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

#371

Post by dfxm12 » Wed, Oct 08, 2025, 8:09 PM UTC

narrator wrote: post #299

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…

I think the problem with most average left of center people who want to be agreeable and civic minded is they have total incredulity at the government would actually do anything really screwed up, especially as they are so "moral" with their performative political correctness. How can someone who cares about the rights of minority groups act so tyrannically? There's always a glitch though somewhere, and people assume…

Why do you think this? Talking to Canadians (and Americans) who self-describe as left of centre, from centre-left to progressive and even a few beyond, this is not the case. People were afraid of what Poilievre would do. Americans definitely understand that Trump is doing really screwed up things. I don't think it is partisan. Off the top of my head, we saw leftists protest against Trudeau, Biden and Obama on gas pipelines, people locked in cages and drones.

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

#372

Post by JumpCrisscross » Wed, Oct 08, 2025, 8:33 PM UTC

close04 wrote: post #231

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Ad hominen is when you use an irrelavent insult in an argument No, it’s when you argue the truth based on dismissing the speaker. So if Carl is an idiot, and Carl says cats are real, it would be ad hominem to say cat’s aren’t real because Carl said so. (Dismissing an argument isn’t ad hominem per se . Neither is name calling. It’s concluding based on not liking the speaker.)

Pointing out bias when debating an opinion hardly sounds ad-hominem, and in this case it looks more like OP's way to strengthen the veracity of the report while showing surprise rather than dismissal. Is it still ad-hominem if you actually agree with Carl? Doesn't it make Carl's argument even stronger when you say "I'm always against Carl but this time he's right" which is the opposite of dismissing his idea, ad homi…

> Is it still ad-hominem if you actually agree with Carl?

If you conclude X is right because Carl said so, it’s argument from authority.

> Doesn't it make Carl's argument even stronger when you say "I'm always against Carl but this time he's right" which is the opposite of dismissing his idea, ad hominem or not?

No. It makes his rhetoric (essentially an argument about an argument) stronger. But not argument per se.

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

#373

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Oct 08, 2025, 8:36 PM 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…

[deleted]

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

#374

Post by HaZeust » Wed, Oct 08, 2025, 8:49 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…

social trust and cohesion aren't necessarily a pride in national identity. Scandinavian countries are highly homogenous, high social trust, and extraordinarily cohesive, and isn't very nationalistic or prideful in its identity - short of the run-of-mill "white" bickering.

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

#375

Post by rifty » Wed, Oct 08, 2025, 9:07 PM UTC

aceofspades19 wrote: post #184

BJones12 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They want to ruin the lives of those who oppose them. The Canadian Liberal government has previously attempted the same goal by de-banking protestors, in a move that the courts later ruled unconstitutional.

No one got "debanked", it was a temporary freeze for a few days and for a small number of accounts. I also disagree that it was to ruin the lives of those who oppose them, the money was released back to them, that seems like an odd way to ruin someone's life. Surely the tyrannical Liberal government would have been able to do more than keep them from accessing their money for a few days if they truly wanted to ruin l…

It may very well be trivial for a few days, but it's worth considering the full length it could be in effect for. The emergency act after initial confirmation can be in effect for 30 days before reapproval (it can be voluntarily ended as it was in the convoy instance).

If we put someone in jail, as in to disable their ability to interface with society, we would have the expectation to feed and shelter them decently for that duration. Removing access to funds under the emergency act has no baseline duty of care expected from the government, despite government action disabling them from acquiring food or shelter independently in modern society for a number of days beyond which someone could starve. The number of days is unpredictably constrained by popular sentiment in a heated moment not a pre-encoded ethical baseline.

I don't think this hypothetical and the potential grave consequences is going to be often likely, yet i don't see why it need be a possibility to entertain.

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

#376

Post by immibis » Wed, Oct 08, 2025, 9:07 PM UTC

isaacremuant wrote: post #328

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's not confusing at all. It's the same trend we've been having for ages and that most people have cheered for because they were usually dunking on their political rivals, the "evil enemy (TM)" or "protecting the children/against covid misinformation", etc. Only when people start recognising that was all bullshit and demand their freedom can we collectively fight back. Resist your impulses to go with the propaganda…

Good things are good and bad things are bad. It's not contradictory for someone to like a bill that says "if you try to convince the population vaccines are bad, your internet service should be terminated" and also dislike a bill that says "if we say so, your internet service should be terminated"

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

#377

Post by Spivak » Wed, Oct 08, 2025, 9:24 PM UTC

senordevnyc wrote: post #363

hunterpayne wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Pretty amusing to hear someone say that current day Republicans care at all about free speech or equal protection under the law.

