Canadian Police Recommend Online Spying Tax For Internet Bills

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Canadian Police Recommend Online Spying Tax For Internet Bills

Posted by Soulskill on Saturday March 17, 2012 @03:41AM from the complicit-in-your-own-surveillance dept.

An anonymous reader writes "One of the major unanswered questions about Bill C-30, Canada's lawful access/online surveillance bill, is who will pay for the costs associated with responding to law enforcement demands for subscriber information ('look ups') and installation of surveillance equipment ('hook ups'). Michael Geist recently obtained documents (PDF) from Public Safety under the Access to Information Act that indicates the government doesn't really have its own answer. But he reports that the police do — a new 'public safety' tax to be added to Internet and wireless bills."

110 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

who will pay? by nurb432 · 2012-03-17 03:45 · Score: 5, Insightful

Its *always* the consumer. Be it from direct taxes and fees, or just passing the cost down from the companies, we, the consumer, always pay the cost.

--
---- Booth was a patriot ----
1. Re: who will pay? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-17 04:30 · Score: 0
  
  You are both wrong. Most taxes are levied on goods that end up costing more to the consumers because those taxes generate the most revenue. The "consumer pays" expression isn't strictly true but it does capture reality better than you have.
2. Re: who will pay? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-17 05:29 · Score: 0
  
  Can you elaborate? nurb's comment seems to make perfect logical sense. It is not as if CEO's will take a paycut when costs go up. All costs just get passed on to the consumer.
3. Re: who will pay? by reboot246 · 2012-03-17 05:29 · Score: 1
  
  I'm sure this is a popular sentiment, but it simply isn't true for most products and services. Try learning economics from someplace *other* than your fellow Randroids before spouting off next time.
  
  Okay, then who pays? Be detailed and specific.
4. Re: who will pay? by gottspeed · 2012-03-17 05:32 · Score: 1
  
  Out government equals products and services offered at the barrel of a gun. They have a monopoly on it too, I can't think of very many monopolies where the price of service goes down and the quality goes up.
5. Re: who will pay? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-17 05:50 · Score: 0
  
  Transference of payments in this way results in a circular argument where everyone pays and no one pays.
  Tax on business is transferred to increase in prices to consumer is transferred to business by required increases in wages for workers which is transferred to consumers as increased prices.......... it never ends and it really only makes sense to apportion it to the immediate payer. Of course, in reality prices aren't directly set by costs so this whole argument is kind of dumb anyway.
  Think about this, if an increased cost to a business does not change their maximized price x volume calculation then their price will not change unless they want to go out of business faster. This is still a simplistic model for pricing but it is much closer to reality than thinking that prices = costs * markup.
6. Re: who will pay? by mallydobb · 2012-03-17 05:53 · Score: 1
  
  and instead of the government actually doing something productive with these fee's they just use this issue as an excuse to grow and grow.
  
  --
  --- b2b.mallaidh.org | www.mallaidh.org | www.kidsalive.org/article/kahlil-pfaff/
7. Re: who will pay? by hairyfeet · 2012-03-17 06:29 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Riiight, because all those CEOs are gonna give up their coke and hooker bonuses so they don't have to stick it to the consumer...oh wait, that's not what they do, they simply jack up the price! I hate to break the news to ya sparky but even in areas where there is supposedly competition we have seen what happens is companies simply collude to raise prices together. Every time the government tries to stick it to a corp thanks to globalism if they don't raise prices they simply move but there is no way in hell they are gonna just eat the cost as that would cut into profits and with Wall Street being Vegas with nicer clothes if you do that then your stock takes a nosedive.
  Whether you like it or not any gouging of the corps just ends up being dumped on the back of the poor consumer. Hell in my own area the working poor simply can't even have Internet as the cableco and teleco have been matching each others price raises one for one so now the cheapest usable Internet (I don't consider a WISP that offers 512Kb down with towers that go down for days at a time really usable and even that is $60 a month and a $125 hookup fee) is $75 a month and that is if you can even get it as even though its a college town and the city has grown by over a third neither the cableco nor the teleco have moved a single inch as far as coverage in over a decade.
  This is why we need to nationalize the lines and open them up to REAL competition as what we have here in the states now is a bad joke unless you live in one of the megacities. We already paid 200 billion to have the nation wired for high speed and all we got in return is a Goatse from the corps so we should demand they pay the money back with interest in 90 days or we take the lines. if they want a monopoly? We'll give them a decade on every house they run FTTH, 25 if those homes previously had no service. Because the whole "greed is good" mantra that has infected this country like a cancer has killed any chance of getting anything vital like nationwide broadband done by private corps, hell they don't even upgrade their own systems and instead simply slap caps and other crap on instead of increasing capacity.
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
8. Re: who will pay? by Surt · 2012-03-17 06:29 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah, but do it for long enough, and people will start to think twice about getting in line.
  
  --
  "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
9. Re: who will pay? by ILongForDarkness · 2012-03-17 07:27 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  While true I hate the continual addition of different types of taxes. It is horribly in efficient. Lets say the bill passes. Rather than add some revenue from existing taxes to pay for it (or the opposite: remove some unnecessary tax credits) they dream up another tax that than has to be collected, another dozen people get jobs doing nothing but making sure people pay this particular 0.1% of the governments revenue etc. Same thing with arguments for gambling as an alternative revenue source, horribly in efficient but sadly hidden tax everywhere distracts people from the total amount of their money that does to government.
10. Re: who will pay? by ILongForDarkness · 2012-03-17 07:34 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah except the 99% feed themselves, went to school, had vacations, raised kids, fought wars, drove on roads, went to hospitals etc, and then yeah the 1% gets the rest. A big problem with this concept of "the 1%" is that the 1% changes year to year. Similarly the bottom 20% are about 1/2 new workers and students. They don't stay at the bottom 20% their whole life and it seems pretty obvious that the people that have no experience and are just starting out "at the bottom" will have "at the bottom" wages.
  I'm not arguing that a large income distribution doesn't exist it just isn't as bad as it is made out to be and a lot of the bottom are people that are temporarily at the bottom and who might very well have come from somewhere much higher up the year before. Since the statistics are usually quoted as salary for example that fat cat CEO that got 40M in 2007 might have been working for $1 for a couple years. He's not poor but he is low income. Also the truly poor if you actually account for the cost of the services they get for free (at least in the US, can't really count it in more socialist countries where everyone gets it) the cost of their healthcare is covered, food programs etc, several thousand dollars a year of goods in kind which often is more than they earn in salary (so if accounted for would divide the top 1%/bottom 1% at least in half).
11. Re: who will pay? by ILongForDarkness · 2012-03-17 07:43 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly. If everything stayed the same and companies were free to just increase their prices the whole argument for higher gas taxes, CO2 taxes etc would fail because people would continue to buy those services. If they price the internet to the point where it becomes more expensive for me to have a connection to pirate my movies than I'll start buying DVDs, renting them, or spend more time trying to track down people that have it already. The government isn't trying to make the tax so large that it reduces the usage of the internet but more of a usage based billing way of funding their spy efforts. The sad thing here is even though you often pay for services you don't like this one is explicit. Really rubs me the wrong way that there is a good chance the tax would be on a percentage basis and I'd get paying more for something I don't want than the average person because I'm a heavy user with a top of the line package. I might be wrong but Assad Al bin Boom probably doesn't need the porn bandwidth I do to send his emails back to Al Qaeda.
12. Re: who will pay? by Unoriginal_Nickname · 2012-03-17 08:29 · Score: 1
  
