This is typical. All this stuff about people knowing where their cars are and the police, CBSA etc not doing anything about it*, the complicity of all the port and shipping people, but the government pretends banning some electronics will change something. I don't know what people expected from a "summit" or whatever they did, there are lots of clear steps we could take, but instead we get this.
Well you see, adding the name of a consumer device to a list of prohibited items is easy and costs nearly nothing. On the other hand, unfucking inter-jurisdiction cooperation and rooting out organized crime from the ports is hard.
See also:
- banning various types of (previously) legal firearms vs cracking down on illicit handguns being smuggled in over the border from the US
- banning purchase of property by foreign owners vs addressing supply
- banning single use plastics vs buying a goddamn oil pipeline for billions of dollars rather than cutting oil extraction subsidies
Easier to ban the Flipper than admit to the public that ports in Quebec are run by the mafia which is what makes this entire issue with auto theft possible.
Like every other wide-spanning law the Canadian Government has passed lately (including the one on firearms and the soon-to-pass adult-content on the internet), I imagine they will ban swathes of legal products that use RF and do nothing to actually prevent crimes from occurring.
Sort of like banning foreign buyers of homes to cover up the fact that they’ve given into NIMBYs for four decades and not built enough housing to keep pace with the population!
That one was made to 1) Keep happy the voters who don't have housing, by making it look like they're doing something 2) Keep happy the voters who do have housing, by keep the housing costs sky-high
They don’t need to. Banning the easy method will stop the majority of cases. Most people won’t bother with a slightly less easy method requiring the most basic of technical skills or more research than the first Google result.
Similar to how moving ssh to a non-standard port stops most attacks.
Canadian car theft is organized criminals with connections across the supply chain shipping vehicles to Africa and the middle east. It's not kids joyriding. They will have no issue sourcing other methods of theft.
Yeah, that’s the thing that seems really silly about this to me - if your organization is competent enough to smuggle literally hundreds of cars out of the country, I’m sure you can smuggle a handful of small electronic devices in.
FTA: "ISED will pursue all avenues to ban devices used to steal vehicles by copying the wireless signals for remote keyless entry, such as the Flipper Zero"
Text uses the flipper zero as an example, not as the specific target of the ban.
In other news, hammers can be used to break windows, coathangers to jimmy doors, and towtrucks to just lift the fuckers right up and drive off with 'em.
A guy tracked his stolen truck to CP railyard. Police was sitting outside the railcar that had his truck inside. Police could do nothing because the railyard is outside their jurisdiction. Train left, he watched on the tracker as his truck was eventually shipped to Dubai.
So.. I think CP rail is maybe a co-conspirator here? They have immunity from local law enforcement, and don't seem to require any title checks to move vehicles across border.
There’s only three federal police agencies - the RCMP, CPKC Police Service, and the CN Police Service. The local law enforcement has to pass off the information to the relevant agency to abide by the separations of power.
The problem here is probably the criminal lied about what was in the cargo container, and to process the tens of thousands of titles to ship new vehicles to manufacturers is obscene - and even then, criminals will still find ways to transport cars in shipping containers.
At the end of the day, it’s up to the ports (which again are a federal agency) to scrutinize cargo containers destined for these locations - which they don’t have the staffing or funds to do.
> At the end of the day, it’s up to the ports (which again are a federal agency) to scrutinize cargo containers destined for these locations - which they don’t have the staffing or funds to do.
And now they'll be stretched further inspecting incoming shipments for flipper zeros.
In this case a local police officer was at the location where the stolen vehicle, and probably hundreds of others were. There was no CN police present. In cases where there are no CN police, then local police should automatically get jurisdiction. Otherwise, like in this case, criminals just get a free pass.
> to process the tens of thousands of titles to ship new vehicles to manufacturers is obscene - and even then, criminals will still find ways to transport cars in shipping containers.
What whining is this about? Are you suggesting that we just let the thefts continue at scale using rail because 'paper work hard'? Are you serious?
The gangs are making up phony shipping and customs manifests and hiding behind the rail and port authorities, who are enabling the gangs.
It's going to take some manpower, but every container going overseas will have to be inspected during loading.
The government's "solution" is putting in high tech x million dollar scanners that will take years to implement while the gangs keep stealing and shipping.
For this example, a scanner does nothing. All it will do is tell you that there was a truck there. But in this case the existence of vehicles on the train were not in question - it was about the ownership of them. It should be much harder to fake shipping manifests and every VIN should be manually verified and against a database of stolen.
Why not... hop the fence and get the conductor to radio the police? The fine for tresspassing on CP railway property is $500, likely worth less than the cost of the car. Once you're over the fence, as you said the police on the other side don't have jurisdiction. Getting CP police there to fine you allows them to intercept the truck also
The Flipper Zero is a general-purpose tool and STEM educational device. By banning the device, a country would be setting back their workforce of engineers and scientists a bit.
