Slashdot Mirror
Canadian Government Going Big Brother?
Eh-Wire writes "If this article by Canadian privacy expert Michael Geist is any indication of what the Canadian Government has in mind for the Canadian Internet surfing public, then it looks like the Canadian public should be concerned. This does not look good!"
Well, there go my plans to move to Canada.
Underloved Movies and Pub Quiz: donotquestionme.org
Where is our Privacy Commission during this?
Trolling is a art,
There was an article a month or two ago outlining how the FBI was looking into requiring VoIP providers to allow FBI agents to wiretap conversations. At least one of the Canada's initiatives seems similar to this. Now whether the FBI followed threw with this or no, I don't know.
Michael Geist comes out every once in a while with a "The Sky is Falling!" piece about how government is trying to super-regulate the Internet in Canada or some other country.
It's sensationalist crap for the purpose of selling impressions on the websites he writes for.
The hairbrained proposals that some lobbyists are putting forth in Canada are real, but there's little danger of any of them being taken seriously and he knows that.
I'm a big tall mofo.
Hmm, hopefully our privacy commissioner will step up to the plate on this issue. A few weeks ago, Slashdot was trumpeting the privacy commissioner as a good thing for Canada - now I see a few other posters desparaging Canada. This is good, but hopefully if people raise enough awareness (the Star article will help), and word gets out things can change.
Our government bowed to public pressure with respects to the American ballistic missile defence programme, and they'd bow to any sort of pressure towards the ISPs with regards to this. Of course, it can't hurt to let the privacy commissioner know that people care about this issue.
Privacy Commissioner: http://www.privcom.gc.ca/
"There's no success like failure, and failure's no success at all."
- Bob Dylan
Move along. Nothing to see here.
Hi there
In Russia, ISPs have to aborb the cost of providing monitoring to the FSB.
In the US, it's called CALEA (among other things).
Where's the proposed bills that would bring this into law? The journalist makes no mention of it.
Seems to be more along the lines of bitching about VoIP services. The Canadian privacy commission would never allow this to go through.
Canada is not the Utopia that Slashbots love to make it out as!!! What's next? Are we going to find out that Europe is the same? My word, what will we ever do? Is this the end of Milhouse?
Time to make a tinfoil tuke.
if its anything like my older brother is like we have nothing to worry about. ah yes the memories of total lack of caring.
Even if this ever made it to parliament, it definitely would never pass. Something as controversial as this would be suicide for a minority government, and we've already seen that Martin is being extra-careful.
I lived in Vancouver, BC for a couple of months a few years ago. I follow politics in the U.S actively and when I was in Canada I read the Globe and Mail everyday. From what I could tell, the government in Canada gets what it wants and the Canadian public rarely engages in succesfull political activism. Quebec is an exception, but as far as I could tell, the whole sucession thing was about language and cultural issues. I can't understand why but the general public in Canada is absolutely docile about all things political. Perhaps it's that the newspapers and the CBC seems to generally ignore, obfuscate and smooth over any internal political controversies.
Speaking as a student living in Canada and using Canadian broadband, I highly approve of this move by our most excellent and intelligent government! They truly are a wonderful bunch of beautiful and caring people!
psst... End-Say Elp-Hay Ow-Nay!
Somewhere in the West, ca. 1806. The Lone Ranger and Tonto are hiding together behind a rock to escape a withering field of arrows fired by a hostile tribe of Native Americans.
Lone Ranger: "Wow, we're sure facin' a lotta them Injuns!"
Tonto: "What you mean 'we', paleface?"
~wavylines as we fast-forward two centuries~
Somewhere in Cyberspace, ca. 2006. A techie and a legislator are hiding together behind a firewall. Beyond the firewall are piles of blogs, spam, pr0n, and lobbyist- and law-enforcement sponsored counterproposals of varying degrees of stupidity.
Techie: Is this really what we want our Internet to be?
Legislator: What you mean 'our', taxpayer?
I guess there's always Australia.
I have gas, but my car uses petrol.
whose geekier citizens take such glee, here on slashdot, in saying what an evil, Orwellian place the U.S. is? Surely not. Couldn't be. Nah.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
By the way, here in the U.S., schools (and everybody else) can freely surf my website. I guess you canuck educators will have to send me a check. Just remember, it was your idea.
See what I've been reading.
That the U.S. isn't as bad as the slashdotters say, and Canada isn't so great?
