Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

The Quiet Death of the Canadian Internet Survellance Bill

samzenpus posted about 2 years ago | from the take-off dept.

Canada 67

mykepredko writes "C-30, Canada's version of SOPA, would grant the federal government and law enforcement agencies the power to obtain information about individuals who are online without having to apply for a warrant is dead in committee. 'I don't know whether it was because the Minister so screwed up the messaging, or whether they've had some other input saying they went too far or it just can't be salvaged,' Nathan Cullen, House Leader for the NDP, speculates."

cancel ×

67 comments

Maybe politicians saw what happened in the U.S. (1)

crazyjj (2598719) | about 2 years ago | (#41621021)

Either that or all the maple syrup [huffingtonpost.ca] has lulled them into a diabetic coma.

Re:Maybe politicians saw what happened in the U.S. (4, Funny)

gstoddart (321705) | about 2 years ago | (#41621081)

In Canada, first you get the syrup, then you get the power, then you get the women.

Re:Maybe politicians saw what happened in the U.S. (1)

SuperMooCow (2739821) | about 2 years ago | (#41621747)

You may have found a correlation between sex addiction and diabetes in Canada.

Re:Maybe politicians saw what happened in the U.S. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41622335)

Good thing we just found the syrup again, then.

Re:Maybe politicians saw what happened in the U.S. (3, Insightful)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about 2 years ago | (#41621117)

I'm guessing their masters got spooked and decided to do it slower and more quietly. Let the people forget about it so they think it was a one-time thing. It's not as if big content will have trouble anytime soon buying influence in government, they can wait and think of some other way to slip it in.

Re:Maybe politicians saw what happened in the U.S. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41623125)

Not for a long time, if you know the difference between american financing vs. Canadian political financing. It's a heck of a lot more difficult to buy a politician here... Certianly not impossible, but something as hated as SOPA? Well, lets just say bribes big enough to take that political risk are more dangerous than the political risk itself.

If it is like the U.S.... (4, Insightful)

dgatwood (11270) | about 2 years ago | (#41621033)

...then it will just reappear, possibly a piece at a time, attached to some appropriations bill for homeless battered women's shelters.

Re:If it is like the U.S.... (5, Interesting)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 2 years ago | (#41621083)

My understanding is that the most potent objections to the bill didn't come from the Opposition or any particular civil liberties group, but rather from the Tory caucus itself. Rumor has it there were several very blunt exchanges in caucus over this bill between the Minister and various Tory MPs, and that the Government intentionally booted into the Death By Committee.

Not to say that you're not right, but it's pretty clear there are places that sizable portions of the Tory caucus just simply will not go, and for a Government, even the hint of a caucus revolt over legislation is enough to make the legislation go away quietly.

Re:If it is like the U.S.... (2)

Stormthirst (66538) | about 2 years ago | (#41621189)

Vic Tuows (or what ever his name is) didn't help with his pedophilia comparison

We need to limit political donations (1)

kawabago (551139) | about 2 years ago | (#41621279)

Corporations can afford to influence politicians with huge donations to election funds that ordinary voters can't afford to make. This has created a culture of elected representatives beholden to corporate interests instead of their constituents. Political donations should be limited to a maximum that the average citizen could afford to make and corporate entities will have the same limit. The limit will apply to the holding company and all subsidiaries in a situation where there are many subordinate shell companies. That would even the playing field between corporate and private citizens.

Re:We need to limit political donations (4, Informative)

arthurpaliden (939626) | about 2 years ago | (#41621375)

In Canada federal political parties can only accept donations from individual citizens, breathing biological entities, and the amount is capped around $1,000.00 per year.

Re:We need to limit political donations (4, Informative)

compro01 (777531) | about 2 years ago | (#41621609)

Sure, unless you're donating to someone named "Dean Del Mastro", in which case you get reimbursed for your "donations" [ottawacitizen.com] .