How can you use a Flipper Zero to steal a car? Flipper Zero can't crack hard encryption.
Is the real problem that cars were made with security that they already knew was negligently weak at the time? If so, is a recall of those cars more appropriate?
> By banning the device, a country would be setting back their workforce of engineers and scientists a bit.
You're pulling a "Think of the children" here. Rest of your comment is fine, but this first statement doesn't hold water. Any incredibly small number of engineers and scientists would ever use this device. A Raspberry PI, Ardiuno, or other general purpose micro controllers and small form computing devices sure, I could believe that. But some niche device, no.
Edit: I wasn't aware of the popularity of the device, as suggested by comment below, when I wrote this
It's not a niche device - it's explosively popular and is obviously serving as a gateway for some young people into engineering and hacking.
I couldn't possibly comment on the practical consequences to STEM of banning it. I wouldn't make that argument. But it's silly to claim that it's a "think of the children" argument and nothing more.
The Flipper Zero is a small-form computing device that is immensely popular, not particularly niche.
> Any(sic) incredibly small number of engineers and scientists would ever use this device.
I personally know over a dozen people who own them and have tinkered with them in various ways. I managed to "break" my air conditioner unit (permanently setting it to C, not that bad of a "break") with one. Definitely less popular than a Pi or Arduino, but growing in popularity very fast.
Numbers? I see in 2023 they did 80m rev which is what, half a million devices sold worldwide? That’s very niche. % wise close to 0; it’s a geek tool. Nice but not immensely popular.
You'd be surprised how much 500K means if you're not Samsung or Apple. There's recent products you'd say were clear hits and sold an order of magnitude more than that, but in actuality, it was exactly 350K.
But I didn’t say 500k is not a lot or that it’s not successful; I say that it is a niche and it’s not immensely popular. It’s successful in its niche. Again, the comment I replied to used those terms and that’s just not true. I don’t care and wish them all the luck and selling 100m of these things, but if I have to think about how many zeros behind the comma to write the % of human owners, this is not a non niche or popular product. Knock on your neighbours door and ask what it is; they won’t know and they also would never ever buy one.
RF devices are already ubiquitous, the technology and applications keep growing, and there's emerging opportunities for innovative applications.
FWIW, I "funded" the Kickstarter for Flipper Zero because my startup was doing something a little innovative with various kinds of RF tags, to help solve a significant societal problem. (Which, besides what we could've contributed to a country in monetary value of our company, the application domain had significant implications for national economies, as well as for public safety. All things that lawmakers care about, in addition to reducing auto thefts.) We had Android diagnostic software, plus bespoke iOS apps with NFC that I wrote, but a Flipper Zero would've helped me work better and faster at some things.
Can a FZ assist in enrolling a new key in the ECU immobilizer’s list of approved keys, or does it just facilitate a relatively quiet way of unlocking the doors?
Because honestly there are lots of ways of gaining access to the inside of a vehicle, and if it can’t enroll a new key it’s neither necessary nor sufficient for stealing a vehicle.
A lot of the weak security now being exposed by the Flipper Zero (but they already existed and were actively being exploited) are the result of trading in security for convenience.
An example: Contactless payments, I can pay up to €50 by just pressing my bank card against the receiver. Very convenient, but, anyone can hold a receiver up to where I have my card and steal money that way. There's insurances of course, in this case the bank is pretty clear in saying "we know this is a risk and you will be compensated", same as with their apps etc. But it is a tradeoff.
Here's the unfortunate part of how the Canadian government works. Many of our laws (legislation) defer the specific implementation details to regulations. This specific ban likely doesn't need to go through the House of Commons or the Senate and can just be passed as an Order-in-Council that directs ISED (Canadian FCC) and CBSA (Canadian CBP) to modify their regulations to prohibit the device from use and import respectively. So long as there's an existing law in place that defers to regulations for banning specific devices or specific categories of devices, those regulations can be modified without parliamentary oversight.
It's the same approach they used for their recent (last 5 years) firearm bans. Whether or not I agree with what they're trying to accomplish with the bans, the ability to arbitrarily ban specific items without meaningful oversight isn't great for democracy.
Someone on the plane I was on kept triggering it to do bluetooth attacks ('not your airpods') while I was trying to read (and have my earphones on connected via bluetooth so fuck me right?).
There's hacked firmware's you can install [0]. I understand that there are probably tons of other devices like this out there but this one was SO fucking popular and easily accessible.
I've already seen this thing abused and used in a super obnoxious way. Frankly I think you should be arrested for having it on in the passenger cabin of an airplane.