You're only half right. Canada isn't so great.
Yeah, I know. My point was that this puts some of the U.S.-bashing we've heard recently into perspective. As you say: `` All democratic countries have screwballs lobbying for this kind of stuff.'' It's not just the U.S.
See what I've been reading.
The internet does not easily recognize national boundaries. If someone wants something that they can't legally get in their country, they'll just go to a domain hosted in a country where they can get it.
To some degree, this is bad. It means that things like kiddie porn get made available. It also means that there are loopholes around copyrights and so on.
But, on another level, the internet is the bastion of freedom! It allows people in places where opinions are regulated to see that there are people in other places who can actually think and express themselves. Totalitarianisim can't really last for long because of this. Although many of us, myself included, think that kiddie porn is an inimaginable crime, I think that the benefits of a free internet outweigh the drawbacks.
The internet is today a sort of wild-West environment. Not much regulation and lots of hiding places for bad guys. I'm sure that will change with time, just like the wild-West did.
It will probably take some sort of I-Gov to bring the 'net into line with laws and regulations. I don't know if I am ready for that yet (or should I say the net is ready for that). This will be the result of a maturing process that will take time.
Thank you Micheal Geist, for blowing something this routine out of proportion.
Thankfully, Canada has one of the most online governments on the planet. Here's exactly what they, and the public that responded to the governement, had to say about the Lawful Access updates. Of particular note is the Privacy Commissioner's comments:
The law isn't going to pass if it doesn't meet those criteria, among others. I honestly don't see a problem. The only reason that this update is going through is to ensure that law enforcement have the same abilities, irregardless of the technology. They can already intercept telephone and fax communications lawfully, this just ensures tehy can do the same with TCP/IP traffic.
But I thought it was the U.S. with the totalitarian, authoritarian government?
Who do you think is pressuring them to do this?
The same people who pressured them to go face-recognition on their passports, that's who.
"Nice economy you got there, wouldn't any trade disputes to happen to it... lots of border crossings too. It'd be a shame if someone were to crack down and have every single vehicle searched, really..."
to escape the Bush/Cheney/Ashcroft religious right-wing fascists
Yeah, 'cause these guys sure stay put at home, they don't meddle in other countries' affairs! No siree Bob! No nation building or vague threats or "repercussions" to neighbouring countries for those guys! No way!
Sigh.
You can't take the sky from me...
Well I guess a lot of Americans will be returning to the south of the border.
Does God treat us as servants or friends? Check my homepage.
First, Canadians have the Electronic Privacy Act, as well as constitutional protections against a lot of the ideas in the article.
...
Second, there's no link to the bill, and anyone can say anything they want in a newspaper or opinion piece, because Canadians have something so sorely missing in the USA, aka Freedom of the Press [caveat - unless it's an article disparaging a certain person who owns most of their newspapers].
Third, while Canucks may tend not to fuss once something becomes law, they DEFINITELY do not just roll over when a government tries to impose things on them. The first use of the railways and machine guns was to put down the Riel rebellion. And they have had way more protests - and successful ones - than we have here in the USA.
But, hey, what do I know, I only lived there from the age of 13 to 29
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
this puts some of the U.S.-bashing we've heard recently into perspective. As you say: `` All democratic countries have screwballs lobbying for this kind of stuff.'' It's not just the U.S.
The point is that to the rest of the world they are screwballs. To you they are mainstream and pass those laws!
Sometimes it seems you guys will vote for anything if it's got a star spangled flag waving in the background.
You can't take the sky from me...
If the government is going to keep track of my goings on, I should be able to keep track of what the government is doing. Let us not be one sided. Level the playing field. Fair is fair.
Is that why this has been proposed and subsequently derailed for THREE YEARS, mainly from the vehement objections of ISPs, telecommunications companies and civil libertarians? Also, the article is completely wrong about warrantless access to data. Yes, data retention would be required but a warrant would be required to access any of the information. The intention is to create a legislative and technological parallel to what already exists for telephone tapping. It's not a cake walk to obtain a warrant either, you have to prove that you cannot acquire the information any other way.
I don't have time for search for links, but this issue has been in the news off and on since late 2001 and with a minority government is probably headed nowhere.
the Canadian public rarely engages in succesfull political activism. Quebec is an exception, but as far as I could tell, the whole sucession[sic] thing was about language and cultural issues.
