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!

Canada Unveils Internet Surveillance Legislation

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 8 years ago | from the evil-legislation-and-other-tales-of-woe dept.

Privacy 272

An anonymous reader writes "Michael Geist is reporting on his blog that the Canadian government today introduced new legislation that would require ISPs to establish new surveillance controls to monitor Internet activity. The bill will also require ISPs to disclose subscriber information without a warrant. The bill may not survive given the state of the government, but this is a sad indicator of things to come."

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

Silly Canadians (5, Funny)

Cytlid (95255) | more than 8 years ago | (#14041111)

Need a law to create "intercept legislation".

Some of us techies know it as "packet sniffers".

Re:Silly Canadians (2, Insightful)

TheSpoom (715771) | more than 8 years ago | (#14041285)

Question: If the surveillance is happening on the ISP's end as they route all of your traffic, how will you ever know, even with a packet sniffer?

Anyway, I doubt this will come into existance. If it does, well...

a) I'll be truly disappointed in our government, and
b) I'll start using a hell of a lot more encryption.

Re:Silly Canadians (1)

tonsofpcs (687961) | more than 8 years ago | (#14041416)

You could always buy an Enigma...

Like this'll pass (4, Interesting)

YetAnotherDave (159442) | more than 8 years ago | (#14041112)

Given the state of the minority gov't, I'd be stunned if anything of substance passed, let alone something this offensive...

Re:Like this'll pass (5, Insightful)

Senes (928228) | more than 8 years ago | (#14041125)

Do not underestimate the power of old people in large numbers legislating against the internet. Their grandparents did it for TV, and their great grandparents did it for Radio.

Re:Like this'll pass (1)

Shelled (81123) | more than 8 years ago | (#14041257)

Or the power of pissed-off Canadian voters. They came out en masse to bid right-wing Mulrooney goodbye, and did the same for far-left Rae in Ontario. When it comes to jack-ass politicians were a totally non-partisan lot.

Re:Like this'll pass (-1, Offtopic)

Propagandhi (570791) | more than 8 years ago | (#14041491)

I saw a documentary once, Soiled Greens or something, and in it they ended up eating all the old people. Can't we just do the same thing today? Seems like this would solve a lot of problems (all that medi-whoosits and Social Securities and what have you, although I don't think they have those problems in Canada).

Suppose it comes down to that old addage, though, we don't get to repeat the past until we've forgotten it... or something along those lines.

Re:Like this'll pass (1)

sage2k6 (784361) | more than 8 years ago | (#14041181)

Wait....didn't the NDP just tried to push a x'mas election?!?!? This "law" is not going to get passed any time soon... my finger's crossed.

Re:Like this'll pass (1)

Kinetix303 (471831) | more than 8 years ago | (#14041515)

Actually, no, the NDP did not want a Christmas election. They trying to reach a compromise and have it for the end of January, so there's no need to ruin the holidays.

Comparison with wiretap (5, Interesting)

5, Troll (919133) | more than 8 years ago | (#14041113)

The press releases are spinning this as an update of the wiretap law.

For those of us who are not legal experts, can someone clarify the procedure to obtain a wiretap?

With respect to this bill, the CBC report at
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/11/15 /surveillance051114.html?ref=rss [www.cbc.ca]
says:

"However, McLellan said that just like in the old wiretap days, police investigators will have to get the approval of a judge before they can have access."

This sounds different from the article.

So the comparison is not a wiretap but phone# (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14041205)

Can the police get your phone number based on your name or your name based on a phone number without a warrent. I've never heard much about this in any legal system. What is the rule in Canada, the US and other nations on getting phone numbers?

If the police can get the numbers or names I'll agree that it's an equivalent rule.

Re:So the comparison is not a wiretap but phone# (0, Offtopic)

Vombatus (777631) | more than 8 years ago | (#14041271)

Can the police get your phone number based on your name or your name based on a phone number without a warrent.

Just about anyone (even Police officers) can get a phone number for most people given a name - all without a warrant. They can normally use an initial and/or an address to narrow down the search.

The technology has existed for years. It is called the phonebook. It is even possible to access some phonebooks online - http://www.whitepages.com.au/ [whitepages.com.au] being one example.

Re:So the comparison is not a wiretap but phone# (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14041351)

I just answered my own question. The police do indeed have access to the phone number information (even unlisted) without a warrent. It's required to make the 911 programs work. So I fail to see how police access to IP addresses is any different then phone numbers.

Should we lobby to block both? Do 911 programs justify access to phone numbers. Would there be an equivilent program that would justify police access to IP addresses? Like VOIP or Jabber 911 as examples.

