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 Bill C-416 to Require Wiretapping

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 7 years ago | from the big-brother-to-the-north dept.

Privacy 228

Matthew Skala writes "Bill C-416, recently introduced in the Canadian Parliament, would if passed require Internet providers to provide wiretapping facilities to law enforcement — without a warrant, and with 'confidentiality' requirements reminiscent of the secret-spying cases we've seen recently in the States. This new Act is a reprise of last Parliament's C-74, which failed when the Government's term ended. Coming back as a Liberal "private member's Bill" in a minority government, it will have little chance of success without cross-party support; but with the Conservatives in charge, all bets are off if they can find a way to claim it's about terrorism or child pornography."

cancel ×

228 comments

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

IN SOCIALIST CANADA (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18496761)

ISP spy on YOU!

IMPORTANT MESSAGE TO QUEBEC (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18496901)

Please separate ASAP.

-Taxpayer

IMPORTANT MESSAGE TO QUEBEC (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18497285)

Please separate ASAP.

-The rest of Canada

Re:IN SOCIALIST CANADA (0, Offtopic)

FlyByPC (841016) | more than 7 years ago | (#18497649)

ISP spy on YOU!

No, no, no.

It has to be ironic. Otherwise, we'll just annoy the Anti-Soviet-Russia-Meme mods (and there are a LOT of them, trust me!) I wanted to mod you up, just to promote the Soviet Russia Meme. Really I did. But first of all, you're an AC, so what's the use? Also, (more importantly), where's the irony, comrade?

In Soviet Russia, Beowulf clusters of Anonymous Cowards imagine *you*!

where (5, Insightful)

mastershake_phd (1050150) | more than 7 years ago | (#18496785)

If this keeps up where am I going to go when the USA is a police state? Canada? No good, Britain same over there. How about France?

Re:where (1)

creimer (824291) | more than 7 years ago | (#18496789)

Try Mexico. Just bring enough money for bribes... uh, charity.

Re:where (5, Funny)

maxume (22995) | more than 7 years ago | (#18496965)

Mexico. The affordable police state.

Re:where (1)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 7 years ago | (#18497153)

Not since NAFTA passed. Now it's just a police state with nice weather. And since the whole world is becoming a police state, just base your decision on where to live on the climate.

Private-members' bills almost never pass (2, Insightful)

dsanfte (443781) | more than 7 years ago | (#18497167)

Private members' bills almost never come up for a first vote, let alone a second or final one. They almost never pass. I can count on one hand the number of these bills that passed in the last parliamentary session, and they were mostly ceremonial.

This has no chance.

Re:Private-members' bills almost never pass (1)

slashbob22 (918040) | more than 7 years ago | (#18497303)

Private members' bills almost never come up for a first vote, let alone a second or final one. They almost never pass. I can count on one hand the number of these bills that passed in the last parliamentary session, and they were mostly ceremonial.

This has no chance.
Is that the left or right hand? You never know with the Conservatives^W Alliance Party.

Re:Private-members' bills almost never pass... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18497535)

Conservatives^W Alliance Party

Is there such a thing as a neo neo con?

Cowardice (1)

TheVelvetFlamebait (986083) | more than 7 years ago | (#18497357)

Since when has this kind of cowardice enveloped Slashdot? Most of us live in a democracy. Hell, if you are living in China, run away, but if you are in a democracy, you vote to change your circumstances. Hell, if it got this way, and it ain't changing, maybe that's what people want (or at least, can tolerate). What makes you think that anywhere else won't go the same way?

Re:Cowardice (1)

Ced_Ex (789138) | more than 7 years ago | (#18497725)

Have you realized that politicians will lie and cheat their way to a seat by putting on a face for their voters. Once in, they switch their voter promises to their own personal agenda. By then, it's too late, you voted them in, and the pass laws in your confidence. You can only wait four years before you get the chance to vote them out. Of course, the damage has already been done.

Re:where (1)

slughead (592713) | more than 7 years ago | (#18497549)

How about France?

France is much worse but at least they're realistic. France is basically a police state. It grants citizens rights on a piecemeal basis. That way, their version of the Patriot Act is just taking rights away from citizens that they were 'lucky' to have been 'granted' in the first place. People bitch less when their rights are taken when you convince them that they were only on loan beforehand.

Sad part is, I'm only lying about half of that. Can you guess which half? I think you'll be pleasantly surprised!

Re:where (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18497865)

In europe, there are people with machine guns everywhere. Police state? I believe so.

We're at the point (1)

MePhuq (941622) | more than 7 years ago | (#18497921)

where, the reality of a person being either of the "threats" used to endorse this law is so rare, that, either they'll never be found out, OR, they fucking will be. no amount of technology is going to nip anything in the bud, one person is random and 99.9 percent of the time, containable. That which can't be contained is planned. My point is even if the bill is passed the snoops will misinterpret and misconstrue virtually all the information they acquire if this law is passed. Anyone remember Kurt Russell in Used Cars, where he basically has to make enough money to get a seat in Congress in the United States. I mean, anyone can be a politician and if there is anyone who shouldn't be around powerful technology, it is politicians. This law is another case of losers losing hard, I almost want this stuff to happen just to prove how stupid it is, and not to mention usefuckingless for anything other than the shits and giggles of future civil servants, the karma being created from spying is going to be awesome for those initiating it. I would imagine no one here will find any of what i've typed useful...tough and more importantly, your welcome.

