Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Canada Privacy The Almighty Buck News

Canadian Police Recommend Online Spying Tax For Internet Bills 110

An anonymous reader writes "One of the major unanswered questions about Bill C-30, Canada's lawful access/online surveillance bill, is who will pay for the costs associated with responding to law enforcement demands for subscriber information ('look ups') and installation of surveillance equipment ('hook ups'). Michael Geist recently obtained documents (PDF) from Public Safety under the Access to Information Act that indicates the government doesn't really have its own answer. But he reports that the police do — a new 'public safety' tax to be added to Internet and wireless bills."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Canadian Police Recommend Online Spying Tax For Internet Bills

Comments Filter:
  • who will pay? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nurb432 ( 527695 ) on Saturday March 17, 2012 @11:45AM (#39389455) Homepage Journal

    Its *always* the consumer. Be it from direct taxes and fees, or just passing the cost down from the companies, we, the consumer, always pay the cost.

    • Out government equals products and services offered at the barrel of a gun. They have a monopoly on it too, I can't think of very many monopolies where the price of service goes down and the quality goes up.
    • and instead of the government actually doing something productive with these fee's they just use this issue as an excuse to grow and grow.

    • Re: who will pay? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by ILongForDarkness ( 1134931 ) on Saturday March 17, 2012 @03:27PM (#39390717)

      While true I hate the continual addition of different types of taxes. It is horribly in efficient. Lets say the bill passes. Rather than add some revenue from existing taxes to pay for it (or the opposite: remove some unnecessary tax credits) they dream up another tax that than has to be collected, another dozen people get jobs doing nothing but making sure people pay this particular 0.1% of the governments revenue etc. Same thing with arguments for gambling as an alternative revenue source, horribly in efficient but sadly hidden tax everywhere distracts people from the total amount of their money that does to government.

    • by caseih ( 160668 )

      Exactly. Since this is Canada we're talking about here, we can talk about privatization (Canada has privatized things the US likely would never do, ironically). The same "who pays for it" thing happens when publicly-owned monopolies are privatized. Sure taxes can be reduced, but now we're paying for the service *and* profit. So in the end things end up costing a lot more all around.

      And finally, this principle is why corporate income taxes make very little sense. Corporations who sell consumer goods, for

  • Good, do it... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Fishead ( 658061 ) on Saturday March 17, 2012 @11:45AM (#39389459)

    Do it. That will make it a whole lot easier to drum up some outrage at the next election.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      That doesn't work the way you would think. Here in the US, our president is responsible for killing 200 Mexican civilians, arming Mexican drug lords, killing US citizens without trial or even arrainment, signing ACTA, embezzeling around $50 Billion given directly to campaign donors, trying to destroy one of the only industries that is actually creating jobs (oil), signed into law that you could eventually end up in jail for not buying what the government wants you to, hiding dangers of Chevy Volts randomly

      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward

        You could just be an anonymous troll, but I get a feeling you actually believe your own line of bull. If so, you probably never read any of the "liberal" blogs. Liberals do NOT like Obama. Liberals do not trust Obama. Liberals wish they had a candidate who kept his word and was actually a little liberal himself.

        Obama is a right-wing sell-out. He said all of the right things when he was running for the nomination and once elected, he sold out at the first opportunity.

        The big argument in Democratic and/or :O

      • Re:Good, do it... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by lexsird ( 1208192 ) on Saturday March 17, 2012 @06:32PM (#39391891)

        Let's say for sake of argument that this all true.

        He's by far the better candidate, still.

        Yes, it's all kinds of wrong, but what are the options? Republicans? Seriously? They have lost their minds. I used to be one. I didn't vote this last time for President because I was Republican and I couldn't vote for the shitbags they put up. The Bush Republicans all needed FIRED. It wasn't about voting for someone, it was about firing Republicans. How else do you think that a black man, with a name like Barrack Obama could get elected President? Holy shit, we would have elected a cartoon character over a Republican after Bush.

        Then it's like we collectively woke up from a drinking bender and said "we elected who??" In the wake of this, the Republicans have been trying to gain traction and with the help of Rightwing media outlets like Fox News, drop the blame from Bush's atrocities onto this President. It's one giant case of denial as they try to gloss over the fact that this party produced one of the worse Presidents in human history.

        Is Obama shitty? Yes. Do we have better options? No. We have even worse options, ones that will give you nightmares.

        We are a fragmented people with our heads up our collective ass. If we ever take politics as seriously as we do sports or fashion then we might have a chance of making the correct choices for our democracy. But that isn't going to happen, we are fucking retarded collectively and will continue to be fed shit sandwiches by the powers that be until we snap and burn it all to the ground.

      • by m1xram ( 1595991 )
        Ignore all that stuff and VOTE OBAMA.
    • by Nemyst ( 1383049 )

      And then what? Do you think the Liberals will go against it? Do you think the NDP will get elected without Layton at the helm?

