9 ms·

C-51 will undermine Canada’s businesses: Open letter from 60 business leaders

309 points by zawaideh 12y ago

MichaelGG 12y ago
This bill is idiotic. Some insane idiot goes and shoots up a building? Yeah, anti-terrorism laws will stop that! Harper is a disgrace to Canadians, and the immediate attention whoring he did after that little episode was embarrassing. No laws, short of banning cars and inspecting everyone, everywhere, all the time, is gonna stop people from driving cars into things or sneaking in a gun and shooting people. The only real antidote is to not have an abusive foreign policy like the US, and to educate people in rationality and stop treating mystical beliefs as something sacred. And even then, that isn't gonna really stop the really disconnected-from-reality folks. As a Canadian, I'm once again saddened by how far this government is falling.
- pyre 12y ago
  IIRC, much like the PATRIOT Act, Bill C-51 was around before the attack itself. The attack is just used as an excuse to muster the political backing to push it through.
  - higherpurpose 12y ago
    So far the recently passed Australian mass surveillance law was the most shameless/obvious power grab. But this Canadian one comes pretty close. It's pretty clear it's a coordinated effort between not just the 5 Eyes, but the 14 Eyes and even beyond that. Many countries are trying to push for such laws now to "normalize" mass surveillance and make it a defacto "right" of governments around the world. When you take a step back and think about it, it's even worse than having elected "governments" come up with this and try to push it. It's actually the non-elected secret spy agencies who are pushing for this in a very undemocratic way, as swiftly as possible, with no debate. Or if there has to be one they call something like this as the "balance" between privacy and (national) security. Taking away the rights you've already enjoyed for decades and have allowed the society to thrive in a democracy = balance.
    - derefr 12y ago
      Admittedly, given the technology those secret spy agencies have, the people making policy decisions in each country are in kind of a weird place: every country but their own has a thorough picture of what their citizens are doing, and can use that information strategically against them. It seems like the only two real Nash equilibria here are the unilateral ban of foreign surveillance, or the unilateral grant of domestic surveillance. Otherwise we're in an "only the criminals have guns" situation that's the worst of both.
- istvan__ 12y ago
  To be fair it is not specific to Canada, USA and Australia does the same, also at some extent New Zealand started to walk to the wrong direction. I suspect some influence from US friends.
  - moonshinefe 12y ago
    "friends"
  - happyscrappy 12y ago
    Apparently no country is responsible for its own actions, everything is the fault of the Americans. That attitude reinforces US power.
    - badloginagain 12y ago
      Of course a country is responsible for its own actions, but no country flouts American pressure lightly. Aligning a countries interest to America's is often the lesser of all calculated evils.
      - happyscrappy 12y ago
        That may be true but absolving officials of responsibility only invites further transgressions.
    - chm 12y ago
      US Power is the best interest of all of the above nations.
- Fando 12y ago
  100% agreed.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
ngoldbaum 12y ago
For those of us not up to date on Canadian politics, does anyone want to briefly explain what C-51 is?
- redthrowaway 12y ago
  It gives our spy agencies additional powers to spy on Canadians. Think various sections of the USAPATRIOT Act.
- joe_developer 12y ago
  C-51 is a proposed anti-terror law that gives "secret police" powers (the ability for intelligence organizations to detain a suspect without charge for up to a week) and broad eavesdropping and surveillance powers without oversight (the traditional oversight body was dismantled a year ago).
  - dmix 12y ago
    In addition, it gives our version of NSA, the CSE, more powers to spy on people domestically - more accurately allowing CSE to share the information it is already collecting on Canadians with our domestic law enforcement agencies. So it will no longer simply be a foreign surveillance agency. It will allow police to take down “terrorist propaganda” online. It will create a secret no-fly list in Canada. It will allow our health agencies and our tax agency (CRA our version of the IRS) to share information with our federal police. Among others: http://www.michaelgeist.ca/2015/03/a-conversation-about-bill-c-51-how-the-anti-terrorism-bill-undermines-canadian-privacy/ http://www.michaelgeist.ca/2015/03/a-conversation-about-bill... It also includes plans to expand the amount of data-sharing with the NSA and other five eyes. So I'm sure the Americans are backing this bill too, which Harper is famous for appeasing.
    - steamy 12y ago
      So, the Parliament shooting was a false flag to take away the people's rights?
      - 12y ago
vishaldpatel 12y ago
I thought C-51 was defeated. Why is it back?
Rogerh91 12y ago
Bill C-51 is a lowering of standards for what can be considered terrorism in Canada. It extends the power to our domestic security agency to arrest people who "may" commit terrorism rather than "will"--what that means is a open question. It also establishes more powers to quell "terrorist propaganda", including the cited website takedown powers.
- joe_developer 12y ago
  It's much broader than that, "(f) interference with critical infrastructure;" which can be interpreted to mean First Nations protests that delay pipeline construction. I heard from a representative of the BC Civil Liberties Association that protestors have already been placed on no-fly lists.
  - hpyjshrvolu 12y ago
    It could also easily be interpreted to cover that kid accused of making too many connections to the Canadian tax agency's servers back when the heartbleed vulnerability was new. Computer monkeying could suddenly be tarred as terrorism, in addition to criminal nonsense; it was already hyperbole - I don't even know where to begin on C-51.
habitue 12y ago
I understand the reason the article is framed this way: "Suprise! Business interests are on the same side as privacy advocates on this issue!" But if the argument "this is bad for business" doesn't fly when someone wants to pollute, why is it a persuasive argument when the shoe is on the other foot and progressive interests are aligned with business interests? The real reason this person doesn't support the C-51 is because it's nasty big brother crap. Don't minimize the real reason by saying "There's a grown-up reason I'm against the bill: it's bad for business". Privacy is valuable by itself, whether or not it's good or bad for business.
- slavik81 12y ago
  > But if the argument "this is bad for business" doesn't fly when someone wants to pollute I think you'll find that it does, actually. As a country highly dependant on extracting primary resources, Canada's quite used to making tradeoffs between protecting the environment and making money.
  - habitue 12y ago
    Point taken. But I hope you'll agree that "it's bad for business" isn't a slam dunk argument even in Canada. Think about it this way: if the alignment were reversed, and this law was good for business, do you think anyone would try to fend off critics of C-51 by saying "But look how good for business it is!". This asymmetry indicates the real reasons the law is good or bad lie elsewhere.
- kijin 12y ago
  Many of the people who signed this letter probably believe that C-51 is bad for other, more fundamental reasons. But since corrupt politicians are more likely to listen to money than moral qualms, Canadian businesses are using "this is bad for business" as a tool to pressure them to do what is right. In other words, this is just a political maneuver to add weight to the opposition's argument. It is a clever maneuver, since it turns the Conservatives' usual emphasis on economic growth on its head. It's not a slam dunk argument, either, but it slightly increases the probability that C-51 will fail. Ideals are great, but in order to make a difference in the real messy world of politics, you often need to make temporary alliances with those who might have other motives. Even worse, you also sometimes need to manipulate bad people into unwittingly serving the greater good.
jayvanguard 12y ago
The mind boggles that Harper is trying to push this through in the wake of the NSA scandal.
- BrainInAJar 12y ago
  If the agency is doing something illegal, the obvious solution is to change the law so it's no longer illegal. Progress!
zingplex 12y ago
It is a shame to sit here and be able to watch Canada's demise, for when we pass these draconian laws that take away and restrict our freedoms, the terrorists that the government is trying to protect against, have won.
- twerquie 12y ago
  I've heard it said a thousand times, but it still bears repeating; terrorism is impossible to defend against.

