17 ms·

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

603 points by walterbell 1y ago

walterbell 1y ago
https://archive.is/1Vvqr https://archive.is/1Vvqr
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
incomingpain 1y ago
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 the wrong protest? Note how they seized the bank accounts of protestors and even an entire small bank only a few years ago.
- HappySweeney 1y ago
  While I agree with most of this and oppose this bill, your last two lines are a mischaracterization. There is judicial oversight, but only after the order is implemented. Second, the bank accounts seized did not belong to protestors, as the leaders of that siege were convicted of mischief, two of which are being sentenced today. In general, protests do not engage in torturing the local populace with 95db of air horn for 16 to 20 hours a day. The account seizure also required emergency powers.
  - gruez 1y ago
    > There is judicial oversight, but only after the order is implemented In the sense that you can sue to have the order challenged? How's this different than what Trump's doing, where the government does something illegal (or at least legally dubious), and there's "judicial oversight" because aggrieved parties can sue the government? > Second, the bank accounts seized did not belong to protestors, as the leaders of that siege were convicted of mischief, two of which are being sentenced today. Were the bank accounts seized before or after the conviction?
    - HappySweeney 1y ago
      > In the sense that you can sue to have the order challenged? That's a good question. The article doesn't say and I haven't read the bill. > Were the bank accounts seized before or after the conviction? Before, of course. That was one of the justifications for invoking the emergency powers, and it wouldn't have been controversial otherwise. This is a digression, though, as there is no mention of any legislative changes to bank account seizures in the article.
      - incomingpain 1y ago
        >That's a good question. The article doesn't say and I haven't read the bill. How are your responding to me making affirmative comments that there's judicial oversight if you havent read the bill? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVTgGnNlfe8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVTgGnNlfe8
        HappySweeney 1y ago
        It's in the article. I'm happy to read the bill and watch your linked video once my workday is over.
        incomingpain 1y ago
        >It's in the article. I'm happy to read the bill and watch your linked video once my workday is over. You misunderstand. After it's done, only then could you sue and get judicial review. But it's all in secrecy, so you dont know what or who you need to sue. So you cant get judicial review.
        kstenerud 1y ago
        Did it say that Telus/Rogers would be forbidden from telling you why they've terminated your account?
    - bawolff 1y ago
      > In the sense that you can sue to have the order challenged? How's this different than what Trump's doing, where the government does something illegal (or at least legally dubious), and there's "judicial oversight" because aggrieved parties can sue the government? Umm,that's how court systems work in general. You sue when someone wrongs you. I'm not sure how else it could possibly work. > Were the bank accounts seized before or after the conviction? This is a different topic, but there were 2 different bank account freezes. Some were frozen due to a contempt of court order (this didn't involve the government, a private citizen brought the lawsuit). The more controversial was the emergency powers seizure. Arguably the protestors were engaging in manifestly illegal conduct. Personally i think its akin to how you can arrest someone before conviction, but opinions vary. As far as i know, the bank accounts were only frozen while the protestors were engaging in illegal action and were released once the situation was resolved.
  - digitalPhonix 1y ago
    > There is judicial oversight, but only after the order is implemented How would one find out information about the process, find a lawyer etc. without internet access?
    - halJordan 1y ago
      Why is this question somehow a non-sequitor? Many court proceedings are now mandatory zoom meetings. How do you participate in a zoom meeting when the state has barred you. It's a clear catch-22 and the refusal to address it beyond "thats not the intention" is beyond galling.
  - joemazerino 1y ago
    If I am not mistaken, a court ruled those emergency powers were overreach.
  - incomingpain 1y ago
    There is not judicial oversight. You never know there was an order. If you get into that scenario, you suspect the government cut you off, but you go to a lawyer and have literally nothing. The court will not take the case. >econd, the bank accounts seized did not belong to protestors, They seized hundreds of accounts; later had the banks terminate the bank accounts. In fact, not only protestors but people who donated to the protest got their bank accounts seized. >as the leaders of that siege were convicted of mischief, two of which are being sentenced today. Protesting the government, in front of parliament is mischief? Political prisoners. >n general, protests do not engage in torturing the local populace with 95db of air horn for 16 to 20 hours a day. The account seizure also required emergency powers. Which was found to be unconstitutional. But Bill C8 wont be abused by this same government? How about abuse in the future by other governments?
    - mulr00ney 1y ago
      > In fact, not only protestors but people who donated to the protest got their bank accounts seized. As far as I can tell accounts were frozen, not seized. Do you have a reference for donor accounts being seized? ref: https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/emergency-bank-measures-finance-committee-1.6360769 https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/emergency-bank-measures-fin...
      - incomingpain 1y ago
        >As far as I can tell accounts were frozen, not seized. Do you have a reference for donor accounts being seized? When it comes to civil rights like Section 8 of the charter. There's no such thing as 'frozen' They were searched, seized, and later returned. https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/td-bank-freezes-two-accounts-that-received-funds-support-canada-protests-2022-02-12/ https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/td-bank-freezes-two-a... You have to go back to figure out how the government knew what bank accounts to seize. They didnt go up to each person and ask to see their debit card. Police dont have a ready list of bank accounts to seize. The source of the seizures was the gofundme leak by a hacker. Who has since been arrested, convicted, and is in prison for a separate hacking incident. Canada gave him immunity to his crimes during freedom protest. They took the donor list and seized from there.
  - busymom0 1y ago
    > The account seizure also required emergency powers. Court ruled the use of Emergencies Act against convoy protests was unreasonable, violated Charter: https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/emergencies-act-federal-court-1.7091891 https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/emergencies-act-federal-cou... > Second, the bank accounts seized did not belong to protestors Wrong. Many people whose accounts were frozen were family/friends who were not even at the protest. Court found: > The judge said the economic orders infringed on protesters' freedom of expression "as they were overbroad in their application to persons who wished to protest but were not engaged in activities likely to lead to a breach of the peace." He also concluded the economic orders violated protesters' Charter rights "by permitting unreasonable search and seizure of the financial information of designated persons and the freezing of their bank and credit card accounts."
  - alexandre_m 1y ago
    Emergency powers which were deemed as unreasonable and violated the charter rights by admission of the Federal court. I can't believe that people are defending that. https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/trnsprnc/brfng-mtrls/prlmntry-bndrs/20240626/09-en.aspx https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/trnsprnc/brfng-mtrls/prlm...
  - zahlman 1y ago
    > Second, the bank accounts seized did not belong to protestors, as the leaders of that siege were convicted of mischief, two of which are being sentenced today. "There were arrests, therefore this was not a valid protest" is a very dangerous argument to be making, and I furthermore strongly doubt that you would apply this standard consistently to causes you endorse.
- goku12 1y ago
  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 latter into the former. Democracy is fragile. Just electing a candidate periodically is not enough. It depends on the constant effort, vigil and activism from the citizens to safeguard it. It wont survive your apathy. As idealistic as it sounds, this burden is the true cost of living in a democracy. This is a harsh lesson that's recorded in history again and again. Always take legislation like this seriously and hold your representatives responsible for it. Let them know that their political career in your constituency is finished for good if they support such moves. Let their political party know that they're not winning your constituency again until the damage is reversed. There's no room for subtleties and pleasantries when they're clearly showing you that they don't value your autonomy or the checks and balances on their abuse of power.
  - Atlas667 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - goku12 1y ago
      Is this about Canada or the US? Either way, you can either defend and demand for the democracy, or give up and stop claiming democracy altogether. This is a problem with democracies everywhere. I don't know about you, but I'm not too enthusiastic about a future that resembles the dark ages.
      - Atlas667 1y ago
        This applies to either. The democracy we need threatens those in power. What say does the average poor person in your town have? To endorse someone they cant control? To choose from amongst the few candidates that the big interests have developed and then cross their fingers?? Letting individuals control production creates a divided society, one of workers and one of owners. Where one has unequal leverage over the other but are supposed to (on paper) exist on the same democratic level. Mom and pop shops may come your mind, or someone who owns a franchise or small business, the truth is that even small business owners are nearly wholly beholden to large capital and huge finance capital. What say does a walmart employee have compared to the owners of walmart? While you were learning about what the hell the electoral college is, some others were being trained on how to lobby effectively. Mass democracy threatens the status quo almost entirely. There does not exist a party for the people. And if it were to exist it would be outlawed and threatened like they have been in the past. Would you suppress a peoples party if you had billions on the line?
