Canadian Government Weary of Patriot Act

IllogicalStudent writes "An article on canoe discusses how the Canadian government is moving to counter worries surrounding Canadian citizens' privacy being compromised by the United States' Patriot act. Apparently the FBI currently has the right, through Patriot, to search documents which may contain Canadian information sent to US firms carrying out work under contract. Thankfully, privacy still means something up here."

Comments

Just goes to show

[alexwcovington]

When you get paranoid, your friends suffer more than your enemies...

Re:Just goes to show

[MarkRose]

I don't see how this applies here. First, the US wasn't being paranoid when they implemented the USA Patriot act -- it was simply a police-state power grab.

Canada, on the other hand, has every right to be concerned. Perhaps our "paranoia" will bring more attention to the issue in the us, helping our friends to the south out.

Re:Just goes to show

[SenseiLeNoir]

Something us brits are learning the hard way. I wish the British government had the same sort of backbone as the Canadian goverment.

The Canadians have a lot to loose if any tension occurs between them and the US, far more than the British, yet they have been able to stand their ground well, whilst still maintaining the level of co-operation with the US, unlike our "sell out" government of Teflon Tony, who seems to totally ignore the British public.

And aside point, initially the British public didnt exactly say NO to the invasion of IRAQ, just that we were concerned about HOW it was going to be done. When our voices were not being heard, thats when many people decided to do towards the anti war message, in order to poke our government into action.

Does this mean

[Timesprout]

We can expect to see a massive farting extravaganza as Terence and Philip sort out the US?

s/Weary/Wary/

[franl]

'nuf said.

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[gowen]

I crossed from the US to Canada once, (I'm a Brit) and the toughest question the Canadian authorities (represented by a young female border guard) asked me was "Do you know you have the loveliest accent?"

Canadians rule.

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[SenseiLeNoir]

Seconded...

I am also a brit, and the one thing i really love about Canada is the way it merged the Best of Britain, America and Europe into a country.

It is certainly intresting how Canada is more socialist than even Britain sometimes, and its a good thing, when you also see how its run, and the kind nature of the people.

I am not dissing Americans either, American citizens are really nice too. But I see the attitudes of the people not nessasarily reflected in aspects of the administrative procedures, which really can ruin a hoilday by a tourist.

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[gowen]

If you think that a functioning welfare state providing a safety net for the poor constitutes state socialism, and think that having to register gun ownership is an infringement of your basic human rights ... I recommend that you move to the USA.

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[TheRaven64]

Do you really think that owning a firearm protects you against a police state? Honestly? The amount and type of firepower available to the US military are so far in excess of those available to the civilian population[1] that you stand no chance at all if the military were to be used to quell a popular uprising. Not to mention the fact that it is far more likely that a modern totalitarian state would rely far more heavily on the control of information than the control of firepower (dead people don't make good serfs, after all).

[1] Unless I'm mistaken and you can own IR / RADAR hybrid missiles, and your own SDI system and nuclear deterrent.

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[lphuberdeau]

I think your forgetting about the hundreds (thousands?) of billions the US has in debt for various reasons, including the Bush wars.

Canada has debts too, because they decided at some point to develop infrastructures and improve life quality of the citizens. Now they are trying to pay it off.

Did all those bombs bring you inner peace?

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[qw(name)]

You forgot one:

Borderline socialist state

Free speech is systematically being taken away from the people. Far more so that here in US. When a person can be legally arrested for being "politically incorrect" a huge red flag should go up. Unfortunately, that's the direction the US is headed...

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[Anonymous Coward]

You probably don't want to hear it, but you're probably best off in the US with your stated priorities.

Canada: Even after the last few years, the US has much stronger free speech protections than Canada (and if anything the gap is growing). You're also already aware of their gun laws. Not sure what the school system is like.

Australia: Gun laws would probably rule it out for you (makes Canada look like the Wild West). Otherwise fairly free, and a decent school system.

New Zealand: If you're considering Canada, consider NZ. Better civil liberties, similar gun laws, decent school system (especially at a secondary level, rather less so at university level).

Britain: Uh, no. The gun laws of Australia, the free speech issues of Canada, an odd mania for CCTV cameras in public places, and some nasty security laws for bonus points. Plus some nice structural issues - the details of how the recent fox hunting ban was passed are depressing. Oh, and the educational system is decrepit and bankrupt. Lovely.

US: Good gun laws. Very strong civil liberties. Awful secondary education system. *shrug* 2/3 ain't bad. (And as for the draft - dude, seriously, there's this great new interweb thingy you should check out. Start with google.)

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[packeteer]

They attacked the WTC because it was a shining example of freedom, but they hate all christians, and intend to kill us all. no matter how cowardly you are, or where you run and hide.

Bahahahaha... riiiiiight...

Who knows why they attacked the WTC but i would guess thats not why. Maybe it was beucase it was the symbol of their oppression. A symbol of our power over them? They do not hate all christains. They do not want all christains dead. Look at some of the laws put in place in Iraq and other countires with the purpose of raping their economy so a few thousand people sitting in towering office buildings can get rich.

I find it conveniant that you talk about your family as having fought in every war. Thats very nice and all but i would like to think that we dont give any extra credit to someone's opinion ebcuase of what their family did. What if your family owned slaves? Should that follow you everywhere?

BTW nice job calling "Muhamad (ewww) Ali" a coward, nice touch.

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[packeteer]

Well keeping your guns is less of an actual deterant to an oppressive government and more of an indicator of when one is happening. A million armed people trying to start an uprising can be put down with far less disinformation and media control than fighting them back. This doesn't mean that guns should be banne either becuase obviously once the bill of rights starts getting overturned thats a sign as i said before. So basically keep your guns but please stop acting as if they will really do anything. As for the grandparent if oyu really want to keep your kids safe you might have to give up those guns. Sounds pretty lame but it sounds like what your facing.

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[j0e_average]

Are you kidding? Canada had the opportunity to get the best of three countries...the technology of the US, the culture of the British, and the cuisine of the French.

Instead, they ended up with the culture of the US, the cuisine of the British, and the technology of the French!

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[Monx]

Remind me again how DS1 had anything to do with our freedom.

Also, don't forget which "freedom loving" nation put Hussein in power and gave him the only WMD he ever had. How many dictatorships have we established over the years?

Have you ever heard of the School of the Americas? The US is directly responsible for most of the torture and brutality that went on in Latin America in the 20th century. I have family on the receiving end of the results of those wonderful lessons in "freedom."

I don't beat up random people, that does not make me a coward. Learn some history before you go shooting your mouth (and your guns) off again.

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[InsaneGeek]

Actually the US has just as good a safety net for the poor (I've read a number of articles that the say $ quantity of support is even more), but it's the middle class in the US is where they remove the support. From a state benefit perspective the poor aren't in a bad shape, the people on the lower-middle class bracket are where the safety net end in the US and continues in Canada (med bills, mortgage, layoff, etc for this non-poor but non-wealthy group can get painful)

And you also have to register your gun in the US too.

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[gowen]

the US remains the last truly free country.

Unless you want to:
i) pay for sex
ii) smoke marijuana
iii) marry (or have a legal union with) someone of your own gender
iv) implement a number of simple mathematical algorithms in software
v) have a telephone conversation without risk of government surveillance
vi) travel internally on an aeroplane without ID....

I could go on. The US is the the last truly free country, as long as you define "free" as "free to do those things the government, in its wisdom, allow you to do".

Exactly like every other Western Democracy.

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[hodet]

" Canada has ridiculous gun laws. I guess they only want their violent criminals to own guns. They are well on the way to outlawing Christianity through BS 'hate crime legislation.' Love or hate the Patriot Act, the US remains the last truly free country."

Dude, you need to stop getting all your information from Fox News.

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[mtrupe]

You didn't respond to the gun law legislation and outlawing of certain religions in Canada.

I'll take what little remains of my religious freedom and stay in the US.
http://fromthemorning.blogspot.com/

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[Rod Beauvex]

Your ancestors were wussies!


I'm so sick of hearing "You're a coward for moving to Canada". Get a new mantra.

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[schon]

Very strong civil liberties

You mean like the right for gays to marry the person they love?

You crack me up sometimes.

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[TOWebstress]

Don't forget being able to freely file-share music in Canada. It's protected under the law here.

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[Anonymous Coward]

You didn't respond to the gun law legislation and outlawing of certain religions in Canada.

Gun law is only an issue in the USA, where a lot of people are afwaid the nashty gowwerment's gonna come and take all their ickle toys awway. Outside the USA nobody gives a fuck about whether you need a permit for a gun or not, because it doesn't make the slightest difference to their life.

Only in the USA is "owning a gun" considered a more important human right than the rights to life, a fair trial, etc.

As for the "outlawing of religions"... what the fuck are you smoking? Nobody has outlawed any religions in Canada. Not even Christianity. "Hate speech" legislation does not prevent Christians from saying "Muslims worship a false god and we believe they will spend an eternity in hell". It merely prevents Christians from saying "kill all the Muslims so they'll get to hell sooner". That's not outlawing anyone's religion.

It might theoretically be considered "removing a freedom". But it's just as easy to argue that a Muslim's fundamental right not to be the target of hate speech is just as deserving of protection as a Christian's "fundamental right" to say things that no sane person would consider it reasonable to say.

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[Aeron65432]

And if you think that the government should decide where you go to school, where you get your healthcare, and what you should do with your money, I recommend that you move to Canada.

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[InadequateCamel]

We don't have less guns in Canada, we are frigging gun nuts! The difference is that we tend not to use them on each other, as indicated by the homicide rate in my province (typically around 1 per capita)

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[autophile]

as indicated by the homicide rate in my province (typically around 1 per capita)

Uh... wouldn't that mean everybody's dead?

--Rob

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[GaepysPike]

I really hate to throw more fuel on this "us-versus-you guys" debate, but....

You mean no one told you about how our economy is doing WAY better than yours!

This comment is totally bunk. But according to the numbers, the size, producing power, and sheer stability of the U.S. economy is several times that of Cananda (in fact as far as producing power, greater than all of Europe put together). Across all the provinces of Canada, the employment rate is solidly above 7.0, in BC actually up at 8.2. (that's compared to 5.2 in Dec 2004 for the U.S).

Your personal income tax rates are through the roof (up there with us in fact, which says something), and what do you have to show for it? It certainly isn't helping your failing socialized health-care system you guys love to brag about (it's deep in financial problems, and for what? The quality of care is significantly lower than here in the U.S: Here.)

And finally...

WTF does politics have to with economy

It's funny that we are the inept ones here... go take an economics course, throw in some poli-sci for good measure, and come back when it finally dawns on you that ALL these issues are intimately connected to politics.

