Canada Unveils Internet Surveillance Legislation

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

Comments

Silly Canadians

[Cytlid]

Need a law to create "intercept legislation".

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

Re:Silly Canadians

[TheSpoom]

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

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

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

Re:Silly Canadians

[tonsofpcs]

You could always buy an Enigma...

Re:Silly Canadians

[Dwonis]

Some of us Canadian techies know about those, as well as Part VI of the Criminal Code of Canada. :P

Re:Silly Canadians

[whereiswaldo]

Need a law to create "intercept legislation".

No kidding. It's pretty bad when the first I hear of stuff like this is on Slashdot.

Why is it so hard to have public input on these issues? American Idol/Canadian Idol can have these massive phone-ins where people vote on a singer of their choice. Why not have some sort of phone-based voting system that lets Canadians have a say on important issues like this? Oh wait, because these sorts of laws would never get passed that way.

Re:Silly Canadians

[Anonymous Coward]

take a look at 184 section 2, paragraph a. If this law passes, those guys are gonna be exempt, not good, not good at all. Also, for future referance, perhaps linking to the Department of Justice canadian page would be a good idea, here is the link fyi, http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/c-46/42458.html . I know it's not offical, however, it provides slightly more credibility than the CALII

Re:Silly Canadians

[davecb]

whereiswaldo wrote: No kidding. It's pretty bad when the first I hear of stuff like this is on Slashdot.

It was on the CBC yesterday, with the lack of warrents being a major point of contention. Don't expect to hear about it in the U.S., though: it's a "cooperation with our neighbours" initiative (;-))

--dave

Re:Silly Canadians

[felis_panthera]

In the recent election of a new leader for the Parti Quebecios was primarily a phone in vote... the problem seems to have been with registration since there have already been reports of at least one family dog and at least one houseplant were registered as members of the party and voted by phone.... I'm not sure what kind of plant it was, but it's helped to elect a Quebec seperatist to a position of power... so I guess the best thing we can say about phone in votes is that there are still some bugs to work out....

ps.
He's also openly homosexual and admitted to using cocaine in his youth.... gods bless this liberal paradise I call home... now if only we could elect a social democrat as our leader....
VOTE NDP!!

Re:Silly Canadians

[RobinH]

It's pretty bad when a fellow citizen actually thinks that you could hold a fair election by phoning in your votes. What is it, the new Diebold-phone system? It would be so incredibly easy to screw with the votes, and impossible to do a recount. Great frickin' idea.

I'm all in favour of voting, but let's stick with the paper and pencil method for now, OK?

Re:Silly Canadians

[chrisnewbie]

No because some idiot hacker would find a way to vote a millions time and it would be all useless.

internet voting is unsecure and unreliable like phone voting.

Like this'll pass

[YetAnotherDave]

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

Re:Like this'll pass

[Senes]

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

Re:Like this'll pass

[sage2k6]

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

Re:Like this'll pass

[Shelled]

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

Re:Like this'll pass

[Kinetix303]

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

Re:Like this'll pass

[Anonymous Coward]

Soylent Green is People!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070723/

~ kylu

Re:Like this'll pass

[Anonymous Coward]

For those of us non-Canadiens here, what is the NDP?
Canada's version on NSDAP or something?

Re:Like this'll pass

[Anonymous Coward]

NDP is the Never Dominant Party

Re:Like this'll pass

[Anonymous Coward]

No surprise there: Where power (the "right" to use coercion) exists, the statist masses will be falling over each other to get a piece of the pie. At the core, every new political "initiative" is nothing but a special interest group who tries to benefit themselves at the expense of others. After all, the laws dealing with human nature (laws which actually protect us against force) were finished a long, long time ago. The other 99% of government does nothing but cater special interest groups at the expense of everybody else.

So certain seniors have appear to have taken coercion up as a hobby, as if they are somehow doing good by expanding government power and creating oppression. Here is an example where older does not make wiser. The wise ones are the ones who become more peaceful as they gain experience in life -- not the ones who get off on bullying peaceful people around. That's something they should have realized a lot earlier in life.

Power will be abused. Period. Why? Because power -- the "right" to use coercion as a means to an end -- is abuse in itself. Who says so? Human nature. As a human being, I say that's about as self-evident as it gets.

Re:Like this'll pass

[Anonymous Coward]

NDP = New Democratic Party.
We have more than 2 parties north of the border (like most democratic countries). Of course we're starting to fall into a liberal/conservative dual-party system, which is unfortunate.

Re:Like this'll pass

[Anonymous Coward]

Do not underestimate the power of old people in large numbers legislating against the internet.

What makes you think there are 'old people' behind this?
Look more closely, follow the money. You'll find young people who
want money and power.

Re:Like this'll pass

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is they're all jackasses this time and the early tests show that it's around 33%, 33%, 33% so we're just going to end up with another minority gov't.

Re:Like this'll pass

[Feanturi]

Yeah, and they sure managed to clamp down on TV and Radio. They managed to keep sex and violence out of it, did a great job of it. I'm really scared now.

Re:Like this'll pass

[tabrnaker]

The pharmaceutical lobby would never let it happen. well, at least not in the states. In canada i'm pretty sure all the young people would stone the old people to death to reduce costs for our shoddy healthcare.

Note, all western healthcare is shoddy.

Re:Like this'll pass

[JacobO]

They managed to keep sex and violence out of it

Where do I lobby to get more sex and violence on TV? (I am OK with the amount on the radio)

Comparison with wiretap

[5, Troll]

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

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

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

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

This sounds different from the article.

Re:Comparison with wiretap

[linuxbert]

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

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

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

IANAL - i just had a lecture on this.

Re:Comparison with wiretap

[all204]

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

Re:Comparison with wiretap

[WormholeFiend]

CSIS - essentally the Canadian version of the CIA can listen to what it wants - no warents or oversight needed

CSIS is not the agency you're looking for...

Re:Comparison with wiretap

[felis_panthera]

CSIS is like the CIA + the FBI as they provide both internal and external security for our country.... We have the only "secret" service that I know of that does both...

Re:Comparison with wiretap

[jrock-jr]

According to 680news The Government here wants to be able to get:
1. your name
2. phone number and cell
3. Address
4. and technical data that identifies a computer's co-ordinates on the Internet - your ip

The article covers a few reasons why they want to obtain your personal info, but it sounds to me like they're using voip finally as the excuse to get us to log activity over the net. Once we do that, then we'll be able to give them customer info concerning anything else too.

Re:Comparison with wiretap

[prof_peabody]

FYI:

CIA does international work.
CSE would be the Canadian equivalent of the CIA

CSIS is the Canadian equivalent of the FBI.

Not many people know about CSE, but they have several buildings in Ottawa.

Re:Comparison with wiretap

[Anonymous Coward]

Nyet, eh?

RCMP is to FBI as CSIS is to CIA as CSE is to No Such Agency.

Re:Comparison with wiretap

[phizman]

CSIS is equivilent to the CIA
CSE is equivilent to the NSA
Although there isn't as much as a domestic/internation split as with the US orgs. They can operate wherever needed.

RCMP is equivilent to the FBI

Re:Comparison with wiretap

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, no, you are wrong. The CSE has a special relationship with the NSA - in effect, it is Canada's equivalent. The CSE is one of the major founding partners and contributors to the ECHELON program. They even have offices in the States alongside the NSA themselves.

CSIS is our equivalent to the CIA. It deals with counter-intelligence, and gathering foreign and local intelligence with regards to canadian national security. It does not have any official foreign operations, but there are many instances of CSIS intelligence officers begin posted overseas where they liason with other allied foreign intelligence agencies.

The RCMP is the Canada's FBI. It is our federally-funded paramilitary and policy force that is responsible for nearly all jurisdictions in Canada, minus most of the major cities (who usually have their own, city-specific police force. Think Vancouver Police Department)

So, there you go.

Re:Comparison with wiretap

[cobras2]

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

Then again, since when does anyone with brains trust McLellan?
You know what I *really* can't figure out? How on earth does she keep getting elected when she's like the only liberal in Alberta who *ever* gets elected and then keeps doing stupid things that Albertans don't like (like Gun Control) and *still* keeps getting elected?

No right to privacy

[aussie_a]

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

Re:No right to privacy

[bhirsch]

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

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

Re:No right to privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

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

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

Re:No right to privacy

[bhirsch]

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

Re:No right to privacy

[Ctrl-Z]

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

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

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

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

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

Re:No right to privacy

[aussie_a]

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

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

Thanks to those who responded with an informative post.

Re:No right to privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

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

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

Re:No right to privacy

[bhirsch]

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

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

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

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

Re:No right to privacy

[bhirsch]

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

Re:No right to privacy

[broller]

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

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

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

Re:No right to privacy

[schwaang]

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

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

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

Re:No right to privacy

[bhirsch]

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

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

Re:No right to privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

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

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

Re:No right to privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Thankfully yours,
    Kevin

Re:No right to privacy

[bhirsch]

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

Re:No right to privacy

[dcollins]

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

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

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

Re:No right to privacy

[freidog]

Actually, 'reasonable expectation of privacy' is used more to determine the types of restrictions on interference with your rights - usualy search and seziure. If you throw something away in a public place there is no 'expectation of privacy' and there is broad athuority for the police to do what they will with it.

The right to privacy also exists in this day as clearly as the right to free practice of religon, or the right to free speech does. There's a post a few rows up that lists a few of the Supreme court descisions that established the "Right to privacy." The most famous of course being Roe v Wade.
It's an inferred right, but it is a right none the less.

Re:No right to privacy

[ephedream]

Actually, it is illegal to advocate genocide, not to deny that the holocaust happened. That is the main law against freedom of speech in Canada. You can't advocate violence against a specific ethnic group. Holocaust denial is still 100% legal and should be.

Re:No right to privacy

[Dun Malg]

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

Let's also keep in mind the words of the 9th Amendment:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

In other words, just because a right didn't make onto the Top Ten List, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The writings of the founding fathers were quite clear on this. Some of them were against having a bill of rights for fear that it would be misconstrued as a complete and inclusive list of the rights of the people. This is something I wish all those conservative jackasses who call themselves "strict constructionalists" would get through their thick skulls. Likewise, the liberal jackasses need to learn the 10th Amd ("If it ain't in the Constitution, the federal gov't can't do it!"), but that's the subject of a different rant...

Re:No right to privacy

[Dun Malg]

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

The constitution is not-- I repeat-- is not a complete enumeration of the rights of the people. For bog's sake read the damn bill of rights! It's right there, in amendment 9:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

There does not need to be an explicit enumeration in the constitution in order for a right to exist!

Re:No right to privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

why dont we rewrite all these constitutions and laws and make them reflect the rights we do want?
surely the PEOPLE have the power to do that.

i have recently been viewing politicians as a bunch of rowdy kids without there mother there to give em a good crack around the legs and tell them to grow up.