  Adding taxes increases the price of a good. Increasing price causes a decrease of demand. In order to return to a profit-maximizing price, firms must then decrease the prices of goods (and reduce output*.) The firm's share of the tax is the amount they need to lower the price. The household's share of the tax is the cost of the tax, minus the price decrease.
  Households never pay the entire amount of any sales tax, because demand always responds to price. Arguably, households don't even pay the entire amount of income taxes either, because the supply of labour responds in a similar way.
  (* An astute reader will note that, due to the reduction of supply and demand, the total cost of the tax to the economy is greater than the amount which is actually paid to the government.)
13. Re: who will pay? by MitchDev · 2012-03-17 08:48 · Score: 2
  
  And with each new little tax, the citizen's burden slowly climbs higher and closer to 100% of their earnings...
14. Re: who will pay? by Surt · 2012-03-17 09:33 · Score: 2
  
  Statistically speaking, the problem is that the 40M CEO never worked for $1. Most (and we're not even near 50% here) of the rich were born that way. If mobility into the 1% were significant, people would be much less upset about it.
  
  --
  "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
15. Re: who will pay? by lexsird · 2012-03-17 10:07 · Score: 2
  
  Preach it! Yeah!
  What we seem to be glossing over is how outnumbered we are in the world. India and China each have populations that crush ours like a bug. They are catching up to us at such a crazy fast pace. China will soon be the number one consumer on the planet as they raise their standards of living up. They will demand a lion's share of the resources.
  We aren't competing. We don't even know how to compete. We have let our politicians become such whores that they have sold out to people that want our economy hamstrung. I often wonder is it because of the bankers? They have our national policies wrapped around their fingers so that they can be the world banking system. I think they fucked our dollar up so that other countries who's money was shit compared to ours, could then afford to bank with us, or use our money as their system. After all, if you have people working for pennies, you can't have the penny worth too much. Debt is slavery and control, and what does that make bankers? Ponder that and look up who runs the banks in this country. Jefferson warned us about this kind of banking system.
  The politics of pure greed in this country has wrecked us as a nation. We don't think as a people. We don't compete as a people. We have no sense of community or real national identity. We are handed some shitty canned version of a national identity when it serves the purpose of those in power. They define our values. They march our poor kids off to whatever fucked in the head war they cook up to bilk the tax payers out of war dollars, and they let the oil corporations rape us to a bloody pulp. The people of this country are livestock and abused livestock at that.
  These fuckers head us off at the pass every time we try to make positive change. God only knows how many good people they have chewed up and spit out when they made too much noise or could be a threat to these oligarchies that rule from the shadows. Politicians are either corrupted or destroyed. Judges are bought off. Filthy dirty lawyers like an army of demons waiting to strike anyone who threatens their realm. Not to mention the money and means to just make anyone disappear off the face of the Earth if all else fails.
  What is sick is as the country becomes more desperate as we are sinking, they will find it easier and easier to drum us up for more idiotic wars. Our industry is war. They pissed as many of our industries away until we produce little and have few jobs. Now they just seem to want to clean up the population by purging it of poor by sending them to wars that will make them money and make even MORE poor people to send off to war.
  If we have another "war" or "military action" we need to demand the draft. Perhaps when the 1%'s and the politicians children are being maimed and killed, they might pause before committing us to more warmongering.
  
  --
  Take the Red Pill.
16. Re: who will pay? by caseih · 2012-03-17 10:21 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly. Since this is Canada we're talking about here, we can talk about privatization (Canada has privatized things the US likely would never do, ironically). The same "who pays for it" thing happens when publicly-owned monopolies are privatized. Sure taxes can be reduced, but now we're paying for the service *and* profit. So in the end things end up costing a lot more all around.
  And finally, this principle is why corporate income taxes make very little sense. Corporations who sell consumer goods, for example, never pay income taxes (or most taxes); they simply pass them on.
17. Re: who will pay? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-17 10:39 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, right. They'll think twice about getting in line. Behind you. In jail.
  Killing a 99%er is nothing. Killing a 1%er is a crime against humanity. Always remember that if you have few assets, nobody cares, but if you have many assets, everyone's your friend.
  HA! Captcha is fellatio.
18. Re: who will pay? by jamstar7 · 2012-03-17 12:11 · Score: 2
  
  If we have another "war" or "military action" we need to demand the draft. Perhaps when the 1%'s and the politicians children are being maimed and killed, they might pause before committing us to more warmongering.
  Not likely. More likely, the kids of the 1% will just go to school in Europe and stay there at the European subsidary's office until they pass draft age. Back in the day, during Vietnam, the only 1% kids we saw in uniform were officers. The 'enlisteds' were all middle class & lower class kids.
  
  --
  Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
19. Re: who will pay? by ILongForDarkness · 2012-03-17 12:55 · Score: 1
  
  It is amazing though how people criticize the billionaires' for doing so well but it is very rare the ideas that found companies at the size that they have to make their billions. It isn't "unfair" unless they got an uncommon reward for a common skill.
20. Re: who will pay? by ILongForDarkness · 2012-03-17 12:57 · Score: 1
  
  Canada has it bad because our liberals think they know how to better spend our money than us and so do our conservatives. There is always a program that is essential for security, helping immigrants, helping the french, helping the natives, etc etc, it never ends.
21. Re: who will pay? by Sabriel · 2012-03-17 13:58 · Score: 1
  
  Which is easier? To make $10,000,001 with $1, or $20,000,001 with $10,000,001?
  The saying "there but for the grace of god go I" works in more than just the one direction.
22. Re: who will pay? by ILongForDarkness · 2012-03-17 14:32 · Score: 1
  
  Please. You see how shitty discussions people made with the real estate bust. Just because you have money doesn't mean you automatically don't make stupid mistakes with it. As well people that come up with the bs stories about how they came to country x with $100 and made their fortune for the vast majority of cases it is crap. Yeah they might have only had $100, then they worked their ass off, saved like crazy. Came up with an idea gambled on it with what they saved and it worked. So that $1 wouldn't just be $1. It would be 60hrs a week of labour for the next 10 years say. Oh and they'd have to be smart enough to come up with an idea same as that guy with 10M would have to, even if it is just an idea of what company he should buy next.
  Besides the 1% isn't 10M networth (though they might have that too, the 1% quoted is usually 1% income. Which will throw in most specialist doctors, CEOs, investment bankers, the top half of lawyers probably etc. For example doctors yeah their well off. But they are also 35-40 by the time they've paid off their school loans. Income isn't networth.
23. Re: who will pay? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-17 15:19 · Score: 0
  
