Slashdot Mirror


Canada's Online Surveillance Bill: Section 34 "Opens Door To Big Brother"

Saint Aardvark writes "Canada's proposed online surveillance bill looked bad enough when it was introduced, but it gets worse: Section 34 allows access to any telco place or equipment, and to any information contained there — with no restrictions, no warrants, and no review. From the article: 'Note that such all-encompassing searches require no warrant, and don't even have to be in the context of a criminal investigation. Ostensibly, the purpose is to ensure that the ISP is complying with the requirements of the act — but nothing in the section restricts the inspector to examining or seizing only information bearing upon that issue. It's still "any" information whatsoever.'"

20 of 178 comments (clear)

  1. Don't worry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Section 34 was introduced merely as negotiation fodder. It will be thrown out so that opponents will be more willing to accept the other terms of the bill, which are the ones actually desired.

    Of course, over time this practice is repeated, and the net effect is the same. Frog in the kettle and all that. Eventually it gets too hot and people revolt and murder their leaders. But we probably have a while to go yet before that happens.

  2. Re:Slashdot's silly double standard by alendit · · Score: 4, Insightful

    No the difference is - i don't have to use Google. And I don't even have to leave for another country to opt-out, unlike in the case of the goverment.

  3. Canada.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    As an American, I honestly thought we lost our title of "Land of the Free" to you. Now we are watching you turn down the same dark road we fell down. Hopefully your people have more balls than the majority of the American people so they actually fight for it since you at least have us as an example to point to where that road leads.

    If not, I guess the next Civil War just might end up turning into something beyond just civil. I honestly foresee an American civil war within my lifetime with how things are going. If our neighbors to the north are going the same route we do, they might actually use that opportunity to take back theirs as well if they fall like we have.

    Now, time to mod me as troll or flamebait. Have at it.

    1. Re:Canada.... by zippthorne · · Score: 4, Interesting

      10% is enough to get things started, though. The American revolution was fought with fewer than 30% supporters at its peak, and most really didn't care.

      Which suggests that the real number is far, far less than 10%. Indeed, when you talk to people about, say, the freedom-of-travel impediments (of, say, TSA et al), most will actually get upset that you're upset about it.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
  4. Re:Sux to be Canad..... by symbolset · · Score: 4, Interesting

    SOPA sponsor Lamar Smith, under the guise of protecting childred from online pornographers, has proposed a new bill that requires every Internet Service Provider to spy on every customer, logging every thing that they do online and keeping records for an entire year. Just in case. So... yeah. It's getting pretty bad.

    And of course these records would be discoverable by his Big Media sponsors.

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.
  5. There goes my plans for fleeing tyranny in the US. by Nadaka · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The list of countries I can go to that are neither 3rd world shit holes, police states, or both is becoming vanishingly small.

  6. Toews surprised by content of online surveillance by seyyah · · Score: 5, Informative

    That's the CBC headline after interviewing Toews about his own bill: Toews surprised by content of online surveillance.

    It's worth listening to the interview that was aired on The House yesterday.

  7. Doing waht is needed by nurb432 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sure, I will be there when the time comes, but there is no sense being a martyr at this point as the act will just go unnoticed.

    Pick winnable battles, in their proper time and place.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  8. Corporations doing evil vs Govt doing evil by fyngyrz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The net effect isn't the same.

    A corporation has to ask you for your data, and you can say no -- at which point the corporation is SOL, regardless of your perceived goodness or badness of that corporate use. In addition, the corporation has at least some stake in your continued good will, and so they are likely to give you something back in return if in fact you choose to opt in. But if what they do makes people opt out... without customers, the corporation will cease to exist.

    A government can -- and in the case of the US government, already will, the Canadians are well behind us -- take your data. Once it has it, it can, and will, jail you, take your life, and so on. They don't have to give you anything back, and typically, they won't. They have no significant investment in your good will. You can bitch all you want, but you can't opt out and they won't stop existing because they're annoying some of the citizens. Nor is there any hope of them annoying enough of the citizens for such a thing to happen.

    You're been taught that corporations that do not know right from wrong are bad, thoughtless entities, and they certainly are, but they are nothing compared to a government that does not know right from wrong.

    Also, in the final analysis, it is the government that enables or prevents any particular corporate behavior. If you get control of the government (good luck, too late in the USA.. but Canada... perhaps not) then you get control of the corporations.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    1. Re:Corporations doing evil vs Govt doing evil by currently_awake · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Corporations don't care about your goodwill, they don't run for re-election. If something they do is unpopular they will create a new company to do that like RIAA is a branch of the recording industry companies. Once a corporation takes something from you (privacy) they can sell it or use it to harm you and there's nothing you can do to stop them. Politicians only keep their jobs if we let them. If government takes something from you (privacy) you can (collectively) take it back. Americans have a huge blind spot about corporations, they think they are more trustworthy than government when in reality it's the other way round.

    2. Re:Corporations doing evil vs Govt doing evil by Mitreya · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Politicians only keep their jobs if we let them.

