Canada Introduces Privacy Reforms That Encourage Warrantless Disclosure of Info

An anonymous reader writes "Earlier this week, the government introduced the Digital Privacy Act (Bill S-4), the latest attempt to update Canada's private sector privacy law. Michael Geist reports that the bill includes a provision that could massively expand warrantless disclosure of personal information. Organizations will be permitted to disclose personal information without consent (and without a court order) to any organization that is investigating a contractual breach or possible violation of any law. This applies both past breaches or violations as well as potential future violations. Moreover, the disclosure occurs in secret without the knowledge of the affected person (who therefore cannot challenge the disclosure since they are not aware it is happening). Consider it a gift to copyright trolls, who won't need the courts to obtain information on thousands of Internet users."

Comments

Eh?

[Anonymous Coward]

You get what you vote for,

Re:Eh?

[Chrisq]

You get what you vote for,

If you call a choice of 2 with the same policies a choice ... and if you live somewhere your vote will make a difference (i.e. the result isn't a foregone conclusion)

Re:Eh?

[r.freeman]

No, this is a democracy - you get often what OTHER people voted for.
As apposed to not-violent freedom where people can organize in cities or clubs and have local laws without need to convince millions of citizens even from other side of country.
Paging doctor "but if we would be free, who will build the roads, private companies and organizations like Linux, Mozilla do grand things but I think we're too stupid to hire some construction workers without government holding gun to taxpayer's head"

Re:Eh?

[Anonymous Coward]

You talked about local laws. What does that involve, if not government?

Re:Eh?

[Opportunist]

Damn right, next time vote for Kodos you idiots!

Re:Eh?

[r.freeman]

Local organization that you volountarly join.
For all things except crime this is even more obvious that you don't need central government, all you need is to "kick" people out. Slashdot has some rights, e.g. if guy X posts viagra he will be removed - no need to have state wide court hearings for this, you only need lack of state wide law so the spammer can not complain that he is "discriminated" or whatever.
Once this is understood, I could explain criminal cases options, if anyone wants.

Re:Eh?

[Johann Lau]

Paging doctor "but if we would be free, who will build the roads [..]"

Oh, I know one who fits that description:

"You don't know what order with freedom means! You only know what revolt against oppression is! You don't know that the rod, discipline, violence, the state and government can only be sustained because of you and because of your lack of socially creative powers that develop order within liberty!"

-- Gustav Landauer

Re:Eh?

[Johann Lau]

Vote Codo! (Endziffer 1)

Re:Eh?

[Anonymous Coward]

How do you know those votes actually count for shit? Did you count them? Did your best friends or family members or your teachers or professors or employers count them? How do you know it isn't a complete scam and political tool to make everybody think you actually have a say in what really happens with these governments? Before I hear another Canuk tell Americans how loathesomely lazy we are and how we let all this crap happen here, I want to see at least 1 million people marching down to their highest government office over this law, which sleazily may test the waters and have them wringing their hands slobberingly in anticipation for the international thingy..

Re:Eh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? Which party is the one that would not do the same again?

Re:Eh?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, this is a democracy - you get often what OTHER people voted for.

Ironically, this is what democrats often fail to accept, claiming vote rigging and what not every time it happens.

Re:Eh?

[Mashiki]

You get what you vote for,

So we got it with the Liberals who were the first runners of this type of law, we got it with the conservatives, but they listened and killed the bills when the public said no way. Following with that, the courts have struck down various sections of the law already codified that allowed exigent circumstances. Seems to me that the system is working just fine up here in Canada. And in this case, I don't expect the law to make it in it's current form. It'll hit the senate, and end up back in the house, where it'll probably die at the end of the season.

Re:Eh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Stereotype much?

Re:Eh?

[davecb]

We used to have four parties,
Left Left-Center Right-center Right
NDP Liberal Conservative Reform
plus a Quebec party, plus some oddballs.

We used to get lots of debate, and some very different suggestions from the NDP and Reform, which tended to keep the debate healthy.