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[Dr.Zong]

Canada does not have "ridiculous" gun laws. I own six personally. To get a gun you have to go on course, nowadays they call is the "Firearms safety course" it teaches you basic gun safety for all long guns, at the end you write a test, you pass the test - you can buy guns with your new license. The license is renewable without further testing. You want handguns, you stay a little longer in the course for the "Prohibited" weapons part, you write a second test, now you can own handguns.

To go Hunting, you need to go on a hunting course, it's called "Hunter Safety" and among other things teaches you about different types of wildlife, how to tell them apart from other wildlife, how to protect yourself and how to avoid shooting other people. You pass the course, you get a license. Pretty simple.

Since we do not allow concealed weapons here in Canada, in order to use your handgun you have to have a range membership and transport is only allowed between your place of residence and the range. That isn't that bad. Up here we use long guns primarily for hunting, and there are no further travel restrictions on those except they have to have trigger locks and be out of sight at all times while travelling. It's not that big of a deal really.

What people get into a hff about is the new "Registration" for guns. It's a little stupid, you have to pay the gov't $25CDN to buy/register/transfer a gun to your name. They then send you a little paper with the serial number (if it's a serialed gun) and make/model/calibre. You haver to carry this paper at all times in case the feds (not the provincials) decide to stop you and question your ownership... Again, not that bad.

Now, if you have over 15 guns the RCMP (feds) can show up at your door at any time and ask to inspect the gun store and ammo store and make sure you are doing things correctly. Again, I own six, I do not find this fifteen limit "surprise raid" thing an issue.

I don't like the feds knowing about each gun I own, but it's not that big of a deal, I use them for hunting, not for causing some armed rebellion.

If anyone has issues about the information I provided, I can provide links if I have to. But anyone who lives in Canada and actually knows the law, and is affected by it knows what I wrote to be true.

Anything you need to know can be found here or here. As for freedom of religion, your issues about "Hate Crimes" are blown way out of proporation. The issue you are referring to is basic civil righs and equality for all. Gay bashing is not a sport, and the churches have this issue with it. I myself have no problems with gay marriage - Canada is founded on freedoms for all, not just freedoms for the church - if the church wants to do something, fine - don't let it infringe on another minority's rights. The issue is the heads of church basically defaming the gay population which is against the law and the rights of gays are held in the same light as say, the rights of jewish people, or arabs not to be defamed or whatever by any other group.

In Canada we protect the rights of everyone, even if some groups like it or not. Seriously, do you think being a Christian gives you the right to bash gays? If you do, you have some predjudices that need to be worked on buddy.

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[crunk]

Oh really? What is going on in Iraq? We have far superior technology than they do, and they are still able to keep an insurgency going.

And I can tell you have never been to the southern U.S. I live in N.C. and I could tell you without a doubt the rednecks around here would not give in without a fight. Hell, if we were even invaded by another country they wouldn't make it past the Outer Banks let alone places like Georgia and Alabama. Dude, I'm talking _serious_ rednecks.

Remember how the British were crushed by the Americans in the War of 1812 in Louisiana? Andrew Jackson was able to assemble a militia from common men who used their personal rifles.

An armed populous is not such a bad thing.

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[issachar]

For the record I am a Canadian citizen and I am in Canada. (Specifically in Coquitlam sitting at home posting to slashdot because having a cold sucks). The question is whether or not I have broken the law. Maybe I have, but if I have, then it is an unjust law.

I'm not a church leader, but does that make a difference in this case? If it's legal for me to say something, shouldn't be legal for someone else to say the same thing? More to the point, how many people have to think I'm worth listening to before I'm a "community leader"?

I think you have good motivations, but you cannot protect society from hateful ideas by criminalizing speech. Bad ideas need to be confronted and destroyed by better ideas.

Emotional & Mental hurt are not on the same playing field as physical hurt. And people should never be granted the same protections from "emotional hurt" as they are from physical hurt. This is because "emotional hurt" is entirely in the mind of the "victim". This is not to say that it's doesn't exist. It does, but it's not subject to outside quantification the way physical harm is. Punching people in the face is easily identified as physically hurtful & violent. The impact of words depends on who is listening.

Participation in society requires people to understand the "sticks and stones" sing-song. Names do hurt, but you can't protect people from names without dreadfully harming the free intercourse of ideas essential to a functioning democracy.

You're right that hate has no place in society. But you can't legislate hate away. Hate needs to be met my love & ideas. Pushing it into a hole just allows it to fester and grow.

Weary or wary?

[illtron]

So are they weary or wary? A little copy editing goes a long way, you know.

Re:Weary or wary?

[MarkRose]

They're just too weary to be wary about nary a nitpick.

Land crossing question

[DrXym]

Do Canadians get fingerprinted and photographed at the border like all us other foreign criminals?

I wonder how many terrorists this amazingly intrusive and expensive system has actually caught.

Re:Land crossing question

[alexwcovington]

Not yet, but foreign nationals and dual citizens living in Canada have to get tagged at the crossing. The way Dubya acts, I'm surprised they haven't broken out the chickenwire yet like they did on the Mexican border.

Re:Land crossing question

[MarkRose]

What are you talking aboot? We don't talk like that, eh! So take off, ya hosehead!

Re:Land crossing question

[DarkBlack]

No one will ever know. All that has to be reported is the number of times they have requested and the number of times it was granted.

At least before they had to have some sort of probable cause, now all they need is one word - terrorism.

It's interesting because I got a big long winded letter from one of my senators explaining why he voted to erode my rights, and that he didn't think that the act eroded constitutional rights. I guess he missed that part about probable cause in amendment IV of the Bill of Rights. Go figure.

For your information, this was Senator John Warner from Virginia.

Re:Land crossing question

[brettlbecker]

Don't think for a minute that the PATRIOT act is about actually catching criminals. Of course, in order to catch a criminal, an actual law has to be broken first, and this act sorta just steps to the side of that little point...

But that's not the issue. The PATRIOT act is simply a control-through-fear technique. Keep the masses in fear of 1) an outside power - the terrorists 2) the structure designed to remove 1) - the law ... mix together and you have a cycle of fear-relief-fear-relief ad infinitum. Oh, and it helps to have such a compliant media, and it REALLY helps to have such a heavily sedated public. And as a bonus, the government can basically collect any information it wants about any member of the public. Just for future... consideration. It really is Orwell-worthy... if only he could see it actually come to fruition.

Oh, and about the numbers of criminals that have been caught under this law? I dunno, but the number of convictions as far as terrorism goes is exactly ZERO. Nice job there, Ashcroft!

B

Re:Land crossing question

[bug]

Let's get some perspective on this. Other countries are not exactly the bastion of privacy that they are made out to be on Slashdot. It is common in Europe that you need to present identification when checking into a hotel. For foreigners, they usually make a copy of your passport. This information is then kept for later use or forwarded to the police so that they can then (you guessed it) track you.

Re:Land crossing question

[sgant]

Exactly. It's a world of fear....not just a nation.

We were better off when we had the Soviets and Communism to fear. Back then, the media was pretty much under control and not the fear-spewing idiots they are now. But after the fall of the Soviet Union, there was nothing really to fear for a short while....the politicians didn't have anyone to rally against, the media didn't have fear-laden headlines to sell commercials and papers.

It's a fiasco now...with terrorists behind every tree, global warming melting the entire Earth, liberal media vs. conservative media....dogs & cats living together: MASS HYSTERIA!

Re:Land crossing question

[smchris]

I read just the other day that there is a pilot program to "tag and release" Canadians at a couple ports of entry using RFID.

http://news.com/States+to+test+ID+chips+on+forei gn +visitors/2100-1039_3-5552120.html

Re:Land crossing question

[Skater]

Ashcroft? Remember, both Democrats and Republicans voted for this act.

Re:Land crossing question

[UnHolier than ever]

Actually, crossing the american border as a canadian is quite funny. I was in Logan airport recently on a flight from Paris. The line-up was awful, everyone single person got interrogated and fingerprinted, included families with children, until it was my turn. I had filled all the papers they gave me in the plane (which takes a long time!) but when the border agent saw my passport, he basically said "Oh, you're canadian! You don't need this! Welcome to America! Next!!!". That felt nice...until I realised all that other people had to go through. Honestly, it's too much.

Re:Land crossing question

[TGK]

Nice with the Ghostbusters ref, though I doubt many people got it.

You're 100% right, for a number of reasons. First off, our security was threatened a great deal more by the Soviet Union than by international terrorism.

There are reports (which I've cited on /. before, but I'm too lazy to find right now, go find them yourself if you care) that the Soviets had gone so far as to install a small low yeild warhead in the basement of their embasy in DC so as to pull off a decpitation strike if things ever got really bad. I belive this was during the Nixon Administration.

The World Trade Center sucked, and so does the so called war on terror, but the casualties of the cold war are staggering by comparison.

Vietnam: 58,000 Dead
Korea: 33,000 Dead
WOMD Pointed At Us: 55,000

Compare to the War on Terror where casualties have been measued in the thousands and there remain no WMD pointed at us.

The Bush appologists will tell you this is because of the superior quality of the US military in this war, and the continued dominance of the US as a the last remaining superpower.

They might be right on that second point. Just as the school bully generaly fairs better picking on a 1st grader than a HS Senior, so also will the US fair better picking on Iraq or Afghanistan than China or Russia.

We're blowing this out of proportion. Terrorism is a threat, yes, but a threat to be compared to other fiarly innocuous problems throughout American History. Terrorism is like the 21st century's version of the 19th Century's Mexican War.

Weapons of Mass destruction are still terrifying, but as long as a superweapon can be smuggled into our cities in the bloodstream of a legaly documented traveler... what can we possibly do? It's time calm down, get our wits about us, and face the world.

Unfortunately, we've just elected a witless redneck to another four years of marioneting by Dick Cheney, Dark Lord of the Sith.

Is there any room up in Canukistan?

Re:Land crossing question

[strider44]

Compare to the War on Terror where casualties have been measued in the thousands

That is misleading and/or incorrect. The correct statement is: Compare to the War on Terror where American casualties have been measued in the thousands

Re:Land crossing question

[damian cosmas]

"Don't think for a minute that the PATRIOT act is about actually catching criminals."

Unless I'm very much mistaken, it's actually about taking powers the government already has (and which require court orders) under RICO and FISA, and allowing them to be used as investigative tools (again with court orders) against terrorists, instead of just gangsters and spies. In other words, catching criminals.

"Oh, and about the numbers of criminals that have been caught under this law?"

