Canada internet survelliance bill

[aimeeandbeatles]

I saw something in the newspaper today about something in Canada about political people using Twitter about a surveillance bill and somebody got divorced over it and I think it mentioned Wikipedia. I lost the paper so I'm not sure. However I looked on Google News and saw a lot of stuff and I don't know what is a good place to start. What do you people know about this. Why do the Conservatives favor gun owners over internet users? That's what the newspaper said. The article was sort of hard to understand.

 

[Azash]

I saw something in the newspaper today about something in Canada about political people using Twitter about a surveillance bill and somebody got divorced over it and I think it mentioned Wikipedia. I lost the paper so I'm not sure. However I looked on Google News and saw a lot of stuff and I don't know what is a good place to start. What do you people know about this. Why do the Conservatives favor gun owners over internet users? That's what the newspaper said. The article was sort of hard to understand.

 

[bhsup]

Aimee, was this the article you are referring to?

http://www.reddeeradvocate.com/news...gun_owners_over_internet_users_139539158.html

Clement denies Tories favour gun owners over internet users

TORONTO — A Conservative cabinet minister swept aside accusations Friday that the government values long-gun owners over web users.

Critics have blasted Ottawa over a new online surveillance bill they argue would compromise Internet users’ privacy.

Many pointed out the Tories scrapped the gun registry in part because of concerns that it violated the privacy rights of lawful gun owners.

But Tony Clement defended the government’s record on privacy Friday, saying in both cases, officials aimed to “protect society better.”

 

[History_Buff]

It's Bill C-30. It would essentially force ISPs to collect user data so it could be used for investigations. This information would be available to authorities without them needing warrants.

Most people oppose it for obvious reasons, the ISPs are opposed because they don't want to pay for it, the judicial system suggests that it's probably not constitutional, but the government pushes on. The minister of Justice (Vic Toews) famously remarked that you either stand with this bill, or you stand with child pornographers.

In response, someone (we don't know who yet, but apparently a Parliamentarian of some sort) has been releasing information about Vic Toews' divorce proceedings on Twitter. Last I heard the government was accusing an opposition MP of doing so, but I don't think there's any evidence to suggest that at the moment.

 

[Bugfatty300]

In response, someone (we don't know who yet, but apparently a Parliamentarian of some sort) has been releasing information about Vic Toews' divorce proceedings on Twitter. .

Serves him right.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

It's Bill C-30. It would essentially force ISPs to collect user data so it could be used for investigations. This information would be available to authorities without them needing warrants.

Most people oppose it for obvious reasons, the ISPs are opposed because they don't want to pay for it, the judicial system suggests that it's probably not constitutional, but the government pushes on. The minister of Justice (Vic Toews) famously remarked that you either stand with this bill, or you stand with child pornographers.

In response, someone (we don't know who yet, but apparently a Parliamentarian of some sort) has been releasing information about Vic Toews' divorce proceedings on Twitter. Last I heard the government was accusing an opposition MP of doing so, but I don't think there's any evidence to suggest that at the moment.

I salute whoever posted Toews' information on Twitter. Nothing they posted was anything that's not already a matter of public record, although some people certainly didn't know about his divorce that apparently involved having sex with the babysitter (not sure what that's about).

I've written here about my Amazon Mechanical Turk work where one day I was supposed to be categorizing blogs and ended up on a website with some horrible photos of children as young as THREE being forced to perform sex acts on adult males. I value my privacy, but I am certainly NOT in favor of this sort of thing on the 'Net or anywhere else. I wrote to Toews a few days ago and asked him why he and the RCMP aren't doing more to educate the public as to what we can do to report such things during the course of our law-abiding use of the internet. No answer yet, nor do I expect to get one at this point, since his parliamentary office never even sent an automated reply of "we got your email."

This jerk insulted the vast majority of Canadian internet users, and still refuses to apologize. And this bill has nothing to do with catching child pornographers anyway. There's basically nothing in it that even mentions this.

The CBC comment pages make lively reading; my own comment is on page 3 (if you set it to 50 comments/page, from first to last):

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/02/16/toews-twitter-attack-house-of-commons.html

My comments:

I sent a politely-worded email to Mr. Toews, expressing my opinion of his comments. I asked a couple of questions as to why he and the RCMP aren't actively teaching us law-abiding Canadians how to report *genuine* child pornographers we might encounter online.

I have so far not received even an automated "we received your email" acknowledgment from his office. At least when I email my local MP I get an automated reply (never any follow up, but then I don't really expect much from him anyway, since he couldn't be bothered to show up for the election forums).

Come on, Mr. Toews... show more responsibility than an MP who is locally represented by a potted plant!

CBC has an "agree/disagree" system; my comment has so far garnered 76 "agrees" and only 1 "disagree".

The accusation that the NDP is behind the Twitter posts is completely unfounded, and something that minister would never dare repeat outside of Parliament, since he is immune from being sued in the House, but accountable for what he says outside. What a coward.

And in tonight's newsfeed, Toews is claiming he didn't really know what is in this bill: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/02/18/pol-thehouse-vic-toews.html

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

Aimee, was this the article you are referring to?

http://www.reddeeradvocate.com/news...gun_owners_over_internet_users_139539158.html

Yes it was very similiar to that. It also mentioned Wikipedia edits.

 

[emzie]

It's Bill C-30. It would essentially force ISPs to collect user data so it could be used for investigations. This information would be available to authorities without them needing warrants.

