Canadian Internet Surveillance Dies a Quiet, Lonely Death

Dr Caleb writes "According to the Globe and Mail, 'The Internet surveillance legislation sponsored by Public Safety Minister Vic Toews has disappeared down a dark legislative hole. For all intents and purposes, the bill is dead. If the Harper government still wants to pass a law that would make it easier for police to track people who use the web to commit crimes, it will have to start from scratch.' The bill has been sent to a public safety committee for extensive revision, but it must be debated for five hours on the House floor first, and that won't happen before summer recess. This is a followup to the story we discussed in February titled 'Against Online Surveillance? You Must Be "For" Child Porn.'"

Comments

Quiet? Lonely?

[Cyphase]

Weren't we all there cheering?

Re:Quiet? Lonely?

[Capt.DrumkenBum]

I am cheering. I am sure I am not alone.
There is a system in place. I don't see any reason for a new law. I personally would bet that any law enforcement official asking a judge for a warrant for a pedo case is going to get their warrant in a flash.
Deserved or not, pedophiles are the biggest boogiemen of our time.

Re:Quiet? Lonely?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, just conjure up a phony war, any kind. If the Yanks can do it, why not Harper too? War on terror. War on drugs. War on bubble gum (good job, Singapore!) - the possibilities are endless. Then pass another wartime measures act, same as the one that gave us income tax.

We've seen it happen south of the border often enough, and these things take on a life of their own. When do you think the DEA will get their mandate revoked, or the GST will be repealed*? Not in our lifetimes.

(this was a temporary tax that successive Liberal and Con. prime ministers have campaign-promised to repeal since the nineties)

Re:Quiet? Lonely?

[deimtee]

It should not be easy. I think the 4th amendment to the US constitution has it pretty close to right.
However, it also shouldn't take 600 pages. If you can't say what you want to intercept and why in a couple of pages, you shouldn't be doing it anyway.

Re:But

[addie]

In Canada we reached just over 61% turnout in the federal election in 2011, which was a slight rise from a historically low 59% in 2008. With the way our first past the post system works, that meant the Conservative Party of Canada became government with only about 40% of the total vote - working out to just 5-6 million people out of a country of 35 million.

Getting people to vote is extremely important, yes. But having a voting system that is fair and accurately represents voter preference is also necessary.

Re:But

[billcopc]

We had a 61% turnout last year, but since the FPTP system is so retarded, our Canadian version of Dubya won a (narrow) majority despite getting less than 40% of the votes.

The way most of us read the results, it means over 60% did NOT want that guy to win. Either way, since getting his majority he's been ramming all these big brother bills down our throat, along with unprecedented military spending and all the other abusive stuff you neighbours have been subjected to for the last few terms. Shit's going downhill fast and riots are become more and more frequent. Amazing how easiy one sellout can ruin a country for millions of people.

Re:But

[Beardo the Bearded]

Economists? Interesting.

Jim Flaherty's first budget in 2006: 468 billion

Today's debt: 584 Billion

That's $116 BILLION in overspending in the last six years.

Conservatives. Discuss and define, please.