I am on the fence here. In terms of difficulty, isn't it basically like surfing on someone's unprotected wifi and being surprised that someone can see what you are doing?
I am not excusing the behavior, but I also don't see arrest as an appropriate remedy.
There are good reasons to ban a device like that on an active passenger flight. A modern airplane relies on a lot of radio frequency communication I think.. a reason for strict ban is - there is no feedback to the person in the passenger area when they stomp on some sensitive channel, or they may notice but find it exhilarating perhaps..
That seems reasonable to me, but I don't think that was the OPs proposition ( arrest the user ). Ban on a plane is fairly strong, but a lot more reasonable. At least compared to blank ban on electronics that included gameboys and walkmen, this one makes sense.
It’s only facially reasonable to people not familiar enough with RF on a plane. This isn’t in the right radio bands to interfere with anything to do with the safe operation of a plane and it’s using off the shelf radio chips and firmware that would have the appropriate channel switching when they detect a sensitive communication (no different from the stuff the WiFi chip in your laptop and phone are doing when connected to the plane’s WiFi). People were rightly concerned (even if overly conservative and in practice it would be ok) about 3g + planes but since 4g it’s been a solved problem and WiFi has been doing coex with radar channels for forever and if if I recall correctly Bluetooth is too low power to really cause a problem. And to reiterate, flipper zero afaik is using the same off the shelf radio hardware and firmware that would be found in any other product so it wouldn’t be any more dangerous to plane functioning than those products. I really am confused by the FUD being leveled at flipper zero and where it’s coming from.
I'm a private pilot, but I can't think of any flight critical systems that could really be impacted, especially since the Flipper Zero is very low power. I suppose that it could affect cabin systems like on-board purchasing or seatback entertainment. An unlocked android phone has very similar hardware and capabilities.
This is in no way an endorsement of fucking around with one on an airplane, or even off an airplane when used without the consent of the target.
A person messing with RF while in an airliner should probably be arrested, I agree with that part.
Probably best not to have the tool in carry-on, even powered-off, and I'd understand if TSA didn't permit that (like they wouldn't let a chef carry-on their knives, another tool with very legitimate purposes).
Messing with bluetooth on an airliner isn't going to do anything at all. If they were attempting to spoof GPS or playing with VHF signals that's another issue but the flipper isn't capable of that.
The TSA also doesn't care, they don't look for, and don't remotely have the training to detect suspicious electronics. Even if they did the flipper looks very innocuous unless you know what it is. You can reliably get much more entertaining things onto airplanes without them batting an eye.
It can do something. Many people depend on Bluetooth insulin pumps for instance, and in an airplane they may not have access to the alternatives in case the device stops working.
I get that this lowers the barrier to entry, but presumably you could do something similar with a software package to make your laptop do the same thing? AFAIK it uses off the shelf radios and firmware so I don’t really understand the framing here that this device is ok but others aren’t. Especially as others point out it’s unlikely this has anything to do with making car theft easier nor to interfere in any way with the safe operation of the plane.
Yeah, this panic over the device is weird when it feels like a nothing burger. I can understand it in the general populace that doesn’t understand tech, but the reaction on HN by some commentators on a forum literally dedicated to hacking on things is weird to see.
It’s like getting upset by a lock picking set except this isn’t even a lock picking set and more like a door knob diagnostic tool.
You don't need a flipper zero for that. A simple esp32 (also the base of a FZ) can do it and even an android phone can.
It's a dick move but banning the hardware doesn't do anything because you can port such simple hacks to any platform. It's the action that should be policed.
I've learned a lot from mine, especially how many types of access control RFID work. And I've been working on commercial SDR projects for the past decade.
What kind of projects? I've been looking at moving that direction but most of the fun SDR work is classified stuff and the commercial world seems pretty happy with ancient superhet architectures for the most part.
The problem always comes down to lack of responsible use. Great, you learned a lot. Others are using it for harm. So now we have a problem.
Look at the state of CB radio. Anybody can buy and use one. The airwaves are clogged with the trucker equivalent of YouTube Poop. It's like being in a fucking mental hospital.
Ham radio requires licensing. There are still cranks but now there's a barrier to entry for most of them. It's still usable.
Lockpicks are illegal to carry in parts of America, unless you're a licensed locksmith.
Look at the state of the internet, 1997 vs now. The difference is we onboarded everybody.
Broadly speaking, trolling/crime (and tools to perpetrate it) should not be frictionless. Attacks on infrastructure (malware, etc.) are getting too expensive and social attacks are basically free to execute and costly to respond to.
You can bring any western company to a grinding halt by getting a bunch of entry-level stooges to file false workplace violence and other complaints indiscriminately in bad faith. There's no cost or consequence for this, and the company will panic trying to accommodate in good faith, but do the same with police reports and everyone gets charged with misdemeanors for abusing the system.
