Slashdot Mirror


Canadian Police Recommend Online Spying Tax For Internet Bills

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."

33 of 110 comments (clear)

  1. who will pay? by nurb432 · · 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 hairyfeet · · 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.
    2. Re: who will pay? by ILongForDarkness · · 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.

    3. Re: who will pay? by MitchDev · · Score: 2

      And with each new little tax, the citizen's burden slowly climbs higher and closer to 100% of their earnings...

    4. Re: who will pay? by Surt · · 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
    5. Re: who will pay? by lexsird · · 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.
    6. Re: who will pay? by jamstar7 · · 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.
    7. Re: who will pay? by hairyfeet · · 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.
    8. Re: who will pay? by Surt · · 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
    9. Re: who will pay? by lexsird · · 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.
    10. Re: who will pay? by m1xram · · Score: 2

      You lost me, who pays for things? If it's not the consumer then who?

    11. Re: who will pay? by Crosshair84 · · 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.

  2. Good, do it... by Fishead · · 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 · · 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.

    2. Re:Good, do it... by Nemyst · · 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.

    3. Re:Good, do it... by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    4. Re:Good, do it... by lexsird · · 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.
  3. Soon ... by PPH · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re:Soon ... by someone1234 · · 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
  4. Police Services are a scam by HeavyDDuty · · 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 · · 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 · · 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 · · 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 · · 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 TheRealGrogan · · 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.

    6. Re:Police Services are a scam by MacGyver2210 · · 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
    7. Re:Police Services are a scam by Wildclaw · · 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.

  5. Wait, what? by epp_b · · 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 hilather · · 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.

  6. Do something about it by ifwm · · 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.

  7. Re:Looks like they're going to have to change... by lightknight · · Score: 2

    I'll just leave this here: The Whitest Kids U' Know

    --
    I am John Hurt.
  8. Lets not let this discussion degrade... by WebCowboy · · 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

  9. Re:Read the Canadian Charter of Rights, Bozos! by GmExtremacy · · 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!