reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Liberals are proposing a law where a minister can ban me from the Internet, my Internet service provider ban me from the Internet, and neither of us be able to say anything about it. Matt Strauss, who's a doctor and a physician and also a member of parliament, said that you need to be concerned about bill c eight. It allows Melanie Jolley to kick anyone off the Internet with no trial and no warrant. Worse off, you won't be able to say that you've even been kicked off. And this is the Emergencies Measures Act on steroids, only permanent and secret? "Watch this. Ministers order if there are reasonable grounds to believe that it is necessary to do so to secure the Canadian telecommunication system against any threat, including that of interference, manipulation, disruption, degradation, the minister may by order and after consultation with the minister of public safety, prohibit a telecommunications service provider from providing any service to any specified person, including telecommunications service provider." "The order may also include a provision prohibiting the disclosure of its existence or some or all of its contents by any person." "This is crazy." "The minister may require any person to provide to the minister or any person designated by the minister, meaning she's able to designate whoever the heck she wants, within any time and any subject to any conditions that the minister may specify." "Any information that the minister believes on reasonable grounds is relevant for the purpose of making, amending, or revoking an order under section 15." "This is insane." "This is a minister that will have the sole power to kick you off the Internet at their will, then ban you or anyone else from being able to speak on this." "If the conservatives did this, there would be an uproar all over the media, all over the world." "They would call them a dictatorship. They would call them communist. They would say this is Nazi like." "But the liberals are doing this, and now everyone's quiet." "Come people have to speak up." "I promise you, if this bill goes through, it's gonna be ugly for everyone." "And if I get kicked off, I'm going to break that ban." "I will talk about it. I will let the world know that a totalitarian state, a communist state of the Liberal Party is trying to silence its people at its discretion, not the police, but the government." "Ridiculous."

The speaker is concerned about the government's need for emergency powers when the focus should be on boosting cybersecurity and resilience against natural disasters. They question the necessity of secret courts and blocking individuals from the telecommunications sector. In response, another speaker explains that emergency powers are crucial in dealing with network breaches and systemic effects. They argue that quick action is necessary to prevent further damage. The second speaker also mentions the importance of checks and balances, judicial review, proportionality, and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They emphasize the potential harm if the government lacks the power to address network infiltrations. The conversation ends with limited time remaining.

The restrict act, Senate bill 686, grants the government access to data from video devices used by over 1,000,000 people. It raises concerns about privacy and potential abuse of power similar to the Patriot Act. The bill also proposes penalties for using VPNs to access certain websites. Critics fear it may limit free speech and digital freedom. The bill has sparked controversy and calls to oppose it.

A commission of inquiry must balance the need for transparency with protecting Canada's national security. It is important for the public and journalists to know if foreign actors targeted Canada's democratic process, but revealing sensitive information could harm national interests. While transparency is crucial, secrecy is also necessary in certain situations to prevent more harm than good.

The speaker is discussing the World Economic Forum (WEF) Agile Nations Charter that the Government of Canada signed in November 2020 and how it relates to digital credentials and other technologies. The speaker notes that the prime minister did not tell Canadians that this would usher in the fourth industrial revolution by changing how policy is made in Canada. After outlining several Agile Nations projects—Coordinating National Standards Body of Agile Nations, digital credentials, preloaded air cargo targeting, consumer connecting products, experimental approaches, anticipatory regulation, digital health software devices—the focus is narrowed to digital credentials and related technologies. The Digital Credentials Project is described as being led by Canada under Agile Nations, aiming to make digital trust and digital ID technologies more seamless across borders. It involves workshops, proofs of concept, and pilots. The speaker asserts that there is a lack of transparency surrounding these initiatives and points to concerns about government abuse of centralized personal data. Canadians are presented with a request for the ability to opt out of privacy-intrusive digital IDs, artificial intelligence, and smart technologies. Examples cited to illustrate potential government overreach include the Emergencies Act usage to freeze protesters’ bank accounts and the ArriveCAN app, which the speaker claims discriminated against seniors who lacked smartphones. The central argument is that digital IDs should not be mandatory given past government actions, and that people generally use existing digital means (bank cards, online payments) without government control over all their data. The concern is that a digital ID could enable government surveillance or social-political control, especially if linked with other data such as driving records, health information, banking data, purchases, or even sensitive attributes like religion or political beliefs. The speaker connects digital IDs to central bank digital currencies (CBDCs), suggesting that a move to digital IDs could enable CBDCs, which could allow governments to track purchases and impose limits or programmable constraints on spending, travel, or item availability. This leads to questions about ethical frameworks, governance, and safeguards. The absence of transparency, public engagement, or legislation is framed as evidence that the prime minister does not prioritize protecting Canadians from digital ID abuse. Further concerns include the lack of comprehensive privacy legislation to regulate both government and private sector use of digital IDs. The Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) is described as focusing on businesses, with government roles under-regulated. Bill C-27, the Digital Charter Implementation Act, is noted as addressing privacy only in the private sector, with responsibility shifted to businesses. The speaker argues for a national, overarching framework to protect privacy, rather than pushing obligations onto small businesses. The speaker asserts that the Agile Nations Charter demonstrates liberal government intentions and urges ongoing democratic involvement to prevent executive overreach. Pierre Poilievre is highlighted as listening to concerns and promising that digital IDs will never be mandatory. The message concludes with a call to contact federal representatives to support a federal digital charter that protects Canadians from digital ID abuses by government and corporations.

