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

271–280 of 414 posts

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

#271

Post by tim333 »

dmitrygr wrote: post #174
btbuildem wrote: post #116

That's an absurd overreach. I can't figure out what the real motivation for this is. > hostile state actors are stealing information and gaining access to systems that are critical to our national security and public safety If they're hostile state actors, they've got internet access from elsewhere. It's a global network. I am not dismissing cyber-threats, but perhaps I would weigh them differently. To me, the larges…

> I can't figure out what the real motivation for this is. Can't you?

I can't either. Seems dumb. "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity".

What do you think the motivation is?

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

#272

Post by [deleted] »

kazinator wrote: post #232

How would you keep them away from free Wi-Fi all over the place? Or, from giving fifty bucks a month to their neighbor? Or from a phone plan that has next to no background check: buy a cheap SIM from a convenience store, activate with credit card and you have data.

[deleted]

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

#273

Post by adrian_b »

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…

I do not think that it makes sense to call the Communist governments as "left".

Almost all Communist governments did not obtain the power by a political fight between "right" and "left", but by being installed in power by foreign invaders (in most cases by Russians).

Typically the first action of all Communist governments has been to imprison and/or kill all "leftist" politicians of that country, this having a higher priority than any actions taken against "right-wing" politicians.

Even in Russia, the Bolsheviks and Lenin obtained the power only due to the support of the German war enemies, which they paid back by removing Russia from the war.

The Communists that have been in power have never been any kind of "right" or "left" politicians, they have been just a class of hereditary parasites that have exploited those societies, by controlling everything that was of any value in that country, while claiming that they do this for the good of all people.

The Western politicians are crooks who succeed to fool the feeble minds into voting them. I contrast, the Eastern communists were just slave masters, who did not need any kind of skill, except of displaying loyalty to their immediate boss.

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

#274

Post by [deleted] »

arthens wrote: post #200
ekianjo wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What's the connection between being an illegal immigrant and having a valid ID? In my experience as a traveller, any ID from any country is good enough to get a mobile contract. Some countries might check VISA status too, but any valid temporary VISA is generally enough.

[deleted]

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

#275

Post by torben-friis »

nick__m wrote: post #29

I tought that the National Post was exaggerating the severity in their crusade against the Liberal like they frequently do. So I when to read the law and it's as bad as they say: https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/45-1/bill/C-8/first-re... ... Factor Before making the order, the Governor in Council must consider (a) its operational impact on the affected telecommunications service providers; (b) its financial impa…

The universal push for expanded security trumping all is concerning.

At this point authoritarian pushes are the best case scenario - I’m fearing it’s preparation for wartime.

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

#277

Post by xmcqdpt2 »

codedokode wrote: post #268

Does Canadian law require identification for using public WiFi? If not, then "specified person" can simply hop on the bus or subway, connect to WiFi and do illegal things all day long. Just trying to help.

It's a dumb bill but it's pretty clear from reading the act that "person" is mostly meant to refer to a legal person, i.e. a corporation (though it can apply to natural persons too). It's basically financial sanctions but for internet access.

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

#278

Post by heavyset_go »

nick__m wrote: post #29

I tought that the National Post was exaggerating the severity in their crusade against the Liberal like they frequently do. So I when to read the law and it's as bad as they say: https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/45-1/bill/C-8/first-re... ... Factor Before making the order, the Governor in Council must consider (a) its operational impact on the affected telecommunications service providers; (b) its financial impa…

Damn those rich bastards must really be afraid of us

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

#279

Post by int_19h »

glitchc wrote: post #165
btbuildem wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's not defend the konvoy agitators here, these were legit seditionists who were given far too much leeway to start with. Cutting off their access to crowdsourced funds was too little too late, they should have been shut down more forcefully much sooner.

> ..who were given far too much leeway to start with. Listen to your language. Freedom of speech and freedom of peaceful protest are now far too much leeway ? The very rights protected by the Charter? Because they are protesting against things you like? Or protesting for things you don't like? Your like and dislike trumps their freedom does it? You do realize who you sound like, don't you? Think about it. Mull it ove…

"Now, when one demands liberty of speech and of the press, one is not demanding absolute liberty. There always must be, or at any rate there always will be, some degree of censorship, so long as organised societies endure. But freedom, as Rosa Luxembourg [sic] said, is ‘freedom for the other fellow’. The same principle is contained in the famous words of Voltaire: ‘I detest what you say; I will defend to the death your right to say it.’ If the intellectual liberty which without a doubt has been one of the distinguishing marks of western civilisation means anything at all, it means that everyone shall have the right to say and to print what he believes to be the truth, provided only that it does not harm the rest of the community in some quite unmistakable way. Both capitalist democracy and the western versions of Socialism have till recently taken that principle for granted. Our Government, as I have already pointed out, still makes some show of respecting it. The ordinary people in the street – partly, perhaps, because they are not sufficiently interested in ideas to be intolerant about them – still vaguely hold that ‘I suppose everyone’s got a right to their own opinion.’ It is only, or at any rate it is chiefly, the literary and scientific intelligentsia, the very people who ought to be the guardians of liberty, who are beginning to despise it, in theory as well as in practice.

One of the peculiar phenomena of our time is the renegade Liberal. Over and above the familiar Marxist claim that ‘bourgeois liberty’ is an illusion, there is now a widespread tendency to argue that one can only defend democracy by totalitarian methods. If one loves democracy, the argument runs, one must crush its enemies by no matter what means. And who are its enemies? It always appears that they are not only those who attack it openly and consciously, but those who ‘objectively’ endanger it by spreading mistaken doctrines. In other words, defending democracy involves destroying all independence of thought."

(https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwel...)

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

#280

Post by fasbiner »

glitchc wrote: post #162
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…

It always starts with the left, not the right. Read "The True Believer". It's not the poor folk that start a revolution. They are too busy trying to survive to do anything else. No, it's the idle bourgeois. They are the most unhappy as what they seek is just out of their reach.

This is one of those weird cold war american things that has not aged very well. Why would a philosopher be a good source for this instead of an anthropologist, an economist, a statistician, or a student of comparative revolutions? Is that really how it should go down?

You put your philosopher making unprovable assertions against theirs and just say "well it's true I don't know very much about the redshirts and redeemers or the guatemalan civil war as such, but I do have the eternal wisdom of the philosophers."

You can in fact, read the work of a variety of scholars on the comparative study of revolutionary movements in a variety of languages and ideological bents. And what we can see is that anyone that says "it always" while being unable to even identify the majority of countries on a globe is speaking in bad faith, or else genuinely has never given their own thoughts the most cursory and basic inspection.

Everyone has the right to their own metaphysics, but it's not clear what you expect speaking ex cathedra to accomplish.

Post reply on HN