- morkalork 1y ago
  Sounds about as opaque and infringing on rights as the no-fly list or anything else implemented post 9/11?
- btbuildem 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - tomhow 1y ago
    > 2022 freedumb convoy Please avoid snarky tropes like this on HN. We're trying for something different here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
arresin 1y ago
[flagged]
ProllyInfamous 1y ago
As a middle-aged person voluntarily NOT using email/phone, I cannot even imagine being banned from the internet. How would you function?
- walterbell 1y ago
  Would this apply to traveller phones roaming on Canadian telco networks? What forms of digital identity could be used to enforce an internet kill switch / blockade for specific humans?
  - ProllyInfamous 1y ago
    Great thought — see also: StarLinks
    - protocolture 1y ago
      Does Starlink in Canada use US Ground Stations? I suppose someone could register them just south of the border and smuggle one in. But Starlink tends to follow all laws in every jurisdiction they operate in, and registers as a carrier entity there. I doubt Starlink would refuse any legal obligations that risk losing access to a region.
    - dietr1ch 1y ago
      I doubt Starlink can somehow bypass Canadian law. It's the countries who rule and enforce the EM spectrum usage on their land, and countries are prepared to go to great extents in enforcing whatever rule they come up with.
- gpm 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - zahlman 1y ago
    The consequence described by the National Post here is a clearly plausible consequence of a plain reading of the legal text presented. Advocates have been warning about this bill (and previous iterations and attempts at the same theme) for a long time. It's being opposed by all sorts of people, certainly not all Conservative party supporters, as is readily apparent with an appropriate Internet search. See for example https://ccla.org/privacy/fix-dangerous-flaws-in-federal-cybersecurity-proposal/ https://ccla.org/privacy/fix-dangerous-flaws-in-federal-cybe... from the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, and https://sencanada.ca/Content/Sen/Committee/441/SECD/briefs/2024-11-13_SECD_C-26_Brief_CCLA_e.pdf https://sencanada.ca/Content/Sen/Committee/441/SECD/briefs/2... their submission to the government regarding the previous attempt at the same thing.
zetanor 1y ago
> 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-reading 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?
- neom 1y ago
  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 the crown will in fact enforce parliamentary accountability. If this truly is a national security tool, these powers are less alarming than, say, those granted directly to an independent agency or to security services acting without crown/ministerial oversight.
  - nick__m 1y ago
    I would agree with you if this clause was amended to remove the part after the coma: (6) Any order made under subsection (1) must be published in the Canada Gazette within 90 days after the day on which it is made, unless the Governor in Council directs otherwise in the order.
  - mhurron 1y ago
    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.
    - 1y ago
nick__m 1y ago
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-reading 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 impact on the affected telecommunications service providers; (c) its effect on the provision of telecommunications services in Canada; and (d) any other factor that the Governor in Council considers relevant. ... No compensation (8) No one is entitled to any compensation from His Majesty in right of Canada for any financial losses resulting from the making of an order under subsection (1).
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- gpm 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - nick__m 1y ago
    I cited this because they are accountable only to the telecommunications cartel. (in Canada telecommunications services are a the facto cartel) The effects of the banishment on the target are not taken into account and there is no compensation possible if this power is wrongly used. That's why I cited this excerpt.
  - dustbunny 1y ago
    National post is a respectable publication more akin to the Wall Street Journal. Canadian Breitbart is probably more like rebel news or epoch times.
    - 1y ago
Simulacra 1y ago
Sounds very much like a social credit scoring system
- olalonde 1y ago
  Which doesn't even exist.
  - Simulacra 1y ago
    in America whereas in places like China, it very much exists. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Credit_System https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Credit_System
    - yibg 1y ago
      How's the Chinese system different from the American credit score?
      - aianus 1y ago
        Being an asshole doesn't harm your credit score unless it causes financial damages that you don't pay back.
        yibg 1y ago
        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.
        olalonde 1y ago
        You are correct.
    - olalonde 1y ago
      Having lived in China since 2008 with a Chinese wife, I can confidently say the "social credit score" system often portrayed in the West is a myth and Western propaganda. What actually exists are standard financial credit scores, similar to those in the US or Europe, used for things like bank loans and mortgages.
thinkingkong 1y ago
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 are already illegal. Safety and security mechanisms already exist. We dont need additional, punitive, and opaque laws that can be abused.
- themafia 1y ago
  Politicians seem to enjoy corruption. It benefits them directly. They really do hate anyone who points out their hypocrisy or makes fun of them. It challenges their corrupt kickbacks directly. I think it's easy to make a prediction of actual use cases here.
  - pavel_lishin 1y ago
    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.
    - gpm 1y ago
      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 money or we won't let ISPs buy equipment from you". There's just no evidence that is why it is being passed.
      - txrx0000 1y ago
        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.
hn_throw_bs 1y ago
[flagged]
- nick__m 1y ago
  I am to and I oppose this! Might I ask why are you supporting this ?
  - whatsupdog 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - steve_adams_86 1y ago
      There's no information to work with here which suggests that's the case, here or in their comment history.
- 8note 1y ago
  im fine with the government having this power, but it should go with invoking the notwithstanding claude every time, so it gets the proper level of oversight by canadians. im not fine with another 20 canadians being kicked out of society every day, especially when there isnt even mail service. im not in favour of forcing all companies and apps and whathaveyou to implement these checks
- ImJamal 1y ago
  Are you willing to be the first stripped from the internet?
  - hn_throw_bs 1y ago
    I have been banned from so many online forums/discussion boards for having a contrarian viewpoint that I’m practically stripped from the internet to begin with. Things like these will just force people to be passive consumers who can’t voice their opinions, so from my perspective nothing changes. Special thanks to dang for banning me about ~30 times and shadow banning me another 50. Doing the good Lord’s work.
txrx0000 1y ago
This is worse than the EU's ChatControl, or the UK's Online Safety Act. This will pave the way for total online censorship and surveillance in Canada. The Canadian government will be able to target any user or service provider it doesn't like, silently. They don't even have to pass laws to ban VPNs or read private chat messages or enforce identity verification, or whatever other unambitious attempts other governments are making. This will do it all: Knock knock, it's the Chinadian government. You host a web service that uses encryption? Great. Now provide a backdoor for us or we'll ban you. Oh and don't tell your users. We'll ban you for that too. --- Hello user, we noticed that you've shared some concerning information online, and you're also using this E2EE chat service that we can't monitor. A friendly reminder from the government: continuing to use such services and spreading such harmful information online may cause your Internet connection to malfunction.
- arandr0x 1y ago
  I'm finding it interesting (after spending time in the EU where ChatControl is front and center in the news) that there's been this resurgence of interest in electronic surveillance and information warfare suddenly in countries that 10 years ago spent a significant amount of the news cycle decrying the US's NSA and China's internet police. What's changed?
steve_adams_86 1y ago
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 bars anyone from knowing why they were excluded from accessing the internet? It even prevents wrongfully excluded individuals from receiving compensation. For example, I could be cut off from the internet which I need to do my job. Say I'm unable to work for a week or two and then it's determined that I can access the internet because an error was made... Well, as far as I can tell, I'd be SOL. That doesn't seem right... Worse still is that this seems about as technically competent as using an IP address to determine a person's location. Any serious threat vector, human or otherwise, will find other ways to access the internet or perpetuate their threat if they care to. If they're a serious threat, why wouldn't prison be a better solution than... Calling their ISP and banning them from the internet? All of this seems very short-sighted, undemocratic, and naive. And while the 'human or otherwise' phrase I used might seem odd (I know someone's dog isn't shit-posting on X), what I mean to say is something like... What if an LLM is posting from an unsuspecting person's computer and was placed there as a virus? Once it's cut off from that poor person's computer, it's very likely it will eventually or already be functioning from some other unsuspecting person's computer, server, or whatever other device. Their toaster. My point is that we live in an age where there are non-human agents causing harm online. The machine they operate from will not always be OpenAI's or Anthropics, and indeed, will probably rarely be so. This was already the case with human actors, but it made much worse with the advent of AI-based agents.