309 points by zawaideh 12y ago

This bill is idiotic. Some insane idiot goes and shoots up a building? Yeah, anti-terrorism laws will stop that! Harper is a disgrace to Canadians, and the immediate attention whoring he did after that little episode was embarrassing. No laws, short of banning cars and inspecting everyone, everywhere, all the time, is gonna stop people from driving cars into things or sneaking in a gun and shooting people. The only real antidote is to not have an abusive foreign policy like the US, and to educate people in rationality and stop treating mystical beliefs as something sacred. And even then, that isn't gonna really stop the really disconnected-from-reality folks. As a Canadian, I'm once again saddened by how far this government is falling.

pyre 12y ago
IIRC, much like the PATRIOT Act, Bill C-51 was around before the attack itself. The attack is just used as an excuse to muster the political backing to push it through.
- higherpurpose 12y ago
  So far the recently passed Australian mass surveillance law was the most shameless/obvious power grab. But this Canadian one comes pretty close. It's pretty clear it's a coordinated effort between not just the 5 Eyes, but the 14 Eyes and even beyond that. Many countries are trying to push for such laws now to "normalize" mass surveillance and make it a defacto "right" of governments around the world. When you take a step back and think about it, it's even worse than having elected "governments" come up with this and try to push it. It's actually the non-elected secret spy agencies who are pushing for this in a very undemocratic way, as swiftly as possible, with no debate. Or if there has to be one they call something like this as the "balance" between privacy and (national) security. Taking away the rights you've already enjoyed for decades and have allowed the society to thrive in a democracy = balance.
  - derefr 12y ago
    Admittedly, given the technology those secret spy agencies have, the people making policy decisions in each country are in kind of a weird place: every country but their own has a thorough picture of what their citizens are doing, and can use that information strategically against them. It seems like the only two real Nash equilibria here are the unilateral ban of foreign surveillance, or the unilateral grant of domestic surveillance. Otherwise we're in an "only the criminals have guns" situation that's the worst of both.
istvan__ 12y ago
To be fair it is not specific to Canada, USA and Australia does the same, also at some extent New Zealand started to walk to the wrong direction. I suspect some influence from US friends.
- moonshinefe 12y ago
  "friends"
- happyscrappy 12y ago
  Apparently no country is responsible for its own actions, everything is the fault of the Americans. That attitude reinforces US power.
  - badloginagain 12y ago
    Of course a country is responsible for its own actions, but no country flouts American pressure lightly. Aligning a countries interest to America's is often the lesser of all calculated evils.
    - happyscrappy 12y ago
      That may be true but absolving officials of responsibility only invites further transgressions.
  - chm 12y ago
    US Power is the best interest of all of the above nations.
Fando 12y ago
100% agreed.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

ngoldbaum 12y ago

For those of us not up to date on Canadian politics, does anyone want to briefly explain what C-51 is?