Re:We need to limit political donations (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41621659)

However keep in mind that it is confirmed that breathing biological entities with deep pockets can actually donate over 60k to their preferred political party by using a loophole to donate 200 dollars to each riding of their political party of choice. Something that's been acknowledged but Harper refuses to close for some reason. (Probably because his party is getting most of those willing donations lately. Probably by some people doing this very thing. - He -does- apparently serve corporate interests after all, based on all the pro-industry bills he passes, and union negotiations his party damages.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_political_financing_in_Canada#Loopholes_in_contributions_limits [wikipedia.org]

Additionally Harper has tried several times and continues to work towards trying to remove this limit and allow corporations to donate as much as they want.

And 3 weeks after he got his majority government he announced the elimination of the per-vote subsidy which currently funds most campaigns costs in canada to prevent the need for additional funding. So expect the reintroduction of corporation spending in campaigns in canada before too long.

Re:We need to limit political donations (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41626839)

Thanks for the link, but you're dead wrong on Harper's record re: corporate donations. Shortly after gaining office in 2006, Harper reduced the cap on corporate donations from $5,000/yr to $1,000. It currently stands at $1,100 due to inflation indexing.

Harper has no intention of allowing corporate donations - they mostly flowed to his opponents, the Liberals. His party, the Conservatives, get most of their funding from regular folks, an average of $44 at a time, a smaller average than the other parties.

Re:We need to limit political donations (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41622541)

Corporations are people, my friend.

Re:We need to limit political donations (1)

Chris Burke (6130) | about 2 years ago | (#41623763)

I'm disgusted at Canada's flagrant discrimination against the non-breathing.

Re:We need to limit political donations (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 2 years ago | (#41621789)

Big money influences the voters more than it does the politicians. Why won't they vote for somebody that they hear very little about? I mean, it's not like that a politicians voting record is hidden from view or anything. It's that voters are too lazy to look beyond the mass media campaigns. The politicians are only going along. We make it too easy for them. Sorry, I can't sympathize. Let them spend what they want, and then show them how they wasted all that money by voting for somebody else. Then it will all dry up on its own. No law is needed.

Re:If it is like the U.S.... (4, Interesting)

quacking duck (607555) | about 2 years ago | (#41621359)

They happily ignore anything the opposition or other groups say or do--they have a majority and don't care. But, accusing opponents of the bill of supporting child pornographers sure was a good strategy for bringing wayward Conservatives in line.

Extremist rhetoric might work well for Rush Limbaugh, but not so well when used against your own colleagues and supporters. With those words Vic Toews accidentally shot the bill in the back with a rocket grenade, and we're all happier for it.

Re:If it is like the U.S.... (3, Interesting)

Tridus (79566) | about 2 years ago | (#41622417)

That was one group, yes. The more powerful group was Conservative party members, particularly donors. They started hearing during fundraising calls about this, and people closed their wallets in protest.

The Conservative party is better then any other party in Canada at grassroots fundraising. When that gets threatened, the party brass respond VERY quickly.

Re:If it is like the U.S.... (1)

quacking duck (607555) | about 2 years ago | (#41621219)

Forget spreading things out, they'll just lump it in with the 200 other non-budget items in another omnibus budget bill.

And I thought riders to unrelated bills were fucked up... those seem to happen frequently in the US, don't hear much about them in Canada. But, at least riders are limited to a few each bill.

The real Reason (4, Insightful)

arthurpaliden (939626) | about 2 years ago | (#41621035)

It might have had something to do with the country wide revolt that was spawned when it was initially tabled and the minister refereed to all those who opposed the bill as supporters and practitioners of pedophilia.

Re:The real Reason (1)

Maury Markowitz (452832) | about 2 years ago | (#41621105)

Yeah, that was one of his worst moves. And it's not like he hasn't given us lots of examples to choose from.

Re:The real Reason (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 2 years ago | (#41621681)

Revolt? Was anybody voted out over this?

Re:The real Reason (1)

arthurpaliden (939626) | about 2 years ago | (#41621817)

No but they crashed the parliamentary web and mail servers for a couple of days with all the daily data they sent him. He wanted it anyway so we all set it to him, cc'ed on all emails, daily calenders, web browsing histories et al.

Re:The real Reason (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 2 years ago | (#41621887)

That's only a minor inconvenience, far from being a 'revolt'. And I highly doubt that's what killed the bill.

Re:The real Reason (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41621993)

In Canada, it was a violent revolt. Usually we just politely ask.