- BLKNSLVR 1y ago
  > 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 as another. The problem is that it enables Trump further by allowing him to point at their decisions as similar examples to his own, as justification. I'm only using Trump since he seems to be the one willing to push boundaries the furthest, so if supposedly "more democratic" leaders are pushing such boundaries, then Trump will... Trump them.
rock_artist 1y ago
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 actors.
- walterbell 1y ago
  > Canadian telecommunication is almost a duopoly Nortel, never forget
- ipnon 1y ago
  In China you expect this because you get 5% GDP growth every year, housing that actually gets more affordable, government-subsidized growth industries and jobs. In Canada you get all the totalitarianism with GDP growth less than inflation, skyrocketing housing, and a zip line directly from Waterloo to Market Street.
- tdb7893 1y ago
  So it has been on the upswing recently but my understanding is that in the US we have been doing pretty much as much surveillance as technology (and also generally the 4th amendment) practically allows since at least WWII, and especially during the Cold War. Many law abiding people opposed to government policy (e.g. civil rights leaders or anti-war activists) have always been surveilled with dubious cause. This isn't the best wiki article I've ever seen but it has some examples of the US surveillance over the last century. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_surveillance_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_surveillance_in_the_Unite...
  - trollbridge 1y ago
    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 identify themselves (with different names than they’d been using), they complied, and ICE drove off with them after detaining them. I asked “Did they have their mobile phones with them?” “Yes.” People literally are carrying around a tracking device, voluntarily, with apps installed on them, voluntarily, that report their location to government authorities who want to detain them.
ARandomerDude 1y ago
Do you criticize the government too much? You're now a "specified person". Sure, the court may overturn the decision eventually, but for the next 3 years your life is ruined. This is the COVID trucker protest response playbook, now applied to the internet. If you think but I don't like the COVID truckers, well that's fine for now. Wait until there is something you vehemently disagree with the government about. Freedom of speech must be protected, regardless of how much you like the content or the speaker. ETA: What might be the justification for censorship in this bill? The telecom network is critical infrastructure. You're spreading mis/dis/mal-information, according to the government. Therefore you are harming the integrity of the telecom network.
FlyingBears 1y ago
C11 and this bill makes me think about what situations does the government need this sort of "weaponry"? I think the plausible answer is war.
- petermcneeley 1y ago
  Is it plausible? I wouldnt give these people the benefit of the doubt. In Canada we also have the emergency powers ... so if we had a war we would already have the "weaponry".
  - gpm 1y ago
    Emergency powers don't give you ability to unwind time and not buy Huawei equipment in the past. This bill appears to almost entirely be about allowing the government to exercise control over the telecommunications supply chain... which is certainly necessary if you want the ability to defend yourself against people who would otherwise be in that supply chain.
    - petermcneeley 1y ago
      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?
      - gpm 1y ago
        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 remove, services the telecoms provide to a person. I agree I wish there were more limits on the secrecy portion.
thmsths 1y ago
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".
- BJones12 1y ago
  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.
  - Spivak 1y ago
    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?
    - zmgsabst 1y ago
      They call themselves Liberals because co-opting a party is easier than starting one and because it’s useful that people think they’re liberal. But a label doesn’t necessarily match reality — just like North Korea isn’t a democratic republic. A lot of people have trouble with that concept, eg, thinking that a party called “Liberals” believes in liberal governance.
    - hunterpayne 1y ago
      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.
pavel_lishin 1y ago
> In the House of Commons last week, Anandasangaree, the public safety minister defended Bill C-8 as a means to crack down on hackers and ransomware fraudsters. > “Malicious cyber-actors are breaching our country’s IT systems, accessing sensitive information and putting lives in danger,” he said. > Anandasangaree added that “hostile state actors are stealing information and gaining access to systems that are critical to our national security and public safety.” ... and these hostile state actors are doing this from their checks notes home in Ottawa, using a Rogers internet connection they're paying for?
logicchains 1y ago
Americans like to say the first amendment relies on the second amendment, or as Mao Zedong put it, political power grows from the barrel of a gun. When I was younger I thought it was exaggerated, but now it seems like there really are fewer and fewer countries where you can criticise your government online without facing legal repercussions. If things continue at the current rate, in 5-10 years America might be the only English-speaking country with freedom of speech (as long as you don't criticise Israel).
- hagbard_c 1y ago
  > as long as you don't criticise Israel Eh? You can criticise Israel all you want. Some people might not agree and start pointing fingers at you but go ahead and criticise.
  - Awesomedonut 1y ago
    Not sure why this is downvoted, plenty of Canadians are very vocal and public with their criticism of Israel. There are protests regularly happening on the streets.
    - hggggggff 1y ago
      [flagged]
  - logicchains 1y ago
    In America you can lose your visa or government job for doing so.
- ulrashida 1y ago
  Why do you think Canadians are restricted from criticizing government?
  - logicchains 1y ago
    The premise of most of the comments here is that individuals in the Canadian government may use this new power to disconnect their critics from the internet.
globalnode 1y ago
If this was to become an actual law, that could ruin a persons life. what if they depended on the internet infrastructure for their work or profession. They'd literally have to leave Canada.
- opengrass 1y ago
  Not really. Use open and public WiFI with anonymizers, don't post on public social networks to incriminate yourself.
  - jjmarr 1y ago
    If you're technical enough to bypass the censorship, you'd just move to the USA and double your salary.
    - opengrass 1y ago
      Is that all it takes? Joe Shmoe VPN, maybe Tailscale for your manager's sanity?
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
clickety_clack 1y ago
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.
- bawolff 1y ago
  This law does not cite the notwithstanding clause, so nothing has been waived away. The federal government has never once invoked the notwithstanding clause. Furthermore, the notwithstanding clause only allows overriding some rights. It does not override the entire constitution.
  - int_19h 1y ago
    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, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. Right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure. Right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned. Right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment. Right to equality before and under the law and right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
    - bawolff 1y ago
      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 american system having more absolute garuntees on paper.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
billy99k 1y ago
[flagged]
- gilbetron 1y ago
  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.
  - IG_Semmelweiss 1y ago
    A leftist promotes healthy debate, in an open forum, handing far-right advocates the microphone. Then that leftist is killed by a far-right assassin. Wake me up when that happens. Pigs might just fly.
waltercool 1y ago
[dead]
alexandre_m 1y ago
> public safety minister defended Bill C-8 as a means to crack down on hackers and ransomware fraudsters That kind of threat mostly comes from overseas anyway, so this doesn’t actually solve any real problems. Case in point: the recent Salt Typhoon incident (spoiler: it was China) https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/salt-typhoon-canada-cyber-security-1.7625122 https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/salt-typhoon-canada-cyber-s... Just another authoritarian attempt by the Liberal government.
btbuildem 1y ago
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 largest issue is the cultural influence and political meddling affected by the increasingly hostile state - Canada's southern neighbour. A much better defence would be to quarantine or outright block access to the large social media platforms, and make space for homegrown alternatives. On balance, these players do more harm than good, and they're massive vectors for foreign political interference.
- dmitrygr 1y ago
  > I can't figure out what the real motivation for this is. Can't you?
  - tim333 1y ago
    I can't either. Seems dumb. "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity". What do you think the motivation is?
    - account42 1y ago
      "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity" is so stupid that anyone still repeating it should be assumed to be malicious.
    - sethammons 1y ago
      Power. The ability to silence and isolate your enemies from within.
- gpm 1y ago
  I don't believe this is about disinformation at all. It's about not letting hostile state actors have an off switch for our infrastructure (only really relevant in wartime), or to be able to man in the middle it at will (relevant in both as an espionage tool). I.e. it's a cyber war measure not a propaganda war measure.
neilv 1y ago