More importantly, can you give me the number of people whose civil liberties have *actually* been violated (N.B. not those who "felt" they were violated) under specific provisions of the PATRIOT Act?

Re:Land crossing question

[strider44]

Why? Don't you think if you kill the mother, father, children and siblings of a person they'll be slightly pissed off? I'd say a person of that situation with a personal reason to attack a country would be more of a danger to security than someone who's politically motivated, as were the Soviets in the Cold War. However, when you kill hundreds of thousands of civilians, you quite easily make a personal grudge out of just about anyone.

I wonder how the number of US Soldiers that were killed by Iraqi Military doing their job contrasts to the number of US Soldiers that were killed by Iraqi Civilians.

Re:Land crossing question

[mtrupe]

Okay- how about this. I own a gun. I enjoy target shooting. Its a hobby and its fun. Are you telling me I shouldn't be allowed to do this? You think more government should tell me what I can and cannot own? Are you nuts?

Should the government ban everything that has the potential to be dangerous.

Freedom is dangerous, so I guess we should ban freedom altogether.

People like you scare me.

Re:Land crossing question

[FungiFromYuggoth]

The Lancet article was a peer-reviewed estimate of Iraqi civilian casualties since the invasion as around 100,000 as of the fall of last year. Based on the statistics, the true number could be between 5,000 and 200,000, but the highest probability was around 100,000.

The methodology was to compare the rate of deaths before the war and the deaths after the war. If someone dies because Bechtel can't manage to get sewage treatment back on line, that counts as a death related to the US invasion just as surely as a cluster bomb dropped on a house full of civilians.

Note that the WaPo article gets the other casualty count sources wrong - Iraq Body Count is tracking confirmed casualties in the Western media. They acknowledge that they are definitely undercounting, simply because the Western media is not present at all locations where bodies are found.

A sizeable chunk of Iraqis would actually prefer life under Saddam to the current lawless situation. Not all, not even most, but more than you'd like.

The choice between what Bush is doing and Saddam is a false dichotomy. Last year, a majority of Iraqis wanted the Americans to leave immediately - even those who felt that it would increase violence. Apparently, the Bush administration knew better.

Whether or not the initial invasion's benefits outweighed its costs (for the US or the Iraqis), the question about the current occupation is entirely separate.

Given the extremely high turnout for last weekend's elections, I'd say that the question has been rather eloquently answered, don't you?

Not really; the turnout was less than in South Vietnam in 1967. Anyway, how many of those Iraqis went to the polls to vote the Americans out?

Pity about those Iraqi Christians who couldn't vote.

Re:Land crossing question

[fiftyfly]

If you think China and Russia are some kind of benevolent white knights riding to rescue the world from US oppression

Hmmm there might be a few people here and there with something to say on the subject. This country was founded by a coalition of the God fearing who felt they had the mandate of said deity to, well, systematically mince the world and reform it in their image. Yum - tastes like McNuggets.

Native Tribe of Kanatak, Sitka Tribe of Alaska, The Stikine Tribes, Central Council of the Tlingit & Haida Indian Tribe, Cherokee Tribe of Northeast Alabama, The Poarch Band of Creek Indians, United Cherokee Ani-Yun-Wiya Nation, Akimel O'odham Gila River Community, The Hopi Tribe, The Navajo Nation, Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, White Mountain Apache Tribe, Yavapai-Apache Nation , Agua Caliente Band of Cahullia Indians, Barona Band of Mission Indians, Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians, Costanoan-Ohlone Indians (www.indiancanyon.org), Costanoan Rumsen Carmel Tribe of Chino California, Esselen Tribe of Monterey County, Gabrieleno-Tongva Tribe of San Gabriel, Hoopa Valley Tribe, Kashaya Band of Pomo Indians, Konkow Valley Band of Maidu, Kumeyaay Nation, Muwekma Ohlone Indian Tribe, Ohlone/Costanoan Esselen Nation, Pala Band of Mission Indians, Pinoleville Band of Pomo Indians, Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians, Tsnungwe Council, Wiyot Tribe, The Southern Ute Indian Tribe, Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, , The Golden Hill Indians of the Paugussett Indian Nation, The Mohegan Tribe, Paucatuck Eastern Pequot Indian Tribal Nation, The Nanticoke People, The Seminole Tribe of Florida, Coeur d'Alene Indians, Delawares of Idaho, The Kootenai Tribe of Idaho, Lemhi-Shoshone Indian Community, Nez Perce Tribe, Shoshone-Bannock Tribe, The Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, United Tribe of Shawnee Indians, Wyandot Nation of Kansas, Sovereign Nation of the Chitimacha, Sovereign Nation of the Coushatta Tribe, Tunica-Biloxi Tribe of Louisiana, Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians, The Passamaquoddy Tribe of Maine, Passamaquoddy Tribe at Pleasant Point, Pocomoke Indian Nation, Cowasuck Band of the Pennacook-Abenaki People, Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, Keweenaw Bay Ojibwa Indian Community, The Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians , Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe, The Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, Bois Forte Band of Chippewa, Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe, Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians, Sandy Lake Band of Ojibwe, Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux (Dakota) Community, Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, Blackfeet Nation of Montana, Santee Sioux Tribe of Nebraska, Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska, Reno-Sparks Indian Colony, The Nanticoke Lenni-Lenape Indians of New Jersey, Powhatan Renape Nation, Ramapough Mountain Indians, Indian Pueblo Cultural Center, Pueblo of Sandia, Oneida Indian Nation, The Seneca Nation of Indians, Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, Lumbee Tribe, , Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, Munsee Delaware Indian Nation - USA, Absentee Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma, The Cherokee Nation, The Chickasaw Nation, Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, Citizen Potawatomi Nation, Comanche Nation, Delaware (Lenni Lenape) Tribe of Indians, Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma, Miami Tribe of Oklahoma, Muscogee (Creek) Nation of Oklahoma, Osage Nation of Oklahoma, Pawnee Nation of Oklahoma, Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma, The Shawnee Tribe, Wichita and Affilliated Tribes, Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua & Siuislaw, Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community, Confederated Tribes of Siletz, Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs, Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of Indians, The Klamath Tribes, Narragansett Indian Tribe, Rosebud Sioux Tribe, Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux Tribe, The Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas, Traditional Abenaki of Mazipskwik & Related Bands, Monacan Indian Nation, Wicocomico Indian Nation, The Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis, The Confederated Tribes of the Colvill

Privacy laws extend internationally

[Anonymous Coward]

US companies with data on citizens of European Union countries have to follow the European Privacy laws. So, the situation is more complex than just the US extending its law internationally, othe countries do so as well.

Re:Privacy laws extend internationally

[nuggz]

The problem is if the US government demands the US company hand over data via the Patriot act, they have to.
So this could result in a messy case of a US company having to decide to follow the US law, or the EU law. In this case the company is screwed, unfortunately the fear is a US company would rather break a foreign law then the US law.

Re:Privacy laws extend internationally

[nbert]

There is a flaw in this argument, because those European privacy laws have different intentions than the Patriot Act (I guess I don't really have to explain the differences).

And as for your second point:
If I'm for example buying a book at amazon.de (having created an account there) they have to obey German/EU privacy laws, because they are doing business in Germany. Since I can log into amazon.com with my account I don't really believe that they are following the official safe harbor policy, but in principle they have to respect the laws of the countries they do business in, which has nothing to do with the EU extending laws beyond their borders.

Allow me to clarfiy

[alexwcovington]

The Patriot Act was the result of Paranoia... Of people willing to endorse anything if it was security-related. I would still like to count Canada as a US friend, even if half the politicians down here call it "Canuckistan"...

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[Anonymous Coward]

as opposed to the post election dumbfuckistan?
http://shotgun.shacknet.nu:81/mapofnewamerica.gif

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[Grey Ninja]

As a Canadian, I just want to assure you that we do indeed refer to ourselves as being Canuckistani. It's absolutely hilarious to be talking to an American about Canuckistan. I remember one time I was playing America's Army, and I was going on about how we shared a border with Russia, and were the country furthest north. The guy I was talking to never clued in.

On that note, I just want to mention that Canadians are rarely seriously offended by Americans. We just think they are good for humor value if nothing else. :)

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[anonicon]

You guys can call it whatever you want, but I'm just relieved that there's a big country to the north to escape to if the residents of Dumfuckistan pull more stupid stunts.

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[Dashing Leech]

"Let's make fun of them so we can feel all smug and righteous."

No, we make fun of them as a means of highlighting your ignorance in hopes you will do something about it. That most Americans don't know jack about the rest of the world is news. We don't make fun to feel smug and righteous. We make fun because we're concerned about your massive ignorance of worldly events and how it drives your politics. If you checked out the "Talking to Americans" website from the grandparent post, you'll see that most of it was talking to American politicians and some "influential" celebrities. These are the people that influence what Americans believe and are supposed to know about the world around them, and they clearly don't.

But yes, most Americans are good, hardworking, nice people. We aren't offened by them, though we perhaps respect them less since the last election. (OK, in 2000 you didn't know G. W. was a fuckup, but this time you should have.) We are, however, often offended by American politicians and media. Their deception, bias, illogical reasoning, and clear pandering towards good sound bites and entertainment over truth is quite obvious and offensive. But when you don't have real politicians and media who actually research and analyze things first, there's nothing to compare to and realize how stupid it looks.

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[Grey Ninja]

If you say so. ;-) I have no idea WHY it would make me angry and vindictive, but I'll just go with it. Sounds good anyways. (and I'm still laughing, so I can be quite agreeable)

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[ShieldWolf]

"...and I was going on about how we shared a border with Russia, and were the country furthest north."

As a Canadian I need to clarify a couple of points:

1) Canada DOES NOT share a border with Russia, we only have a border with the USA.

2) Canada IS NOT the northern most country. That would be Greenland (Denmark).

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[gobbo]

Sorry, but if Americans deem to tell the rest of the world what to do (including Canadians!), put military bases in over 100 countries, hijink any trade initiative they near, and play vindictive patriotism games (oh, your country doesn't support our war of agression? ok, burn your flags and deprecate your products) --well, then, they'll just have to put up with people poking fun at them. Frequently.

Power is like that, you open yourself up to ridicule as a matter of fair play. You can't have your Twinkie and eat it too.

Why are a disproportionate number of top hollywood comedians canadian? It might have to do with national outlook.

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[gobbo]

We want to make the world a better place for the oppressed.

Ka-wow, did you really just write that? Many of us in other liberal democracies look at the American system of health care, poverty abatement, and prisons, and shudder. We see oppressive systems that are polluted with inequities and indignities, more so than our own considerable problems. We see the way the trade missions turn countries from an emphasis on self-reliance into exporters of commodity goods based on unequal trade--without mitigating corruption in any way. We see the constant global war, using a thin veil of cries of freedom to pave the way for further inequitable commercial opportunity.

