Hacker News Reader

Comment by gpm | Hacker News Reader

The headline is not true because "impose conditions" is not "strip". "Strip" would look like 15.2(2)(e) and (f) except targeting the ISPs customers instead of their suppliers. Imposing conditions does not as a matter of statutory interpretation include the ability to prohibit or terminate.

> (e) prohibit a telecommunications service provider from entering into a service agreement for any product or service used in, or in relation to, its telecommunications network or telecommunications facilities, or any part of those networks or facilities;

> (f) require that a telecommunications service provider terminate a service agreement referred to in paragraph (e);

Moreover even if, say, 15.2(2)(f) referred to (d) instead of (e) the headline would still be entirely untrue because the charter would prohibit it and this law, like all laws, must be interpreted in a manner consistent with the charter.

View on HN

> Imposing conditions does not as a matter of statutory interpretation include the ability to prohibit or terminate.

What sort of conditions would be allowable here? Its pretty easy to imagine conditions so onerous that it amounts to defacto termination of service.

Realistically the conditions I imagine being allowed under this statute are things like the customer doesn't use [this] hardware and the customer isn't given access to things like BGP.

Whatever conditions you impose they're going to have to

- Preserve access, because the wording of the law makes it clear that can't be removed.

- Be necessary to protect the telecommunications system from a threat (by the definition of 15.2)

- By the charter not be things that are punitive, substantially impact the ability of someone to speak (i.e. to access the internet), etc. For clarity free speech in Canada includes anonymity.

And I really don't see much of interest that complies with all of those. Were it not for the charter part I agree the conditions could be onerous, but "defacto termination of service" would likely be the bar where courts say that's too onerous without the charter.

> - Preserve access, because the wording of the law makes it clear that can't be removed.

How's it clear?

Another thing to keep in mind is that these details can and likely will be clarified in the future as it goes through process.

They could make the ISP not be able to provision more than 0 kb/s of bandwidth to you unless some condition is met, which apparently could be anything that the Minister considers relevant.

--- You're "endangering national security" by "spreading harmful information online". Such speech is not protected by the charter. You are now banned from the Internet. ---

They probably won't do this right away, but the door is open.

And they shouldn't be able to do this to the ISP's suppliers either.

No, they could not, because laws are interpreted so that every word must have a meaning, and if "impose conditions" could include "the condition of 0 kb/s" it what have no different meaning then "terminate" and that would violate the cannons of statutory interpretation.

They also could not because the charter would prohibit it. While not all speech is protected by the charter (your categories aren't the right one, but there are categories like CSAM and hate speech), the government doesn't have the ability to prevent significant amounts of protected speech to prevent unprotected speech without invoking the notwithstanding clause (which this law does not).

You're right, 0 kb/s would be too obvious. Let's do 0.1 kb/s, or restrict their plan to 1 minute of use per day.

You realize that while the charter still safeguards your freedoms, it will eventually be overturned if the populace gets used to more and more control over time. Laws like this are cracks in the dam. If you pay no attention to it or give it charitable interpretations, then someday the dam will crumble.

>The headline is not true because "impose conditions" is not "strip". "Strip" would look like 15.2(2)(e) and (f) except targeting the ISPs customers instead of their suppliers. Imposing conditions does not as a matter of statutory interpretation include the ability to prohibit or terminate.

As we seen with the tariff court cases in the US (ie. does "regulate ... imports" mean the power to set tariffs?), vague language like this is exactly what an authoritarian government would use to justify their actions.

>Moreover even if, say, 15.2(2)(f) referred to (d) instead of (e) the headline would still be entirely untrue because the charter would prohibit it and this law, like all laws, must be interpreted in a manner consistent with the charter.

So they can crush dissenters and maybe get overturned in 2-3 years time, by which time everyone forgot? That's exactly what happened with the convoy protests.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com