A lot of vehicles - my wife’s 2015 Kia included - have a very flawed implementation of rolling key encryption. Basically, you need to capture three consecutive keys. The receiver is programmed to allow any future key (in case the fob was pressed away from the car), and will happily reset to past keys when you send three consecutive keys in sequence.
Ostensibly this is to avoid people’s fobs from becoming “unpaired” somehow if the car receives a future key. You just hit the button a few times and it works. In practice, it’s trivially easy to exploit.
The Flipper Zero is a general-purpose tool for engineering and information security research. By banning the device, we will be doing a disservice to our country’s practitioners in these fields, while doing little to thwart car thefts.
If possession of a device like Flipper Zero is the enabler for car theft, then it leads me to believe that such cars had negligently insecure encryption from the day they were manufactured, and a recall of such cars would be more appropriate.
You may want to add that the average person's phone is many times more powerful and capable than a flipper. The dual use tools that can steal cars are so ubiquitous in society (such as a cheap laptop) that no amount of device banning will make a lick of difference.
Very nice. I like how concisely you hit the points. And also that you can note you're a constituent, tech business owner, and tech expert.
If different people want to mix up approaches, and hit various notes, to see what resonates, a couple thoughts (as a tech nerd, not a political communicator):
* "Information security research" has different connotations for different people. No matter how professionally you conduct yourself and respect the term, and no matter how much you promote the term positively as professional... if a particular reader considers the term to be a euphemism for behavior they think should be curtailed, and they think that's the only use of FZ, that might hurt your effort. (Unless you can find a way to promote both at the same time, to those readers, without compromising on either more than you want to.)
* All the hobbyist experimenting and building things, by kids and adults alike, I consider constructionist "education", which is valued. And I suspect it doesn't hurt to say "STEM", as a keyword for the kinds of jobs and economic development this leads to. (Imagine kids figuring out how modern devices work, which today requires more than just unscrewing an appliance and finding the motor and gears. Or getting interested in the RF that backs much of our global technology infrastructure, and inspired to pursue engineering or science. Or using that knowledge to build things that help get them into universities, or that become a tech startup company.)
> leads me to believe that such cars had negligently insecure encryption
While accurate, the standard may not be as rigorous as you'd like to imagine; there was a time not long ago when a wire coat hanger was enough to unlock a car.
I remember that time. We even used it once on a friend's car. However, we did not ban wire coat hangers. I'm sure the politicians would agree that would have been silly, but common sense seems to leave them when it comes to tech.
> How can you use a Flipper Zero to steal a car? Flipper Zero can't crack hard encryption.
It’s impossible, you can’t even use it against garage doors rolling keys without accessing the garage unit and program it like a new remote. The ban has nothing to do with car theft.
It's a shame, it looks like a fun tool to play with, but the marketing is so gross. I'm not exactly a saint but I'm not into harmful mischief and it's marketed purely at the 'hey we can break things now lmao' userbase, ugh
Banning a Flipper Zero for Car Thefts is like banning a BB Gun for Firearm Deaths.... You're targeting the wrong device lol.
edit: Further perspective: You need something that can perform a relay attack. You need someone with a powerful enough antenna to find the remote inside someone's home and relay it to a person near the car. This involves at least 2x CC1101's
> As you can see, small embedded antennas are very inefficient, however convenient. In all cases here, the antenna radiated less than 1% of the available RF power. Using a full sized high efficiency antenna has the potential to increase TRP by at least 20 dB, which is 100 times more power or about a 10x increase in communications range.
They banned a bunch of sport shooting and hunting guns because they look “scary” when criminals largely use handguns to commit crime.
Licensed gun owners in Canada are statistically the least likely people out of all to commit crime of any kind (let alone gun crime), as they are background checked every day. Let alone the fact that criminals use illegal black market handguns smuggled from the US to commit the majority of gun crime and won’t have a firearms license.
Depends on what the content of the law was, I suppose, but you're not really addressing my point. Why did they say they wanted to ban these weapons? And why did standard capacity mags get banned around the same time?
Hint: your mini 14, my g3, and my buddy's SKS all fell under this rule, despite having some distinct aesthetics (and all being pretty distinct from the dreaded AR15).
You seem to be claiming that a specific law invoked scary aesthetics specifically. I obviously can't speak to that - I'm saying that I've seen other rationales given for firearm restrictions. It'd be weird if I did know what you were talking about, right?
I am claiming that because the government marketed it as a "assault-style gun" ban. It's not an assault rifle ban it's literally an "ASSAULT-STYLE GUN" ban. There is no such thing as an "assault-style gun". It's not a thing people say and it's not a type of gun you can buy. The word was invented by the Liberals for the marketing campaign the Liberals used to ban guns that look scary.