Now we have Reform, renamed as the "Conservatives", a rump of the Liberals, and a invigorated NDP. The latter two split the left-center vote, the Reform party wins, and the policies look remarkably homogenized.

Bummer!

Re:Eh?

[rmdingler]

Democracy is far from a perfect system, but it beats the hell out of whatever's in second place.

At worst, the illusion of choice is still a galvanizing force if the politicos need to be reassigned.

Re:Eh?

[davecb]

Even if you had no parties, individuals need to get thrown out of office, if only to keep them from getting in a rut.

Re:Eh?

[MrChips]

> You get what you vote for

No we didn't. Over 60% of us voted against the conservatives and yet here they are. Running amok. I'd be much happier if really did get what we voted for.

Re:Eh?

[Anonymous Coward]

You had one fucking job, Canada....

Re:Eh?

[Anonymous Coward]

No,it's the best system money can buy.

Re:Eh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that most Canadians voted against the Conservative party. Due to the weird way votes are counted in Canada, 39% of the vote gave the Conservatives a majority government, which means they can do whatever they want. The system is broken when 61% of the people vote against you and you still get to run th show without competition.

Re:Eh?

[dryeo]

62% of the Canadians who bothered to vote, voted against this government, so we have the tyranny of the minority. Luckily with the Fair Elections Act they're trying to make sure that many of those 62% won't be able to vote next election.

Re:Eh?

[mlts]

Democracy is showing its cracks here in the US. I've wondered about moving to a different system so we don't keep the same people in office for decades:

I'd propose it be done like jury duty: Come every four years, every citizen's name is tossed in a hat, names are drawn, and those people are sworn into office. No, this isn't perfect, and statistically, there is a chance of getting some real crazies... but is that worse than politicians bought and paid for by campaign donations? Statistically, it will give a true cross-section of the population. It will also get rid of gerrymandering and other crap.

This can be combined with a "no confidence" vote mechanism for further checks/balances.

Re:Eh?

[dryeo]

This is Canada, we're the mice who get a choice of cats, white, black, even multi-coloured. They all promise that they'll do the best for us mice, but the truth is they're cats.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...

Re:Eh?

[mark-t]

I worked for Elections Canada during the election before last, and previously, 2 elections before that one. So I actually did count the ones that were at my polling station. The numbers that I reported were not fudged at all... if the numbers that are published genuinely did not reflect actual votes, what reason would I have to think that I am so special that my results would always be kept intact but others wouldn't?

Also, everyone who does any counting is accountable to other people, and there is no one person at the top of it all. Dishonesty in reporting would stick out in that system like a sore thumb unless everyone was accountable to had the exact same political agenda and interest in falsely representing the numbers, which is not statistically likely.

Re:Eh?

[mark-t]

Any of them, other than the Conservatives actually.... all of the other parties were quite vocally against the extreme copyright reform that the Conservatives wanted to push through, but it passed anyways because they have a majority of seats.

Truth be told, there was a lot of good stuff in the copyright reform that the conservatives had come up with.... the single biggest problem with it was that although it used language which seemed to support fair dealing, it simultaneously rendered those privileges moot in the context of using any copyrighted work that utilized "technological protection measures". Most unfortunate.

Re:Eh?

[dryeo]

I've often thought about a similar idea here in Canada, except it being the Senate (appointed in Canada) that is made up of random people. Elected part of government still proposes laws and budgets but the Senate can shoot them down or force changes.
Problem is a lot of people just can't afford to take a few years away from home and work and they'd still be vulnerable to bribery such as the promise of a good easy job after their term was finished.

Re:Eh?

[Anonymous Coward]

It isn't real democracy when the government gets total control with only 30-some percent of the popular vote.

I don't bother to vote because it doesn't make sense. If a party wins X percent of the popular vote, then they should have X percent of the seats (or power) of government. Anything else is just a game for suckers.

Re:Eh?