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 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJEjrNB2iTA&t=40s )
- gpm 1y ago
  Hard to say without being a prophet. There's a non-zero chance we follow Trump/MAGA, but I would say its unlikely. My impression is that politically and culturally we have been becoming less welcoming to less well off immigrants. Since the motivation for this feels largely economic (and thoroughly pushed by foreign media and online trolls), economic hardship from losing the US trading relationship is likely to make it worse. I'd compare this more to the sort of anti-refugee sentiment you've seen in Europe for the last decade than what you're seeing in the US now. Of course being anti-refugee when its looking increasingly likely that our southern neighbour will somehow create a refugee crisis would be... unfortunate. American media has an outsized influence here. When they complain about, say, trans people, you see a loud echo of that here. What that means when American media seems to be increasingly bowing to Trump is... worrying but unclear. At the same time the baseline is much more accepting of differences, cultural or personal, than the US baseline. If I was trans I'd choose Canada over California every time, pre and post Trump.
  - neilv 1y ago
    Thank you. That's interesting about US media influence. Here's hoping that we all do well, and the current craziness calms down.
- tomhow 1y ago
  This kind of question could easily set off a flamewar filled with nationalistic and ideological rage. Let's not do this here.
  - neilv 1y ago
deadbabe 1y ago
I thought the US was bad but Canada is speed running a fully fascist government even faster.
- userbinator 1y ago
  In many ways, Canada is more similar to the UK than the US.
- aceofspades19 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - hunterpayne 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - SirSavary 1y ago
      Yes. Members of the National Guard have been deployed, and government officials have publicly stated their intent to deploy additional forces. From the Wikipedia page on the US National Guard [1]: > The National Guard is a state-based military force that becomes part of the U.S. military's reserve components of the U.S. Army and the U.S. Air Force when activated for federal missions. The National Guard constitutes military troops under federal activation. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Guard_(United_States) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Guard_(United_States)
    - aceofspades19 1y ago
      SirSavary's comment covered the military deployments so I will just say that there are numerous cases of the Trump administration deporting people without due process outside the country to places like CECOT where they are tortured. I don't think even the Trump administration denies these things. Here's one source you can read about it: https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/blog/men-deported-el-salvador-stories-investigation/ https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/blog/men-deported... Here's a source on torture in CECOT: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cgq7nxkpkp4o https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cgq7nxkpkp4o But feel free to look up the cases listed in the articles and research them yourself.
umrashrf 1y ago
And Canada wants companies to stay in Canada duh
Jalad 1y ago
What's a good organization to donate to which would oppose this?
- SequoiaHope 1y ago
  I assume the EFF?
  - gpm 1y ago
    Does the EFF do any Canadian advocacy?
    - zzo38computer 1y ago
      That was my question too, and I did not see any as far as I remember, so I don't know.
- walterbell 1y ago
  In Canada, OpenMedia is one org, https://action.openmedia.org/page/177914/action/ https://action.openmedia.org/page/177914/action/ | https://action.openmedia.org/page/73972/donate/ https://action.openmedia.org/page/73972/donate/ When Bill C-26 was introduced, OpenMedia and our partners in civil society.. unpacked what the bill meant for Canadians, raised the alarm about its risks, and put forward practical recommendations to improve cybersecurity without compromising privacy. Civil liberties groups, academics, and experts joined us in calling for change. While a few of our fixes were adopted, most were ignored. Those unfinished issues now carry over into Bill C-8.. This campaign is about restarting the national conversation on cybersecurity and privacy. If we push harder this time, we can shape Bill C-8 into the law Canadians want and deserve. This comment mentions CCLA, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45511581 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45511581
tamimio 1y ago
> crack down on hackers and ransomware fraudsters. What kind of justification is this?! Seriously, do they think people are 6-year-old toddlers that all you have to say is "Oooo bad guys out there!!" and they will just magically believe everything you say after?! This is mockery, an insult to people's intelligence at best, and a fucking dystopian one mixed with digital ID at worst. Also, are they gonna ban satellite based internet after? Clowns.
dmitrygr 1y ago
I support banning people from accessing the internet for safety AFTER the government completes banning people who are a physical danger from accessing the public physically. After all the dangerous criminals are in jails or asylums (those who cannot stand trial by definition cannot be free as they cannot answer for harm they do), we can talk about this nonsense.
p1dda 1y ago
Canada, Australia, Great Britain: all disgusting Marxist, totalitarian, censoring hell holes that nobody should ever visit
KurSix 1y ago
The justification is, of course, “national security,” but as always, the scope is vague enough to be stretched into whatever shape the government finds convenient... Sorry... yet this kind of legislation should send a chill down anyone’s spine, regardless of where you fall politically
stinkbeetle 1y ago
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 history of humanity, and only achieved by a few peoples. Those at the top have always considered it a violation of their right to rule, and they've never stopped working to take back what they believe was stolen from them. Sadly I think they're going to eventually win, and the light will go out.
- tvier 1y ago
  The power given to the masses vs the ruling class is always in flux. The light may go out, but it won't be forever. I'm also hopeful that the requirement for a well educated workforce will nudge societies towards more freedom than the historical norm.
  - stinkbeetle 1y ago
    > The power given to the masses vs the ruling class is always in flux. The light may go out, but it won't be forever. Impossible to be so sure. > I'm also hopeful that the requirement for a well educated workforce will nudge societies towards more freedom than the historical norm. "The educated" have been among the most susceptible to authoritarian tendencies and propaganda, so I would not be too hopeful of that. https://jacobin.com/2022/10/chahla-chafiq-iranian-left-khomeini-protests-feminism https://jacobin.com/2022/10/chahla-chafiq-iranian-left-khome... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Guards https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Guards https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/pot_pol.shtml https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/pot_pol.shtml Also there have been demonstrated to be other ways around the problem of educated population. Divide them against other classes of the population for example. Or subsidize and encourage non-productive people. And even if everyone was educated and wanted better, how would they ever vote for more individual rights and freedoms if the suppression of those rights is the only thing keeping them safe from other groups in their country?
kazinator 1y ago
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 1y ago
  [deleted]
werdl 1y ago
It is concerning how internet censorship seems to be increasing, even in socially liberal developed countries (UK, Australia, US and now Canada)...
logicallee 1y ago
Here is a picture of ten dropped calls I had yesterday: https://ibb.co/bj7CYt3t https://ibb.co/bj7CYt3t My wife has been trying to reach me for a while as well.
johnnienaked 1y ago
Out with a whimper
zarzavat 1y ago
Compared to the 90s, all the systems that existed to live without the internet have disappeared or been degraded. There are no more paper phone books or phone booths for example. If I want to apply for various government services I have to do so online, in the 90s there were paper forms. I don't know how digitised the Canadian government is, but banning people from accessing the government is cruel.
- isaacremuant 1y ago
  You will not engage in wrongthink or else. You will not dissent effectively against the government.
b00ty4breakfast 1y ago
give a man a fish and feed him for a day give a man a fishing boat and you can threaten to take it away if he starts doing things you don't like.
- bregma 1y ago
  Set a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man afire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
codedokode 1y ago
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.
- xmcqdpt2 1y ago
  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.
codedokode 1y ago
I wonder if this bill allows accidentally by honest mistake to disconnect members of opposing party from the Internet before elections?
heavyset_go 1y ago
If you don't think they're going to use this to go after VPN users, that's just naive
surfingdino 1y ago
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.)
bparsons 1y ago
This Bill has been withdrawn and is being reintroduced without the controversial provisions.
parliament32 1y ago
I really don't get how this is supposed to be effective at all. Apart from the obvious examples of free wifi at Starbucks, the library, etc., I can walk down to 7-eleven and buy a prepaid SIM with a data plan with cash, today, no ID required. Not to mention, if I'm a master hacker who is a "threat", surely I can spend a few hours cracking my neighbour's WPA2 key. I suspect they want this purely as a punitive measure for people they don't like, kinda like the time they froze the bank accounts of vaccine passport protestors (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-60383385 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-60383385).
mnky9800n 1y ago
Some days I wish someone would take away internet access from me.
DiggyJohnson 1y ago
I genuinely don’t understand why a realistic actor in Canadian politics, intelligence, or private sector would be incentivized to advocate for this.

