Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Canada Privacy Your Rights Online

Canadian Govt To Introduce Massive Internet Surveillance Law 215

Posted by samzenpus
from the what-are-you-looking-at? dept.
An anonymous reader writes "The Canadian government will introduce new Internet surveillance legislation tomorrow that will mandate a massive new surveillance infrastructure at all Canadian ISPs and remove the need for court oversight of the disclosure of customer information. Michael Geist has a detailed FAQ on the history of the bill, the likely contents, the lack of government evidence supporting the need for the invasive legislation, and what Canadians can do about it."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Canadian Govt To Introduce Massive Internet Surveillance Law

Comments Filter:
  • by elrous0 (869638) * on Monday February 13, 2012 @12:43PM (#39020431)

    Public Safety Minister Vic Toews said the law will give the tools to police to adequately deal with 21st-century technology, and said anyone opposing the laws favours "the rights of child pornographers and organized crime ahead of the rights of lawabiding citizens."

    If that's true, why do you need to avoid court oversight? If you're going after real criminals, what exactly is stopping you from getting a *warrant* to track them and get their information? Are Canadian judges uniquely reluctant to sign warrants when actual criminal activity is involved, so much so that you need to bypass them?

    Or are you REALLY looking to go after someone else, someone that a judge is NOT going to sign a warrant for?

    • by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 13, 2012 @12:48PM (#39020509)

      What they want:
      Step 1: assume all citizens are involved in organized crime
      Step 2: observe until you can find a case
      Step 3: issue fines
      Step 4: revel in revenue increases due to above fines

      It gets a lot harder when someone is asking "what probable cause do you have to watch this one?"

      • by na1led (1030470) on Monday February 13, 2012 @12:55PM (#39020599)
        I guess all Canadians are presumed Guilty, until you can afford to provide your innocence.
        • by jamstar7 (694492) on Monday February 13, 2012 @01:01PM (#39020705)
          Yeah, Canada is getting more like the US every day. Sorry to hear that, guys. You had a helluva nice civilised country up there.
        • by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 13, 2012 @01:19PM (#39020951)

          We did this to ourselves, you know. Canada had three chances to toss the Harper government out, and the third time, we handed them a majority despite their myriad offences that would have toppled prior governments (butchering Statistics Canada, running endless attack ads, blowing a billion dollars turning Toronto into a police state for the G20, proroguing parliament to avoid answering difficult questions, complicity in torture of Afghan detainees, being found in contempt of parliament... And these are just the ones I can remember off the top of my head). As a nation, we deserve exactly what we're getting for not turfing that clown Harper at the first opportunity.

          • by 0123456 (636235) on Monday February 13, 2012 @01:49PM (#39021381)

            You can't vote a government out, you can only vote another government in... and they would probably be doing pretty much the same as this one.

            And Canada was doing OK with a minority government until the left decided to commit suicide by forcing yet another election that no-one wanted. That has to be one of the worst 'shot myself in the ass' moments in political history.

            • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

              by Anonymous Coward

              That's not true. The Liberals lost their government for far less with the sponsorship scandal. By comparison, the Conservatives have done far, far worse in their favouritism, their contempt for evidence-based policy, and utter lack of transparency which they were elected to improve in the first place, and to suggest the Liberals would have done the same if they were in power is disingenuous at best.

              Also, the election really came down to a last minute NDP surge, an anomaly in the campaign. If the left's p

            • Yes, the election gave our Supreme Leader Stephen Harper license to build his police state (practiced during the G20), once he has legislation like this in place - and all the new prisons have been completed, and that might be seen as a "shot myself in the ass" moment I admit. Harper now has free reign to remake the country according to his own plan - and its all Right-Wing, all the time for him. I am ashamed of my fellow Canadians for electing this charlatan to office repeatedly.
              However, from the point of

              • There's an attitude hidden in your comment that is the root cause of the issue we're currently experiencing... it can be found in the sentence "I am ashamed of my fellow Canadians for electing this charlatan to office repeatedly." Unless you're talking about your fellow Canadians the members of Parliament, you have no point. Canada is supposed to be a representative democracy where you elect your MP to office, and the MPs come together to select a leader to act as Prime Minister.