Who can reach 1884 first? (2, Insightful)

Blue Shifted (1078715) | more than 7 years ago | (#18496787)

It's like Canada, the UK, Australia, and the USA are in a race to reach full Orwellian Status before anyone else does. I don't get it either; these are all supposed to be FREE countries.

Re:Who can reach 1884 first? (2, Informative)

mastershake_phd (1050150) | more than 7 years ago | (#18496801)

It's like Canada, the UK, Australia, and the USA are in a race to reach full Orwellian Status before anyone else does. I don't get it either; these are all supposed to be FREE countries.

What was wrong with 1884? Slavery was over, prohibition hadnt happened yet. Great scientific strides where being made.

Re:Who can reach 1884 first? (1)

JimDaGeek (983925) | more than 7 years ago | (#18497013)

Slavery was over
Yeah? And what do you think the quality of life was for a black person in America in 1884? Could they vote? How many could own land and really enjoy the freedoms that a white American had in 1884? Trust me, I am not some Green Party-type dude. I just don't think 1884 was the best year for all Americans if you happened to have darker skin.

Re:Who can reach 1884 first? (1)

gripen40k (957933) | more than 7 years ago | (#18497751)

I think he meant 1984 [wikipedia.org] :P

Kinda a big difference there...

Re:Who can reach 1884 first? (1)

creimer (824291) | more than 7 years ago | (#18496815)

What makes you think that any of those countries are free? You still have to pay for beer.

Re:Who can reach 1884 first? (2, Funny)

theshowmecanuck (703852) | more than 7 years ago | (#18496923)

home brew kit = open source

Government and political recap (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18497115)

Privacy is a privilege, not a right. What they say in politics about privacy as a right, they are simply selling a sales pitch to the citizens. You are not entitled to privacy, freedom, or any other government given item.

Re:Government and political recap (2, Insightful)

andymadigan (792996) | more than 7 years ago | (#18497291)

...and thousands of years of democracy go down the drain.

We're entitled to everything, we give up some things to ensure safety and equality. How much we give up is also up to us, or at least it is supposed to be. To say the opposite is to invite totalitarianism, which is the proper word for what most people mean by 'communism.' A society without freedom can happen no matter what you call your government or what the idiots in office preach.

Stopping the government from doing stupid things (in the absence of a reliable voting system) means protest. Protest means organization. The right to assemble is protected by the first amendment. To nullify this right you only need two ingredients: the ability to investigate and detain any criminal without oversight, and a policy of 'those who speak against the government in wartime are criminals.' All surveillance without oversight does is make it easy to assume everyone is guilty without actually saying it. We punish criminals by taking their rights and freedoms, the purpose of the criminal justice system is to way the potential for taking the rights of the innocent versus the public interest in taking the rights of the guilty.

We are in yet another endless war, millions of our people won't die, so no one will think to do anything to stop it. Instead yet more of our rights will be lost, and our country will start looking even more fundamentalist. We added "under god" to the pledge to respond to 'the evil communist atheists.' What will we do to respond to 'the evil terrorist muslims?' Maybe we'll put a crucifix on the flag, or on the Great Seal. It's true that symbolic actions like this take away no one's rights, but they contribute to a culture of intolerance, which is exactly what is intended.

Re:Government and political recap (1)

guabah (968691) | more than 7 years ago | (#18497439)

Privacy is a privilege, not a right. What they say in politics about privacy as a right, they are simply selling a sales pitch to the citizens. You are not entitled to privacy, freedom, or any other government given item.

Good thing there's this little clause Article II of my local(Puerto Rico) constitution

Section 10. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated. Wire-tapping is prohibited. No warrant for arrest or search and seizure shall issue except by judicial authority and only upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons to be arrested or the things to be seized. Evidence obtained in violation of this section shall be inadmissible in the courts.

What? Some states forgot to put anything like this? It's time to start demanding that from(at least) your state government

Re:Government and political recap (1)

da_yingyang0 (1048770) | more than 7 years ago | (#18497659)

News flash, Bush's wiretapping program was illegal/unconstitutional but that didn't stop him or anyone in the government from doing it. What makes you think Puerto Rico is any different?

Re:Who can reach 1884 first? (1)

Dan541 (1032000) | more than 7 years ago | (#18497385)

Yes FREE for the goverment to do what ever they want. We are heading backwards rapidly these days.

Re:Who can reach 1884 first? (1)

prod-you (940679) | more than 7 years ago | (#18497651)

Freedom has been outsourced to India!!

Editorial comments...bleh (5, Insightful)

frazzydee (731240) | more than 7 years ago | (#18496829)

Please, can we stop editorial comments like this: "but with the Conservatives in charge, all bets are off if they can find a way to claim it's about terrorism or child pornography."

Okay, I know Conserviative-bashing has been "the cool thing to do" in Canada for a while, but at least look who introduced the bill: "Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce--Lachine)." Click on her name, and you'll see she's part of the LIBERAL party. Believe it or not, the liberals have been responsible for a lot of crap too- stop blaming the Conservatives for every little thing that goes wrong up here.

Re:Editorial comments...bleh (3, Insightful)

koreth (409849) | more than 7 years ago | (#18496859)

Try reading the summary again -- it does in fact say pretty clearly that the bill was introduced by a Liberal.

Re:Editorial comments...bleh (2, Insightful)

ZakuSage (874456) | more than 7 years ago | (#18497173)

Exactly. It just so happens that Harper was once a champion of freedom, privacy, and Libertarianism. While some of that luster may have worn off, he still remains generally opposed to infringing on privacy, big-government, and censorship.