  Typically internet users will just put up with an ISP's bullshit. I don't think a slightly increased price would decrease demand too much for it to matter.
24. Re: who will pay? by hairyfeet · 2012-03-17 15:31 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I truly believe that even though I am atheist that there are a handful of companies that are truly evil. That they are run by those that take sick delight in causing real suffering and misery upon their fellow human beings, your Goldman Sachs, your Halliburton, your Monsanto, companies that if they could increase their profits 15% by throwing live babies in a meat grinder they would. I don't see how anyone can not believe in real evil when seeing these pigs living like kings off of the misery and suffering they have caused with zero remorse. Hell if I walked into any of those companies and saw actual demons in three piece suits going to meetings like Wolfram & hart frankly I wouldn't even be surprised, these companies do nothing but profit from suffering.
  But you seem to forget we had the draft for ages and the rich simply either went to college or some reserve unit in some cushy location like Dubya in Alabama. The 1% may cause the misery but they aren't about to let their delicate selves get dirty like the peasants. look how many chickenhawks are pushing for a war with Iran, notice how none of their kids are in harm's way?
  Sadly it WILL change, but only after you see the rich fleeing the country like the fall of Saigon after the whole thing falls apart. Even an 8th grader with 2 economics classes can see the situation is simply unsustainable, you have nearly half a billion people and all the factories were sent overseas. As Huckabee pointed out even our military can't function anymore without CCC (Cheapo Chinese Crap) and we make less tech now than we did in 1975! if you have a strong stomach you might want to look at these numbers and realize that they are over 2 years old and the downward trends they are listing have accelerated since that time. How anyone can believe that there is any other path in our future but an Arab Spring is beyond me, because the poor simply aren't gonna go crawl off into a corner and slowly starve like they did in the depression. Things are gonna get ugly, I believe after the student loan bubble bursts followed by the stock market bubble you'll see US money become practically worthless and at that time their little red VS blue distractions simply won't placate the masses anymore. If the conspiracy theorists are right they are building "FEMA camps" for just this eventuality, some nice out of the way concentration camps to put the teeming masses. But nobody is gonna put up with camps thanks to the Germans so when that happens will be when the shooting starts.
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
25. Re: who will pay? by Surt · 2012-03-17 15:50 · Score: 2
  
  Big companies are rarely based on big ideas. Instead, they are based on ruthlessly destroying competition. Take Google for example. Lots of people had their ideas, but Google had the funding to put down their competitors.
  
  --
  "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
26. Re: who will pay? by lexsird · 2012-03-17 16:24 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  We are on our own too. Just think about it. We are the ones that ride to the rescue of people from evil stuff like this. Who's going to rescue us? Nobody, that's for sure.
  I'm too old and out of shape for this shit. But my younger self would have loved it, and kicked the Revolutionary War 2.0 off already. (at least in my addled memory/imagination, it's fun to talk shit when your old) But yeah, it's coming. You can smell it in the wind almost, like before a big rumble, the calm before the storm.
  Enjoy the calm, everyday little things, because if we snap and go postal on this system, the world as we know it will change, and not for the best or a long time. I think we should embrace the violence of the vote before we go to the sword. We need to redeem the system on it's merits, or else we need to throw it as well on the failed ash heap of history's failed governments. The damn thing will work because we all made it work, or not.
  I'm afraid you are right though. Here's how I see it playing out as well. This coming election is a lightning rod for crazy amounts of trouble. I've never seen this country so divided. in my life and I was born in the mid 60s. I have seen some shit, but nothing like this. Neither side will be happy with the results. I am afraid that voter fraud will be rampant, then discovered, then outrage will spiral out of control fast. There is so much anger and hate, we have fed it with hate filled radio and "news". You have to go back to Nazi Germany or the Soviets to find the intensity of hateful propaganda going on. It's a simmering pot, about to boil over.
  Another thing to take careful note of is women's rights. Women's civil rights are under attack in ways I couldn't believe. It's like we now have a Christian Taliban, hell bent on dragging us back to the dark ages. I know this sounds crazy, but darkness is falling on us. The shadows are growing long.
  The darkest day we have had was when the Supreme Court ruled that corporations are people, and their bribing was free speech. I say behold, something evil was born of this country on that day. Until we take that ground back from them, we have fallen.
  As far as faith is concerned, seeing is believing. I'm afraid you might become a believer, sadly not because of the light you seen radiating from a real Christian in your life, but instead from seeing the faces of evil and recognizing the shocking reality of it all. Not today of course, but in that fearsome future that we both strive to avoid. May we both be barking lunatics and wrong, wrong wrong.
  
  --
  Take the Red Pill.
27. Re: who will pay? by m1xram · 2012-03-17 16:31 · Score: 2
  
  You lost me, who pays for things? If it's not the consumer then who?
28. Re: who will pay? by ILongForDarkness · 2012-03-17 17:33 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah and people chose to use their browser, and they convinced advertisers to advertise with them. It is amazing with MS search yahoo etc until recently somehow Google is the bad guy. It is the rare case where a company exists without competition. MS might be the closest in the tech world and look how that is working out for them (though to be fair until the last 6 months or so they were hugely undervalued IMHO versus increased revenue. For the last 10 years MS has been written off as doomed but they piled on the billions (probably more like 10s of billions) of revenue in the enterprise space to make up for losses from fewer PC sales.
  Anyways the point is there were always Macs, there was Sun workstations, there was linux, early days OS/2 etc etc. Was MS anti-competitive? Yep. Was there still other options for customers? Yep.
29. Re: who will pay? by Hognoxious · 2012-03-17 21:28 · Score: 1
  
  An even more astute reader will note that everything depends on the elasticity
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
30. Re: who will pay? by MitchDev · 2012-03-18 06:35 · Score: 1
  
  Our Democrats and Republicans are the same way in the us
31. Re: who will pay? by Flere+Imsaho · 2012-03-18 09:19 · Score: 1
  
  What does being an atheist have to do with evil?
  
  --
  It gripped her hand gently. 'Regret is for humans,' it said.
32. Re: who will pay? by hairyfeet · 2012-03-18 13:23 · Score: 1
  
  Because there are many that believe you can't have evil as tangible thing without a devil behind it, but I think they are wrong. i think you can pour enough hatred into a thing, be it land or an institution you literally "sour the ground" and create something truly dark and sinister.
  I truly believe a thing can be evil, it can be soured. it is no God nor devil, but the combined malice and viciousness of humans that creates it, feeds it, makes it grow like a cancer. I believe some of those corps i have named earlier have become that, and that everyone who goes to work for them are affected by that darkness that has grown within its walls. That of course is no excuse but it does explain how you can get so many people that will happily join in no matter how nasty and evil the deeds are, its literally in the air of these places, like a dark cloud hanging overhead.
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
33. Re: who will pay? by Crosshair84 · 2012-03-18 16:12 · Score: 2
  
  Unfortunately you are incorrect. Without an objective standard of "good" any claim of "good" or "evil" is nothing more than ones personal opinion. Under Atheism, if god does not exist, to say that killing the mentally retarded is "evil" is nothing more than ones own personal opinion. Someone else could hold the opinion that the burden they place on society is too great and is hurting the rest of society.
  