                If everyone actually voted

              • by Mashiki (184564)

                I'm guessing you're new to politics in Canada, otherwise you'd know that people here do punish political parties for the things that the left did in the last 3 elections. People were fine with a minority government actually. The NDP along with Liberals decided they wanted to be the ones in power. The previous two before the last were incremental increases in the conservatives power. The most recent was a simple sign from the electorate that they were tired of the tactics they were pulling. And punishe

            • by Ihmhi (1206036)

              You can't vote a government out

              Yes you can. We Americans did it a few hundred years ago at the tip of a bayonet.

              • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                by Anonymous Coward

                Yes you can. We Americans did it a few hundred years ago at the tip of a bayonet.

                And seem to have forgoten how since then.

              • by Livius (318358)

                That's not called voting. That's called treason.

        • by Tsingi (870990)

          I guess all Canadians are presumed Guilty, until you can afford to provide your innocence.

          You wouldn't want to negatively impact the ability of law enforcement to violate your rights would you?

          You can always plead guilty if you don't want to pay the exorbitant cost of going to court. It would probably be cheaper. I did it once, saved thousands.

          • by g0bshiTe (596213)
            In your case were you actually guilty? Or were you innocent. If talking something that is minor and will not stay on your record yeah it may be worth it. If not then why take the easy road out?
            • by Tsingi (870990)

              In your case were you actually guilty? Or were you innocent. If talking something that is minor and will not stay on your record yeah it may be worth it. If not then why take the easy road out?

              I don't know if I was guilty or not. It was over a threat I apparently made when I was drunk, and it was 18 months in the past. I have no recollection, and since there were no other witnesses, there was no proof. It would have been thrown out, but I would have had to hire a lawyer and travel back and fourth to the court (300 miles). I pleaded guilty and got a $200 fine instead. The feminists got their statistic, I didn't have to suffer through a trial and associated court costs.

              It doesn't bother me,

              • by Aryden (1872756)

                The judge did not like me pleading guilty, but he couldn't throw it out at that stage.

                Because it was idiocy. You don't bloody plead guilty when there are no witnesses and no evidence you moron. You did not have to hire a lawyer for it. You please not guilty, with no representative from the opposition, the judge will either reschedule, or find in your favor and it's done. Usually, they'll find in your favor unless it is a very serious crime.

    • by The Askylist (2488908) on Monday February 13, 2012 @12:50PM (#39020543)

      Won't somebody think of the children?

      Typical slimeball politician - he'll probably come out with "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" next.

      Don't forget - Canada doesn't have freedom of speech, so the police will be able to use this to harass thought criminals and other doubleplusungood types.

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Actually we do. It's 'freedom of expression' in our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

        Then one of the Jewish backed lobby groups got some 'hate speech' mechanism added - which is used to crush reporting of Israel's warcrimes, and patently ignored when peddling war propaganda about any of Israel's enemies.

        • It was the "hate speech" to which I was indirectly referring.
        • by camperdave (969942) on Monday February 13, 2012 @02:46PM (#39022459) Journal
          Have you actually read the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

          Guarantee of Rights and Freedoms 1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

          2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

          (a) freedom of conscience and religion;
          (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
          (c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
          (d) freedom of association.

          In other words, you only have as much fundamental freedom of expression as the law allows.

          • by SpeZek (970136)
            Mod parent up. Every "free speech" provision in countries that have it has a "reasonable limits" clause, for yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theatre or "Kill the Jews!" to incite a crowd to violence.
            • by Mashiki (184564)

              The point he's making is this: In Canada your speech, media and other expressions of self are restricted. I made this same comment on the ISP-Canuck thread [slashdot.org] the other day. In Canada this has allowed heavy abuse by non-binding organizations that exist outside of the judicial system to fine people, and tie them up with legal fees for doing things like. Speaking 'unpleasant things' like being against homosexuality, or publishing the motoons, or having opinionated opinions.

              The S1 provision of the charter rem

      • by adonoman (624929) on Monday February 13, 2012 @01:04PM (#39020731)
        Oddly enough, he seems to be going with the line that opposing this bill is questioning the integrity of front-line police forces. Of course, I'm questioning the integrity of front-line police forces. The entire system is built around the fact that we can't expect to trust all individuals to behave.
    • by justforgetme (1814588) on Monday February 13, 2012 @01:04PM (#39020739) Homepage

      It's a thinly veiled excuse.
      Just like the misconception that free distribution of independent literature would:
      1) turn the peasants into hedonists (Confucianism - moveable type press)
      2) put "the beast" into people (Catholic church - Gutenberg printing press)

      Well, the governments were "right" back then so they must be "right" now aswell.