Re:Editorial comments...bleh (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18498045)

How is harper a libertarian? Sucking usa tit is not libertarian.

Re:Editorial comments...bleh (1)

mrbluze (1034940) | more than 7 years ago | (#18497445)

I know Conserviative-bashing has been "the cool thing to do" in Canada for a while

It's the cool thing to do pretty much everywhere, but so is Liberal-bashing (it's really just Politician-bashing) and I for one think it's a very healthy sport.

But in my experience, the only difference between Liberals and Conservatives is that you know what you're getting with Conservatives (they tell you), but the thing about Liberals is you get exactly the same thing, except you think you're getting something nice instead.

The Liberal and Conservative parties are the same. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18497485)

Click on her name, and you'll see she's part of the LIBERAL party. Believe it or not, the liberals have been responsible for a lot of crap too- stop blaming the Conservatives for every little thing that goes wrong up here.

There's very little difference between the Liberals and Conservatives. It's much akin to the situation in the US, where the Democrats and Republicans are essentially identical on virtually all issues. It's not surprising, really. Politicians from both major parties, both in Canada and the US, get much of their funding from the same corporations and industries, so they're beholden to essentially the same interests.

If the Conservatives come up with shitty legislation, the Liberals would have come up with something just as bad. If the Liberals come up with shitty legislation, the Conservatives would have come up with something just as bad. Again, that's because they're essentially the same party. They take virtually the same stance on all major issues. It's too bad most Canadians (and Americans) are too stupid to see this.

So it's not a matter of defending the Conservatives or the Liberals. It's a matter of realizing that both are complete rubbish, and neither party is to be trusted to do good.

Re:The Liberal and Conservative parties are the sa (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18497647)

In the U.S. the difference in republicans and democrats is subtle but palpable...

They're both going to anally rape you, but at least the democrats are going to put it in slower, maybe try to get you to relax first... If they are a so called "progressive" democrat, they might even apply some astroglide.

you know ... (4, Interesting)

boxlight (928484) | more than 7 years ago | (#18496843)

Canadian speaking.

but with the Conservatives in charge, all bets are off if they can find a way to claim it's about terrorism or child pornography

It's comments like this that I find really anti-productive -- why do you assume that just because the current government is conservative that it's *not* about terrorism or national security?? Believe it or not, we conservatives are not interested in invading your private space, go live your life and have fun -- but we DO care if you die in a terrorist bombing or if your kids get raped and photographed by some perv.

Believe me, I don't want to live in Nazi Germany, but I don't want to die in a subway bombing either. Let's stop the partisan stuff and find a balanced solution.

Re:you know ... (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18496899)

The Conservative Party of Canada believes that fictional words can qualify as "child pornography" just the same as photos of actual child-rape. For that reason, I can't consider the Conservative Party of Canada to have any legitimate place in a democratic system, and I wouldn't put much else past them.

Re:you know ... (1)

dsanfte (443781) | more than 7 years ago | (#18497145)

You don't agree that someone writing "fictional works" about the raping of children, for sexual pleasure, is someone who deserves to be, at the very least, monitored? That isn't exactly a healthy behaviour. Come on man, use common fucking sense. I think we can tell the difference between a serious literary work and a perv's fantasy literature.

Re:you know ... (2, Funny)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 7 years ago | (#18497191)

You don't agree that someone writing "fictional works" about the bombing of government offices, for pleasure, is someone who deserves to be, at the very least, monitored? That isn't exactly a healthy behaviour. Come on man, use common fucking sense. I think we can tell the difference between a serious literary work and a nut job's fantasy literature.

Re:you know ... (1)

dsanfte (443781) | more than 7 years ago | (#18497215)

Yeah, because political views, which change often and rapidly over a lifetime, make a great analogy to something as ingrained and sick as a sexual interest in the rape of small children.

Re:you know ... (3, Insightful)

IgnoramusMaximus (692000) | more than 7 years ago | (#18497329)

You don't agree that someone writing "fictional works" about the bombing of government offices, for pleasure, is someone who deserves to be, at the very least, monitored? That isn't exactly a healthy behaviour. Come on man, use common fucking sense. I think we can tell the difference between a serious literary work and a nut job's fantasy literature.

Sentiments like these are of course the wet dream of every would-be-fascist out there. Because there is really no way to tell if someone who expressed violent thoughts about some politician or business-feudal-lord actually means it or is just venting. Not until an act of violence is commited, which is the actual crime. Any attempts at "pre-emption" inevietably lead to persecutions of all of those who express "sufficiently extreme" thoughts against the ruling elites. Following which everyone becomes "careful" (read: terrorized) about what they say and write. Following which the rulers announce that they know that the "extremists" (who hide under every bed by now) are "secretly" communicating and thinking their "violent desires". And after that comes Gestapo, Stasi, KGB etc.

You see the problem with your thinking is that you missed the fact that "fictional works" are simply recordings of thought. And once they become subject to monitoring and abuse by the authorities (who after all only want to protect us poor sods from the evil terrorists who hide in every closet) so do the thoughts in your head. As Orwell predicted with frightening foresight.

Re:you know ... (1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 7 years ago | (#18498329)

You missed the parent comment.

Re:you know ... (1)

IgnoramusMaximus (692000) | more than 7 years ago | (#18498427)

Yes I did. Your sarcastic one (I assume it was sarcasm referring to things Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly and other wingnuts had said over the years) was so close in appearance to the original that somehow I ended up clicking on the wrong reply link. Sigh.

