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

91–100 of 414 posts

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

#91

Post by Spivak »

BJones12 wrote: post #58
thmsths wrote: post #57

Applying for jobs has almost entirely moved online these days. And this is just one of many such things. Does whoever wrote that bill understands that? Or do they just naively think that "it's just time out for people who break the rules".

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.

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 pause?

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

#92

Post by txrx0000 »

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…

That "almost entirely" part is the problem. They sneak in a clause that makes those restrictions also apply to which customers ISPs can serve.

Even the supposed intended purpose of restricting equipment may be malicious. Why should the government be able to restrict whose equipment or which fibre operators the ISP can use?

If equipment is the concern, then they can just regulate the actual imported equipment. Canada probably already has such oversight like the US's FCC.

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

#93

Post by gpm »

txrx0000 wrote: post #90
gpm wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

nick__m quoted the wrong section, but there's an identical Factors section 15.2(6) that applies to 15.2(2)(d). There's also a non-disclosure clause. The headline is true. Order (2) If the Minister 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, the Minister may, by…

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, or in relation to, its telecommunications network or telecommunications facilities, or any part of those networks or facilities;

> (f) require that a telecommunications service provider terminate a service agreement referred to in paragraph (e);

Moreover even if, say, 15.2(2)(f) referred to (d) instead of (e) the headline would still be entirely untrue because the charter would prohibit it and this law, like all laws, must be interpreted in a manner consistent with the charter.

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

#95

Post by gilbetron »

billy99k wrote: post #81

[flagged]

Unbelievable how someone on this forum can blame "the left" when the US has an administration that is clearly the greatest threat to the 1st amendment, really all of them, the country has probably ever seen.

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

#96

Post by gpm »

txrx0000 wrote: post #92
gpm wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

That "almost entirely" part is the problem. They sneak in a clause that makes those restrictions also apply to which customers ISPs can serve. Even the supposed intended purpose of restricting equipment may be malicious. Why should the government be able to restrict whose equipment or which fibre operators the ISP can use? If equipment is the concern, then they can just regulate the actual imported equipment. Canada…

Regulating imported equipment doesn't give you the ability to go back retroactively and say "shit, actually we need you to pull out all the equipment from because it's a security problem". Or the ability to regulate what software updates are applied. And so on and so forth. And the government should have the ability to do that because it is a matter of geopolitics and national security to maintain the independence of our telecommunications infrastructure.

They did not slip in a clause which allows them to restrict which customers ISPs can serve, despite the headline saying otherwise.

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

#97

Post by yibg »

aianus wrote: post #55
yibg wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How's the Chinese system different from the American credit score?

Being an asshole doesn't harm your credit score unless it causes financial damages that you don't pay back.

Isn’t that pretty much the case for the Chinese system too? There were a bunch of speculation around what goes into the score, but from current reporting it’s all financial related too.

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

#98

Post by andy99 »

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…

[flagged]

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

#99

Post by txrx0000 »

gpm wrote: post #93
txrx0000 wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

nick__m quoted the wrong section, but there's an identical Factors section 15.2(6) that applies to 15.2(2)(d). There's also a non-disclosure clause. The headline is true. Order (2) If the Minister 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, the Minister may, by…

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…

They could make the ISP not be able to provision more than 0 kb/s of bandwidth to you unless some condition is met, which apparently could be anything that the Minister considers relevant.

--- You're "endangering national security" by "spreading harmful information online". Such speech is not protected by the charter. You are now banned from the Internet. ---

They probably won't do this right away, but the door is open.

And they shouldn't be able to do this to the ISP's suppliers either.

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

#100

Post by gpm »

txrx0000 wrote: post #99
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…

They could make the ISP not be able to provision more than 0 kb/s of bandwidth to you unless some condition is met, which apparently could be anything that the Minister considers relevant. --- You're "endangering national security" by "spreading harmful information online". Such speech is not protected by the charter. You are now banned from the Internet. --- They probably won't do this right away, but the door is op…

No, they could not, because laws are interpreted so that every word must have a meaning, and if "impose conditions" could include "the condition of 0 kb/s" it what have no different meaning then "terminate" and that would violate the cannons of statutory interpretation.

They also could not because the charter would prohibit it. While not all speech is protected by the charter (your categories aren't the right one, but there are categories like CSAM and hate speech), the government doesn't have the ability to prevent significant amounts of protected speech to prevent unprotected speech without invoking the notwithstanding clause (which this law does not).

Post reply on HN