A tradition of successfull political activism is part of the culture.
There's a student strike right now. The education minister said he didn't understand why the students would do that over a 103 million cut in scolarships, "they're the best-treated students in the country!" he excliamed. Yeah, that's 'cause they don't lie down when you start cutting, you dumbass.
You can't take the sky from me...
In the name of God why?
Why go out of your way to make things more costly for educational institutions than they already are? Did I miss the point where Canadian schools were suddenly given more money than they knew what to do with and were eagerly seeking a way to spend more in order toobtain what they already had?
Seriously what possible reason could there be for this?
I'm outraged by this as a Canadian Citizen! Why, if this passes I'll have to move to Can... where does a Canadian move when his govenment starts going crazy for power?
Frylock: "We should have cloned twenties, Jackson wouldn't have given a fuck."
our government may discuss shit like this, but that's far different from actually enacting it.
It may be flamebait, but he is basically right. The more government tends to its citizens' various needs, the more power it will exercise over them.
Don't believe everything the U.S. private health insurance industry tells you. Expensive or complex procedures are commonly done on a waiting list basis, "first come, first serve" basis, not randomly as you imply. As for organ replacement, it has the same limitations as the U.S., namely the organs go to whomever was on the waiting list the longest, and many people, wealthy or not, do die on the waiting list in both our countries because it's also illegal to buy organs in the U.S., and I see little done to change that.
Canadian health care is not nearly as bad as you've been led to believe. So, please stop misleading others.
Of course not. We both have problems with ultra-conservative nutbars. The biggest difference is that in Canada we delegate them to the radio or proposing legislation that will never pass. In the U.S., they're elected to run the country.
Oh, the irony. Yes, although there are Canadian content laws and a government funded national TV and radio station(s), it's ironic that it's the U.S. in which the media is the governments "bitch" as a compliant outlet for government propaganda. The rules and regulations in place to keep the Canadian government from using its own funded media for that purpose seem to do a better job at keeping the media "free" than the so-called independant media in the U.S. I wonder what Marshall McLuhan would have to say about that.
You should do some more research before you call someone ignorant. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is quite different from the US Constitution (and its Bill of Rights), especially in that the the former is easily circumvented when deemed justifiable. Perhaps you should have read section 1 of it:
"The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."
This specific clause has been used repeatedly in court to nullify the rights and freedoms supposedly guaranteeed by the charter.
Whatever stuff you and Ann Coulter are smoking... you should really share.
Your "points", where not incomplete are completly incorrect.
Read the application forms carefully: you have to agree to live in Ontario permanently.
Do you mean this form?
Um, no shit you have to live in Ontario permanently. As opposed to say, living in Quebec and renting an apartment in Ottawa for the weekend, then claiming both OHIP and Quebec Health Benefits? That form seems simple enough to me if you keep your idology in check. Permanent as in primary residence, not forever. There's a huge section of "returning to Ontario". Duh.
Canada does not prevent emigration, but, in many cases it makes it illegal.
In light of your misreading of the simple OHIP form, I think you need to elaborate on this statement.
For example, RRSP HBPs become repayable in full within 60 days of becoming non-resident, or subject to being included in income
You're correct, I would consider this "fair". You can't possibly suggest that it isn't because you feel overtaxed. Again, you fail to support your argument. RRSP have that second "R" in them for a reason. The gov't is trying to get you to save for retirement, not issuing a tax break. How you interpret the plan is not their fault.
there is no joint tax filing as there is in the U.S
I'm not familiar with US tax law, but if your spouse was a stay-at-home type, then he/she would pay no tax at all in Canada, and you could claim the spousal amount. If you put all your savings into both RRSP's and RESP's for your kids, you'd be paying some pretty low taxes I'm sure. If you were smarter and opened of a small business, you could write off your spouse as an employee if she did your books, then write off the car you leased, etc etc.
When you get down to it,US citizens pay less tax than Canadian however you look at it, so it's kind of silly to compare individual structures.
How many hundreds of thousands of dollars do I have to repay to make up for a CA$10k government scholarship I foolishly accepted in the 1980s
I have no idea what the heck you're on about here...Are you suggesting the only benefit you received from the gov't was a scholarship? Are you suggesting you shouldn't repay a student loan?
I'm not sure what you're talking about really.