[Udom]

One major problem is our weak laws about lobbying. Lobbyists can wine and dine MPs constantly with little oversight. Even worse, if an MP votes the right way they can get a great job with the PR company when they leave office. So... vote for the spy bill, retire before the next election and immediately start work as Vice President for SFA at a salary of half a million a year. Canadian News media are being corrupted in the same way.

Re:Eh?

[Opportunist]

I prefer the broken vase joke.

Customer: I'd like to buy a vase.
Clerk: Here we have a few. A red one, a blue one, a green one, a yellow one...
Customer: Yeah, but ... they all have holes in the bottom! They're absolutely useless!
Clerk: Maybe, but you have the free choice!

Re:Eh?

[davester666]

Yes, it's been the senate that has blocked some really horrible laws, [unfortunately, not because they were bad, but just passed by the 'other' party]. This Harper gov't has been doing it's best to reduce/eliminate the ability for people to do anything about the laws they pass, by just lumping them in one big omnibus bill, introducing it, then ramming it through parliament as fast as possible. "Oh, we have to lump everything together, because everything is linked together by the fact that they are in the same bill."

They might be fiscally conservative, and "tough on crime", but for stuff like this, the laws don't seem to be written here, but written by the US and just given to us with a "Here, enact this", with Harper going "Oh, yes, right away sir". The copyright-stuff was the same.

The current system could work better, but now it's being gamed by the parties so it is largely a 4-year at a time dictatorship.

Re:Eh?

[q4Fry]

People were meant to hold various views.
This has been construed to mean
That rulers should grant them the freedom to choose
And one thing to choose between.

Piet Hein in Grooks V

Re:Eh?

[Anonymous Coward]

What democracy? Electoral laws are currently being re-written to favour those who would typically vote for the conservatives and limit the investigative powers of Elections Canada. I wouldn't be surprised they'll soon allow only right-wing nuts on the ballot.

Re:Eh?

[davecb]

Indeed: I notice a number of ex-reporters were caught up in the Senate scandal...

Re:Eh?

[davecb]

While it didn't address the lobbying, Jean Chretien's effort to shift party funding to $x per vote cast in the previous election was an excellent first step toward taking the power to influence out of the hands of the people who also hire lobbyists. It's contraintuitive that it was the ex-Reform party members who shut it down and took the election-spending power out of the hands of their own "grass roots".

Re:Eh?

[Anonymous Coward]

62% of the Canadians who bothered to vote, voted against this government, so we have the tyranny of the minority. Luckily with the Fair Elections Act they're trying to make sure that many of those 62% won't be able to vote next election.

Actually, about 60% of eligible voters voted so we have that 37.2% of eligible voters opposed Conservatives. The rest either approved of Conservatives (23% of eligible voters) or did not care enough to vote otherwise (40% of eligible voters).

If anything, we have tyranny of the lazy and "don't give a fuck".

Re:Eh?

[marcello_dl]

Demo-cracy indicates the result, not the method.
Some methods are named after the result, like the extremely secure server I want to sell you is extremely secure.

You know it is a democracy when you ask yourself "is this government decision what I want" and the answer is a statistically significant Yes. Besides, when you have governments making decision, you have already a problem since it's not their duty to make new laws unless it's an absolute emergency.

Re:Eh?

[Anonymous Coward]

And who decides who gets kicked out? 50%+1, so basically half of people might not want someone to be kicked out, but too bad?

Re:Eh?

[beefoot]

Let me get it straight -- if someone slaps you on the face, you go back to your cave to hibernate?

Re:Eh?

[Tailhook]

62% of the Canadians who bothered to vote, voted against this government, so we have the tyranny of the minority

Remember the days before Harper when Canada's electoral system was incessantly lauded as the obviously superior system? Since conservatives took power that view has not been offered as frequently around here.

All those proud anti-Harper Canadians must be languishing is some NWT gulag where they can't post that stuff anymore... it couldn't be that they forgot how wonderful their system is when it fails to produce their preferred outcome.

No way!

Re:Eh?

[Teun]

Aha, and where to do you 'kick' said undesirable, the neighbours?