Re:So the comparison is not a wiretap but phone# (2, Interesting)

skreeech (221390) | more than 8 years ago | (#14041457)

Here in Canada, my friend was borrowing my cellphone and was robbed. Police had to phone and ask me the number. Then had to call back and ask what numbers the phone had called that night because they couldn't get this information themselves. Of course the phone company was dumb and couldn't even get me this information for two weeks.

Re:Comparison with wiretap (5, Interesting)

linuxbert (78156) | more than 8 years ago | (#14041277)

In Canada, Wiretap requires a warrent. You have to convince a judge that one is needed, and theri has to be a high level of confidence that one is required, and will provide needed information.

CSIS - essentally the Canadian version of the CIA can listen to what it wants - no warents or oversight needed. the catch is that information CSIS collects through its methods is not admisable in court, though they have in the past provieded information to the RCMP.

Your employer however can monitor your communications on their network at their pleasure, provided you do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy. If you are presented with a logon banner, stating that you are subject to monitoring, and have a signed usage agreement, then you can be monitored. These logs can be turned over to law enforcement without a warrent - they a the companies propery and they can concent to search.

IANAL - i just had a lecture on this.

Re:Comparison with wiretap (1)

all204 (898409) | more than 8 years ago | (#14041326)

You beat me to posting a link to this article... ;-)

No right to privacy (4, Interesting)

aussie_a (778472) | more than 8 years ago | (#14041114)

Does no-one have the right to privacy anymore? For probable cause before getting searched? (Note: I don't know if these things are protected in Canada's constitution, however I do know that for the most part, while America has been whittling away its citizen's rights, Canada hasn't). I guess New Zealand really is the only place left that can be considered the land of the free.

Re:No right to privacy (4, Informative)

bhirsch (785803) | more than 8 years ago | (#14041159)

Canada basically doesn't have a Bill of Rights like the US. There is a similar constitutional amendment (Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms), but its language makes it very easy to circumvent (ie, it can be violated for what is seen as a good reason). Beyond that, let's keep in mind there is no right to privacy in the US constitution beyond the fourth amendment's guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure.

Keep in mind that Canada, like many other countries, has laws forbidding hate speech. I believe it is still illegal to voice skepticism about the holocaust in Canada.

Re:No right to privacy (0, Offtopic)

Ctrl-Z (28806) | more than 8 years ago | (#14041211)

I know this is off-topic, but ...

There is a similar constitutional amendment (Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms), but its language makes it very easy to circumvent (ie, it can be violated for what is seen as a good reason)

Yes, Section 1 [wikipedia.org] of the Charter does describe the circumstances under which the government may pass a law contravening the rights outlined in it, but I would hardly say that it is very easy to circumvent.

Keep in mind that Canada, like many other countries, has laws forbidding hate speech. I believe it is still illegal to voice skepticism about the holocaust in Canada.

Yes, Canada does have laws against hate speech. The last time I checked, expressing skepticism about the holocaust itself was not hate speech.

Re:No right to privacy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14041236)

People who discuss controversial race or historical issues are often harassed by the government for doing so.

Banning hate speech is about as ridiculous as USA republicans wanting to ban anti-war speech.

Re:No right to privacy (1)

schwaang (667808) | more than 8 years ago | (#14041394)

Banning hate speech is about as ridiculous as USA republicans wanting to ban anti-war speech.

In the US we don't ban hate speech through laws (that pesky First Amendment, don't you know). Instead we ban it through commerce. Anyone can just complain to the ISP hosting your website. Many ISPs will point to your TOS and then cut you off.

I'm not big on hate, but I sure wouldn't like to see this approach used on anti-war speech or other forms of political dissent.

Re:No right to privacy (1)

bhirsch (785803) | more than 8 years ago | (#14041434)

That's a very crucial point though -- it is the ISP censoring, not the government. Remember all of the movie theaters refusing to show Farenheit 9/11? Think about all of the voluntary censhorship on non-FCC regulated cable TV chanels. Things like this are what make a lack of government censorship work. The first amendment is not about the government forcing the channels open for everyone's message to reach everyone else, it is about the government taking a platform of non-involvement.

The first amendment gives you the right to say whatever you want, not everyone else the responsibility to hear it or make sure it is heard.

Re:No right to privacy (3, Informative)

bhirsch (785803) | more than 8 years ago | (#14041244)

Yes, Section 1 of the Charter does describe the circumstances under which the government may pass a law contravening the rights outlined in it, but I would hardly say that it is very easy to circumvent.

That text is pretty awful. Passages like that are what get laws declared unconstitutional in the US. Hate speech certainly does not seem to impede a free and democratic society...

Yes, Canada does have laws against hate speech. The last time I checked, expressing skepticism about the holocaust itself was not hate speech.