Tell me more about how your concern for the oppressed has affected, for example, the status of women in Iraq? The status of children in Angola? Dissidents in your client countries? Saipan? A century of policy towards Haiti, Cuba, Puerto Rico? Guatemala? How about pollution from your over 700 international military bases? The list goes on ad infinitum. And AC's, do your research before a kneejerk rebuttal on this one, please.

We see you edging ever closer to a cynical theocracy. You have enough WMD to wipe anyone out, and a national sense of manifest destiny linked with a popular myth of imminent armageddon.

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[Ced_Ex]

We want to make the world a better place for the oppressed. We did this for Afghantistan and Iraq already, they both held full free elections for the first time in their countries history. What has your country done to make the world better? Exactly nothing.

You can't even see past your own government and media deception to even begin to understand what your country has done on your behalf.

You haven't made it better for the "opressed". Their lives are crappier now since their country is in full civil war. They never asked for your help. And as far as I can remember, the original reason for going to Iraq was for WMDs! NOT to free the opressed. Funny how the mission statement changes when the objectives couldn't be completed.

Let's just list out the "nothing" that Canada has done. Anytime we deploy our military (as sad as it is), we put them in world hot spots for PEACE KEEPING. We go to places to STOP wars, not to wage them.

Oh, if you want to talk about war, let's talk about WWI, and WWII. Just so you know, Canada was actively participating in the two wars SEVERAL YEARS before the US got involved. So don't ever say we have contributed nothing.

I am by no means trying to bash the US, as they are truly a leading nation. However, I am just sad that with all the resources they have to make the world a better place, they choose not to. I believe just recently that Bill Clinton mentioned that if the US government (notice I say government, as opposed to citizen) just allocated a small fraction of GWB's $80 Billion request for defense funds for Iraq to something like medicines and food, the world would be a better place.

I ask you, can you not think of a better way to spend $80B to make the world a better place than to spend it on weapons used to destroy. Spend it building homes, giving food, clothing. That is how you make a better world.

PS: I don't post anonymously because I truly believe in what I say.

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[skarmor]

Ah - so the first American president to win the election, both in electoral votes AND popular votes in oh, however many years, is a fuckup? But you can say that John Kerry (or any of the other candidates) wasn't one? OK...If you say so Frenchy.

Is this honestly how people "debate" in your country? I feel sorry for you.

But, a lot of us Americans are sick and fucking tired of seeing the lackadasical people of most of the world, let bullshit like what Saddam was getting away with, happen.

Horrible acts are commited by numerous political regimes worldwide. Why single out Saddam? If the US is so worried about stopping "evildoers" why didn't they offer any help to the largely unsupported, underfunded Canadian and Belgian troops who tried to stop the Rwandan genocide? Why was no support offered to Canadian peacekeepers in Cyprus or the Golan Heights?

It's so funny hearing the words from those who think that they're "better" because they don't have the capability to make any real difference in the world.

Canada has already done more to promote global peace and security than the US government will ever have the will to do (despite the good intentions of many Americans).

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[Qzukk]

Tedious twaddle says the coward.

Pray tell, in what country does the U.S. have a military base where the local government seeks the base removed.

Every time an American soldier rapes someone in Japan theres a pretty big push to kick the Americans out. Panama was a pretty risky occupation there for a while when the canal ownership transfer didn't look like it was going too smoothly.

Pray tell, oh enlightened one, about trade barriers.

Very well, lets talk about Iraq, and the oil embargo, and how the US ignores barriers whenever it feels like it. Or how America (and other countries, America isn't alone in this) backs such barriers only when it benefits corporations, not consumers or laborers.

God, please do do tell me just what those 8 million Iraqi's were doing last weekend

Wait, were we there for the election last week? Only months ago it seemed we were there to depose Saddam, and months before that to protect the United States from WMDs, and months before that to protect the United States from Al Quaeda terrorists, all the time using battle maps drawn up before 9/11 when the plan was to go to war for oil.

I'm glad Bush finally got his story in synch with reality. Those votes only cost us about $12 billion each... At that expense you'd think that we could spare the $200 to fly Iraqis in America to one of the 8 voting places set aside for them. With the names of the campaigners not revealed until days before the election, and very few of those even campainging, confusion was rampant, and voters had no choice but to vote randomly. This is the democracy we died for? At least women's rights will be restored to pre-american-interference levels. Who knows, maybe in a decade or two being publically Christian will be non-fatal again.

Oh, and BTW, you people know very little about the Patriot Act

And what do YOU know about it, other than what you've read in the law itself and what little your government admitted to you?

But hey, cowards like you just like to spout off nonsense and run, thinking "gee I showed that guy" when all you really showed is that you can spout off a lot of stuff.

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[MightyMartian]

> Big government socialist types, like Adolph
> Hitler, use persecution and targeted humour to
> manage the masses. Most Canadians are too stupid
> to realize this. CBC for example, oh they
> criticise government only to a point to get some
> perception they are worth the billions of
> government dollars but the reporting is biased.

Wow, compare a socialist government to Nazis, always a good way to indicate that you don't know what the f*ck you're talking about.

The CBC raked the Liberals over the coals just as much as anyone else. Hell, Rex Murphy's in hot water because he sided with religious concerns over gay marriage.

CBC's heads and shoulders above Global.

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[freemacmini]

You didn't give a shit about saddam for the last 20 years. You don't give a shit about "bullshit like saddam" right now all over the world.

When is the US going to invade north korea, israel, russia, china, most of africa, cuba, nepal, east timor, pakistan, egypt etc?

It's not. Why? Well some of them might fight back, others have no oil.

BTW saddam didn't gas his own people. He gassed the kurds (which are not his own people) with the chemical weapons we gave him. We also supplied him with the intelligence needed to gas not only kurds but the iranians too. Stop being sanctimonious and accept your part of the responsiblity for horrific murder of tens of thousands of people.

Be a man and say "I as a citizen of the US indirectly helped Saddam hussein kill and torture people for decades because he was a useful tool for me, and to accomplish some objectives I felt were in my best interest". Follow that by saying "I as an American am the most important person on the planet, I am willing to kill, torture, and support killers and torturers to satisfy my needs and objectives. My interests lie above any other human beings or animals and plants for that matter."

Get that off your chest and then lets talk about your righteous indignation.

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[Ced_Ex]

Because this would be very difficult to measure. The thing is, people like you don't consider deaths due to the UN embargoes, totalitarian regimes, or anything like that, as being countable. Only deaths as the result of US military action. Kind of shows your whole agenda.

There may be death as an indirect result UN Embargoes, but unlike US military action, there wasn't an intent to do so. US Military actually went in and bombed the crap out of them. Don't tell me "collateral damage" is indirect. It's a BOMB for Christ's sake, it's meant to blow up things.

Operation Iraqi Freedom

Free the people of Iraq from the start? The initial reason for war in Iraq was for terrorists and WMDs. Have you forgotten that already? What about the debacle regarding false reports of the CIA? Forget that too? News reports when the Iraqi war started all concentrated on looking for WMDs that Saddam had as well as the terrorists he was harbouring. Funny how you fail to mention that. This freedom for Iraqi people came to be only after your Gov realized it was grasping at straws to find a reason to be over there.

Oh, don't forget that the Mujahideen were also freedom fighters that you abandoned in Afganistan. Funny how they are known as terrorists now.

Where, exactly, have you prevented wars? The Sudan? Mogadishu? Bosnia? Your model of doing nothing is certainly no more effective than our model of doing something. And it has been repeatedly shown that peacekeeping forces actually do more harm than good.

Cyprus, Bosnia, Croatia, Haiti, just to name a few, granted we didn't stop an entire war, but stopping battles where we can does help. Certainly trying to stop a war is much better than actively starting one with a sovereign nation. I would say it is more effective since we aren't actively shooting and bombing the country that we are trying to help. Please, show us where peacekeeping is more harmful than good? Never realized trying to stop a war was worse than participating in one.

Another humorous point - yes you were there, but don't you find it interesting that our presence turned the tide? We were the deciding factor in that war.

Oh yes, all hail the mighty Americans who came in half way through the war. Any country can be the deciding factor when they join the war when it's almost done. Hell, I can beat Mike Tyson in a boxing match after he's fought 24 consecutive rounds against Lewis and Klitchko.

Good idea, let's build a home in insurgent controlled territory. See how long that will last. Frickin' hippie.

No, according to you, your solution would be to drop bombs on them and kill them all. Great solution there. I'm sure this is the exact reason why the world thinks so highly of US Foreign policy.

I love to hear Canadians talk about how you would make the world better.

Well, I think the world is a better place without wars. If you don't think so, why don't you live in a war torn region and tell me how great it is. We're not contributing to a war torn society, unlike your government. My country is not imposing it's lifestyle on you or anyone else, but your country is actively going to other countries and doing that very thing.

Forcing a lifestyle on others isn't the magic answer either.

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[bVork]

Pray tell, oh enlightened one, about trade barriers.

Very well, lets talk about Iraq, and the oil embargo, and how the US ignores barriers whenever it feels like it. Or how America (and other countries, America isn't alone in this) backs such barriers only when it benefits corporations, not consumers or laborers.

You forgot the softwood lumber tariffs, which both the WTO and NAFTA have ruled are illegal. And the US is considering raising the duty!

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[Qzukk]

This is news to me.

Start of Panama Canal Transfer problems. End of the transfer problems when the US finally fulfills its treaty obligation 22 years late. And since this is "news" to highschool history failures like you, the end of the US military occupation of Panama that went along with that transfer.

The people of Okinawa have protested several times since the end of the war, the largest such protest after a 12 year old girl was raped. The Japanese government usually ignores it, mostly because of American threats of economic ruin in the event that the bases have to "suddenly go away".

I'm so sorry that I didn't spend the time to look up more cites for you to ignore last time, and I know you ignored them because you ignored my next cite:

IN-TER-NA-TION-AL community tried sanctions to affect change. I would think you would approve?

Hell yeah, I approved. Shame that both Clinton and Bush apparently didn't, since their administrations knew about the violations and did nothing about it. You'd know that if you had read the link I gave you. Or hell, if you had read your newspaper instead of using it to wipe your ass.