redthrowaway 12y ago
It gives our spy agencies additional powers to spy on Canadians. Think various sections of the USAPATRIOT Act.
joe_developer 12y ago
C-51 is a proposed anti-terror law that gives "secret police" powers (the ability for intelligence organizations to detain a suspect without charge for up to a week) and broad eavesdropping and surveillance powers without oversight (the traditional oversight body was dismantled a year ago).
- dmix 12y ago
  In addition, it gives our version of NSA, the CSE, more powers to spy on people domestically - more accurately allowing CSE to share the information it is already collecting on Canadians with our domestic law enforcement agencies. So it will no longer simply be a foreign surveillance agency. It will allow police to take down “terrorist propaganda” online. It will create a secret no-fly list in Canada. It will allow our health agencies and our tax agency (CRA our version of the IRS) to share information with our federal police. Among others: http://www.michaelgeist.ca/2015/03/a-conversation-about-bill-c-51-how-the-anti-terrorism-bill-undermines-canadian-privacy/ http://www.michaelgeist.ca/2015/03/a-conversation-about-bill... It also includes plans to expand the amount of data-sharing with the NSA and other five eyes. So I'm sure the Americans are backing this bill too, which Harper is famous for appeasing.
  - steamy 12y ago
    So, the Parliament shooting was a false flag to take away the people's rights?
    - 12y ago

vishaldpatel 12y ago

I thought C-51 was defeated. Why is it back?

Rogerh91 12y ago

Bill C-51 is a lowering of standards for what can be considered terrorism in Canada. It extends the power to our domestic security agency to arrest people who "may" commit terrorism rather than "will"--what that means is a open question. It also establishes more powers to quell "terrorist propaganda", including the cited website takedown powers.

joe_developer 12y ago
It's much broader than that, "(f) interference with critical infrastructure;" which can be interpreted to mean First Nations protests that delay pipeline construction. I heard from a representative of the BC Civil Liberties Association that protestors have already been placed on no-fly lists.
- hpyjshrvolu 12y ago
  It could also easily be interpreted to cover that kid accused of making too many connections to the Canadian tax agency's servers back when the heartbleed vulnerability was new. Computer monkeying could suddenly be tarred as terrorism, in addition to criminal nonsense; it was already hyperbole - I don't even know where to begin on C-51.

habitue 12y ago

I understand the reason the article is framed this way: "Suprise! Business interests are on the same side as privacy advocates on this issue!" But if the argument "this is bad for business" doesn't fly when someone wants to pollute, why is it a persuasive argument when the shoe is on the other foot and progressive interests are aligned with business interests? The real reason this person doesn't support the C-51 is because it's nasty big brother crap. Don't minimize the real reason by saying "There's a grown-up reason I'm against the bill: it's bad for business". Privacy is valuable by itself, whether or not it's good or bad for business.

slavik81 12y ago
> But if the argument "this is bad for business" doesn't fly when someone wants to pollute I think you'll find that it does, actually. As a country highly dependant on extracting primary resources, Canada's quite used to making tradeoffs between protecting the environment and making money.
- habitue 12y ago
  Point taken. But I hope you'll agree that "it's bad for business" isn't a slam dunk argument even in Canada. Think about it this way: if the alignment were reversed, and this law was good for business, do you think anyone would try to fend off critics of C-51 by saying "But look how good for business it is!". This asymmetry indicates the real reasons the law is good or bad lie elsewhere.
kijin 12y ago
Many of the people who signed this letter probably believe that C-51 is bad for other, more fundamental reasons. But since corrupt politicians are more likely to listen to money than moral qualms, Canadian businesses are using "this is bad for business" as a tool to pressure them to do what is right. In other words, this is just a political maneuver to add weight to the opposition's argument. It is a clever maneuver, since it turns the Conservatives' usual emphasis on economic growth on its head. It's not a slam dunk argument, either, but it slightly increases the probability that C-51 will fail. Ideals are great, but in order to make a difference in the real messy world of politics, you often need to make temporary alliances with those who might have other motives. Even worse, you also sometimes need to manipulate bad people into unwittingly serving the greater good.

jayvanguard 12y ago

The mind boggles that Harper is trying to push this through in the wake of the NSA scandal.

BrainInAJar 12y ago
If the agency is doing something illegal, the obvious solution is to change the law so it's no longer illegal. Progress!

zingplex 12y ago

It is a shame to sit here and be able to watch Canada's demise, for when we pass these draconian laws that take away and restrict our freedoms, the terrorists that the government is trying to protect against, have won.

twerquie 12y ago
I've heard it said a thousand times, but it still bears repeating; terrorism is impossible to defend against.