  Let me explain it this way: How do you objectively tell if a drawing of President Obama is a "Good" drawing? Simple, since President Obama exists you simply compare the drawing to the original. There is an objective standard to compare to.
  
  Now, how do you tell if a drawing of Sherlock Holmes is a "Good" drawing? You can't, Sherlock Holmes doesn't exist, therefore any conclusion of "good"or "bad" is relative. There is no objective standard to compare to.
  
  Under Theism there is an objective "good", a standard that one can compare and justify moral actions against. (A standard that we ALL fall short of.) Under Atheism there is not, everything is relative.
  
  Now of course the question is NOT, can Atheists recognize objective moral values. They certainly do. Romans 2:14-15 Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.
  
  The moral law is written on the hearts of all humans, none is without excuse. The problem for Atheists is that while they recognize moral values and duties and can live lives that put theists to shame, they cannot JUSTIFY objective morality. The Atheist philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche was correct in his observation that "If God is dead, everything is permitted.". Most Artiest and Theist philosophers agree. Without God to serve as a foundation for morality, "good" and evil" do not exist. Rape is no more "evil" than belching at the dinner table. All that exists is a sea of differing personal opinions.
  
  So what you have in the case of hairyfeet's post is incoherence. On one hand he says that god does not exist by holding to Atheism, but then claims that god DOES exist by claiming that objective evil exists. (Richard Dawkins also has this problem of incoherence.) His observations on technical matters are superb, thus why I follow his posts on those subjects, but his philosophical and economic observations show that he is simply uninformed on those subjects. Nothing to be ashamed about, we all have subjects that we are not well read in. You don't see me commenting in car forums about rebuilding a transmission.
  
  Thankfully most Atheists do not follow their philosophical beliefs to their logical conclusion, sadly though, most don't even realize the conclusions that their worldview leads to. On the flip side, the world would be a far better place if more Christians DID follow their philosophical beliefs to their logical conclusion, it's sickening how many supposed "Christians" I run across that are pro warfare state.
34. Re: who will pay? by hairyfeet · 2012-03-18 21:56 · Score: 1
  
  Actually I'd say you are misinformed, or at least misguided. you say that atheist can tell "good" from "evil" yet yet we are supposed to not act on this...why exactly? Because there is no sky bully to beat us, to spank our asses like naughty children? How about because we wouldn't like it if the same thing were done to OUR families, isn't that a good enough reason? Just because i don't believe in the sky bully doesn't magically mean life is without consequence ya know, one can choose not to destroy not because they fear the sky bully or any other consequence that affects them personally but because they see how it affects the world around them and don't want to shit in their own yard for lack of a better metaphor.
  If anything I would argue that belief in a sky bully has been proven time and time again to be a BAD thing and is in many ways immoral. look at how many supposedly "God fearing" would happily bash in the head of a gay teen, those same ones would have been happy to bash in the head of a black or a Jew 50 years ago and in fact it was the churches using the "curse of Ham" to justify state sponsored terrorism of an entire peoples and THIS is supposedly the more moral choice? Hell look at Santorum now, our poor are hurting and our children are dying in third world hellholes and his answer is...keep adults from looking at other adults having sex.
  I'm sorry friend but the world would be a better place if we took your books and threw them in the fire and danced as they burned and we have proof of this, in the former Soviet union. for nearly 90 years overt religion was banned and Jew lived next to Muslim lived next to Christian. They say "You can have freedom of religion now!" and what do you get? Ethnic cleansing and "My God is better than yours Ai ei eie ei ye!" Right now at this very moment someone is probably being abused, or murdered because they believe differently, how does that make you feel? In the old days they used to say "There is no such thing as a good commie' and in the case of religion they are right, because you stand up to be counted with those that wish to control you, that honestly want an "American Taliban" that will tell you everything from who to pray to to what positions you are allowed to use in the bedroom. All it takes for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing and in this case too many of your fellow believers stand up for practices that any rational person would see is just plain wrong and evil, yet because some Christian mullah says this piece of sheepkin written by a goat herder 1000+ years ago about some dude that died 2000+ years ago says doing this evil thing is okay so it must be okay.
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
35. Re: who will pay? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-19 02:11 · Score: 0
  
  The Consumer always pays at least some of the taxes, the producer always pays some. Who pays more depends on price elasticity of supply and demand.
36. Re: who will pay? by Crosshair84 · 2012-03-19 11:37 · Score: 1
  
  Actually I'd say you are misinformed, or at least misguided. you say that atheist can tell "good" from "evil" yet yet we are supposed to not act on this...why exactly?............
  
  You have completely misunderstood the argument and are getting mad at a straw-man. Don't worry, it took me plenty of time to wrap my head around some of this when I first started studying philosophy.
  
  The problem is NOT, can Atheists recognize objective moral values. They can.
  The problem is NOT, can Atheists live moral lives. They do.
  The problem IS, can Atheists JUSTIFY the existence of objective moral values. They can't.
  
  Let me distill the problem down for you to the most simple and basic level.
  1. Is rape OBJECTIVELY wrong?
  2. If yes, says who? (Who or what is the OBJECTIVE standard for that moral belief.)
  
  That is the problem right there for Athisim, heavily stripped down of course. Despite thousands of years of trying, Atheistic philosophy cannot put forth an answer to question #2 that stands up to scrutiny as objective morality rather than moral relativism. Many Atheist philosophers over the years, Friedrich Nietzsche, Baruch Spinoza, and David Hume among many have simply admitted that the answer to question 1 is "no", that rape is not objectivity wrong and that all morality is in some form or another relative to the individual and society. Atheism has no metaphorical foundation on which to base objective morality. All it can do is moral relativism.
  
  I hope that cleared up the misunderstanding. You're a smart person, I know you can understand the point being made. What you do with it of course is up to you.
  
  /Good day.
37. Re: who will pay? by hairyfeet · 2012-03-20 13:23 · Score: 1
  
  You entire premise makes no sense, why does one need to JUTIFY as you put it anything? if you want justification how about for the harm it does to society which i already pointed out? Or how about treating others with decency and respect will often get YOU treated with decency and respect in return? How about common fucking sense? Do they not exist in your world? Apparently not, since you just seem to be incapable of even picturing a world where we don't need sky bullies to live decent lives. BTW have you stoned an adulterer today? your book says you should, you are disobeying your God if you do not, and that is a sin, so have you? This is one thing i give the Muslims credit for, at least they do follow their own book. Christians treat the bible like a salad bar, a little of this, a little of that, i can understand why as it allows your mullahs to justify anything they want the sheep to do.
  But your entire premise is frankly absurd, the desire for a decent life has nothing to do with a sky bully, its simply a part of the general population, just as we love to feel creative and we like to feel loved. its simply a part of who we are and nobody needs a fucking book to tell them bashing somebody's head in isn't nice, because unless you are a sicko it doesn't make you feel good to do such a thing. And I can give you example after example of sickos in EVERY religion showing again doesn't have a damned thing to do with a sky bully, just some are born with a head full of bad wiring, that's all.
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
38. Re: who will pay? by Crosshair84 · 2012-03-21 11:46 · Score: 1
  
  You entire premise makes no sense, why does one need to JUTIFY as you put it anything?
  