Re:No right to privacy

[bhirsch]

People have been convicted in Canada of denying the holocaust in recent history. Google for it.

Re:No right to privacy

[broller]

>>...we have the "right to keep and bear arms" as stated in the U.S. Constitution...
> There does not need to be an explicit enumeration in the constitution in order for a right to exist!

Correct. As I said above, we don't enjoy the right to bear arms because of the Constitution. We enjoy that right, and this is stated in the Constitution. I'm not violating the spirit of the 9th ammendment here by saying that privacy isn't a right because it's not in the constitution.

But that's not the end of the story. If we took this logic at face value, I could claim that anything at all was a right. Driving a car is a common example. Americans have an expectation that they are allowed to drive. Does that mean that we enjoy the "right" to drive a car? No. Not every right is in the constitution, true. But only those rights that are explicitedly spelled out in U.S. law are protected. Sure, there are unprotected rights, but legally speaking they aren't much to worry about.

Privacy, until declared a "right" by the Supreme Court (which btw, I'm all for) is not a protected right.

Re:No right to privacy

[bhirsch]

Do some research on what the ninth amendment was intended to protect against -- the language makes it sound much more open-ended than it really is.

Re:No right to privacy

[Zigurd]

It is remarkable the extent to which this...

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." ...gets excluded from the debate about rights. One of the dangers of the Bill of Rights that was debated at the time it was written is that it would become an enumeration of rights. It is absoutely clear the Founders did not intend that to be the outcome.

That leads to several uncomfortable conclusions, especially for those bent on expanding the powers of government. But there it is, spelled out plain as day.

Re:No right to privacy

[sgtrock]

Actually, it's the tenth amendment that grants us a right to privacy:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

Well, that plus the Supreme Court decision mentioned further up in the thread. :)

Re:No right to privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

"I guess New Zealand really is the only place left that can be considered the land of the free."

You don't live here do you?

Re:No right to privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

The Google search you provided in earlier comments appears to show people convicted of hate speech in general, rather than a specific "Holocaust denial" or similarly worded charge. There was plenty more minority vilification going on than just denying the Holocaust in those cases.

If you have a specific case to link, I invite you to do so.

Re:No right to privacy

[chrisnewbie]

U.S can revoke your rights if you dont live and think their way. Basically you lose the right to be human the day you dont think like they do.

Flamebait -5 i dont care because it's true and truths hurts.

Re:No right to privacy

[ephedream]

People have been convicted in Canada of denying the holocaust in recent history. Google for it.

No, you're wrong. You're referring to Ernst Zundel, no doubt. Actually he was never convicted of anything. A "security certificate" was issued for him by the Canadian Government, somewhat akin to America declaring you an "enemy combatant." He was deemed a threat to the security of the country and deported back to Germany. An editorial said that this was going a little too far but mostly press reports about what was happening were vague about the charges and didn't make a big deal about the fact that these weren't criminal proceedings. His lawyer said afterwards "I will never do a security certificate case again", citing the fact that he was not allowed to see any of the classified "evidence" against him, which was only shown to the prosecutor and judge and thus he was essentially useless. He felt that he was there merely to give legitimacy to a rigged trial.

Re:No right to privacy

[bhirsch]

Actually I was thinking of Keegstra. Either case is still indicative of Canada's stance on free speech and civil rights.

Re:No right to privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe it is still illegal to voice skepticism about the holocaust in Canada.

You are correct. We punish transgressors by restricting access to beer and back bacon, while replacing their Hockey Night in Canada with AT&T Carrot Top ads and Tragically Hip/Barenaked Ladies CDs with the dance version of Celine Dion's "My Heart Will Go On".

Re:No right to privacy

[shutdown -p now]

You don't live here do you?

Out of curiosity - what issues are there which you believe to be detrimental to freedom in New Zealand? Especially compared to US, Canada, and West Europe?

There are no "hate speech" laws there yet - or are they?

Re:No right to privacy

[gfreeman]

But still not impossible, right? The amendment's guarantee is against unreasonable search and seizure. It's quite OK for the govt to seize and search, despite your outrage, if it has won a resaonable argument to do so.

As far as I understand, a judge can deny that right in certain cases, and with the removal of some legal checkpoints (courtesy of PATRIOT) it may come to pass that the govt may only need cite "terrorism" to have carte blanche.

It's not a rock solid right of the citizen to have privacy. That 'unreasonable' is a loophole that can, will, and has been used.

Re:No right to privacy

[bhirsch]

Don't forget who won the Civil War ;)

Re:No right to privacy

[JacobO]

what issues are there which you believe to be detrimental to freedom in New Zealand?

As a Kiwi expat I'm curious about this topic. Can anybody offer something?

A quick search yields some interesting topics: Ahmed Zaoui: Freedom or a fair trial, Human Rights Foundation, US Dept of State's report on New Zealand's human rights practices.

Re:No right to privacy

[chrisnewbie]

my god your one of the people who fits my description.

again i was right.

Seriously

[neologee]

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

Non-Confidence Vote Next Week

[Lockz]

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

Re:Non-Confidence Vote Next Week

[roman_mir]

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

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

Re:Non-Confidence Vote Next Week

[nadolph]

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

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

Re:Non-Confidence Vote Next Week

[qeveren]

Who would you rather have? The Bigotry Party of Canada?

Re:Non-Confidence Vote Next Week

[roman_mir]

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

Re:Non-Confidence Vote Next Week

[Deadguy2322]

This is a fine example of somebody who has accepted what the radical left have spon-fed him. Sadly, with the unbalanced Canadian electoral sytam, a province full of this sort of idiot rules Canada. This is why Alberta wil seperate. Soon.

Re:Non-Confidence Vote Next Week

[Dwonis]

I'd rather have a Conservative or NDP minority government, or possibly a Conservative-NDP coalition government. The reason is that, while I don't trust either party to run the country effectively by itself, I think the two parties (along with the rest of Parliament) would prevent each other from doing any major damage.

I don't believe that parliamentary democracy, by itself, is a means for achieving an ideal form of government. Rather, it is a system that serves as a sort of 'pressure relief valve', effecting regime change through established, non-violent mechanisms, rather than through armed revolution or invasion by foreign powers. Every now and then, the people who comprise the "regime" (government) forget that although they are in charge of day-to-day governance, they can be replaced by others if they do not, collectively, act in the best interests of the people who pay them.

The Gomery report suggests that, at worst, the Liberals themselves are corrupt, or, at best, they didn't care to prevent corruption. It appears as though the Liberals believe that they're not accountable, because people are too afraid to vote for someone else. Personally, I'm afraid of what will happen if we confirm this notion by re-electing them. I think it's time to replace the Liberals, even if only for one term, to remind them who's boss.

Re:Non-Confidence Vote Next Week

[farbles]

Amen. Seriously though the lack of a plausible alternative to the Liberal party is not a good thing in the long run. The Conservatives are never going to get much past the prairies if that far. Bush and his antics have taken the shine off that whole conservative thing for pretty much everyone who can read. (Hint: they're the ones who can spell correctly.) The lack of tangibles coming out of Jack Layton's partnership with Martin is sure not making the NDP look good to anyone and federally there would have to be some kind of miracle for them to ever form a government. Personally I think that they could handle it after some bumpy learning experiences at the reins of power, but there is a deep seated fear that the wingnut fringe of the party would suddenly cackle with glee at finally having the ability to legislate social change and start going off the deep end with politically correct rubbish. So, most Canadians don't want to rock the boat and want to steer a course of slightly progressive on social issues and slightly conservative (the old school sensible kind) on economic issues. So long as the Liberals deliver on that without becoming too corrupt to bear, they will stay in power for a long, long time. Historically that always winds up with the ruling party becoming complacent, ineffective and decadently corrupt. There are some who would argue that this is already the case but the current Bush administration has so radically altered the metrics for this downwards that even with all the crap turned up by Gomery, Martin still looks pretty good in comparison.

Re:Non-Confidence Vote Next Week

[xilmaril]

radical left? what do you think this is, america? our only radical left are the greenpeace hippies putting spikes in trees and smoking weed outside 7-11, and even they're more reasonable (well, fairer) in their arguements.

and just in case someone believes in a radical right: we have a few nutjob ann coulter wannabes, but they're too fringe to have an impact. our right wing isn't really that bad either.

and about alberta seperating: I can't see it happening any time soon, but as a western canadian, oh how I hope. I like canada, really, but we'd be so much better off without the east.

Re:Non-Confidence Vote Next Week

[ceoyoyo]

I remember during the last election some friends and I were discussing who to vote for. The choice really came down to voting Liberal (they steal), Conservatives (I have friends who know Stephen Harper -- he can be a bit of a whack job), or a protest vote for someone else.

Strangely enough, I was just over at a friend's house. He lives across the street and he's running for the Green party. His girlfriend used to be my roommate. Her comment was "well, I know you're not a conservative, you can't vote for the Liberals now... guess you have to vote Green!" She has a point.

Conservative-NDP coalition... now THERE'S a strange thought! It's kind of interesting though -- if they can actually work together they might be nicely in the middle, where the Liberals are supposed to be (except without the stealing). :)

Re:Non-Confidence Vote Next Week

[ppanon]

There are some who would argue that this is already the case but the current Bush administration has so radically altered the metrics for this downwards that even with all the crap turned up by Gomery, Martin still looks pretty good in comparison.

My gut feel is that Martin as Finance minister suspected there might be something shady going on and that it was as much of a reason for him wanting Chretien to leave and give him a chance to clean house as was his own ambition for the job of PM, but Martin was smart enough to keep his own derriere clean in the meantime. Considering that Harper showed himself in 2003 to be even more of a wannabe running-puppy of the Bush empire than Vincente Fox, AdScam looks like a cheap tradeoff. I'm afraid that Jack Layton hasn't exactly wowed me with his leadership abilities in the last 6 months, either. Martin is clearly the brightest of the lot.

When you think about it, $250 million is a cheap price for having kept Canada out of Iraq and the (new, improved!) ballistic missile defense. We would have lost at least 10 times that and some of our soldiers' lives if we'd gotten involved in those boondoggles. Spineless Harper (and maybe even Martin) would have definitely gotten us involved in Iraq, and probably in the ballistic missile defense as well.

Not that I'm completely against the idea of ballistic missile defense, but the current system being deployed is unworkable and worse than just gilded welfare for defense contractors because it provides an unwarranted false sense of security. It needs at least 10, if not 20, more years of development. If Canada had joined the US BMD, the N. Koreans might have dropped a missile on Vancouver just to prove they could do it without actually attacking the US. Let Bush play thermonuclear Texas Hold'Em with his own cities; I wouldn't have trusted him to protect Canadian cities before Katrina, let alone now.

