Comments on: Canadian Surveillance Legislation Dissected – Bill C-46

By: Technology, Thoughts, and Trinkets » Blog Archive » Deep Packet Inspection and Law Enforcement

Fri, 03 Jul 2009 08:37:08 +0000

[...] presented by the Canadian conservative government (full details on bill C-47 available here, and C-46 here) is that police can require ISPs to hold onto particular information, whereas they now typically [...]

By: Wolf

Wolf — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 23:31:27 +0000

The part to which I’m referring is section 327 of bill C-46. You can get two years in jail for receiving a US satellite signal. Talk about insanity.

By: Wolf

Wolf — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 23:22:46 +0000

Not just that, but bill C-46 appears to finally be targeting people who use FTA satellite receivers for non-Canadian signals. Up until now this was considered a “gray” area, and in fact has been deemed “not illegal” by the Supreme Court of Canada. Looks like the Conservatives are finally trying to change that.

Looks like my vote just changed to Liberal. Sigh.

By: Anatole

Anatole — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 03:54:51 +0000

These bills are being introduced largely to fulfill international CyberCrime Treaty obligations. Without an informed and energized (strategic?) public, the measures will probably pass because Justice has reached a deal with industry after eight years of talking. Let’s make sure that use of these new powers is strictly monitored and accounted for.

By: Masthead Editorials Critical of Canadian Surveillance Legislation

Masthead Editorials Critical of Canadian Surveillance Legislation — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 23:01:11 +0000

[...] for the installation of surveillance technology on the ISPs in Canada. We’ve looked through Bill C-46 and Bill C-47 to find that out. While the editorials have pointed to evidence in Canada that police [...]

By: James

James — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 22:24:41 +0000

This is nothing but a sipper slope to grander removal of civil liberties. Harper and his fascist policies….again. Where has the sane leadership gone in this world?

So, who is rallyiing the troops to take this Bill down?

Regards,
I.R. PIssed

By: D.AN

D.AN — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 16:28:58 +0000

No…this situation is worse than that….

The real criminals, which I detest with my life, will indeed elude these stupid provisions; therefore, these bills will unprecedentedly create chaos, which is what these criminals will without doubt take advantage of….

By: Canadian Surveillance Legislation Dissected – Bill C-46 : Tech Blog

Canadian Surveillance Legislation Dissected – Bill C-46 : Tech Blog — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 12:15:56 +0000

[...] The new surveillance legislation in Canada has been causing waves, but today, we are finally able to actually read the legislation for the first time and the two bills contain some interesting provisions. We look at the legislation (Bill C-46 in this article) that has already worried many Canadians. The bills in question are Bill [...] Source:Canadian Surveillance Legislation Dissected – Bill C-46 [...]

By: Canadian Surveillance Legislation Dissected – Bill C-47

Canadian Surveillance Legislation Dissected – Bill C-47 — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 02:36:08 +0000

[...] already looked at Bill C-46 and added commentary from the perspective of a common Canadian citizen who just …. In this article, we look at the other piece of surveillance legislation, Bill C-47. This is the [...]

By: D.AN

D.AN — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 01:52:17 +0000

It is quite awkward that I anticipated these bills to cover something about Internet access, controlling one’s computer data, data encryption, hacking, and especially ‘property’, which I’m assuming also going to go with as ‘intellectual property’, but I did not expect or at least hoped that these bills would not be so extreme (i.e. being annoying is subjective and exists in many degrees, but this thing vaguely treats it all the same), prone to exploits and abuse (not all police officers = people are trustworthy), havoc-inducing (i.e. forcing individuals to be involved in foreign investigations), vague (too many implications), and not covering any special detail about “child pornography”, which is one of the main reason why this idea has been considered in the first place.

No, this is exactly what I expected when no actual knowledge of information technology is involved: incompetence.