The Disastrous Privacy Consequences of Canada's Anti-Terrorism Bill 116
An anonymous reader writes "Canada's proposed
anti-terrorism legislation is currently being debated in the
House of Commons, with the government already serving notice that it
plans to limit debate. Michael Geist argues that decision has enormous privacy consequences, since the bill
effectively creates a "total information awareness" approach that
represents a radical shift away from our traditional understanding
of public sector privacy protection. The bill permits information
sharing across government for an incredibly wide range of purposes,
most of which have nothing to do with terrorism and opens the door
to further disclosure "to any person, for any purpose." The
cumulative effect is to grant government near-total power to share
information for purposes that extend far beyond terrorism with few
safeguards or privacy protections."
It was always just a matter of time... (Score:1)
...before Canada bent to the will of the US
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
We're losing our freedoms and rights here pretty badly, but nothing quite yet as bad as this sound like in CA.
Re:It was always just a matter of time... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It was always just a matter of time... (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it's a feedback loop. The exact same thing is happening with copyright.
America (and all of the five eyes) want additional laws and powers. Those laws and powers are currently illegal and unpopular.
So, one of the five eyes gets talked into passing a law which goes much further. And then the rest of them all say "see, we need these powers too".
The exact same thing has been happening with copyright, and spying provisions ... they play off one another to expand the powers internationally, and then push to get the same things domestically.
Essentially most western governments now have three magic keys to the kingdom: copyright, terrorism, and child porn.
These three things are being used to march the goalposts further down the field, and the consequences for the rest of our liberties be damned.
The five-eyes are flunkies in advancing the interests of corporations, and conspiring together to give us global fascism and surveillance. The Western democracies are all actively trying to say "fuck you and your rights, this is what we do, this is who we share it with, and if you don't like it fuck off".
Essentially the governments and spy agencies of the five-eyes are larger threats to our liberties than the people they claim to be protecting us from.
And they seem to not give a damn what they do to get there.
Re: (Score:2)
the empire must fall some how... that is the the sound of inevitability...
Re: (Score:2)
America doesn't want that. The government does.
They're two very different things.
Re: (Score:1)
Then why does America vote for that government?
Re: (Score:1)
It doesn't matter who you vote for when all the candidates are picked by the two parties.
Re:It was always just a matter of time...FTFY (Score:2, Insightful)
America does want that, the fear mongering and bigotry runs rampant in just enough of America to allow this to continue.
May be one day enough America may not want it... might be too late by then.
Re: (Score:2)
Much more of a case of the squeaky wheel getting the grease.
Re: (Score:2)
Just exactly WHEN are you, you lazy fucking little sheep of a wussy man sitting on your couch reading this, going to GET UP OFF YOUR ASS, and call / write / visit your lawmaker and DEMAND that this shit be stopped?
Right after I finish shouting into the wind and shaking my fist at the sky.
Re: (Score:2)
Few years back I ended up with a connecting flight that returned though NY to Toronto. No layover (actually had to run between flights because there was only 30min between flights). So here I was with little time to spare. Then I find out the US wants you to go through customs even if you aren't staying in the country. When I saw the finger print reader I literally said: "I don't want to stay in your hell whole and you aren't getting my finger prints". They didn't scan me. Not sure if they are more accommod
Re: (Score:2)
It isn't like obama is any better than bush on this and many other aspects of life these days, in fact, it seems to just be getting worse.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Fuck. (Score:3)
I guess I can't threaten to move there anymore as the US pot boils over.
Re: (Score:2)
In all seriousness, would the tradeoff of the luxuries one is entitled to in a 1st World country offset the purported privacy you might get in a 3rd World nation?
Odds are, people would still be clamoring to immigrate to the privacy stricken 1st World nqtions.
Re: (Score:3)
the question really isn't about privacy, but rather about freedom. Not the freedom as is touted but rather freedom from consequences of no-privacy.
repercussions of free speech without the protection of anonymity would be one. Just look at any whistle blower in recent history. That is at a governmental scale. However just think about having your private words, pictures, correspondence in public domain with the narrow minded social infrastructure that current US society displays in its fervor...