Again, you are saying "no they're stated goal was X" but I've never heard them state that. You're going to have to show the receipts because I followed this closely and I have told you _exactly_ why they banned them - it's because of how they look.
Which specific law are you referring to? What was the content of the law? You need to be more clear. Repeating the same talking point isn't going to get anywhere, and I can only reference the law(s) I'm familiar with. In Washington at least they were pretty clear that it was a ban on all semi-automatic weapons, exempting handguns. I think California, New York, and Illinois were roughly the same.
Why are you commenting on things you know nothing about and arguing about this with Canadians who actually know what's going on up here? This isn't worth engaging anymore, go to google.com and search for "Canada assault style gun ban" to learn more.
There are gun control laws and increasing crackdown on liberties everywhere, not just Canada, and pressing you to mention the content of a law is still exactly what I'd do in the case of the Canadian weapons ban. Focusing on one sound bite is not productive.
I mentioned the content of the law. I told you what the law is called. You can use Google and learn about it.
Being ignorant, asking me questions, and then disputing the answers when you don't know what you're talking about is not productive. I gave you all the information you need to educate yourself, so leave me alone and stop arguing with me about it.
One thing that all the guns you listed have in common is that they are all battle rifles or derived from battle rifles (very tenuously the M14 in the case of the mini 14).
In other words they were designed to be given to young men in the military to shoot at other people.
I don't particularly like the new gun rules, but I think that gun advocates do themselves a disfavour when they pretend that an SKS or G3 wasn't designed first and foremost as a military weapon.
An M1 Garand was given to young men to shoot at other people.
How does this argument hold water? If any military, anywhere, purchases your firearm design, it's now "too military" for the citizenry? Where is the line drawn?
How many bayonet attacks have happened in the US or CA in the last 100 years?
This is exactly the sort of argument I was talking about.
An M1 Garand is a weapon that was designed and produced by the US military specifically with war usage (killing people) in mind.
The issue isn't "how many bayonet attacks have there been?", the issue is "how many attacks with rifles designed as weapons of war have happened in the US or CA in the last 100 years?". The answer is that there have been thousands.
People want to draw the line at weapons designed as weapons of war, or more broadly, weapons designed as anti-personnel weapons (which is how handguns get included).
Pretending that an M1, or an SKS wasn't designed specifically for killing other human beings makes people rightfully doubt the honesty of the rest of the argument. I personally think that under the right circumstances it is not unreasonable for a Canadian to shoot weapons of war recreationally. But I also think that if you can't acknowledge that an M1 was designed to kill people, and it has been used to kill tens or hundreds of thousands of people very effectively, then you have no business handling it.
If gun people keep making arguments about "looks" or guns being "too military" as a bad criteria, then legislators will come up with functional criteria, and I really doubt that it will be less restrictive than what they already came up with.
All firearms are designed to kill: none are designed to wound. The Second Amendment isn't about hunting or home defense.
What defines "weapon of war?"
Quit intentionally hand-waving with this "designed specifically for killing human beings" garbage - what does this mean in technical, industry terms rather than circular terms?
In the United States, Miller explicitly stated you only have a right to own things of military value (expanded in 2008 (Heller), 2016 (Caetano), 2022 (Bruen) but this was decided almost 100 years ago.)
> then legislators will come up with functional criteria
Let's write some! What would that criteria look like? The 1994 AWB and every similar state statute written since use cosmetic features.
Once we've written some, is there historical precedent for this kind of criteria (required under Bruen)?
The Second Amendment, Heller, Caetano and Bruen are all completely irrelevant in Canada. Canada does not have anything like the Second Amendment, and Americans may be shocked to learn that US law has no relevance to Canadian weapons laws or this conversation. Owning and operating a gun in Canada is a privilege, not a right, and a supermajority of Canadians support more gun control in various polls. Less than 6% of eligible Canadians are licensed, so, for the most part, most Canadians don't really care if they clamp down hard on gun ownership. Largely, Canadians think American gun culture is absolutely insane.
> What defines "weapon of war?"
I already defined it, but to be clear: A weapon originally designed for the military market, or one derived from such a model. We can also include any gun designed for the police market, or for the self-defense market. If the primary design intentions was killing humans, then it shouldn't be allowed. They are inferior tools for the allowed uses of guns in Canada, and they are a fetish item for deranged individuals and the type of gun culture that isn't welcome in Canada. This doesn't have to be the only criteria.
As far as functional criteria lets start from first principles. The allowed uses of guns in Canada are: hunting, target shooting, and protection from wild animals. So for rifles: Single shot bolt action allows you to hunt and target shoot, a rifle is a poor choice for defense against a charging animal, if your aim is so poor that you need to spray bullets in a panic use pepper spray instead like the other 94% of the population. The sale and transfer of handguns is already prohibited, but if it wasn't: You don't hunt with a handgun, they are less effective than bear spray for defense, and for target shooting, you don't need anything more than a single shot 22. Shotguns: Hunting, target shooting, and animal defense can all be done with a double barrel. So any break action gun, and any pump action with a capacity limit of 2.