See, that's why you need government at a larger scale, to prevent locals pushing their shit on others.

Re:Eh?

[quantaman]

I've thought of that before, you might end up with rule by bureaucrats but otherwise I think it works pretty well, other than the fact that no legislative body would ever implement it.

Given modern constraints I think constitutional monarchies are the way to go, not because the monarch is useful, but because the monarch takes the "executive" role and all the power ends up in parliament where voters can pay attention.

The problem with the US is power is too distributed. 538 congress critters each with their own agenda, there's too much information to make an informed decision and it's too easy for lobbyists to overpower individual politicians.

I think Canada has about as good a system as you can reasonably get because the parties are so strong. They can stand up to lobbyists or pundits when they think it's in their own best interest (which usually corresponds to what that think is good for the country too). And the opposition can coordinate their attacks a lot more effectively. There's a Tea Party element in the Conservatives but Harper keeps it under wraps. They still introduce some bad legislation like this, but bad bills have been defeated in the past.

Re:Eh?

[dryeo]

Considering one of Harpers (and Reforms) original platforms was Senate reform, he sure has taken advantage of the status quo. I like the idea of the Senate, just not the implementation. One quick improvement would be letting the Provinces appoint Senators however they want, elected, appointed or whatever. Meanwhile Harper won't even appoint the one that Alberta voted for.

Re:Eh?

[dryeo]

The Conservatives got training from the American Republican Party. They have been caught cheating, there is lots of other evidence of other cheating and now they're changing the rules so that our formally excellent system is no more. Elections Canada isn't even going to be allowed to tell people where to vote, little well investigate polling irregularities, campaign irregularities and so on.
While Canada's electoral system was very good, our Parliamentary system not so much as if a party gets a majority they have up to a 5 (usually closer to 4) year dictatorship and that is the current problem. Last time the Conservatives were in power they were reduced to 3 seats when the people judged them. That is good when a government fucks up badly, they lose badly. Now this government is changing the rules in an attempt to prevent our electoral system from working.

Re:Eh?

[Mashiki]

The Conservatives got training from the American Republican Party. They have been caught cheating, there is lots of other evidence of other cheating and now they're changing the rules so that our formally excellent system is no more.

Oh please. The liberals got exactly the same training, and were caught cheating in the elections during the 90's but I sure don't hear you bitching and moaning about that.

Re:Eh?

[dryeo]

Ideally the Constitutional Monarch should have just slightly more power. Currently in Canada the Governor General does whatever the PM tells him to do, right or wrong. This has resulted in Harper proroguing Parliament when the shit was about to hit the fan a couple of times including once when he's government was going to lose a vote of confidence the next day, then he went on about how it wasn't democratic if the opposition parties ganged up on him and formed a coalition government like the UK and Australia currently have. A government consists of which ever part[y][ies] can pass a budget and if none can then Parliament is dissolved and there are elections. The voters get pissed off if this happens too often.

Re:Eh?

[quantaman]

Ideally the Constitutional Monarch should have just slightly more power. Currently in Canada the Governor General does whatever the PM tells him to do, right or wrong. This has resulted in Harper proroguing Parliament when the shit was about to hit the fan a couple of times including once when he's government was going to lose a vote of confidence the next day, then he went on about how it wasn't democratic if the opposition parties ganged up on him and formed a coalition government like the UK and Australia currently have. A government consists of which ever part[y][ies] can pass a budget and if none can then Parliament is dissolved and there are elections. The voters get pissed off if this happens too often.

That prorogue situation was a bit of a mess, the Conservatives had just won the election (as a minority) and introduced a controversial election funding bill they hadn't discussed during the campaign. But the voters understand that the minority party forms government, giving the voters a coalition government they didn't expect isn't really Democratic. I think the proper thing would have been to say withdraw the the bill or we'll defeat it and force another election and let the voters decide whose fault it is.

I think the governor general made the right call, the coalition didn't even last till the conclusion of the prorogue.

Re:Eh?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Quebec party are the oddballs!

Re:Eh?