If the government services were on a par with the taxes paid, it would not be so bad,
I suppose it's a matter of perspective... clearly, certain events in my family's history would have left us broke had we been without publicly provided health care. (Which in the US, a the son of a single mother of 3 we would have, certainly.)
As someone who made use of that helping hand and now sits quite confortably on the other side of the fence I have no problems contributing to our services. Did you factor in lower crime and higher quality of life into your "pragmatic" calculations?
Living in Canada in a rural area (even by Canadian terms) I rarely see a police car much less anyone who IDs for liquor, or strangers. I doubt a system of constantly watching rural areas for those terrorists that are terrorizing farms, would be financially feasible. I mean our government's party is called "Liberal" but that does not mean they are liberal enough to let a system, especially an independantly controlled one be set up for the government or private company usage.
Ever since the installment of the Patriot Act, Canadians had a sort of hushed wait for their version which came and never was really implemented. Due to the recent tragedy involving 4 shot mounties it appears to be the "Reichstag" in the unravelling of these "Big Brother" type surveillance and systems of control.
But in reality, atleast in Canada this system will not work because most Canadians on their own will spot any kind of thing going on, and with the lack of manpower they better start to invest trust in the common citizen rather than turn them against each other with idiotic ways of monitoring us all.
Since when was the citizen corrupt enough to warrant monitoring from the government?
Kind of like a group of criminals to watch over a public school.
We should be the ones with a Little Brother system monitoring the government, tattletailing every time they do something wrong..now if only we could convince someone to hand out punishment.
[cx]
Seriously, just because someone is trying to regulate the internet doesn't mean that they're eventually going to impose draconian measures to limit access to free information.
The internet is now somewhat of an economic center, and one of the oldest functions of government is to regulate trade. It doesn't mean there's some huge conspiracy to destroy the free internet. If you're worried about the course these things may take, be careful who you elect and what internet services you subscribe to.
All this FUD about big brother is really starting to get a bit absurd, and it only encourages journalists when stories like this get a big reaction. Is it so hard to just say that some people are trying to regulate the internet? Why does it always have to be some big huge deal that's going to destroy the world?
I would submit that anyone who knows anything about our army would tell you that the quality of our troops and their training are among the best in the world.
Regular Canadian troops are on par individually with high level US ones. Even American commanders will tell you that.
Nevertheless, if the objective was to secure the bridge they were blockin
Once again you're slightly off. Oka was the main issue, and it had nothing to do with a bridge. Your "bridge" was the Mercier Bridge near montreal, which was blockaded by others as a show of support.
Finally, this isn't some fucking invasion of germany! The Mohawk were fucking fellow Canadian citizens (legality and treaty status aside)!
The army was called out in support of the public institution, the same way they were called out to help with flodds in Manitoba, or to perform Search and Rescue. Their mission was not to attack and destroy the Blockade. Their mission was to effect a solution with a minimum loss of life on both sides.
They accomplished their mission in textbook fashion. To suggest that the outcome could have been "better" with bloodshed speaks a great deal to your (lack of) character.
"Lawful Access", "Clear Skies", "No Child Left Behind", etc. Governments everywhere are getting better and better at Orwellian double-speak, but the main lesson we're learning is that when you get people in power, all they want is to stay in power. Pretty pathetic. It would be nice to see a government that had the best interests of the governed at heart, but that's not going to happen as long as human beings are involved.
(Damn, I overdosed on my cynicism pills this morning!)
-- The reason it's called the right wing? Irony.
Just so you know, that's how they started out here, too. You do have the advantage of seeing our bad example.
Oh wait...Patriot Act.
Nevermind.
A handy FAQ for the tinfoil brigade.
Of special note:
The bitter lessons of a veteran coder: http://bitterprogrammer.blogspot.com
If this were happening in the USA, maybe it would matter. Not in Canada.
... protect our rights against what the lawmakers might try to do.
Why?
Because in Canada, when legislation is found to be in violation of the Constitution or Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the legislation is overturned. We have judges that actually do what they were meant to do
On the other hand, in the US, its perfectly fine, in fact downright encouraged to pass laws that take away even the most basic rights, with no regard whatsoever about any type of constitutionally gauranteed right. Judges are placed purly by political affiliation and pay back the government for their posting by ignoring rights where they see fit.
PATRIOT ACT!
You americans are living in 1930's Germany right now and don't even see it. Already thousands of American citizens have been held for days without charge, without being allowed to talk to a lawyer or even family, with no warrant and no probably cause. What a great way to treat your fellow citizens!