Make a provoca
Re: Fuck. (Score:5, Insightful)
âMake a provocative comment and be censured from work, friends and future prospects...â
This already happens, you know. One of my family members is an elementary school teacher. Every budget proposal is CRITICAL!, every election is the future of our nation, and any politician that proposes limiting spending to available revenues is killing education and hates our children!!!
I can't talk politics with her. It's literally her pocketbook. No matter the realities, she is only interested in job.
And I understand. I work in an even more arbitrary environment. Business.
Re: (Score:2)
the question really isn't about privacy, but rather about freedom.
I could've gone either way there, but you caught me right in the middle of attempting an alliteral analogy.... vis a vis poverty stricken third World nations.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I actually did move to Canada after getting disgusted by REAL ID. I'm starting to think I should have moved to Uruguay.
You know, about 30 years ago I would think "If I had to leave the US, where would I go?" And one of the countries that always came up was Uruguay. Apparently I was quite prescient in my 20's.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Fuck. (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, cause somebody cares about you "threatening" to move to Canada.
Excuse me, but yes we do, thank you very much.
Sincerely,
Canadians.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, this will pass then get thrown out once it gets to trial.
The current Canadian government has passed several "mean to the accused" bills, but every one has been thrown out by the courts.
Papers, Comrade (Score:5, Insightful)
Welcome to the modern day fascist state. Privacy is a luxury no longer afforded to everyday citizens.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As you can see, the majority of the population supports this. Who are you to tell the people what's best for them?
Well let's see, he appears to be somebody who advocates for political and ideological changes by informing his fellows about what the government is up to and what the consequences may well be, thereby instilling fear in the public over government intrusions into their privacy and more.
A textbook terrorist using mass fear to accomplish his goals is what he appears to be (at least that's how the government press release will describe him after he's been detained for 'enhanced interrogation'.).
Strat
Good question, not answered: (Score:5, Insightful)
The wording is sufficiently vague to permit a Canadian Security Intelligence Service investigation of anyone who challenges the Conservatives' social, economic or environmental policies, the Opposition leader said during the daily question period.
"What's to stop this bill from being used to spy on the government's political enemies?"
Prime Minister Stephen Harper dismissed the suggestion, telling the House of Commons the NDP had entered the realm of conspiracy theory.
"That's what we've come to expect from the black helicopter fleet over there." - http://www.cbc.ca/m/touch/poli... [www.cbc.ca]
Re: (Score:2)
Given the recent history of the Conservative Party of Canada and it's various flunkies it's probably safer to draw the opposite conclusion, namely that Harper clearly intends to abuse this to persecute his political enemies. After all, his political flunkies have already declared that environmentalists are essentially the same as terrorists on more than one occasion.
Re: (Score:3)
Democracy is rule by the result of a popularity contest, and no government wants to be caught having the charge of "not protecting the people" leveled against them because that makes them unpopular. Not the current government, and not the next one either.
In a year and a half when the election is in full-swing someone will ask Justin if he will repeal it. He'll avoid the question (probably), and even if he agrees to it, he'll renege once he is elected. Why? Because it's good for him to have it in place,
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Good question, not answered: (Score:5, Insightful)
Government will always abuse power eventually. Suppose we elected a moral government that would never abuse their power (it's a hypothetical situation that will never be reality so might as well fill it with hypothetical politicians that will never be real), they make a law with good intentions, but one that has a loophole that could be abused. Supporters might say "this government would never abuse it because they gave their word/they are such good people/they don't believe in that sort of thing." Maybe the supporters would even be right. But governments always change.
Even if the present government was perfectly aligned to never abuse that law, the next one might be. Or the one after that. And when the government is in place that WILL abuse the law, it might not be abusing it in a way that happens to further your political views (and thus might result in you turning a blind eye to the abuse like people tend to do when it supports their causes).
So even if we assume that Harper is right and their current government would never abuse this law, what's to stop the next government from abusing it?
This is why, whenever a new law is proposed to grant government new powers, I always ask supporters how they would like it if PERSON_FROM_OPPOSING_POLITICAL_POWER was in charge and had those powers. All too often people support new government powers without oversight because it supports their causes without thinking ahead about how other politicians will abuse them.
