow party campaigners.

I wish they had built a big RESET button into the US Government. I would be pushing the SHIT out of it right now.

Re:Police Services are a scam (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39391121)

That's like saying "Just because there is no war on doesn't mean we should pull the soldiers back from the most recent battlefield. If they leave, surely the fighting will resume again!" It's flawed logic.

I was perfectly well fed yesterday. I should probably buy less food next time I go to grocery.

Oh, that doesn't make sense.

Re:Police Services are a scam (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39393717)

They did. It's a big red button with "REVOLUTION" written on it.

It's not (1)

shiftless (410350) | more than 2 years ago | (#39391073)

If a record low crime rate is due to the effectiveness of police

It's not

Re:It's not (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | more than 2 years ago | (#39391169)

Yes, probably not. But that wasn't the premise of the grandparent post.

Re:Police Services are a scam (1)

Ryanrule (1657199) | more than 2 years ago | (#39392085)

You do know that "govt" spending is pretty much 100% going to private corps, right? Big govt is not your prob, despite what the corps making money off you tell you.

Re:Police Services are a scam (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39390115)

what you fail to realize is that the police are not here to serve and protect you, your neighbor, or your grandmother. they are here to protect the corporate and government masters.

Re:Police Services are a scam (2)

TheRealGrogan (1660825) | more than 2 years ago | (#39390209)

Is there any doubt now that police are our adversaries? I have felt this way for a long time, but it's coming to a head now in our own country.

Re:Police Services are a scam (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39390349)

Frankly, what the police fail to realize is, if everything really went to plan, their reward for doing a excellent/perfect job would be a pink slip.

Sounds like that other unappreciated service sector:
 
IT Support.

Wait, what? (4, Insightful)

epp_b (944299) | more than 2 years ago | (#39389557)

So, they want to invade privacy in what should be an illegal manner and they want me to pay them to do it?

Re:Wait, what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39389683)

well duh. Socialise costs, privatise profits.

Re:Wait, what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39389691)

So, they want to invade privacy in what should be an illegal manner and they want me to pay them to do it?

It is to protect the children and fight the terrists! You either support this, or you support the child pornographers!1!

Re:Wait, what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39389721)

You didn't know that in the eyes of governments and corporations being spied on is a privilege?

Re:Wait, what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39389733)

And also pay more to house the people convicted under proposed minimum-sentencing laws (more prisons, more money for the courts, and so on).

It's bad enough that they're steering us towards more of a police state, but on top of that our current government wants to take money away from the many things that are useful to most people (the upcoming slash-and-burn budget), and then use that money plus even higher user fees (hidden taxes) to pay for it all. They'll probably also figure out a way to "lower taxes" (while making up the difference in "user fees").

Re:Wait, what? (3, Funny)

hilather (1079603) | more than 2 years ago | (#39390155)

So, they want to invade privacy in what should be an illegal manner and they want me to pay them to do it?

Well, when you say it like that, it just sounds stupid.

Whoa... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39389591)

Where's that "Insult to Injury" tag when you need it!

Do something about it (5, Informative)

ifwm (687373) | more than 2 years ago | (#39389619)

http://stopspying.ca/ [stopspying.ca] petition against Bill C-30 http://www.realprivacy.ca/write-my-mp [realprivacy.ca] Ontario Information & Privacy Commissioner’s letter writing tool. Please make your voice heard.

Re:Do something about it (1)

fish waffle (179067) | more than 2 years ago | (#39392561)

I understand government spying is bad. Corporate spying might be more superficial, but why is that ok then? Look at what stopspying.ca connects to:
  • google.com
  • openmedia.ca
  • twitter.com
  • reddit.com
  • stumbleupon.com
  • cachefly.net
  • facebook.com
  • facebook.net
  • visualwebsiteoptimizer.com
  • google-analytics.com

Just Embed Camera/Mic Combo in our Foreheads (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39389695)

I mean, let's quit these slow, sequential blows to our citizen's privacy and just end it altogether. I'm sure the U.S. would happily lend the RCMP storage space in the NSA's new-and-upcoming Utah facility.