Seriously though the lack of a plausible alternative to the Liberal party is not a good thing in the long run.
Let's hope Harper blows this election too and his party turf him like they should have after the last one. If Peter McKay (ex-PC leader) managed to take over and bring the Conservatives' social policies back closer to centre, I might be convinced to vote for them. Right now, the people running that party are too afraid they would alienate part of their base if they cleaned house to get rid of their loony fringe. They look the other way when some of their candidates make homophobic or racist remarks, which of course allows the Liberals to exploit that since it's abhorrent to the majority of Canadians. As far as I'm concerned, that means the current Conservative leadership is too stupid to deserve to achieve power.

And as for this week's mini-budget electioneering, why the heck not? The Liberals have been paying off the debt and running surpluses for 8 years, which is what the PCs should have done instead of running up the bill in the 90's. If a Conservative government is just going to start handing out tax breaks to put us back in debt (like Bush in the US) as would appear from Harper's latest promises for much more tax cuts, why shouldn't Martin get the positive voter response from his sound fiscal management instead of leaving a big toy bag for Harper to play Santa Claus with? That's after Harper pushed Martin into the leftist NDP's embrace by refusing to deal. Now Martin can make a reasonable case in front of the voters that he's been steering the middle of the road and that the Conservatives and NDP each made demands that were fiscally irresponsible. More indication that Harper and his advisors are poor campaign strategists and aren't fit to govern.

However, this proposed warrantless internet surveillance legislation sucks.

Re:Non-Confidence Vote Next Week

[Anonymous Coward]

My god you Fiberal supporters are stupid. You can come up with whatever reason you like to support them but the fact is that the Liberal Party is rife with a sense of entitlement and have been *proven* to be corruptable. What the alternative is *does not matter in the slightest**. Canada is democracy and any party that governs does so with a mandate from the people. Sometimes minority, sometimes majority. But in all cases the mandate has a limited lifespan.

You idiots have bought the Fiberal line that the Conservative are evil. Maybe they are and maybe they are not, but voting in a Conservative gov't is not giving them a "govern for life" free pass. Nobody can "destroy canada" in one mandate. Canada has already be wrecked pretty good to date so it's pretty hard to make it worse.

And equating the tories to the bible thumping Right in the usa is silly. The most right wing conservative is only going to be a couple of inches to the right of any US. Democrat. I usually vote conservative and I support abortion and abhore the death penalty.

Don't vote for the Fiberals and send then them the message that all the crap they've pulled over the years is ok (GST? supposed to gone no?). Vote for *anybody* else.

Re:Non-Confidence Vote Next Week

[spindleguy]

My god you Fiberal supporters are stupid. You can come up with whatever reason you like to support them but the fact is that the Liberal Party is rife with a sense of entitlement and have been proven to be corruptable. What the alternative is does not matter in the slightest. Canada is democracy and any party that governs does so with a mandate from the people. Sometimes minority, sometimes majority. But in all cases the mandate has a limited lifespan.

You idiots have bought the Fiberal line that the Conservative are evil. Maybe they are and maybe they are not, but voting in a Conservative gov't is not giving them a govern for life free pass. Nobody can destroy canada in one mandate. Canada has already be wrecked pretty good to date so it's pretty hard to make it worse.

And equating the tories to the bible thumping Right in the usa is silly. The most right wing conservative is only going to be a couple of inches to the right of any US. Democrat. I usually vote conservative and I support abortion and abhore the death penalty.

Don't vote for the Fiberals and send then them the message that all the crap they've pulled over the years is ok (GST? supposed to gone no?). Vote for anybody else.

Re:Non-Confidence Vote Next Week

[roman_mir]

Stupid mods, can't distinguish between a flamebait and genuine disgust. Must be liberals.

Re:Non-Confidence Vote Next Week

[ppanon]

You idiots have bought the Fiberal line that the Conservative are evil. Maybe they are and maybe they are not, but voting in a Conservative gov't is not giving them a "govern for life" free pass. Nobody can "destroy canada" in one mandate. Canada has already be [sic] wrecked pretty good [sic] to date so it's pretty hard to make it worse.
That's exactly the same type of argument that Republicans used in the 90's to take control on the U.S. Congress and the White House. "The Democrats are corrupt and we'll bring honesty and decorum back". We saw how well that worked out.

Well, 1 out of 2 doesn't cut it for me. I listen to what the opposition says to make sure they aren't worse before blindly voting for them out of dislike of the current government. I've heard nothing from the opposition alternatives to make me believe they would be any better and lots to believe they would be worse. As soon as that changes (and if I was religious I would pray for that day) then I will change my vote.

It's simple, for the conservatives to get my vote, they need to move to the socio-political centre and they've done the opposite. When I see a valid alternative, I'll vote for it and not a day sooner. Your thoughtless knee jerk reaction is even worse than the one you accuse me of.

As for Canada being thoroughly wrecked, our educational and health care systems are hurting a bit from supporting a growing and aging population. However we've got one of the best economies and balance sheets among the developed world countries to be able to deal with it and that's thanks to Martin, not to any "Conservative". Hopefully Canadians remember what "Conservative" fiscal management under Mulroney was like, rather than swallow the current propaganda. It's funny but it's like the U.S. under Clinton: the liberals have become better fiscal managers than the Conservatives, even when you include AdScam. That's pathetic.

Advanced technology.

[Spazntwich]

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

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

Re:Advanced technology.

[doyoulikegoatseeee]

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

Re:Advanced technology.

[Patrik_AKA_RedX]

They'll go a bit deeper. All this will do is forcing criminals to use encryption. And then what? Investigate everyone who uses encrypted connections? Just picture you have taught your parents to use online banking and then the cops drop in to investigate why you're using encryption. After that I don't think you'd ever be able to get them use any internet related services ever again.

Re:Advanced technology.

[MichaelSmith]

Encryption technology is advancing more quickly than technology to crack it.

Loads of people have been charged with having kiddie porn on their computer systems in my country (.au) and elsewhere. Some of these people may have heard about encryption but few actually use it.

Encryption is a tech thing. Not generally used by normal people. Or even normal criminals.

Re:Advanced technology.

[the_unknown_soldier]

Yes but these were the same idiots who were willing to give their credit cards to a company in Russia selling CP. I mean really.... If Australia had the death penalty that would be Darwinism.

Re:Advanced technology.

[MichaelSmith]

these were the same idiots who were willing to give their credit cards to a company in Russia selling CP.

Yes, but the material on their PC's made the case. Same with the recent arrests of terrorists. Some had downloaded bomb making plans and left them floating around on their systems.

Re:Advanced technology.

[davecb]

It's like requiring a deadbolt lock on a glass door.

--dave

Re:Advanced technology.

[suitepotato]

As has been said many times, many ways, no not Merry Xmas, just because you have nothing to hide doesn't mean it isn't your nothing. You can hide nothing if you feel like it. No one's business if you do.

I think one of the next things to happen will be OSS software which by default requires encryption and hashes of all communication and has no facility for logging by design. Chained systems which scatter communications across tunnels from one point to another will become the norm, especially as more and more bidirectional broadband lines become the norm.

Privacy services have a bright future ahead. And the bad guys will reap the benefits as a consequence of this, so easily they won't need to deal with techies on the side or try to get some who might align with their ideals and politics. They'll be able to spend five minutes with Google and point and click their way to encryption and security that will in the aggregate with so many layers interoperating and protecting each other be extremely non-trivial to break.

Control freakery always leads to a response from society. Fifties prudishness still didn't stop almost obscene double entendre from happening in music. So too will it continue now.

Re:Advanced technology.

[Anonymous Coward]

I have bomb making plans on my computer - what does that have to do with terrorism?

Watch what you type

[skreeech]

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

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

coincidence?

[Foktip]

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

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

Re:coincidence?

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:coincidence?

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:coincidence?

[whogben]

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

Re:coincidence?

[parodyca]

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

Re:coincidence?

[Foktip]

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

Re:coincidence?

[Anonymous Coward]

now all we have to look forward to is c84...

Re:coincidence?

[JediTrainer]

The evil bit?

Re:coincidence?

[Alsee]

Correction:
Buy 10 burritos get the fourth covered in evil.

-

A new america

[roman_mir]

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

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

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

A man can dream.

Re:A new america

[skreeech]

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

Re:A new america

[roman_mir]

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

---

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

Re:A new america

[vodkamattvt]

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

Re:A new america

[Anonymous Coward]

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

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

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

Re:A new america

[Anonymous Coward]

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

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

Re:A new america

[skreeech]

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

Re:A new america

[Scrameustache]

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

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

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

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

Re:A new america

[roman_mir]

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

Re:A new america

[Anonymous Coward]

You can do what the Free State Project is doing: http://www.freestateproject.org/

Re:A new america

[RexRhino]

How much do you want to bet that no matter how many coke heads are driving real fast on the highway, they won't kill anywhere near as many people as the 170 million killed by governments in the 20th century (not including wars).

Check out:
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM

Given the history of genocide, warefare, and mass-murder commited all around the world by governments, I would say I would rather err on the side of caution when it comes to police states.

Re:A new america

[Sloppy]

That's extremist nutjob lunatic fringe thinking. Next you'll be saying that governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

Don't you realize that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed?

Re:A new america

[dufke]

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

What part of your experience here has led you to believe that Slashdotters actually AGREE on anything? ;-)

Re:A new america

[Kuukai]

Marx dreamed. Jefferson dreamed. Things don't always go the way you think they will, even if you're as smart as those guys. I for one would hate to live in a country where the streets aren't safe to drive on all because some guy who bought the island had some crazy ideology about law. That kinda defies the entire primary purpose of government (to keep other people from killing me or taking my stuff). Not to mention some of your laws are contradictory. How are you perserving privacy if you punish murderers publicly? (and you're practically guaranteed not all "murderers" found guilty in your society acutally committed a crime) And the guilty would be very hard to punish with everyone fending for themselves. No one's going to work for an unpaid police force, and you won't be able to investigate crimes anyway because that will invade someone's privacy. Hell, without taxes, no one's going to enforce your "one law", and people somewhere on your island might set up an "invasive" government just to protect themselves from the chaos around them. I'm not trying to discourage you or your dream, I'm just saying many brilliant people have spent lifetimes trying to figure out "a better way", and there's a reason there's no utopian countries out there. Also, on an "I learned something today" note: Government is about compromise. We give up some of our freedoms in order to make the world an overall safe place for us, our loved ones, and our stuff. It's a unending game of give and take, and before it started, you would have lived in constant fear of a larger guy coming and killing you just because he felt like it. Maybe being able to feel secure about the world around me is a kind of "freedom."

Re:A new america

[flyinwhitey]

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

This isn't a troll, so don;t take it that way, but do you have any idea why there are speed limits?

