Talk:Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The reference to "computer crimes" merely quotes a government minister. Critics point out it can be used more broadly to attack dissidents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fourtildas (talkcontribs) 08:07, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

The details of Toews divorce were already public knowledge, hence my edit stating so. The media refused to run it because they deemed it not important. I think it's important to state it's not actually private or "leaked" information epsecially given that it is being investigated now. 24.246.68.5 (talk) 20:51, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Failed verification and inaccurate[edit]

The summary is not supported by the citations provided and furthermore significantly misrepresents the contents of the bill. The contents section only describes one part of the bill. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jep (talkcontribs) 23:00, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Great Job[edit]

Thanks to the user who did this article. Canada is just "freaking out" over this. The amount of fear it has already generated is just unbelievable. I strongly recommend that you peruse the act as presented yourself. It is only 109 pages! The only conclusion this user and citizen could come to is that it is a blanket Star Chamber act to crush any and all dissent.--Oracleofottawa (talk) 00:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Lolsorry, but whether you like it or not the bill is not going to pass. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.167.8 (talk) 20:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

This article is incorrect[edit]

This bill provides the power for the government warrantless access to all our information including emails, phone calls, web surfing, shopping, etc in Section 34:

"The inspector, says the bill, may "examine any document, information or thing found in the place and open or cause to be opened any container or other thing." He or she may also "use, or cause to be used, any computer system in the place to search and examine any information contained in or available to the system." http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/02/16/pol-vp-terry-milewski-bill-c30.html

I'd like to correct the article but it won't let me edit. I am not sure why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.251.139.18 (talk) 00:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

"compel providers to reveal information transmitted over their networks with a warrant."

Is that the section you are refering to? I think it should be changed also as Sect. 34 does allow for Government Inspectors to access everything you stated without a warrant. 24.246.68.5 (talk) 02:16, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

There is no protection on the article, so either of you should be free to edit. If not, just put what you believe should be in the article, what should be replaced, and the relevant sources and I'll adapt the article. Resolute 02:40, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Made the change. I'm no lawyer but from my understanding Sect. 34 would allow warrantless inspection of ISPs networks, thus not only subscriber information would be open to access without a warrant. 24.246.68.5 (talk) 04:47, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Help?[edit]

"The bill was initially was called the "Lawful Access"[clarification needed] but the name was changed in last minutes" - this sounds interesting, but I can't find a reference for it - can anyone else? Arrivalatheathrowairport (talk) 06:17, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it was ever called "lawful access" - it was branded as PCIPA from the start. I think the bit got in the Wikipedia article because of how it was described early on by the media (e.g. relating on the concept), say on the Vancouver Sun. In any case, if it was called Lawful Access, something preceded it or followed it (e.g. Act). Been looking for the past ten minutes but can't find much on that; would indeed be interesting. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 06:29, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, we should probably remove it then. If it's true, definitely interesting, but I agree - I haven't seen anything suggesting it was renamed. It proposes lawful access, but its name seems to be pre-tabling. Arrivalatheathrowairport (talk) 06:41, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Removed, at least pending sources/clarification. Good work on the article. Cheers, CharlieEchoTango (contact) 06:45, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
I found sources! So I re-added it. Arrivalatheathrowairport (talk) 11:20, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Title[edit]

Right now "Bill C-30" redirects to "Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act", I propose we reverse that and locate the article at "Bill C-30" instead; firstly the bill has been called "Bill C-30" since the beginning, whereas "Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act" was just a name tagged on to drum up support - and most google searches are for "Bill C-30", not "Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act", in addition there was a 1997 American law entitled "Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act", and finally - Bill C-30 is the official name, and "An Act to Enact the Investigating and Preventing Criminal Electronic Communications Act and to amend the Criminal Code and other Acts" is the full name. PCIPA is merely "the vernacular short name". If there seems to be no outcry by the end of the day, I'll make a request for the move. Arrivalatheathrowairport (talk) 21:31, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

"Bill C-30" is ambiguous. There will be a different such bill by that title for each parliament. i.e.: Bill C-30 in 1997 was a clean air act. In 1980, it appeared to be budgetary. In 1984 it represented an amendment to the bank act. If any of these other bills are or were notable, than Bill C-30 would by necessity have to become a disambiguation page. As such, I think the current title is best. Resolute 21:43, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Excellent job with the expansion, BTW. I started it in the hopes that someone like you would come along and do exactly this. Resolute 21:44, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Failed verification and inaccurate[edit]

The summary is not supported by the citations provided and furthermore significantly misrepresents the contents of the bill. The contents section only describes one part of the bill. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jep (talkcontribs) 23:00, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Could you be specific? Certainly the passage you have marked as such seems to be supported by the cited article, therefore I have to ask that you detail what specifically is not accurately cited or portrayed in that statement. As to the other parts of the bill that may not be covered, that can be fixed with reliable sources that discuss them. I would be happy to help you add these in if you can link such sources here. Thanks, Resolute 23:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:18, 26 February 2016 (UTC)