Think of the Children (1)

AbrasiveCat (999190) | more than 2 years ago | (#39389801)

The only important part of the argument is "to think of the children" then we can pass what ever is important (to the government, police, RIAA, etc). Don't let the common good or freedom get in the way.

What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39389809)

Who would pay to be spied on? That make no sense.

1984 speech. (1)

wfstanle (1188751) | more than 2 years ago | (#39389833)

Oh, I love that Nineteen Eighty-Four speak where "public safety'" actually means Internet spying and censorship! What is even more galling is that this comes not from a country like China or Burma but from a country like Canada!.

Looks like they're going to have to change... (1)

XxtraLarGe (551297) | more than 2 years ago | (#39389859)

the national anthem. Anyone have suggestions for alternative lyrics? Maybe:

O Canada!
Our home and native land!
True patriot love in all thy sons command.
Access to Information Act
A tax to spy on me

From far and wide,
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.
God keep our land glorious and free!
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.

Re:Looks like they're going to have to change... (2)

lightknight (213164) | more than 2 years ago | (#39390193)

I'll just leave this here: The Whitest Kids U' Know [youtube.com]

Wholly feeeeeken jesus (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39389903)

Like we don't fucking pay enough to the god damn system.
LAST straw time and what they want and are trying to do is get as many of us off the net as they can anyway they can ....YOU do coppper realize im gonna feel after all this like doing a real crime....me thinks burning a police car or tossing a brick through a ISP window...OF course this will never happen if i hardly go out right?

DUMB COPS
DUMB GOVT
DUMB LAWYERS
DUMB SYSTEM

fuck you coppers

Great Idea! (1)

skywire (469351) | more than 2 years ago | (#39389981)

And while we are at it, let's tax all women to pay the expenses of rapists.

Re:Great Idea! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39391997)

What about taxing all men to pay the expenses of the women who raped some of them?

this is not new (1)

alienzed (732782) | more than 2 years ago | (#39390043)

All public services are ultimately paid for with our tax dollars. We already pay for the electricity that powers the electric chair, the money that runs the prisons and the food our Prime Minister eats. If people understood that, maybe they'd get more involved in politics.

Did Conservatives teach Syrians everything? (1)

kawabago (551139) | more than 2 years ago | (#39390103)

They sure seam to be on the same track!

Lets not let this discussion degrade... (2)

WebCowboy (196209) | more than 2 years ago | (#39390721)

...into an anti-Tory bitchfest. It's insulting to those tho actually ARE oppressed in places from China and Cuba to Sudan and Syria and all in between. C-30 erodes our privacy rights but to say we are on the path to self destrucion at the hands of an insane tyrant is a really big stretch.

Also to clarify, for those who started foaming a the mouth when they saw "C-30" and stopped reading the rest of the article, this "internet security tax" has not been proposed by anyone in government nor by those in the telecoms industry. This was an idea presented by Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and them alone. Indeed it is not a brand-new idea for them--they've advocated extraction of funds from taxpayers for this purpose in some form or another a time or two before. The Conservatice covernment, as with previous Liberal governments and the NDP opposition have all rejected the CACP's proposals, including this one.

The fact that the Conservatives are preoccupied with "law and order" issues seems to have brought on the assumption that they must be unabashed supporters of the CACP and thus whatever brainwave the CACP has is going to be well received. Those who are Canadian and follow Canadian politics know that the Tories and the CACP do not see eye to eye an quite a number of issues. Most notably the CACP steadfastly advocated the creation and expansion of the federal long gun registry but the Tory government dismantled it. On that issue, the idea of creating a database of long guns (hunting and target shoting rifles, etc) and their owners with unfettered access by police came about through consultations the Liberal government had with the CACP, who presented it as the solution to prevent massacres like the one at Ecole Polytecnique (the incident that called on government to come up with expanded gun control measures in the first place).