It's not for the reason you stated, nor are the real reasons any good. Look it up, you'll be surprised.

(hint, insurance companies, fuel efficiency)

Re:A new america

[roman_mir]

In Toronto we had cops on a job action for a few weeks. Everyone started speeding, there was much less congestion, the number of accidents did not jump up from the usual. Cops are back with the radars, and people agree with radio talk show hosts: it's all a money grab. Besides, those who drive dangerously and kill others must be considered murderers just as well.

About taxes: what I propose is the ultimate 'vote with your dollars' system. If enough people feel that police services are required, they make donations to that specific cause and watch their money used for that purpose. What could be better? Surely, the first years would have to become stabilizing, but equilibrium would be reached where it matters.

Privacy for people who agree to live within the just limits of the system, no privacy for individuals who consider themselves better than the rest in that place and commit acts of violence.

Feeling secure about the world is a freedom? Sure it is, but not when that kind of a 'freedom' is achieved by taking away all other freedoms. Again - vote with your money.

Re:A new america

[glyph42]

See my journal entry on the subject: http://yro.slashdot.org/~glyph42/journal/65573

Re:A new america

[megalomang]

Ok, so maybe insurance companies want the speed limits to be lower. I'll humor you and incorporate that into his statement, but that still doesn't change his point. It only makes it stronger-- in order to hold people accountable for their actions, speed limits must be imposed.

So to clarify:

"When people drive, they are responsible for other people's lives and property. Because most people do not have the free cash sitting around to afford the massive damage their vehicle could potentially cause, they must buy insurance to cover the liability. Because most people would not be able to afford this liability insurance if speeds were unlimited, the government (perhaps in response to insurance company data or lobbying) imposes speed limits to bring down liability costs so that insurance is affordable enough so that most people can be financially held accountable for their actions. "

Unfortunately, that still means good drivers pay more for liability coverage they do not need, and the worst drivers are still a burden on society. It is not an ideal system, but this way is better than the possibility of no speed limits and a bunch of idiot teenagers killing my innocent children while they speed down my neighborhood street.

Re:A new america

[flyinwhitey]

"in order to hold people accountable for their actions, speed limits must be imposed."

What would you say if I told you that raising speed limits leads to fewer, yes FEWER accidents? Didn't know that did you?

So, I would suggest first, that you do some research. You haven't or else you'd know how much of your post is bunk.

Also, the surest way to lose credibiltiy is the "what about the children" argument.

"It is not an ideal system, but this way is better than the possibility of no speed limits and a bunch of idiot teenagers killing my innocent children while they speed down my neighborhood street."

There it goes, credibility out the window. Also I would ask, what kind of imbecile would let their kid play on a road with no speed limit? You do realize that is what you just said you'd do?

PS I'm not advocating for no speed limits, I'm just trying to educate people like you who haven't taken the time to divest themselves of their ignorance.

Re:A new america

[jjr1]

And after a short while your utopian society would be corrupted by human nature.

The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.

Re:A new america

[Kuukai]

No privacy for individuals who consider themselves better than the rest in that place and commit acts of violence.

Most of the legislation that chips away at our privacy (like the patriot act) is founded on that very principle. "If someone's going to commit acts of violence (or at least be suspected of them), it's in the public interest to ignore their rights, and possibly the rights of those surrounding them."(An investigation and trial is hard if all witnesses have the right to privacy) The fact of the matter is that unless you have some sort of universal crime detector, this ends up far from ideal, and innocent people will get their lives ruined by the system, and the system will be abused. Which, unless I'm reading you wrong, is exactly what you don't want. I know you have a system to prevent abuse: a combination of "openness" and monetary leverage, but so does Congress, and they keep screwing me over every time they meet. Eventually your system might involve a warrant, juries, some level of power to the lower class, etc., but that starts to sound fairly familiar...

Re:A new america

[Scrameustache]

"It is not an ideal system, but this way is better than the possibility of no speed limits and a bunch of idiot teenagers killing my innocent children while they speed down my neighborhood street."

There it goes, credibility out the window. Also I would ask, what kind of imbecile would let their kid play on a road with no speed limit? You do realize that is what you just said you'd do?

No, he did not.
Kids cross streets too.

What would happen if...

[FlyByPC]

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

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

Re:What would happen if...

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Define "victim".

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

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

Re:What would happen if...

[Kattana]

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

Re:What would happen if...

[khromatikos]

But utilitarism is such a weak way of thinking! the means do not justify the ends!

Finally!

[yoink23]

Hopefully this will cut down on illegal music downloading!

Re:Finally!

[skreeech]

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

And Now For An Election

[Foktip]

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

From Communism to Communism

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:From Communism to Communism

[Rod Beauvex]

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

Re:From Communism to Communism

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:From Communism to Communism

[Rod Beauvex]

Could any of you fagg0rts tell me where I mentioned the USA being free?

IANAL

[The Amazing Fish Boy]

Canadian Constitution says:

8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.

5. IS A WARRANTLESS SEARCH OR SEIZURE ALWAYS UNREASONABLE?

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

Re:IANAL

[sedmonds]

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

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

Re:IANAL

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:IANAL

[NotBorg]

How does one go about determining if a search or seizure is unreasonable? A warrant would be a good argument that a search was reasonable. When there is no warrant it is left open to the question of weather any attempt was made to ascertain its reasonability (which would be unreasonable IMHO). IANAL either, but I think it could be argued that any search is unreasonable with out a warrant.

Re:IANAL

[Tsian]

How does this allow for the inclusion thought?

Re:IANAL

[Anonymous Coward]

You must have missed the part of his post that said: "However, the Supreme Court of Canada has adopted the position that all warrantless searches are prima facie unreasonable." (prima facie = at first sight)

So the comparison is not a wiretap but phone#

[Anonymous Coward]

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

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

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

[Vombatus]

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

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

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

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

[Anonymous Coward]

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

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

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

[skreeech]

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

At least we have the 4th amendment

[ShatteredDream]

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

Re:At least we have the 4th amendment

[paulthomas]

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

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

Re:At least we have the 4th amendment

[qeveren]

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

Re:At least we have the 4th amendment

[Anonymous Coward]

If the US government based their laws and actions only on what they could legally do, Iraq would not have happened, Bush would already be in the hague up on war crimes, and most of the truely evil regimes that have flourished in the 20th century would not have come to power (think Chile, ElSalvador, Nicaruaga, Iran, Iraq, Haiti etc..).

BTW the big push for this Canadian law comes from, you guessed it, the good ol US of A. They see our citizens rights as a security concern. This is the patriot act sneaking north of the border. The funny part, is Americans pointing at us and saying "see, we told you you weren't free", when all of this has already been done in the US. Think "Free speech zones".

Heh, minority government...

[Goalie_Ca]

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

Shame on Canada

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Be on the lookout for similar "POLICE STATE" laws

[ElectroBot]

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



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

directly proportional

[doyoulikegoatseeee]

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

Damn Canada...

[Jesselnz]

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

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

[Tontoman]

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

Some of the reasons they have...

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Some sites are:

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

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

Re:Some of the reasons they have...

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[Finishes gut busting laughter]

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

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

Re:Some of the reasons they have...

[Anonymous Coward]

Lack of proof, full of BS, you are Canadian all right.

Remember my son, your government verifies the papers of those that apply as professionals, never ever ever forget that, YOU, THROUGH YOUR VOTE (OR LACK OF IT) has made the policies to scam immigrants available.

Enjoy your lack of privacy and deteriorating health care system, I'll be on the other side of the border making sure you cannot come in to the the truly land of opportunities and liberties, God Bless America.

Re:Some of the reasons they have...

[Anonymous Coward]

Enjoy your lack of privacy and deteriorating health care system, I'll be on the other side of the border making sure you cannot come in to the the truly land of opportunities and liberties, God Bless America.

Bwhahahahahahahaha. Oh god that is hilarious and amazingly unintentionally ironic.

Thanks for the laugh, son.

Shame on Canada!

[Eli Gottlieb]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It will never pass.

[iamghetto]

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

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

Re:It will never pass.

[Anonymous Coward]

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

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

Re:It will never pass.

[PhraudulentOne]

Sweet, no more french on everything, no more having to take french in school, no more money going to Quebec, no more listening to French when I wait for 30min on hold with Bell Canada. Goodtimes!

Buhbye!

Chance to have lunch with the Minister Responsible

[darnvader]

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

you still Movin' to Canada?

[Douglas Simmons]

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

Re:you still Movin' to Canada?

[Anonymous Coward]

Big money and corps are behind this, it certainly isn't the people. Corps want to own everything and turn every country into their little worker farms.

Re:you still Movin' to Canada?

[Anonymous Coward]

Right on, Comrade!

Typical fallacy

[Spy der Mann]

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

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

Re:Typical fallacy

[TapeCutter]

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

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

Re: Typical fallacy

[Guuge]

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

Think about the logic there. According to your claim, only totalitarian states can truly achieve communism. Thus, the states that fail to achieve communism would tend to have other forms of government. But the opposite is true: failed attempts at communism tend to have totalitarian governments. It seems far more likely that a totalitarian government is an impediment to achieving a working communist system.

Re: Typical fallacy

[Anonymous Coward]

"It seems far more likely that a totalitarian government is an impediment to achieving a working communist system."

You don't get it. The grandparent poster was saying that a communist state with a totalitarian government was not a communist state. Ergo it's an impediment **only** in that by definition it makes it (arbitrarily) not communist - not in that a totalitarian government impedes the formation of a communist state.

It's an arbitrary definition that hard-lefties like to use to avoid all the examples of how shitty communism is in practice. The reality is that totalitarianism is *required* for communism, so it's pointless to discuss a non-totalitarian communist state.

Re: Typical fallacy

[Guuge]

The grandparent poster was saying that a communist state with a totalitarian government was not a communist state.

I would have to disagree with the claim that the USSR was a functioning communist state. That's like saying that Iran is a functioning democracy. It seems pretty obviously false when you do the analysis.

I don't give a damn about political correctness, "sending the wrong message", or any such excuse for misinformation. Attempts at communism have obviously had shitty results, but it serves nothing to try to redefine communism as something that yields shitty results. The USSR is just another failed attempt, a the model of Marxist ideals as some would have us believe.

All the choices suck!

[farrellj]

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

ttyl
          Farrell

Re:All the choices suck!

[Anonymous Coward]

If you are calling the Conservatives the same as the Reform Party, you are mistaken. Sadly, the Conservatives are nothing like the Reform Party. Instead, the Conservatives are just another party trying to buy votes from Ontario.

It's a shame the east will never care about politics from the west. For all they know, Alberta is the poorest province in the nation where no-one has a job.

Re:All the choices suck!

[PhraudulentOne]

I'm voting Green Party again. Fuck the big 3 (+ PQ). None of them are respectable people. None that I have seen anyway.