Speaker 1 outlines concerns about Bill C-22, the Lawful Access Act of 2026, asserting that if it becomes law, the Government of Canada will be able to secretly order Apple to build in a capability into its infrastructure to allow Canadian law enforcement and national security authorities to track every iPhone, iPad, Apple Watch, AirPod, and AirTag in real time. This capability would enable authorities to require Apple to confirm whether it provides any services to a user, and to obtain device identifiers for all devices used with those services. The process could involve going to a justice of the peace and obtaining an order without any requirement that a crime has been or will be committed, effectively mandating Apple to hand over moment-by-moment locations for all user devices. The speaker further notes that with that secret order, Apple would be compelled to provide the moment-by-moment locations of all devices associated with a user, based on the digital ID tied to iPhone, iPad, Apple Watch, AirPod, Apple TV, and AirTag. In addition, the order would require Apple to maintain location history for a full year, enabling cops to access that historical data as well. The overarching concern highlighted is whether such expansive powers—secret orders, real-time tracking, access to device identifiers and services, and a year-long location history—are desirable for Canadian police and law enforcement. Speaker 0 interjects with a prompting remark, inviting the audience to consider the implications and framing the discussion as a best attempt to evaluate the issue. The dialogue centers on the potential reach of government surveillance powers under the proposed act, the mechanisms by which these powers could be exercised (secret orders and judiciary involvement), and the practical consequences of requiring a tech company to reveal comprehensive location data and device identifiers without demonstrating a crime or imminent wrongdoing. The core issue presented is whether granting law enforcement such pervasive, real-time, and historical access to users’ device data aligns with acceptable governance and privacy standards in Canada.

Checklist for summary approach: - Identify and preserve the core claims about Bill c eight and how it should be read. - Retain explicit statements about weaponization risk and the protection of telecommunication infrastructure. - Highlight who the speaker says is most at risk (dissenters, civil society actors) and why. - Emphasize the asserted impact on fundamental justice, security, transparency, and liberty. - Quote exact phrases where they carry key meaning, and paraphrase the rest to maintain coherence. - Exclude evaluation or commentary about truthfulness; do not add new claims. - Translate if needed (text is already in English). - Keep the final summary within the 368–461 word limit. Summary: We must take the bill at face value. We must rely on what the text explicitly sets out in the law. Otherwise, the law intended to protect telecommunication infrastructure could easily be weaponized by any government against ordinary citizens. The speaker emphasizes that this concern would arise if the bill is not interpreted strictly by its text, framing a risk that the law’s protections could be misused to target the public rather than shield critical infrastructure. The argument underscores the potential misalignment between formal protections and actual practice if the text is not applied as written. Citizens most at risk, according to the speaker, are people like me—those who publicly and loudly express dissent, challenge orthodoxy, or raise uncomfortable truths. These individuals are described as the most active in civil society and therefore the ones most at risk of being cut off, penalized, and isolated without ever knowing why. The speaker frames dissenters as central to democratic life, noting that their visibility and vocal advocacy place them in a particularly vulnerable position under the bill’s regime as envisioned by critics. For these reasons, Bill c eight undermines the principles of fundamental justice in the charter as it stands. The assertion implies that the bill, in its current form, jeopardizes core constitutional guarantees by enabling measures that could circumvent due process or equal protection in the name of security or infrastructure protection. The concluding claim connects security to a broader concern: security in this context can be a pretext for control while transparency and liberty are sacrificed. In other words, the speaker contends that heightened security measures risk eroding openness and individual freedoms, using the bill as a vehicle for increased governmental reach at the expense of civil liberties.

