[Nuitari]

The point is also that the government would review the whole thing and make sure that the infrastructure is robust enough to accommodate all Internet traffic between Canada and other countries should the US decides to turn off their Internet.

This also includes examining obligations of US owned cables to see if they have to shut off the whole link, or just the US point of a link, ensuring enough capacity to reach the landing points and so on.

[Nuitari]

We also need to make sure that ISPs can route to these cables easily and without commercial encumbrance in case of an emergency.

[Mikkel Paulson]

I don't think the US turning off the taps is any more of a concern than being invaded by American forces. The primary issue is ensuring that we are able to add redundancy to our data network, and having access to multiple means of distribution should American telecom cartels decide to limit bandwidth or increase prices unreasonably.

The fact that even most PPCA members haven't considered the importance of this issue suggests to me that we can safely leave it off the "main points" of our platform, and just hide it under a "What else would you do?" section. It's important to target the issues that concern people the most.

[Jay Frank]

I don't think the US turning off the taps is any more of a concern than being invaded by American forces. The primary issue is ensuring that we are able to add redundancy to our data network, and having access to multiple means of distribution should American telecom cartels decide to limit bandwidth or increase prices unreasonably.

The fact that even most PPCA members haven't considered the importance of this issue suggests to me that we can safely leave it off the "main points" of our platform, and just hide it under a "What else would you do?" section. It's important to target the issues that concern people the most.

I think you're wrong here.
There is much to be discussed and it's more than a small thing.
I have absolutely NO desire to have my Internet Access controlled by an American Executive Decision.
None.
0%.
I don't trust them.

J

[Mikkel Paulson]

I agree, but I think the possibility of the taps being turned down slightly rather than off altogether is more likely, and that's the possibility that we have to plan against.

Fortunately, both problems have the same solution: new infrastructure. If we go to the voters jumping up and down yelling, "The Americans are coming! The Americans are coming!", we'll lose respect fast. If, however, we explain that it makes good business sense not to put all of our eggs in one basket, I think we have a reasonable case to make.

[Nuitari]

The problem is that we don't know what there is capacity wise, we don't know how much we need and we don't know if ISPs affected by a US turn off can handle it.

It could also be there if the US is spying on Canadian international communications too.

[Ayes]

I don't think the US turning off the taps is any more of a concern than being invaded by American forces.

During a state of emergency the United States would probably do both of these things. They have the right to invade, and the right to turn off the web.


I think this should be a main point of the Pirate Party. Working towards digital sovereignty is a big deal, and it's something that people don't know about because it isn't a main point.

The technical details are a side note, worthy of lengthy discussion, but the actual method of getting digital independence doesn't need to be part of the platform. The important thing is the idea that we should have our own way to get to the internet, because the internet is very important to the future of humanity.

[Concerned Citizen]

I agree, but I think the possibility of the taps being turned down slightly rather than off altogether is more likely, and that's the possibility that we have to plan against.

Fortunately, both problems have the same solution: new infrastructure. If we go to the voters jumping up and down yelling, "The Americans are coming! The Americans are coming!", we'll lose respect fast. If, however, we explain that it makes good business sense not to put all of our eggs in one basket, I think we have a reasonable case to make.

We do not have to do it in an alarmist fashion like many global warming experts have over the years. All we have to do is present a reasonable case that we are far too heavily reliant on the US infrastructure for getting our network connections to Europe and Asia.

Now if you want to touch the alarmist crowd just use these simple facts.
1) Almost all of our communications to Europe passes through New York or Florida.
2) Almost all of our communications with Asia passes through I think it's San Francisco.
3) Most communications between Europe and Asia passes through the US because it's cheaper for ISPs to do so. Going in at New York/Florida and leaving through San Francisco.
4) These are the spots where AT&T and the NSA engaged in their warrantless wiretapping scandal. This position allowed them to spy on a great deal of international as well as domestic traffic and phone calls.