    • by Baloroth (2370816) on Monday February 13, 2012 @01:05PM (#39020749)

      Public Safety Minister Vic Toews said the law will give the tools to police to adequately deal with 21st-century technology, and said anyone opposing the laws favours "the rights of child pornographers and organized crime ahead of the rights of lawabiding citizens."

      That's quite right, actually, I do "favor" their rights. They have a right to due process of law. Any government official who says they do not favor the rights of any individual under the law is not fit for office, and should probably be impeached. One of those rights is to privacy from government surveillance without a warrant.

      Not that that quote even makes sense, anyways: anyone who opposes the bill favors the rights of everyone.

    • by arthurpaliden (939626) on Monday February 13, 2012 @01:12PM (#39020847)
      Back in the 1030s Hitler is reported to have said something along these lines. "If you want to pass a draconian piece of legislation wrap it in 'protecting our most precious resource, our children' such legislation will never be defeated." He went on to use this tactic in regards to several pieces of anti-Jewish anti-Polish legislation.
    • That is an excellent point of which I am sure will get overlooked by everyone, except parliament, which they in turn already know this, and want to pass the bill anyways.

    • by digitig (1056110)
      Could somebody change the /. moderation system so that we can take that one above +5, please.
    • by HTH NE1 (675604) on Monday February 13, 2012 @02:35PM (#39022231)

      The easiest way for them to do this is to adopt another legal fallacy: like corporations are people, encryption is a munition, money is speech, the national "border" is 200 miles thick (100 miles to each side), and DRM is effective protection, declare the Internet as a public space and you can surveil with impunity.

      (Acknowledged, those are US official legal fallacies and this is about Canada.)

    • by tqk (413719)

      Public Safety Minister Vic Toews said the law will give the tools to police to adequately deal with 21st-century technology, and said anyone opposing the laws favours "the rights of child pornographers and organized crime ahead of the rights of law abiding citizens."

      Do we no longer have laws concerning slander and libel? My Public Safety Minister just slandered me. I doubt I would be alone in thinking this, so a class action suit is in order.

      He just said out loud that I, and others like me, are facilitating child pornography and are in cahoots with organized crime?!? Holy !@#$. By extension, he just accused Michael Geist of the same thing, merely for opposing this!

      WTF?!?

    • "In order to get rid of terrorism, we, the government, need to execute every citizen and person on the planet. Anyone who opposes this is clearly a terrorist and/or supports the rights of terrorists!"

      That logic is simply undeniable.

  • I give up. Just implant the video recorder in my brain already. Its the eventual result anyway.
  • Is it time? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by stanlyb (1839382) on Monday February 13, 2012 @12:50PM (#39020539)
    ...for a change? I have another proposition: Lets pass a bill for a full massive surveillance infrastructure at all politicians, and here comes the important part, WITHOUT court order. Who is with me?
    • Re:Is it time? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ColdWetDog (752185) on Monday February 13, 2012 @12:52PM (#39020563) Homepage

      ...for a change? I have another proposition: Lets pass a bill for a full massive surveillance infrastructure at all politicians, and here comes the important part, WITHOUT court order. Who is with me?

      Why are you worried about getting a court order? I should think that being a politician would, in and of itself, be 'probable cause'.

      • Well, I happen to be familiar with some democracies and in all of them elected officials are completely above suspicion, something that often is paraphrased as: "when lawmaking always cover your arse first!"

    • by kawabago (551139) on Monday February 13, 2012 @02:36PM (#39022241)
      Ubiquitous surveillance catches misdeeds on both sides, this is very much a "Be careful what you wish for!" situation. This will create a whole new class of criminals specializing stealing everyone's stored information. If legislation like this is enacted I predict the rise of a peer to peer internet that circumvents ISPs entirely.
  • by PPH (736903) on Monday February 13, 2012 @12:52PM (#39020561)

    Travel light to Canada [slashdot.org].

