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

181–190 of 414 posts

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

#181

Post by tamimio »

goku12 wrote: post #8
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…

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…

Democracy is fake; it's the rule of whoever controls the money, influence, media, and pulls the proper manipulation tactics to manipulate the public through fears. It was funny watching the digital ID in the UK, how they were using "porn and kids" for the left-leaning crowds, and "immigrants" for the right-leaning ones, but ultimately the result of both is the same: more control, more surveillance, and decaying freedom.

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

#182

Post by xvector »

zahlman wrote: post #155
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…

> proven to be dangerous to others if they access the internet. What exactly would this entail? Some people nowadays seem to have a very broad conception of "safety", broad enough to cause serious concern on the part of advocates for freedom and privacy.

It will invariably be reduced to "saying mean things on the internet" by the government. I do not understand why people are so willing to give governments an ever-increasing amount of power. People never learn from history.

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

#183

Post by mminer237 »

gpm wrote: post #77
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?

[flagged]

How else can you read "prohibit a telecommunications service provider from providing any service to any specified person"??

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

#184

Post by aceofspades19 »

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.

No one got "debanked", it was a temporary freeze for a few days and for a small number of accounts. I also disagree that it was to ruin the lives of those who oppose them, the money was released back to them, that seems like an odd way to ruin someone's life. Surely the tyrannical Liberal government would have been able to do more than keep them from accessing their money for a few days if they truly wanted to ruin lives.

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

#185

Post by gpm »

neilv wrote: post #121

Can someone please characterize the likely political and cultural atmosphere of Canada for the next decade? If the US continues its current trajectory for a couple more years, will Canada be a welcoming beacon of goodness? (Obligatory great scene in Handmaid's Tale: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJEjrNB2iTA&t=40s )

Hard to say without being a prophet.

There's a non-zero chance we follow Trump/MAGA, but I would say its unlikely.

My impression is that politically and culturally we have been becoming less welcoming to less well off immigrants. Since the motivation for this feels largely economic (and thoroughly pushed by foreign media and online trolls), economic hardship from losing the US trading relationship is likely to make it worse. I'd compare this more to the sort of anti-refugee sentiment you've seen in Europe for the last decade than what you're seeing in the US now. Of course being anti-refugee when its looking increasingly likely that our southern neighbour will somehow create a refugee crisis would be... unfortunate.

American media has an outsized influence here. When they complain about, say, trans people, you see a loud echo of that here. What that means when American media seems to be increasingly bowing to Trump is... worrying but unclear. At the same time the baseline is much more accepting of differences, cultural or personal, than the US baseline. If I was trans I'd choose Canada over California every time, pre and post Trump.

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

#187

Post by canadiantim »

gpm wrote: post #130
dustbunny wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is a more respected conservative publication in Canada?

The globe falls on the conservative side of things. The star is currently in a weird middle ground where it was somewhat left but it is being moved somewhat right by its new owners. CBC is reasonably neutral. Highly partisan news is generally not respected for good reason though.

The globe used to fall on the conservative side of things, now honestly the Toronto star is more to the right than the globe. Both got bought by new owners in the last decade and it shows.

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

#188

Post by tomhow »

neilv wrote: post #121

Can someone please characterize the likely political and cultural atmosphere of Canada for the next decade? If the US continues its current trajectory for a couple more years, will Canada be a welcoming beacon of goodness? (Obligatory great scene in Handmaid's Tale: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJEjrNB2iTA&t=40s )

This kind of question could easily set off a flamewar filled with nationalistic and ideological rage. Let's not do this here.

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

#189

Post by aceofspades19 »

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…

>The source of the seizures was the gofundme leak by a hacker. Who has since >been arrested, convicted, and is in prison for a separate hacking incident. >Canada gave him immunity to his crimes during freedom protest. They took the >donor list and seized from there.

That's not true, the fundraising platforms raising funds for the convoy had to register with FINTRAC and failing that, the banks can track who is sending money to those platforms for those accounts. It even says so in the article you linked. What's the source that the government used the leak to find the accounts?

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

#190

Post by tomhow »

nbngeorcjhe wrote: post #101
lisbbb wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't look at California, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Illinois, Oregon, Washington, Massachusetts--states who have these very long-term Democrat majorities, and tell me we have a representative anything! Those places will likely never turn back to any kind of balanced representative rule. They pass whatever the hell they want and the only pushback is through our Federal courts who often take years to produce…

[flagged]

> wtf are you talking about? those states have Dem majorities because that's what their populations want. moron

Please don't comment like this on HN. The guidelines ask us to be kind and constructive when engaging in discussions here.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Edit:

I didn't even notice until later, the final word of that comment. WTF indeed. This is absolutely not okay on HN, and we have to ban accounts that do it repeatedly.

Post reply on HN