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

[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.

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.

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

[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.

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

[bhirsch]

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

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

[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

[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

[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.

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

[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

[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

[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.

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]

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.

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

[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

[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

[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."

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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."

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

[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.

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.

that's it!

[idlake]

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

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: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?

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?