Re:The real Reason (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41622439)

It was probably brought to light that the law (in the killed incarnation) violates section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (section regarding police powers and unreasonable search and seizure) and probably would never survive a constitutional challenge.

Police have all of the tools in place to obtain this information already. It is called a warrant, but a warrant requires probable cause and is very limited in the data they can obtain (basically, if the information is not covered by the warrant, police can't have it).

What this bill would have done was allow police to go on fishing expeditions to find illegal activities rather than doing real police work to find the criminals. I think the risk of allowing guilty people to go free (if evidence is quashed under a constitutional challenge) when they had enough evidence to obtain a warrant was sufficient to drop the bill before any readings.

Re:The real Reason (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41622997)

One of the really evil consequences of this bill wasn't that it allowed police to do internet surveillance but the government could assign any person, within a police department or not, to act as a agent of the government to search out anything about anyone. It was a grand open door to finding everything they could about anybody.

Re:The real Reason (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41622925)

Don't forget the Twitter #tellviceverything tag. That was fun.

Not to mention "Vikileaks" (2)

DarthVain (724186) | about 2 years ago | (#41621903)

As people started posting personal information they found on the internet of the Minister involved, Vic Toews. Including stuff about his divorce, affairs, all sorts of good stuff...

Good Times.

Reminds me of back in the day when Stockwill Day proposed a law to have a referendum vote country wide if anyone was able to get a patition from 10% of the population, so the TV political satire show "This hour has 22 minutes" did an online patition to change Stockwell Day's name to "Doris Day" and got 450,000 signitures....

Yet in the end, they still forced through the whole digital locks BS... No doubt we haven't seen the last of this. They will just wait awhile till people forget, then table it again grouped with budget or some other BS bill like that which is 12,000 pages long that nobody has time to read.

No need, it's in the budget bill. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41621039)

The Cons have put everything they want to do into the "Budget Implementation Bill" and made it intentionally obfuscated and avoided all debate.

Every bad thing they wanted to do is now simply amalgamated into one monster bill that no member of parliament wants to read.

Re:No need, it's in the budget bill. (1)

arthurpaliden (939626) | about 2 years ago | (#41621123)

They may not want to read it but when it is posted on the net everyone else will.

Re:No need, it's in the budget bill. (1)

jeff13 (255285) | about 2 years ago | (#41621191)

Oh right, the second massive 400 page omnibus bill due to hit the floor soon. The sort of bill Prime Minister Harper himself used to complain was undemocratic when he was in opposition. What giant hypocrites conservatives are!

Re:No need, it's in the budget bill. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41621315)

they are all Hypocrites... Liberal, Conservative, NDP, BLOC... they say one thing and do another... I give up.

Re:No need, it's in the budget bill. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41621667)

Vote Libertarian.

Your vote might be wasted, but it sure feels a lot better on the conscience.

Re:No need, it's in the budget bill. (3, Informative)

compro01 (777531) | about 2 years ago | (#41621983)

Wasted indeed. The Libertarian party in Canada is less popular than the Communist party. Their desire to scrap the Canada Health Act endears them to few.

Re:No need, it's in the budget bill. (3, Interesting)

Em Adespoton (792954) | about 2 years ago | (#41622079)

Libertarian would need reps in the ridings to vote for... I've never seen one.

Vote Green; same caveat the parent gave, but hey... they actually got a seat last time!

In Canada, in order to fix things, we need people who aren't interested in Politics getting fed up enough to run, and gather enough support to win, and then have enough morals to stick to their platform, even if it means getting voted out in the next round.

Re:No need, it's in the budget bill. (2)

alexo (9335) | about 2 years ago | (#41622083)

Personally, I'm willing to give the NDP a chance.
But you can vote Green if you're inclined to.

Re:No need, it's in the budget bill. (1)

Mashiki (184564) | about 2 years ago | (#41625575)

Personally, I'm willing to give the NDP a chance.
But you can vote Green if you're inclined to.

By all means, vote NDP if you want. But remember Ontario, and every other province that's ever elected an NDP government to the helm. The first and immediate effect is that our provincial(ontario) bond ratings are cut by at least one if not two to three points(it will happen at the federal level too if it they're elected). The lenders know exactly what's going to happen. Well in Ontario's case, ol'Bob Rae managed to soak up a $50B debt, without even trying. My kids, kids will be paying that one off.

