[HN Gopher] Canadian bill would strip internet access from 'spec...
___________________________________________________________________
Canadian bill would strip internet access from 'specified persons',
no warrant
Author : walterbell
Score : 174 points
Date : 2025-10-07 12:20 UTC (10 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (nationalpost.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (nationalpost.com)
| walterbell wrote:
| https://archive.is/1Vvqr
| incomingpain wrote:
| Consider this scenario.
|
| Your isp emails you that they are terminating your account.
|
| You phone gets disconnected.
|
| You call them and helpdesk doesnt have a clue why.
|
| You try to sign up for new services and they refuse and wont say
| why.
|
| All because a politician has decided it 'reasonable' to
| disconnect you from the internet; and he can order complete
| secrecy and there's no judicial oversight.
|
| Perhaps you showed up at the wrong protest? Note how they seized
| the bank accounts of protestors and even an entire small bank
| only a few years ago.
| HappySweeney wrote:
| While I agree with most of this and oppose this bill, your last
| two lines are a mischaracterization. There is judicial
| oversight, but only after the order is implemented. Second, the
| bank accounts seized did not belong to protestors, as the
| leaders of that siege were convicted of mischief, two of which
| are being sentenced today. In general, protests do not engage
| in torturing the local populace with 95db of air horn for 16 to
| 20 hours a day. The account seizure also required emergency
| powers.
| gruez wrote:
| > There is judicial oversight, but only after the order is
| implemented
|
| In the sense that you can sue to have the order challenged?
| How's this different than what Trump's doing, where the
| government does something illegal (or at least legally
| dubious), and there's "judicial oversight" because aggrieved
| parties can sue the government?
|
| > Second, the bank accounts seized did not belong to
| protestors, as the leaders of that siege were convicted of
| mischief, two of which are being sentenced today.
|
| Were the bank accounts seized before or after the conviction?
| HappySweeney wrote:
| > In the sense that you can sue to have the order
| challenged?
|
| That's a good question. The article doesn't say and I
| haven't read the bill.
|
| > Were the bank accounts seized before or after the
| conviction?
|
| Before, of course. That was one of the justifications for
| invoking the emergency powers, and it wouldn't have been
| controversial otherwise. This is a digression, though, as
| there is no mention of any legislative changes to bank
| account seizures in the article.
| incomingpain wrote:
| >That's a good question. The article doesn't say and I
| haven't read the bill.
|
| How are your responding to me making affirmative comments
| that there's judicial oversight if you havent read the
| bill?
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVTgGnNlfe8
| HappySweeney wrote:
| It's in the article. I'm happy to read the bill and watch
| your linked video once my workday is over.
| incomingpain wrote:
| >It's in the article. I'm happy to read the bill and
| watch your linked video once my workday is over.
|
| You misunderstand. After it's done, only then could you
| sue and get judicial review. But it's all in secrecy, so
| you dont know what or who you need to sue. So you cant
| get judicial review.
| kstenerud wrote:
| Did it say that Telus/Rogers would be forbidden from
| telling you why they've terminated your account?
| digitalPhonix wrote:
| > There is judicial oversight, but only after the order is
| implemented
|
| How would one find out information about the process, find a
| lawyer etc. without internet access?
| halJordan wrote:
| Why is this question somehow a non-sequitor? Many court
| proceedings are now mandatory zoom meetings. How do you
| participate in a zoom meeting when the state has barred
| you. It's a clear catch-22 and the refusal to address it
| beyond "thats not the intention" is beyond galling.
| joemazerino wrote:
| If I am not mistaken, a court ruled those emergency powers
| were overreach.
| incomingpain wrote:
| There is not judicial oversight. You never know there was an
| order.
|
| If you get into that scenario, you suspect the government cut
| you off, but you go to a lawyer and have literally nothing.
| The court will not take the case.
|
| >econd, the bank accounts seized did not belong to
| protestors,
|
| They seized hundreds of accounts; later had the banks
| terminate the bank accounts.
|
| In fact, not only protestors but people who donated to the
| protest got their bank accounts seized.
|
| >as the leaders of that siege were convicted of mischief, two
| of which are being sentenced today.
|
| Protesting the government, in front of parliament is
| mischief? Political prisoners.
|
| >n general, protests do not engage in torturing the local
| populace with 95db of air horn for 16 to 20 hours a day. The
| account seizure also required emergency powers.