> Once we've written some, is there historical precedent for this kind of criteria (required under Bruen)?
Historical precedent is that American gun law is completely irrelevant north of the border. My criteria pass the test.
> You don't have to be a gun nerd to know that a gun that comes standard with an attached bayonet is materially different from a rifle designed with deer hunting in mind.
I'll bite - what are these relevant material differences?
You seem to think that "designed" is important but is that a material difference by itself? If so, how does that work? Is that true for anything else? (There's a lot of cross-over between other outdoor equipment, such as vehicle drive systems, clothing, and shelter, so ....)
If it's that the intent results in other differences, what are they?
It's not the ammunition. It's not how the gun functions. (Yes, the SKS is supposed to be more tolerant of rough handling than most guns, but the AR-15 is less tolerant.) Surely it's not appearance....
Yes, people tend to shoot back, but what material difference in gun design/function is a consequence of that?
You contrasted deer hunting with shooting people, but how are they appreciably different at the same distance? (The obvious difference, that the military prefers wounds to deaths, works against your conclusion.)
.223, which is what the AR-15 shoots, isn't legal for deer hunting in some jurisdictions because it isn't powerful enough. 7.62x39, which is what the SKS shoots, usually is legal for deer, because it is roughly equivalent to the ancient 30-30. However, typical deer rifles are significantly more powerful. (Of course, people do hunt things other than deer.)
You seem to think that a bayonet is important, but are bayonetings a problem? If not, what material difference does a bayonet make? Does that difference persist after the bayonet is removed? If so, how? (I ask because the first thing that most people do with an SKS is to remove the bayonet.)
> If not, what material difference does a bayonet make?
From family history, you can't shoot a rifle well during a flat out four mile cavalry charge on machine guns, but you can sling a rifle and hold a bayonet.
> I'll bite - what are these relevant material differences?
For one, I can stab someone in close quarters with a bayonet. It is a feature designed specifically with killing humans in mind. A bayonet has no legitimate or legal use in recreational hunting or shooting. It makes the weapon less useful for legitimate purposes if only as a weight penalty.
The issue isn't "how many bayonet attacks have there been?", the issue is "how many attacks with guns designed specifically as human killing weapons have happened?". The answer is that there have been thousands.
People want to draw the line at weapons designed as weapons of war, or more broadly, weapons designed as anti-personnel weapons (which is how handguns get included).
Pretending that an SKS wasn't designed specifically for killing other human beings makes people rightfully doubt the honesty of the rest of the argument. I personally think that under the right circumstances it is not unreasonable for a Canadian to shoot weapons of war recreationally. But I also think that if you can't acknowledge that an SKS was designed to kill people, and it has been used to kill tens or hundreds of thousands of people very effectively, then you have no business handling it.
If gun people keep making arguments about "looks" or guns being "military" as a bad criteria, then legislators will come up with functional criteria, and I really doubt that it will be less restrictive than what they already came up with.
I think his point was that Australia does not specifically enumerate a right to bear arms. That makes it much easier for politicians and judges to erode liberties in the name of safety or "think of the children". Eg. Australia, Canada, and New Zealand have done mass firearm bans or confiscations in recent years, while the US has largely resisted similar efforts to restrict civil liberties.
The 1973 Act is the part in which we the citizens of W.Australia grant the right for our elected and employed politicians to form regulations wrt firearms.
That can be repealed, if so there is no right for our government to make firearm regulations.
The 1974 Regulations are the evolving regulations, the fine detail about what the licence requirements are, the purchase and sale requirements are, the various classes, storage requirements, and conditions for disqualification.
These can be changed.
Their point was nonsense.
We have a "Washminster" system of government, it's a bit like the UK Westminster system and a bit like the US Washington system .. only it was formed after looking at the shortcomings of both.
> Australia [..] done mass firearm bans or confiscations in recent years
Awww, you read the US NRA dot points on Australia then?
The response here was to unify gun regulations across all states and territories. At the time the bulk of the Australian population had gun regulations .. Queensland (then low population), Tasmania, and Territories (low population) did not.
Once regulation was uniform and gun licencing was taken seriously there were a lot of guns that people didn't want to licence ("we have the three we mainly use and another three out the back that grandad used in the war") - so there was a federally funded buy back scheme "cash for guns" to encourage handing in unlicenced weapons for cash, this resulted in pictures of skip bins full of "confiscated guns".
There are still semi automatics being bought, sold, and used in Australia - these are licenced for feral pig control use.