The Iraqi that voted did not come out of polling places raging against America or the election process. (For now we'll ignore the fact that two major political parties boycotted the election because of their belief that the US could not run a fair election)

Just wait until the US slaps them with the bill. How pissed off will they be then when America siphons off what little money they have over a $100billion bill? Until then, as one of the people who paid for this big experiment at the cost of $12(at least, since the initial 72% turnout estimate has already slipped to 60%... nobody really knows how many people showed up, and of those how many were turned away due to typical American election oopsies like lack of ballots)billion per vote, I have the right to be upset about how my money was spent.

for the first time is exercising his freedom

wrong, wrong, wrong. Scroll down to the bottom, and note how this weekend was the first election in 50 years. Thats right, folks, Iraq used to have elections! They used to be a democracy!

is an aspiration with real meaning to a people who have suffered from decades of dictatorship.

Who needs dictatorship when we can suffer from your ignorance (and that of others like you). Tell you what, save up a few pennies every day and go buy yourself a nice set of Encyclopedias. Get the ones with the big colorful pictures, they're easier to read.

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[Ced_Ex]

So now it's intent that makes something wrong? By your reasoning, if none of us participated in WWII, the death of millions of Jews would be perfectly okay because we didn't intend to cause it. Even though we would have been complicit in our inaction. This type of thinking is why the UN is a useless body.

Yes, 'intent' is that thing that makes something wrong. Sort of like the difference between manslaughter and 1st degree murder. The US never killed Jews, nor did they intend to, which makes that example rather moot. Just so you know, the genocide of Jews occurred after the war started when Hitler decided to take over Europe. And another thing, if you say the UN is a useless body, Jews were getting exterminated by the millions long before the US got involved. If it weren't for the Japanese, the US would have just sat back and watched. Otherwise, why else would WWII have started in 1941 according to your history, a full 2 years later than when it really did?

if one must intend to cause death for it to be wrong, then the US military is exonerated. Accidents cannot be intentional.

I hardly call dropping bombs an acccident.

Again, just showing your ignorance. One of the main planks of the pro-war stance was "freedom for the Iraqi people". WMDs were just the clincher

My ignorance? Surely you jest. Here's a timeline with all the associated White House Press releases. But in case you're to proud to read, the first several lines include statements from your leader's State of the Union Address, President Bush calls Iraq part of an "axis of evil," and vows that the U.S. "will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons." No where do I see "free the opressed".

Then explain what the huge fuss was about Weapon Inspectors? Sure, they were UN, but they didn't find anything, nor did your military after the invasion. The focus was to find these WMDs to justify your war. Now, spinsters worked their magic, and you all think it's for Iraqi freedom. What next? Iranian freedom? North Korean? Hell, North Korea even blatanly said they have nukes. No need for weapon inspectors, why not just march your collective freedom providing army over there? The likely reason why GWB hasn't done so is because North Korea would hand your asses back on a nuke missile plate, and because North Korea has fuck all in terms of oil. No business there. Check out all the contracts US companies have received from Iraq... Haliburton? Explain that one genius.

Don't get me started on Blair. He's just a damn "yes-man" kissing GWB's ass. It's no surprise the British don't like him. I'm just happy that they don't have the military might to cause more problems.

As for the first Gulf War, I didn't forget, I just didn't see the problem there. You had Iraq invade a foreign country, Kuwait needed help, US provided it. The coalition won, that's that. Don't need to annihilate a country to show them their defeated.

For peacekeeping in those said nations of Cyprus, Bosnia, etc. What do you propose? At least our solution does not involved using weapons to destroy. I never said it was a perfect science, but according to you, getting involved without using violence is not a solution. So go ahead big shot, tell us what you would do? Ignore it? Bomb them? What? You got a better plan?

Certainly trying to stop a war is much better than actively starting one with a sovereign nation.

You're stating this as an absolute? So we never should have declared war on Germany or Japan during WWII? Or perhaps you admit that this is a matter for situational ethics, and a much more complicated issue than your hippie beliefs will allow you to admit?

Of course it's an absolute. Why is war a good thing? People DIE. The reason why war was declared on Germany and Japan was because they were actively killing and invadin

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[Qzukk]

I agree, the U.S. should have ceded control a long time ago. Are you happy?

Yes, I am happy. But you missed the point of that. You (assuming you're the same AC) said US occupation of Panama was "news", so I posted several links for you to peruse to show that its "old news". I'm glad you found credibility problems with one or two of my links, it means the time I spent looking for three was worthwhile.

And so what if Iraq had a democracy 50 years ago.

It makes your original statement about voting for the first time wrong, assuming you can find a 65 year old Iraqi. Thats all.

HOW YOU FEEL SUPERCEDES THE FEELING OF THOSE IRAQIS VOTING IN IRAQ.

Thanks for the caps, I had no idea that my feelings superceded the feelings of those in Iraq. I know that for the most part they're happy, and at this point in time all I can do is hope Bush's experiment works and that Iraq becomes a peaceful secular democracy.

You mention that the U.S. is going to slap Iraq with a bill.

Aww, you got me there. Bush promised it would come from Iraqi oil money. Then he "retracted" that promise. Of course, Bush has other ways of getting money out of Iraq.

Here's to hoping that History will prove me wrong and I am missing the signs, and we won't be doomed to repeat it.

Next up for Canada...

[mikeb39]

Telling Bush he can shove his missile defense system up his idea hole. We really would rather work towards a more peaceful world through understanding and compromise, not a peace built on fear and threats.

I for one welcome...

[jarich]

I for one welcome our new Slashdot, politicized story spinning overlords!

Okay, so it's not new, but it seems to be more obvious recently...

Fortunately...

[animus9]

Fortunately George W. Still can't find Canada on the map (sssh! let's keep it that way), so any information acquired that violates our privacy will probably be useless to them. They might as well get a SETI client and mine through some of that data. I can see it right now:

"Your excellence, it appears that an evil race of aliens are planning to attack us -- also, they have a whole bunch of oil. Good thing we already have PATRIOT ACT VIII drafted up."

You have no right to visit here

[Shivetya]

Other than what is granted by the host country. What is wrong with a country wanting to track foreign nationals inside their border? When does your personal rights exceed that of a country you do not even hold citizenship in?

In other words, does your selfishness override the rights of the country in question to do what it can to protect its citizens and police its borders?

As someone else mentioned, your not forced to come here.

Along your line of reasoning why should I have to declare anything to foreign customs agents when I arrive or leave their countries? Why should I have to tell German authorities I am in their country. Hell with that, why should I put up with "THEIR" idea of airport security, after all it annoys me.

Re:You have no right to visit here

[statistically dead]

The problem with the PATRIOT act is that the US is using it to force other countries to supply data on individuals that don't even travel to the US - The EU has been pressured into granting Paseenger Flight Data be given to the US for flights in EU airspace (that don't even go to the US). The US government is demanding biometric passports from other countries because US officials are too lazy or don't want to spend money on granting visas. The fact is that the US is forcing the effects of the PATRIOT act indiscriminately onto non-US citizens that don't even visit the US

Re:You have no right to visit here

[Fallus Shempus]

Then close the border, or do you want the tourist dollar? And yes my prsonal rights do (or should) exceed those of a 'country', not a citizen of that coutry, but the country itself. This is xenophobia, pure and simple, it's the assumption that a foreign national is a more of a threat than a citizen, go tell Timothy McVey.

Re:You have no right to visit here

[nbert]

Fair enough, a sovereign country can do almost anything within its borders. However, I believe that it's nevertheless valid to complain about unreasonable treatment of visitors.

For example back in the mid 90's I had to declare that I'm not planning any attacks on the White House when I visited the US (coming from Europe). There surely was no harm done to me, but seriously, how childish can it get?

Re:You have no right to visit here

[Fredge]

The EU has been pressured into granting Paseenger Flight Data be given to the US for flights in EU airspace (that don't even go to the US).

Is this documented somewhere?

Meh, probably not

[alexwcovington]

I think a really good idea is Canada becoming a commonwealth of the U.S., like Puerto Rico. Puerto Ricans are stuck in a lovely political loophole that's not quite statehood and not quite independence. The US Government can basically run roughshod over Puerto Rico with nothing but the occasional referendum to maybe change the situation. A better idea would be for Canada to look at joining the European Union (it's already a member of ESA) and making that kind of transnational governance take hold over more of the world than a teensie continent.

The terrorists did NOT come through Canada

[seifried]

That is a false media meme that has become truth simply because it has been repeated so often.

To quote:

This is not the first time that Canada has been falsely accused of harboring terrorists and allowing its space to be used as a launching pad for a potential attack on the United States. Immediately after the September 11 attacks, media reports flashed around the world stating that several (and in some reports, all) of the 19 hijackers entered the United States from the northern border. We now know that all of the terrorists entered the United States directly from overseas with US-issued documents. None of the terrorists came from Canada.

http://www.canadianembassy.org/ambassador/030116 -e n.asp?format=print

Re:The terrorists did NOT come through Canada

[spamfiltertest]

You mean there was never terrorists that tried to come from Canada to the US?

Re:The terrorists did NOT come through Canada

[kidlinux]

Well, the funny thing about the US accusing Canada of harbouring said terrorists is that the US are the ones that let them in to the US!

Privacy Details

[Anonymous Coward]

If anyone is interested, the Canadian Privacy Commissioner's website can be found here: http://www.privcom.gc.ca/index_e.asp The privacy laws here generally fall under PIPEDA - Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act. Passed just a few years ago, it has made it very easy for the individual to take the upper hand in privacy disputes with corporations as the act greatly favours the little guy.

Re:Privacy Details

[Fr05t]

The company I work for follows PIPEDA to the letter when dealing with customer and potential customer information and data. This is extended to American and European customers as a matter of respect. Most of PIPEDA is simple common sense respect for others privacy. It makes me feel all warm and fuzzy :)

Border guards

[jimhill]

One time I zipped up into Canada on a day trip. Going in, the Canadian border guards wanted to know if I had any firearms or ammunition. Coming back, the US border guards wanted to know if I had any fruits or vegetables. That says a lot (hey, two words!) about our two countries.

Don't Do Business With Them

[MoThugz]

Apparently the FBI currently has the right, through Patriot, to search documents which may contain Canadian information sent to US firms carrying out work under contract.

Then just don't do business with those firms.

Let your money do the talking... apparently politicians listen more to corporations than individuals (especially the average /. geek).

Re:A really stupid overly idealist view you have.

[Anonymous Coward]

Just as corporal punishment discouraged kids from acting out in school so does the threat and implemenation of destruction curtail the activities of the lunatic groups that seek to impose their views on others.

Just like the death penalty has eliminated murders from all those Texas cities... oh, wait, no it hasn't.

PS : You'll notice the Canadians were more than happy to send troops to Afghanistan, from where the terrorists actually were operating.

PPS : Threadjack!