  • by arthurpaliden (939626) on Monday February 13, 2012 @12:53PM (#39020565)
    It brings a tear to my eye to see that our beloved secret police will no longer get to enjoy the local bar, pub or coffee shop while listening in on people's conversations. Instead now they are going to be relegated to dank little cubes in the cellars of mammoth government buildings poring over endless text files of internet data. I can just imagine the deceased members of the East-German Stasi rolling in their graves.
  • Thin Veil (Score:5, Insightful)

    by DaMattster (977781) on Monday February 13, 2012 @12:53PM (#39020569)
    That is an extremely thin veil. The politicans really want to ultimately be able to control dissent. I grow weary of this crap but human ingenuity finds a way around little problems like these. I am waiting for the time when communities come together to build community-owned, decentralized networks nullifying the point of creating such laws as these. If the internet were really owned by the people, a surveillance law would be practically impossible to enforce. It just shows that government is afraid of the people and it should be. People should not fear their government.
    • Tyrants and Kings used to do it all the time. Public opinion mush be controlled.

      Meet the new boss....

    • Re:Thin Veil (Score:4, Interesting)

      by forkfail (228161) on Monday February 13, 2012 @01:27PM (#39021065)

      The 'net was decentralized at it's start. That only lasted a few years before the corporations bought up all the hubs and trunks. And now, the tool of said corporations is making laws to ensure eternal control.

      It seems that there is nothing that can be built that won't get taken away and turned into a tool of control.

      • by HTH NE1 (675604)

        Rose Tyler: So, what is it? What's wrong?
        The Doctor: Don't know, some kind of signal drawing the TARDIS off course.
        Rose Tyler: Where are we?
        The Doctor: Earth, Utah, North America. About half a mile underground.
        Rose Tyler: And... when are we?
        The Doctor: 2012.
        Rose Tyler: God, that's so close. So I should be... 26.

        Adam Mitchell: This is Mr. van Statten.
        Rose Tyler: And who is he when he's not at home?
        Adam Mitchell: Mr. van Statten owns the Internet.
        Rose Tyler: Don't be stupid, no one owns the Internet.
        Henry van

    • by na1led (1030470)
      The only way around this, and to preserve your freedom would be to move to Mars. Even then, freedom will only last a short while.
  • by arthurpaliden (939626) on Monday February 13, 2012 @12:56PM (#39020617)
    Make if easier for the government to do its job. At the end of every day email copies of your internet activity to Public Safety Minister Vic Toews.
    • by PatDev (1344467)
      Actually, this just might work!

      To: Vic Toews
      From: Me

      Hey, all I did today was post on Slashdot.


      To: Vic Toews
      From: Me

      Oops, forgot to mention I also emailed you my internet activity for today.


      To: Vic Toews
      From: Me

      Oops, forgot to mention I also emailed you an update to my internet activity for today.


      To: Vic Toews
      From: Me

      Oops, forgot to mention I also emailed you an update to my internet activity for today.



      ad infinitum
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 13, 2012 @01:04PM (#39020743)

    This may be close to your last chance to be an anonymous coward, so sign the petition at openmedia,
    http://openmedia.ca/StopSpying

  • by SuperCharlie (1068072) on Monday February 13, 2012 @01:05PM (#39020759)
    Just an observation... it seems that anything with great potential to be good to mankind always seems to come with something equally bad... maybe its some kind of conservation of benefit equality.. but if you think about it.. theres not too many things that come along with benefits that do not come with equal detractors. The Internet, with its promise of global communication and sharing has now become the tool for government control of the global masses. Sounds about right. Sadly.
  • by EmperorOfCanada (1332175) on Monday February 13, 2012 @01:07PM (#39020783)
    I love how they are always trying to protect the children when all they want is to make their jobs easier. Can you imagine if say Coca cola were able to make laws. How many laws would they pass to make selling cola easier?
    What this all boils down to is that they have all the tools they already need to nail organized crime as any judge will sign warrants for that. Where the judges are "uncooperative" is when it comes to trolling to see if protesters are planning on embarrassing the government or police.
    What Canadians want is more protection of our rights and more exposure of what the police and government are hiding. This law proposes the exact opposite.
    I can't imagine the surveillance they will now rain down on someone who say does a freedom of information request on the RCMP. A situation that no judge in a million years would agree to.
    A good example of a law that most Canadians would want is that the police can't use a drone without a warrant. I don't want them peeking over my bushes.
  • Too Late. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bedwards (1937210) on Monday February 13, 2012 @01:13PM (#39020875)

    We have a myriad of technical solutions to this problem.