Re:you know ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18497277)

So only serious literary work deserves to be protected under free speech. Interesting.

Re:you know ... (2, Insightful)

fyngyrz (762201) | more than 7 years ago | (#18497355)

You don't agree that someone writing "fictional works" about the raping of children, for sexual pleasure, is someone who deserves to be, at the very least, monitored?

No. Works of fiction, fantasy, and straight reporting — in any medium, for any purpose — are not indicative of either "unhealthy behavior" or even an unhealthy tendency towards such behavior. Nor is the consumption / appreciation of such works. It is also worth noting that the production of such works may have an agenda that 100% aligns with yours, that is, carries a message that is entirely anti-sexuality for children and/or teenagers.

However, I would view your outlook as incredibly unhealthy for society at large, and for art in general, and by art, I mean creative works in any medium.

For the record, I was absolutely appalled by the content of your post. You'll note, however, that I neither suggest you need monitoring or that you be repressed. I'm simply appalled by your thinking, which as far as I am concerned has stepped beyond "think of the children" and well into "abuse the adults."

Re:you know ... (1)

dsanfte (443781) | more than 7 years ago | (#18497925)

No. Works of fiction, fantasy, and straight reporting -- in any medium, for any purpose -- are not indicative of either "unhealthy behavior" or even an unhealthy tendency towards such behavior.


I wouldn't rely on it as a primary, absolute signal that a person is trouble, but it should raise a few flags in combination with other things (especially past complaints about the person, or a relevant criminal history). It could very well be a clincher in the police's decision to label someone like that a "person of concern".

Re:you know ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18497711)

No, I don't agree. Freedom of expression is the cornerstone of democracy, and to deny it in the name of protecting "freedom" - which is what they do - is disgusting no matter what the content of the expression.

Re:you know ... (3, Informative)

IgnoramusMaximus (692000) | more than 7 years ago | (#18496937)

Believe me, I don't want to live in Nazi Germany, but I don't want to die in a subway bombing either. Let's stop the partisan stuff and find a balanced solution.

While I agree that the sick-in-the-head "Sociopathic Authoritarian" syndrome is by no means confined to the Conservative Party, there is no such thing as a "balanced solution" when an ability to conduct automated mass surveilance of citizens is concerned. And let's not kid ourselves here, this is precisely the Holy Grail of both police forces and the "intelligence" communities.

All of course in the effort to "protect" us from that hypothetical "ticking bomb" which blows few of us up every ... well .... a few decades or so. But it will certainly stop all those fat old geezers looking at their hand-drawn child-porn cartoons, otherwise they would go right out and abduct all of our children. Think of the children!!!

Re:you know ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18496945)

A balanced solution . . .

That sounds a little too close to find a compromise to me. As an American speaking here, I don't like the idea of compromise having anything to do with my liberties. When it comes to my privacy and my liberties, there are no compromises. Otherwise you just have some nutjob saying "let's videotape people everywhere doing every thing every second of the day for the sake of the children and to prevent terrorism" and then some spineless twerp on the other side of the fence responding with "how about if we compromise; we'll videotape people only in their living rooms and bedrooms but not their bathrooms".

A little at a time.. compromises lead to massive erosions.

And all of this on the non-issue of terrorism. It sure is a good boogieman!

Re:you know ... (3, Insightful)

TheGavster (774657) | more than 7 years ago | (#18496995)

Dying in a subway bombing would suck, but how many people have really gone that way? You're probably about as likely to be smothered in your sleep by your first grade teacher (how was *I* to know she would take the snake in the drawer so hard and ruin her career?!). I would even go so far as to say that the number of innocents destroyed by the false accusations total information would bring would outnumber the victims saved. Bring on the terrorists!

Drop the Orweillian scare tactics (0)

cowwoc2001 (976892) | more than 7 years ago | (#18497099)

I would even go so far as to say that the number of innocents destroyed by the false accusations total information would bring would outnumber the victims saved. Bring on the terrorists!
Prove it. Stop pulling numbers out of your ass. I keep on hearing these Orweillian predictions left and right but the fact of the matter is that the only Orweillian states in existance today at in the Middle East and Russia. These are the very states producing and arming terrorists and I find it ironic that you claim that "bad things will happen" if we allow wiretapping when in fact historically they never happened this way. How many democratic countries have slipped into a totalitianism as a result of wiretapping? ... I count zero.

Totalitian states might uses wiretapping but wiretapping does not transform a nation into a Totalitian state.

Re:Drop the Orweillian scare tactics (1)

IgnoramusMaximus (692000) | more than 7 years ago | (#18497221)

These are the very states producing and arming terrorists and I find it ironic that you claim that "bad things will happen" if we allow wiretapping when in fact historically they never happened this way. How many democratic countries have slipped into a totalitianism as a result of wiretapping? ... I count zero.

You mean you will actually wait until the Liebenstandarte Richard Perle SS Division is marching down the 5th Avenue to concede the point? Because there is at least one formerly-democratic country which already ceased to be the shining city on the hill for the rest of us and now features routine torture while it does no longer feature quaint little things like habeas corpus. In that country its "intelligence" agencies and "police" conduct mass surveilance of the citizenry based on its political views, with no warrants or oversight, going as far as to send unercover agents to infiltrate opposition groups from Quakers to peace organisations in Canada in Europe. But then again, the Republican National Conventions do not yet boast marches with torches. I guess we should therefore slumber contently. Nothing to worry about whatsoever here. Right?

Re:you know ... (4, Insightful)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 7 years ago | (#18497065)

but we DO care if you die in a terrorist bombing or if your kids get raped and photographed by some perv.

