news.volyx.in

Canadian bill would strip internet access from 'specified persons', no warrant (nationalpost.com)

603 points by walterbell · 292 days ago · 369 comments on HN

Article summary

The Canadian government is proposing a bill, C-8, that would allow the Minister of Industry to order telecommunications providers to cut off internet services to specific individuals without a warrant. This move has been criticized for giving the government too much power and potentially infringing on citizens' rights. The bill is intended to combat cyber threats, but critics argue that it could be used to target individuals who are not a threat. The decision to cut off internet services would be subject to judicial review, but only after the fact.

Main themes

  • Internet censorship
  • Government surveillance
  • Canadian politics
  • Cybersecurity
  • Civil liberties

What commenters say

  • The proposed bill gives the government too much power to control individuals' internet access without sufficient oversight or justification.
  • The bill's intention to combat cyber threats is legitimate, but the means of achieving this goal may infringe on citizens' rights and freedoms.
  • The lack of transparency and judicial oversight in the decision-making process is a concern, as individuals may not know why their internet services have been cut off or have limited recourse to challenge the decision.
  • Some argue that the government's actions are a necessary measure to protect national security, while others see it as an overreach of power and a threat to democracy.
  • The use of emergency powers to seize bank accounts during the freedom protests sets a concerning precedent for the potential abuse of power in the future.
  • The proposed bill's language is too vague and open to interpretation, which could lead to arbitrary and unjust decisions.
  • There are concerns about the potential for the government to use this power to target specific groups or individuals who are not a threat, but rather a nuisance or a political opponent.
  • The fact that judicial review is only available after the fact does not provide sufficient protection for individuals' rights and freedoms.