You cannot get a semi automatic to barrel polish and strut the street in the city with, you can get one if you're going to kill a lot of pigs.
You can get a licence to drive a three trailer prime mover (road train), you are still not permitted to drive these fully loaded on a large number of urban roads.
It's a quibble - the base position here in common law is that the people of this state have a right to weapons .. much later the people of this state first agreed that the body they employ to debate common rules would be allowed to argue the regulation of firearms and delegate enforcement of any agreeed regulations to those tasked with the enforcement of policy - the Act grants that right to our employees, the politicians and the police.
After Regulations were agreed upon, these were codified.
The base right as that citizens of the state can have weapons, the agreed regulations (that can be overturned) are citizens with violent criminal records, domestic assault allegations, unqualified in handling, not willing|able to safely store cannot have weapons - these are our background conditions.
The US also has background checks for sale and possesion - they're just weak on enforcement.
The US is an oddity is they felt after the fact of constitution that they had to whack on an ammendment to spell out common law for firearms - but not for explosives, poisons, motor vehicles, etc.
And now you have no ability to take those "rights" back using violence if you needed to.
You do not have the right to own a firearm in Australia regardless of whatever mental gymnastics you want to perform.
- The fact that a forcible confiscation (governments cannot "buy back" something they never owned) campaign could happen at all means you do not have this right. "Give us these items or go to prison or die when we come to take them" - some right you have there!
- If you cannot own remotely the same articles that your police do, you do not have a right to bear arms. You have a privilege to own a limited set of items under a limited set of circumstances - all of which would be useless for mounting violent resistance.
> And now you have no ability to take those "rights" back using violence if you needed to.
This is repeated a lot and shows that at bottom, gun ownership ideologues are violent thugs, they all promote using violence to impose their political views dressed up as a fight for "rights".
Ultimately it proves that restrictive gun laws are absolutely correct.
The entire purpose of the Second Amendment - at least in the United States - is to enable violent resistance against tyranny. Not hunting, not culling predators, not sport, not home defense.
> Ultimately it proves that restrictive gun laws are absolutely correct.
"We need to restrict something that prevents further restriction."
You need violence, firearms, and "violent thugs" to go around disarm people who possess them - this in Australia is the threat of prison time.
This is plain bullshit, the historical context doesn't support your wishful thinking.
You can justify violence any way you like, but at the end of the day you're promoting violence and killing people based solely on your political views.
> the historical context doesn't support your wishful thinking.
The most left-leaning members of the United States Supreme Court disagree with you legally on this point, just as much they would agree with you in principle.
> You can justify violence any way you like, but at the end of the day you're promoting violence and killing people based solely on your political views.
Where did I "justify violence?" The Second Amendment is quite clear and contains its own justification.
Again, you need violence to disarm people - so you're really not "against violence" - you're just against those using it that you don't agree with.
That doesn't make the least bit of sense, but I can see you were desperate to say that, ie "I'm armed, there's nothing you can do!"
But the idiocy of the armed is the delusion that they are safe. A person can kill another person at a safe distance, at their convenience. Having a gun doesn't help you at all.
Maybe one day you'll start thinking for yourself and come to your senses.
You can’t compare Australia to the U.S. on many levels.
Australia is less than 10% the population of the U.S. Its easy to get to the majority of 20 million people to agree to something. It’s impossible when you have over 300 million. And the U.S. has a wide history of different states with different attitudes.
Also gun laws are codified in the constitution in the U.S. that’s not the same way in every other country in the world. I wish I could remember who said it, but to paraphrase, Constitutional rights are God-given rights as viewed by Americans. Every other country has government-given rights which can be taken away whenever the government wants. That’s not the case in the U.S. and why it’s so much more entrenched and impossible to get rid of.
Unfortunately because I wish there were no guns at all. But I’m a pragmatist. I know gun ownership will never go away in the U.S. so I own guns as well.
But if they’re harder to get, fewer will have them. You can very much get an illegal firearm in Australia or the UK if you really want, but firearms crimes are significantly less because they’re not readily available.
I don’t think we (Canada or anybody) should necessarily ban guns, but I don’t think the US should have the 2nd amendment (as it’s now interpreted anyways) either.
Canada has totally lost its way.
Housing is a massive issue. Healthcare is under constant attack. Immigration is used to prop up a failing economy. We don’t really make anything. Wages are lower than the US just because. There’s no negotiating power. The dollar is weak. We can’t extract most of the available resources because of the weather and environmental concerns. The praries are being sold off to foreign investors. The smartest and most educated leave. Starting to feel like a fool for sticking around.