|
| Which was found to be unconstitutional.
|
| But Bill C8 wont be abused by this same government? How about
| abuse in the future by other governments?
| mulr00ney wrote:
| > In fact, not only protestors but people who donated to
| the protest got their bank accounts seized.
|
| As far as I can tell accounts were frozen, not seized. Do
| you have a reference for donor accounts being seized?
|
| ref: https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/emergency-bank-
| measures-fin...
| incomingpain wrote:
| >As far as I can tell accounts were frozen, not seized.
| Do you have a reference for donor accounts being seized?
|
| When it comes to civil rights like Section 8 of the
| charter. There's no such thing as 'frozen'
|
| They were searched, seized, and later returned.
|
| https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/td-bank-freezes-
| two-a...
|
| You have to go back to figure out how the government knew
| what bank accounts to seize. They didnt go up to each
| person and ask to see their debit card. Police dont have
| a ready list of bank accounts to seize.
|
| The source of the seizures was the gofundme leak by a
| hacker. Who has since been arrested, convicted, and is in
| prison for a separate hacking incident. Canada gave him
| immunity to his crimes during freedom protest. They took
| the donor list and seized from there.
| mulr00ney wrote:
| Thanks for the insight - learned something here. Didn't
| know about the hacker, that's pretty upsetting.
| busymom0 wrote:
| > The account seizure also required emergency powers.
|
| Court ruled the use of Emergencies Act against convoy
| protests was unreasonable, violated Charter:
|
| https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/emergencies-act-federal-
| cou...
|
| > Second, the bank accounts seized did not belong to
| protestors
|
| Wrong. Many people whose accounts were frozen were
| family/friends who were not even at the protest.
|
| Court found:
|
| > The judge said the economic orders infringed on protesters'
| freedom of expression "as they were overbroad in their
| application to persons who wished to protest but were not
| engaged in activities likely to lead to a breach of the
| peace." He also concluded the economic orders violated
| protesters' Charter rights "by permitting unreasonable search
| and seizure of the financial information of designated
| persons and the freezing of their bank and credit card
| accounts."
| goku12 wrote:
| Let me remind everyone this again. Democracy is not an
| autocracy with time limits and turns. It's not a system where
| you elect a few individuals and hand them the power to rule
| over you for a few years. They are supposed to be your
| representatives who raise your concerns and protect your
| interests in a forum that takes decisions that affect all of
| you. Legislation like these are the small steps that convert
| the latter into the former. Democracy is fragile. Just electing
| a candidate periodically is not enough. It depends on the
| constant effort, vigil and activism from the citizens to
| safeguard it. It wont survive your apathy. As idealistic as it
| sounds, this burden is the true cost of living in a democracy.
| This is a harsh lesson that's recorded in history again and
| again.
|
| Always take legislation like this seriously and hold your
| representatives responsible for it. Let them know that their
| political career in your constituency is finished for good if
| they support such moves. Let their political party know that
| they're not winning your constituency again until the damage is
| reversed. There's no room for subtleties and pleasantries when
| they're clearly showing you that they don't value your autonomy
| or the checks and balances on their abuse of power.
| Atlas667 wrote:
| Most of this system was created when half of us were slaves,
| the other half were poor illiterate farmers, and only a tiny
| fraction could read, write and rule.
|
| There is no democracy. There has always been "democracy" for
| the bourgeoise, not for the majority. Only for those who
| control production.
|
| And what has been put into place since then can easily be
| manipulated by the rich.
|
| How do you think we got here?
|
| There are no real mechanisms for mass democracy.
| goku12 wrote:
| Is this about Canada or the US? Either way, you can either
| defend and demand for the democracy, or give up and stop
| claiming democracy altogether. This is a problem with
| democracies everywhere. I don't know about you, but I'm not
| too enthusiastic about a future that resembles the dark
| ages.
| Atlas667 wrote:
| This applies to either.
|
| The democracy we need threatens those in power.
|
| What say does the average poor person in your town have?
| To endorse someone they cant control? To choose from
| amongst the few candidates that the big interests have
| developed and then cross their fingers??
|
| Letting individuals control production creates a divided
| society, one of workers and one of owners.
|
| Where one has unequal leverage over the other but are
| supposed to (on paper) exist on the same democratic
| level.