603 points by walterbell 1y ago

walterbell 1y ago

https://archive.is/1Vvqr https://archive.is/1Vvqr

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

incomingpain 1y ago

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 the wrong protest? Note how they seized the bank accounts of protestors and even an entire small bank only a few years ago.

HappySweeney 1y ago
While I agree with most of this and oppose this bill, your last two lines are a mischaracterization. There is judicial oversight, but only after the order is implemented. Second, the bank accounts seized did not belong to protestors, as the leaders of that siege were convicted of mischief, two of which are being sentenced today. In general, protests do not engage in torturing the local populace with 95db of air horn for 16 to 20 hours a day. The account seizure also required emergency powers.
- gruez 1y ago
  > There is judicial oversight, but only after the order is implemented In the sense that you can sue to have the order challenged? How's this different than what Trump's doing, where the government does something illegal (or at least legally dubious), and there's "judicial oversight" because aggrieved parties can sue the government? > Second, the bank accounts seized did not belong to protestors, as the leaders of that siege were convicted of mischief, two of which are being sentenced today. Were the bank accounts seized before or after the conviction?
  - HappySweeney 1y ago
    > In the sense that you can sue to have the order challenged? That's a good question. The article doesn't say and I haven't read the bill. > Were the bank accounts seized before or after the conviction? Before, of course. That was one of the justifications for invoking the emergency powers, and it wouldn't have been controversial otherwise. This is a digression, though, as there is no mention of any legislative changes to bank account seizures in the article.
    - incomingpain 1y ago
      >That's a good question. The article doesn't say and I haven't read the bill. How are your responding to me making affirmative comments that there's judicial oversight if you havent read the bill? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVTgGnNlfe8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVTgGnNlfe8
      - HappySweeney 1y ago
        It's in the article. I'm happy to read the bill and watch your linked video once my workday is over.
        incomingpain 1y ago
        >It's in the article. I'm happy to read the bill and watch your linked video once my workday is over. You misunderstand. After it's done, only then could you sue and get judicial review. But it's all in secrecy, so you dont know what or who you need to sue. So you cant get judicial review.
        kstenerud 1y ago
        Did it say that Telus/Rogers would be forbidden from telling you why they've terminated your account?
  - bawolff 1y ago
    > In the sense that you can sue to have the order challenged? How's this different than what Trump's doing, where the government does something illegal (or at least legally dubious), and there's "judicial oversight" because aggrieved parties can sue the government? Umm,that's how court systems work in general. You sue when someone wrongs you. I'm not sure how else it could possibly work. > Were the bank accounts seized before or after the conviction? This is a different topic, but there were 2 different bank account freezes. Some were frozen due to a contempt of court order (this didn't involve the government, a private citizen brought the lawsuit). The more controversial was the emergency powers seizure. Arguably the protestors were engaging in manifestly illegal conduct. Personally i think its akin to how you can arrest someone before conviction, but opinions vary. As far as i know, the bank accounts were only frozen while the protestors were engaging in illegal action and were released once the situation was resolved.
- digitalPhonix 1y ago
  > There is judicial oversight, but only after the order is implemented How would one find out information about the process, find a lawyer etc. without internet access?
  - halJordan 1y ago
    Why is this question somehow a non-sequitor? Many court proceedings are now mandatory zoom meetings. How do you participate in a zoom meeting when the state has barred you. It's a clear catch-22 and the refusal to address it beyond "thats not the intention" is beyond galling.
- joemazerino 1y ago
  If I am not mistaken, a court ruled those emergency powers were overreach.
- incomingpain 1y ago
  There is not judicial oversight. You never know there was an order. If you get into that scenario, you suspect the government cut you off, but you go to a lawyer and have literally nothing. The court will not take the case. >econd, the bank accounts seized did not belong to protestors, They seized hundreds of accounts; later had the banks terminate the bank accounts. In fact, not only protestors but people who donated to the protest got their bank accounts seized. >as the leaders of that siege were convicted of mischief, two of which are being sentenced today. Protesting the government, in front of parliament is mischief? Political prisoners. >n general, protests do not engage in torturing the local populace with 95db of air horn for 16 to 20 hours a day. The account seizure also required emergency powers. Which was found to be unconstitutional. But Bill C8 wont be abused by this same government? How about abuse in the future by other governments?
  - mulr00ney 1y ago
    > In fact, not only protestors but people who donated to the protest got their bank accounts seized. As far as I can tell accounts were frozen, not seized. Do you have a reference for donor accounts being seized? ref: https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/emergency-bank-measures-finance-committee-1.6360769 https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/emergency-bank-measures-fin...
    - incomingpain 1y ago
      >As far as I can tell accounts were frozen, not seized. Do you have a reference for donor accounts being seized? When it comes to civil rights like Section 8 of the charter. There's no such thing as 'frozen' They were searched, seized, and later returned. https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/td-bank-freezes-two-accounts-that-received-funds-support-canada-protests-2022-02-12/ https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/td-bank-freezes-two-a... You have to go back to figure out how the government knew what bank accounts to seize. They didnt go up to each person and ask to see their debit card. Police dont have a ready list of bank accounts to seize. The source of the seizures was the gofundme leak by a hacker. Who has since been arrested, convicted, and is in prison for a separate hacking incident. Canada gave him immunity to his crimes during freedom protest. They took the donor list and seized from there.
- busymom0 1y ago
  > The account seizure also required emergency powers. Court ruled the use of Emergencies Act against convoy protests was unreasonable, violated Charter: https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/emergencies-act-federal-court-1.7091891 https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/emergencies-act-federal-cou... > Second, the bank accounts seized did not belong to protestors Wrong. Many people whose accounts were frozen were family/friends who were not even at the protest. Court found: > The judge said the economic orders infringed on protesters' freedom of expression "as they were overbroad in their application to persons who wished to protest but were not engaged in activities likely to lead to a breach of the peace." He also concluded the economic orders violated protesters' Charter rights "by permitting unreasonable search and seizure of the financial information of designated persons and the freezing of their bank and credit card accounts."
- alexandre_m 1y ago
  Emergency powers which were deemed as unreasonable and violated the charter rights by admission of the Federal court. I can't believe that people are defending that. https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/trnsprnc/brfng-mtrls/prlmntry-bndrs/20240626/09-en.aspx https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/trnsprnc/brfng-mtrls/prlm...
- zahlman 1y ago
  > Second, the bank accounts seized did not belong to protestors, as the leaders of that siege were convicted of mischief, two of which are being sentenced today. "There were arrests, therefore this was not a valid protest" is a very dangerous argument to be making, and I furthermore strongly doubt that you would apply this standard consistently to causes you endorse.
goku12 1y ago
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 latter into the former. Democracy is fragile. Just electing a candidate periodically is not enough. It depends on the constant effort, vigil and activism from the citizens to safeguard it. It wont survive your apathy. As idealistic as it sounds, this burden is the true cost of living in a democracy. This is a harsh lesson that's recorded in history again and again. Always take legislation like this seriously and hold your representatives responsible for it. Let them know that their political career in your constituency is finished for good if they support such moves. Let their political party know that they're not winning your constituency again until the damage is reversed. There's no room for subtleties and pleasantries when they're clearly showing you that they don't value your autonomy or the checks and balances on their abuse of power.
- Atlas667 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - goku12 1y ago
    Is this about Canada or the US? Either way, you can either defend and demand for the democracy, or give up and stop claiming democracy altogether. This is a problem with democracies everywhere. I don't know about you, but I'm not too enthusiastic about a future that resembles the dark ages.
    - Atlas667 1y ago
      This applies to either. The democracy we need threatens those in power. What say does the average poor person in your town have? To endorse someone they cant control? To choose from amongst the few candidates that the big interests have developed and then cross their fingers?? Letting individuals control production creates a divided society, one of workers and one of owners. Where one has unequal leverage over the other but are supposed to (on paper) exist on the same democratic level. Mom and pop shops may come your mind, or someone who owns a franchise or small business, the truth is that even small business owners are nearly wholly beholden to large capital and huge finance capital. What say does a walmart employee have compared to the owners of walmart? While you were learning about what the hell the electoral college is, some others were being trained on how to lobby effectively. Mass democracy threatens the status quo almost entirely. There does not exist a party for the people. And if it were to exist it would be outlawed and threatened like they have been in the past. Would you suppress a peoples party if you had billions on the line?
morkalork 1y ago
Sounds about as opaque and infringing on rights as the no-fly list or anything else implemented post 9/11?
btbuildem 1y ago
[flagged]
- tomhow 1y ago
  > 2022 freedumb convoy Please avoid snarky tropes like this on HN. We're trying for something different here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

arresin 1y ago

[flagged]