Re:All the choices suck!

[saskboy]

Before joining or voting for the NDP, consider supporting your local Green Party candidate. They are more moderate on some issues than the NDP, and have between 4 and 7% of the polls. It would be higher if pollsters offered Greens as a party choice when they do their "If there was an election today who would you vote for" question.

Scared C-60 won't pass?

[saskboy]

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

what are the real reasons behind this?

[bzipitidoo]

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

Re:what are the real reasons behind this?

[Anonymous Coward]

"MPAA/RIAA"

Lots of As in there and no Cs. I don't think it was them.

Oh Canada!

[slashbob22]

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

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

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

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

Oh Canada, we foil our heads for thee!

----
*
a) Tin Foil - Aluminum Foil has been shown not to work.

**
a) Patch to avoid DOS
b) Avoid tunneling to the US or China both have stronger anti-communication laws


Canadian Government Information Site

err, about hate speech...

[Phil Urich]

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

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

Re:Chance to have lunch with the Minister Responsi

[RichiP]

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

Re:And Now For An Election

[superpulpsicle]

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

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

[ElectroBot]

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

Fear is King

[aeoo]

"You have nothing to fear but fear itself."

Re:Fear is King

[Anonymous Coward]

You've obviously never had a full body cavity search.

promote the general Welfare

[chocolatetrumpet]

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

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

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

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

More experiments are needed.

Just wondering... SSH?

[Sleeping Kirby]

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

Re:Just wondering... SSH?

[PhraudulentOne]

So far (as long as SSH is not secretly vulnerable), it does solve everything. The rules in this Bill state that the ISP has to hand over the communication to the authorities. If the ISP compresses, encrypts (etc) the communication, then the ISP has to remove the treatment (the bill calls it a treatment), or give the authorities the method of how to remove the treatment. If the communication is encrypted by the customer (evildoer), then the ISP just hands that over without being responsible for breaking the encryption.

Re:Chance to have lunch with the Minister Responsi

[Anonymous Coward]

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

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

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

This can all be resisted

[Sloppy]

People, the powers that be want this stuff. It doesn't matter if you live in UK or USA or Canada or whatever. There will be haggles about whether it's legal or not, there will be haggles about whose responsibility it is to spend the money to provide intercept capability, and different jurisdictions will end up with different rules.

But in the end, none of it will ever work without your consent. All people have to do, is Just Say No, and the powers that be will be totally fucked, unless they crack down so hard (pretty much outlaw all encryption) that the side-effects will be unacceptable to everyone -- and thus it won't be doable. We can stop this shit forever (assuming lack of certain breakthroughs) if we can just get non-nerds interested enough to create the network effects and critical mass.

Tap my communications, and maybe you can learn a bit from traffic analysis, but you won't know what I'm saying if you can't crack the ciphers. And maybe you can compromise me if you focus on me, just as you can compromise a criminal when you're willing to get a warrant and break into his home and install a bug. But they can't do that to all 5 or 6 billion of us. With encryption, we can deny them the capacity to install a massive driftnet to fish for dirt on everybody.

And the way to do this, is to decentralize control and encrypt. Your telecom provider is required to install a backdoor and let people spy on you without your knowledge? Well, that doesn't work if you are your own telecom provider -- what are they going to say: "don't tell yourself"? Anything over a public net has to be encrypted. Make the endpoints be the only viable intercept points.

It will impede organized criminals, it will impede nosey sysops, it will impede crackers who compromise the in-between systems that you currently blindly trust, it will impede the unethical marketing division of your communication providers, and yes, it will impede law enforcement. But even if you're a diehard statist and insist that Big Brother has the right to watch us, do we not still have a right to be protected against all the Little Brothers? You can't have it both ways -- you can't give the good guys this power and keep it away from the bad guys. That is not possible. So pick your poison: a free society where Bad Guys have privacy too, or one where we always feel like maybe we're being watched, not by one benevolent eye, but many who unlike government, don't even operate under the pretense of serving our interests.

Re:This can all be resisted

[Anonymous Coward]

People, the powers that be want this stuff.

If the politicians are in power and creating laws, it is because the people put them there by voting. The power is the people in a democracy; the politicians are just a relfection of what the majority create.

Re:This can all be resisted

[Anonymous Coward]

it is because the people put them there by voting.

Technically true, but totally unrealistic. Look at the re-election statistics for incumbants, for instance, as a clue here. Organized interests (labor unions like AFL-CIO & NEA, corporate lobbyists and alliance extensions like the RIAA and the BSA, special interest organizations like AARP) run the show with your Senator and Representative in the US.

If you want to understand the scope of influence, current and former Senate staffer associates have told me it defines the agenda for more than 80% of what is done in DC (the other 20% consisting of national defense issues and the occasional public interest item they all have to deal with because they'll face a lynch mob back home if they ignore it). Essentially, everything is done because of the deal. Politicians get paid money (Senator Reid, for instance, is effective at getting people to use his family's law interests in Nevada in exchange for pushing forward issues for his lobbyist customers), and interests get their business done. It's a financial exchange in which neither party sees YOU participating in, and subsequently regards your involvement as a lynch mob risk to be mitigated only. Throw you a bone occasionally (but take it right back twice-over the second you look away) and you're happy. Give you your sports teams and you'll lose interest in the real business quickly.

And when it comes to the needs of law enforcement for this, I'm highly skeptical. Having worked for ISPs in my career, I've had mediocre assistance at best (and typically plain disinterest). One incident involved our ISPs discovery of a large hacking incident that involved several nations embassies in a coordinated attack on Time Warner. We had identified over 40 hosts involved in addition to the various embassy systems in the US, and yet the FBI responded that they are not a response agency (WTF?). All those neat technology tools and they're too busy to put them to use for the people as they promise.

But as long as the useful fools focus on side shows funded by the wealthy interests in control like MoveOn.org (funded by George Soros who strongly influences much of the US political environment for his own financial benefit), the real game will continue. Move along... nothing to see here.

Re:This can all be resisted

[Anonymous Coward]

Good post.

Really, if we have this kind of dialogue with the folks around us on a semi-regular basis we could do a lot of good -- especially if it raises awareness of the representatives who advocate for or against measures that make individuals less secure online.

Re:This can all be resisted

[jez9999]

Actually, encryption isn't necessarily going to work if they're monitoring ALL of your internet communications. If you're using a system whereby you give somebody your private key on a piece of paper or something, then maybe you can hide it from them. But in practice, most encryption systems rely on first sending your private key over... the public internet. So they just intercept that first and use it to decrypt your further communications.

Re:This can all be resisted

[JesseMcDonald]

Actually, that's backward. In public-key encryption, only the owner knows the private key. They can send the public key to anyone they wish, or post it on a message board somewhere--the public key isn't sensitive information. The public key is used to encrypt information sent to the owner. Once encrypted, only the owner of the private key can decrypt it. Typically, a public-key system is used to securely transfer a shared key, because shared-key encryption is typically a lot less CPU-intensive, but the principle is still the same. A typical session goes something like this:

(1) Client opens connection to server
(2) Server sends its public key to client
(4) Client generates session key and encrypts with server's public key
(5) Client sends encrypted session key to server
(6) Server and client communicate using session key for encryption

The only data transferred in cleartext is the server's public key, which is not sensitive information. The shared session key is never transmitted in cleartext, so even someone listening in couldn't decrypt the traffic passing through the connection. The primary danger is a "man in the middle" attack, in which the listener pretends to be the original server to the client and the client to the original server. By sending his own public key to the client he can trick the client into encrypting the data for the attacker and not for the original server. That's why a typical encryption certificate comes signed by the issuing authority and limited to a single domain, which is checked by the SSL library whenever a connection is established.

Re:This can all be resisted

[Sloppy]

But in practice, most encryption systems rely on first sending your private key over... the public internet.

This is where public key cryptography comes in. If they want to intercept the symmetric keys, they'll have to take the drastic and active step of launching Man in the Middle attacks to compromise the public keys. And if they do this as a matter of policy, to generally monitor everyone, they will be detected. And even active MitM attacks can be prevented by a one-shot verification of public keys, and pretty much effectively (if not rigorously) resisted by using webs of trust.

OpenPGP is a well-thought-out, solid system. Phil Zimmermann, Werner Koch, and others have given us something incredibly valuable, which I think we'll still be thanking them for, a hundred years from now.

Minority government

[bareminimum]

Those of you unfamiliar with the current state of Canadian politics may find it interesting to learn that the current Gvt is in a minority position and since Monday has completely lost control of the Parliament. They have no intention of regaining it - i.e. we will have elections as soon as the opposition decides to put its trousers on and defeat the Gvt on a confidence motion (i.e. financial)

Therefore in an attempt to stall said oposition and force them into election the Gvt has presented many incomplete bills today knowing that none of them will have a chance to pass.

Sorry but nothing to see here, maybe next year.

oh yeah?

[Tezkah]

If pure libertarianism really works, why isn't there countries like this?

Because it doesn't work in reality. A pure libertarian system in reality would be just as flawed as a pure communist system, even though both in theory sound great.

Re:oh yeah?

[atriusofbricia]

Or perhaps to found one at this point, there being no new lands to found a new country with, you'd need a revolution of some kind to have one. Either a violent uprising, or a drastic change in thought. As violent revolution has unbelievably high costs, in lives and funds, and drastic changes in thought require there to be thought at the individual voter level, neither of these things are likely.

Unless things get so bad that daily life is in the crapper, the cost of violent revolution is too great.

And given that at least here in the US, most people either vote down the party line, or for who someone else is voting for, you don't have much chance of a change in thought.

Therefore, even if a pure libertarian society would work (which I think it would), you most likely won't see one anytime soon.

Re:oh yeah?

[CaptRespect]

"If pure libertarianism really works, why isn't there countries like this?
Because it doesn't work in reality. A pure libertarian system in reality would be just as flawed as a pure communist system, even though both in theory sound great."

Wow, great reasoning.

I'm sure Edison thought: If the light bulb really works, why doesn't it exist yet? Because it doesn't work in reality.

Let's all disregard trying to do anything because it doesn't work because someone else hasn't done it yet.

Re:oh yeah?

[Tezkah]

Let's all disregard trying to do anything because it doesn't work because someone else hasn't done it yet.

We have tried it. It didn't work. Why do you think there are labour laws in the UK? Why are children going to school everyday instead of the factory?

Oh, because the government butted its terrible nose into capitalism to fix some of the market's failures.

heh

[xilmaril]

I think it's pretty obvious that you're both talking with the lips on your butts, since neither of you linked to this fabled 'google search'.

here's a google search sort of along the lines of what you two were looking for. it's not a carefully worded search. the results it comes up with are all completely irrelevant to the discussion. but do you see just how much weight it has somehow added to my arguement?

google-search!