|
| Mom and pop shops may come your mind, or someone who owns
| a franchise or small business, the truth is that even
| small business owners are nearly wholly beholden to large
| capital and huge finance capital.
|
| What say does a walmart employee have compared to the
| owners of walmart?
|
| While you were learning about what the hell the electoral
| college is, some others were being trained on how to
| lobby effectively.
|
| Mass democracy threatens the status quo almost entirely.
|
| There does not exist a party for the people. And if it
| were to exist it would be outlawed and threatened like
| they have been in the past.
|
| Would you suppress a peoples party if you had billions on
| the line?
| SoftTalker wrote:
| Anyway, the USA is a representative republic.
| lisbbb wrote:
| You can't look at California, New York, New Jersey,
| Maryland, Illinois, Oregon, Washington, Massachusetts--
| states who have these very long-term Democrat majorities,
| and tell me we have a representative anything! Those
| places will likely never turn back to any kind of
| balanced representative rule. They pass whatever the hell
| they want and the only pushback is through our Federal
| courts who often take years to produce meager relief.
|
| It's not "getting bad" it "is bad."
| Atlas667 wrote:
| Exactly. We are designed so that those with more power
| can play their games in DC and through out all the public
| offices in these states.
|
| There is a reason why labor movements have been nearly
| completely wiped out from collective history.
|
| Those who don't take this govts anti-socialist stance
| seriously must realize that the history of modern warfare
| and the history of anti-socialism share way too much
| space.
|
| Mass democracy is a threat to the status quo.
| lisbbb wrote:
| That was a bold statement that the children on here will no
| doubt downvote into oblivion as will mine. I'm tired of
| having this same argument over and over--just having the
| ability to vote for draconian shit doesn't mean you get to
| lord over everyone else! The power mongers in control of most
| Western governments are insane lunatics who use fear against
| hapless, low-information fools. They seem hell bent on
| eliminating every single basic freedom we ever had? Why? I
| keep hearing "neo-feudalism" but that's just a label, it's
| not the why. Also, why not just eliminate voting completely?
| Well, I mean, it's nearly a formality in many places these
| days already, but they like that little semblance of false
| legitimacy, I guess.
| morkalork wrote:
| Sounds about as opaque and infringing on rights as the no-fly
| list or anything else implemented post 9/11?
| ProllyInfamous wrote:
| As a middle-aged person voluntarily _NOT_ using email /phone, I
| cannot even imagine being _banned from the internet_. How would
| you function?
| walterbell wrote:
| Would this apply to traveller phones roaming on Canadian telco
| networks?
|
| What forms of digital identity could be used to enforce an
| internet kill switch / blockade for specific humans?
| ProllyInfamous wrote:
| Great thought -- see also: StarLinks
| zetanor wrote:
| > If the Governor in Council believes on reasonable grounds that
| it is necessary to do so to secure the Canadian
| telecommunications system against any threat, including that of
| interference, manipulation, disruption or degradation [...]
|
| https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/45-1/bill/C-8/first-re...
|
| Anyone familiar enough with Canadian law to know how much bearing
| this condition might have in practice?
| neom wrote:
| Will depend heavily on how it is interpreted and exercised by
| Cabinet, it's ex-ante accountability - required parliamentary
| reporting after the fact.
|
| Personal opinion as a Canadian, and may not be popular...but I
| like it's done this way to a degree, I actually have more faith
| in the Governor in Council than how the courts might
| interperate this, there is a lot of political risk to using
| this, and I do believe that the crown will in fact enforce
| parliamentary accountability. If this truly is a national
| security tool, these powers are less alarming than, say, those
| granted directly to an independent agency or to security
| services acting without crown/ministerial oversight.
| nick__m wrote:
| I would agree with you if this clause was amended to remove
| the part after the coma: (6) Any order made
| under subsection (1) must be published in the Canada Gazette
| within 90 days after the day on which it is made, unless the
| Governor in Council directs otherwise in the order.
| mhurron wrote:
| This is a law enforcement action. If the government is going
| to give itself the ability to strip the ability of a citizen
| or resident to access services that are their right to
| access, and an increasing number of those services are online
| access, it should be done within the confines and oversight
| of the law.
|
| This is a disgusting power grab. 'Because I said so, trust
| me' is not a justification.