Although I don't doubt it has changed, it certainly was a crime at one point. My point stands in response to the OP, that Canada is not the haven of civil liberties it is frequently viewed as.

Re:No right to privacy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14041444)

it certainly was a crime at one point
Kindly inform us at what point that was. Because it surely sounds like you're talking out of your ass here.

Thankfully yours,
    Kevin

Re:No right to privacy (1)

bhirsch (785803) | more than 8 years ago | (#14041475)

Googling turns up quite a bit. Why don't you try that before you accuse me of talking out of my ass? Thanks.

err, about hate speech... (1)

Phil Urich (841393) | more than 8 years ago | (#14041446)

Hate speech certainly does not seem to impede a free and democratic society...

Err, I hate to go all Godwin on this discussion, but the words "Weimar Republic" spring to mind . . .

Re:No right to privacy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14041441)

Beyond that, let's keep in mind there is no right to privacy in the US constitution beyond the fourth amendment's guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure.

A right does not have to be written into the Constitution to exist; although I wouldn't object to a Constitutional amendment to include it.
 
:)

Re:No right to privacy (2, Informative)

dcollins (135727) | more than 8 years ago | (#14041498)

Beyond that, let's keep in mind there is no right to privacy in the US constitution beyond the fourth amendment's guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure.

Perhaps that's true if the Constitution is narrowly interpreted. But, Supreme Court precendents have not taken a narrow interpretation. As described on http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/index.php/Personal_ Autonomy [cornell.edu] :


The Supreme Court first recognized an independent right of privacy within the 'penumbra' (fringe area) of the Bill of Rights in Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965). In this case, a right of marital privacy was invoked to void a law prohibiting contraception. Later cases expanded upon this fundamental right, and in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) the right of privacy was firmly established under the due process clauseof the 14th Amendment (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitut ion.amendmentxiv.html [cornell.edu] ). The court classified this right as fundamental, and thus required any governmental infringement to be justified by a compelling state interest.

Re:No right to privacy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14041168)

"right to privacy"..."anymore" ???

Some would point out that privacy was never a bonafide right in the first place.

Re:No right to privacy (2, Funny)

bhirsch (785803) | more than 8 years ago | (#14041180)

It's in the first amendment of the Declaration of Independence. Duh.

Re:No right to privacy (0, Troll)

aussie_a (778472) | more than 8 years ago | (#14041231)


It's in the first amendment of the Declaration of Independence. Duh.


Sorry, I'm not an expert in every country's constitution. [sarcasm] I'll try to do better next time[/sarcasm].

Thanks to those who responded with an informative post.

Re:No right to privacy (1)

bhirsch (785803) | more than 8 years ago | (#14041255)

Curb your [sarcasm]. I was not responding to you. I was responding to an AC. Although in a post that was a response to you, I thought I was mildly informative. Anyway, it was just a [sarcastic] joke.

Re:No right to privacy (1)

broller (74249) | more than 8 years ago | (#14041264)

psst, in case you missed it: There are no amendments to the Declaration of Independence.

In the US, privacy is at most a "reasonable expectation" which is far below the status of a "right".

For example, we have the "right to keep and bear arms" as stated in the U.S. Constitution, but there is no explicit right to "privacy".

IANAL (5, Informative)

The Amazing Fish Boy (863897) | more than 8 years ago | (#14041194)

Canadian Constitution [justice.gc.ca] says:
8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.

5. IS A WARRANTLESS SEARCH OR SEIZURE ALWAYS UNREASONABLE? [jibc.bc.ca]
S.8 protects a persons right to be secure against unreasonable searches and/or seizures. There is no constitutional warrant requirement. If there was a constitutional warrant requirement s.8 would state "Everyone has the right to be secure against warrantless search or seizure". However, the Supreme Court of Canada has adopted the position that all warrantless searches are prima facie unreasonable. What this proposition enunciates is that when a search is conducted in the absence of a warrant (prior judicial authorization) the search will be presumed to be "unreasonable" and therefore a violation of s.8 of the Charter.

Re:IANAL (1)

sedmonds (94908) | more than 8 years ago | (#14041286)

But even though warrantless searches may be inviolation of section 8 of the Charter, fruits of such search may in some cases still be admissable. Under section 24, subsection 2 of the Charter: "the evidence shall be excluded if it is established that, having regard to all circumstances, the admission of it in the proceedings would bring the administration of justice into disrepute".

The Charter has many such clauses, enough so that as a legal document it's barely worth using as asswipe.

Re:IANAL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14041385)

Where did they rip that off of? Couldn't they even rephrase it?

