Slashdot Mirror
Canada To Mandate ISP Deep Packet Inspection
An anonymous reader writes "The Canadian government has proposed new legislation that would require ISPs to install deep-packet inspection capabilities. The proposal includes a laundry list of
surveillance requirements, police review of ISP employees and technologies, and the mandated disclosure of a broad range of
subscriber information without any court oversight."
This sounds expensive. Who is going to pay for it? The ISPs? The government?
Strong encryption, it's not just for financial/health/etc. transactions anymore!
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
And use ssh or equivalent for everything else. The criminals/terrorist will already be doing this , its only ordinary Joe Public who the authorities will be snooping on. As usual.
Oh, I think this is actually kind of a good thing...
Next up: Canada leads in public adaptation of strong encryption while engaging in all online activities.
Yeah, and get ready to be flogged with a wet noodle until you give up your passwords... And if that doesn't work, just expect an outright ban on "unauthorized" encryption... unreadable packets will be dropped
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
Power corrupts. Absolute power...
Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
The problem is, that when governments get an ability to do something, they have a bad habit of misusing that power.
So basically, you are sending them a red flag that you got something to hide? SMART!
PGP-nerd: "Gosh, I got a 4096 key, nobody is ever going to break this, I am safe"
Agent A to Agent B: "We can't break his key, break his knees."
Freedom is NOT won by finding loopholes around laws but by fighting bad laws.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Because assholes are attracted to the levers of power, almost by definition.
Canada just needs to start up a War on Drugs. Law enforcement is quite a profitable industry in the US.
Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
The War on Some Drugs is a big money loser. We spend billions on it and on incarcerating non-violent offenders.
Yes, but his point is that for the agencies and private-sector corporations who are maintaining and supporting that "War" ... it is extremely profitable. Those billions are going somewhere, and those groups have a vested interest in lobbying Congress to keep the "War" on for as long as possible. Corruption of the highest order, when you get right down to it.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Oh, I think this is actually kind of a good thing...
Next up: Canada leads in public adaptation of strong encryption while engaging in all online activities.
Everybody thinks that, until the use of encryption for other than officially-approved activities is outlawed, or until keeping your passwords private becomes a serious crime. See how the UK has been handling that for an idea of how bad it can get (and it's not as bad as it's going to get, yet.)
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
You make it sound so innocent but here's the facts:
- 3 years of Mr. Levant's life wasted trying to defend himself
- $50,000 of " " money wasted " "
- $600,000 of taxpayer dollars wasted on the investigation, interrogation, and later backpedaling by the government
- hours of video of interrogations on youtube - priceless
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
What don't you like about Geist? He's done great work at slowing down bad copyright legislation (though I'm a bit out of the loop recently).
Surveillance is 99% traffic analysis (constructing the social network, and colouring certain nodes red) and only 1% about the particulars of the conversation. SSH won't raise any red flags, unless you SSH into a well known onion router. Suppose one person in a thousand does this. These people take a moderate hit on their spook agency credit rating, and a smaller stain spreads outward to their primary affiliates.
I think you have to do a bunch of stuff to have your credit rating fall low enough to devote human resources to sussing you out. Too many sheep, not enough shepherds, who cost real money. Purchasing a holiday condo in Peshawar would really rack up the points if you're desperate to justify wearing a tinfoil hat.
The big Canadian ISPs won't complain because this creates a barrier to entry for small ISPs who can't afford to staff an office of conformance.
What sucks in this plan is the lack of judicial oversight. That's just plain wrong. Oversight is foundational to democracy. This is the same PM who is trying to gut Statistics Canada (on the bogus pretext there has ever been a privacy issue) because the data they produce is too credible, and can be used to justify social spending.
I would like to think it would be practical to have all (judicially supervised) surveillance requests opened to the public 50 to 75 years after the fact, so that we can look back and form an accurate opinion about the past scope of abuse. Every democracy needs the occasional dental checkup.
Another problem in Canada is that there are 2-3 majors that control the last mile of communications, and regulated by the CRTC that generally hands them rulings that sustain their oligopolies. This would be a great way to kill off the little guys already forced to wholesale their last mile from the big ones. Rogers, Bell, and Telus might just be willing to bear the costs if it kills of the small guys.
Bell, Shaw, Rogers, Videotron, Cogeco, they all deliver/produce media as well. That's an incentive right there, to stop piracy.
I'm god, but it's a bit of a drag really...
Did the lobbyist pay their balances.....check!
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
This was true when Plato wrote about it in ancient times, and it's true today. The human creature has not changed that much, despite the fact that we like to think that we "progress" and "learn".
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
The problem is that that is a false statement.
It implies that any government with any power will misuse it.
The evidence is that few governments misuse their power significantly. Abuse of power, especially in democracies, is hardly a habit and it's something most governments work hard to avoid.
However, what is true is that all governments are susceptible to subversion by malefactors who are interested in personal power rather than government (such as the corporatists who are undermining the United States government by conflating capitalism and democracy in such a way that it creates a de facto feudalism where money overwhelms facts in the accumulation of votes; in the process they abuse the law by biasing the capitialist and democratic systems in their favor; it remains to be seen whether the un-wealthy in the democracy can see this happening and use their innate numerical superiority to stop it, although there are glaring indications that it may already be too late).
Absolutely. All those cars and guns and kevlar vests and tasers don't spring up out of thin air. Nor do prisons. Criminal justice is big business, especially in the USA.
Check out my world simulator thingy.
he kept flooding the world with news about ACTA, and I was getting tired of hearing about it because it was the same old thing, bad bad bad.
I don't understand this sentiment. If an important fact is repeated long enough, it becomes unimportant? Does bad news cease to be bad once it's no longer novel? Does a truth go 'out of date' and cease to be true once people are bored of hearing about it? Must activists trying to alert the world to imminent danger keep constantly reframing their message in new terms or risk being ignored because they're, like, such a buzz-kill, man?
There's an important insight here I think into how the 24-hour must-have-shiny news cycle is trivialising public awareness of the world, but my 30-second clip is up. We cross now to a live feed of a kitten up a tree. Kitteh!
You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
It implies that any government with any power will misuse it.
There are checks and balances in our system for a reason. They are based on a model of human nature that brought us democracy in the first place. It is a thoroughly conservative model of human nature by modern standards.
So... my question to you is, why should the government be circumventing judicial oversight? Why is the government all of a sudden so trustworthy, as do deny what we know about human nature? Is it because it is Harper, and you are a conservative yourself? That would be ironic.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
34th Rule of Acquisition: "War is good for business."
Pretty much hits the nail on the head, doesn't it?