| nick__m wrote:
| I tought that the National Post was exaggerating the severity in
| their crusade against the Liberal like they frequently do. So I
| when to read the law and it's as bad as they say:
| https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/45-1/bill/C-8/first-re...
| ... Factor Before making the order, the Governor
| in Council must consider (a) its operational impact
| on the affected telecommunications service providers;
| (b) its financial impact on the affected telecommunications
| service providers; (c) its effect on the provision
| of telecommunications services in Canada; and (d)
| any other factor that the Governor in Council considers relevant.
| ... No compensation (8) No one is entitled
| to any compensation from His Majesty in right of Canada for
| any financial losses resulting from the making of an order under
| subsection (1).
| Simulacra wrote:
| Sounds very much like a social credit scoring system
| olalonde wrote:
| Which doesn't even exist.
| Simulacra wrote:
| _in America_ whereas in places like China, it very much
| exists.
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Credit_System
| yibg wrote:
| How's the Chinese system different from the American credit
| score?
| aianus wrote:
| Being an asshole doesn't harm your credit score unless it
| causes financial damages that you don't pay back.
| thinkingkong wrote:
| The argument made here seems to be that the power to prevent
| unlawful access or threats is somehow required to keep us all
| safe. But if someone was an actual threat, do we really think
| they'd be using the internet with their own identity? Like if
| someone is willing to hack into a power station or some other
| critical infrastructure, they'll be simultaneously stupid enough
| to use their own credit card?
|
| Illegal things are already illegal. Safety and security
| mechanisms already exist. We dont need additional, punitive, and
| opaque laws that can be abused.
| themafia wrote:
| Politicians seem to enjoy corruption. It benefits them
| directly.
|
| They really do hate anyone who points out their hypocrisy or
| makes fun of them. It challenges their corrupt kickbacks
| directly.
|
| I think it's easy to make a prediction of actual use cases
| here.
| pavel_lishin wrote:
| Is this even corruption? Who's getting kickbacks here? It
| sounds like they're just incompetent, and brainstorming
| stupid ideas and writing a law around whatever sticks to the
| wall.
| hn_throw_bs wrote:
| Canadian here. I support this.
| nick__m wrote:
| I am to and I oppose this! Might I ask why are you supporting
| this ?
| whatsupdog wrote:
| He/she is a party loyalist and will even eat sh*t if the
| party passed a law requiring everyone to do so.
| steve_adams_86 wrote:
| There's no information to work with here which suggests
| that's the case, here or in their comment history.
| 8note wrote:
| im fine with the government having this power, but it should go
| with invoking the notwithstanding claude every time, so it gets
| the proper level of oversight by canadians.
|
| im not fine with another 20 canadians being kicked out of
| society every day, especially when there isnt even mail
| service.
|
| im not in favour of forcing all companies and apps and
| whathaveyou to implement these checks
| ImJamal wrote:
| Are you willing to be the first stripped from the internet?
| txrx0000 wrote:
| This is worse than the EU's ChatControl, or the UK's Online
| Safety Act. This will pave the way for total online censorship
| and surveillance in Canada. The Canadian government will be able
| to target any user or service provider it doesn't like, silently.
|
| They don't even have to pass laws to ban VPNs or read private
| chat messages or enforce identity verification, or whatever other
| unambitious attempts other governments are making. This will do
| it all:
|
| Knock knock, it's the Chinadian government. You host a web
| service that uses encryption? Great. Now provide a backdoor for
| us or we'll ban you. Oh and don't tell your users. We'll ban you
| for that too.
|
| ---
|
| Hello user, we noticed that you've shared some concerning
| information online, and you're also using this E2EE chat service
| that we can't monitor. A friendly reminder from the government:
| continuing to use such services and spreading such harmful
| information online may cause your Internet connection to
| malfunction.
| steve_adams_86 wrote:
| I support prohibiting people from accessing the internet IF
| they're proven to be dangerous to others if they access the
| internet. But this applies to any public space or commons,
| internet or otherwise, and we already have the means of
| accomplishing this... With a due process.
|
| Why would it makes sense to remove that process, while
| introducing an incredible opaque decision-making process in its
| place, which totally bars anyone from knowing why they were
| excluded from accessing the internet? It even prevents wrongfully
| excluded individuals from receiving compensation.