Seriously (1)

neologee (532218) | more than 8 years ago | (#14041135)

...That's unnecessary in Canada. It's going to be more annoying to the general public then the warrant system was. And it opens doors for social engineers too,..., it's all a bad move. The warrants worked just fine.

Non-Confidence Vote Next Week (3, Insightful)

Lockz (556773) | more than 8 years ago | (#14041136)

As there will most likely be a non-confidence vote passed this week, anything introduced now is quite futile, and the government knows it. They will throw this out there and then show it as an example of the "wonderful" legislation that will be lost if they are defeated.

Re:Non-Confidence Vote Next Week (0, Flamebait)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 8 years ago | (#14041415)

Don't forget the 30 BILLION DOLLARS in taxes that the libriberals are suggesting they will return back to the people.

Fuck them. Fuck the fucking liberals. I fucking hate the fucking motherfuckers. I never wish to see a liberal government ever again in my fucking life.

Re:Non-Confidence Vote Next Week (0, Flamebait)

qeveren (318805) | more than 8 years ago | (#14041470)

Who would you rather have? The Bigotry Party of Canada? [progressivecanadian.org]

Re:Non-Confidence Vote Next Week (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 8 years ago | (#14041532)

The Bigotry Party of Canada? - what a full load of nice stinking BULL SHIT. This is exactly what the briliberals want Canadians to think about Conservatives. This is total bullshit. And to answer your question: I always vote Conservative. On all levels - federal, provincial, municipal. Unfortunately for the past decade my preference did not reflect the majority of the voting Ontario population. Hopefully this will change soon.

Re:Non-Confidence Vote Next Week (1)

nadolph (661727) | more than 8 years ago | (#14041418)

actualy that would be the tax break that they just decided they were going to give everyone but won't be able to anymore,. sure we believe you when you tell us it was coming all along, sure it was. damn liberals. actual, in all fairness it is a democracy. damn Candians, figure your shit out.

on a side note, two elections ago i was pretty sure i would be able to vote next time around but instead it looks like i won't again since i'm not 18 until march.

Advanced technology. (5, Insightful)

Spazntwich (208070) | more than 8 years ago | (#14041138)

Encryption technology is advancing more quickly than technology to crack it. This is just going to force people with something to hide underground.

Like gun laws, this is just feel-good rights-restricting bullshit put out by politicians to pander to the idiot masses. Nobody will benefit in the long run.

Re:Advanced technology. (2)

doyoulikegoatseeee (930088) | more than 8 years ago | (#14041317)

This is just going to force people with something to hide underground. uhhh wouldn't people with something to hide be underground regardless?

Watch what you type (1)

skreeech (221390) | more than 8 years ago | (#14041139)

//Second, law enforcement will be able to compel ISPs to disclose subscriber information, including name, address, IP address, telephone number, and cellphone number.

>this would mean that no Canadian would be anonymous to the law on the internet but who is going to get the attention of police on the internet where they want to check if you live locally?

coincidence? (5, Funny)

Foktip (736679) | more than 8 years ago | (#14041141)

why is it all the nasty canadian bills end in the number "4"?

C64... evil copyright stuff
C74... insane spying stuff

Re:coincidence? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14041162)

What about C-36 "Anti-terrorism Act" .. Canada's PATRIOT Act..

Re:coincidence? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14041185)

More importantly, how did they get this far on only 73 laws? It's got to be bloody anarchy up there.

Re:coincidence? (4, Funny)

whogben (919335) | more than 8 years ago | (#14041284)

Thats because Canada is 90% good guys, and every tenth bill they let their hair down and do something crazy (evil!) Kinda like buy 9 burritos get the tenth covered in evil.

Re:coincidence? (1)

parodyca (890419) | more than 8 years ago | (#14041336)

Actually C-64 is An Act to amend the Criminal Code (vehicle identification number) Bill C-60 is the evil copyright stuff. another good paranoid plot bites the dust. coincidence?

Re:coincidence? (1)

Foktip (736679) | more than 8 years ago | (#14041399)

oh... um... *searches for tinfoil hat*

A new america (2, Interesting)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 8 years ago | (#14041145)

I wish there was an unknown land somewhere, where I could establish a country of my own.

I would have a Constitution that would guarantee the freedome of speech, freedome of thought and would require the citizens to be personally responsible for their lives. Drugs would be legal. There would be no speed limits. There would be no taxes. People could make personal charitable donations to the causes they support and observe their donations being used in a completely transparent way. Everyone would be guaranteed to carry weapons but murderers/rapists would be punished severely and publically.

And in my country, the Constitution would guarantee privacy of individuals and would completely forbid any government system to come to change that. No matter what the reasons for change are: more 'security', more 'protection' etc.