Like all governments ... (Score:5, Insightful)
They're quick to tell us how this is going to make us more secure, but they've utterly failed to demonstrate how existing laws are inadequate, or that these news laws would have helped at all in anything they've missed.
This is the drooling "we need to give the security people the tools to do their job", while ignoring the legal protections we're supposed to have, and failing to justify these new powers.
And, of course, the government spokesman said how this proposal was met well by the other people in the "five eyes" ... of course they're going to love it, they get a share of the fucking take.
We don't give a shit about what a foreign government thinks about our security and information sharing, because they greedily want this shit.
We give a shit about the fact that this is illegal, unnecessary, completely unjustified, and completely lacking in proper checks and balances.
This is a government operating on a "law and order" agenda who doesn't give a fuck about the law.
Consequences, or objectives? (Score:1)
"disastrous privacy consequences"
The summary (and article) implies that destroying privacy is merely a consequence of the new law. But who's to say that destroying privacy isn't one of the objectives, or even the primary objective of the new law? After all, the actions of those in power would certainly suggest that destroying privacy is a major goal, since each and every year brings a new round of war on privacy.
Re: (Score:3)
Whenever I hear a politician claim "terrorists", I think of that dog from the movie Up. He's just talking normally and then - SQUIRREL! - followed by him losing his train of thought and starting over. Except the politician thinks that we, the electorate, are the dog and that "terrorist" will make us lose focus and wind up supporting whatever inane bill they propose.
"We have to endure body cavity searches to get on airlines now? That's outrageous! I'm going to protest this by - TERRORIST! What was I tal
Re: (Score:1)
Disney/Pixar will post their cease and desist letter shortly:
You may not use copyrighted characters in your discussions...
Re:Like all governments ... (Score:5, Insightful)
They're quick to tell us how this is going to make us more secure, but they've utterly failed to demonstrate how existing laws are inadequate.
And we stumbled onto a VERY important point. Legislators are often guilty of passing a new law because they want to be seen as "doing something" about a problem. FEW of them actually ask the question "So what laws do we have NOW that address this and do we need to modify them?" Even fewer would actually understand the answer.
This is about politics, about Public Relations and how I can burnish my image and tarnish my opponent. So if I can pass a law and claim to have addressed the issue, I have advanced MYSELF. Who cares if it's the right thing to do or if making a minor tweak to existing law or budgets would be a better, faster, cheaper fix? Oh no, it's about appearances, not effectiveness..
Re: (Score:2)
They've been attacking privacy ever since they got in. Harpers paranoid and is the most secretive politician ever yet doesn't believe in the privacy of the common person.
Re:Like all governments ... (Score:4, Insightful)
We just went through this in my hometown (San Antonio.)
We passed laws outlawing cell phones because it causes reckless driving. The thing is, we already have laws against reckless driving.
Do we need a law for eating food in the car while driving or putting make up on?
Re: (Score:2)
We passed laws outlawing cell phones because it causes reckless driving. The thing is, we already have laws against reckless driving.
I presume they passed a law against driving while using a cell phone, not against cellphones accross the board?
The thing is, we already have laws against reckless driving.
Ok. You are right. However, its not that simple.
First: The standard for "reckless driving" is quite vague and subject to interpretation. The standard for "driving with a cellphone in hand" is much simpler.
Second: They can enforce "driving with a cellphone" even before it escalates to "reckless driving". They don't have to prove you weren't paying attention. They don't have to WAIT for you to drift
Re: (Score:2)
That is why I always say "prove it". Let's see results.
Hopefully this will be Harper's death knell (Score:5, Interesting)
It's amazing how one man can so completely destroy a country, both politically and culturally in under a decade. The CRA (the Canadian version of the IRS) is currently doing audits of non-profit organizations and revoking the non-profit status of organizations that have political ideologies that go against the Conservative agenda.