ProllyInfamous 1y ago

As a middle-aged person voluntarily NOT using email/phone, I cannot even imagine being banned from the internet. How would you function?

walterbell 1y ago
Would this apply to traveller phones roaming on Canadian telco networks? What forms of digital identity could be used to enforce an internet kill switch / blockade for specific humans?
- ProllyInfamous 1y ago
  Great thought — see also: StarLinks
  - protocolture 1y ago
    Does Starlink in Canada use US Ground Stations? I suppose someone could register them just south of the border and smuggle one in. But Starlink tends to follow all laws in every jurisdiction they operate in, and registers as a carrier entity there. I doubt Starlink would refuse any legal obligations that risk losing access to a region.
  - dietr1ch 1y ago
    I doubt Starlink can somehow bypass Canadian law. It's the countries who rule and enforce the EM spectrum usage on their land, and countries are prepared to go to great extents in enforcing whatever rule they come up with.
gpm 1y ago
[flagged]
- zahlman 1y ago
  The consequence described by the National Post here is a clearly plausible consequence of a plain reading of the legal text presented. Advocates have been warning about this bill (and previous iterations and attempts at the same theme) for a long time. It's being opposed by all sorts of people, certainly not all Conservative party supporters, as is readily apparent with an appropriate Internet search. See for example https://ccla.org/privacy/fix-dangerous-flaws-in-federal-cybersecurity-proposal/ https://ccla.org/privacy/fix-dangerous-flaws-in-federal-cybe... from the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, and https://sencanada.ca/Content/Sen/Committee/441/SECD/briefs/2024-11-13_SECD_C-26_Brief_CCLA_e.pdf https://sencanada.ca/Content/Sen/Committee/441/SECD/briefs/2... their submission to the government regarding the previous attempt at the same thing.

zetanor 1y ago

> 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-reading 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?

neom 1y ago
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 the crown will in fact enforce parliamentary accountability. If this truly is a national security tool, these powers are less alarming than, say, those granted directly to an independent agency or to security services acting without crown/ministerial oversight.
- nick__m 1y ago
  I would agree with you if this clause was amended to remove the part after the coma: (6) Any order made under subsection (1) must be published in the Canada Gazette within 90 days after the day on which it is made, unless the Governor in Council directs otherwise in the order.
- mhurron 1y ago
  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.
  - 1y ago

nick__m 1y ago

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-reading 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 impact on the affected telecommunications service providers; (c) its effect on the provision of telecommunications services in Canada; and (d) any other factor that the Governor in Council considers relevant. ... No compensation (8) No one is entitled to any compensation from His Majesty in right of Canada for any financial losses resulting from the making of an order under subsection (1).

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
gpm 1y ago
[flagged]
- nick__m 1y ago
  I cited this because they are accountable only to the telecommunications cartel. (in Canada telecommunications services are a the facto cartel) The effects of the banishment on the target are not taken into account and there is no compensation possible if this power is wrongly used. That's why I cited this excerpt.
- dustbunny 1y ago
  National post is a respectable publication more akin to the Wall Street Journal. Canadian Breitbart is probably more like rebel news or epoch times.
  - 1y ago

Simulacra 1y ago

Sounds very much like a social credit scoring system

olalonde 1y ago
Which doesn't even exist.
- Simulacra 1y ago
  in America whereas in places like China, it very much exists. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Credit_System https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Credit_System
  - yibg 1y ago
    How's the Chinese system different from the American credit score?
    - aianus 1y ago
      Being an asshole doesn't harm your credit score unless it causes financial damages that you don't pay back.
      - yibg 1y ago
        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.
        olalonde 1y ago
        You are correct.
  - olalonde 1y ago
    Having lived in China since 2008 with a Chinese wife, I can confidently say the "social credit score" system often portrayed in the West is a myth and Western propaganda. What actually exists are standard financial credit scores, similar to those in the US or Europe, used for things like bank loans and mortgages.

thinkingkong 1y ago

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 are already illegal. Safety and security mechanisms already exist. We dont need additional, punitive, and opaque laws that can be abused.

themafia 1y ago
Politicians seem to enjoy corruption. It benefits them directly. They really do hate anyone who points out their hypocrisy or makes fun of them. It challenges their corrupt kickbacks directly. I think it's easy to make a prediction of actual use cases here.
- pavel_lishin 1y ago
  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.
  - gpm 1y ago
    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 money or we won't let ISPs buy equipment from you". There's just no evidence that is why it is being passed.
    - txrx0000 1y ago
      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.

hn_throw_bs 1y ago

[flagged]

nick__m 1y ago
I am to and I oppose this! Might I ask why are you supporting this ?
- whatsupdog 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - steve_adams_86 1y ago
    There's no information to work with here which suggests that's the case, here or in their comment history.
8note 1y ago
im fine with the government having this power, but it should go with invoking the notwithstanding claude every time, so it gets the proper level of oversight by canadians. im not fine with another 20 canadians being kicked out of society every day, especially when there isnt even mail service. im not in favour of forcing all companies and apps and whathaveyou to implement these checks
ImJamal 1y ago
Are you willing to be the first stripped from the internet?
- hn_throw_bs 1y ago
  I have been banned from so many online forums/discussion boards for having a contrarian viewpoint that I’m practically stripped from the internet to begin with. Things like these will just force people to be passive consumers who can’t voice their opinions, so from my perspective nothing changes. Special thanks to dang for banning me about ~30 times and shadow banning me another 50. Doing the good Lord’s work.

txrx0000 1y ago

This is worse than the EU's ChatControl, or the UK's Online Safety Act. This will pave the way for total online censorship and surveillance in Canada. The Canadian government will be able to target any user or service provider it doesn't like, silently. They don't even have to pass laws to ban VPNs or read private chat messages or enforce identity verification, or whatever other unambitious attempts other governments are making. This will do it all: Knock knock, it's the Chinadian government. You host a web service that uses encryption? Great. Now provide a backdoor for us or we'll ban you. Oh and don't tell your users. We'll ban you for that too. --- Hello user, we noticed that you've shared some concerning information online, and you're also using this E2EE chat service that we can't monitor. A friendly reminder from the government: continuing to use such services and spreading such harmful information online may cause your Internet connection to malfunction.

arandr0x 1y ago
I'm finding it interesting (after spending time in the EU where ChatControl is front and center in the news) that there's been this resurgence of interest in electronic surveillance and information warfare suddenly in countries that 10 years ago spent a significant amount of the news cycle decrying the US's NSA and China's internet police. What's changed?

steve_adams_86 1y ago

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 bars anyone from knowing why they were excluded from accessing the internet? It even prevents wrongfully excluded individuals from receiving compensation. For example, I could be cut off from the internet which I need to do my job. Say I'm unable to work for a week or two and then it's determined that I can access the internet because an error was made... Well, as far as I can tell, I'd be SOL. That doesn't seem right... Worse still is that this seems about as technically competent as using an IP address to determine a person's location. Any serious threat vector, human or otherwise, will find other ways to access the internet or perpetuate their threat if they care to. If they're a serious threat, why wouldn't prison be a better solution than... Calling their ISP and banning them from the internet? All of this seems very short-sighted, undemocratic, and naive. And while the 'human or otherwise' phrase I used might seem odd (I know someone's dog isn't shit-posting on X), what I mean to say is something like... What if an LLM is posting from an unsuspecting person's computer and was placed there as a virus? Once it's cut off from that poor person's computer, it's very likely it will eventually or already be functioning from some other unsuspecting person's computer, server, or whatever other device. Their toaster. My point is that we live in an age where there are non-human agents causing harm online. The machine they operate from will not always be OpenAI's or Anthropics, and indeed, will probably rarely be so. This was already the case with human actors, but it made much worse with the advent of AI-based agents.