  Because otherwise it is nothing more than your opinion. If you think rape is wrong and someone thinks it is OK, where does that leave you?
  
  if you want justification how about for the harm it does to society which i already pointed out?
  
  That "harm" is nothing more than a matter of your opinion. What if I disagree? What if I think the benefits outweigh the supposed "harm" you cite? What if a majority disagrees with you? Are you going to have something more substantial than, "Because I say so" as an argument? Under atheism you have no objective standard to point to, all morality becomes under atheism is whatever the majority thinks it is. From a practical perspective it means, "Might makes right". Your moral code is built on a foundation of sand. You think 9/11 was evil, Bin Laden thinks it was good. Who is right? Under atheism the answer is "both" since such actions are morally neutral and are nothing more than a personal opinion. Yet you know in your heart that this is false.
  
  The Theist worldview has such an objective standard with which to compare to. To use a quote I think you will recognize, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
  
  Or how about treating others with decency and respect will often get YOU treated with decency and respect in return? How about common fucking sense? Do they not exist in your world? Apparently not, since you just seem to be incapable of even picturing a world where we don't need sky bullies to live decent lives.
  
  That's only one option of how we can live our lives and is nothing more than your opinion. You're only preferring that because it suits your self interest right now. Given YOUR current situation, living the way you are now is indeed common sense, but that does absolutely nothing to prove that it is "right" or "wrong".
  
  What If I want to, and am able to, live my life like Joseph Stalin? A life of absolute luxury while millions starve. If life ends at the grave why should I care about those millions my lifestyle has killed? If, like Hitler, someone else disagrees and they are at my doorstep I just put a pistol in my mouth and get away scott free with no punishment for my actions. After all, I have to die sometime, why NOT exploit my fellow man and get as much as I can out of the life I have? If I can get away with it, why shouldn't I lie cheat and steal? Bernard Madoff lived the high life for decades on his Ponzi scheme. He's 70+, he'll be dead soon anyway. Decades of luxury, wealth, and power followed by a few years in prison hanging out with Carmine Persico, the former mob boss, or Jonathan Pollard, the spy? Quite a few people would take that option given the chance, regardless of who it hurt. Given Atheism, if someone were to make that choice, thinking that the benefits outweighed the costs, why would it be wrong?
  
  You also misunderstand what belief in god is, God is not fire insurance in case some day when we die there is a hell. God is not something that we can pay our dues to once a week or twice a year and then expect to be saved from hell. We cannot even go to church every day of the week and expect to be saved from hell. Salvation is not something that we can keep in our back pocket just in case someday we need it. Salvation is a completely new lifestyle. It is changing the way we live, and think, and breathe, and why we breathe. Salvation, ultimately, is to know God and to live to please him. That doesn't mean that we will always please him. As long as we are alive there are going to every day be new ways in which we sin. But if we give our lives over to Jesus that means that if we were homosexuals or lesbians it means that we have changed our ways, repented of our sins, and are now living the straight and narrow path t
Good, do it... by Fishead · 2012-03-17 03:45 · Score: 5, Insightful

Do it. That will make it a whole lot easier to drum up some outrage at the next election.
1. Re:Good, do it... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-17 03:49 · Score: 0
  
  Do it. That will make it a whole lot easier to drum up some outrage at the next election.
  May if the filth sacked a few desk jockeys they could afford to pay for it themselfs after all they are the ones that want it in the first place ..make em pay for it ..
2. Re:Good, do it... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-17 04:54 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  That doesn't work the way you would think. Here in the US, our president is responsible for killing 200 Mexican civilians, arming Mexican drug lords, killing US citizens without trial or even arrainment, signing ACTA, embezzeling around $50 Billion given directly to campaign donors, trying to destroy one of the only industries that is actually creating jobs (oil), signed into law that you could eventually end up in jail for not buying what the government wants you to, hiding dangers of Chevy Volts randomly catching fire, falsly accusing Toyota Priuses of being unsafe, not closing or even attempting to close Gitmo, and on and on.
  Any three of these would prevent a normal candidate from getting reelected, but liberals in the US still support him fully. We have proven no matter what our president does about half the country will support him and blame someone else for what he did. At this point Obama could put live kittens in a pie, bake it in an oven and eat them on live TV and the next day I would be reading stories about how it was Bush's fault that he had to do it.
  So like I said, don't expect it to work that way, you will be disappointed.
3. Re:Good, do it... by Nemyst · 2012-03-17 05:11 · Score: 2
  
  And then what? Do you think the Liberals will go against it? Do you think the NDP will get elected without Layton at the helm?
  If this gets implemented, I'm afraid we'll be stuck with it for a long, long time.
4. Re:Good, do it... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-17 05:32 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  You could just be an anonymous troll, but I get a feeling you actually believe your own line of bull. If so, you probably never read any of the "liberal" blogs. Liberals do NOT like Obama. Liberals do not trust Obama. Liberals wish they had a candidate who kept his word and was actually a little liberal himself.
  Obama is a right-wing sell-out. He said all of the right things when he was running for the nomination and once elected, he sold out at the first opportunity.
  The big argument in Democratic and/or :Obomabot circles is that you have to hold your nose and vote for the lesser weasel.
  The only thing that makes Obama look at all good is that the potential Republican candidates are all certifiable insane - and mean too.
5. Re:Good, do it... by lexsird · 2012-03-17 10:32 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Let's say for sake of argument that this all true.
  He's by far the better candidate, still.
  Yes, it's all kinds of wrong, but what are the options? Republicans? Seriously? They have lost their minds. I used to be one. I didn't vote this last time for President because I was Republican and I couldn't vote for the shitbags they put up. The Bush Republicans all needed FIRED. It wasn't about voting for someone, it was about firing Republicans. How else do you think that a black man, with a name like Barrack Obama could get elected President? Holy shit, we would have elected a cartoon character over a Republican after Bush.
  Then it's like we collectively woke up from a drinking bender and said "we elected who??" In the wake of this, the Republicans have been trying to gain traction and with the help of Rightwing media outlets like Fox News, drop the blame from Bush's atrocities onto this President. It's one giant case of denial as they try to gloss over the fact that this party produced one of the worse Presidents in human history.
  Is Obama shitty? Yes. Do we have better options? No. We have even worse options, ones that will give you nightmares.
  We are a fragmented people with our heads up our collective ass. If we ever take politics as seriously as we do sports or fashion then we might have a chance of making the correct choices for our democracy. But that isn't going to happen, we are fucking retarded collectively and will continue to be fed shit sandwiches by the powers that be until we snap and burn it all to the ground.
  
  --
  Take the Red Pill.
6. Re:Good, do it... by m1xram · 2012-03-17 16:35 · Score: 1
  
  Ignore all that stuff and VOTE OBAMA.
7. Re:Good, do it... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-18 13:37 · Score: 0
  
  I didn't vote this last time for President because I was Republican and I couldn't vote for the shitbags they put up.
  Please don't do that. If you don't like the choices from the Democrats and don't like the choices from the Republicans, please still vote. You can vote for someone who is not a Democrat or a Republican. They won't win, but at least it is a protest vote.
Soon ... by PPH · 2012-03-17 03:56 · Score: 3, Insightful

... they will make you pay for the bullet at your own execution.