Dying with Dignity loses charitable status after political activity probe [www.cbc.ca]
7 Environmental Charities Face Canada Revenue Agency Audits [www.cbc.ca]
I can't wait for the next election and I sincerely hope the PC's are so savagaley beaten at the polls that they'll be laughed out of town on the oil wagon they rolled in on.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't be too optimistic, the drums are beating:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com... [theglobeandmail.com]
Re: (Score:2)
The Angus Reid Institute conducted an online survey among 1509 randomly selected Canadian adults who are Angus Reid Forum panelists
-- http://angusreid.org/wp-conten... [angusreid.org]
Spend some time around the forum in question, and you'll realize it's hardly representative of the general Canadian population.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Promises of small government and tax breaks will get the votes. This what I hate about "Libertarians", they have little problem with this type of government as they're cutting taxes and shrinking government even though it's the oversight part that's being removed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The ones in the Conservative party seem to be supporting this.
to be fair..charities not supposed to be political (Score:2)
I dislike Harper as much as most of us, but to be fair it has always been the case that charitable organizations were not supposed to engage in significant amounts of political activities.
Yes, many of them (of all political stripes) have been doing just that for quite a while, but the law has been on the books for a long time (just not enforced very strictly).
Re: (Score:2)
Justin's daddy took Canada from debt free to where we now owe hundreds of billions on our national debt.
That Justin Trudeau, son of Pierre Trudeau who was prime minister of Canada in the 1970s-ish. That's also plain false. World War II and "the Great War" created Canada's national debt, just like nearly every other western country.
He gave government employees the right to strike. Now we are constantly being blackmailed into giving raises far above industry standards.
During Trudeau's tenure as PM, the federal public employees won the fight utilize freedom to association (the basis for forming a union) in federal court. Not given to them by anyone. Unless you think politicians should restrict who is allowed to get together to form a corporation
Re: (Score:2)
Are you some self-delusional totalitarian? Communists government (even the better ones) never granted powers or rights to its people. Only socialist countries gave rights of individuals over the nation state (or monarch).
Sorry I meant "[o]nly socialist countries" as in comparison to communists countries. Not communist countries that called themselves socialist. I did not mean to imply only socialist countries in general; for example in the case of USA, though the US Bill of Rights is a very socialistic document placing people above both the government or the establishment.
Dear Canada. (Score:2, Funny)
So.. Uh.. Yeah. Its this letter.
I don't know how to say this, but you should get yourself tested.
Here in the US we've got a bad case of the conservative stupid and it looks like you've caught it to. If you're lucky you can stave off the stagnating wages, crumbling infrastructure, tyranny of the banking sector, and jingoistic warmongering.
Love, the USA
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Now it's just a matter of getting the majority of Canadians to go "No I don't want this idiot again."
No, it's a matter of getting decidedly more than a majority to go like that. Harper got here with 39% of the vote, thanks to dirty tricks and this idiotic system of voting we're stuck with.
You'll need a large supermajority to get rid of him. The most recent projection shows he's still likely to form government with 32.9% of the vote [threehundredeight.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Are you really having such serious problems with terrorism? Nobody told me about it
A terrorist has been defined as someone against fossil fuels, or believing in climate change or against the current government, so yes, many Canadians are terrorists and they need to be preemptively arrested and locked up.
Re: (Score:1)
USB sticks, CD burners, and printers are all technologies that still work.
A Balance Of Power (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
If there is a limit to the expansion of coercive authority -- in ANY country -- we have yet to see it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Let me say this: (Score:2)
At least they're being honest about it.
I forget.... (Score:3)
Who do I need protection from?
Re: (Score:2)
When, in this life or the next?
IF you are discussing here and now.... Historically you've needed to be protected from governments more often than anything else.
Re: (Score:2)
Yourself silly goose err beaver....
Terrorists? so what (Score:1)
There is a small group of people hell bent on bringing down western civilization, and they accomplish their goal by killing a few thousand people a year? Sure, that's terrible, but we kill ourselves with fried chicken and cheeseburgers at a faster rate. The threat of terrorism is minor compared to the threat of government corruption, the threat of poverty on the next generation, and the threat of economic policies that leads to instability and strife.
Who is a terrorist? (Score:2)
What's the matter with Canada? (Score:4, Insightful)
Quite sad; I thought the Canadians were better than, well, just about everybody, but now no different than the rest of the Right-Wing Police State, Might Makes Right, Western world. [le sigh]
Re:What's the matter with Canada? (Score:4, Interesting)
Try living in Canadian "Fuck You I Got Mine" Suburbs. The cognitive dissonance is astounding.