A man can dream.

Re:A new america (1)

skreeech (221390) | more than 8 years ago | (#14041160)

it starts out this way but eventually corrodes over time. Unless the population was kept very small it would only last a generation.

Re:A new america (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 8 years ago | (#14041179)

it starts out this way but eventually corrodes over time. Unless the population was kept very small it would only last a generation. - it never starts that way.

---

I hate seeing the human world becoming a gigantic ant farm - everyone with a purpose, with the power concentrated in hands of a few, controlling the population. But what can I say, most people don't ever stop to think about this. And those who do, don't act.

Re:A new america (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14041274)

But what can I say, most people don't ever stop to think about this.

Sure they do; people are happy to give away their freedom for a quick payoff, or to feel safe from some real/imagined threat. "Bread and circuses" didn't end with the Romans, not by a long shot. And as can be seen with any gun control, anti-drug, or hate speech legislation, the majority has no problem voting away rights that make them feel uncomfortable.

My conclusion? A democracy of more than a few million or so people is doomed to failure, and more generally any large government will begin to concentrate power and turn into an oligarchic bureaucracy.

Re:A new america (1)

skreeech (221390) | more than 8 years ago | (#14041327)

What do you actualy think you can do about this? Propose a realistic way to start your country.

Re:A new america (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 8 years ago | (#14041384)

Realistically? I will need at least a million people to agree on basic principles. Slashdotia anyone?

Re:A new america (2, Insightful)

vodkamattvt (819309) | more than 8 years ago | (#14041265)

There will never be a perfect society where no one has any issues with it, then it wouldnt be a society ... you fight the good fight and society is always in a state of change. We all know that freedom/privacy are at odds with security. It doesnt matter what individuals think, its the collective mass that is pushing for an increase in security. Does it suck? Yes. Will it get worse in the near future? Yes. Will I give up on voicing out against it? No. The pendulum will swing back the other way in time.

Re:A new america (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14041321)

I wish there was an unknown land somewhere, where I could establish a country of my own.
Noble sentiments. Unfortunately, no matter what freedoms or restrictions you set up, your country will generate or attract citizens who will game your system to suit their fears, needs and ambitions. Some will do so in a criminal manner, some in an economic manner and some in a political matter. We aren't all identically programmed with the same morals and level of respect for personal boundaries. We learn them and adjust by assimilating into a society and learning to cooperate with others in it.

Is it possible that, as with power, freedom can corrupt, and absolute freedom corrupt absolutely?

Re:A new america (3, Insightful)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 8 years ago | (#14041328)

require the citizens to be personally responsible for their lives. Drugs would be legal. There would be no speed limits.

When people drive, they are also responsible for other people's lives, wether they realise it or not. Hence the speed limits.

Especially if you're gonna have people driving high on coke.

Anyway, go play nationstates [nationstates.net] , it's free, and fun for a while.

What would happen if... (0, Redundant)

FlyByPC (841016) | more than 8 years ago | (#14041156)

...someone created a government with ONE fundamental right -- the right to individual privacy / self-determination? That is, if permitting an action would restrict others' rights more than it would increase your rights, it's illegal (smoking in public, drunk driving, murder, rape, etc.) If prohibiting it would affect the individual more than others, it's legal (smoking marijuana in the home, practicing religious beliefs or not, etc). And no "victimless crimes". No victim == no crime == no problem, right?

It seems to me that privacy (/ self determination) should be the one fundamental principle of law. But then again, what do I know? I'm a Blue voter in a Red state...

Re:What would happen if... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14041235)

>No victim == no crime == no problem, right?

Define "victim".

I serve you a perfectly good hamburger in my restaurant, you come back later and sue me for making you fat. In your eyes, you're a victim due compensation.

These days, there is no such thing as "victimless"....

Re:What would happen if... (1)

Kattana (635282) | more than 8 years ago | (#14041432)

Nothing stoped me, and nothing is stoping you from living with those principles. Do anything you want as long as it does not harm(adversely affect would be a better more general term) anyone else. Simple and it works, like all the best solutions. It also works wonderfully recursively, anyone trying to harm you by controling you or limiting what you can do is going against it.

promote the general Welfare (1)

chocolatetrumpet (73058) | more than 8 years ago | (#14041493)

I think a lot of the problems people have with government can be traced back to the interpretation of the "promote the general Welfare" part of the constitution.

Let's say the government gives out $500,000 in tax breaks and other benefits to a new business. Then, over time, the business pays back millions back in taxes. Seems like a good move. Promotes the general welfare, right?