RTFA, besides this was going on before Patriot Act

[will_die]

The main thing they are complaining about is that an American company could be ordered by a US court to supply info that they owned and was stored in Canada and that a US company that was storing infomation for a Canadian company could also be ordered by a court to provide infomation on a person.
This is no different then was going on before the patriot act, so no big change, it just looks better to the mass idiots if include the words US Patriot act in the headlines.

Re:A really stupid overly idealist view you have.

[geminidomino]

A peaceful world will only come about when those who prey on civilians because of religious, ethnic, or other differences are eradicated.

So basically, when the poorly named Homo Sapiens is extinct.

Everyone

[Turn-X Alphonse]

I think this applies to everyone and we should all be worried. With the US Mentality of "your with us or against us!" you HAVE to support them. even if you want them all to fuck off and die, you can't say it out loud and sleep soundly at night. after starting two wars (I'm from the UK, so yes we helped...) and having a guy with more self confidence then sense in charge I'd rather keep my anti-yank opinions away from him in the political forum.

Maybe someone should teach Bush that there isn't only "us" and "them". Because mentality like that slowly chips away at "us" untill everyone is "them" and you're in a padded room going "THE VOICES TELL ME THEY ARE GOING TO BOMB US! THEY WILL BOMB US AND WE MUST GET THEM FIRST! IF WE DONT WE'LL ALL DIE! QUICK NUKE THEM ALL!"

Tell me about it.

[nounderscores]

Here's the thing,
I didn't vote for you.
It was cool cause I didn't want to.
Yeah, yeah. Since u been gone.
Inaugurated, sat in the oval room.
Wasn't long before the dot-com boom.
Yeah, yeah. Since u been gone.
And all you'd ever hear me say
Is "Don't globalize our jobs!"
That's all you'd ever hear me say.

BUT SINCE U BEEN GONE....
We've got this insane cowboy.
I visit MoveOn-Dot-Com
After you - rednecks get - what they want
Since u been gone

How can I put it, I was afraid of you.
I even was afraid of Janet Reno.
Yeah, yeah. Since u been gone.
How come I never hear you say
"We'll have a smaller government"
I guess you never felt that way.

BUT SINCE U BEEN GONE....
Hi-Cap mags are back in our schools
Torture isn't wrong. Yeah, yeah.
After you - the whole world - hates our guts.
Since u been gone.

You had your chance, you blew it
Out of sight out of mind.
Shut your fly, I just can't take it
Again and again and again and again

SINCE U BEEN GONE.... (Since u been gone....)
Eternal war against terror.
Little Green Footballs is popular.
After you (After you)
Our dollar - took a plunge.
I'd vote for your wife if I could.
But not John Kerry, he's a douche bag.
After you (After you)
Now you know (you know)
You should know( you should know) Red China,
The Chinese own our ass.

Since u been gone
Since u been gone
Since u been gone

Big apologies to Kelly Clarkson's "Since U Been Gone"

Re:Tell me about it.

[operagost]

Wow -- look at your idiocy on display for the entire internet to see. "Hi-cap mags are back in our schools?" Are you serious? Columbine happened while Clinton and his "assault weapon ban" was in effect. They killed quite well with 10-round magazines. What's happened since then? Any full-auto school slaughters? Oh yeah, in Beslan, Russia -- by terrorists.

Shoot, I'm still afraid of Janet Reno.

Re:Tell me about it.

[Scrameustache]

Columbine happened while Clinton and his "assault weapon ban" was in effect. They killed quite well with 10-round magazines. What's happened since then? Any full-auto school slaughters?

In the weeks after columbine, a Canadian tried to do copy-cat killing spree. But being Canadian, and apparently an idiot, he didn't have access to firearms, and he tried it with a knife. Result: 6 (IIRC) injured, including the idiot himself, no one killed. Why? Because it's a lot harder to kill someone with a knife than a gun, and if you come at guy with a knife in a school, you risk getting beaten down with a chair.

If the Columbine kids had access to better weapons, they would simply have suceeded in killig more people.

But since they banned every weapon, real AND imagined in schools, and they'll suspend you for simply looking like you're thinking about shooting someone, there hasn't been as many school kid massacres. Just like there haven't been that many "ramming jet planes full of fuel and people into crowded buildings" recently either. I guess attention-seeking assassins want to be original in their murders.

Oh yeah, in Beslan, Russia -- by terrorists.

The "cops" did most of the dammage there.
Nerve gas before that... Man, it sucks being an hostage in or around Russia: the terrorists are doing as much as the government to keep you alive!

Canadians don't like the Patriot Act, eh?

[krygny]

Well, here in the US, we're not terribly pleased about how easily almost anyone from anywhere can, at least temporarily, stay in Canada with no practical restrictions. Maybe saunter across a very open border. I thought we were pals. (See? - These things cut both ways.)

Just so you know, even those here in the US who support the Patriot Act on balance, object to some provision or another of it.

Oh, but I've just crashed a US bash-fest and I'm not in style.

Re:Canadians don't like the Patriot Act, eh?

[mwillems]

Easy to be admitted to Canada? When you actually READ that link, you will see there's no easy about it. Officers have to refer you to a board which they only do if you meet specific requirements and which they will NOT do if you meet other requirements (danger to security, criminal, already refused, and many others). None of these are a formality. In fact you will not even be allowed onto the plane to Canada in most countries without going through pre-inspection.

I am an engineer who moved to Canada 10 years ago from a wealthy European country. I have degrees, money, health, the language, everything I need inclduding a Cnadaina wife and two Canadian kids - and yet it took me a year and a half of laborious paperfilling to be allowed in. Believe me, refugees do NOT have an easier time of it.

Canadian email, for example...

[Obstin8]

Here's a disturbing example. Rogers Cable - Canada's largest cable ISP - recently outsourced all their customer-related provisioning to Yahoo; mail, web hosting, etc. By virtue of Yahoo being a US corporation, that means all Rogers Cable's customer's email automatically comes under the purview of the Patriot Act.

I have asked for clarification of this situation from Rogers but have not received a reply. As a Canadian I find it odious that my personal communications can be inspected by a foreign government without cause or warrant, and with no recourse to the law.

Both countries officially espouse 'due process of law'. For those of us looking in from the outside, it sometimes seems the US is working hard to change this to 'due process of erosion of privacy rights' (with a big side order of 'due process of corporate-profit enforcement' but that's another story).

If the tables were turned, and the Canadian government was trolling through American's e-mail accounts, the hue and cry from the south would be deafening. Right now, the only thing deafening is the silence as the American people allow their own government to trample the rights and freedoms that were bought and paid for in one Revolution, 2 World Wars, and countless other military and civil actions.

Don't get me wrong - I am not an Anti-American, as your media would have you believe all Canadians are. Hell, we all grew up watching the same TV shows and news programs, reading the same magazines, driving the same cars and eating at the same restaurants. We all swallowed the same propaganda.

That's why it's especially chilling to watch our neighbours sheepishly acquiesce to - or worse, actively endorse - these 'terror-busting' measures.

If American themselves can't identify and stop the erosion or elimination of their own rights, what hope does that leave for the rest of us?

Chilling, very chilling.

Re:Canadian email, for example...

[Techguy666]

I was just on the phone with Rogers Cable as I started to type this response. I contacted a technical support droid who escalated this question up to a "senior support" person.

Their answer (after being put on hold for just three minutes) was "We're partnered with Yahoo Canada so we shouldn't fall under the reach of the US Patriot Act". Yahoo Canada's parent company, being situated in the US, makes me suspicious of this quick answer - but Rogers seems to think we're protected still and as long as they're willing to fight under this premise should they have to, I'm okay with it.

The techie then also pointed out that we can opt not to take their Rogers Yahoo bundle and keep our existing services, minus the web hosting and yahoo mail. We won't be forced to move to the Yahoo deal anytime soon.

Hope this puts your mind at rest a bit.

Not 100% bad

[ari_j]

Do you know what the Patriot Act covers? It has provisions that are clearly unconstitutional, and some of which have been ruled as such by the Courts of Appeals already.

But it also has provisions which are designed to catch money launderers, and do a reasonably good job of it. I know you haven't considered actually reading the law to find out what it actually does, because that would interfere with your fantasy of America being the most intrusive government in the world, but you really should take a look sometime.

I think it's an appropriate time...

[torstenvl]

...to share Ann Coulter's views and stupidity with regard to Canada...

http://homepage.mac.com/onegoodmove/movies/anncoul terCBC.html

Re:I think it's an appropriate time...

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

Because she says things that the people who watch Faux News like to hear.

Why her books sell so well confuses me, though.. I never thought so many Fox News viewers could read!

Re:I think it's an appropriate time...

[lamz]

I've read estimates that there were as many Canadians who volunteered to fight with the U.S. Army as there were Americans who fled to Canada to avoid the draft. Just that fact alone can start to explain why the U.S. has grown keener to participate in overseas wars, while Canada has grown less inclined.

In World War I, Canada sent 600,000 troops to fight in Europe. In World War II, Canada sent 1.5 million troops. To put this into perspective, you need to understand that the population of Canada during World War I was 6,000,000 people. The population during World War II was 15,000,000 people. That means that in each of the two world wars, Canada sent 10% of its population to fight in someone else's war.

Now THAT'S a warlike nation!

Re:hah Yeah canada is really free

[Anonymous Coward]

Paying your outrageous taxes ...so that people not as rich as myself can afford to live, yes. Something I do gladly.

only being allowed to purchase booze at state approved stores ...that operate pretty much like any other store. I have no trouble getting hammered either way.

nice central planning for health care. ...thus making sure we have affordable healthcare available to all.

Yeah Canada sure is a Socialist utopia.

So that's what they're teaching in your schools these days, is it? What you have mentioned has nothing to do with socialism. These things are the products of a civilized society founded on social libertarianism. The state leaves me alone unless I ask for help and that's exactly as it should be.

Idiots.

At least I'm happy, safe, well-off and not daily raped by my government.

Woody Allen quote

[faramir_fr]

I believe Woody Allen once say something like:

Being paranoid doesn't prevent you from having enemies

Overacting

[Corbets]

Just some advice for people further down the line...

Yeah, the Patriot act gives some legitimate cause for concern to people (although I personally don't feel threatened by it). However, Slashdot comments (and some of the editors) are famous for seeing the worst case only and getting so worked up that no one will take them seriously. For example: No offense to Timothy, but I stopped reading his articles a long time ago, since I know exactly what his opinion will be on any given topic (oh, no, government is horrible!).

Many of the posts I've seen above made it sound like the PATRIOT act is the end of the world. One claimed that we now live in an Orwellian 1984-style society. We don't. Sure, mistakes will be made along the way, but it happens all the time. Even with the judicial process, innocent people get tossed in jail from time to time. It happens.