Re: (Score:2)
I live in the Ontario suburbs you nitwit. Yes I'm talking about you.
I got mine through 30 years of hard work, your dissonance is the cost at which it is to serve you with city services in the suburbs vs a big city landowner (welfare case paying property taxes? where do you get this stuff)
Also no one mentioned city politics so there is that too.
Re: (Score:1)
60% of Canadian for that last few elections have not voted for the Harper government, so that's the majority of the government. Unfortunately with effectively a 3 party system, the NDP and Liberals are sharing the Left part of the spectrum while the Conservatives basically take all the Right spectrum votes all to themselves and with the elections by default because they have no opposition on that part of the spectrum. They get 40% of the vote with the NDP and Liberals, Green, and Independents splitting the
Re:What's the matter with Canada? (Score:4, Interesting)
What happened?
An idiotic voting system, gerrymandered ridings, Republicans giving the Conservatives dirty tricks lessons, and 39% of the population being idiots.
Re: (Score:2)
You forgot politics and politicians...
All the stuff above aside, the basic fact is that the Conservatives united the right (Alliance/Reform, PC), and moved towards center (or at least perceived to by some people). The center left is shared by two other parties that basically just cannibalize each others votes... So baring some crazy thing, it is no surprise that the Conservatives have a distinct advantage and won, simple numbers. The PQ is not a federal party. Their only significant impact recently was loos
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
How long has GOP-backed and advised Harper been in power now? What happened? Was it tar sand greed? ...
I think you are on to something. Right-wing extremist oil/energy money has been a potent factor in U.S. politics since the 1940s, witness the John Birch Society founded and run by Fred Koch. Its in-your-face craziness led to it being rejected by the Republican mainstream in the early 1960s, and then marginalized, but this very small group had enormous financial resources, and patience and has built up an enormous infrastructure to push their policies over the years, not just at the national level but in sta
Re: (Score:1)
Canadians did not vote for Harper and to not support his policies. We have a backward 1st past the post electoral system that enables vote splits to empower the minority of votes into a dictatorial majority in our Parliament. Harper's conservatives only got 39% of the popular vote. 61% voted for NDP, Liberal, Green and Block, all whom are very far left when compared to American Democrats. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_federal_election,_2011
Re: (Score:3)
I used to think Canadians - even those out in the forsaken, endless prairies - were far more wise and progressive than us USians, but no. How long has GOP-backed and advised Harper been in power now? What happened? Was it tar sand greed? Pure apathy? The assumption they were all as 'funny' as Laughable Bublefuck Rob Ford?
Quite sad; I thought the Canadians were better than, well, just about everybody, but now no different than the rest of the Right-Wing Police State, Might Makes Right, Western world. [le sigh]
It's a combination of three things.
1) Harper isn't nearly as bad as the US right. There are certainly elements of that in his party, but he would still be a better fit as a Democrat than Republican in the US.
2) First past the post exaggerates strong minorities into big majorities. He should be PM but he shouldn't have a majority.
3) Even being a decent PM, he's still too far right for Canadians. The reason he's stuck around is he is good at winning elections, and the Liberal candidates not nearly as much. Th
Re: (Score:2)
I used to think Canadians - even those out in the forsaken, endless prairies - were far more wise and progressive than us USians, but no. How long has GOP-backed and advised Harper been in power now? What happened? Was it tar sand greed? Pure apathy? The assumption they were all as 'funny' as Laughable Bublefuck Rob Ford?
Quite sad; I thought the Canadians were better than, well, just about everybody, but now no different than the rest of the Right-Wing Police State, Might Makes Right, Western world. [le sigh]
Honestly I wouldn't expect anything else from a 5-eyes nation.
Nader to Harper (Score:1)
A Good Crisis (Score:1)
The Canadian government has taken advantage of a good "crisis" to extend it's powers. When there's no crisis to take advantage of, government either inflates a minor problem, makes one or claims there is one in order to extend it's power. It's insatiable, and won't stop until those in power have complete control over everything.
"Everything not compulsory is forbidden."
-- T. H. White
Canadian? (Score:2)
We already seem to have support from the NDP, but a stronger support wouldn't hurt. If you are Canadian, please sign this: https://openmedia.org/SpyOnUs [openmedia.org]