Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Canadian bill would strip internet access from 'specified persons', no warrant

nationalpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 414 posts

Re: Canadian bill would strip internet access from 'specified persons', no warrant

#21

Post by goku12 »

Atlas667 wrote: post #19
goku12 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let me remind everyone this again. Democracy is not an autocracy with time limits and turns. It's not a system where you elect a few individuals and hand them the power to rule over you for a few years. They are supposed to be your representatives who raise your concerns and protect your interests in a forum that takes decisions that affect all of you. Legislation like these are the small steps that convert the latte…

[flagged]

Is this about Canada or the US? Either way, you can either defend and demand for the democracy, or give up and stop claiming democracy altogether. This is a problem with democracies everywhere. I don't know about you, but I'm not too enthusiastic about a future that resembles the dark ages.

Re: Canadian bill would strip internet access from 'specified persons', no warrant

#22

Post by busymom0 »

HappySweeney wrote: post #6
incomingpain wrote: post #4

Consider this scenario. Your isp emails you that they are terminating your account. You phone gets disconnected. You call them and helpdesk doesnt have a clue why. You try to sign up for new services and they refuse and wont say why. All because a politician has decided it 'reasonable' to disconnect you from the internet; and he can order complete secrecy and there's no judicial oversight. Perhaps you showed up at th…

While I agree with most of this and oppose this bill, your last two lines are a mischaracterization. There is judicial oversight, but only after the order is implemented. Second, the bank accounts seized did not belong to protestors, as the leaders of that siege were convicted of mischief, two of which are being sentenced today. In general, protests do not engage in torturing the local populace with 95db of air horn…

> The account seizure also required emergency powers.

Court ruled the use of Emergencies Act against convoy protests was unreasonable, violated Charter:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/emergencies-act-federal-cou...

> Second, the bank accounts seized did not belong to protestors

Wrong. Many people whose accounts were frozen were family/friends who were not even at the protest.

Court found:

> The judge said the economic orders infringed on protesters' freedom of expression "as they were overbroad in their application to persons who wished to protest but were not engaged in activities likely to lead to a breach of the peace." He also concluded the economic orders violated protesters' Charter rights "by permitting unreasonable search and seizure of the financial information of designated persons and the freezing of their bank and credit card accounts."

Re: Canadian bill would strip internet access from 'specified persons', no warrant

#23

Post by mulr00ney »

incomingpain wrote: post #20
mulr00ney wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In fact, not only protestors but people who donated to the protest got their bank accounts seized. As far as I can tell accounts were frozen, not seized. Do you have a reference for donor accounts being seized? ref: https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/emergency-bank-measures-fin...

>As far as I can tell accounts were frozen, not seized. Do you have a reference for donor accounts being seized? When it comes to civil rights like Section 8 of the charter. There's no such thing as 'frozen' They were searched, seized, and later returned. https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/td-bank-freezes-two-a... You have to go back to figure out how the government knew what bank accounts to seize. They didnt go…

Thanks for the insight - learned something here. Didn't know about the hacker, that's pretty upsetting.

Re: Canadian bill would strip internet access from 'specified persons', no warrant

#24

Post by halJordan »

digitalPhonix wrote: post #9
HappySweeney wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I agree with most of this and oppose this bill, your last two lines are a mischaracterization. There is judicial oversight, but only after the order is implemented. Second, the bank accounts seized did not belong to protestors, as the leaders of that siege were convicted of mischief, two of which are being sentenced today. In general, protests do not engage in torturing the local populace with 95db of air horn…

> There is judicial oversight, but only after the order is implemented How would one find out information about the process, find a lawyer etc. without internet access?

Why is this question somehow a non-sequitor? Many court proceedings are now mandatory zoom meetings. How do you participate in a zoom meeting when the state has barred you. It's a clear catch-22 and the refusal to address it beyond "thats not the intention" is beyond galling.

Re: Canadian bill would strip internet access from 'specified persons', no warrant

#25

Post by zetanor »

> If the Governor in Council believes on reasonable grounds that it is necessary to do so to secure the Canadian telecommunications system against any threat, including that of interference, manipulation, disruption or degradation [...]

https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/45-1/bill/C-8/first-re...

Anyone familiar enough with Canadian law to know how much bearing this condition might have in practice?

Re: Canadian bill would strip internet access from 'specified persons', no warrant

#26

Post by morkalork »

incomingpain wrote: post #4

Consider this scenario. Your isp emails you that they are terminating your account. You phone gets disconnected. You call them and helpdesk doesnt have a clue why. You try to sign up for new services and they refuse and wont say why. All because a politician has decided it 'reasonable' to disconnect you from the internet; and he can order complete secrecy and there's no judicial oversight. Perhaps you showed up at th…

Sounds about as opaque and infringing on rights as the no-fly list or anything else implemented post 9/11?

Re: Canadian bill would strip internet access from 'specified persons', no warrant

#27

Post by onetokeoverthe »

Atlas667 wrote: post #19
goku12 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let me remind everyone this again. Democracy is not an autocracy with time limits and turns. It's not a system where you elect a few individuals and hand them the power to rule over you for a few years. They are supposed to be your representatives who raise your concerns and protect your interests in a forum that takes decisions that affect all of you. Legislation like these are the small steps that convert the latte…

[flagged]

[dead]

Re: Canadian bill would strip internet access from 'specified persons', no warrant

#28

Post by walterbell »

ProllyInfamous wrote: post #17

As a middle-aged person voluntarily NOT using email/phone, I cannot even imagine being banned from the internet . How would you function?

Would this apply to traveller phones roaming on Canadian telco networks?

What forms of digital identity could be used to enforce an internet kill switch / blockade for specific humans?

Re: Canadian bill would strip internet access from 'specified persons', no warrant

#29

Post by nick__m »

I tought that the National Post was exaggerating the severity in their crusade against the Liberal like they frequently do. So I when to read the law and it's as bad as they say: https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/45-1/bill/C-8/first-re...

  ...
    Factor 
    Before making the order, the Governor in Council must consider

    (a) its operational impact on the affected telecommunications service providers;

    (b) its financial impact on the affected telecommunications service providers;

    (c) its effect on the provision of telecommunications services in Canada; and

    (d) any other factor that the Governor in Council considers relevant.

  ...
    No compensation
  
  (8) No one is entitled to any compensation from His Majesty in right of Canada       for any financial losses resulting from the making of an order under subsection  (1).

Re: Canadian bill would strip internet access from 'specified persons', no warrant

#30

Post by neom »

zetanor wrote: post #25

> If the Governor in Council believes on reasonable grounds that it is necessary to do so to secure the Canadian telecommunications system against any threat, including that of interference, manipulation, disruption or degradation [...] https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/45-1/bill/C-8/first-re... Anyone familiar enough with Canadian law to know how much bearing this condition might have in practice?

Will depend heavily on how it is interpreted and exercised by Cabinet, it's ex-ante accountability - required parliamentary reporting after the fact.

Personal opinion as a Canadian, and may not be popular...but I like it's done this way to a degree, I actually have more faith in the Governor in Council than how the courts might interperate this, there is a lot of political risk to using this, and I do believe that the crown will in fact enforce parliamentary accountability. If this truly is a national security tool, these powers are less alarming than, say, those granted directly to an independent agency or to security services acting without crown/ministerial oversight.

Post reply on HN