    Tor and the .onion domains effectually neutralise the ability of a third party (The state or any other organisation) to perform survailance on internet traffic.

    Freenet enables the disemenation of whatever material anybody cares to share, to anybody.

    Bitcoin allows unregulated trade.

    It should be our goal to spread these existing tools and develop new methods of ensuring information can be transferred between people without fear, censorship, or interferance of any other person.

    • by Anrego (830717) *

      I'm amazed it hasn't happened yet.. but the eventual step is to criminalize those very tools. Won't even be hard, under the guise that they "enable child pornographers and organized crime" .. because well.. they actually do (create a system for transfering data anonymously and some people are going to use it for bad things, impossible to have selective total privacy, etc..).

    • Only one problem--all those tools suck to use.  As in, really really suck.  Do you really want to surf over Tor all day?

      People in China can get around the Great Firewall if they really want to, too.  The problem is that the gov't is allowed to have the Great Firewall at all, and that is the problem here, as well.

      In other words: fuck these guys, it's not tolerable just because we have ways around it.
  • by MonsterTrimble (1205334) <monstertrimble AT hotmail DOT com> on Monday February 13, 2012 @01:22PM (#39021009)
    Remind me why I should ever vote for you again? I have voted against you in the previous number of federal elections (even while considering myself conservative) because of this stuff. You're not helping change my mind!
    • by compro01 (777531)

      Because if you don't the evil SPONSORSHIP SCANDAL liberals will get in!!!

      Or the evil BUSINESS DESTROYING SOCIALIST NDP will!

      • by Shark (78448)

        The sad part to me is that both these alternatives would also be very eager to pass similar nonsense. They'd just use cyber-bullying or some more liberal-friendly excuse.

  • I don't understand (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Xacid (560407) on Monday February 13, 2012 @01:27PM (#39021055) Journal

    I don't understand what it is with this recent(?) obsession with wanting to bypass warrants? It just outright baffles and frustrates me.

    • by 0123456 (636235) on Monday February 13, 2012 @01:41PM (#39021239)

      I don't understand what it is with this recent(?) obsession with wanting to bypass warrants?

      How can you build a police state if you need a warrant to spy on everyone?

    • by Beardo the Bearded (321478) on Monday February 13, 2012 @01:52PM (#39021427)

      See, I don't have a problem with the police getting a warrant for surveillance. That's because you've got to have a person check and you can't just go fishing. It's a terrible invasion of privacy to just have to police looking over your shoulders.

      What you can do now though is that if anyone comes out against a party or against any idea AT ALL, they can just blackmail you with your Internet history. "Hey Beardo, it looks like you like this and this, would be a shame if this went to the CBC, wouldn't it? I guess you're not all that opposed to this pipeline after all." (In my case I have no shame and no pride so it wouldn't really bother me.)

      They also don't have to get probable cause to see if you're downloading stuff. grep everyones_history_Telco mp3 "Here's everyone that downloaded any mp3s in the last month, Sony." It's akin to drugtesting the sewer to see if anyone in a suburb has taken drugs, and then checking every toilet in the neighbourhood.

      There's not even a chance that this law will be found Constitutional by the SCC or acceptable by the privacy comissionner.

      Or if not, what we can do is get PI licences and publish the web history of every MP and Senator and their familes every single day.

      • by Anrego (830717) *

        There's not even a chance that this law will be found Constitutional by the SCC or acceptable by the privacy comissionner.

        I really hope you are right.

        While I don't think our system here in Canada is perfect, it does seem to have an ok track record of squashing these insane laws before they become a reality.

        • It's been the basis of a lot of previous decisions. They can't pass this law without re-writing our Constitution and Charter, and for that a lot of people are going to die.

          And by die, I mean a long and slow death by natural causes while you try to balance neo-cons, Liberals, NDP, Québec, First Nations, urban and rural citizens, environmentalists, etc. Good Luck With That (TM).

          Here's a link to show how the SCC has already been deciding on these issues:
          http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/charter_digest/s-8.htm [canlii.org]

          • I have the perfect suggestion for this... create a device that caches all throughput in a circular buffer :D

            The trick will be that any government org wanting the info will have to request it within about 30 minutes of when it goes over the wire, or else it will be overwritten. This seems reasonable to me.