      No, you care if YOU or a loved one dies in a terrorist bombing, and you care if YOUR kid gets raped and photographed by some perv. Spare me the bleeding heart. And please, if you're so concerned, then make damned sure we make those people we PROVE to have commited those crimes as miserable as possible, so that other idiots might think twice about doing something like that.

But leave ME the fuck alone. Thank you.

Re:you know ... (2, Insightful)

JimDaGeek (983925) | more than 7 years ago | (#18497243)

Amen brother/sister. To bad I already posted in this topic or I would mod you up. I cannot stand the "we want to protect you" mentality. I served in the U.S.M.C. I joined because I wanted to help my country and possibly to defend the freedoms of my fellow Americans.

That was back in 1991. I have yet to see anything that has threatened Americans freedoms more than our own government.

Re:you know ... (1)

MrMista_B (891430) | more than 7 years ago | (#18497323)

So, uh, you don't care if kids get raped or terrorists kill people?

I guess that says more about you than the people you're condemning.

And I'll have you note, that this wiretapping bill we're discussing is a "Liberal" initiave, NOT a Conservative one.

Who are you wanting to leave you alone again?

Yeah, that will discourage those suicide bombers.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18498213)

Wait a tic....

Re:you know ... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18497231)

riiiiight, no partisan stuff, unless it is stephen harper accusing liberal parliament members of being terrorists with no proof, then that's ok!

FYI, i refuse to give up my liberty for safety. i would rather risk the miniscule chance that i will be killed by a dumbass terrorist than run the guaranteed chance that the police will be able to scan everything i do on the internet without a warrant

Re:you know ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18497249)

Let's stop the partisan stuff and find a balanced solution.

Why yes, we're absolutely right. Let's "negotiate"!

Instead of stabbing you 8 times in the kidneys and leaving you in a ditch to die, I'll only stab you three times and leave you a block away from the hospital. An American Hospital! Mwhahaha!

But seriously, when you've gone off the deep end into unquestionable and warrantless wiretapping, why do you assume that there is some kind of "balanced" solution, other than teaching your kids not to take candy from strangers, setting up a password so that they know the guy who claims that he was sent by their mommy to pick them up from school is bullshitting, and maybe even have them take tae-kwon-do or some other self-defense course? All that and more is already available and doesn't take some cop spending my tax money to find out what his wife is saying when she spends her day chatting on the phone with her bridge partners.

If I had kids, I'd be willing to bet my ability to keep them safe while they're children and teach them to keep themselves safe as they grow that the government will never be able to show that their secret wiretapping is actually getting any results other than making a few officers really rich on "hot stock tips" from spying on some CEO's line. And when they've grown and have kids of their own, they'll likely do the same instead of becoming whiny useless brats crying for the government to protect them from the bogeyman under their bed.

Re:you know ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18497383)

Believe me, I don't want to live in Nazi Germany, but I don't want to die in a subway bombing either. Let's stop the partisan stuff and find a balanced solution.

Do you really fear dying in a subway bombing? You seriously get on the subway and think to yourself "Man, I hope they don't blow this up today"? I hate to break it to you, but there are about a trillion more likely ways that you're going to die, and almost none of them involve "terrorists". You're more likely to catch the flu from the guy sitting next to you on the subway and die from that. It's more likely that some AIDs infested drug addict will leave a syringe on your seat, it'll prick you, and you'll die from that. You're more likely to trip on the stairs, break your neck, and die from that.

Think about the word terrorism next time your quivering in fear on the subway. They're not called terrorists because they want to kill you. They're called terrorists because they want to scare the shit out of you and ruin your way of life. Every time you agree to give up rights because you're scared of the infinitesimal possibility of a terrorist attack, the terrorists win, by definition.

Re:you know ... (1)

geobeck (924637) | more than 7 years ago | (#18497395)

What I want to know is, what Tory paid this Liberal to bring up this political-suicide bill so soon before an election? Or maybe Dion is trying to get her thrown out of the party so he can put a hand-picked candidate in Notre-Dame-de-Grâce-Lachine.

Re:you know ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18497627)

What I want to know is, what Tory paid this Liberal to bring up this political-suicide bill so soon before an election?

Conservatives don't need to pay off Liberals to do stupid things. They manage quite fine on their own.

Re:you know ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18497867)

I wish it were a political-suicide bill.

Partisanship = Problem! (1)

Cordath (581672) | more than 7 years ago | (#18497415)

1. Libs introduce bill that is bad for privacy.
2. Libs lose an election and the Cons take over.
3. A liberal reintroduces said bad bill as a private members bill.
4. We should fear the backwards conservatives?

One thing we've seen a lot of in american politics lately is unreasoning partisanship. If it's bad, stupid, evil, etc. it's something the "other party" would do, never yours. I really hope this sort of thinking doesn't become too prevalent in Canada. We certainly watch our Southern neighbors enough to learn from their mistakes rather than repeating them.

Perhaps a better question to ask is why the mod's didn't immediately flag the original post as flamebait? If you replace liberals and conservatives with Democrats and Republicans it would have been a no-brainer for them.

Re:Partisanship = Problem! (1)

compro01 (777531) | more than 7 years ago | (#18497701)

4. We should fear the backwards conservatives?

no. it just means that i will be watching this bill very closely in case it gains conservative support, which i don't feel is completely out there.

there are few things i fear more than a bill like this gaining majority support.

if it does get the Tories support, my MP is gonna be getting a bag or two full of mail.