BLKNSLVR 1y ago
> 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 as another. The problem is that it enables Trump further by allowing him to point at their decisions as similar examples to his own, as justification. I'm only using Trump since he seems to be the one willing to push boundaries the furthest, so if supposedly "more democratic" leaders are pushing such boundaries, then Trump will... Trump them.

rock_artist 1y ago

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 actors.

walterbell 1y ago
> Canadian telecommunication is almost a duopoly Nortel, never forget
ipnon 1y ago
In China you expect this because you get 5% GDP growth every year, housing that actually gets more affordable, government-subsidized growth industries and jobs. In Canada you get all the totalitarianism with GDP growth less than inflation, skyrocketing housing, and a zip line directly from Waterloo to Market Street.
tdb7893 1y ago
So it has been on the upswing recently but my understanding is that in the US we have been doing pretty much as much surveillance as technology (and also generally the 4th amendment) practically allows since at least WWII, and especially during the Cold War. Many law abiding people opposed to government policy (e.g. civil rights leaders or anti-war activists) have always been surveilled with dubious cause. This isn't the best wiki article I've ever seen but it has some examples of the US surveillance over the last century. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_surveillance_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_surveillance_in_the_Unite...
- trollbridge 1y ago
  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 identify themselves (with different names than they’d been using), they complied, and ICE drove off with them after detaining them. I asked “Did they have their mobile phones with them?” “Yes.” People literally are carrying around a tracking device, voluntarily, with apps installed on them, voluntarily, that report their location to government authorities who want to detain them.

ARandomerDude 1y ago

Do you criticize the government too much? You're now a "specified person". Sure, the court may overturn the decision eventually, but for the next 3 years your life is ruined. This is the COVID trucker protest response playbook, now applied to the internet. If you think but I don't like the COVID truckers, well that's fine for now. Wait until there is something you vehemently disagree with the government about. Freedom of speech must be protected, regardless of how much you like the content or the speaker. ETA: What might be the justification for censorship in this bill? The telecom network is critical infrastructure. You're spreading mis/dis/mal-information, according to the government. Therefore you are harming the integrity of the telecom network.

FlyingBears 1y ago

C11 and this bill makes me think about what situations does the government need this sort of "weaponry"? I think the plausible answer is war.

petermcneeley 1y ago
Is it plausible? I wouldnt give these people the benefit of the doubt. In Canada we also have the emergency powers ... so if we had a war we would already have the "weaponry".
- gpm 1y ago
  Emergency powers don't give you ability to unwind time and not buy Huawei equipment in the past. This bill appears to almost entirely be about allowing the government to exercise control over the telecommunications supply chain... which is certainly necessary if you want the ability to defend yourself against people who would otherwise be in that supply chain.
  - petermcneeley 1y ago
    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?
    - gpm 1y ago
      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 remove, services the telecoms provide to a person. I agree I wish there were more limits on the secrecy portion.

thmsths 1y ago

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".

BJones12 1y ago
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.
- Spivak 1y ago
  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?
  - zmgsabst 1y ago
    They call themselves Liberals because co-opting a party is easier than starting one and because it’s useful that people think they’re liberal. But a label doesn’t necessarily match reality — just like North Korea isn’t a democratic republic. A lot of people have trouble with that concept, eg, thinking that a party called “Liberals” believes in liberal governance.
  - hunterpayne 1y ago
    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.

pavel_lishin 1y ago

> In the House of Commons last week, Anandasangaree, the public safety minister defended Bill C-8 as a means to crack down on hackers and ransomware fraudsters. > “Malicious cyber-actors are breaching our country’s IT systems, accessing sensitive information and putting lives in danger,” he said. > Anandasangaree added that “hostile state actors are stealing information and gaining access to systems that are critical to our national security and public safety.” ... and these hostile state actors are doing this from their checks notes home in Ottawa, using a Rogers internet connection they're paying for?

logicchains 1y ago

Americans like to say the first amendment relies on the second amendment, or as Mao Zedong put it, political power grows from the barrel of a gun. When I was younger I thought it was exaggerated, but now it seems like there really are fewer and fewer countries where you can criticise your government online without facing legal repercussions. If things continue at the current rate, in 5-10 years America might be the only English-speaking country with freedom of speech (as long as you don't criticise Israel).

hagbard_c 1y ago
> as long as you don't criticise Israel Eh? You can criticise Israel all you want. Some people might not agree and start pointing fingers at you but go ahead and criticise.
- Awesomedonut 1y ago
  Not sure why this is downvoted, plenty of Canadians are very vocal and public with their criticism of Israel. There are protests regularly happening on the streets.
  - hggggggff 1y ago
    [flagged]
- logicchains 1y ago
  In America you can lose your visa or government job for doing so.
ulrashida 1y ago
Why do you think Canadians are restricted from criticizing government?
- logicchains 1y ago
  The premise of most of the comments here is that individuals in the Canadian government may use this new power to disconnect their critics from the internet.

globalnode 1y ago

If this was to become an actual law, that could ruin a persons life. what if they depended on the internet infrastructure for their work or profession. They'd literally have to leave Canada.

opengrass 1y ago
Not really. Use open and public WiFI with anonymizers, don't post on public social networks to incriminate yourself.
- jjmarr 1y ago
  If you're technical enough to bypass the censorship, you'd just move to the USA and double your salary.
  - opengrass 1y ago
    Is that all it takes? Joe Shmoe VPN, maybe Tailscale for your manager's sanity?
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

clickety_clack 1y ago

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.

bawolff 1y ago
This law does not cite the notwithstanding clause, so nothing has been waived away. The federal government has never once invoked the notwithstanding clause. Furthermore, the notwithstanding clause only allows overriding some rights. It does not override the entire constitution.
- int_19h 1y ago
  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, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. Right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure. Right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned. Right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment. Right to equality before and under the law and right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
  - bawolff 1y ago
    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 american system having more absolute garuntees on paper.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

billy99k 1y ago

[flagged]

gilbetron 1y ago
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.
- IG_Semmelweiss 1y ago
  A leftist promotes healthy debate, in an open forum, handing far-right advocates the microphone. Then that leftist is killed by a far-right assassin. Wake me up when that happens. Pigs might just fly.

waltercool 1y ago

[dead]

alexandre_m 1y ago

> public safety minister defended Bill C-8 as a means to crack down on hackers and ransomware fraudsters That kind of threat mostly comes from overseas anyway, so this doesn’t actually solve any real problems. Case in point: the recent Salt Typhoon incident (spoiler: it was China) https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/salt-typhoon-canada-cyber-security-1.7625122 https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/salt-typhoon-canada-cyber-s... Just another authoritarian attempt by the Liberal government.

btbuildem 1y ago

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 largest issue is the cultural influence and political meddling affected by the increasingly hostile state - Canada's southern neighbour. A much better defence would be to quarantine or outright block access to the large social media platforms, and make space for homegrown alternatives. On balance, these players do more harm than good, and they're massive vectors for foreign political interference.

dmitrygr 1y ago
> I can't figure out what the real motivation for this is. Can't you?
- tim333 1y ago
  I can't either. Seems dumb. "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity". What do you think the motivation is?
  - account42 1y ago
    "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity" is so stupid that anyone still repeating it should be assumed to be malicious.
  - sethammons 1y ago
    Power. The ability to silence and isolate your enemies from within.
gpm 1y ago
I don't believe this is about disinformation at all. It's about not letting hostile state actors have an off switch for our infrastructure (only really relevant in wartime), or to be able to man in the middle it at will (relevant in both as an espionage tool). I.e. it's a cyber war measure not a propaganda war measure.