Re:heh

[bhirsch]

holocaust denial canada turned up quite a bit.

Re:heh

[Anonymous Coward]

Picked one at random from the search list...

http://www.journalism.co.uk/news/story380.shtml

"It bears repeating that the expression in those documents does nothing to advance the underlying values of freedom of expression," said commissioners Claude Pensa and Reva Devins.

Obviously freedom of speech was taken into great consideration. In the end it was determined that this was not expression, but a deliberate attempt to promote hatred.

So, your point is irrelevant in this case, at least. Balance in judgement is required in complicated cases such as these.

I'm not going to go through every finding, but instead challenge you to find one that actually supports your claim.

Re:heh

[bhirsch]

How does that not support my claim that it is illegal in Canada to deny the holocaust? Whether or not free speech is a consideration is irrelevant to my claim. My statement was not a subjective or contentious one. You just threw up a link that in fact supports my claim.

Re:heh

[Em Adespoton]

How does that not support my claim that it is illegal in Canada to deny the holocaust?

Ever heard the argument that because you saw a black crow, all crows must be black?

The article didn't say he broke the law for denying the holocaust, it says he broke the law for promoting race hate, and the main tool he used to promote it was holocaust denial. In canada, Judges tend to give more weight to intent than they do in the US -- sometimes this is good, sometimes it is a problem. You will also see this issue crop up in Libel claims, among other things.

Re:heh

[bhirsch]

That's like saying that shooting someone in the head with a shotgun is not illegal, but murder is. Furthermore, the relative low number of people prosecuted for an act does not mean the act is not illegal.

I live in Massachusetts, where sodomy (the main tools being oral and anal sex) is illegal. It is rare that someone is ever charged for it, but it is still an enforced law.

Re:heh

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually most countries hold you responsible for what you say. Don't remember exactly but a judge in US ruled that if you shout fire (for fun) in a crowded theatre and people die in the stampede, you are responsible. Freedom of speech is valid as long as it's does not directly impact/hurt someone.

Re:heh

[Dire Bonobo]

> That's like saying that shooting someone in the head with a
> shotgun is not illegal, but murder is.

No - it's like saying shooting a shotgun is not illegal, but shooting a shotgun with intent to injure or kill is illegal, because of that intent.

You have provided no evidence that peaceful, well-intentioned holocaust-questioning is illegal in Canada. (Admittedly, such a thing may no even exist, but the fact remains that your claim is still completely unsupported).

Re:heh

[bhirsch]

The mouth would be the shotgun, shooting it would be denying the holocaust, and murder would be the hate crime. Believe whatever you like, but it would seem quite clear that Canada has no problem seeking legal action against people if the words that come out of the mouth are deemed hateful.

Re:heh

[Dire Bonobo]

> The mouth would be the shotgun, shooting it would be denying the
> holocaust, and murder would be the hate crime...it would seem quite
> clear that Canada has no problem seeking legal action against people
> if the words that come out of the mouth are deemed hateful.

So, continuing your analogy, that would be "it would seem quite clear that Canada has no problem seeking legal actions against people if the shootings of their shotgun are deemed murderous."

Er, well, yes, that's exactly the point I was trying to make, and I thought you were trying to argue against---it's not the speech that's criminalized in Canada, it's the incitement of hate. Speech without incitement of hate = no crime; incitement of hate without speech = crime.

I guess we weren't disagreeing, though(?), so there's not much more to say.

Re:heh

[bhirsch]

I don't think there was ever a disagreement. Whenever a story comes out like the original article, I see responses (presumably from Americans) that amount to, "omglol canada is beccoming wrose than teh US." It does not seem terribly well known that the average citizen in the US enjoys many civil liberties that no one in Canada does.

I can say nearly anything I want in the US provided it does not insight violence or directly cause harm to others. Insighting hate is not a crime here.

And, don't forget that Canada dropped its birth right citizenship policy some time ago, but the US still gets a bad reputation for not being nice enough to illegal immigrants.

Re:heh

[Dire Bonobo]

> It does not seem terribly well known that the average citizen in the US enjoys many civil liberties
> that no one in Canada does.

What would those be? (Other than guns, of course.)

Re:heh

[bhirsch]

The aforementioned right to free speech would be a biggie. Americans are allowed to insight all of the hate they want, as long as they don't directly command a violent act to take place or do something to the effect of yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theater.

At a convention once, I saw a Canadian bureaucrat who said, "Canadians are sheep." He wasn't trying to insult his fellow countrymen as much as emphasize how much the Canadian citizens are willing to cede control of their lives to the government.

Re:heh

[Dire Bonobo]

> The aforementioned right to free speech would be a biggie. Americans are allowed to insight all of the hate
> they want, as long as they don't directly command a violent act to take place or do something to the effect
> of yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theater.

One could argue that inciting hate is not so different from shouting "fire!" in a crowded theatre; injury to innocent people is likely in either case.

Forgive me for being slow, but I'm still not sure I see "allowed to willfully incite hate" and "allowed ownership of a larger class of firearms" as "many civil liberties". Is there a list somewhere which details what you were referring to?

Citizen Kang

[Monty]

So sad but true. And you know a democracy's on the way down when voting choices are turning year-by-year into Kodos or Kang.

So much music...

[IoN_PuLse]

This has to be the story with the most comments that contains music about it I've seen on Slashdot for a while...

Re:So much music...

[slashbob22]

In Canada we sing to forget our troubles.

.... I'm a lumberjack and I'm okay
I sleep all night and I work all day .....

oh yah. We also drink strong beer - but that's hard to illustrate on Slashdot

I've had a little first hand experience with this.

[Anonymous Coward]

I once worked for a small Canadian ISP. One time we had an investigation request documents under a subpoena. I don't know the details of the particular legal case, but essentially the investigator wanted our complete logs of ALL username/IP address correlations. Not just for the username of the suspect, but of every username, IP address and login time. Excerpts just would not do.

Of course my manager went ballistic over concern for our customers information, but we had to comply. Now, I really fear how much information could be gathered without even a warrant or subpoena, and about people who have nothing to do with particular investigations if this bill passes...not likely with an election looming.

What happened to the old system of probable cause and due process?

And why does my nation's parliament have to be so damn ineffectual at the moment? Like Canada doesn't have any other issues.

Call the election...at least it'd be a change of performers in this stagnant government.

That's similar to the US

[Sycraft-fu]

As always, this is not legal advice. Nothing on Slashdot is ever legal advice.

Wiretaps require a warrant. The warrant can be sealed, and usually is (what good does it do if the person being tapped knows about it?) but they do need a warrant. The NSA, which is the intelligence division that monitors electronic communications, needs no warrants of any kind for anything. HOWEVER, they are limited to foriegn operations only. So they can listen to whatever they can get away with in Canada or anywhere else, but not in the US. In practise it's unknown if they spy in the US but it's fairly likely they don't. It'd be a major political scandal if it turned out they did, and of course anything they monitored would be inadmissable in court since they weren't allowed to be monitoring it. Also the FBI would get pissy if they caught someone stepping on their turn (domestic intelligence operations are their job).

Your employer can monitor whatever they like with basically no notice at all. There are limits, like no hidden cameras in the toliets, but they are pretty few. The idea is that at work, it's their proerty their rules. You don't like it? Don't work there. They can look on your computer, listen in on your phone calls, etc. As a practical matter few do any real draconian measures because it'll piss peopel off and they'll ahve trouble getting good workers.

There's a name for that kind of view

[Sycraft-fu]

It's called Liberterian. There's a Libertarian party in the US and everything. The problem is, you find that when you simplify and over-apply that concept it doesn't work well. If you are interested in it, you can Google around. There are plenty of groups that support Libertarianism, even in extreme forms, and will argue why it's good and it'll work. There are plenty of others that'll argue why it won't work.

One problem, just as a start, is what about the common good? So my individual right to self-determination would imply, at an extreme, no taxes. Any taxes you take limits my right to do what I want with the money I earned. So since we know that won't work, we are tehn left with the principle of minimal taxes. The government does only the bare minimum. But what is that? Well extreme Libertarians argue that is should be only basic, essential serveces, ie police, national defense, roads and so on. No welfare or anything. You fall on hard times, that's your own problem, you can't infringe on the rights of others and force them to help you out. Likewise corperate monopolies would be perfectly legal.

Basically take the social agenda of Democrats to the extreme and the economic agenda of the Republicans to the extreme, you have extreme Libertarians.

Now nobody says you have to take it to the extreme. I'd be considered a Libertarian by most since I am economicly conservative (meaning small government), socially liberal (meaning lots of individual rights). However your situation of one, basic right, gets in to that problem. If that's the trump-all, you end up with a pretty minimalist government. Sounds nice on paper, but in reality there's a reason we have governments, we need them.

Re:There's a name for that kind of view

[atriusofbricia]

What things do we need government for? Simply saying that "government does these things:" doesn't count. What things do governments do that cannot be done any other way?

Re:There's a name for that kind of view

[Sycraft-fu]

In theory or in practise? In theory we don't need a government at all. Even all of the public service type things could just be companies that everyone paid in to. However in practise there's quite a lot.

One that many Libertarians don't go for but that seems essential is education. Public education is essential to a functioning, free society. One reason is simply that if you are more educated, you are less suceptable to having politicians pull a fast one on you. However the more important factor is social mobility. If all education costs money, you'll quickly have an extreme division of classes. There will be the educated rich and the uneducated poor, and no real way to fix it. The poor won't be able to get the better jobs and move up, since those require education and they can't afford that in the first place.

So the real question isn't what is there the governmnt does that can't can't done any other way, because there's always another way. The question is what SHOULD the government do to keep society as functional as possible? As for that, well there's massive debate, and good arguments on all sides.

that's it!

[idlake]

With this sort of BS happening here, I'm moving to Canada. No, wait...

Re:that's it!

[Chaffar]

This kind of thing only happens because you people let your governments get away with it!
If somebody tried to pull off something like this here in France, armed mobs would take over the streets in protest!

Oh wait... Nevermind

WHO FSCKING CARES!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Use crypto, pwn some n00b's box, find an unsecured wireless AP. But never forget who pwns the network. We do, not no stinkin' gummit!

Sheesh..!

Where's the Canada bashing?

[njyoder]

And this is why you Canada is going in a downard spiral of tyranny. You don't realize how bad you have it. You need to move down to America where it's truly free, instead of being in such an oppressive regime. It never ceases to amaze me how Canadians can tout their freedom with things like this going on.

Now, reverse "Canada" and "America" and this comment gets moderated +5 Insightful. As it stands though, this kind of comment on Slashdot gets moderated -1 Troll. The hypocrisy hurts.

Re:Where's the Canada bashing?

[PhraudulentOne]

That's because this bill is only being discussed, and not likely to pass, whereas the USA has already passed several of privacy invasion laws. See the difference?

