Canadian Government Scrapping Internet Predators Act

dakohli writes "The Conservative Goverment of Canada is scrapping the controversial bill C-30 They will instead make 'modest' changes to the existing Warrantless Wiretap bill. This bill was widely panned by Privacy Critics and members of the opposition. Another victory for online privacy!"

Comments

Modest changes

[EmperorOfCanada]

I suspect that by modest changes they mean that they are going to gut our rights. Anyone who works in government quickly learns that control of information is power. It makes them angry that they can't get more information and it makes them scared that we can get so much.

Exhibit #1: Egypt. They want to turn off Youtube for a month because of "blasphemy" what they really don't want people seeing is the growing discontent that is visibly displayed every day along with the misdeeds of the police; this will work of course because youtube is the only site on the whole Internet that hosts videos.

We don't need a new internet law we need something at the constitutional level that protects us from government spying while also enshrining our rights to force the government to expose its secrets.

Re:Modest changes

[Luckyo]

Ah, another "government is this monolithic entity that is sooooooo scary" post. Massive upmods incoming.

Reality is, most of these bills in the West are drafted by interested parties. Most of which are no governmental but private in nature. And while many laws look (and are) quite terrible as they are drafted by people with massive vested interests in them, modern Western democracies have numerous checks and balances to thwart such legislation from becoming actual law. Which is what happened in this case.

The fact that you chose Egypt, a country that essentially survived beginning of a civil war and still hasn't worked itself through it and has never been a democracy befiore as an example of average Western government shows that you're quite pants on the head kind of special poster.

Re:Modest changes

[lightknight]

Yes, but that does not alter the fact that many of these bills, introduced to Western society, are totally at odds with its professed values.

Allow me to show you: "We fought a world wide war to bring democracy / freedom / etc. to people who had it stolen from them / have never had the chance to experience it themselves, against totalitarian dictators / nazis / facists / etc. Skipping ahead to item two on today's agenda, the Chiquita / Dole / etc. corporation would like to overthrow a South American government, duly elected by its people, so that we can buy our bananas for less; btw, we'll be installing a dictatorship in place of whatever they have there right now, it's going to be total hell for those unfortunate people. All in favor, say 'Aye.' *pause* The motions carries!"

Let's face it: that's f*cked up. And it's not like that kind of behavior has stopped recently -> it has only accelerated, like we're on a tight schedule to f*ck things up as much as possible before we leave this planet. Now, I am not an environmentalist, but I have to pause when I think about these kinds of actions -> they are not good according to anyone who has not had an ethicetomy. Plus I hate being lied to, as much as anyone else, especially when it's the all powerful 'lie by omission' being played.

Re:Modest changes

[wbr1]

Ah, another "government is this monolithic entity that is sooooooo scary" post. Massive upmods incoming.

Reality is, most of these bills in the West are drafted by interested parties. Most of which are no governmental but private in nature. And while many laws look (and are) quite terrible as they are drafted by people with massive vested interests in them, modern Western democracies have numerous checks and balances to thwart such legislation from becoming actual law. Which is what happened in this case.

The fact that you chose Egypt, a country that essentially survived beginning of a civil war and still hasn't worked itself through it and has never been a democracy befiore as an example of average Western government shows that you're quite pants on the head kind of special poster.

However, those checks and balances are skewed. The interested parties (military industrial complex anyone? what the US spends most of its budget on), want these things to pass. They are their bread and butter. These laws do get passed (DMCA, Patriot Act, et al), and many that don't will rise again, and again with new names attached, until either enough money has changed hands to make it feasible, or wrapped into some save us from drug/terrorists/pedos monstrosity named some stupid shit (PLBAFOWO - Protect Little Boys Anuses from Osama Wannabes Online), then they will pass and one more right will be gone. One more piece of your privacy eroded.

Meanwhile you will blithly watch your superbowl and say oh the checks and balances will get it. I can still afford my mortgage and comcast bill. Who gives a fuck?

There are are two types of people in the the western world for the most part. Those who drink the koolaid that the gov works as is and ignore it, and those who by the gov line of saving you from yourselves and the evils around you. The fact is both are false, and those who see it are in theminority, and slowly becoming more and more shut out of anything.

Re:Modest changes

[Cryacin]

There is an old saying. Throw enough mud, and eventually some will stick.

Re:Modest changes

[Mashiki]

I suspect that by modest changes they mean that they are going to gut our rights. Anyone who works in government quickly learns that control of information is power. It makes them angry that they can't get more information and it makes them scared that we can get so much.

Well, my first question is do you actually live in Canada? If you did you'd already know that the SCC has a history of upholding the charter of rights and freedoms against intrusive laws unless the government can justifiably demonstrate that there is a valid S.1 argument. And there have been very few cases where the SCC has let the S.1 argument give leeway. Probably the best case to show where the government has been given leeway under that is the RIDE Program, where warrentless stopping of a vehicle is considered a small enough violation of public rights vs the protection of society as a whole.

Remember now, that this has already been to court in terms of the warrentless wiretap, and the SCC struck it down as an overeach of power. This bill is to come into compliance to the SCC's ruling, it will end up being challenged again, and if the bill is found to be in breach or an excessive overreach the SCC will strike it down again.

Re:Modest changes

[blahplusplus]

"Ah, another "government is this monolithic entity that is sooooooo scary" post. Massive upmods incoming."

If you knew anything about the history of the current conservative party (reform party take over) you would not be saying such things. Most people commenting in this thread know nothing about canadian politics and how the canadian parliamentary system works. Right now Conservatives have a majority, what that means is they essentially get to shove any legislation they want through with impunity.

Whether they 'slightly soften' totally bankrupt laws is a non issue since the opposition has no power at all given the majority.

Re:Modest changes

[Mashiki]

Right now Conservatives have a majority, what that means is they essentially get to shove any legislation they want through with impunity.

If that was true, the free speech bill(C-304) wouldn't be stalled in the senate. And this is a bill that has strong support from all sides of the political spectrum. A majority means squat in politics in Canada being that the senate has it's own whims and can stall and kill something as it wants.

Re:Modest changes

[Runaway1956]

Did you read TFA? There was not one sentence in the proposed law that could be construed to protect children from predators. The only reference to predators was in the title of the bill.

I can title a bill as "A bill to provide for Anonymous Coward in his old age"

Then, I can fill the bill with demands to have total access to all the information on Anonymous Coward, including his IP address, posting record, referral data, every single bit of data that slashdot or any other site maintains. All of the verbiage in the bill is designed to identify you, then prosecute you for posts that I don't like. But, I TITLED it as something GOOD for AC, so you would be a douchebag to oppose the bill, right?

Re:Modest changes

[Anonymous Coward]

The interested parties (military industrial complex anyone? what the US spends most of its budget on)

Actually, Medicare, Medicaid, and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) - together accounted for 21 percent of the budget. Defense and international security assistance was 20 percent... tied with Social Security. A fair breakdown can be had here. http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1258

Re:Modest changes

[Luckyo]

SOPA comes to mind as a good example. Thing is, it doesn't have to be legislative body to kill it. Citizen action, lobbying and so on are very effective to take legislative packages off the table because of fear of consequences.

In EU, same thing happened to patent directive for example.

Re:No victory.

[EzInKy]

What, you didn't notice that the "an" in paragraph 192 was corrected to "a"?

Omnibus bill

[CanadianMacFan]

Probably everything will get thrown into the next budget omnibus bill which will pass and then we'll only find out six months later what was contained in it.