4 ms·
As a middle-aged person voluntarily NOT using email/phone, I cannot even imagine being banned from the internet. How would you function?
by 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 agoWould 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 agoGreat thought — see also: StarLinks
- protocolture 1y agoDoes 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 agoI 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 agoThe 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.
- gpm 1y agoThe consequences described by the title are clearly not supported by a plain reading of the legal text by anyone who is remotely familiar with how to read legal text. Your links don't support the the claim in the title of the national post article. The CCLA is complaining that it would enable the government to make telecoms install backdoors, and otherwise violate privacy rules, not that the government could "strip internet access from specified individuals". I haven't read the bill closely enough to know if I agree with them on that, but a bill having a different issue doesn't justify the false headline by the national post that everyone is discussing here. (I have not read the contents of the national post article, as it is paywalled. So I can't comment on any other consequences actually described in the article).
- zahlman 1y ago> The consequences described by the title are clearly not supported by a plain reading of the legal text by anyone who is remotely familiar with how to read legal text. Many people ITT have already explained, including in direct replies to you, how they are.
- mminer237 1y agoHow else can you read "prohibit a telecommunications service provider from providing any service to any specified person"??