The proposed bill would allow law enforcement to intercept private electronic communications without consent, enabling broad surveillance of innocent Americans near airports under the pretext of addressing drone threats. This raises concerns about government overreach and the potential violation of civil liberties. Congress must act as a check on executive power, demanding transparency and justification before granting new surveillance authorities. The federal government already possesses the means to manage drone threats without infringing on citizens' rights. We should not sacrifice freedoms for vague security promises. I object to this bill but am open to discussions on enhancing drone activity management while safeguarding constitutional privacy rights.

Speaker 0 argues Canada introduced a bill allowing the minister to 'kick any Canadian citizen off the Internet to cut off their phone line, to turn off their phone.' 'If there is reasonable grounds to believe that it is necessary to do so to secure the Canadian telecommunication system against any threat, the minister may prohibit a telecommunication service provider from providing any service to the specified person.' He warns 15.2 clause five makes the decision 'secret.' He says this signals 'Chinese Communist Party levels of government overreach.' He links the bill to the digital ID agenda and World Economic Forum's claim that digital identity is crucial for 'civic participation' and to UN 'Real ID' plans, noting Rand Paul tweets. He argues it could isolate people from paying bills, banking, or organizing politics, describing a potential 'digital gulag.' He advocates repeal in the US and hopes Canada defeats the agenda.

There are amendments being considered for the Pfizer bill, including one that would require a warrant for every query of lawfully selected data. While I cannot predict the president's decision on a potential veto, we believe that this warrant requirement does not align with U.S. national security interests. I will be discussing this with several members today, emphasizing that the proposed warrant requirement could compromise the protection of Americans' personal privacy. We support other elements of the bill aimed at reforming Pfizer to safeguard civil liberties, but we feel that imposing a warrant requirement would undermine the bill's purpose and potentially endanger victims.

Signal, a company, may be asked by the regulator Ofcom about the data they gather. Signal claims they don't collect data on people's messages. However, the concern is that the bill doesn't specify this and instead gives Ofcom the power to demand spyware downloads to check messages against a permissible database. This sets a precedent for authoritarian regimes and goes against the principles of a liberal democracy. It is seen as unprecedented and a negative shift in surveillance practices.

Counselor Lisa Robinson argues that Bill C8 and Bill C9 are not protective measures but power grabs in disguise, aimed at expanding government control at the expense of Canadians’ freedoms. She claims Bill C8, titled the Cybersecurity Act, would allow the government to seize control of telecom networks, issue secret orders, and cut off access without notifying individuals. Under C8, the government could tell internet providers what to block, remove, or silence, justified by cybersecurity and national security, effectively giving the government power to “pull the plug on your voice.” Regarding Bill C9, she describes it as the hate propaganda and hate crime bill, asserting it would let the government decide what symbols are hateful and what speech is intimidating, with prosecutors able to pursue cases for “the wrong things.” She emphasizes that C9 removes the attorney general’s oversight, meaning prosecutors could pursue hate speech actions without a second opinion or accountability. She frames this as ideology with a badge and warns it would target speech rather than stop hate, undermining free expression. She stresses that combined, C8 and C9 erode digital independence and freedom of speech, enabling the government to determine what you may say and how you say it, and to shut you down if you dissent. She warns that such power could be abused over time and that history shows powers granted in this way tend to be used against ordinary people. She opposes the idea that protecting democracy requires censoring speech, arguing instead that democracy is defended by defending the right to offend, to question, and to challenge power. Her call to action is direct: contact MPs, flood inboxes, call offices, and tell them to vote no on C8 and C9. She warns that passing these bills would not only reduce privacy but strip the freedom to discuss them, turning Canada toward a “digital dictatorship run by bureaucrats and hate speech committees.” She concludes by urging Canadians to wake up, defend freedom now, and reject C8 and C9, presenting herself as the People’s Counselor who will “never whisper the truth to protect a lie.” She ends with a plea to follow, subscribe, and share the message, and a final exhortation to stand strong and say no to the bills.

