Canada cans net surveillance law Canada’s Conservative government has decided not to proceed with its attempt to pass the Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act, also known as Bill-C30, after community opposition to the proposed law’s surveillance measures. The Bill (PDF) describes its purpose as follows: “The purpose of this Act is to ensure that …
Finally... Someone with the sense and "balls" to say no to the extreme invasions of privacy (without any oversight) being demanded by "law enforcement" agencies in the name of "protecting the masses".
Now when will other countries recognise that they have given too much power with no checks and balances and finally reject the demands and disband the intrusive laws that are already in place.
Is this true? How? Where? When? Quid?
Wow....I am so happy because of this. I mean, I hate Stephen Harper and the conservative lunatics running the country but I never thought it would be possible for them to revert back to a Parliament decision because of public outcry. Is this a dream? Is there any hope?
Amazing. El Reg making my day!
Betting against Openmedia is betting against the Canadian people. We still have some semblance of democracy in the great white north, so angering the Canadian people is the sort of thing our politicians try to avoid. Thoough the Conservatives are trying thier damndest to take our democracy away from us...
The sheep who reside in the USA and the UK, who let their respective governments do almost every thing they want to, wouldn't garner this much attention from their respective politicians.
It all dates back to the late Pierre Trudeau, who had the audacity to stick his middle digit up to the USA, and refused to adopt the preferred US 'guide lines' unlike governments in the UK.
Must have been his French heritage, France has a similar attitude. One is called 'independence' and the other 'subservience'.
Unlike other governments who cross-link all their data-banks so all and sundry, regardless of their need, Canada's data-banks are deliberately decoupled - no nosy civil servants trawling through your life. Occasionally these controls can be a pain, as an inquirer has to travel from one department to another to collect data for the first.
A small price to pay for privacy.
So do you refer to things like SOPA being killed in the US as an example of our letting our government do whatever it wants, and to the French three-strikes law as an example of their holding their own government to account?
The US is hardly perfect - the Patriot act is evidence enough of that - but as in most other democracies we have a history of smacking down legislators who go too far. Fair use, SOPA's downfall, the repeated defeat of bills intended to censor violins - err, violence - in video games, the repeated defeat of anti-pornography bills, etc etc.
Accusing people of being 'sheep' is arrogant and passe. You do get points, though, for not using the term 'sheeple', which for me is a bit like being a 9/11 conspiracy freak: You immediately lose all credibility.
Bills like this are harder to permanently kill than a fusion of Jason, Freddy Kruger, Dracula, cockroaches, Rasputin, and Keith Richards. Even if you drive a stake through its heart, fill its mouth with garlic and sew it shut, behead it with a grave digger's shovel, bury it in hallowed ground at a crossroads, nuke the site from orbit, and drop it down a black hole, it will reform from Hawking radiation, rising from the mist in the sequel - there is just too much desire by the sorts of people who want Power over all us proles for a bill like this to remain dead. Eternal vigilance.
Don't worry about our Canadian police being hampered in their ability to monitor online activities now that C-30 is dead. Bill C-55 has been quietly introduced to give police the rights they wanted for warrantless online surveillance, as long as they believe it may be related to a serious crime, and they notify the subject afterward - eventually.
"as long as they believe it may be related to a serious crime"
As opposed to what? A hilarious crime?
Police Chief: "OK, detective - I want full surveillance on this one, you understand?"
Detective: "But sir - the suspect robbed a bank while wearing a pair of underwear like a hat!"
Police Chief: "Haha ha! Oh.. I see your point. Never mind then, just do the usual stuff, eh?"
Detective: "Right. Hey, time for some Tim Hortons?"
The only mention of protecting children was in the title.
And I guess if Harper isn't supporting this act, he must be standing with the child pornographers. Just ask Vic Toews, he'll tell you.
And speaking of old Vic, his name doesn't appear on this file anymore.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