      If this gets implemented, I'm afraid we'll be stuck with it for a long, long time.

  • Soon ... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by PPH ( 736903 ) on Saturday March 17, 2012 @11:56AM (#39389541)

    ... they will make you pay for the bullet at your own execution.

    • Re:Soon ... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by someone1234 ( 830754 ) on Saturday March 17, 2012 @12:00PM (#39389563)

      I don't understand you. Government bullets were always bought on taxpayer money.

      • by Anonymous Coward

        What if a person was given death punishment for tax evasion?
        And I doubt serial killers would pay taxes where possible to skip them

      • by Anonymous Coward

        In China, the government charge the family for the cost of the bullet(s) they use in execution. That's probably what it was referring to.

      • by Anonymous Coward

        Not true! In China, a person is executed by firing a bullet into the back of the head. His (or her) family is billed for all execution costs including the bullet.

  • F^&$^$^$& YOU. I am not going to pay.
  • by HeavyDDuty ( 2506392 ) on Saturday March 17, 2012 @11:57AM (#39389549)
    The police are an economical scam. With normal goods and services, supply and demand dictates spending. Well we here in Canada are experiencing the lowest crime rates since forever. Police know this and steadfastly refuse or make it nigh impossible to report or prosecute thieves and burglars (think break-ins) to skew crime statistics as best as possible It happened to me, a neighbour, and a grandmother. All separate incidents. So when have we EVER seen any significant cut to police services when demand (crime is at an all-time low)? Never. Frankly, what the police fail to realize is, if everything really went to plan, their reward for doing a excellent/perfect job would be a pink slip. Instead, we have them entrenching. And asking for more monies in new and trend setting ways. They have a budget. Now they want an ISP tax. Smells like MPAA and RIAA. This whole thing stinks. [sorry for ranting].
    • mafia style protection racket... cops are bigger criminals than the ones in prison
    • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 17, 2012 @12:08PM (#39389615)

      the occupy movement got their mantra wrong.

      government spending is nuts, especially in bc. now they want more money, and want to screw those that deserve a bit more. my wage has steadily declined since 1992 to the point where i can't even afford cable and internet, let alone desire it. hell, gas is getting harder to buy.

      government entities are the first to give themselves a fat raise on a whim. icbc, translink, bc ferries, the mlas themselves. all got huge or multiple raises in recent years. and our taxes go up.

      now the cops, who do jack shit but hand out road tax speeding tickets, want a tax on the internet?

      screw that. DO MORE WITH LESS. i have to.


      • I couldnt agree more. Why the hell would we have to bear more taxes so the govt can fucking SPY ON US. I AM NOT A CRIMINAL AND I DO NOT want to pay MORE TAXES just so the govt can SPY on us. This bill stinks of 1984 and totalitarianism, and I want it dead!

        Also please go make yourselves useful RCMP and bust some more speeders, cellphone talking drivers and stoners, since those are theworst crimes you seem capable of stopping. Actually dont bother, lets slash the RCMPs budget and put the money towards heathca

      • by Wildclaw ( 15718 ) on Saturday March 17, 2012 @04:13PM (#39390977)

        Government spending as a total is actually to low. It is how you keep people unemployed in a fiat economy (in a non-fiat economy you keep people unemployed by simply being rich and withholding the currency), so that corporations can buy slaves cheaper.

        That the government debt at the same time is high and rising is because the government is funneling money via both corrupt spending (as you mention) as well as a corrupt tax system that since the 1980s has been setup to allow the rich to slowly but surely drain money from the economy, hence forcing the government to inject more. (although as mentioned above, they deliberately inject less money than is needed to keep full employment rates)

        It is the simple goal of supply side economy and always has been. Unemployment for the poor and government paying rent to the rich, all in one nice package.

        And best of all. The left will defend the corrupt spending, while the right will defend the corrupt tax laws. It is the perfect fraud.

    • by the eric conspiracy ( 20178 ) on Saturday March 17, 2012 @12:42PM (#39389819)

      Your logic seems to be flawed.

      If a record low crime rate is due to the effectiveness of police, one would suspect that reducing the economic support for police would reduce their effectiveness, resulting in an increase in crime.

      So no you don't want to cut their budget if they are doing a good job.

      • by MacGyver2210 ( 1053110 ) on Saturday March 17, 2012 @02:10PM (#39390323)

        That's like saying "Just because there is no war on doesn't mean we should pull the soldiers back from the most recent battlefield. If they leave, surely the fighting will resume again!" It's flawed logic.

        The real problem facing everyone in North America right now is that there are TOO MANY LAWS. Eventually, the 'lawmakers' and 'amenders' of law will need to stop. Otherwise, it is an eternal cycle of creating more laws without ever losing them. How long do you think it will take until breathing in a certain area is illegal? Until every single thing we do is so regulated, that a step 6" too far to the right will land us a ticket or in jail?