Re:Where's the Canada bashing?

[njyoder]

And when has that EVER stopped Slashdot from America-bashing? I've seen Slashdot post about proposed American bills, with people getting all hot and bothered. So no, I don't see the difference, because whenever a proposed American bill gets posted on Slashdot it gets treated the same as a bill that's been passed.

Re:Where's the Canada bashing?

[PhraudulentOne]

I don't know then. I guess it's just more fun to bash America because they tout their freedom and patriotism so much?

Re:Where's the Canada bashing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Canada is much more FREE then America. WE just dont go boasting about freedom every 2 seconds like America. These types of bills are introduced every day here in Canada, None of them are ever passed. Unlike in America, were several ARE passed.

I think thats why all the American bashing. In 1 year from now, I will still be downloading movies on the internet and the Law still wont be able to aqquire my info from my ISP.

Re:Where's the Canada bashing?

[pho3nixtar]

Weel, one thing's for certain. The Canadian health care system rocks, with the exception of upwards of 2-5 year waits on surgical procedures that would take less than a week to have performed down here in the good ole' US of A. Canadian "freedom" certainly does have a lot of steep read-between-the-lines costs...

Re:Where's the Canada bashing?

[PhraudulentOne]

Yeah, I almost think that our (Canadian) government is trying to convert health care to a private system like the USA. We keep losing too many doctors to the States, so the gov't keeps fucking up our system more and more until privatisation seems much more appealing to the general public. I guess we'll have to wait and see.

For me, the US system is more appealing *right now*. I haven't been to the doctor in ages, and I am a pretty healthy person, so if I was putting a bit of money away incase I neeed it for surgery instead of dumping into all these crazy new fees, I would be much happier. Our fees have went through the roof, while the quality of care has declined steeply. Every pay day, money comes off for health care, as well as new premiums. I don't know how much money I have put into the system since I started paying, but it FAR outweighs any benefit that I have received.

Re:Where's the Canada bashing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Canada is much more FREE then America. WE just dont go boasting about freedom every 2 seconds like America. These types of bills are introduced every day here in Canada, None of them are ever passed. Unlike in America, were several ARE passed.

I think thats why all the American bashing. In 1 year from now, I will still be downloading movies on the internet and the Law still wont be able to aqquire my info from my ISP.


Read some Canadian law.

We criminalize "Blasphemous Libel" (see the Criminal Code), grant special rights and exemptions to religious organizations (see the Copyright Act, and Ontario's publicly funded Catholic schools), fine teachers who read more than "a reasonable portion" of a book out loud (Copyright Act), practice guilt by association (anyone "frequently in the presence" of a prostitute is deemed to be guilty of a crime, absent other evidence), criminalize threesomes (such "conjugal unions" are banned as polygamy under the criminal code), and our laws are so generally riddled with uncertainty, unclarity, and doubt that even after a law passes, we don't know how a judge will rule until he has done so: undermining the very purpose of a codified set of laws in the first place.

Our constitutional "rights" are mostly "freedoms", and can be revoked if the government feels it is appropriate to do so, as part of a "free and democractic" society. The notwithstanding clause of the constitution goes further, and lets the government ignore the rest of the constitution, so long as they point out that they've done it.

Read the old War Measures Act: it let government suspend all civil rights during times of war, or if war was even suspected.

Any extra freedoms we possess in Canada are largely due to more relaxed social attitudes, and a sense of egalitarian charity largely lacking in the US; not to any "freedom" in our laws, because we just don't have that much.

Even copyright can be used to silence speech; in Canada, just about anything can be copyrighted, including physical performances; so you don't have the right to do something unless it's never been done before(except things done 100+ years ago), if a judge doesn't want you to do it. How's that for "freedom"?

We just aren't as free as we might be. We have generally less repressive laws regarding sexuality than the US, but more restrictive than European nations. Our laws are more respressive in other areas; including Hate Speech -- we're only allowed to hate what's unpopular, like Nazis and communists. A man was arrested in Canada for saying that the evil, hateful Nazis didn't throw innocent humans into baking ovens, and render them for soap. Hate speech towards Nazis is okay; criticizing the offical government position is not.

In short, Canada is not some utopia of freedom. It's better than, say, Iran, but worse than it could be (no true separation of Church and State, no universal presumption of innocence, restricted freedom of association, etc.)

Copyright is so restrictive that it's pointless to try to create anything new; every new creation is in some sense derived from the past, and hence, potentially illegal. With no clear laws explaining which forms of innovation are sufficiently novel to be legal and which aren't, a Canadian citizen can't know if he's broken the law until a judge says so.

I probably shouldn't even be voicing an opinion here, since I might stumble onto something that's been said before, and thereby break the law. Remember, contrary to what people claim, copyright in Canada does protect ideas, not expressions; translations count as a violation, despite being an entirely different expression of the same ideas. If ideas weren't being owned, people couldn't sue over "characters", "storylines", or other ideas: and they can, and they do.

We're not Iran; but we're not Utopia, either. Don't be so busy cheerleading for your nation's purported freedoms that you fail to see the flaws that we, as citizens, need to address if we are to be truely free.

Europe risks becoming silly too

[Christian Engstrom]

There is an overwhelming risk that Europe will get the same kind of privacy invading legislation through the Data Retention Directive.

If you are a European citizen you can sign a petition against the directive here.

According to a joint newspaper article by Swedish MEPs Charlotte Cederschiöld (conservative) and Jonas Sjöstedt (socialist) that was published some months ago, the only thing that can stop the directive is feedback to the politicians from the general public on the same scale as the software patents directive generated. I don't know if they are right in their assessment, but signing the petition against the directive is at least a first step.

Personally, I would also like to see the European ISPs becoming more active and start spending some real money on lobbying.

As long as it's only the old dinosaurs with pre-Internet business models that are spending lobbying money in Brussels/Washington/Ottawa/Canberra, we will continue to see bad pieces of legislation getting passed everywhere. It's time for a new generation of businesses to realize that politics don't take care of themselves, and that if you let the bad guys' lobbyists rein unopposed, there is a bill to be paid for it later.

Re:Europe risks becoming silly too

[Anonymous Coward]

As long as it's only the old dinosaurs with pre-Internet business models that are spending lobbying money in Brussels/Washington/Ottawa/Canberra, we will continue to see bad pieces of legislation getting passed everywhere

It's a combination of incumbant large businesses and fiscally liberal politicians from both parties, e.g. recording industry, which has much more to do with this than law enforcement, but law enforcement is buying on because they're being promised new ultra-powerful surveillance and interception tools that they think will assist them in their jobs and fail to recognize that the real criminals will just up the ante in the arms race,

It's interesting in Canada and the US that the only opponents are the independent "extremes" of both political environments. One could argue that the libertarians and socialists in the US Congress don't have the same lobbying influence and also have more to lose by the status quo becoming more powerful, so they've both become opponents of this new oppression. When you have Senators like Reid (D) and Hatch (R) on the same side of an issue, look for the political "contributions" to explain motivation.

Unfortunately, the whole rationale of helping law enforcement (while pols take campaign donations from the RIAA) makes it too easy to get this kind of nonsense passed. Expecting ISPs to lobby against it is unrealistic - it is hard to allocate millions in lobbying funds in opposition to something (and take a loss on it, vs. just adding the estimated $5 to $8 dollars in new costs to the subscriber's bill). Plus, this just may make dialup expensive enough again to kill it off which many broadband providers are eager to see.

The reality is that as long as people re-elect powerful politicians who serve their patrons first, their rights will continue to evaporate. A good litmus test for how corrupt your US Congressional representatives is would be the recent highway bill. If there's even a dollar of pork, there's a congressperson who sold out and can't be trusted to do the people's business.

Re:Europe risks becoming silly too

[voice_of_all_reason]

>> the only thing that can stop the directive is feedback to the politicians from the general public on the same scale as the software patents directive generated.

Well, that... and armed rebellion...

Re:Europe risks becoming silly too

[Kafka_Canada]

There is an overwhelming risk that Europe will get the same kind of privacy invading legislation through the Data Retention Directive [epic.org].

Yeah, but if you're a European, who cares anyway? Your society won't be around for much longer.

Re:Chance to have lunch with the Minister Responsi

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't foget to bring your plastic pistol and bullets, as they're likely to have a metal detector...

OTOH - resistance is futile

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe we're going about this the wrong way.

As I see it the BBzation of western society is no longer stoppable in the long run. The historical inertia will eventually rollover any form of resistance we can muster at this point in our society. When the proverbial they are ready, we are screwed. And by then it will be too late even for revolution and other drastic measures.
So, and on to my conclusion, the only hope is if it was possible to gather enough force before they are ready. And that would only happen, in my view, in one scenario: if they stumble unto the finish line BEFORE they are ready. If all their legislation/programs, the more abusive the better got passed and enforced at a drastic rate, and matters got to a head and even INTO the heads of the 90% of the more bovine-minded humans, we could get to an explosive situation, while we still have a chance of making a difference. ah well, just a thought.

DISCLAIMER: There may be more sarcasm in this post than it may seem on a first glance. By reading this disclaimer, you agree to give me your soul. Have a nice day.

How is this "evil"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe I'm just naive or ignorant, but how exactly is this legislation evil in any way?

Basically, what it does is require ISPs to have the wiretapping infrastructure necessary for the *current* Canada wiretapping legislation to work on the Internet. They want to do on the internet what they have already been doing on the phone system for the last N years. Nothing more.

I mean, unless you are against all wiretapping whatsoever (something a find pretty excessive), how can you be against this law? Why should the government be able to tap the phone system but not the internet?

Velcome to Canada, Comrade! Submit to the Probe.

[Anonymous Coward]

The internet keeps turning stupid, frightened little government leaders into cult like groups of fascists, hell bent on spying on their own people, monitoring everything, and generally making a pest of themselves.

Why don't they just bypass the 'net and drop the pretense of following the 'will of the people'?

The elect can order GPS A/V dog collars and
shock ankle bracelets for every citizen, and
install two-way TVs in every home.

Our officials can bypass all illusion and become
self-appointed sun-gods for the people.

The Lords of All can toss aside their 'democratic' hypocrisy and take their place as the all powerful slave masters they dream of becoming.

Our new found god-kings can upgrade their big oak desks with golden thrones surrounded by fan waving, grape feeding hand maidens.

New Canadian bumper sticker:

          It's all aboot the Fascism!

But who wouldn't pass it?

[Eric S. Smith]

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

While the bill will die, who of the possible election winners wouldn't cheerfully introduce something similar when law enforcement inevitably lobbies for it again?