But increasing the government's power (while not something I'm in favor of) is not really a cause of that. The people that work for the government are still just regular joes like you and me who will try their best to be good and do their jobs well. Even if you're one of those left-wing wackos who believes that President Bush is the antichrist, remember that the hundreds of thousands of people who work for him will make their own decisions about right and wrong.

Too many people on Slash see the government (or corporations, for that matter) as big, faceless entities whose sole goal is power and the opression of the little people's rights. Believe it or not, that's not really the goal. So just take it easy with your comments here. Try to reason things out before you post so that we can have intelligent debates instead of spreading FUD about American laws.

And just for my 2 cents on topic, tough luck Canada. :) If you do business that crosses into our country, you need to be held accountable by our laws, whatever they may be. The same holds true in reverse - if we're doing business with your country, then once we, our product, or our communication crosses the border, it's susceptible to whatever laws you have up there.

Re:Overacting

[Nos.]

Nice comment. I'm Canadian, and yes, I think the PATRIOT Act goes too far, but I agree, its not quite at the level Orwell described in 1984.

And just for my 2 cents on topic, tough luck Canada. :) If you do business that crosses into our country, you need to be held accountable by our laws, whatever they may be. The same holds true in reverse - if we're doing business with your country, then once we, our product, or our communication crosses the border, it's susceptible to whatever laws you have up there

Some of us up north here agree with you completely. A company I have worked with is keeping an eye on this issue right now. Though most of the customers don't know it, some of their information/communication passes through the US. I have brought this issue up to this company, and I think its only a matter of time before the news starts picking this up.

A lot of companies in Canada are in similar situations. They've outsourced parts of their services to US based companies. The problem is with PIPEDA (Canadian Privacy Act). I believe it should be changed in one of two ways:

• Explicitly disallow a Canadian company from exporting any of the information protected in the Act
• Force companies to explicitly inform existing and potential customers that information held does pass outside the borders of Canada and thus outside the protection of PIPEDA

It is not the job of the US (or any other country) to enforce the laws and protections available to Canadians

Re:Overacting

[IndiJ]

Part of what happens is that people think they can apply their laws and way of life inside of our borders.

Pardon me, but what the fuck are you talking about? I have never heard any Canadian publicly or privately suggest that you should follow our laws. Ever. In fact, several, myself included, are jealous of some of them - notably your Constitution's First Amendment.

RTFA. The problem is that my personal and Canadian information can be accessed at any time by a foreign power - the US. How the hell would you like it if Canada, France or Iran could get access to your personal info, Social Security number, health records, etc. etc.? You can play with your damn guns and burn any damn flag you feel like (that's called being tolerant and respecting another culture btw - try it sometime), but I will not be satisfied with you having access to my medical history.

Now, I read alot of the bad points of the Patriot Act here on /. . How about some of the good? How about the terrorist suspects that have been detained because they could be watched easier, search warrant fast tracked and all?

How about the Canadian citizen they wrongly deport to be tortured - without even notifying Canada? How about the Canadian citizen that just disappeared while Americans hemmed and hawed over deciding whether or not he was a terrorist? You wanna lock yourselves up go right the fuck ahead, but why should we stand idly by while you illegally detain and/or deport our citizens? And before you answer that, let me put it in a perspective your small mind can understand, because you appear unable to appreciate world-views other than your own. Imagine your brother goes to visit Hong Kong. You haven't heard from him for two or three days when you suddenly get a call from the government, telling you that the Hong Kong government sent him to Libya a couple days ago. They just informed the US. Then comes the titanic struggle to get your brother out of Libya. Then you finally get your brother back and he tells you he was tortured while in Libya.

You would be irked, yes?

Personally, if I found out that someone had one of my children, and the only person that knew where my child was located was sitting in front of me, I would peel their skin off to find the information I needed to help find my child in one piece. Right or wrong, that is what I would do, and it would not bother me if my government did the same thing to people who were trying to cause a disaster here in this country.

Uh huh. Let's see how you feel about that when YOU'RE the one getting your skin "peeled off" because the knucklehead doing the peeling didn't notice the slight difference in spelling between your name and the name of the real perpetrator, asshole. And yes, THAT CAN AND DOES HAPPEN. Ask that English lawyer who was falsely accused of being a terrorist. These rights that you seem so happy to throw away aren't for your fucking comfort, they're for your safety.

The people we are fighting, so we all (yes, even you Canada) can be safe, are animals.

NO, THEY ARE NOT! THEY ARE HUMAN BEINGS. Misguided human beings? Definitely. Evil human beings? Probably. But they are human beings, and the moment you decide that you have the right to treat them as subhuman, I'm no longer with you, I'm so fucking against you it will make your head spin.

These people want your women to hide and not be seen, and they want to be able to execute you if you believe in a different God, or none at all. You people that believe that gays should marry... Go to Iran and try it, lets see how well that works out!

The hell is your point? Rifling through my bank acc

Re:Overacting

[zx75]

No, see the point is that I (being a Canadian) do NOT want my personal records, credit card reports, etc. to be available for the perusal of a Foreign Government because I do business with a Canadian company.

Thats the crux. I know I take my chances whenever I deal with an american company, and thats fine. I accept what happens then, but the problem is that we DO NOT KNOW when our information could be compromised because Canadian corporations have not divulged the use of american contractors.

In the past this wasn't an issue, because the US had essentially the same laws in regards to privacy as we did. But with the introduction of this act, all of a sudden that privacy has been stripped away and now we are left wondering who can access our information? You may not care about the erosion of your rights, and thats fine. We do.

This is not surprising....

[Pig Hogger]

This is far from being surprising, given that canadian was sent to Syria by US authorities and tortured there for a year, thanks to the "Patriot" "act".

Backronym

[pjt33]

Backronym.

What do you need security for?

[Gonoff]

The last country that invaded Canada had its capital burned down. They made such a mess of the leaders residence that it has had to be whitewashed for nearly 2 centuries now.
With an example like that, the world should conclude that you people are good friends but lousy enemies!

Re:What do you need security for?

[Harnish]

The force that hit Washington was comprised mostly of British Regulars, the 3rd Brigade to be exact, who were, as you mentioned, fresh from the Napoleonic wars, but it also included a lot of British Militia (which would be the Canadians), including around 300 from York (as an aside, York was renamed to Toronto in 1834). The entire attack on Washington was for revenge for destruction the Americans caused to York and Port Dover, Washington itself had no strategic value at all (Baltimore did). To understand exactly why they took revenge though, we have to look at the Battle of York.

The Americans attacked York on the 27th of April, 1813. Their goal was to attack Kingston and disrupt British supply lines by destroying the naval yards there, but Major-General Henry Dearborn had been informed that an unspecified number of re-enforcements had arrived at Kingston and fearing he was now out-numbered, diverted to a secondary target, York, the capital of Upper Canada. York was defended by only 700 men, more than half of them militia, and had it also had a naval shipyard with two frigates, the Isaac Brock and the Duke of Gloucester, under construction. The Americans had 2700 men and 14 naval vessels, which Dearborn correctly assumed would be sufficent to take York. Dearborn, though, is grossly overweight and in no condition to lead his men into combat, so he places Brigadier-General Zebulon Pike in charge.

Realizing that his forces were insufficient to defend York, General Shaeffe ordered his forces to withdraw to Kingston shortly after the Americans establish a beach head. He also ordered some men to scuttle the Isaac Brock (the Duke of Gloucester had completed construction the day before and sailed to Kingston) in the yards and to blow the powder magazine. Even though the British withdraw, they left the British flag flying over the fort in the hopes that the Americans would be tricked into thinking the fort was still occupied.

Whether or not Pike was fooled, the American forces did advance on the fort. Unfortunately for York, they did so at the same time the powder magazine exploded. It killed 28 American soldiers outright and left over 200 wounded, including Brigadier-General Zebulon Pike who would eventually die of his wounds.

The situation in York degenerates quickly after this. Without any enemy soldiers to take the blame, the American troops avenge their losses on York itself. Private property is vandalised and looted, public buildings are destroyed and burned, and private homes are torched as well. Dearborn is either unwilling or unable to stop his soldiers and by the time the Americans withdraw five days later, York has burned to the ground. When the news reached the militia of the events in York, they wanted blood.

Compare this to the amusing story of Rear Admiral Cockburn (yes, we all know the jokes one can make with that name, and it is the basis of this story) in Washington. There was an anti-british newspaper by the name of the National Intelligencer that has essentially been making fun of him so he went to their offices, fully intending to burn it to the ground. When he gets there, several women from the neighbourhood beg him not to burn the building since the fire would spread to their homes. Cockburn agreed that burning the building was not necessary and had the printing equipment dragged into the street and ordered it burned. He then informed his soldiers to "make sure that all the C's are destroyed, so that the rascals can have no further means of abusing my name."

The major difference seems to be that General Ross and Rear Admiral Cockburn were able to retain control of their men, including the militia that was lusting for blood. This resulted in the destruction in Washington was limited primarily to government buildings.

Watch out America...

[IInventedTheInternet]

You push us Canadians any more we'll write you a very nasty letter, and mail it too!

...we might even use the word damn... I'm sorry, that was rude.

tax/person: USA=$6702; Canada=$5545

[Cryofan]

from a chart of the top 50 nations for "Revenues per capita" (meaning how much they have in the budget to spend per citizen:
>>>>>
27. United States $6702.42 per person
28. Jersey $6666.22 per person
29. Man, Isle of $6531.01 per person
30. Austria $6472.72 per person
31. Cayman Islands $6324.22 per person
32. Israel $6294.41 per person
33. Qatar $6119.56 per person
34. Singapore $6053.90 per person
35. Guernsey $5882.62 per person
36. British Virgin Islands $5591.34 per person
37. Andorra $5567.60 per person
38. Canada $5545.35 per person

>>>>

OK, now I know you are a "free market" conservative, and everything, but I really think that even YOU can see that $6702 is more than $5545. But since you are what you are (hey, I used to be one myself), I am going to put a real fine point on this for you: the taxes in America, all totalled up and everything, are MORE per person that they are in Canada. Period.

Ruled by fear

[HangingChad]

The Patriot Act is rooted in fear. We had indications there were persons of interest in this country taking flying lessons before 9-11, we just didn't act on them. And don't blame the agents on the ground, they raised the warning. It was mid-management at the bureau who didn't take the reports seriously.

Before that it was almost 10 years between the first attempt on the WTC and the second.