        What we need is lawDESTROYERS, not lawmakers. The legal system in the US and Canada is completely overrun with trivial nonsense laws, and the current round of lawmakers is busy trying to find something to do. Instead of going back to reform clearly bogus laws which their constituents hate, they're trying to find the next hot topic for their fellow party campaigners.

        I wish they had built a big RESET button into the US Government. I would be pushing the SHIT out of it right now.

        • I wish they had built a big RESET button into the US Government. I would be pushing the SHIT out of it right now.

          There is one. It's called a convention to propose amendments to the United States Constitution []. If two-thirds (34) of the state legislatures call for a constitutional convention, then Congress is obligated to arrange for a national convention during which any arbitrary amendments to the constitution can be proposed (the legality of the "arbitrary" part is not entirely clear due to the lack of precedence). They do not go into effect unless ratified by 3/4th of the states, though. See also: Second Constitutio []

      • If a record low crime rate is due to the effectiveness of police

        It's not

      • You do know that "govt" spending is pretty much 100% going to private corps, right? Big govt is not your prob, despite what the corps making money off you tell you.
    • Is there any doubt now that police are our adversaries? I have felt this way for a long time, but it's coming to a head now in our own country.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Frankly, what the police fail to realize is, if everything really went to plan, their reward for doing a excellent/perfect job would be a pink slip.

      Sounds like that other unappreciated service sector:
      IT Support.

  • Wait, what? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by epp_b ( 944299 ) on Saturday March 17, 2012 @11:58AM (#39389557)
    So, they want to invade privacy in what should be an illegal manner and they want me to pay them to do it?
  • by ifwm ( 687373 ) on Saturday March 17, 2012 @12:08PM (#39389619) Journal [] petition against Bill C-30 [] Ontario Information & Privacy Commissioner’s letter writing tool. Please make your voice heard.
    • I understand government spying is bad. Corporate spying might be more superficial, but why is that ok then? Look at what connects to:
  • The only important part of the argument is "to think of the children" then we can pass what ever is important (to the government, police, RIAA, etc). Don't let the common good or freedom get in the way.
  • Oh, I love that Nineteen Eighty-Four speak where "public safety'" actually means Internet spying and censorship! What is even more galling is that this comes not from a country like China or Burma but from a country like Canada!.

  • the national anthem. Anyone have suggestions for alternative lyrics? Maybe:

    O Canada!
    Our home and native land!
    True patriot love in all thy sons command.
    Access to Information Act
    A tax to spy on me

    From far and wide,
    O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.
    God keep our land glorious and free!
    O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.
    O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.
  • And while we are at it, let's tax all women to pay the expenses of rapists.

  • All public services are ultimately paid for with our tax dollars. We already pay for the electricity that powers the electric chair, the money that runs the prisons and the food our Prime Minister eats. If people understood that, maybe they'd get more involved in politics.
  • They sure seam to be on the same track!
    • ...into an anti-Tory bitchfest. It's insulting to those tho actually ARE oppressed in places from China and Cuba to Sudan and Syria and all in between. C-30 erodes our privacy rights but to say we are on the path to self destrucion at the hands of an insane tyrant is a really big stretch.

      Also to clarify, for those who started foaming a the mouth when they saw "C-30" and stopped reading the rest of the article, this "internet security tax" has not been proposed by anyone in government nor by those in the t

  • If they want to spy on me I don't care. However if they want to spy on me I shouldn't be paying for them to do it. What they could do is take part of my internet bill which I'm sure is padded with more then 100% profile and use that for there spying purpose. The other thing I'm wondering about is if they will do this via hardware or software, doing it via software would open up a new entire department of issues. I'm sure as hell not about to buy a hardware device so they can spy on me, if they want t
  • Spying on people and making them pay for it; I like their style.

  • You may NOT monitor my data, voice, and video traffic without a search warrant.

    You may request my contact information from my ISP without a warrant, the same as you can do a reverse phone book lookup. It will cost virtually nothing except staff time to do the reverse-name lookup, because my ISP already has a database with that information. But DAMNED if I'm going to tolerate an abuse of my Charter rights:

    8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.

    In other words, if

    • I'll be surprised if your charter isn't as worthless to your government as the constitution is to the US government.

      Rights are so inconvenient when you want to 'save' the children!

  • A lot of them are non-profit Society's with barely enough margins to pay their operating costs. We're talking volunteer boards here. This is particularly true in rural areas where there's no business case to justify big ISPs putting in infrastructure. Another thing - C-30 defines a telecommunication service provider as *everyone* including individuals who are not principally using it for their own household use. Who's going to reimburse Joe Average for their costs to comply with this legislation if they

It seems that more and more mathematicians are using a new, high level language named "research student".