neilv 1y ago

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 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJEjrNB2iTA&t=40s )

gpm 1y ago
Hard to say without being a prophet. There's a non-zero chance we follow Trump/MAGA, but I would say its unlikely. My impression is that politically and culturally we have been becoming less welcoming to less well off immigrants. Since the motivation for this feels largely economic (and thoroughly pushed by foreign media and online trolls), economic hardship from losing the US trading relationship is likely to make it worse. I'd compare this more to the sort of anti-refugee sentiment you've seen in Europe for the last decade than what you're seeing in the US now. Of course being anti-refugee when its looking increasingly likely that our southern neighbour will somehow create a refugee crisis would be... unfortunate. American media has an outsized influence here. When they complain about, say, trans people, you see a loud echo of that here. What that means when American media seems to be increasingly bowing to Trump is... worrying but unclear. At the same time the baseline is much more accepting of differences, cultural or personal, than the US baseline. If I was trans I'd choose Canada over California every time, pre and post Trump.
- neilv 1y ago
  Thank you. That's interesting about US media influence. Here's hoping that we all do well, and the current craziness calms down.
tomhow 1y ago
This kind of question could easily set off a flamewar filled with nationalistic and ideological rage. Let's not do this here.
- neilv 1y ago

deadbabe 1y ago

I thought the US was bad but Canada is speed running a fully fascist government even faster.

userbinator 1y ago
In many ways, Canada is more similar to the UK than the US.
aceofspades19 1y ago
[flagged]
- hunterpayne 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - SirSavary 1y ago
    Yes. Members of the National Guard have been deployed, and government officials have publicly stated their intent to deploy additional forces. From the Wikipedia page on the US National Guard [1]: > The National Guard is a state-based military force that becomes part of the U.S. military's reserve components of the U.S. Army and the U.S. Air Force when activated for federal missions. The National Guard constitutes military troops under federal activation. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Guard_(United_States) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Guard_(United_States)
  - aceofspades19 1y ago
    SirSavary's comment covered the military deployments so I will just say that there are numerous cases of the Trump administration deporting people without due process outside the country to places like CECOT where they are tortured. I don't think even the Trump administration denies these things. Here's one source you can read about it: https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/blog/men-deported-el-salvador-stories-investigation/ https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/blog/men-deported... Here's a source on torture in CECOT: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cgq7nxkpkp4o https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cgq7nxkpkp4o But feel free to look up the cases listed in the articles and research them yourself.

umrashrf 1y ago

And Canada wants companies to stay in Canada duh

Jalad 1y ago

What's a good organization to donate to which would oppose this?

SequoiaHope 1y ago
I assume the EFF?
- gpm 1y ago
  Does the EFF do any Canadian advocacy?
  - zzo38computer 1y ago
    That was my question too, and I did not see any as far as I remember, so I don't know.
walterbell 1y ago
In Canada, OpenMedia is one org, https://action.openmedia.org/page/177914/action/ https://action.openmedia.org/page/177914/action/ | https://action.openmedia.org/page/73972/donate/ https://action.openmedia.org/page/73972/donate/ When Bill C-26 was introduced, OpenMedia and our partners in civil society.. unpacked what the bill meant for Canadians, raised the alarm about its risks, and put forward practical recommendations to improve cybersecurity without compromising privacy. Civil liberties groups, academics, and experts joined us in calling for change. While a few of our fixes were adopted, most were ignored. Those unfinished issues now carry over into Bill C-8.. This campaign is about restarting the national conversation on cybersecurity and privacy. If we push harder this time, we can shape Bill C-8 into the law Canadians want and deserve. This comment mentions CCLA, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45511581 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45511581

tamimio 1y ago

> crack down on hackers and ransomware fraudsters. What kind of justification is this?! Seriously, do they think people are 6-year-old toddlers that all you have to say is "Oooo bad guys out there!!" and they will just magically believe everything you say after?! This is mockery, an insult to people's intelligence at best, and a fucking dystopian one mixed with digital ID at worst. Also, are they gonna ban satellite based internet after? Clowns.

dmitrygr 1y ago

I support banning people from accessing the internet for safety AFTER the government completes banning people who are a physical danger from accessing the public physically. After all the dangerous criminals are in jails or asylums (those who cannot stand trial by definition cannot be free as they cannot answer for harm they do), we can talk about this nonsense.

p1dda 1y ago

Canada, Australia, Great Britain: all disgusting Marxist, totalitarian, censoring hell holes that nobody should ever visit

KurSix 1y ago

The justification is, of course, “national security,” but as always, the scope is vague enough to be stretched into whatever shape the government finds convenient... Sorry... yet this kind of legislation should send a chill down anyone’s spine, regardless of where you fall politically

stinkbeetle 1y ago

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 history of humanity, and only achieved by a few peoples. Those at the top have always considered it a violation of their right to rule, and they've never stopped working to take back what they believe was stolen from them. Sadly I think they're going to eventually win, and the light will go out.

tvier 1y ago
The power given to the masses vs the ruling class is always in flux. The light may go out, but it won't be forever. I'm also hopeful that the requirement for a well educated workforce will nudge societies towards more freedom than the historical norm.
- stinkbeetle 1y ago
  > The power given to the masses vs the ruling class is always in flux. The light may go out, but it won't be forever. Impossible to be so sure. > I'm also hopeful that the requirement for a well educated workforce will nudge societies towards more freedom than the historical norm. "The educated" have been among the most susceptible to authoritarian tendencies and propaganda, so I would not be too hopeful of that. https://jacobin.com/2022/10/chahla-chafiq-iranian-left-khomeini-protests-feminism https://jacobin.com/2022/10/chahla-chafiq-iranian-left-khome... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Guards https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Guards https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/pot_pol.shtml https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/pot_pol.shtml Also there have been demonstrated to be other ways around the problem of educated population. Divide them against other classes of the population for example. Or subsidize and encourage non-productive people. And even if everyone was educated and wanted better, how would they ever vote for more individual rights and freedoms if the suppression of those rights is the only thing keeping them safe from other groups in their country?

kazinator 1y ago

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 1y ago
[deleted]

werdl 1y ago

It is concerning how internet censorship seems to be increasing, even in socially liberal developed countries (UK, Australia, US and now Canada)...

logicallee 1y ago

Here is a picture of ten dropped calls I had yesterday: https://ibb.co/bj7CYt3t https://ibb.co/bj7CYt3t My wife has been trying to reach me for a while as well.

johnnienaked 1y ago

Out with a whimper

zarzavat 1y ago

Compared to the 90s, all the systems that existed to live without the internet have disappeared or been degraded. There are no more paper phone books or phone booths for example. If I want to apply for various government services I have to do so online, in the 90s there were paper forms. I don't know how digitised the Canadian government is, but banning people from accessing the government is cruel.

isaacremuant 1y ago
You will not engage in wrongthink or else. You will not dissent effectively against the government.

b00ty4breakfast 1y ago

give a man a fish and feed him for a day give a man a fishing boat and you can threaten to take it away if he starts doing things you don't like.

bregma 1y ago
Set a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man afire and he's warm for the rest of his life.

codedokode 1y ago

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.

xmcqdpt2 1y ago
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.

codedokode 1y ago

I wonder if this bill allows accidentally by honest mistake to disconnect members of opposing party from the Internet before elections?

heavyset_go 1y ago

If you don't think they're going to use this to go after VPN users, that's just naive

surfingdino 1y ago

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.)

bparsons 1y ago

This Bill has been withdrawn and is being reintroduced without the controversial provisions.

parliament32 1y ago

I really don't get how this is supposed to be effective at all. Apart from the obvious examples of free wifi at Starbucks, the library, etc., I can walk down to 7-eleven and buy a prepaid SIM with a data plan with cash, today, no ID required. Not to mention, if I'm a master hacker who is a "threat", surely I can spend a few hours cracking my neighbour's WPA2 key. I suspect they want this purely as a punitive measure for people they don't like, kinda like the time they froze the bank accounts of vaccine passport protestors (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-60383385 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-60383385).

mnky9800n 1y ago

Some days I wish someone would take away internet access from me.

DiggyJohnson 1y ago

I genuinely don’t understand why a realistic actor in Canadian politics, intelligence, or private sector would be incentivized to advocate for this.