This is a new report from Blacklock’s Reporter about the federal push for a national digital ID. The article states that federal regulators yesterday said they are “working to establish digital credentials for the public without parliamentary go ahead.” MPs have repeatedly rejected the introduction of any national electronic digital ID systems as expensive and risky. The notice, shared by Shared Services Canada, the Federal ID Department, says: “Any new system, and here's the kicker, any new system should allow regulators to revoke credentials,” but it did not elaborate, and it did not explain if enrollment would be mandatory. The presenter emphasizes that, despite legislators’ objections, the Liberal government is “quietly going around talking about building a digital ID” that would permit credential revocation, and there is no explanation about enrollment being mandatory. The speaker frames this as part of the Prime Minister’s hidden agenda, suggesting action happens “through the back door, through these, like, sneaky little contract things.” On the political response, the presenter says the Conservative Party will oppose the move. He cites Liberal Bill C-63, described as their “massive censorship bill,” and says he tabled an opposing bill that would “keep Canadians safe online, but quote expressly prohibit the use of a digital ID,” noting that the principle is written into his bill. He highlights Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre’s opposition to digital IDs, pointing to Poilievre’s 2022 Twitter posts where he said government attempts to impose digital IDs and other intrusive tracking and surveillance are “an attack on our freedom. I will end them.” The presenter notes Poilievre has continued to tweet about the issue and has a petition linked on his Twitter page, with the message that “common sense conservatives will ban mandatory digital IDs, full stop.” He asserts that conservatives are fighting this and mentions that the story is not being reported by outlets like CBC. The presenter references ongoing efforts to expose government actions beyond what mainstream media covers, alleging that Trudeau’s censorship bills suppress such stories. He urges viewers to share the video and click subscribe, and mentions a link in the video description to a full breakdown about an investigation his colleague and another MP are asking the Competition Bureau to undertake. In closing, the presenter reiterates that Liberal leadership uses back-channel methods to push agendas, and that the Conservative Party, led by Poilievre, will do everything in its power to stop a mandatory digital ID. The report ends by highlighting the headline: “Fed's proposed national digital ID.”

All collected data, including communication content like phone calls, emails, and text messages, can be searched without a warrant based on probable cause. This violates the Constitution and leads to constitutional violations. Reforms are needed to stop this practice.

Washington lawmakers are advancing two proposals that would expand the state’s control over how three-dimensional printers and similar equipment can be used, citing the spread of “untraceable firearms” as justification. House bill 2321 would require that all three‑D printers sold in Washington after 07/01/2027 include built‑in safeguards that detect and block attempts to produce firearms or firearm components. The safeguards must reject such print requests with a high degree of reliability and prevent users from disabling or bypassing the control system. To meet the rule, manufacturers could embed the detection algorithm directly into a printer’s firmware, integrate it through preprint software, or use an authentication process that screens design files before printing. Manufacturers failing to comply could be charged with a class C felony, facing penalties of up to five years in prison and a $15,000 fine. The measure defines these safeguards as a firearms blueprint detection algorithm. A related bill, House bill 2320, would prohibit the use of three‑D printers, CNC milling machines, or other tools to produce unregistered firearms. It would also make it illegal to distribute or possess digital files capable of creating gun parts. The bill targets both the physical manufacturing of ghost guns and the online exchange of design data. Representative Osman Sallehuden introduced the legislation, saying it is meant to close a dangerous gap in state law: “with a three‑D printer that cost a few hundred and a digital file that can be downloaded online, someone can now manufacture an untraceable firearm at home, no background check, no serial number, and no accountability.” The discussion notes that under U.S. federal law, unlicensed individuals may produce firearms for personal noncommercial use without registering them or adding a serial number, often referred to as ghost guns. However, this is restricted by state laws and federal regulations against manufacturing items like silencers or machine guns, and against firearms that are undetectable by metal detectors. The article emphasizes that apart from some prohibited items, it is legal to use three‑D printers for this purpose under certain conditions, subject to state variations. The proposed safeguards would require the algorithm to be unbypassable, effectively outlawing firmware modification or gaining root access. In short, tinkering with your own hardware could be treated as a crime. The bills are framed as public safety measures, but the discussion warns they could push toward closed systems that require server authentication or proprietary software, turning open hardware into a controlled platform. The broader concern is about government or corporate control over what devices a person may own or modify, with potential for expanded restrictions through the attorney general’s broad authority to define blocked designs in the future. The debate touches on parallels to proposed and enacted “kill switches” and remote controls in other domains, and to the tension between innovation and control.