[dryeo]

I'd like a citation for that. Just spent half an hour looking and can't find anything for the Canadian Federal Liberal Party though it wouldn't surprise me too much as they were quite corrupt. I do know that I never had a problem voting in a federal election until the last election when the early voting place was 30 miles away in the wrong direction instead of the normal place, a problem for me as being self-employed I have a harder time taking Tuesday afternoon off. Not to mention the severe shortage of choices on the ballot.
I also know that the Conservatives are trying to remove the right to vote from my wife and son. My wife has never had a problem voting before but since she doesn't drive it appears that her ID is no longer good enough and it's going to take years for her updated ID to be issued by the federal government.
I'll say one thing about the Conservatives, they make the Liberals not seem quite as bad, perhaps they need to do more in the way of giving Senate seats to media people to get their message out, then again by threatening to bring in American media companies if they don't toe the line perhaps they'll keep the independent media dependent.

Re:Eh?

[dryeo]

Yes the whole thing was a mess but the Conservatives, who ran on a platform of transparency, did introduce a bill designed to fuck the opposition and pushed it through. That's the problem with this government, it takes a lot of screaming before they listen, generally they sneak the worst shit in using omnibus bills so people have too many options about what to scream about. So far it seems only the Supreme Court has really been able to reign them in. I wish we still had our minority governments as majorities just have too much power no matter who is in power.
About the only good thing about the American system is the lack of party discipline and Canada would be better if MPs could vote what their constituencies wanted instead of the party head..

Re:Eh?

[quantaman]

I think the lack of party discipline is the worst feature of the American system. In the Canadian system Michelle Bachmann, Ted Cruize, and Jim Inhofe would just be random backbenchers no one listens to. But in the US because there's no discipline each of them has a voice on the national stage.

MPs with lots of independence means political power goes local, instead of debating things on the national stage with everyone it's debated by hyper-partisans because those are the only people obsessive enough to get involved in politics at the local level. Moreover you get drawn into a lot of dumb symbolic stuff because there's not enough time to debunk all the dumb symbolism.

In the Canadian system nuanced debate happens inside the party, when they think they have the best argument they take it public and now the public has just a handful of positions to evaluate. I think a lack of discipline (and that includes an elected senate) is a horrible idea because it makes our political debate into the cacophony the Americans are dealing with.

Re:Eh?

[blahplusplus]

"Democracy is far from a perfect system, but it beats the hell out of whatever's in second place."

http://www.princeton.edu/~mgil...

Re:Eh?

[blahplusplus]

http://www.princeton.edu/~mgil...

Re:Eh?

[blahplusplus]

"It isn't real democracy when the government gets total control with only 30-some percent of the popular vote."

While democracy is rule by corporations, there are BETTER and WORSE corporate parties that have negative effects on everyone. It just means it's a lot of hard work to change the world.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

ANTI privacy law

[Anonymous Coward]

more fucking civil rights down the tube...

So use it.

[Anonymous Coward]

EFF can now obtain the list of directors of patent troll organizations. Publish that and the public can file thousands of lawsuits, embarrass them, etc,

Re:So use it.

[Anubis IV]

How so? From the summary, this sounds like a voluntary action, not a mandatory one. I.e. They are now free to share user details without fear, but they are under no obligation to do so. In the case of patent trolls, there is no reason for them to share details that would incriminate themselves, so why would they voluntarily give up that information?

No, this is simply a tool that bolsters corporations and harms users.

You gotta pay the troll toll to get in

[Anonymous Coward]

Trolls are far down the list of things we need to worry about if this goes through. "Potential" and "Possible" can also translate to "everyone and everything forever".

'There is no innocence, only degrees of guilt' and all them things.

lead underpants

[Anonymous Coward]

that's what we need? http://rt.com/news/gamma-radiation-nuclear-safety-472/

It's obvious that

[invictusvoyd]

"Rights" in general is a carefully crafted illusion created and controlled by the 2% to make the other 98% believe that they are all equal in the constitution or some other similar book which itself is the part of the illusion. . Let me give an example. In the COMMUNIST world !!!, 2% of the population controls every aspect of the 98% . The same holds true in the democratic and other crapcratic world .