But there are a few things that make a "Security tax" on internet use a non-starter:

1. the Tories have made a big effort to present themselves as "anti-tax"--whether you think they are serious or not they advocate public spending restraint over unfettered "stimulous spending" and higher taxation. It would be pretty bad optics to start imposing a tax on internet use

2. Canadians complain about the relatively high cost of telecom services (with good reason), and the government has been making chages in the industry to increase competition and lower costs (spectrum auctions that limit incumbants ability to steamroll over new competition, relaxation of foreign ownership regulations to permit upstarts like Wind Mobile from being blocked or facing bigger hurdles, etc). Imposing taxes on internet use, for any purpose, runs counter to this commitment and would be taken very poorly by the public at large. Not only that, incumbants and new players in the telecom industry alike are already aggravated at the prospect of being responsible to monitor internet traffic for police--having to aggravate their customers with another fee/tax just furthers that.

3. It runs counter to the "small c" conservative philosophy that many of the Tories core supporters have concerning taxation--that is that the people using somehting should be the ones paying for it. That is why they always talk about replacing some broad tax with "user fees". ISP's customers already pay to access the internet, and if the police want to access ISP customers' internet too, well the police should be the ones covering that cost.

4. Many western supporters of the NEW tories--the "old Reform Party" ones most passionate about getting rid of things like the gun registry and the Wheat Board monopoly, are offended by what C-30 represents--just like gun control it treats innocent people like criminals--the gun registry assumed that all people who would own a gun must be intent on using it to commit crimes and so they all must register with the government at great expense to that police can check up on them whenever they feel like it. Bill C-30 assumes all internet users could be up to no good and that at great expense, all internet users must submit to constant monitoring by police so they can keep us in line.

It is this not-insignificant contingent of core Tory supporters who are rather upset at Bill C-30 as a whole, and which for some reason doesn't get a lot of press, which presents the biggest potential obstacle to passage of C-30. The "inner circle" of the government doesn't take mainstream media very seriously, and will often resist in the face of "widespread criticism" driven by the press. While "public" backlash certainly was a factor in the second look at C-30, it looks to me like the TRUELY biggest factor in the government dialling back its rhetoric and pulling C-30 back for a more considered discussion was the not-so-public backlash from within the Tory caucus and those closer to the grassroots--especially those party members/activists who initially became politically involved with the Reform Party (a populist party which broke away from the now-defunct Progressive-Conservatives in the 1980s).

The prime minister himself was first elected as a member of the Reform party, and though he sadly doesn't prescribe to the more populist ideals of the old Reform party he is very keenly aware of the consequenses of accravating your core support past certain limits, because he was very closely involved with the movement that formed that led to the destruction of the OLD tory Party brought on when Mulroney went over the line alienating his own western base (the Reform party started as a protest against some key Mulroney-era policies, notably the implmentation of the GST consumption tax and the Meech Lake Accord--a set of constitutional amendments made in an effort to have Quebec formally sign the constitution that was repatriated from the UK in 1981--the accord was thought to too heavily favour Quebec's wishes over those of other provinces and groups).

If there is ANYONE that Harper would listen to it would be those politically involved people with past Reform Party involvement--because they know it is possible to take down a mainline party with a solid majority in both houses of parliament if you really want to. The key to pushing C-30 off the table entirely would probably be mobilisation of those "Reformer" types. The older, greyer and less internet-savvy Reformers may be blinded by the "catch the pedophiles" marketing of this bill which is why it managed to get created in the first place. If it is explained to them as I have described here--that it is basically "the gun registry for the Internet"--then you would stand the best chance of getting their attention.

Tax me to Spy on me? (1)

Murdoch5 (1563847) | more than 2 years ago | (#39390279)

If they want to spy on me I don't care. However if they want to spy on me I shouldn't be paying for them to do it. What they could do is take part of my internet bill which I'm sure is padded with more then 100% profile and use that for there spying purpose. The other thing I'm wondering about is if they will do this via hardware or software, doing it via software would open up a new entire department of issues. I'm sure as hell not about to buy a hardware device so they can spy on me, if they want to spy they can pay for all the costs and do all the work, just don't expect me to do anything.