Re:you know ... (1)

FFFish (7567) | more than 7 years ago | (#18498015)

The cops already have plenty of legal means to accomplish all the wiretapping that is necessary.

If they are on an active case, they'll have little difficulty getting permission to tap appropriately.

They do not need the ability to tap indiscriminantly and without supervision.

Re:you know ... (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 7 years ago | (#18498223)

I'm sorry, but I don't agree. In my opinion, scare tactics are not an excuse to infringe on privacy without a warrant. Any law enforcement agency that doesn't want judicial or legislative oversight should not exist, and legislatures should not give that up.

That oversight by an independent power is necessary to reduce the amount of abuse of power. I'm saddened that the US system of checks and balances has gone terribly awry. It's a good idea that shouldn't be bypassed though the use of scare tactics. If the system of getting a warrant is too slow, then maybe a system can be instituted to speed it up without giving up proper independent oversight. If there isn't enough evidence to get a warrant, then tough cookies to the investigator, we shouldn't be encouraging or allowing crime fishing expeditions in the name of terrorism or children.

Crime happened even with oppressive totalitarian regimes, so surrendering liberties for a certain amount of (IMO false) security isn't helpful.

Heck, terrorism isn't a major cause of death in the developed world and never has been, at least for a long time. Terrorism is only a problem for the developed world because people get needlessly freaked out about it.

Yuo Fail It (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18496855)

she had nno 7ear platform for the EFNet servers.

Eh? (3, Funny)

piGeek31415 (1054990) | more than 7 years ago | (#18496861)

I can see it now... giant portraits of a mustachioed man, their captions all reading "Big Brother is watching you, eh?"

crypto (4, Insightful)

delirium of disorder (701392) | more than 7 years ago | (#18496897)

When are people going to start using basic encryption (or better yet onion routing and strong anonymity)? There are technical solutions that make all this surveillance useless. We must implement steganographic techniques too so that there's no way to block the crypto.

Re:crypto (1)

IgnoramusMaximus (692000) | more than 7 years ago | (#18497003)

When are people going to start using basic encryption (or better yet onion routing and strong anonymity)?

Then of course this dumb bitch or some other Psycho Authoritarian (at the urging of ever-power-hungry Socopathic Authoritarians who inhabit "police" and "intelligence" communities) will introduce bills outlawing encryption and steganography in possesion of those nasty, unruly peons, otherwise known as sheep-citizens. Or introduce some other brain dead scheme involving escrow keys or presumption-of-guilty-until-proven-innocent if a stream of random bytes longer then 10 is found anywhere on your computer.

These people are simply sick in the head. They must have some sort of boogey-man against which they "protect" us by demanding that we give them absolute power over us and meekly accept their fascist rule. All the while exclaiming how grateful we are for the "freedom" this will grant us.

Re:crypto (1)

heyyou_overhere (1070428) | more than 7 years ago | (#18497131)

slippery slope much??

Re:crypto (2, Informative)

IgnoramusMaximus (692000) | more than 7 years ago | (#18497347)

slippery slope much??

No. But history much. These regulations already exist in Britain and France.

Re:crypto (2, Interesting)

garcia (6573) | more than 7 years ago | (#18497071)

When are people going to start using basic encryption (or better yet onion routing and strong anonymity)? There are technical solutions that make all this surveillance useless. We must implement steganographic techniques too so that there's no way to block the crypto.

We can't get people in the US to care enough to vote against politicians who are interested in curtailing freedoms. Hell, these people WANT to be "protected". You think that we are going to get them to start learning to use software to protect against something that they have been brainwashed into believing they want?

These are the same people that buy a new computer to stop their spyware problem instead of installing Firefox and some other simple software to stop it. Yeah, not gonna work.

Re:crypto (1)

JimDaGeek (983925) | more than 7 years ago | (#18497183)

So whose encryption do we use? Some closed source, proprietary "solution" from Microsoft that has been "approved" by the government? If governments (USA in my case) can send people to jail for sharing a freaking music file, what do you think they can do to outlaw "unauthorized" encryption?

I personally use GnuPG. [gnupg.org] However, how hard would it be for a government to outlaw any "non-approved" encryption implementation?

I am not trolling here. I am just trying to point out that if "we the people" come up with some good encryption, the government will try to find a way to stop it to "protect us".

Re:crypto (1)

js92647 (917218) | more than 7 years ago | (#18497263)



(b) if the intercepted communication is encoded, compressed, encrypted or otherwise treated

(i) in cases where the service provider has applied the treatment, either remove the treatment or, if the treatment cannot readily be removed using the telecommunications facilities controlled by the service provider, provide the authorized person with the means to remove it, and

(ii) in cases where the treatment has been applied by another, either remove the treatment or, if the service provider does not control all the means necessary to remove it, provide the authorized person with the means -- other than transmission apparatus -- for removing the treatment that the service provider controls;

Liberal in USA vs. Liberal - Maybe OT? (1)

JimDaGeek (983925) | more than 7 years ago | (#18496979)

Ok, I was born-and-raised in the good old USA. However, from reading many net sites, I seem to have gotten the impression that "liberal" in the USA is _very_ different than other parts of the world. Is this true? Would a liberal government in Canada be similar to one in the USA? How about a liberal government in Sweden? Or a liberal government in ...?

Please, my non-American blokes, enlighten us Americans. :-)

Re:Liberal in USA vs. Liberal - Maybe OT? (1)

saforrest (184929) | more than 7 years ago | (#18497177)

Would a liberal government in Canada be similar to one in the USA?

