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

#301

Post by bawolff » Wed, Oct 08, 2025, 12:46 PM UTC

btbuildem wrote: post #122

clickety_clack wrote: post #68

There is no such thing as rights or a constitution in Canada. The government can waive them away with a “notwithstanding” clause and then they can do what they like.

It's the provincial governments of Ontario, Quebec, Alberta and Saskatchewan that have been abusing the notwithstanding clause to further their political (conservative) agendas. The feds have not once reached for it. The career loser Poilievre had threatened to used it as soon as possible had he somehow clawed his way to power.

As far as i am aware, neither Ontario nor Alberta have ever sucesfully used the notwithstanding clause although they have tried.

I dont know its correct to apply the label "conservative" to Quebec.

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

#302

Post by mathgeek » Wed, Oct 08, 2025, 12:47 PM UTC

fasbiner wrote: post #280

glitchc wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 redee…

> Why would a philosopher be a good source for this instead of an anthropologist, an economist, a statistician, or a student of comparative revolutions?

(Not commenting on the actual claim above you.) Philosophers often make popular sources for supporting evidence because you can find a philosopher that supports most any position. Your question is exactly the one that should be asked as there are usually more objective sources.

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

#303

Post by fasbiner » Wed, Oct 08, 2025, 12:49 PM UTC

stinkbeetle wrote: post #230

I think countries with division and low social trust and cohesion necessarily require increasingly authoritarian measures from the government to hold them together. Increasing dependence on government for their own security will reduce peoples' ability to question and change the government. One might think it's all part of the plan. Real freedom and self determination has been a fleeting blink of an eye in the histor…

This is terribly self-important and extrapolatory. Canada is a place that allowed private for-profit institutions to sell an unlimited number of student vouchers that made the associated visa shall-issue.

These are trivial to overstay without oversight and millions of people have. Regardless of the relative merits of this policy, it certainly isn't what canadians voted for or even permitted public discussion of beforehand. Combine this with the social welfare state unraveling and the government suggesting disabled citizens to kill themselves after their benefits are cut, and it's had a sharply radicalizing effect.

So the government is panicking, trying to crack down, and will no doubt propel some dubious populist to power who can handily win simply by reading an opinion polls and not denouncing the majority of the public, in public.

What light? What eventual winning? Stop watching children's movies and reading children's books.

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

#304

Post by stinkbeetle » Wed, Oct 08, 2025, 12:58 PM UTC

fasbiner wrote: post #303

stinkbeetle wrote: post #230

I think countries with division and low social trust and cohesion necessarily require increasingly authoritarian measures from the government to hold them together. Increasing dependence on government for their own security will reduce peoples' ability to question and change the government. One might think it's all part of the plan. Real freedom and self determination has been a fleeting blink of an eye in the histor…

This is terribly self-important and extrapolatory. Canada is a place that allowed private for-profit institutions to sell an unlimited number of student vouchers that made the associated visa shall-issue. These are trivial to overstay without oversight and millions of people have. Regardless of the relative merits of this policy, it certainly isn't what canadians voted for or even permitted public discussion of befor…

> This is terribly self-important and extrapolatory.

No it isn't.

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

#305

Post by petermcneeley » Wed, Oct 08, 2025, 12:59 PM UTC

gpm wrote: post #140

petermcneeley wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 rem…

I dont think Canadians are worried about sections in the bill targeting foreign actors or even equipment. I think Canadians are worried about the sections that suggests individuals (citizens) can be denied access to telecommunications by a secret order of their government stemming from the decision of a single minister.

Every law is always wrapped in a package of anti-terrorism, cyber security, or protect the kids. This is a given. Let us not pretend not to know whats going on here.

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

#306

Post by kelipso » Wed, Oct 08, 2025, 12:59 PM UTC

MagicMoonlight wrote: post #296

torben-friis wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

We’re definitely in the pre-war era. It’s like when Britain was trying to negotiate with Hitler while rearming in the background. China is going to attack pearl harbour in the hopes that a sudden unexpected attack will cripple the pacific fleet and knock America out of the war. It won’t work, we’ll go through hell again. But every time these places think it will work, and they don’t factor in the fact that they are c…

It’s interesting how there is this pre-war vibe going on but when you describe the actual predictions, it seems extremely unlikely. It feels more like a phenomenon created through the internet than actual pre-war anything.

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

#307

Post by stinkbeetle » Wed, Oct 08, 2025, 1:01 PM UTC

array_key_first wrote: post #285

stinkbeetle wrote: post #230

I think countries with division and low social trust and cohesion necessarily require increasingly authoritarian measures from the government to hold them together. Increasing dependence on government for their own security will reduce peoples' ability to question and change the government. One might think it's all part of the plan. Real freedom and self determination has been a fleeting blink of an eye in the histor…

> I think countries with division and low social trust and cohesion necessarily require increasingly authoritarian measures from the government to hold them together. This sounds like it makes sense, but in reality, the most authoritarian countries throughout history and presently are highly nationalist. A strong and cohesive national identity does not reduce authoritarianism. If anything, it seems to be one of the p…

> This sounds like it makes sense, but in reality, the most authoritarian countries throughout history and presently are highly nationalist.

That doesn't address what I wrote though. I didn't say that is the only way authoritarianism could arise.

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

#308

Post by 34679 » Wed, Oct 08, 2025, 1:03 PM UTC

MagicMoonlight wrote: post #296

torben-friis wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

We’re definitely in the pre-war era. It’s like when Britain was trying to negotiate with Hitler while rearming in the background. China is going to attack pearl harbour in the hopes that a sudden unexpected attack will cripple the pacific fleet and knock America out of the war. It won’t work, we’ll go through hell again. But every time these places think it will work, and they don’t factor in the fact that they are c…

>they are completely reliant on foreign trade for their economy.

If China cut trade ties with the US, which country do you think will still be able to produce everything it needs? People like to think of China as just a source of cheap consumer goods, but we are much more reliant on them than that. Every power plant has Chinese components that keep it functioning. Every farm, automobile, communication network, aircraft, factory.. they all rely on Chinese components and equipment. The list touches every facet of modern American life.

China could make the US unrecognizable within 5 years, without ever launching a single missile

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

#309

Post by surfingdino » Wed, Oct 08, 2025, 1:04 PM UTC

Given that governments want to move to 100% digital government and economy, denying someone access to the internet will strip them of ability to take part in society, use government services (accessible via digital id), or pay (living expenses, travel, repay debt, etc.)

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

#310

Post by torben-friis » Wed, Oct 08, 2025, 1:04 PM UTC

kelipso wrote: post #306

MagicMoonlight wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We’re definitely in the pre-war era. It’s like when Britain was trying to negotiate with Hitler while rearming in the background. China is going to attack pearl harbour in the hopes that a sudden unexpected attack will cripple the pacific fleet and knock America out of the war. It won’t work, we’ll go through hell again. But every time these places think it will work, and they don’t factor in the fact that they are c…

It’s interesting how there is this pre-war vibe going on but when you describe the actual predictions, it seems extremely unlikely. It feels more like a phenomenon created through the internet than actual pre-war anything.

The china thing is very out there - but I’d see them going for the push in Taiwan and things escalating there.

My main concern as a European is Russia. It is a historical truth that once a country goes through the process of starting a war economy it doesn’t usually dissolve or sit idle - conflict is going to happen there.

For America, watching from the outside, a civil war seems much more likely than direct war with china.