      If by "we", you mean a few hundred people who donate 80%+ of the politician's budgets, then I agree with you. Running for election has gotten way, way too expensive (it was never cheap, but costs apparently are rising exponentially). As I understand it, currently about 96% of the politicians who had more money than their opponent win the election.
      A number of things that have very broad support of population majority on both Republican and Democrat side clearly have no chance of passing. How's _that_ for democracy?

    3. Re:Corporations doing evil vs Govt doing evil by Barbara,+not+Barbie · · Score: 4, Informative

      And once the government slaps a felony conviction on you, you play no further part in its re-election.

      The Fine Article is about Canada, where it's unconstitutional to prevent people convicted of a crime from voting.

      In fact, only two adult Canadian citizens are not eligible to vote - the Chief Electoral Officer, and the Deputy Chief Electoral Officer.

      --
      Let's call it what it is, Anti-Social Media.
    4. Re:Corporations doing evil vs Govt doing evil by dryeo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Google etc I can stop using any time without much effort, at that I've already got extensions installed to stop much of their data gathering.
      The Canadian government or as they like to now call themselves, Harper's Government, with a majority, has up to 5 years in which they have a dictatorship. They have way more power then the American government has. They can even invoke the not withstanding clause of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and take away most basic civil rights.
      The Supreme court rules against this invasion of privacy, well they can override (for 5 years) our right not to be unreasonably searched, which our Supreme Court has interpreted as a Right to Privacy.
      They're also appointing new Supreme Court Justices who are more friendly to their right wing views.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    5. Re:Corporations doing evil vs Govt doing evil by lexsird · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Here's food for thought: A government of the people, by the people, for the people...

      What if the "people" are a big collective of ignorant arrogant assholes?

      It reminds me of our jury system: Judged by 12 people too stupid to get out of jury duty.

      --
      Take the Red Pill.
    6. Re:Corporations doing evil vs Govt doing evil by Barbara,+not+Barbie · · Score: 4, Informative
      It'll never happen. The gov't got a good slap in the face on this one. Even the current house investigation into who posted the Vikileaks30 account is coming under fire as an example of what the government would do. They can't win on this, and they know it.

      This story isn't going away - it was on the national news again tonight ... Vic Toews is now the laughingstock of the country. He's admitted he didn't even know what was in the bill he sponsored.

      --
      Let's call it what it is, Anti-Social Media.
  9. Re:Toews surprised by content of online surveillan by Beardo+the+Bearded · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The real question, the one the CBC didn't hammer on, was:

    "Then who wrote the bill, Minister? Who put that in there?"

    --

    ---
    ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
  10. Core issue by SuperTechnoNerd · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If you deconstruct this whole thing, both in US and Canada and all over the world in fact, it comes down to one thing. There are people our there that just can't stand the fact that they don't know what your doing behind closed doors. That the don't know who your screwing or in what position for that matter. That they don't know who your talking to and why. That they don't know your personal secrets. They can't stand this. They automatically think that the desire for privacy = criminal. I mean you must be a criminal if you send private love letters to your girlfriend. Thees people will stop at nothing and use any excuse to rid personal privacy. They use lame excuses like "Think of the children" and the like. And the internet makes their head spin - millions of people are using it - and we need to know why what for and what their doing.

    If your encrypt your traffic, your a criminal.

  11. This is Canada not the Soviet Union by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As a Canadian who's a swing voter I think not only should such an absurd bill be killed but the sanity of whichever MP backs it seriously put into question. Any MP that backs such totalitarian surveillance bill is no longer qualified to hold office and should automatically have their re-election campaign targeted.

  12. Re:Toews surprised by content of online surveillan by seyyah · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The real question, the one the CBC didn't hammer on, was:

    "Then who wrote the bill, Minister? Who put that in there?"

    Good point. I hope that the NDP will be raising that question in the House of Commons this week.

    On the CBC, I sometimes wonder if they are a little hesitant to go after the Conservatives too much for fear of appearing partisan in the eyes of the government. I can remember the supporters' shouts of "Shut down the CBC!" during the election when CBC reporters asked Harper tough questions. My guess is that the CBC knows it is treading a thin line under the current government.

  13. Harper's true colours by EmperorOfCanada · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Harper is not right wing. Harper is a technocrat. Technocrats need to control information. This would be the ultimate control. Harper doesn't care about reading Joe Nobody's email. A good example of what this bill would be used for would be to find who leaked the information about the Minister who's career just ended.

    Where Joe Nobody will get nailed is that their communications will be run through filters and false positives will be generated. Then when you do things like board airplanes or cross borders you will be interrogated about the sales chearleading you did when you said to your team, "Go knock'em dead. Totally destroy them. Our product will be like a bomb stuck up their asses." Poof you find your computer's seized, your accounts frozen, and any attempts to clarify and correct meeting a wall of "national security".

    Can you imagine what would have happened though before the G20 in Toronto. I suspect an email with "The police suck" might have gotten you arrested.