But, what people fail to take into account is the psychology of the whole system: when 50% of income goes to the government, and when there are many beneficial social programs for people struggling financially, there is a discincentive to work. This kind of welfare also breeds anger and resentment among the population.

Furthermore, the richest people can afford to hire the best lawyers to find the tax loopholes.

More experiments are needed.

Finally! (1)

yoink23 (880940) | more than 8 years ago | (#14041157)

Hopefully this will cut down on illegal music downloading!

Re:Finally! (1)

skreeech (221390) | more than 8 years ago | (#14041172)

law agencies in canada don't care about music downloading. this seems more for the prevention of real crime.

AMERICA IS A CANCER (-1, Flamebait)

Max Threshold (540114) | more than 8 years ago | (#14041173)

People of Earth, do not allow your governments to be tainted by the cancer of Americanism! Eliminate all aspects of this plague from your public and private lives! Do not allow your children or your leaders to be tempted by the power and wealth of the Harlot of Babylon, the United States of America!

And Now For An Election (2, Interesting)

Foktip (736679) | more than 8 years ago | (#14041184)

Seriously though, i've been reading and thinking about this for some time now (on my blog anways)... and, well, I dont think ANYBODY can afford this! The way things get massively over-priced when the government gets involved, and the sort of price for massive projects like this, the database for such info itself would dry up the allocated spending! Really - and no, they cant pass this onto consumers, because internet is a price sensitive market. People will switch to small carriers who dont have to comply yet... and thus, the other companies wil bitch and wine, and use their corperate power. And we all know that once a strong corperate interest wants something, they really push for it! The big telecoms will probably stop this out of competitive unfairness, and i doubt theyd just change it to be "fair" and force massive costs onto the small providers. Apart from that, the conservatives are bloodthirsty, and the NDP is relentless in their principles - this bill will be the end of the Liberals and the beginning of an election.

Re:And Now For An Election (1)

superpulpsicle (533373) | more than 8 years ago | (#14041469)

The archiving of the packets and such will have to add thousands of jobs to the economy. This is too huge to take on a national scale. Database or a ludicrous amount of log files.

From Communism to Communism (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14041193)

When escaped from Communism to Canada I never thought I will end up in Communism again, 15 years after the fall of the USSR. Something is really, really fogged up here...

Re:From Communism to Communism (2, Informative)

Rod Beauvex (832040) | more than 8 years ago | (#14041214)

The USSR was not Communist. Never was. I beleive the words you're looking for is totilitarian dictatorship. Or soemthing.

Re:From Communism to Communism (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14041269)

USSR "Communist", as USA, Canada the "free world"...
You got it. Totalitarian, or "something". Don't let semantics spoil the big picture.

   

Typical fallacy (2, Insightful)

Spy der Mann (805235) | more than 8 years ago | (#14041400)

"Oh, all the communist states were NEVER really communist! All they did was being totalitarian but they never reached Marx's ideals".

Yeah right. Maybe you guys mean that Communism can never reach Marxism because Marxism is impossible to be enforced without a totalitarian government?

Re:Typical fallacy (1)

TapeCutter (624760) | more than 8 years ago | (#14041500)

Seems to me that ANY extreme political ideology devolves into a totalitarian government in practice. Sad thing is, ideologies closer to the middle ground also seem to be headed the same way.

In any human you will find both the desire to rebel against conformity and the desire to conform. A single ideology will never work for all people but that does not stop meglomaniacs trying to force others to conform to their theorectical nirvana (eg: Iraq, Tibet).

At least we have the 4th amendment (1)

ShatteredDream (636520) | more than 8 years ago | (#14041216)

The same stuff may happen in the US in one form or another, but at least we can point to the 4th amendment and say that the government cannot legally do that.

Re:At least we have the 4th amendment (1)

paulthomas (685756) | more than 8 years ago | (#14041370)

In Canada, they can point to section 8; however, pointing is mostly useless. Sometimes it takes someone to rally people together -- to take a stand against the minority who are hell-bent on creating the means that one day will be used for the perpetration of injustice.

It is not only this legislation, and it is certainly not a phenomenon confined to one country. Sadly, I can think of no truly "shining city upon a hill" where this is not a significant problem -- where such affronts to individual freedom are met with due force and disgust.

Re:At least we have the 4th amendment (1)

qeveren (318805) | more than 8 years ago | (#14041492)

I'd rather point to Section 9, and have a group of elite paramilitary cyborgs 'disappear' annoying politicians... ah, one can wish...

Heh, minority government... (2, Interesting)

Goalie_Ca (584234) | more than 8 years ago | (#14041218)

It's a minority government and we're about to head into an election. Then when things resume there will be "more important" issues.

Shame on Canada (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14041268)

They always copy the Americans, this is an extention of the "not so patriot canadian act".

