71–80 of 414 posts
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 impa…
The 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 a…
(Just to be clear, i agree this law is way too broad)
There is no such thing as rights or a constitution in Canada. The government can waive them away with a “notwithstanding” clause and then they can do what they like.
Furthermore, the notwithstanding clause only allows overriding some rights. It does not override the entire constitution.
> 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?
Americans like to say the first amendment relies on the second amendment, or as Mao Zedong put it, political power grows from the barrel of a gun. When I was younger I thought it was exaggerated, but now it seems like there really are fewer and fewer countries where you can criticise your government online without facing legal repercussions. If things continue at the current rate, in 5-10 years America might be the o…
Eh?
You can criticise Israel all you want. Some people might not agree and start pointing fingers at you but go ahead and criticise.
I support prohibiting people from accessing the internet IF they're proven to be dangerous to others if they access the internet. But this applies to any public space or commons, internet or otherwise, and we already have the means of accomplishing this... With a due process. Why would it makes sense to remove that process, while introducing an incredible opaque decision-making process in its place, which totally bar…
> Why would it makes sense to remove that process, while introducing an incredible opaque decision-making process in its place For all the Canadian railing against Trump, this is an authoritarian play as much as many of Trump's actions. Unfortunately this seems to be a growing, hypocritical trend around the world. EU's Chat Control as another example. Australia's lax control over entities able to access ISP metadata…
I was opposed to freezing bank accounts during the trucker convoys, even though I was opposed to how the convoys were performing their protests. These kinds of measures—and capabilities of governments in general—are anti-democracy in nature and in my opinion, should be rejected by everyone who values democracy.
I'm all for keeping dangerous people offline. I'm all for protecting fellow Canadians from online dangers. We can find better ways to do this, though. I'm very disappointed that such poor judgement is being used by our current government.
The worst part is that seemingly no one gets to know what the cause of the ban is, and there are so few checks or balances before the decision is acted on. It's absolutely bizarre.
As a middle-aged person voluntarily NOT using email/phone, I cannot even imagine being banned from the internet . How would you function?
There is no such thing as rights or a constitution in Canada. The government can waive them away with a “notwithstanding” clause and then they can do what they like.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Politicians seem to enjoy corruption. It benefits them directly. They really do hate anyone who points out their hypocrisy or makes fun of them. It challenges their corrupt kickbacks directly. I think it's easy to make a prediction of actual use cases here.
Is this even corruption? Who's getting kickbacks here? It sounds like they're just incompetent, and brainstorming stupid ideas and writing a law around whatever sticks to the wall.
That said it certainly could enable corruption. "Pay us (the cabinet ministers) some money or we won't let ISPs buy equipment from you". There's just no evidence that is why it is being passed.
[flagged]
Am also Canadian. I hope when there is finally a shift of power in the federal government they use this bill and others like it to strip you and others who think like you of all your rights and freedoms. Before you downvote, consider that by supporting this legislation this person wishes to do the same.