Credit where it's due I think Republicans, people whose political ideology is Republicanism as opposed to the RNC whose dominant political ideology is now Conservatism, can still lay claim to those things. But they are a dying breed aren't they.

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

#378

Post by int_19h » Wed, Oct 08, 2025, 9:42 PM UTC

bawolff wrote: post #292

int_19h wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't override all, just the most important ones: sections 2 & 7-15. Section 2 is even titled "fundamental freedoms". This means all of the following (and more) are subject to "notwithstanding": Freedom of conscience and religion. Freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication. Freedom of peaceful assembly. Freedom of association. Right to life…

I agree that these are very important rights, but i don't think they are the most important ones. The most important right is the requirement to have regular elections so that any overreach can be repealed or simply not renewed. Everything flows from that. In practise the charter has been very effective in protecting the rights of canadians. I feel that it is more effective than the american system despite the americ…

> The most important right is the requirement to have regular elections so that any overreach can be repealed or simply not renewed. Everything flows from that.

Not at all. Russia has very regular elections, for example. Even DPRK has elections!

You might say that those are an obvious fraud, and it's true these days, but it wasn't always so. Up until 2011 or so elections in Russia in and of themselves were "free" in a sense that your vote counted. The problem is that you can't really have a free and fair election when things like "freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression" are suppressed. If the government can control most information flow and crack down on dissent, it doesn't matter if the people can vote; it'll ensure that they'll vote the right way.

> In practise the charter has been very effective in protecting the rights of canadians. I feel that it is more effective than the american system despite the american system having more absolute garuntees on paper.

The problems with the American system stem largely from the US constitution originally being based on the notion that the federal government shouldn't be able to do anything except that what the Constitution says it can (and similarly for state governments & their respective state constitutions). While it's great in principle, in practice it means that the US constitution has relatively few explicit restrictions, and those are often vaguely worded, which then allows for the kind of judicial shenanigans that are routine here.

At the same time, if the courts do enshrine some specific right as protected, the government has very little leeway to override that.

As for Canada, I feel that the jury is still out. CCRF is still fairly recent, and you guys just don't have the history of a sufficiently intense political conflict to see how well it holds up in a crisis, and what the government might do.

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

#379

Post by bawolff » Wed, Oct 08, 2025, 10:52 PM UTC

int_19h wrote: post #378

bawolff wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that these are very important rights, but i don't think they are the most important ones. The most important right is the requirement to have regular elections so that any overreach can be repealed or simply not renewed. Everything flows from that. In practise the charter has been very effective in protecting the rights of canadians. I feel that it is more effective than the american system despite the americ…

> The most important right is the requirement to have regular elections so that any overreach can be repealed or simply not renewed. Everything flows from that. Not at all. Russia has very regular elections, for example. Even DPRK has elections! You might say that those are an obvious fraud, and it's true these days, but it wasn't always so. Up until 2011 or so elections in Russia in and of themselves were "free" in…

> Not at all. Russia has very regular elections, for example. Even DPRK has elections!

Sure.

The soviet union also had a constitution that gave strict garuntees of freedom, much stronger than the american constitution. It of course wasn't worth the paper its written on.

Having a written constitution with rights and freedom is no different then having elections. You can do it for real or you can do it as a show. Canada's actual elections safeguard its democracy. The fact that russia has fake elections is no more a counterpoint than the soviet constitution is a counterpoint to the american constitution. Just because someone else has the fake version doesn't mean the real version doesn't exist.

> As for Canada, I feel that the jury is still out. CCRF is still fairly recent, and you guys just don't have the history of a sufficiently intense political conflict to see how well it holds up in a crisis, and what the government might do.

The charter is not the starting point of canadian constitutional law. While it added a lot of rights and is certainly an improvement, Important legal victories like striking down laws for violating freedom of speech or declaring that women are allowed to hold office happened before the charter was adopted.

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

#380

Post by stinkbeetle » Wed, Oct 08, 2025, 11:43 PM UTC

fasbiner wrote: post #352

stinkbeetle wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is terribly self-important and extrapolatory. No it isn't.

The light is going to go out for all of humanity for all time as part of a centuries old plan for final victory by starting at the most critical link of all in the whole chain of being... canadian routers. Canada is a country that has historically been weaker on free speech and free assembly and individual rights compared to the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_Canada#Internet https://en.wikipedia.org/…

> The light is going to go out for all of humanity for all time as part of a centuries old plan for final victory by starting at the most critical link of all in the whole chain of being... canadian routers.

This is a fabrication of your own mind which you have now started arguing against.