Canadian bill would strip internet access from 'specified persons', no warrant • Hacker News Board

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

#131

Post by kQq9oHeAz6wLLS » Wed, Oct 08, 2025, 1:44 AM UTC

thinkingkong wrote: post #32

The argument made here seems to be that the power to prevent unlawful access or threats is somehow required to keep us all safe. But if someone was an actual threat, do we really think they’d be using the internet with their own identity? Like if someone is willing to hack into a power station or some other critical infrastructure, they’ll be simultaneously stupid enough to use their own credit card? Illegal things a…

This argument is often unsuccessfully used in other areas; gun rights jumps to mind.

Often the new laws only affect those who are already following the laws. Those who are willing to break the laws will ignore and/or find ways around them (see: Chicago, DC, etc).

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

#132

Post by themafia » Wed, Oct 08, 2025, 1:46 AM UTC

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.

> Is this even corruption?

It's a tool used to further it.

> Who's getting kickbacks here?

As a result of this law? Hard to say. It's rather large. Presumably they're _already_ receiving kickbacks or political protection and this allows them to protect and further that.

> It sounds like they're just incompetent

It's amazing how often they're incompetent and how little consequence they suffer from that. This is a canard, and, not a particularly useful aphorism when trying to understand this _particular_ law.

> and brainstorming stupid ideas and writing a law around whatever sticks to the wall.

You're imagining excuses on behalf of powerful people rather than examining the law they've just passed.

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

#133

Post by themafia » Wed, Oct 08, 2025, 1:47 AM UTC

protocolture wrote: post #103

pavel_lishin wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Who likes corruption? Who likes money laundering?

Meanwhile, do you have a case that this /isn't/ corruption, and that money laundering /isn't/ involved?

Or is this just a general complaint about word selection?

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

#134

Post by gpm » Wed, Oct 08, 2025, 1:49 AM UTC

bawolff wrote: post #105

gpm wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Realistically the conditions I imagine being allowed under this statute are things like the customer doesn't use [this] hardware and the customer isn't given access to things like BGP.

Whatever conditions you impose they're going to have to

- Preserve access, because the wording of the law makes it clear that can't be removed.

- Be necessary to protect the telecommunications system from a threat (by the definition of 15.2)

- By the charter not be things that are punitive, substantially impact the ability of someone to speak (i.e. to access the internet), etc. For clarity free speech in Canada includes anonymity.

And I really don't see much of interest that complies with all of those. Were it not for the charter part I agree the conditions could be onerous, but "defacto termination of service" would likely be the bar where courts say that's too onerous without the charter.

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

#135

Post by opengrass » Wed, Oct 08, 2025, 1:53 AM UTC

gpm wrote: post #79

pavel_lishin wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This bill, which is almost entirely about giving the government the ability to restrict where ISPs purchase services from (e.g. routers) despite what the national post would have you believe, probably isn't corrupt at all, it's just a matter of national security to not give groups like China the ability to take down our internet. That said it certainly could enable corruption. "Pay us (the cabinet ministers) some mon…

Huawei gear has been banned no problem. It would not be that terribly worded.

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

#136

Post by honeycrispy » Wed, Oct 08, 2025, 1:53 AM UTC

powerhouse007 wrote: post #127

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…

[flagged]

The US.

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

#137

Post by umrashrf » Wed, Oct 08, 2025, 1:53 AM UTC

And Canada wants companies to stay in Canada duh

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

#138

Post by ehhthing » Wed, Oct 08, 2025, 1:53 AM UTC

bawolff wrote: post #105

gpm wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Another thing to keep in mind is that these details can and likely will be clarified in the future as it goes through process.

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

#139

Post by armada651 » Wed, Oct 08, 2025, 1:53 AM UTC

BLKNSLVR wrote: post #66

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…

> Why would it makes sense to remove that process, while introducing an incredible opaque decision-making process in its place For all the Canadian railing against Trump, this is an authoritarian play as much as many of Trump's actions. Unfortunately this seems to be a growing, hypocritical trend around the world. EU's Chat Control as another example. Australia's lax control over entities able to access ISP metadata…

> Unfortunately this seems to be a growing, hypocritical trend around the world. EU's Chat Control as another example.

It's not hypocritical, there's no such thing as an absolute right to freedom of speech in the EU like there is in the US. Chat Control is widely opposed in the EU and I don't agree with it, but it's not hypocritical nor inconsistent with how the EU treats freedom of expression.

Here are the limitations placed on freedom of expression by the European Convention on Human Rights:

> The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

You won't find those conditions in the 1st amendment of the U.S. constitution.

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

#140

Post by gpm » Wed, Oct 08, 2025, 1:57 AM UTC

petermcneeley wrote: post #104

gpm wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

No. The government has tried to get telecoms to remove Huawei equipment. They have successfully resisted. This bill appears to exist in large part to change that, specifically.

This bill does not allow the minister to remove services from any specified person. It allows the minister to order telecoms stop receiving services from specified persons (i.e. huawei). It allows the minister to put conditions on, but not remove, services the telecoms provide to a person.

I agree I wish there were more limits on the secrecy portion.