• The Liberals would be as likely to do so as now.
• The Conservatives as led by Stephen Harper don't strike me as more skeptical of the demands of law enforcement than the Liberals.
• The NDP won't win; if they were to hold the balance of power in another minority government, they might oppose such a bill on general lefty principles. On the other hand, they might support it as part of a horse-trading deal to get something closer to their hearts passed.
• The BQ can't win, but could conceivably hold the balance of power if there's a Liberal blow-out in Québec. We can apply the NDP scenario to such a case.

The election does buy this bill's opponents time to argue against it and extract promises to oppose it from various candidates. It's only a matter of time until something this valuable to law enforcement comes up again.

One slight pedant

[Anonymous Coward]

the 170 million killed by governments in the 20th century (not including wars).

To clarify your statement (and your link), I believe it is that 170 million were killed by their own governments, not including war.

Conservitive

[sgt scrub]

Well hey. If it is going to save money, by all means, piss all over me.

No kidding

[msobkow]

There is a suburb of Toronto that actually made it illegal for anyone to provide high-speed connections. IIRC, 64K is the limit because the "citizens" don't want their town to become a bedroom community of telecommuting techies.

Insane as it sounds, the town successfully passed the law. I don't know if it was ever overturned as an infringement of rights and freedoms, but the fact that a town could pass such an insane law means that a country could do the same.

Never underestimate the voting power of the retirees, blue collars, and low income people who hate the internet and even blame it (and computers in general) for the loss of jobs and the general dissolution of society.

Re:No kidding

[Ced_Ex]

There is a suburb of Toronto that actually made it illegal for anyone to provide high-speed connections. IIRC, 64K is the limit because the "citizens" don't want their town to become a bedroom community of telecommuting techies.

Oh really? Where is the source of this mis-information? Don't think it is possible to outlaw high speed connection.

Re:No kidding

[msobkow]

This was roughly 8 years ago. The town is north-west of Brampton/Bramalea.

It is no misinformation -- a number of techies I knew had planned on buying houses there until they found out the local cableco had been blocked from delivering high speed by the town's bylaws.

Most likely the bylaw has been fought and dumped since then, but the fact that it ever passed just goes to show the power of paranoid voters.

Intro to non-geeks

[danharan]

Wrote this for a non-geek audience. So far only one other media picked up on this... any comments before this goes out in the canadian political discussion boards? (Written for lefties that have not been historically on to tech issues)

Bill C-74 was introduced November 15th:

An Act regulating telecommunications facilities to facilitate the
lawful interception of information transmitted by means of
those facilities and respecting the provision of telecommunications
subscriber information

Whereas a wiretap requires a warrant this new law would force an Internet Service Provider (ISP) to intercept communications from customers and hand over customer lists with a simple letter from a law enforcement official. Any future software deployed by the ISP would have to have a back door, which includes internet telephony.

Alerted by legal scholar Michal Geist's writing on the subject, the tech-nerds are calling for resistance including providing end-to-end encryption (see slashdot).

The techies realize that criminals will encrypt their communication- at least those most dangerous to national security. Those that remain are the petty criminals and civilians who won't know how to protect their privacy. The public won't be more secure, but we will have more surveillance; the panopticon culture grows.

For new software, any ISP will have to choose the version most suited to increase its snooping capacities, even if they have to acquire additional licenses or communication facilities. To put it plainly: when they start offering VoIP (Voice over Internet protocol) services, ISPs will have to allow tapping without a warrant. Additional costs have to be swallowed by the ISP.

What is perhaps most pernicious in the economic sense isn't that these compliance costs will be passed on- it is that innovation will be stifled. Right now a small VoIP player could get started on ridiculously small amounts of capital. The effect of these regulations will be to protect oligopolies.

Ironically, as the new technologies have be designed for ease of surveillance, crackers (criminal or black-hat hackers) will likely be able to leverage these back doors to their ends. Stalking, industrial espionage and snooping for blackmail or identity theft material all become more likely. Making surveillance easy for the RCMP and CSIS could make it trivial for criminals, even terrorists to get to sensitive information.

Here's to hoping the NDP will firmly trash this nonsense. Or do we trust those that film us at every peace demonstration (and happily send off immigrants back to their countries of origin for questioning) with more surveillance power?

If everybody used "Spook", it could overwhelm CSIS

[MCRocker]

I used to use emacs SPOOK , mostly as a lark, in all my email. In particular, there was a spookmime hack for Xemacs VM that put Spook words into the MIME boundary lines of every email so that it would be unobtrusive to email users, but, supposedly, trigger NSA keyword sieves. I stopped after 2001-Sep-11, but if I were living in Canada again, I'd definitely consider using Spook again... though I'd probably have to write a plugin for Thunderbird to do it.

If every ISP found that a significant minority of all of their users always had Spook keywords embedded in all of their email and lots of other traffic, that the system would be rendered useless. This would be an effective means of peaceful protest. Ref: CSIS.

I wonder

[aurifex]

Why is it every time there's a ruling like this for America, Canadians go nuts and make fun of us for having a fascist government? Where are all the America bashers now?

With your help

[alexo]

With the elections looming, it is time to call your Member of Parliament and let them know that your current and future voting decisions will be heavily influenced by their stance on the issue.

Re:Chance to have lunch with the Minister Responsi

[Anonymous Coward]

I always thought Torontonians were bad drivers, then I moved to Edmonton.....

Heh, kind of funny considering your tagline...

[maillemaker]

you say:

>"Does no-one have the right to privacy anymore?"

But then your tagline says:

>"Support free speech. Don't post anonymously. If you are anonymous, don't bother
>replying to my comments, I won't see it"

Heh, you want your right to privacy, but then don't want people to post while protecting their privacy. :)

Frankly, I think all of this is a tempest in a teapot. For years now people have sent TONS of data across the network in the clear, because they felt anonymous because no one had the tools or inclination to monitor what was being sent. Now that governments are starting to get wise to what is going over the net, they are developing the tools and the inclination.

The answer to all of this is simple, and has been available for a long time - encryption. How many people bother to encrypt their emails, despite PGP plug-ins being pretty common for most email clients? I don't, because I can't count on the people I send email to being able to decrypt it.

Encryption needs to become standard and transparent for all data being sent over the web. Then monitoring will become pointless.

Steve

Re:website eh?

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.cse-cst.gc.ca/index-e.html

NSA eh? Not CIA. CSIS is FBI [when the RCMP doesn't do something] and CIA. And the RCMP is the Secret Service too, doing money, and protection of politicians.

Revisisted

[Jaazaniah]

Rumor of such legistlation has been around for a long while. Now that it's hitting the table in this form, though, this letter and MANY more like it will need to hit the desks of every MP and MPP from Victoria to Halifax, each with 'courtesy' copies sent to the PM's office in Ottawa.

If you want to start a ruckus about it don't think small (political discussion boards), think big (massively distributed petitions, using capital papers to draw public interest and motivate them to call their locally-elected official, etc). Media circus' aren't the best way to do things, but may be effective. At least it gets the word out. And better you get your word into them first before the 'benefits' of a BS bill like this gets passed out with next week's Sun.

Re:website eh?

[Anonymous Coward]

The FBI is a police force. CSIS is not. CSIS is an intelligence gathering agency.

I interviewed with CSE

[freeweed]

I interviewed with CSE a few years back. If anyone wants to hear some details about a really invasive background check, I can provide some when I'm not at work :)

The rationale is, they want to know anything and everything you might have in your skeleton closet, so to speak. They also do psychological profiling to see if any of this material could be used as blackmail against you. The unfortunate part is, the interviewing is done by retired RCMP officers, so it's much like a Catholic confession, except to your middle aged father, and you can see the disapproving look on his face at everything you say.

I just found it kinda neat. Most Canadians have no idea that we have anything approaching this level of secret agencies. We just figure the guys on horses in red jackets are about it.

Look at it this way..

[magnumquest]

When Napster was busted, the "hacker" community came up with new and far better methods of so-called "piracy" of both digital information and other forms of media over the internet. Going back to the time when the very first viruses were created, we find that, to battle these viruses the very first anti-virus software companies were formed. Then came the trojan horses and a new breed of hackers who 'hack into' systems to either 'destroy for fun' or steal information. The next logical step was to create companies that focused on internet securty, people that brought us hardware firewalls and SSL (and all other possible ways of enhancing internet security). What did the hackers do?, they evolved one step further. Microsoft recently developed a 'Genuine Windows detection tool' to prevent piracy. Hackers cracked that too. RIAA (USA), in its fight against the online mp3 sharing community, did all it could to eliminate companies like Kazaa and Limewire. Hackers kept on evolving every step of the way. When the first proxy servers were set up to 'monitor' and 'filter' information that was delivered to users over the internet, we developed anonymizer applications to defend our freedom to access all sorts of information. We have done it before, we will do it again.. so basically nothing to worry about folks... Just learn more and grow with the system instead of doubting it..

The Amish

[Anonymous Coward]

live under the closest thing to communism I've seen. Those people just know how to share.

Interestingly, they also interpret the Bible more literally than most people: like Christ, they're pacifists ("Do not resist a man who is evil"), they're charitable and community minded (like the parable of the woman who gave all she had to the Church, and how Christ considered her more holy than all the rich men who made large public contributions), and they try to avoid unnecessarily finery and material wealth ("Do not store up treasures on earth; ... but in Heaven"). Everyone else makes fun of them, including "Christian" nations.

Communism is workable, so long as everyone agrees. This is true of any government system; if you told someone in a feudalist mindset of democracy, he would scorn it, because anyone who tried to establish a democracy would "obviously" be crushed by a stronger warlord. And equality is a notion that is continually being tested and rejected; few people are truely willing to treat their fellows as equals, or to avoid taking advantages of people without a great deal of social pressure to prevent it; something we've only had for about 200 years so far, and which may well crumble under religious pressures sometime soon.

Democracy isn't such a solid system; capitalism is only remotely fair if a man only profits from the work of his own lifetime (otherwise, you devolved into aristocracy); and no government to date has seen fit to tax inheritence 100%, nor to ensure that each young person is granted exactly the same resources upon coming of age. Until that happens, true egalitarian capitalism hasn't been tried; what you have instead is a market composed of an aristocratic plutocracy, where economies of scale and inherited wealth matter more than superior ideas and superior products.

Modern capitalism isn't the best we can do, and neither is modern democracy. Why should a candidate who wins with only 30% of the vote stand equal to a candidate who wins with 90%? One represents more of his consituents than the other; and his vote should be weighted appropriately.

Intellectual property monopolies consists of government interference in the free market, purportedly for the good of society; this is by definition a socialist argument. So is a publicly funded military, public roads, or public works of any kind. We don't have a free market for any of these things; again, for the good of society.

So, capitalism has never been tried; only socialist ideas mixed with capitalist ideas. The Amish pursue a dilute for of communism, we pursue dilute forms of captialism and socialism, with elements taken from any other -ism that seems convient.

No pure government system is perfect; and we could certainly improve on our current system.