|
| For example, I could be cut off from the internet which I need to
| do my job. Say I'm unable to work for a week or two and then it's
| determined that I can access the internet because an error was
| made... Well, as far as I can tell, I'd be SOL. That doesn't seem
| right...
|
| Worse still is that this seems about as technically competent as
| using an IP address to determine a person's location. Any serious
| threat vector, human or otherwise, _will_ find other ways to
| access the internet or perpetuate their threat if they care to.
| If they 're a serious threat, why wouldn't prison be a better
| solution than... Calling their ISP and banning them from the
| internet?
|
| All of this seems very short-sighted, undemocratic, and naive.
|
| And while the 'human or otherwise' phrase I used might seem odd
| (I know someone's dog isn't shit-posting on X), what I mean to
| say is something like... What if an LLM is posting from an
| unsuspecting person's computer and was placed there as a virus?
| Once it's cut off from that poor person's computer, it's very
| likely it will eventually or already be functioning from some
| other unsuspecting person's computer, server, or whatever other
| device. Their toaster. My point is that we live in an age where
| there are non-human agents causing harm online. The machine they
| operate from will not always be OpenAI's or Anthropics, and
| indeed, will probably rarely be so.
|
| This was already the case with human actors, but it made much
| worse with the advent of AI-based agents.
| rock_artist wrote:
| We live in very confusing times. Democratic countries start
| acting more and more like big brother.
|
| Its also concerning to read the quote: "necessary to do so to
| secure the Canadian telecommunications system against any threat,
| including that of interference, manipulation, disruption or
| degradation."
|
| Where Canadian telecommunication is almost a duopoly and had
| major outage a few years ago without any claims of bad actors.
| walterbell wrote:
| _> Canadian telecommunication is almost a duopoly_
|
| Nortel, never forget
| ARandomerDude wrote:
| Do you criticize the government too much? You're now a "specified
| person". Sure, the court may overturn the decision eventually,
| but for the next 3 years your life is ruined. This is the COVID
| trucker protest response playbook, now applied to the internet.
|
| If you think _but I don 't like the COVID truckers_, well that's
| fine for now. Wait until there is something you vehemently
| disagree with the government about. Freedom of speech must be
| protected, regardless of how much you like the content or the
| speaker.
|
| ETA: What might be the justification for censorship in this bill?
| The telecom network is critical infrastructure. You're spreading
| mis/dis/mal-information, according to the government. Therefore
| you are harming the integrity of the telecom network.
| FlyingBears wrote:
| C11 and this bill makes me think about what situations does the
| government need this sort of "weaponry"? I think the plausible
| answer is war.
| petermcneeley wrote:
| Is it plausible? I wouldnt give these people the benefit of the
| doubt. In Canada we also have the emergency powers ... so if we
| had a war we would already have the "weaponry".
| thmsths wrote:
| Applying for jobs has almost entirely moved online these days.
| And this is just one of many such things. Does whoever wrote that
| bill understands that? Or do they just naively think that "it's
| just time out for people who break the rules".
| BJones12 wrote:
| They want to ruin the lives of those who oppose them. The
| Canadian Liberal government has previously attempted the same
| goal by de-banking protestors, in a move that the courts later
| ruled unconstitutional.
| pavel_lishin wrote:
| > _In the House of Commons last week, Anandasangaree, the public
| safety minister defended Bill C-8 as a means to crack down on
| hackers and ransomware fraudsters._
|
| > _"Malicious cyber-actors are breaching our country's IT
| systems, accessing sensitive information and putting lives in
| danger," he said._
|
| > _Anandasangaree added that "hostile state actors are stealing
| information and gaining access to systems that are critical to
| our national security and public safety."_
|
| ... and these hostile state actors are doing this from their
| _checks notes_ home in Ottawa, using a Rogers internet connection
| they 're paying for?
| logicchains wrote:
| Americans like to say the first amendment relies on the second
| amendment, or as Mao Zedong put it, political power grows from
| the barrel of a gun. When I was younger I thought it was
| exaggerated, but now it seems like there really are fewer and
| fewer countries where you can criticise your government online
| without facing legal repercussions. If things continue at the
| current rate, in 5-10 years America might be the only English-
| speaking country with freedom of speech (as long as you don't
| criticise Israel).
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-10-07 23:00 UTC)