The speakers discuss the breadth and invasiveness of data that can be accessed from a person’s phone, highlighting how such information can be retrieved and used in investigations. They enumerate the various types of data that can be obtained: call logs, chats, cookies, device notifications, emails, instant messages, and passwords. They note that deleted conversations on encrypted apps like WhatsApp and Signal can also be accessible, as well as Millie’s deleted web browsing history. The speakers emphasize that contact information for everyone the person has spoken to, and the locations of all their calls, can be seen. They point out that information about other people’s phone numbers can be accessed, and they ask whether those people’s messages to the person can be seen, with the answer being yes. The police can obtain information about people the person has contacted, not only in relation to any arrest that might have occurred but also concerning individuals who may have contacted the person securely (for example, through Signal) about work. The speakers express that the most worrying aspect is that this kind of data access can happen at the time of arrest, even when charges are never brought, and that it can also apply to witnesses and victims. They argue that there appears to be little clarity about deletion, implying that the police can effectively do what they want when they obtain someone’s phone, which they describe as a scary amount of information. Despite the fear, they also acknowledge that this data is extremely useful for the police in investigations. A central concern raised is the current lack of a required warrant to obtain any of this information. They argue that there should be a degree of checks and balances to determine whether it is proportionate to access such data in a given case, stating that in some cases it may not be necessary to access a person’s phone. Overall, the discussion highlights a tension between the usefulness of comprehensive digital data for investigative purposes and the potential for overreach or abuse in the absence of warrants or robust safeguards.

The speaker opposes a FISA bill allowing the government to force anyone with access to communications to spy. This bill expands government surveillance powers significantly, potentially deputizing millions of Americans to spy without oversight. Supporters argue it targets foreigners, but Americans' communications can be collected if they interact with foreign targets. The bill lacks meaningful reforms and fails to address warrantless searches of Americans' communications under Section 702. Concerns include potential abuses and lack of oversight, especially with the broad expansion of surveillance authorities.

The RCMP has expanded surveillance capabilities in the last 5 years, adopting technologies that raise privacy concerns. Covert software infiltrates devices, accessing communications and activating cameras/microphones. Cell site simulators collect data from nearby devices, raising concerns about tracking innocent individuals. The speaker claims the RCMP is unwilling to target organized crime and protects corrupt politicians, and that these actions demonstrate unfairness and injustice towards Canadians. The speaker suggests these surveillance tools encourage self-censorship because the RCMP can infiltrate devices and monitor citizens. Surveillance in totalitarian regimes aims to control populations by creating constant observation, driving obedience.

The RESTRICT Act is compared to the Patriot Act 2.0 for the Internet, as it would make it illegal for Americans to use TikTok. It grants unelected bureaucrats in the Department of Commerce unrestricted access to our personal data, including computers, phones, security cameras, browsing history, and payment applications. The act eliminates transparency and criminalizes the use of VPNs, with penalties of up to 20 years in prison and $1,000,000 in fines. Disturbingly, there is no opportunity to challenge this in court. This poses a direct threat to our constitutional rights, freedoms, and democracy. It is crucial that we prevent its passage.