            Of course, they should still need a court order to obtain that information.

            End result would be that they could monitor what some suspect is doing "right now" but would have no way to mine what people have

  • New Fee (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Perfect, I can't wait to pay the new Internet Surveillance Fee of $7.85 on both my home internet and my cell phone to cover the cost of this ridiculous display of Harper's majority government. I hope you conservatives are happy, way to ruin Canada.

  • Creepy (Score:3, Interesting)

    by koan (80826) on Monday February 13, 2012 @01:58PM (#39021541)

    "The new system would require the disclosure of customer name, address, phone number, email address, Internet protocol address, and a series of device identification numbers. "

    That part about the "series of device identification numbers" will likely be a hardware profile similar to the kind used for DRM'ing software and not just a MAC address, if every access point records this profile then this type of surveillance is extensive, very extensive.
    Your Internet fingerprint as it were.

    For some reason I never associated Canada with this draconian crap, but there it is, along with Australia's equally intrusive measures soon the Internet will no longer be a forum of open discussion but rather one demoted to "content delivery" system, just like TV.

  • by lazarus (2879) on Monday February 13, 2012 @02:19PM (#39021919) Journal

    Fourteen years ago I was invited to speak to Canadian MPs about "Internet safety." The only MPs that showed up (sober) were Conservative MPs. Other MPs (Liberals, NDP, and Bloc) were in the same building partying with the Lumber Lobby and the strippers they brought with them. A few Bloc MPs showed up a little later but were so drunk they could hardly walk.

    To say I'm disappointed with this current turn of events is an understatement given what I have done to avoid it. That said, anybody who thinks that this is because the Conservatives are in power is, frankly, just an ignorant troll. Governments want control. All governments. You're job as the populace is to vocally encourage them to focus their efforts on methods of "protecting the people" (the initial and still principle role of government) that do so in a way that does not infringe on their rights as citizens.

    If you're concerned about it (and you should be), be sure to contact your MP and tell them how you feel, what they should be doing differently, and how this is going to effect your vote in the next election.

  • must have given him some new ideas to incorporate into this legislation.

    Good thing for onion routing and anonymous proxies. They are not just for users in China and Iran any more............
  • i heard that a right leaning government was re-elected in canada, but i did not think that they were outright to the scale of 'fascist'.

    wow.

    holy shitmoses ...

  • by benmhall (9092) on Monday February 13, 2012 @03:32PM (#39023183) Homepage Journal

    The proposed lawful access legislation that will give law enforcement sweeping new powers, put a tremendous strain on smaller ISPs, and put all Canadians at risk of inappropriate and unnecessary surveillance. This 1984-like legislation is something that has been in the works in one form or another since 1999. It seeks to add far more warrantless Internet surveillance options for law enforcement officers. While I very much respect and support our fine police men and women, the information that the proposed bill will grant, without warrant or or oversight, should concern all privacy-loving citizens. Ontario’s fantastic privacy commissioner, Ann Cavoukian, outlines her concerns eloquently in an interview with Search Engine’s Jesse Brown:
    http://searchengine.tvo.org/blog [tvo.org]

    Anyone interested, and we should all be interested, should read up on the details, listen to what others are saying, and let your MP know how you feel about this potential invasion of our privacy. If you feel strongly about this, you may also want to fill out the Open Media petition.

    http://www.realprivacy.ca/write-my-mp [realprivacy.ca]
    http://openmedia.ca/StopSpying [openmedia.ca]

    The Internet is what we make it. We should all be active participants.

  • what could possibly go wrong?

    the internet seems to be just an excuse for law enforcement to be lazy: what's wrong with limiting them to physical surveillance? yeah, it's harder, but from the citizen's side, that's a _good_ thing.

  • Bill C51 and Bill C11 for media companies to sue everyone in Canada and to let the Harper Gov to spy on Canadian citizens to weed out anyone talking bad about The Harper Government.
    Bill C10 to lock up and scare people away from smoking weed since it opens up their minds to the corruption

  • Harper lacks the imagination to be a wannabe tyrant. He's just copying what the US does. He hasn't exactly disguised the fact that imitating whatever the US does, no matter how stupid, is the only political belief he actually has.

Help stamp out Mickey-Mouse computer interfaces -- Menus are for Restaurants!

Working...