Be on the lookout for similar "POLICE STATE" laws (2, Insightful)

ElectroBot (554775) | more than 8 years ago | (#14041279)

Just because we (Canadians) have a minority government that is troubled with a scandal doesn't mean that we should let our guard down. If it fails now (which it most likely will), doesn't mean that they won't try to create a similar or possibly worse bill later one.



"One should not allow even a drop of civil rights or human rights to be sacrificed ... every bit you lose, the oppressor gains." Sivaram Velauthapillai

Re:Be on the lookout for similar "POLICE STATE" la (1)

Tontoman (737489) | more than 8 years ago | (#14041316)

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- http://www.ushistory.org/franklin/quotable/quote04 .htm [ushistory.org] Ben Franklin

Re:Be on the lookout for similar "POLICE STATE" la (2, Insightful)

ElectroBot (554775) | more than 8 years ago | (#14041477)

The thing is that we (Canadians) feel a lot safer than the average American because the World has a better opinion of our country, our foreign policy and we have a system of government that's less prone to corruption (RIAA-/MPAA-/3-letter agencies/etc. bought politicians). Unlike the average American we prefer our privacy, annonymity, and the highly unlikely risk of a "terrorist attack", rather than have the ILLUSION of safety.

directly proportional (1)

doyoulikegoatseeee (930088) | more than 8 years ago | (#14041291)

more surveillance, more repression, more terror, more violence, a society of citizens afraid of each other

Damn Canada... (1)

Jesselnz (866138) | more than 8 years ago | (#14041312)

Good thing we don't have dumb laws like this in the good ol' US of A.

Some of the reasons they have... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14041331)

could be related that some web sites are hurting the canadian immigration scam and they want to spot the culprits to throw them out of the country, if they still live there of course.

Some sites are:

http://canadaimmigrants.com/ [canadaimmigrants.com]
http://notcanada.com/ [notcanada.com]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism#Canada [wikipedia.org]

Money talks and lawyers need bigger and fancier stuff, sure they will fight for it.

Re:Some of the reasons they have... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14041371)

could be related that some web sites are hurting the canadian immigration scam

[Finishes gut busting laughter]

Yeah, that's what they're really after: They want to catch a couple of malcontent "you owe me!" immigrants who forsook even basic research or community investigations and came to Canada, expecting a free ride in a competitive capitalist economy (an economy where lots of home-grown natives can't get jobs in their trained profession).

To put it simply: DON'T LET THE DOOR HIT YOUR ASS ON THE WAY OUT. Get the fuck out of the country and take your whining and bitching with you. Remarkably I know quite a few immigrants who have done spectacularly, and their children will do even better without the language and culture issues. But nonetheless the Toronto Star keeps egging on these quacks that think they have a god given right to prosperity, regardless of shit language, or the fact that Canadian business has learned (the hard and painful way) about the laughable "Training" that many foreign groups provide. If we don't trust your training, it's because we've been stung many times before by the B.S. paper mills that exist in countries like China.

Shame on Canada! (1, Funny)

Eli Gottlieb (917758) | more than 8 years ago | (#14041350)

Times have changed,
People are getting worse.
They won't obey FOX News, and
They just want to hack and blog.
Should we blame the media?
Or blame society?
Or should we blame the RIAA's lawsuits? NO!
Blame Canada! Blame Canada!

With their beady little eyes,
Their flapping heads so full of lies.
Blame Canada!
Blame Canada!
We need to form a full assault, it's Canada's fault!

Don't blame me, for my son Stan.
He saw the darn porno and now he's off to join a gang!
And my boy Eric once,
Had my wallpaper on desktop,
but now when I see him he tells me to fuck myself.

Well, Blame Canada!
It seems that everything's gone wrong since
Canada came along.
Blame Canada!
Blame Canada!
They're not even a real country anyway.

My son could've been a doctor or a lawyer it's true!
Instead he burned out as an OSS evangelist.
Should we blame the keyboard?
Should we blame the screen?
Or the Slashdot which he read every day? Heck, no!

Blame Canada!
Blame Canada!
With all their free-speech precedents and that bitch Anne Murray too. Blame Canada!
Shame on Canada!

The smut we must stop,
The trash we must smash,
Laughter and fun,
must all be undone.
We must blame them and cause a fuss,
Before somebody thinks of blaming us!

It will never pass. (2, Informative)

iamghetto (450099) | more than 8 years ago | (#14041372)

The Liberal (as in the party in power) government in Canada is close to be being brought down. Inspite of the Liberal's opposition, a no-confidence motion should be put on the table and passed by the end of the month. While the bill will still be introduced, once the government falls the bill will die before it has a chance to be written into law.