Politicians...

[Knightman]

I don't get it, are politicians born stupid or have their parents dropped them on their head (repeatedly) while they where young?

The possibility of abuse of this law if it's passed is mind-boggling. I do hope the Canadian people wakes up and take their politicians to task.

Re:Politicians...

[Anonymous Coward]

Stupid? They're power-hungry, and good at manipulating morons. They're especially good at it after some disaster strikes (e.g. after 9/11, they shoved through tons of legislation that violates the fundamental liberties of those in the US). Politicians are the same everywhere; manipulative, sociopathic assholes who take advantage of the ignorance and fear of the general public.

Re:Politicians...

[Anonymous Coward]

Never attribute to stupidity what can be attributed to malice.
Politicians 101

Re:Politicians...

[50000BTU_barbecue]

No, that's realtors.

Re:Politicians...

[Anonymous Coward]

Trust me. We've been trying.

Problem is an aging population that doesn't understand or care to understand anything "on those interwebs"

That same population puts absolute trust in the government, and in our police forces. And look what happens.

Harper is systematically eroding democracy.

Re:Politicians...

[blahplusplus]

"I don't get it, are politicians born stupid or have their parents dropped them on their head (repeatedly) while they where young?"

Elites fear awakening.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re:Politicians...

[gstoddart]

The possibility of abuse of this law if it's passed is mind-boggling.

And that's kind of the point. The current government here is a "law and order, pro business, we can spy too" type of conservative.

They've been steadily trying to expand what government can do, ignoring our own national privacy laws, and generally trying to remake the laws into how they perceive how they should be (and generally ignoring anybody telling them why they can't).

Since we've got a First Past the Post electoral system, and even though they only got about 39% of the popular vote, they have a majority government and have more or less been doing as they please.

I do hope the Canadian people wakes up and take their politicians to task.

Trust me, we're trying.

The problem is the government wants to pass laws which do not adhere to either our Constitution or some of our other legal frameworks. And they more or less act like their will supercedes our laws.

Re:Politicians...

[Anonymous Coward]

Stupid... No... They just see that they get extra funding for the next election when they do things like this. Hope this blows up in the Conservatives face.

Re:Politicians...

[future assassin]

The possibility of abuse of this law if it's passed is mind-boggling. I do hope the Canadian people wakes up and take their politicians to task.

Look at Canadian and BC civil fortiture laws. They were enacted in the name of organized crime and now have shifted into a way to punish people if the cases don't go the Crowns way. Even judges are steppng in and saying the law is being abused

http://news.nationalpost.com/2...

keeping us in the dark...

[Anonymous Coward]

cold, wet, burning, submerged challenge http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=nazi+zion+weather+wars

Sorry, Canada

[LookIntoTheFuture]

* organizations could disclose subscriber or customer personal information without a court order to law enforcement with full legal immunity from liability
* organizations could disclose subscriber or customer personal information without a court order to any other organization claiming investigation of an actual or potential contractual breach or legal violation
* the disclosures would be kept secret from the affected individuals
* the disclosing organizations would be under no obligation to report on their practices or past disclosures

Wow. Good thing I live in the US where a citizens privacy is a high priority and its importance is well understood by our government.

Re:Sorry, Canada

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. Good thing I live in the US where a citizens privacy is a high priority and its importance is well understood by our government.

Hopefully not too many (international) organizations have a Canadian office...

Re:Sorry, Canada

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot the <sarcasm> tags

Re:Sorry, Canada

[Anonymous Coward]

Bahahhaa... are you serious... ever heard of the NSA?

Re:Sorry, Canada

[Azmodan]

Whooooosh

In Canada they don't use honeypots

[korbulon]

They use maple syrup buckets.

Works both ways

[mwvdlee]

So if I suspect the MAFIAA of widespread invasion of privacy, the ISP's will give me their home addresses?

