The Quiet Death of the Canadian Internet Survellance Bill

mykepredko writes "C-30, Canada's version of SOPA, would grant the federal government and law enforcement agencies the power to obtain information about individuals who are online without having to apply for a warrant is dead in committee. 'I don't know whether it was because the Minister so screwed up the messaging, or whether they've had some other input saying they went too far or it just can't be salvaged,' Nathan Cullen, House Leader for the NDP, speculates."

If it is like the U.S....

[dgatwood]

...then it will just reappear, possibly a piece at a time, attached to some appropriations bill for homeless battered women's shelters.

The real Reason

[arthurpaliden]

It might have had something to do with the country wide revolt that was spawned when it was initially tabled and the minister refereed to all those who opposed the bill as supporters and practitioners of pedophilia.

Re:Maybe politicians saw what happened in the U.S.

[interkin3tic]

I'm guessing their masters got spooked and decided to do it slower and more quietly. Let the people forget about it so they think it was a one-time thing. It's not as if big content will have trouble anytime soon buying influence in government, they can wait and think of some other way to slip it in.

Sorry for this, but it applies

[fustakrakich]

It's not dead. It's just resting.

It won't ever die with the kinds people that are presently occupying the office. If you want to actually kill it, a different class of people must be voted in.

Re:Maybe politicians saw what happened in the U.S.

[Anonymous Coward]

Not for a long time, if you know the difference between american financing vs. Canadian political financing. It's a heck of a lot more difficult to buy a politician here... Certianly not impossible, but something as hated as SOPA? Well, lets just say bribes big enough to take that political risk are more dangerous than the political risk itself.

Re:No need, it's in the budget bill.

[UnknownSoldier]

> Um... It is the opposition's job to oppose the government, whether they agree with the particular proposition or not
There is a time and place for opposition -- but any ideology taken to an extreme, such as oppositional defiant, is never a good idea in the long run.
i.e.
So the ruling party decides that it needs it needs to limit its spending (ha!), and the opposition is _automatically_ against that? That's asinine. But then again, this is politics.

> If a party gets elected, it is not hypocritical for them to try to pass the same legislation that they tried to stifle when they were the opposition
Yes it is and retarded. Instead of doing what's best for everyone politicians are selfish bastards who only do what's best for them.

You're part of the problem by thinking such stupid "politics" is OK in the first place.