Sounds very much like a social credit scoring system
Canadian bill would strip internet access from 'specified persons', no warrant
31–40 of 414 posts
Re: Canadian bill would strip internet access from 'specified persons', no warrant
#32The argument made here seems to be that the power to prevent unlawful access or threats is somehow required to keep us all safe. But if someone was an actual threat, do we really think they’d be using the internet with their own identity? Like if someone is willing to hack into a power station or some other critical infrastructure, they’ll be simultaneously stupid enough to use their own credit card?
Illegal things are already illegal. Safety and security mechanisms already exist. We dont need additional, punitive, and opaque laws that can be abused.
Re: Canadian bill would strip internet access from 'specified persons', no warrant
#33[flagged]
Re: Canadian bill would strip internet access from 'specified persons', no warrant
#34[flagged]
I am to and I oppose this! Might I ask why are you supporting this ?
Re: Canadian bill would strip internet access from 'specified persons', no warrant
#35Re: Canadian bill would strip internet access from 'specified persons', no warrant
#36> 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 th…
I would agree with you if this clause was amended to remove the part after the coma:
(6) Any order made under subsection (1) must be published in the Canada Gazette within 90 days after the day on which it is made, unless the Governor in Council directs otherwise in the order.Re: Canadian bill would strip internet access from 'specified persons', no warrant
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
[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.
This applies to either.
The democracy we need threatens those in power.
What say does the average poor person in your town have? To endorse someone they cant control? To choose from amongst the few candidates that the big interests have developed and then cross their fingers??
Letting individuals control production creates a divided society, one of workers and one of owners.
Where one has unequal leverage over the other but are supposed to (on paper) exist on the same democratic level.
Mom and pop shops may come your mind, or someone who owns a franchise or small business, the truth is that even small business owners are nearly wholly beholden to large capital and huge finance capital.
What say does a walmart employee have compared to the owners of walmart?
While you were learning about what the hell the electoral college is, some others were being trained on how to lobby effectively.
Mass democracy threatens the status quo almost entirely.
There does not exist a party for the people. And if it were to exist it would be outlawed and threatened like they have been in the past.
Would you suppress a peoples party if you had billions on the line?
Re: Canadian bill would strip internet access from 'specified persons', no warrant
#38Sounds very much like a social credit scoring system
Which doesn't even exist.
Re: Canadian bill would strip internet access from 'specified persons', no warrant
#39> 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 th…
This is a law enforcement action. If the government is going to give itself the ability to strip the ability of a citizen or resident to access services that are their right to access, and an increasing number of those services are online access, it should be done within the confines and oversight of the law.
This is a disgusting power grab. 'Because I said so, trust me' is not a justification.
Re: Canadian bill would strip internet access from 'specified persons', no warrant
#40Earlier 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]
Anyway, the USA is a representative republic.