While I'll hate the upcoming election, I'll enjoy this law not being passed.

Re:It will never pass. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14041508)

It is time that quebecers make our own contry and keep your damn laws you fucking canadians! Keep your constitution wich I spit uppon.

Il est temps, que nous, quebecois faisons notre propre independance putain de canadien anglais! Garder vos lois et votre constitution sur laquelle je crache.

Chance to have lunch with the Minister Responsible (2, Informative)

darnvader (693357) | more than 8 years ago | (#14041382)

For any of you in the Calgary area: The University of Calgary Liberal Association is having their annual fundraiser on November 23rd. It includes, as one of its silent auction items, a chance to have lunch with Deputy Prime Minister Anne McLellan, the Minister responsible for this legislation. Tickets can be bought online. [albertayoungliberals.ca]

Re:Chance to have lunch with the Minister Responsi (1)

RichiP (18379) | more than 8 years ago | (#14041460)

I'm from Calgary and I'm sorry to hear that. I'll definitely consider going.

Re:Chance to have lunch with the Minister Responsi (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14041530)

Hunh? What Albertan would pay to have lunch with a Liberal? Besides Harry Hays (who's dead).

Must be those car-people immigrants from Ontario, searching for their piece of the Heritage Fund.

Meh. So I'm a Troll. At least I've still got my self-respect.

you still Movin' to Canada? (1)

Douglas Simmons (628988) | more than 8 years ago | (#14041395)

I hope people realize that all countries are not at all immune to Patriot Act-like behaviors. The next time you feel embarrassed to be an American, you start eating freedom fries and pouring out your beaujolais, think about Canada. Canada!! Now it's Canada that's pulling this crap, how random. We are not getting Fed in the A nearly as hard as many of you contend.

All the choices suck! (1)

farrellj (563) | more than 8 years ago | (#14041411)

If I thought that kicking out the current government was going to change things, I would be all for it..but there is a good change that the PQ, or the so-called Conservatives (aka the reheated Reform Party) would end up in charge, and neither of them are any better than the Liberals, and are probably much worse. Must be time to join the NDP!

ttyl
          Farrell

Scared C-60 won't pass? (2, Interesting)

saskboy (600063) | more than 8 years ago | (#14041414)

The Copyright Act ammendments in C-60 include wiretap rules for ISPs I thought? Maybe Heritage Canada is getting antsy that they can't slip it through, and want to shove it in with a quicky bill before parliament collapses in a couple weeks? It seems unlikely that they could do it what with 3 readings being required, but the real danger is that when the Liberals or Conservatives get back into power after the election, it will just go through then. I've seen nothing from the Conservatives that they'd work against these bad bills, and they are the only realistic governing alternative if the Greens or NDP don't get swing seats.

what are the real reasons behind this? (3, Interesting)

bzipitidoo (647217) | more than 8 years ago | (#14041425)

TFA nicely dissects the given reasons as wrongheaded thinking to outright b.s. What organizations sponsored this horror? MPAA/RIAA? The Security Industrial Complex? Could be revealing to learn which lawmakers sponsored this and who their biggest political donors are.

Candian politics (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14041426)

Monitor this, you socialist Canadian wackos:

Monitoring in a free society. [wikipedia.org]

Oh Canada! (4, Funny)

slashbob22 (918040) | more than 8 years ago | (#14041445)

Oh Canada!
My online spying land!
Telco intercept at CSIS's command

With packet sniff and account info
The True North now South and "free"

From net and mobe,
Oh Canada, we foil(*) our heads for thee.

ISAKMP our tunnels to the free(**)
Oh Canada, we foil our heads for thee

Oh Canada, we foil our heads for thee!

----
*
a) Tin Foil - Aluminum Foil [mit.edu] has been shown not to work.

**
a) Patch to avoid DOS [theinquirer.net]
b) Avoid tunneling to the US [epic.org] or China [opennetinitiative.net] both have stronger anti-communication laws


Canadian Government Information Site [psepc-sppcc.gc.ca]

Fear is King (2, Insightful)

aeoo (568706) | more than 8 years ago | (#14041480)

"You have nothing to fear but fear itself."

Just wondering... SSH? (1)

Sleeping Kirby (919817) | more than 8 years ago | (#14041506)

Just wondering... does canada have that anti-reverse engineering law? I know it doesn't apply to government officials but... Doesn't SSH solve everything here? (let that be a lesson to all you kids. If you want to be a hacker or pirate DVD's for a living, be a law enforcement officier. You'll get away with it because you suspect they're breaking the law by encrypting the content. I mean... if you're not doing anything, you have nothing to hide, right?)
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?