So out of anger and fear we craft the badly misnamed US Patriot Act. An act that stomps on friend and foe alike, but hardest on our own people. We create yet another new massive federal bureaucracy to protect us. What do you suppose all those people at that massive new federal agency are going to do for the next 10 years to justify their existence? They're going to put their own people and friendly visitors through endless procedure and invasive, pointless snooping. All to try and find a handful of people patient enough to wait another decade or longer.

In some ways the terrorists have already won. How easily we're spooked into throwing over constitutional protections that used to be the envy of the world. Thousands died on the battlefield to protect those freedoms but what's that sacrifice to a generation that grew up under the coddled over-protection of those ridiculous Baby On Board signs?

I hope our friends to the north don't take it personally because it's not.

Re:Funny...

[conteXXt]

Religion? Check. That allowed.

Firearms? Check. Them too.

Differences?

No religion in Government (would be discriminatory)

Firearms arent sold in convenience stores and must be licensed.

These are Rights we dont mind losing.

but it cool if you dont get it, you keep fighting for your guns and theocrasy.

Re:Not necessarily

[dago]

I guess that the OECD stats should be pretty good as well.

For taxes + social security, they put both Canada at 25% and USA at 24%. Not a huge difference.

Same goes for the gross wage, canada is at 32926 US$ and USA at 33456 US$, when balanced with purchasing power & exchange rates.

Pot-Kettle-Black

[cyberElvis]

"Thankfully, privacy still means something up here."

Oh, really? Is that why you have to register every gun in the country with the Canadian government or face charges?

http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/06/30/gun_registry0 30630/

Re:Pot-Kettle-Black

[Anonymous Coward]

"Oh, really? Is that why you have to register every gun in the country with the Canadian government or face charges"

Dude, you make it sound like "if you don't own a gun, you're an idiot" ... every time someone says something like this, it reinforces the reverse.

I [canadian] am so weary (sick and tired) of hearing about how your precious little guns empower you. If your 2nd ammendment rights instead said you had the right to mount a Hibachi on the dashboard of your car, would you mock the world for their stupid but safe Hibachi-less dashboards.

Yes, US, we like you. But in the world community you've become like that twitchy person that no-one wants to talk to unless they really have to. And you have a gun. Do the math.

Re:Pot-Kettle-Black

[Daniel Boisvert]

Gun registration has historically been a precursor to outright bans and confiscation in many countries. If the government doesn't know you've got firearms, they can't take them away. Sure, they can knock on your door and demand you turn your firearms over, but it's easy enough to tell them you don't have any--and they can't prove otherwise.

The US is a very young country, and a large part of the founding of our country was for freedoms of speech and religion. In our not-so-distant past we fought a revolution to overthrow a rule we felt was unjust. This would not have been possible without the broad ownership of firearms (or the help of the French, for that matter ;).

Up until a hundred years ago or so, firearms were still commonly used for self defence in the less settled parts of our nation. Even today, they're used by plenty of people as tools. Ranchers have to protect their herds from coyotes; folks who live in the country may have to protect themselves from bears or wolves; farmers have to protect their fields from all manner of wildlife that will happily eat their entire crop. To folks who use firearms as tools, it seems foolish and unnecessary regulation to have to register them. You don't have to register a screwdriver or welding torch, and you could easily kill someone with either of those, so why would you have to register firearms?

Then there's another group of people which doesn't think the government has any business regulating what they can and can't have in their homes. It's mine, I paid for it, and it's none of your damned business. There are many people here who are very particular about their privacy.

Lastly, the anti-gun lobby in the US is pretty open about professing slippery slope tactics. The people behind the contentious Brady Bill and the recently-expired Assault Weapons Ban (the name doesn't remotely fit the contents of the bill, btw) are quite clear that they first intend to outlaw scary-looking guns, then high-powered guns, then get 'em all registered, and then work on each subgroup one at a time until they get all guns outlawed. Would you give any concessions to a group which has openly stated such goals and methodology? :)

There are even more reasons that I'm sure I've overlooked, but I think this is a decent overview. Anything related to firearms in the US is highly-charged politically for a good many reasons, the least of which being that our politicians have a zillion other things they should be worrying about first. ;)

Re:Pot-Kettle-Black

[kilfarsnar]

That was coherent and concise. Thank you. You make good points and have given me something to think about. Some counter points though:

"You don't have to register a screwdriver or welding torch, and you could easily kill someone with either of those, so why would you have to register firearms?"

Because a firearm's intended purpose is to kill things, the exception being target shooting. This is not the case with other tools. It's been said that any tool is a weapon if you hold it right. But a gun is a weapon that can be a tool if you use it right.

"Sure, they can knock on your door and demand you turn your firearms over, but it's easy enough to tell them you don't have any--and they can't prove otherwise."

I think that if the gov't is at the point of coming to your door and asking about your guns, they'd probably just bust in a search your house. In this day and age I don't think an armed populace can defend itself against a gov't anyway. Look at the insurgents in Iraq. They have RPG's but they won't be able to defeat the US militarily. We may have guns, but the gov't has tanks and missiles. But I guess if there is no registration, there are a lot more houses to search.

"Then there's another group of people which doesn't think the government has any business regulating what they can and can't have in their homes. It's mine, I paid for it, and it's none of your damned business. There are many people here who are very particular about their privacy."

I can definitely get behind that.

Personally, I don't think much about guns or their registration, as I do not own one and have little desire to. Though I have gone shooting with friends, and had a good time. I live in a major city and view guns as rather unnecessary and often hazardous. Your examples of ranchers and the like are different circumstances, of course. Basically, I support a person's right to own a gun, but would advise them not to. Thanks again for the food for thought!

Since when are we Canuckistani?

[PhYrE2k2]

"As a Canadian, I just want to assure you that we do indeed refer to ourselves as being Canuckistani"

Since when are we called Canuckistani? I've lived in Toronto for over 20 years, and Halifax for over four. I have never even heard that 'word' in common speech, news, tv, print, jokes, etc. Never once. So since when is this something we refer to ourselves as?

Maybe you heard the word 'canuck' which is pretty common, especially on the parody-news shows such as 'this hour has 22 minutes' and 'royal canadian air farce', but Canuckistani?

This man/woman does not speak for the 32 million Canadians. Apparently nobody I know (through a quick poll) has heard of it either. Avoid the generalization. 'WE' do not use that term.

-M

Re:If you don't like it, don't visit here.

[Ced_Ex]

And, if memory serves, the terrorists that took down the WTC came through Canada.
Are we (the US) supposed to look the other way when it comes to Canada? It seems like we did in the past, and terrorists got through, took 4 jets, crashing 3 of them into buildings. What would you suggest?

If memory serves me correctly, Canada stuck its neck out for the US by accepting all those planes destined for US airports. How many more planes could have been filled with hijackers?

Check your facts about the hijackers.

Re:hah Yeah canada is really free

[nostriluu]

You're right, and in fact the LCBO has a very good selection of liquor offered at good prices due to its consolidated buying power. So its not all bad. I do find it a bit creepy that they are tending towards the upscale in design, but I guess it makes people feel good about being boozehounds, and is a profit centre.

Of course, other Canadian provinces do allow private stores to sell liquor.

Re:hah Yeah canada is really free

[Astreja]

Manitoba's liquor stores rock, too. On New Year's Eve, in one of the larger mall outlets, there were two huge lines of people all the way to the back of the store. I was out of there in ten minutes flat. The clerks at the till (four of them, I think) were unfailingly polite and upbeat in the face of this liquor-crazed horde that had descended upon them.

And I really like the idea that there's quality control.

So what, exactly, makes a private liquor outlet superior to a publicly-owned one?

Re:Canada, Land of the Jihaddie

[Run4yourlives]

Actually, not a single 9/11 terrorist entered the US through Canada.

And none were Iraqi either...

Re:Sort of...

[Frostalicious]

1. Hearsay evidence is admissable in a CRIMINAL trial (in the states hearsay is only admissible in a civil trial).

2. Evidence gathered without a search warrent or even probable case is addmissble in a CRIMINAL trial (in the states this is a big no no, it is tossed out period).

incorrect.

FLQ Crisis

[Anonymous Coward]

Before we canucks get sanctimonious, let's look at our own history first. After a spate of "terrorist incidents" (the october crisis was absurdly overblown), our government declared marshall law and cancelled out all civil liberties from coast to coast. This is despite the fact all violence occured in a concentrated area. In our weakest moment we succumbed to our fears. We have no reason to feel superior.

The War Measures Act led to the arrest of 500 people without warrant. The majority of the people were artists, unionists, intellectuals and individuals who supported Quebec nationalism.

The War Measures Act was similar in intent to the Patriot Act, but the consequences were far worse. It was later repealed by a conservative government, but no one honestly believes that a new government isn't still capable of bringing it back.

Re:FLQ Crisis

[ablair]

The War Measures Act was only very reluctantly used during the FLQ Crisis because there were no other 'intermediary' laws available at the time with more limited scope to handle such a crisis. Remember, at the time the new provincial government in Québec suddenly had mail bombs going off, threats, kidnappings of high-ranking officials, and the assassination of the minister of labour. This inexperienced government had no idea how large or organized a group they faced (the terrorists certainly seemed to be organized and have great reach) and had to bunker the entire cabinet down under heavy guard for fear of their lives. The atmosphere was highly charged and not only the locked-down cabinet, but the mayor of Montréal and the police in Québec all called for the invocation of the Act by the federal government before Trudeau reluctantly agreed.

And to correct your history, the War Measures Act was halted by the same Liberal government that invoked it, less than one month later (November 1970). It was replaced as soon as possible by the more reasonable Public Order Temporary Measures Act of 1970, which lasted less than a few months. While many innocent people were detained for up to a month under the War Measures Act by over-zealous police forces, none were deported for torture or jailed indefinietly without charge. This is significantly different than the situation with the Patriot Act.

The title's wrong...

[nmx]

Canadian Government Weary of Patriot act

I think the word you're looking for is wary.

Anyone else suprised?

[redmond_herring]

I am. Honestly. I guess I underestimated the intelligence of the /. community.

I was expecting a lot of True American(tm) sentiment and an awful lot of Canadian bashing in response to some of the pro Canadian views that have been expressed so far in this thread. But I haven't seen a lot of that. It's brilliant.
[I guess it could be explained by some good modding, but I don't want to start thinking like that!]

Thanks /.ers for restoring a little bit of faith

Re:Canada, Land of the Jihaddie

[wk633]

To be fair, there was one attempted border crossing. The guy who was stopped in Port Angeles, on his way to blow up LAX for Y2K.

But ya, in general, foreign terrorists get into the US on visitor or student visas. A lot of people incorrectly associate the idea of 'illegal alien' with 'terrorist'. Illegal aliens are the people who do the jobs none of the citizens want to do.