--
Have gnu, will travel.
1. Re:Soon ... by someone1234 · 2012-03-17 04:00 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I don't understand you. Government bullets were always bought on taxpayer money.
  
  --
  Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
2. Re:Soon ... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-17 04:06 · Score: 1
  
  What if a person was given death punishment for tax evasion?
  And I doubt serial killers would pay taxes where possible to skip them
3. Re:Soon ... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-17 05:36 · Score: 1
  
  In China, the government charge the family for the cost of the bullet(s) they use in execution. That's probably what it was referring to.
4. Re:Soon ... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-17 06:10 · Score: 1
  
  Not true! In China, a person is executed by firing a bullet into the back of the head. His (or her) family is billed for all execution costs including the bullet.
5. Re:Soon ... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-17 09:03 · Score: 0
  
  Well, it's not like you can take it with you...
6. Re:Soon ... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-17 09:38 · Score: 0
  
  We don't execute in Canada. See, we're building a bunch of new, really huge jails. And now we have to fill them. Hence, new laws criminalizing common behaviour. And the RCMP (police) have already stated that they don't want anything to do with online piracy. So, our government will have to create a whole new branch of federal police, I guess. And guess what? I'm guessing that it will be reported that Canadian citizens will be -ahem- "outraged" by being taxed to pay Big Brother's surveillance desires. So, the government will have to turn to private interests to fund the new enforcement agency. I'll give you one guess which acronymed group has already set aside that money, for that use.
  It's a fucking sham. I don't have a single shred of trust left for the Cons; they're running us into the ground, and somehow, they're benefiting personally while they do it. My MP is a former RCAF pilot, and you know, I thought guys like him had enlisted to protect our country against he kind of people that are in power, now.
  I really want another federal election, and some fucking form of proportional representation already.
7. Re:Soon ... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-17 14:40 · Score: 0
  
  Here are a few new jails for us:
  http://www.cryptome.org/2012/03/csc/csc-const-docs.htm
I have only this to say: by stanlyb · 2012-03-17 03:57 · Score: 1

F^&$^$^$& YOU. I am not going to pay.
1. Re:I have only this to say: by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-17 08:48 · Score: 0
  
  Seeing as your Canadian, when they get tired of your protests they will say the same to you for your medical bills.
Police Services are a scam by HeavyDDuty · 2012-03-17 03:57 · Score: 5, Interesting

The police are an economical scam. With normal goods and services, supply and demand dictates spending. Well we here in Canada are experiencing the lowest crime rates since forever. Police know this and steadfastly refuse or make it nigh impossible to report or prosecute thieves and burglars (think break-ins) to skew crime statistics as best as possible It happened to me, a neighbour, and a grandmother. All separate incidents. So when have we EVER seen any significant cut to police services when demand (crime is at an all-time low)? Never. Frankly, what the police fail to realize is, if everything really went to plan, their reward for doing a excellent/perfect job would be a pink slip. Instead, we have them entrenching. And asking for more monies in new and trend setting ways. They have a budget. Now they want an ISP tax. Smells like MPAA and RIAA. This whole thing stinks. [sorry for ranting].
1. Re:Police Services are a scam by FudRucker · 2012-03-17 04:04 · Score: 2
  
  mafia style protection racket... cops are bigger criminals than the ones in prison
  
  --
  Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
2. Re:Police Services are a scam by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-17 04:08 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  the occupy movement got their mantra wrong.
  government spending is nuts, especially in bc. now they want more money, and want to screw those that deserve a bit more. my wage has steadily declined since 1992 to the point where i can't even afford cable and internet, let alone desire it. hell, gas is getting harder to buy.
  government entities are the first to give themselves a fat raise on a whim. icbc, translink, bc ferries, the mlas themselves. all got huge or multiple raises in recent years. and our taxes go up.
  now the cops, who do jack shit but hand out road tax speeding tickets, want a tax on the internet?
  screw that. DO MORE WITH LESS. i have to.
  DO MORE WITH LESS
3. Re:Police Services are a scam by the+eric+conspiracy · 2012-03-17 04:42 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Your logic seems to be flawed.
  If a record low crime rate is due to the effectiveness of police, one would suspect that reducing the economic support for police would reduce their effectiveness, resulting in an increase in crime.
  So no you don't want to cut their budget if they are doing a good job.
4. Re:Police Services are a scam by Deathmoo · 2012-03-17 04:50 · Score: 2
  
  I couldnt agree more. Why the hell would we have to bear more taxes so the govt can fucking SPY ON US. I AM NOT A CRIMINAL AND I DO NOT want to pay MORE TAXES just so the govt can SPY on us. This bill stinks of 1984 and totalitarianism, and I want it dead!
  Also please go make yourselves useful RCMP and bust some more speeders, cellphone talking drivers and stoners, since those are theworst crimes you seem capable of stopping. Actually dont bother, lets slash the RCMPs budget and put the money towards heathcare. Since you have nothing better to do with our tax money than gathering more power for yourselves.
5. Re:Police Services are a scam by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-17 05:34 · Score: 0
  
  what you fail to realize is that the police are not here to serve and protect you, your neighbor, or your grandmother. they are here to protect the corporate and government masters.
6. Re:Police Services are a scam by TheRealGrogan · 2012-03-17 05:50 · Score: 2
  
  Is there any doubt now that police are our adversaries? I have felt this way for a long time, but it's coming to a head now in our own country.
7. Re:Police Services are a scam by MacGyver2210 · 2012-03-17 06:10 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  That's like saying "Just because there is no war on doesn't mean we should pull the soldiers back from the most recent battlefield. If they leave, surely the fighting will resume again!" It's flawed logic.
  The real problem facing everyone in North America right now is that there are TOO MANY LAWS. Eventually, the 'lawmakers' and 'amenders' of law will need to stop. Otherwise, it is an eternal cycle of creating more laws without ever losing them. How long do you think it will take until breathing in a certain area is illegal? Until every single thing we do is so regulated, that a step 6" too far to the right will land us a ticket or in jail?
  What we need is lawDESTROYERS, not lawmakers. The legal system in the US and Canada is completely overrun with trivial nonsense laws, and the current round of lawmakers is busy trying to find something to do. Instead of going back to reform clearly bogus laws which their constituents hate, they're trying to find the next hot topic for their fellow party campaigners.
  I wish they had built a big RESET button into the US Government. I would be pushing the SHIT out of it right now.
  