All because you let Dubya scare you. Take my rights away! Take my rights away! that will somehow protect me from the world!
George Bush + Linux = "I will not let information get in the way of the fight against Windows"
...No country has yet been bold enough to outlaw tinfoil!
I'm sure that's the final step.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Here you go: http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/03/07 /cold-sentence050307.htm
You've got the wrong term. "Hoosier" is an American term -- it's what you call someone who plays on any of Indiana University's sports teams. See here.
You're thinking of "hoser". A hoser is anyone you don't like. See here for other definitions. It originates from the "Great White North" program on SCTV, hosted by Bob and Doug Mckenzie. See here for a synopsis of the show.
well, in response to you and the other who claims that I stretch the truth, let me qualify my post a bit for you.. it was late when I did it, so;
Yes, what I am trying to show in these posts is several ideas:
1. that after the operation paperclip which the US assimilated Nazi scientist (usually SS) into the intelligence body, we can see how some of the philosophies of the SS and Nazi's in general thrived in the super secret, well funded CIA when there was little actual oversight to the "How" of their work.
and that now the US is seeing how this choice has affected the US on all spectrums as the mindset brought into the US at the highest levels has seeped through to our political and judicial systems. Placing us a subtle coup of character, marching us towards a repeat of old and terrible mistakes.
2. That the bush body (and yes I am aware of clintons list as well) is rife with mysterious deaths, usually people close to the family who would have been in a position to know something come to suspicious deaths. The plane crash theme is significant in its commonality, and therfore lshould be observed more closely to see why. If we beleive all the FAA statistical data about how planes are orders of magnitude safer than other forms of transport - I think we would find that the statistical risk here is quite incongruent with national averages.
3. anyone who hands down just ignores the fact that the majority of the political whos who of the US can be found in this family tree is just fooling themselves into comfort as the reality of the ruling class upon them is too much for them to admit that we are, in fact, still fealty.
Yes, you are right I didnt cite how far removed these people are - I actually do cite this in my full length write up on the presidential cousins, but the only copy of which I had was on a board that is currently offline - so I posted the straight list.
The people we see here in this list is interesting in the fact that I hold that it would be damn hard to find any other (except one) family tree which has the density of political figureheads (significant political figureheads) in it. Most people I have discussed this with have started out with the same argument "You dont show how removed these people are" or "you can trace the relationship from anyone to anyone if you trace back far enough" - while these two comments, simple enough, seem to throw the "conspiracy theorist" label at me - and will quite effectively re-close the minds of other readers who would be on the verge of not wanting to look too deep, it does not hold up when looked at statisticaly. The density of political names within this tree IS significant. It is also significant the fact that this is one family tree that goes directly back to european royalty.
When you look at the statistics of those who have been in charge of this country in the light of the TYPE of government that has been put in place (a representative democracy - do not confuse our country with a democracy) you can see that this actually a little odd. Through putting in place a representative democracy, the actual vote of the "people" is abstracted from final decision making process. The representative group in effect in only given the consultation of the people on the overall trend of the political conscious landscape. Which if looked in the context of the Stern Father vs Nurturing WorldView, we can see that the overall conscioussness of the country, can be skewed through several tactics.
Finally, I can prove that I have been writing about this subject since before Moore came into the limelight as a tool of the propaganda machine. So try to actually look at the fact that there has been a hell of a lot more thought put into the ruling of people through the ages than you will ever put into these observations in your lifetime, and you will realize that the veils of delusion and the "conspiracy" defense mechanisms are in reality not your own, but effectively placed social triggers. Layer the notion of mass conspi
You see anyone who speaks out against homosexuality as a criminal. In order for speech to be free, even things that seem bigoted must be free.
http://fromthemorning.blogspot.com
Don't tell me what I see.
You didn't read the law. Therefore a) you haven't even bothered to think even the tiniest bit about you're reason, and b) you're a troll.
Did you miss the part where sexual orientation is not even included in the current law, and you just forgot to mention that? And considering your link, did you miss the part where attempting, in good faith, to argue a religious subject is a valid defence?
It's obvious that you did. Therefore, you are a troll. Come back when you've actually thought about it. Unless, of course, you believe "Kill the dirty niggers" is just "speaking out against" them in a way which just "seems bigoted."