Not good to require a warrant for EVERYTHING

[MikeRT]

I despise the MAFIAA, but if the telecom doesn't have the right to disclose reasonable information upon request then that puts the copyright holders in a situation that gives them some real ammo to demand more law enforcement involvement. Take for instance the DMCA. The thing that's broken with its takedown requirement isn't the fact that a private party can wield it liberally without law enforcement involvement, but that it can be wielded without consequence when the takedown is factually incorrect. Private parties doing most of the enforcement is desirable here because the MAFIAA, for all of its evil, is not interested in anything other than its own selfish interests. Law enforcement sees this as an avenue for more power across the board.

Re:Not good to require a warrant for EVERYTHING

[gstoddart]

I despise the MAFIAA, but if the telecom doesn't have the right to disclose reasonable information upon request then that puts the copyright holders in a situation that gives them some real ammo to demand more law enforcement involvement.

You still need a legally acceptable threshold instead of "because we say so".

And Canada has privacy legislation which this more or less completely ignores.

Essentially it puts the rights of copyright holders (without requiring proof) above those of the people they claim to be investigating. And since we know the *AAs are pretty much incompetent (or malevolent) in how they do their searches, this will be abused and have very bad results.

Unfortunately, since the American *AAs are more or less writing draft legislation to put in the hands of lawmakers, the net result is a very one-sided piece of legislation which is designed to give them everything they want, and completely fuck the rest of us over.

Glad I'm not Canadian

[Roxoff]

Phew, lucky escape for me there. I live in the UK, where we're completely immune from lawmakers who things the rights of the corporation trump the rights of the individual. Oh, no, hang on. I might have that wrong....

Conversely, Judges...:

[davecb]

On April 8, 2004, the European Court of Justice – the highest court in the world’s largest economy – declared Data Retention to be an excusable violation of fundamental human rights. The court invalidated the entire directive (“EU federal law”) retroactively, making it have never existed. (courtesy Ricvk Falkvinge, https://www.privateinternetacc...

The EU and Canadian constitutions are sort of vaguely similar, so one can likely make the point that, even if the telcos are free to disclose, they're not allowed to keep much of the data the security services would want them to.

Re:Conversely, Judges...:

[Teun]

Yes and then the national governments are slow to enact these changes in their own laws.

The Dutch government did something rather strange, they said they had to 'study' this rule and would come back on it in 8 weeks.

At virtually the same time they followed a ruling of the court banning the downloading of illegal copies on the same day.

Up until this ruling Dutch law made uploading illegal but had no block on downloading, similar to our laws that not just protect freedom of speech but especially protect freedom of information.
Or another example, trade in illegal drugs is strictly forbidden, the consumption is explicitly allowed.

What is it that these MAFIAA organisations get their way?

Wrong document!

[Anonymous Coward]

That's S-4: http://www.parl.gc.ca/content/hoc/Bills/412/Government/S-4/S-4_1/S-4_1.PDF

The link in TFA is for the old version (C-12)

Harper and the Conservatives

[bravecanadian]

Seriously?

Stuff like this and the "Fair" Elections Act should have people out in the streets with pitchforks and torches.

I love how the government in Canada and the States names bills exactly the opposite of what they do and somehow keep a straight face while defending them.

Re:Shakespeare, Orwell

[hoboroadie]

The English Language is a marvelous, mutable thing, is it not?

Who paid for this?

[CaptainOfSpray]

That is, which American organization paid off the legislators? NSA? CIA? Some large company that thinks they own Canada?

Re:Who paid for this?

[blahplusplus]

Elites fear awakening:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re:Who paid for this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Does this even need to be asked, it's obviously the MAFIAA --- those other two you listed already have access to all this info.

One-way street

[PopeRatzo]

I'll bet this does not mean that if I'm suing a corporation, that I'll have access to all their private records.

