Canada’s Bill C-22 Is a Repackaged Version of Last Year’s Surveillance Nightmare

Curious: what motivates the Canadian government to implement such law? It's not like Canada wants to be a police state in anyway. On the contrary, Canadian government looks pretty chill most of the time, except maybe during the Covid era when they were hellbent on implementing the Covid policies. Or it's the same "for your own good and the state knows how to take care of you" kind of European shit?

Free software, free society. The FSF, GNU and Stallman were serious about this. Your communications should be private under liber (free as in freedom) software. OFC no one should enter your home without a warrant. Your computer data should be dealt in the same way. Your libre OS, your rights. Also, to hell with age fields laws on your own computing, and if Meta's services cant compete against the bots AI the social network themselves promoted, go cry a river and the sooner your lobby mafia collapses down, the better.

Back in the day Gopher required a fee to serve content. Where's Gopher now? They allowed it after seeing the web were eating their lunch like crazy because the web has neither fees nor bullshit licenses. Too late. These laws will suffer the same fate, the lobbies like it or not.

Minitel from the French, where in the 80's they were pioneers for a lot of things in Europe? Adieu, au reviour, bye, adios, killed by the web and open standards. No centralized idiocracy, no fees, no gateway, no nothing. It was Angelfire, Geocities or your duct-taped homesever with Slackware and Apache.

And today ISP's are trying to ban user hosting/sharing by either disabling some ports or enforcing NAT/CGNAT so they purchase premium plans, but even networks like Yggdrasil are throwing these parasites down and letting every citizen no matter where they are from to create their own sites and freely hosts them without asking anyone what to do with their freedom of speech.

The Nazis tried, they collapsed down from and outside. The Francoists tried the same. In the 60's even the die hard Falangists understood that with science and progress their 19th century bound regime was doomed. Even more with the landing on the Moon, there was a craze about the space, rockets, UFO... times just marched on. Ditto with Soviets and censorship. Good economy plans are useless if you don't allow your "camarades" to spend their resources on anything they like. You know, you could just implement... taxes, as Cubans are trying to do with small companies and co-operatives. Ditto with the Chinese, they learnt a lesson with the Mao famines and the Deng Xiaoping's openness.

But unless they open their regime a little on speech, you can have a great economic plan, for sure, but people burns out. Machines can work without getting tired according to bureaucracy, but humans can't.

You can perfectly set some laws making healthcare better; that works. But the moment you enter on personal lives, telecomms, privacy... you are playing with fire. The Communists don't understand this. Telecomms worked far better in Spain being deregulated and stating net neutrality (and user rights) as something good to be state supported/mandated, but not for the prices, which were really high for a state monolopy. Liberalization plumetted the prices down.

DItto with classical liberals, but for opposite reasons. Illnesses are too random to be managed by individuals. Worse: a pandemic can wipe your own state, economy and every business if you let the random Joe vaccine or isolate on their own. If they can't afford the costs, they will lie and in weeks it would be too late, your populace can't sustain your business, 1929 but mixed with George Romero.

Said this, if it's illegal to break packages by mail (snooping and intercepting it it's a serious crime in Spain with jail sentences or really high fines), your digital data must be under the same laws. Ah, yes, protect the children, the terrorists, yaddah, yaddah, for sure all the NSA spying with Echelon did prevent the Esptein and Dutroux cases among terror attacks in NYC, Madrid and London . F*ck off, please.

Terrorists can just use pens, paper and table bound encryptions or, you know, cheap $1 devices with cardboard-printed spinning wheels.

I do realize that (am Canadian), but you are incorrect to say Carney and Trudeau have very different policies. Many of the cabinet members are the same, and as they say, people are policy. Perhaps the tone of messaging has changed, but it's the same government, with most of the same stupid policies.

Same party, same people, just a new leader, but it's the same direction. There was no 180 pivot for Canada, just a new "elbows up" slogan from another CCP puppet PM. https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/china-allies-paid-2000-...

CCP allies paying to attend a fundraiser co-hosted by an MP who was a Conservative until December does not contradict my point about Carney being economically a Progressive Conservative. I’m not saying that either Carney or that co-hosting MP belongs in Pierre Poilievre’s version of the Conservative Party of Canada. Certainly Carney doesn’t (I don’t know much about the other MP’s views). I’m saying that if the former Progressive Conservative Party of Canada had not merged itself out of existence, Carney (and quite possibly also the other MP) would be in that party rather than the Liberals. With the current federal party configuration, Carney is indeed within the centrist big tent of the Liberals, but very much economically to Trudeau’s right.

To be clearer on the tangent I said was off-topic, I am not saying Carney is opposed to engaging thoroughly with China. He isn’t. But that’s more of a Conservative position than a Trudeau-style Liberal position.

Evidence: former Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper is the one who signed a major free trade agreement with China which has a really long duration (for some purposes a full 31 years), which allows Chinese state-owned enterprises to sue the Canadian government like private investors, and which is in many ways asymmetrical in China’s favour. Not Trudeau. Look up 2014 FIPA if you want more info on that agreement.

The Trudeau quote you cited is real, but Trudeau’s actual actions have been far less pro-China than either Harper’s or Carney’s. Keep in mind that plenty of the criticism which Trudeau received over that quote came from within the Liberal party, meaning it isn’t like the Liberal party is disproportionately filled with CCP admirers. Some individuals will have that viewpoint in both major parties, but it’s certainly not accurate to say that it’s more dominant among the Liberals than the Conservatives.

Also be careful about assuming that the National Post will present things fairly. Like many (maybe even most?) well-known Canadian newspapers, they are part of Postmedia, which is majority-owned by an American financial firm with close ties to the US Republican Party. Their non-opinion news articles generally do avoid factual falsehoods, but they often use style and selective omission to present a very biased view of the truth in the service of right-wing messaging goals.

The King is the head of state, it's trivial to switch that to a US appointee. It's the highest likelihood on the list of alternatives to accepting a surveillance state. Canadians don't have the anything for a civil war, nobody who believes in anything will take MAID, Alberta secession has to go through imported "votes" and a process designed to sabotage it.

If Canada had any kind of national identity it would not have become what was recently described as a "south asian country controlled by China," in a conversation about its relationship to US national security. Outside faculty clubs pickle ball courts, and maybe dog daycare pickup runs, there is zero resistance to annexation. It would be the only time the US would ever be "greeted as liberators."