But hey, vote with whatever makes you feel good. Personally if the liberals ever stopped fawning over Justin Trudeau and get their act together, perhaps they'd become a real party again.

Re:No need, it's in the budget bill. (0)

camperdave (969942) | about 2 years ago | (#41622477)

What giant hypocrites conservatives are!

Um... It is the opposition's job to oppose the government, whether they agree with the particular proposition or not - just like it is the defense attorney's duty to try to get the child molesting serial killer acquitted even if the person committed the crimes. If a party gets elected, it is not hypocritical for them to try to pass the same legislation that they tried to stifle when they were the opposition. They have a different role.

Re:No need, it's in the budget bill. (3, Insightful)

UnknownSoldier (67820) | about 2 years ago | (#41624625)

> Um... It is the opposition's job to oppose the government, whether they agree with the particular proposition or not
There is a time and place for opposition -- but any ideology taken to an extreme, such as oppositional defiant, is never a good idea in the long run.
i.e.
So the ruling party decides that it needs it needs to limit its spending (ha!), and the opposition is _automatically_ against that? That's asinine. But then again, this is politics.

> If a party gets elected, it is not hypocritical for them to try to pass the same legislation that they tried to stifle when they were the opposition
Yes it is and retarded. Instead of doing what's best for everyone politicians are selfish bastards who only do what's best for them.

You're part of the problem by thinking such stupid "politics" is OK in the first place.

Re:No need, it's in the budget bill. (2)

NSash (711724) | about 2 years ago | (#41626947)

Um... It is the opposition's job to oppose the government, whether they agree with the particular proposition or not -

That's insane. So their job isn't to represent the wishes of their constituents, or even their best interests?

Re:No need, it's in the budget bill. (1)

camperdave (969942) | about 2 years ago | (#41631625)

That's insane. So their job isn't to represent the wishes of their constituents, or even their best interests?

Yes it is, but they still need to ensure that legislation is carefully considered and that differing views on initiatives are publicly expressed and defended. Also, they still need to be providing the public with alternative policies. No legislative proposal is so good that it doesn't need to be poked and prodded at, nor examined with a fine toothed comb.

Re:No need, it's in the budget bill. (1)

robsku (1381635) | about 2 years ago | (#41633071)

What giant hypocrites conservatives are!

Um... It is the opposition's job to oppose the government, whether they agree with the particular proposition or not - just like it is the defense attorney's duty to try to get the child molesting serial killer acquitted even if the person committed the crimes. If a party gets elected, it is not hypocritical for them to try to pass the same legislation that they tried to stifle when they were the opposition. They have a different role.

I assume what you're saying makes perfect sense to people around where you live?
Meanwhile for the rest of the democratic world the job of opposition is to oppose government if they disagree with the particular proposition.
And it's not a court session.

Re:No need, it's in the budget bill. (1)

camperdave (969942) | about 2 years ago | (#41638815)

It is the job of the opposition to ensure that alternatives are presented, that proposals are examined for loopholes and deficiencies, and that different views are considered. It doesn't matter if they agree with the proposition or not. They should still be trying to improve it, or find better solutions.

Re:No need, it's in the budget bill. (1)

robsku (1381635) | about 2 years ago | (#41641533)

It is the job of the opposition to ensure that alternatives are presented, that proposals are examined for loopholes and deficiencies, and that different views are considered. It doesn't matter if they agree with the proposition or not. They should still be trying to improve it, or find better solutions.

...and if they have no better solutions they should not oppose the thing blindly or to try force improvements unconditionally if it seems to be leading to a thing they basically agree (especially if improvements they want may well even be crafted afterward) being ditched.

Re:No need, it's in the budget bill. (1)

J Story (30227) | about 2 years ago | (#41625101)

Oh right, the second massive 400 page omnibus bill due to hit the floor soon. The sort of bill Prime Minister Harper himself used to complain was undemocratic when he was in opposition. What giant hypocrites conservatives are!

