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

111–120 of 414 posts

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

#111

Post by kennethrc »

steve_adams_86 wrote: post #49

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…

> IF they're proven to be dangerous to others if they access the internet

... which means what? They espouse ideas "you" don't like?

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

#112

Post by bawolff »

gruez wrote: post #7
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 In the sense that you can sue to have the order challenged? How's this different than what Trump's doing, where the government does something illegal (or at least legally dubious), and there's "judicial oversight" because aggrieved parties can sue the government? > Second, the bank accounts seized did not belong to protestors, as the leaders of th…

> In the sense that you can sue to have the order challenged? How's this different than what Trump's doing, where the government does something illegal (or at least legally dubious), and there's "judicial oversight" because aggrieved parties can sue the government?

Umm,that's how court systems work in general. You sue when someone wrongs you. I'm not sure how else it could possibly work.

> Were the bank accounts seized before or after the conviction?

This is a different topic, but there were 2 different bank account freezes. Some were frozen due to a contempt of court order (this didn't involve the government, a private citizen brought the lawsuit). The more controversial was the emergency powers seizure. Arguably the protestors were engaging in manifestly illegal conduct. Personally i think its akin to how you can arrest someone before conviction, but opinions vary. As far as i know, the bank accounts were only frozen while the protestors were engaging in illegal action and were released once the situation was resolved.

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

#113

Post by bawolff »

andy99 wrote: post #98
nick__m wrote: post #29

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…

[flagged]

People overuse the word ad hominem. The post above is not an example of one.

Ad hominen is when you use an irrelavent insult in an argument. Not every criticism of a source is an ad hominem.

Edit: to clarify, i think there is a huge difference between saying something like: national post is known to lean right and not really like the liberals so we should verify they are fairly summarizing the liberal proposed law by actually reading the law in question (what parent did) vs for example, national post leans right therefore everything they say is bullshit and should be ignored (which would be an ad hominem)

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

#114

Post by txrx0000 »

gpm wrote: post #96
txrx0000 wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That "almost entirely" part is the problem. They sneak in a clause that makes those restrictions also apply to which customers ISPs can serve. Even the supposed intended purpose of restricting equipment may be malicious. Why should the government be able to restrict whose equipment or which fibre operators the ISP can use? If equipment is the concern, then they can just regulate the actual imported equipment. Canada…

Regulating imported equipment doesn't give you the ability to go back retroactively and say "shit, actually we need you to pull out all the equipment from because it's a security problem". Or the ability to regulate what software updates are applied. And so on and so forth. And the government should have the ability to do that because it is a matter of geopolitics and national security to maintain the independence of…

I'm pretty sure there are already laws that allow the government to deal with devices used for spying. There's no need to introduce this broad-spectrum bill that controls way more than it should.

You may have charitable interpretations, but 15.2(2)(d) can be used to effectively ban anyone from accessing the Internet. And it can certainly be used to throttle web services the government doesn't like.

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

#115

Post by alexandre_m »

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…

Emergency powers which were deemed as unreasonable and violated the charter rights by admission of the Federal court.

I can't believe that people are defending that.

https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/trnsprnc/brfng-mtrls/prlm...

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

#116

Post by btbuildem »

That's an absurd overreach. I can't figure out what the real motivation for this is.

> hostile state actors are stealing information and gaining access to systems that are critical to our national security and public safety

If they're hostile state actors, they've got internet access from elsewhere. It's a global network.

I am not dismissing cyber-threats, but perhaps I would weigh them differently. To me, the largest issue is the cultural influence and political meddling affected by the increasingly hostile state - Canada's southern neighbour.

A much better defence would be to quarantine or outright block access to the large social media platforms, and make space for homegrown alternatives. On balance, these players do more harm than good, and they're massive vectors for foreign political interference.

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

#117

Post by refurb »

bawolff wrote: post #113
andy99 wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

People overuse the word ad hominem. The post above is not an example of one. Ad hominen is when you use an irrelavent insult in an argument. Not every criticism of a source is an ad hominem. Edit: to clarify, i think there is a huge difference between saying something like: national post is known to lean right and not really like the liberals so we should verify they are fairly summarizing the liberal proposed law by…

It’s literally the definition of an ad hominem.

adjective - (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.

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

#118

Post by JumpCrisscross »

bawolff wrote: post #113
andy99 wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

People overuse the word ad hominem. The post above is not an example of one. Ad hominen is when you use an irrelavent insult in an argument. Not every criticism of a source is an ad hominem. Edit: to clarify, i think there is a huge difference between saying something like: national post is known to lean right and not really like the liberals so we should verify they are fairly summarizing the liberal proposed law by…

> Ad hominen is when you use an irrelavent insult in an argument

No, it’s when you argue the truth based on dismissing the speaker. So if Carl is an idiot, and Carl says cats are real, it would be ad hominem to say cat’s aren’t real because Carl said so. (Dismissing an argument isn’t ad hominem per se. Neither is name calling. It’s concluding based on not liking the speaker.)

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

#119

Post by btbuildem »

BJones12 wrote: post #58
thmsths wrote: post #57

Applying for jobs has almost entirely moved online these days. And this is just one of many such things. Does whoever wrote that bill understands that? Or do they just naively think that "it's just time out for people who break the rules".

They want to ruin the lives of those who oppose them. The Canadian Liberal government has previously attempted the same goal by de-banking protestors, in a move that the courts later ruled unconstitutional.

Let's not defend the konvoy agitators here, these were legit seditionists who were given far too much leeway to start with. Cutting off their access to crowdsourced funds was too little too late, they should have been shut down more forcefully much sooner.

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

#120

Post by ipnon »

rock_artist wrote: post #53

We live in very confusing times. Democratic countries start acting more and more like big brother. Its also concerning to read the quote: “necessary to do so to secure the Canadian telecommunications system against any threat, including that of interference, manipulation, disruption or degradation.” Where Canadian telecommunication is almost a duopoly and had major outage a few years ago without any claims of bad act…

In China you expect this because you get 5% GDP growth every year, housing that actually gets more affordable, government-subsidized growth industries and jobs. In Canada you get all the totalitarianism with GDP growth less than inflation, skyrocketing housing, and a zip line directly from Waterloo to Market Street.
Post reply on HN