Most people oppose it for obvious reasons, the ISPs are opposed because they don't want to pay for it, the judicial system suggests that it's probably not constitutional, but the government pushes on. The minister of Justice (Vic Toews) famously remarked that you either stand with this bill, or you stand with child pornographers.

In response, someone (we don't know who yet, but apparently a Parliamentarian of some sort) has been releasing information about Vic Toews' divorce proceedings on Twitter. Last I heard the government was accusing an opposition MP of doing so, but I don't think there's any evidence to suggest that at the moment.

When politicians claim stuff like this will combat child pornography, I know right away they're not qualified to write laws governing the internet.

 

[say1988]

When politicians claim stuff like this will combat child pornography, I know right away they're not qualified to write laws governing the internet.

But it will allow Toews to find out who is posting bad stuff about him.

 

[Azash]

I value my privacy, but I am certainly NOT in favor of this sort of thing on the 'Net or anywhere else.

Sorry to break it to you, but this won't affect child pornographers to any noticeable degree. More likely it will be used to track down copyright infringement.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

Sorry to break it to you, but this won't affect child pornographers to any noticeable degree. More likely it will be used to track down copyright infringement.

I dont want Canada to to become like the U.S. with all their lawsuits for a few million dollars over 24 songs (and lossy MP3s at that).

I wonder if this was made under U.S. pressure

 

[History_Buff]

Sorry to break it to you, but this won't affect child pornographers to any noticeable degree. More likely it will be used to track down copyright infringement.

Yeah, it pairs really well with C-11, which is essentially the DMCA for Canada. It does the formality of including fair use provisions, but then states that none of those provisions apply if any type of digital lock is applied; circumventing any digital lock, regardless of it's effectiveness, would become an offense.

Interestingly, it also includes a maximum $5000 indemnity per case for individuals. Personally, if the big producers got together, and offered online access to their libraries, at some reasonable bandwidth, I would pay $5000 for that.

I wonder if this was made under U.S. pressure

They were. US interests have been after the government to pass this kind of legislation for a while, but the Liberals wouldn't do it, and the Tories couldn't while they were in a minority (although they tried several times).

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

Arent the Tories now a majority? Looks like there is no way around it. Unless there are some reasonable ones who think it is a bad idea.

 

[Zelig]

Interestingly, it also includes a maximum $5000 indemnity per case for individuals. Personally, if the big producers got together, and offered online access to their libraries, at some reasonable bandwidth, I would pay $5000 for that.

Just talking about music, you can get pretty close to that, unlimited streaming/downloading can be had for $100/yr.

 

[History_Buff]

Just talking about music, you can get pretty close to that, unlimited streaming/downloading can be had for $100/yr.

Oh? Where from?

Arent the Tories now a majority? Looks like there is no way around it. Unless there are some reasonable ones who think it is a bad idea.

No, if it comes to a vote in the Commons it's essentially guaranteed to pass. Harper is all about party discipline. The real way to stop it is to do what Americans did for SOPA: at your representatives constantly. The goal being for the government to drop it, though I'm not sure they can really be dissuaded.

But at least we have the ISPs on our side.

 

[Zelig]

Oh? Where from?

I use Zune Pass, best other options in Canada are Rdio or Slacker. (Also Deezer looks solid, and was supposed to launch a few weeks ago in Canada, but apparently got delayed.)

 

[warpus]

Rdio is good, i use that. $5 a month. The one problem is that they don't have everything - like Tool for example.

 

[bombshoo]

Just read about this Vic Toews fellow on wikipedia. He seems pretty despicable.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Sorry to break it to you, but this won't affect child pornographers to any noticeable degree. More likely it will be used to track down copyright infringement.

I'm quite aware of that. The government doesn't give a damn about combating child pornographers - look at the way they almost never crack down on outfits like the Boy Scouts or the churches, or any other group that regularly abuses children (like the situation in B.C. over the Mormon girls being trafficked to the US to be "wives"). I only challenged Toews to do more to help the public fight child pornography - assuming that's what he REALLY is concerned about (which I don't believe he is).

I dont want Canada to to become like the U.S. with all their lawsuits for a few million dollars over 24 songs (and lossy MP3s at that).

I wonder if this was made under U.S. pressure

Of course it's under U.S. pressure. Every stupid decision Stephen Harper has made since his first minority government has been done to please the U.S. They want access to our natural resources, and all the private data about our citizens. And the recent article about Harper "fearing" Iran? Guess why he's so insistent on buying those fighter planes we don't need and can't afford. Somebody wants to attack Iran, and it's not us...

Arent the Tories now a majority? Looks like there is no way around it. Unless there are some reasonable ones who think it is a bad idea.

Aimee, the vast majority of "Tories" now in power are not really Tories. They are re-named Reform/Alliance members. And yes, there's a difference. There are honorable Tories (aka "Red Tories"), but none of those people would stand a chance of being elected nowadays. The REAL federal Conservative Party is extinct. I wish it were so provincially, as well (Alberta is having an election in a few weeks, and even though I'll vote either New Democrat or Liberal, depending on the local candidate and leader, it's a foregone conclusion that neither will stand a snowball's chance on the Sun of getting anywhere in Red Deer).

The only hope we have is for the government to be brought down on a confidence vote, and that is very unlikely to happen. The Tories have the numbers, and both the Liberals and NDP are essentially leaderless. They won't risk an election anytime soon, maybe not for a couple of years.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Seeing this photo on ICHC brought out my snark:

On Harper's recent trip to China, he made a deal where Canada gives the Chinese $10 million and we get a couple of pandas... temporarily, hence my title of this lol: "So I'm wrecking Canada... but hey, I rented some pandas from China!"