You begged for this (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39390373)

I'm just shocked you all are against this. I really am. Here in the US anyone who makes a statement about reducing government spending is instantly attacked as, "mean", "idiotic", or "racist". You support Ron Paul and they call you an idiot. Listen to Rush or Beck because you like their ideas about limiting government spending and you are a racist. Go to a Tea Party to support cuts in spending and you are a moronic Fox News follower.

However, you go to OWS and support more government and the news will put you on TV like an enlightened individual who is leading the world to a better place.

Until you all stop making excuses for politicians doing this and actually work against bigger government politicians this will only get worse. Its not the politicians that are the problem, its your support of big government politicans that is the problem. Stop defending them and start vocally attacking them.

Liberals keep telling me they want more of "good government that works" but they can't seem to point to any of this mythical good government. So they just support more bad government and blame the rest of us for their failures.

Re:You begged for this (0)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 2 years ago | (#39390513)

Liberals. We're not using words correctly any more. We're in a world where so-called "liberals" want to preserve the existing power structure all over the world, to the point of idolizing murderous, oppressive dictators and bullies. [google.com]

I'm not sure that "liberal" is the right word. In my mind, a liberal is someone who craves liberty, which today's crop of tell-you-what-to-do liberals most certainly do not.

Re:You begged for this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39390825)

Before talking about liberals, did you at least tried to check who proposed this bill?
  It was proposed by Vic Toews, minister of public safety in the Conservative government of Canada - as you don't know, Canada is now under the rule of canadian neocons.
And which Vic Toews, also said, in standard neocon behavior, that who's against this bill is friend of child pornographers.
  Same toews which was sleeping with the 17 years old babysitter hired by his sister.

Re:You begged for this (1)

GmExtremacy (2579091) | more than 2 years ago | (#39393271)

Why are you playing the left-right politics game?

Funded by YOU (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39390457)

I know here in the USA - laws are passed by congress and regulations established by the executive branch that place requirements upon companies that provide public utility services without associated funding.

The funding for the infrastructure and changes to the network required to do surveillance are certainly passed on to the consumer as part of the cost of a given product suite. There might be a penny or a dollar of their monthly service build that is going to funding that infrastructure - whatever the cost it is not borne by the service provider. They would not be able to remain in business if they absorbed all the costs of regulations (SOX, CALEA compliance etc) without associated revenue increases.

Hook ups? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39390771)

I get my hook ups free on Craigslist. Oh. Not that kind?

The main reason I gave up all land lines. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39391069)

I did not need as much Internet or TV as I thought.

Nice (1)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 2 years ago | (#39391657)

Spying on people and making them pay for it; I like their style.

Read the Canadian Charter of Rights, Bozos! (1)

msobkow (48369) | more than 2 years ago | (#39392093)

You may NOT monitor my data, voice, and video traffic without a search warrant.

You may request my contact information from my ISP without a warrant, the same as you can do a reverse phone book lookup. It will cost virtually nothing except staff time to do the reverse-name lookup, because my ISP already has a database with that information. But DAMNED if I'm going to tolerate an abuse of my Charter rights:

8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.

In other words, if you want more than my name and address:

GET A FUCKING WARRANT!!!

Re:Read the Canadian Charter of Rights, Bozos! (2)

GmExtremacy (2579091) | more than 2 years ago | (#39393281)

I'll be surprised if your charter isn't as worthless to your government as the constitution is to the US government.

Rights are so inconvenient when you want to 'save' the children!

Tax on free speech? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39392403)

Riight.. So now they're planning on taxing communication.

If i was canadian, which i am not, i would sue the hell out of the police and ask for 1M$ cus i was "offended by their attempt suppress my free speech".

Not all ISPs are for-profit/big enterprises (1)

awehttam (779031) | more than 2 years ago | (#39393573)

A lot of them are non-profit Society's with barely enough margins to pay their operating costs. We're talking volunteer boards here. This is particularly true in rural areas where there's no business case to justify big ISPs putting in infrastructure. Another thing - C-30 defines a telecommunication service provider as *everyone* including individuals who are not principally using it for their own household use. Who's going to reimburse Joe Average for their costs to comply with this legislation if they decide to provide the public with free Internet, ala: linksys?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?