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

211–220 of 414 posts

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

#211

Post by Nevermark »

refurb wrote: post #117
bawolff wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People overuse the word ad hominem. The post above is not an example of one. Ad hominen is when you use an irrelavent insult in an argument. Not every criticism of a source is an ad hominem. Edit: to clarify, i think there is a huge difference between saying something like: national post is known to lean right and not really like the liberals so we should verify they are fairly summarizing the liberal proposed law by…

It’s literally the definition of an ad hominem. adjective - (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.

A “Right” bias (whether real or perceived) would naturally be expected to be related to many positions they maintained.

And they were given the benefit of a doubt and vindicated (in the commenter’s own opinion).

Meaning their position was judged on its own merits.

So not really ad hominem.

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

#212

Post by milesrout »

neom wrote: post #30
zetanor wrote: post #25

> If the Governor in Council 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 [...] https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/45-1/bill/C-8/first-re... Anyone familiar enough with Canadian law to know how much bearing this condition might have in practice?

Will depend heavily on how it is interpreted and exercised by Cabinet, it's ex-ante accountability - required parliamentary reporting after the fact. Personal opinion as a Canadian, and may not be popular...but I like it's done this way to a degree, I actually have more faith in the Governor in Council than how the courts might interperate this, there is a lot of political risk to using this, and I do believe that th…

[dead]

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

#213

Post by milesrout »

mhurron wrote: post #39
neom wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Will depend heavily on how it is interpreted and exercised by Cabinet, it's ex-ante accountability - required parliamentary reporting after the fact. Personal opinion as a Canadian, and may not be popular...but I like it's done this way to a degree, I actually have more faith in the Governor in Council than how the courts might interperate this, there is a lot of political risk to using this, and I do believe that th…

This is a law enforcement action. If the government is going to give itself the ability to strip the ability of a citizen or resident to access services that are their right to access, and an increasing number of those services are online access, it should be done within the confines and oversight of the law. This is a disgusting power grab. 'Because I said so, trust me' is not a justification.

[dead]

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

#214

Post by LeroyRaz »

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…

This particular type of authoritarianism is primarily from the left in the west. The EU, the UK, Canada, it is the political left implementing these policies, often using them to censor right wing views (e.g., Objecting to immigration gets labelled racist -> justified censorship. Objecting to trans women in women only spaces gets labelled as hateful -> justified censorship, etc...).

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

#215

Post by edflsafoiewq »

ekianjo wrote: post #179
trollbridge wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The current “workaround” to the 4th amendment is to simply have private companies who do surveillance and then buy bulk data from them. ICE does this with location data from mobile apps. They simply buy from a private vendor the information about where specific people are. Then they go detain them. Some real life friends of mine are on a work crew with some migrants. ICE pulled their truck over, asked the migrants to…

If you are an illegal immigrat how do you even get a mobile phone contract though? In every country I know a valid ID is required to get one.

I use an MVNO and I never needed any ID.

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

#216

Post by SirSavary »

hunterpayne wrote: post #206
standardUser wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A few fascist movements sprang out of leftist movements, or had some small overlap in rhetoric with the left, but by and large the most repressive Western governments have come firmly if not exclusively from the right.

So sure, if you ignore all Communist countries and lump in Islamist countries with the western 'right' you can make that argument. Back on earth, its always the left that is motivated by ideology. The only right wing governments who turn authoritarian do so for money and power, not ideology. The ideology of the right (in the west) is specifically designed to be against that. That's why the biggest body counts always…

1. When discussing "the most repressive Western governments", we exclude Communist and Islamist regimes by definition. The West refers to North America and Western Europe, where no Communist or Islamist government has held power. You can't reasonably claim the Western right is less authoritarian by pointing to non-Western examples.

2. The claim that "it's always the left that is motivated by ideology" ignores that right-wing movements are frequently driven by ideological commitments: religious conservatism, ethnonationalism, free-market fundamentalism, and so on. Authoritarian right-wing regimes often justify their actions through explicit ideological frameworks.

3. What mechanism in right-wing ideology "specifically designed to be against" authoritarianism are you referring to? Current consolidation of executive power in the US, rollbacks of institutional checks, and expanding surveillance capabilities suggest otherwise. If right-wing ideology inherently resists authoritarianism, how do you explain broad right-wing support for these trends?

4. Body counts correlate with state capacity and willingness to use violence, not economic system. Authoritarian regimes across the political spectrum have committed mass atrocities. Capitalist regimes have overseen famines (Bengal, Ireland) and genocides just as Communist ones have. The common factor is authoritarianism, not left vs. right.

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

#217

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#218

Post by [deleted] »

SchemaLoad wrote: post #167
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…

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…

[deleted]

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

#219

Post by Lio »

hunterpayne wrote: post #209
Spivak wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Liberals believe in things like free speech and equal protection under the law. There isn't a political party in the English speaking world who uses the word 'Liberal' in their name which is actually Liberal. Every single one of them is better described as Socialist or Marxist. You want to know what a liberal sounds like? Listen to Bill Clinton's speech in the 90s or a current day Republican. Those are liberals.

> There isn't a political party in the English speaking world who uses the word 'Liberal' in their name which is actually Liberal.

> Every single one of them is better described as Socialist or Marxist.

I’m sorry but that is not true.

E.g. Liberal Party of Australia is a centre right party.

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

#220

Post by [deleted] »

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 )

[deleted]
Post reply on HN