A big problem with getting legislation through is simple logistics. There are only so many days in the legislative calendar, and only so many members of parliament that can sit on committees to scrutinize bills. Omnibus bills are nobody's favourite, but in practise there is no other way to get some bills into law. At least the Canadian version of an omnibus bill is readable, unlike in the States, where the Obamacare legislation that Obama ultimately signed into law was 2,700 pages.

Re:No need, it's in the budget bill. (2)

Mashiki (184564) | about 2 years ago | (#41621263)

Right, could you please point out the relevant sections in the bill. The pre-post bill is online by the way, I'll wait.

Re:No need, it's in the budget bill. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41621581)

Why would I waste 50 hours of my life for a slashdot comment?

Re:No need, it's in the budget bill. (3, Funny)

camperdave (969942) | about 2 years ago | (#41622495)

Why would I waste 50 hours of my life for a slashdot comment?

That attitude, my friend, is why you only scored a zero.

It will get stuffed in the next budget omnibus (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41621055)

They'll just hide it in the next budget omnibus bill along with 1000 other modifications that have nothing to do with the budget. When you can't win in the court of public opinion, obfuscate!

hidedabill (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41621303)

It's called the TPP.

In other news... (1)

poofmeisterp (650750) | about 2 years ago | (#41621361)

Property value in Canada just skyrocketed.

Re:In other news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41621617)

As a canadian looking to buy a house, I wish this was a only a joke...

Re:In other news... (2)

compro01 (777531) | about 2 years ago | (#41621621)

That's been happening for years. Maybe this'll keep the bubble going for awhile longer.

Re:In other news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41622263)

I agree.

From a political point of view, the country can't afford to look like they are fighting the piracy boogeyman. They have to look like they support the majority of US position on this kind of crap.

So they keep floating these bills that they know will cause outrage, then scuttle them in committee. It gives the appearance of trying to do something, politics satisfied, but in reality Canada remains far less draconian than our southern neighbors.

Sorry for this, but it applies (4, Insightful)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 2 years ago | (#41621645)

It's not dead. It's just resting.

It won't ever die with the kinds people that are presently occupying the office. If you want to actually kill it, a different class of people must be voted in.

Re:Sorry for this, but it applies (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41624193)

The class that wants to do all things with no moneys, and no skills and sign Kumbaya...

Re:Sorry for this, but it applies (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41625023)

Does that mean you prefer to keep the class that robs your pension to pay off the banks' gambling debts?

Re:Sorry for this, but it applies (1)

Bieeanda (961632) | about 2 years ago | (#41624231)

You beat me to it. They're just going to go back, move some punctuation around, then re-submit it when people are distracted. Or come up with some pretext to shove it through-- maybe illegally shutting Parliament down again.

pirates (1)

Msdose (867833) | about 2 years ago | (#41621971)

They couldn't swallow the implication that anyone caught with a song that wasn't advertised must have obtained it through piracy.

Easier... (1)

Kazoo the Clown (644526) | about 2 years ago | (#41622103)

I'm sure it's much easier to do if they just don't admit they're doing it. Then you don't need permission. That's how wiretapping works in the US anyway...

"Survellance"? (1)

stillnotelf (1476907) | about 2 years ago | (#41622533)

I like how the editor got one typo out of the title from the submission [slashdot.org] (quite->quiet) but not "survellance" for surveillance.

I know this is assuming a lot (1)

sackofdonuts (2717491) | about 2 years ago | (#41624937)

But maybe, just maybe some politicians understand that with such legislation they themselves fall victim to the very laws that get created. Having their privacy invaded without warrant doesn't sit well with anyone.

They're not serious about it. (1)

TermV (49182) | about 2 years ago | (#41625389)

The conservatives have a history of tabling unpopular bills that die off prematurely. It took them 6 years and 4 attempts to pass a copyright reform bill. Those bills were conveniently tabled at inopportune moments where they were guaranteed to be killed off. I have a theory that they're doing this to earn checkmarks for implementing their agenda and then using the opposition as an excuse to their cronies as to why the legislation failed. We tried, but oh darn there was an election call. They don't take a political hit with the public and their cronies see them make a good faith effort.

And there was much rejoicing... (1)

msobkow (48369) | about 2 years ago | (#41626539)

Toews was an idiot to try and put this past the well-educated and often computer-literate Canadian population in the first place.

Check for New 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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...