I thought the US was bad but Canada is speed running a fully fascist government even faster.
In many ways, Canada is more similar to the UK than the US.
Canadian bill would strip internet access from 'specified persons', no warrant
161–170 of 414 posts
Re: Canadian bill would strip internet access from 'specified persons', no warrant
#162We 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…
It always starts with the left, not the right. Read "The True Believer". It's not the poor folk that start a revolution. They are too busy trying to survive to do anything else. No, it's the idle bourgeois. They are the most unhappy as what they seek is just out of their reach.
Re: Canadian bill would strip internet access from 'specified persons', no warrant
#163What's a good organization to donate to which would oppose this?
In Canada, OpenMedia is one org, https://action.openmedia.org/page/177914/action/ | https://action.openmedia.org/page/73972/donate/
When Bill C-26 was introduced, OpenMedia and our partners in civil society.. unpacked what the bill meant for Canadians, raised the alarm about its risks, and put forward practical recommendations to improve cybersecurity without compromising privacy. Civil liberties groups, academics, and experts joined us in calling for change. While a few of our fixes were adopted, most were ignored. Those unfinished issues now carry over into Bill C-8.. This campaign is about restarting the national conversation on cybersecurity and privacy. If we push harder this time, we can shape Bill C-8 into the law Canadians want and deserve.
Re: Canadian bill would strip internet access from 'specified persons', no warrant
#164As a middle-aged person voluntarily NOT using email/phone, I cannot even imagine being banned from the internet . How would you function?
[flagged]
The consequence described by the National Post here is a clearly plausible consequence of a plain reading of the legal text presented.
Advocates have been warning about this bill (and previous iterations and attempts at the same theme) for a long time. It's being opposed by all sorts of people, certainly not all Conservative party supporters, as is readily apparent with an appropriate Internet search. See for example https://ccla.org/privacy/fix-dangerous-flaws-in-federal-cybe... from the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, and https://sencanada.ca/Content/Sen/Committee/441/SECD/briefs/2... their submission to the government regarding the previous attempt at the same thing.
Re: Canadian bill would strip internet access from 'specified persons', no warrant
#165Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> ..who were given far too much leeway to start with.
Listen to your language. Freedom of speech and freedom of peaceful protest are now far too much leeway? The very rights protected by the Charter? Because they are protesting against things you like? Or protesting for things you don't like? Your like and dislike trumps their freedom does it?
You do realize who you sound like, don't you? Think about it. Mull it over carefully in your mind. Your rhetoric is dangerously close to a well-known Sozialisticher party.
Re: Canadian bill would strip internet access from 'specified persons', no warrant
#166Consider 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…
> 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.
"There were arrests, therefore this was not a valid protest" is a very dangerous argument to be making, and I furthermore strongly doubt that you would apply this standard consistently to causes you endorse.
Re: Canadian bill would strip internet access from 'specified persons', no warrant
#167I 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…
In modern society it's pretty much impossible to live without using the internet. You can't apply for a job, you can't apply for a rental. You can't even order a burger at some restaurants without scanning the QR code.
Anyone too dangerous to be allowed any access to the internet probably just needs to be in jail. What would be the point in leaving someone to their own devices while preventing them from participating in society at all?
Re: Canadian bill would strip internet access from 'specified persons', no warrant
#168Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
The consequence described by the National Post here is a clearly plausible consequence of a plain reading of the legal text presented. Advocates have been warning about this bill (and previous iterations and attempts at the same theme) for a long time. It's being opposed by all sorts of people, certainly not all Conservative party supporters, as is readily apparent with an appropriate Internet search. See for example…
The consequences described by the title are clearly not supported by a plain reading of the legal text by anyone who is remotely familiar with how to read legal text.
Your links don't support the the claim in the title of the national post article. The CCLA is complaining that it would enable the government to make telecoms install backdoors, and otherwise violate privacy rules, not that the government could "strip internet access from specified individuals". I haven't read the bill closely enough to know if I agree with them on that, but a bill having a different issue doesn't justify the false headline by the national post that everyone is discussing here.
(I have not read the contents of the national post article, as it is paywalled. So I can't comment on any other consequences actually described in the article).
Re: Canadian bill would strip internet access from 'specified persons', no warrant
#169Re: Canadian bill would strip internet access from 'specified persons', no warrant
#170Earlier quoted context omitted.
The consequence described by the National Post here is a clearly plausible consequence of a plain reading of the legal text presented. Advocates have been warning about this bill (and previous iterations and attempts at the same theme) for a long time. It's being opposed by all sorts of people, certainly not all Conservative party supporters, as is readily apparent with an appropriate Internet search. See for example…
The consequences described by the title are clearly not supported by a plain reading of the legal text by anyone who is remotely familiar with how to read legal text. Your links don't support the the claim in the title of the national post article. The CCLA is complaining that it would enable the government to make telecoms install backdoors, and otherwise violate privacy rules, not that the government could "strip i…
> The consequences described by the title are clearly not supported by a plain reading of the legal text by anyone who is remotely familiar with how to read legal text.
Many people ITT have already explained, including in direct replies to you, how they are.