Well, the main issue is that we have a political party in Canada called 'the Liberal Party', which is what was referred to in TFA. As that is their name, that is almost exclusively what is meant by the word "Liberal" in Canadian politics; when we must talk about a "liberal" political position independent of the party, we typically say "small-L liberal" (as opposed to "big-L Liberal", connected with the party).

So you need to make clear whether you're referring to the party or "liberalism" whatever that is (which can be anything from nineteenth-century laissez-faire liberalism to the modern conception of a social infrastructure).

In any case, regardless of the definition chosen it would be hard to compare, because the U.S. hasn't had a liberal government (in the small-l modern sense) in a quite a while — at least not since Carter, and probably well before — and isn't likely to have one any time soon. Certainly the policies of both Clinton and Obama are very far from what passes for liberalism in the rest of the Western world.

Re:Liberal in USA vs. Liberal - Maybe OT? (1)

eosp (885380) | more than 7 years ago | (#18497205)

We used to be about the same, but the party platforms have been reversed.

In theory, conservatives support small government and freedom. They did for a while, but no longer do. Their bases now are morality, justice, and security.

In theory, liberals support a large, protectionary government. But it has been them that has not gone with Bush.

Confuses me too.

Re:Liberal in USA vs. Liberal - Maybe OT? (1)

FrivolousPig (602133) | more than 7 years ago | (#18497239)

Canada is the bizarro USA, our conservatives are more like your liberals, they do what they say (lower taxes for the poor ect) and our liberals are more like your conservatives (steal millions and somehow get away with it every time)

Re:Liberal in USA vs. Liberal - Maybe OT? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18497269)

Ok, I was born-and-raised in the good old USA. However, from reading many net sites, I seem to have gotten the impression that "liberal" in the USA is _very_ different than other parts of the world. Is this true? Would a liberal government in Canada be similar to one in the USA? How about a liberal government in Sweden? Or a liberal government in ...? Please, my non-American blokes, enlighten us Americans. :-)
Not knowing much about the American system, I will try to explain what liberal in Canada means. Mostly, liberals are about anti-privatization and giving minorities special rights (this can be disputed as I don't consider gay marriages "Special", just two people getting married.) Liberals are usually the party that will support bills to strengthen national health care, and trying to defeat most bills that promote a two-tier system. But as of late (the last 6 years or so), they have become progressively more conservative. From my point of view, there aren't any differences between conservatives and liberals anymore, but technically they are supposed to represent the near center of the political spectrum (Maybe a smidgen to the right). Basically, Liberals normally try to put personal freedom and security over economic freedom. Don't take what I say as fact, I am only a 25 year old kid. That being said, I am going to email, and write a letter to my MP (Who is Liberal) and tell him how i feel once I have given the bill a read over.

Re:Liberal in USA vs. Liberal - Maybe OT? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18497371)

Around here in Finland, Liberal parties are a minority, but they have a strong opinion of personal freedom. The thoughts are liberal. They want to break monopolies bring new ideas. It's so far from your opressing goverment it can be. They wanna give me options. Freedom, and a non 6000 year old earth.

m10

Awww, no! (1)

Edis Krad (1003934) | more than 7 years ago | (#18496999)

all bets are off if they can find a way to claim it's about terrorism or child pornography
Don't give them ideas!! =/

WTF?? (4, Insightful)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 7 years ago | (#18497019)

The government is not allowed to read my mail without a warrant.

      The government is not allowed to listen in on my phone without a warrant.

      Why the hell should they be allowed to read my internet packets without a warrant?

Re:WTF?? (5, Insightful)

IgnoramusMaximus (692000) | more than 7 years ago | (#18497135)

Why the hell should they be allowed to read my internet packets without a warrant?

Because the Internet is today the one truly democratic medium of choice of the citizenry. The Authoritarians' inability to read you mail comes from the fact that in the day where letters were the democratic medium of the citizenry, those citizens were willing to fight and die in the battle with the Psychopathic Authoritarians who have always desired to monitor and spy on everyone. This battle has to be re-fought each time the progress of technology changes our modes of communication just as each new generation of these Sociopaths will try again and again to enslave us.

A Liberal bill? (2, Insightful)

flyingfsck (986395) | more than 7 years ago | (#18497063)

This is a Liberal bill and the author wishes to peg it on the Conservatives?

Well, duh...

Re:A Liberal bill? (1)

dsanfte (443781) | more than 7 years ago | (#18497185)

No shit, the submitter is a Liberal (or troll) painting the Conservatives with their own bill's brush! What a joke.

This story should be modded -1 Troll.

Re:A Liberal bill? (1)

wytcld (179112) | more than 7 years ago | (#18497427)

No, it's a bill from a Liberal that the author is afraid the Conservatives may find their own twisted reasons to fancy. If the Conservatives don't fall to that, it's clear the author would be more than pleased with them for it.

The meta-point is that Liberal or Conservative, Democratic or Republican, Labor or Tory, the question of which party will claim the mantel of true liberty is wide open in the Anglo world. In the US, a large portion (by no means all) of the Republican Party has embraced government intrusion, and the Democrats may be showing themselves just smart enough to pick up the Independent/Libertarian vote by embracing the cause of a return to Constitutional rights. Meanwhile in Britain, it's the Liberals who've gone all fascist, and the Tories who just may be waking up to the opportunity this gives them to play the liberty card and regain pertinence and power.

