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

101–110 of 414 posts

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

#101

Post by nbngeorcjhe »

lisbbb wrote: post #44
SoftTalker wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anyway, the USA is a representative republic.

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]

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

#102

Post by ulrashida »

logicchains wrote: post #61

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…

Why do you think Canadians are restricted from criticizing government?

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

#103

Post by protocolture »

pavel_lishin wrote: post #62
themafia wrote: post #52

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.

Lots of language is being destroyed in real time.

Its pretty common to see the following:

Corruption = Political things I dont like.

Money Laundering = Money things I dont like.

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

#104

Post by petermcneeley »

gpm wrote: post #82
petermcneeley wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it plausible? I wouldnt give these people the benefit of the doubt. In Canada we also have the emergency powers ... so if we had a war we would already have the "weaponry".

Emergency powers don't give you ability to unwind time and not buy Huawei equipment in the past. This bill appears to almost entirely be about allowing the government to exercise control over the telecommunications supply chain... which is certainly necessary if you want the ability to defend yourself against people who would otherwise be in that supply chain.

Hasnt this already been done in Canada? Without this bill? Without the secrecy?

The nature of the bill is that a minister can remove services from specified person without any interaction with due process. They can also make this directive secret indefinitely. Is such power required? Could it be abused?

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

#105

Post by bawolff »

gpm wrote: post #93
txrx0000 wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

nick__m quoted the wrong section, but there's an identical Factors section 15.2(6) that applies to 15.2(2)(d). There's also a non-disclosure clause. The headline is true. Order (2) If the Minister 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, the Minister may, by…

The headline is not true because "impose conditions" is not "strip". "Strip" would look like 15.2(2)(e) and (f) except targeting the ISPs customers instead of their suppliers. Imposing conditions does not as a matter of statutory interpretation include the ability to prohibit or terminate. > (e) prohibit a telecommunications service provider from entering into a service agreement for any product or service used in, o…

> Imposing conditions does not as a matter of statutory interpretation include the ability to prohibit or terminate.

What sort of conditions would be allowable here? Its pretty easy to imagine conditions so onerous that it amounts to defacto termination of service.

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

#106

Post by txrx0000 »

gpm wrote: post #100
txrx0000 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They could make the ISP not be able to provision more than 0 kb/s of bandwidth to you unless some condition is met, which apparently could be anything that the Minister considers relevant. --- You're "endangering national security" by "spreading harmful information online". Such speech is not protected by the charter. You are now banned from the Internet. --- They probably won't do this right away, but the door is op…

No, they could not, because laws are interpreted so that every word must have a meaning, and if "impose conditions" could include "the condition of 0 kb/s" it what have no different meaning then "terminate" and that would violate the cannons of statutory interpretation. They also could not because the charter would prohibit it. While not all speech is protected by the charter (your categories aren't the right one, bu…

You're right, 0 kb/s would be too obvious. Let's do 0.1 kb/s, or restrict their plan to 1 minute of use per day.

You realize that while the charter still safeguards your freedoms, it will eventually be overturned if the populace gets used to more and more control over time. Laws like this are cracks in the dam. If you pay no attention to it or give it charitable interpretations, then someday the dam will crumble.

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

#107

Post by protocolture »

ProllyInfamous wrote: post #51
walterbell wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would this apply to traveller phones roaming on Canadian telco networks? What forms of digital identity could be used to enforce an internet kill switch / blockade for specific humans?

Great thought — see also: StarLinks

Does Starlink in Canada use US Ground Stations? I suppose someone could register them just south of the border and smuggle one in. But Starlink tends to follow all laws in every jurisdiction they operate in, and registers as a carrier entity there. I doubt Starlink would refuse any legal obligations that risk losing access to a region.

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

#108

Post by zmgsabst »

Spivak wrote: post #91
BJones12 wrote: post #58

Earlier 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.

If there's an avenue for extrajudicial punishment it seems like every government is angling to use it. How did we wind up with such openly vindictive and unprincipled people in our governments? Like you call yourself Liberals, surely it's clear as day that such a thing isn't compatible with how you believe government should operate. You're doing this because you can't arrest them for a crime—shouldn't that give you p…

They call themselves Liberals because co-opting a party is easier than starting one and because it’s useful that people think they’re liberal.

But a label doesn’t necessarily match reality — just like North Korea isn’t a democratic republic.

A lot of people have trouble with that concept, eg, thinking that a party called “Liberals” believes in liberal governance.

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

#110

Post by alexandre_m »

> public safety minister defended Bill C-8 as a means to crack down on hackers and ransomware fraudsters

That kind of threat mostly comes from overseas anyway, so this doesn’t actually solve any real problems.

Case in point: the recent Salt Typhoon incident (spoiler: it was China) https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/salt-typhoon-canada-cyber-s...

Just another authoritarian attempt by the Liberal government.

Post reply on HN