The RCMP has expanded surveillance capabilities in the last 5 years, adopting technologies raising privacy concerns. Covert software infiltrates devices, accessing communications and activating cameras/microphones. Cell site simulators collect data from devices, potentially tracking innocent individuals. The speaker suggests the RCMP's actions indicate a willingness to protect corrupt politicians and a tendency towards unfair practices, leading to self-censorship among Canadians. The speaker claims that the RCMP's surveillance capabilities can cause people to curb what they are saying. The speaker equates these surveillance tactics to those used in totalitarian regimes to drive obedience within the population.

The Communications Security Establishment or CSEC has insisted it targets only foreign communication. But now it's been revealed it's also sweeping up the personal information of thousands of Canadians and storing it for up to thirty years. Canada's conservative government is giving sweeping new powers to this country's spy agency. It's also providing police new tools to track and detain those who would commit terrorist acts. Prime minister Stephen Harper says the new bill tabled today is necessary to protect Canadians. The report frames these changes as a necessary expansion of national security powers. The new measures are presented as essential for protecting citizens within a broadened security framework.

Hon. member for Kitchener South Kessler criticized Bill C-8, saying: 'fifteen point one and fifteen point two give the minister the unprecedented, incredible power to kick any Canadian citizen off the Internet to cut off their phone line, to turn off their cell phone.' He argued the minister can act on 'any threat' rather than 'extreme threats,' and warned of digital suppression. He cited '15.2 clause five' as enabling a secret decision and warned of a 'digital gulag' with 'no warrant, no trial, no automatic judicial review.' He noted: 'An order made under subsection one or two may include a provision prohibiting the disclosure of its existence or some or all of its contents by any person.' Civil society groups warned that 'Bill c 26 grants the government sweeping new powers ... intrude on the private lives of Canadians' and urged committee fixes. He urged Conservatives to repair the bill.

The issues identified, such as moral decay, privacy invasion, and competition with China, are acknowledged. However, the proposed solutions may worsen the problems. Legislative measures like the 4th Amendment is Not for Sale Act would better protect privacy. The current bill, while well-intentioned, seems to primarily benefit Facebook rather than the American people. It lacks necessary provisions, such as a sunset clause, and risks abuse similar to the FISA program. The bill targets American companies by threatening civil action against them for hosting TikTok, rather than addressing the actual company. Ultimately, it restricts Americans' access to software and websites. Therefore, this bill should be opposed due to its potential negative consequences.

Canada will be a police state by Christmas if parliament passes bills c two, c eight, and c nine in their current form. C two is the Strong Borders Act. It should be called the Strong Surveillance Act. It empowers Canada Post to open letter mail without a warrant, it criminalizes the use of cash in amounts greater than 10,000, and it empowers a vast army of government officials, not just police, to conduct warrantless searches of the computers and cell phones of Canadians. It is a massive invasion of privacy. It's extremely dangerous. There have been warnings that the Online Harms Act, which prior to the last election was known as bill c 63, might be reintroduced. If brought back and passed into law, you're gonna see the Canadian Human Rights Commission with massive new powers to prosecute Canadians over offensive noncriminal speech with penalties up to $50,000. You're gonna see a digital safety commission with a vast army of bureaucrats to enforce federal regulations that are passed in respect of of the Internet and Internet contents. And you're gonna see Canadians punished preemptively based because their neighbor fears that they might commit a hate speech crime in future, the Online Harms Act would authorize judges to place Canadians under house arrest, wear an ankle bracelet in respect to curfew, etcetera. Giving the federal government giving federal cabinet ministers power to kick Canadians off the Internet is not necessary for protecting public safety or defending our national security. Our freedoms are fragile. It's imperative that every Canadian contact their member of parliament, whether your MP is liberal, conservative, NDP, block, or green, does not matter. Contact your member of parliament and tell him or her to vote against bills c two, c eight, c nine, and tell them to not bring back the online harms act.

The RESTRICT Act is compared to the Patriot Act 2.0 for the Internet, as it would give unelected bureaucrats in the department of commerce unrestricted access to our personal data. This includes information from our computers, phones, security cameras, browsing history, and payment applications. The act eliminates transparency and criminalizes the use of VPNs, with severe penalties of up to 20 years in prison and hefty fines. Disturbingly, there is no opportunity to challenge this in court. This poses a direct threat to our constitutional rights, freedoms, and democracy. It is crucial that we prevent this from being passed.