  --
  If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits
8. Re:Police Services are a scam by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-17 06:17 · Score: 1
  
  Frankly, what the police fail to realize is, if everything really went to plan, their reward for doing a excellent/perfect job would be a pink slip.
  Sounds like that other unappreciated service sector:
  
  IT Support.
9. Re:Police Services are a scam by Wildclaw · 2012-03-17 08:13 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Government spending as a total is actually to low. It is how you keep people unemployed in a fiat economy (in a non-fiat economy you keep people unemployed by simply being rich and withholding the currency), so that corporations can buy slaves cheaper.
  That the government debt at the same time is high and rising is because the government is funneling money via both corrupt spending (as you mention) as well as a corrupt tax system that since the 1980s has been setup to allow the rich to slowly but surely drain money from the economy, hence forcing the government to inject more. (although as mentioned above, they deliberately inject less money than is needed to keep full employment rates)
  It is the simple goal of supply side economy and always has been. Unemployment for the poor and government paying rent to the rich, all in one nice package.
  And best of all. The left will defend the corrupt spending, while the right will defend the corrupt tax laws. It is the perfect fraud.
10. Re:Police Services are a scam by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-17 08:33 · Score: 0
  
  That's like saying "Just because there is no war on doesn't mean we should pull the soldiers back from the most recent battlefield. If they leave, surely the fighting will resume again!" It's flawed logic.
  I was perfectly well fed yesterday. I should probably buy less food next time I go to grocery.
  Oh, that doesn't make sense.
11. Re:Police Services are a scam by Ryanrule · 2012-03-17 11:11 · Score: 1
  
  You do know that "govt" spending is pretty much 100% going to private corps, right? Big govt is not your prob, despite what the corps making money off you tell you.
12. Re:Police Services are a scam by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-17 18:02 · Score: 0
  
  They did. It's a big red button with "REVOLUTION" written on it.
13. Re:Police Services are a scam by AnyoneEB · 2012-03-18 13:50 · Score: 1
  
  I wish they had built a big RESET button into the US Government. I would be pushing the SHIT out of it right now.
  There is one. It's called a convention to propose amendments to the United States Constitution. If two-thirds (34) of the state legislatures call for a constitutional convention, then Congress is obligated to arrange for a national convention during which any arbitrary amendments to the constitution can be proposed (the legality of the "arbitrary" part is not entirely clear due to the lack of precedence). They do not go into effect unless ratified by 3/4th of the states, though. See also: Second Constitution of the United States.
  
  --
  Centralization breaks the internet.
Wait, what? by epp_b · 2012-03-17 03:58 · Score: 4, Insightful

So, they want to invade privacy in what should be an illegal manner and they want me to pay them to do it?
1. Re:Wait, what? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-17 04:18 · Score: 0
  
  well duh. Socialise costs, privatise profits.
2. Re:Wait, what? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-17 04:18 · Score: 0
  
  So, they want to invade privacy in what should be an illegal manner and they want me to pay them to do it?
  It is to protect the children and fight the terrists! You either support this, or you support the child pornographers!1!
3. Re:Wait, what? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-17 04:25 · Score: 0
  
  You didn't know that in the eyes of governments and corporations being spied on is a privilege?
4. Re:Wait, what? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-17 04:26 · Score: 0
  
  And also pay more to house the people convicted under proposed minimum-sentencing laws (more prisons, more money for the courts, and so on).
  It's bad enough that they're steering us towards more of a police state, but on top of that our current government wants to take money away from the many things that are useful to most people (the upcoming slash-and-burn budget), and then use that money plus even higher user fees (hidden taxes) to pay for it all. They'll probably also figure out a way to "lower taxes" (while making up the difference in "user fees").
5. Re:Wait, what? by hilather · 2012-03-17 05:40 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  So, they want to invade privacy in what should be an illegal manner and they want me to pay them to do it?
  Well, when you say it like that, it just sounds stupid.
Whoa... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-17 04:04 · Score: 0

Where's that "Insult to Injury" tag when you need it!
Do something about it by ifwm · 2012-03-17 04:08 · Score: 5, Informative

http://stopspying.ca/ petition against Bill C-30 http://www.realprivacy.ca/write-my-mp Ontario Information & Privacy Commissioner’s letter writing tool. Please make your voice heard.
1. Re:Do something about it by fish+waffle · 2012-03-17 12:39 · Score: 1
  I understand government spying is bad. Corporate spying might be more superficial, but why is that ok then? Look at what stopspying.ca connects to:
  
  google.com
  openmedia.ca
  twitter.com
  reddit.com
  stumbleupon.com
  cachefly.net
  facebook.com
  facebook.net
  visualwebsiteoptimizer.com
  google-analytics.com
Just Embed Camera/Mic Combo in our Foreheads by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-17 04:19 · Score: 0

I mean, let's quit these slow, sequential blows to our citizen's privacy and just end it altogether. I'm sure the U.S. would happily lend the RCMP storage space in the NSA's new-and-upcoming Utah facility.
Think of the Children by AbrasiveCat · 2012-03-17 04:39 · Score: 1

The only important part of the argument is "to think of the children" then we can pass what ever is important (to the government, police, RIAA, etc). Don't let the common good or freedom get in the way.
What? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-17 04:40 · Score: 0

Who would pay to be spied on? That make no sense.
1984 speech. by wfstanle · 2012-03-17 04:46 · Score: 1

Oh, I love that Nineteen Eighty-Four speak where "public safety'" actually means Internet spying and censorship! What is even more galling is that this comes not from a country like China or Burma but from a country like Canada!.
Looks like they're going to have to change... by XxtraLarGe · 2012-03-17 04:51 · Score: 1

the national anthem. Anyone have suggestions for alternative lyrics? Maybe:

O Canada!
Our home and native land!
True patriot love in all thy sons command.
Access to Information Act
A tax to spy on me
From far and wide,
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.
God keep our land glorious and free!
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.

--
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
1. Re:Looks like they're going to have to change... by lightknight · 2012-03-17 05:47 · Score: 2
  
  I'll just leave this here: The Whitest Kids U' Know
  
  --
  I am John Hurt.
Wholly feeeeeken jesus by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-17 04:57 · Score: 0

Like we don't fucking pay enough to the god damn system.
LAST straw time and what they want and are trying to do is get as many of us off the net as they can anyway they can ....YOU do coppper realize im gonna feel after all this like doing a real crime....me thinks burning a police car or tossing a brick through a ISP window...OF course this will never happen if i hardly go out right?
DUMB COPS
DUMB GOVT
DUMB LAWYERS
DUMB SYSTEM
fuck you coppers
Great Idea! by skywire · 2012-03-17 05:11 · Score: 1

And while we are at it, let's tax all women to pay the expenses of rapists.

--
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
1. Re:Great Idea! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-17 10:52 · Score: 0
  
  What about taxing all men to pay the expenses of the women who raped some of them?
this is not new by alienzed · 2012-03-17 05:22 · Score: 1

All public services are ultimately paid for with our tax dollars. We already pay for the electricity that powers the electric chair, the money that runs the prisons and the food our Prime Minister eats. If people understood that, maybe they'd get more involved in politics.