Laws giving the elite power over ordinary people are being passed at an alarming rate, even in countries that purport to be a little more progressive like Canada. Because corporate wealth has that much power. I've been reading some of the exegesis of the financial collapse of 2008 that Yves Smith has written, and when you see the way every single move our governments have made since then have been giving even more latitude and power to corporations to do whatever they want to us, you really start to get a feel for the direction of our society. Of course, it's been going on longer than that, but never this blatant. It's like they don't even care who knows any more, because they are that sure of their entrenchment.

We're so fucked. The next few decades are really going to be dark. I'm old, and I never expected dystopia to happen this fast.

The funny part is that our financial elite really seem to believe they can outrun their own destructiveness. Maybe it's some belief in a transhumanist future or that they're going to be able so remove themselves from the condition of the rest of us by insulating themselves with wealth and power. Somehow, they believe, this time will be different, and we won't end up with our heads through a guillotine. Funny.

Re:One-way street

[MXB2001]

Well said. Can't add much except to expand on the theme of hubris. It's quite alarming really, I'd rather not live through something like the French Revolution. Well I am getting old, I suppose I might see it from a rocking chair through trifocals...

As with most things,

[Grey Geezer]

it's not an either or proposition. some politicians are stupid (or maybe just ignorant and incurious), some are coldly calculating the strategies that allow them to gain money/power.
    It does not help that half of all potential voters have below average intelligence, or are incurious, or are ignorant, or suffer various combinations of all three.
    I pretty much had to teach myself about the genius of the Bill of Rights. I mourn the fact that all people do not embrace their importance, or share my passion for defending the individual liberty for all individuals that philosophy protects. I do not have an answer to this tragedy. I wish I did. Taking the money out of politics might be a step in the right direction though....I'm just sayin...

"fair" is a rating, not a description

[Chirs]

So under the new Act they'd be "fair", as opposed to "good" or "very good", or "excellent". :)

amazing in the similarity

[Anonymous Coward]

The media is all over the Heartbleed OpenSSL bug, a simple coding mistake and already fixed. This omission allows a little bit of information to slip out to those very very few who have the knowledge, expertise, dedication and purpose to go after that information. On the other hand, the Gov.CA is introducing a mechanism by which the same information would be granted to a whole other (questionable) subset. Both processes share the anonymously-obtain feature.
One door closes, another one opens.

PRISM

[Anonymous Coward]

The browser tab for the PDF says "core 1..26 Bill (PRISM::Advent3B2 14.00) - C-12_1.PDF".

don't give a damn

[beefoot]

Sadly, complaining and whining here won't make a difference. Start writing to your MP expressing your disapproval of this bill. I did.

Wrong link?

[neilmackie1]

You should fix the link in the article. Your first link is titled "Bill S4" but that link takes you to bill C-12 from 2011. Which granted is related but it makes things very confusing.confusing.

Tired of majority governments

[Gwarsbane]

This is what we get when we vote and end up with a majority government. Who ever is in charge gets to ram through everything they want with no one able to actually stop them.

We need minority governments where the ones in charges are forced to work with at least some of the other political groups. When they are forced to work together they can't ram though bills as easily and everyone is forced to look to see what they are doing.

Now this doesn't fully stop stupid bills from getting made into laws, but it helps.

A person looking for private info about another person should always have to go to the courts and get a warrant. A company they should not be able to get someones private information from another company without going to the courts.

Mark my words this will more then likely be rammed though without the majority of the political people standing up and saying "wait a sec, we're just handing companies the ability to get any private information about any person they want."

Sad

[Kyusaku Natsume]

This is ACTA by the backdoor. Is the same thing that they are pushing here in Mexico. Next thell will push the same legislation in the USA to "armonize" the laws in all the NAFTA countries.

Really

[Anonymous Coward]

Democracy IS at work. Canadians put Conservatives in with a MAJORITY. They were fed up with socialistic and communist engineering. I don't agree with everything that the Harper Gov's do, however, I can disagree with them also by going to my MP's office. The gov has withdrawn bills before because of huge opposition to them. In your world, it would be illegal to disagree with anything your commie pals do like, and everything would be banned with what they don't agree with. Read your history boy.