Canada? Oh Canada! Fascinating question whether the historically left or right will become the liberty-aligned there. My frank urging is, as it's more important than anything else, vote for whoever, locally, is the true friend of liberty. Because without liberty, the difference between left and right is only the difference between Stalin and Hitler - meaningless finally.

Re:A Liberal bill? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18497431)

in case you missed it, the Liberal party has a wide variety of leftist, moderate and rightist views

the conservative party, on the other hand, basically represents the ultra right wing financial interests of alberta and toronto, and ignores everyone else

Re:A Liberal bill? (1)

fyoder (857358) | more than 7 years ago | (#18498187)

This is a Liberal bill and the author wishes to peg it on the Conservatives?

Well, after the kafuffle, the Liberals were supposed to have eschewed evil. So this bill being introduced by a Liberal sets up a kind of cognitive dissonace.

I live in Canada, so I can't threaten to move there. Some of the Northern European countries seem nice, but so cold, even for a Canadian.

How Convenient (1)

Sloppy (14984) | more than 7 years ago | (#18497079)

That sounds very convenient and practical. What could possibly be the downside to handing government such awesome power?

It wont pass (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18497111)

It wont pass for two reasons. One, the three other (very liberal) parties wont let it happen and two, it's a private members bill.

You can tell it's a private members' bill because of its high number, in a majority parliament situation a double digit numbered bill (c-16 c-42 etc) will pass, PMB's rarely pass.

Here is a list of the current PMB's:
http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HouseBills/BillsPrivate.asp x?Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=39&Ses=1/ [parl.gc.ca]
As you can see there are hundreds of them to be considered with this one being at the end of the line.

I highly doubt this will ever be voted on in legislative session in this session of parliament.

Re:It wont pass (1)

heinousjay (683506) | more than 7 years ago | (#18497189)

Shhhhh. Don't bring a voice of reason into a political discussion on Slashdot. You ruin it for those of us who live for the intellectual elite doing their version of Jerry Springer.

Re:It wont pass (1)

Gillibiabtiag (1018030) | more than 7 years ago | (#18497209)

Despite this, the fact that it's even being considered is a little bit worrying. That, added to the seeming flurry of other such bills into Parliament, is starting to really worry me.

No Money Allowed (1)

rustalot42684 (1055008) | more than 7 years ago | (#18497267)

The other thing is this: a Private Member's Bill is not allowed to spend money. You can't have a PMB to increase funding for so-and-so, but you can declare April 4th "Slashdot Day". See the difference? PMBs are rarely significant, but they can occasionally be important, such as this one, or the one which forced the government to live up to its legally binding Kyoto targets.

Canadian History Lesson... (1)

RexRhino (769423) | more than 7 years ago | (#18497319)

For those Americans who think Canada is just the benign happy friendly country to the north, look at what happened during Canada's October Crisis (in which only about 6 people were killed in terrorist attacks).

Pierre Trudeau invoked the War Measures Act, sent in military troops to occupy Canadian territory, rounded up and detained hundreds of people without pressing charges, banned a political party, and the RCMP carried out hundreds of illegal searches and wiretaps.

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?P gNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0005880 [thecanadia...opedia.com]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_Crisis [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Measures_Act [wikipedia.org]

Americans look at Canada's more lax drug laws, or them allowing U.S. draftees to escape to Canada during the Vietnam war, and think that must be how the Canadian government must be about everything... but the Canadian government can be pretty damn ruthless. There was full-on military style domestic counter-insurgency operations being conducted on a huge scale in Canada in most people's lifetime. George Bush could only dream about getting away with some of that stuff in the United States.

I will not be shocked at all if this legislation passes. Far crazier stuff has gone down in Canada's recent past!

Re:Canadian History Lesson... (1)

compro01 (777531) | more than 7 years ago | (#18497773)

yes, that is not one of my particular favorite parts of our history, but you have to look at things that happened afterwards.

for starters, said war measures act no longer exists and was replaced by a more limited version, as your linked article mentions.

also, said powers were temporary, in the real sense, unlike certain other US laws i could mention.

Re:Canadian History Lesson... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18497945)

Quick, bash the US before people realize all countries are equally shitty!

Oh, you already did. My bad.

Re:Canadian History Lesson... (1)

syncrotic (828809) | more than 7 years ago | (#18498395)

The United States has a similar history of grossly violating citizens' rights in the past century: the McCarthy era, COINTELPRO, Japanese internment, MKULTRA, the Tuskegee experiment, etc.

It seems to me that a lot of the stuff they pulled off in past generations wouldn't be accepted today; it's hard to believe, but maybe we've actually made advances in civil liberties over a relatively short period of time. We're much better at watching the government; but then, the government has become much better at ignoring us when we try to protest its excesses. So I guess what we've really accomplished is that the abuses are more subtle and less likely to directly impact the life of the average person... a rather hollow victory.

Not a chance. (1)

Pig Hogger (10379) | more than 7 years ago | (#18497635)

We are going to have federal elections within the next six to eight weeks. So this bill will die, and will not be ressucitated before a fair number of months.

Could this be any more partisan? (2, Insightful)

Excelcia (906188) | more than 7 years ago | (#18498321)

"...but with the Conservatives in charge, all bets are off if they can find a way to claim it's about terrorism or child pornography."
Could this be any more of a partisan statement? Please, pass on the information about the bill, pass on who is introducing it, and the history of past attempts at this type of legislation. But please, kindly credit me with enough intelligence to be able to come up with my own opinion on the government in power. Keep the blatantly partisan editorializing out, thank-you kindly.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>