--
Never say never. Ah!! I did it again!
Did Conservatives teach Syrians everything? by kawabago · 2012-03-17 05:32 · Score: 1

They sure seam to be on the same track!
Tax me to Spy on me? by Murdoch5 · 2012-03-17 06:03 · Score: 1

If they want to spy on me I don't care. However if they want to spy on me I shouldn't be paying for them to do it. What they could do is take part of my internet bill which I'm sure is padded with more then 100% profile and use that for there spying purpose. The other thing I'm wondering about is if they will do this via hardware or software, doing it via software would open up a new entire department of issues. I'm sure as hell not about to buy a hardware device so they can spy on me, if they want to spy they can pay for all the costs and do all the work, just don't expect me to do anything.
Funded by YOU by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-17 06:44 · Score: 0

I know here in the USA - laws are passed by congress and regulations established by the executive branch that place requirements upon companies that provide public utility services without associated funding.
The funding for the infrastructure and changes to the network required to do surveillance are certainly passed on to the consumer as part of the cost of a given product suite. There might be a penny or a dollar of their monthly service build that is going to funding that infrastructure - whatever the cost it is not borne by the service provider. They would not be able to remain in business if they absorbed all the costs of regulations (SOX, CALEA compliance etc) without associated revenue increases.
Re:You begged for this by zippthorne · 2012-03-17 06:55 · Score: 0

Liberals. We're not using words correctly any more. We're in a world where so-called "liberals" want to preserve the existing power structure all over the world, to the point of idolizing murderous, oppressive dictators and bullies.
I'm not sure that "liberal" is the right word. In my mind, a liberal is someone who craves liberty, which today's crop of tell-you-what-to-do liberals most certainly do not.

--
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
Lets not let this discussion degrade... by WebCowboy · 2012-03-17 07:28 · Score: 2

...into an anti-Tory bitchfest. It's insulting to those tho actually ARE oppressed in places from China and Cuba to Sudan and Syria and all in between. C-30 erodes our privacy rights but to say we are on the path to self destrucion at the hands of an insane tyrant is a really big stretch.
Also to clarify, for those who started foaming a the mouth when they saw "C-30" and stopped reading the rest of the article, this "internet security tax" has not been proposed by anyone in government nor by those in the telecoms industry. This was an idea presented by Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and them alone. Indeed it is not a brand-new idea for them--they've advocated extraction of funds from taxpayers for this purpose in some form or another a time or two before. The Conservatice covernment, as with previous Liberal governments and the NDP opposition have all rejected the CACP's proposals, including this one.
The fact that the Conservatives are preoccupied with "law and order" issues seems to have brought on the assumption that they must be unabashed supporters of the CACP and thus whatever brainwave the CACP has is going to be well received. Those who are Canadian and follow Canadian politics know that the Tories and the CACP do not see eye to eye an quite a number of issues. Most notably the CACP steadfastly advocated the creation and expansion of the federal long gun registry but the Tory government dismantled it. On that issue, the idea of creating a database of long guns (hunting and target shoting rifles, etc) and their owners with unfettered access by police came about through consultations the Liberal government had with the CACP, who presented it as the solution to prevent massacres like the one at Ecole Polytecnique (the incident that called on government to come up with expanded gun control measures in the first place).
But there are a few things that make a "Security tax" on internet use a non-starter:
1. the Tories have made a big effort to present themselves as "anti-tax"--whether you think they are serious or not they advocate public spending restraint over unfettered "stimulous spending" and higher taxation. It would be pretty bad optics to start imposing a tax on internet use
2. Canadians complain about the relatively high cost of telecom services (with good reason), and the government has been making chages in the industry to increase competition and lower costs (spectrum auctions that limit incumbants ability to steamroll over new competition, relaxation of foreign ownership regulations to permit upstarts like Wind Mobile from being blocked or facing bigger hurdles, etc). Imposing taxes on internet use, for any purpose, runs counter to this commitment and would be taken very poorly by the public at large. Not only that, incumbants and new players in the telecom industry alike are already aggravated at the prospect of being responsible to monitor internet traffic for police--having to aggravate their customers with another fee/tax just furthers that.
3. It runs counter to the "small c" conservative philosophy that many of the Tories core supporters have concerning taxation--that is that the people using somehting should be the ones paying for it. That is why they always talk about replacing some broad tax with "user fees". ISP's customers already pay to access the internet, and if the police want to access ISP customers' internet too, well the police should be the ones covering that cost.
4. Many western supporters of the NEW tories--the "old Reform Party" ones most passionate about getting rid of things like the gun registry and the Wheat Board monopoly, are offended by what C-30 represents--just like gun control it treats innocent people like criminals--the gun registry assumed that all people who would own a gun must be intent on using it to commit crimes and so they all must register with the government at great expense to that police can check up on them whenever they feel like it. Bill C-30 assumes all internet users co
Hook ups? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-17 07:40 · Score: 0

I get my hook ups free on Craigslist. Oh. Not that kind?
Re:You begged for this by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-17 07:49 · Score: 0

Before talking about liberals, did you at least tried to check who proposed this bill?
It was proposed by Vic Toews, minister of public safety in the Conservative government of Canada - as you don't know, Canada is now under the rule of canadian neocons.
And which Vic Toews, also said, in standard neocon behavior, that who's against this bill is friend of child pornographers.
Same toews which was sleeping with the 17 years old babysitter hired by his sister.
The main reason I gave up all land lines. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-17 08:26 · Score: 0

I did not need as much Internet or TV as I thought.
It's not by shiftless · 2012-03-17 08:27 · Score: 1

If a record low crime rate is due to the effectiveness of police
It's not
1. Re:It's not by the+eric+conspiracy · 2012-03-17 08:40 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, probably not. But that wasn't the premise of the grandparent post.
Nice by Arancaytar · 2012-03-17 09:56 · Score: 1

Spying on people and making them pay for it; I like their style.
Read the Canadian Charter of Rights, Bozos! by msobkow · 2012-03-17 11:12 · Score: 1

You may NOT monitor my data, voice, and video traffic without a search warrant.
You may request my contact information from my ISP without a warrant, the same as you can do a reverse phone book lookup. It will cost virtually nothing except staff time to do the reverse-name lookup, because my ISP already has a database with that information. But DAMNED if I'm going to tolerate an abuse of my Charter rights:

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

In other words, if you want more than my name and address:
GET A FUCKING WARRANT!!!

--
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
1. Re:Read the Canadian Charter of Rights, Bozos! by GmExtremacy · 2012-03-17 15:50 · Score: 2
  
  I'll be surprised if your charter isn't as worthless to your government as the constitution is to the US government.
  Rights are so inconvenient when you want to 'save' the children!
Tax on free speech? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-17 12:06 · Score: 0

Riight.. So now they're planning on taxing communication.
If i was canadian, which i am not, i would sue the hell out of the police and ask for 1M$ cus i was "offended by their attempt suppress my free speech".
Re:You begged for this by GmExtremacy · 2012-03-17 15:48 · Score: 1

Why are you playing the left-right politics game?
Not all ISPs are for-profit/big enterprises by awehttam · 2012-03-17 17:09 · Score: 1

A lot of them are non-profit Society's with barely enough margins to pay their operating costs. We're talking volunteer boards here. This is particularly true in rural areas where there's no business case to justify big ISPs putting in infrastructure. Another thing - C-30 defines a telecommunication service provider as *everyone* including individuals who are not principally using it for their own household use. Who's going to reimburse Joe Average for their costs to comply with this legislation if they decide to provide the public with free Internet, ala: linksys?