If you think it's that bad I say (not in a snarky way) go but I'm not sure where. By your tone I suspect the EU is not your cup of tea. I think you're wrong I mean we have problems but so do all countries now healthcare is a worldwide issue. And just look south it's a mess politically and socially (sorry USA!). Even the EU is under strain among its members.
Not OP but did add my own take in a sibling comment; as much as I tend to enjoy my time in the states, I just don't like the vibe as much, and there's a subtle but noticable relief I get when I return home. Maybe it's the airport terminals that make me feel as though I'm appealing to get out of prison every time I have to layover there.
Some places I've lived in the US made me wish to return to Canada, others made me thankful I didn't. If you've never lived there long-term of course it won't feel like home. I know it's tempting to make excuses for the place you live, but I think you're downplaying the damage that Trudeau's government has done to the country. The US has its issues too, but greater state independence and a stronger constitution help.
I certainly wouldn't suggest such a move would be broadly regrettable, but don't agree with the implication that I'm making excuses. Many people are attracted to the subtle cultural, political, and financial differences the U.S provides, some aren't, and that's ok. The countries and people are more similar than they are different. The problems Canada is currently facing though is partially to do with stagnant cultural values (that are also more similar to the U.S than different) and deeply flawed policy at multiple levels of governance both current and historical, and Trudeau but he's just the latest. A nation is more than it's current set of politicians though—obviously also true of the U.S—and to leave for more money would mean I'd be dismissing the factors that exist despite the bureaucracy.
It just depends what your personal circumstances are whether that's a reasonable deal or not, and it's not for me to judge one way or another. If I could make U.S software money from Canada, it's a no-brainer, I just can't and wouldn't really want to live there long-term. The outcome I could hypothetically have doesn't seem all that compelling, but it probably does for a great number of people for obvious reasons.
For me though, there's something a bit too intensely capitalist I guess that rubs me the wrong way. So many things and people are American size, and super, and mega, and excessive, and seemingly lacking nuance in a way I just don't like. I do get used to it and forget I'm there, and always enjoy the visit, but I can't see myself being there for more than 6 months.
It's an obnoxiously tough time and it's easy to fall into a pit of despair regarding the decreasing availability of a prosperous future if you don't already have it, and all of those issues can be both interesting and depressing to think about.
However, what we do have is a pretty welcoming, friendly, and adventurous population that's a great basis for building a home, even if that doesn't mean having a house. If you have no sentimental attachments, no social life, no outdoor hobbies, no family, no job, and no prospects for a job, all of those together are perfectly legitimate reasons for getting the hell out and seeking prosperity where it might actually be found.
For me, I haven't had a job for almost a year, nobody's hiring, nobody will be hiring, rent is increasing, I'll almost certainly never own a home or be able to retire, and I don't think having kids would be feasible if I was set on it; all together, a miserable situation to be in. But... I do have friends, I have places to spend my time, I don't need to worry about medical expenses, I have a roof (for now), and I'm in better shape than many people in their early thirties. I like the vibe, and don't think I'd have better opportunities in those respects anywhere else.
That said, I did already move for work once, and picked the most appealing place imo, so anywhere else would have to pass a very high bar in order to compete. I'm also relatively more outgoing and open than people who claim to want strong social lives, and am willing to put in the groundwork. If you're a lonely, socially anxious or inept person, or a sweaty careerist tryhard who doesn't take time away from work anyway, being here vs anywhere else probably won't be such a significant difference except a better account balance.
Edit: I'd qualify my characterization of being welcoming, open, and adventurous, with the possible exception of smaller towns and cities where quite the opposite can be true. No so much because they don't like newcomers or because they're bigoted, but many people in those places—even if they're relatively cosmopolitan—haven't bothered to look beyond their high school friends for connection, even well into adulthood, and I've heard that can be quite difficult to break into. But I also don't think it's unique to Canada and it's a worthwhile experience to get the hell out of your hometown no matter where you're from by your mid-twenties I think, if even for a few years.
>For me, I haven't had a job for almost a year, nobody's hiring, nobody will be hiring, rent is increasing, I'll almost certainly never own a home or be able to retire, and I don't think having kids would be feasible if I was set on it; all together, a miserable situation to be in. But... I do have friends, I have places to spend my time,
Im sorry but this is one of the saddest things I've ever read. As a Canadian of this was my experience of Canada I would be doing everything I could to get out. Thankfully it isn't yet, but things definitely are not looking good and I am worried about the future
It's not great, but things aren't always great and I've been through shitty years before. All of those things aren't really unique to Canada either, just some of them, particularly taken as a whole set. It's not true that there's no jobs at all, just that there's figuratively no jobs that I'd be capable of getting as a frontend developer in BC, but I'd probably prefer to try and develop trade skills or something than hope that there will always be a place for me in programming. It's also not true that there is literally no possibility of the other things, but a number of other factors would have to both be in place and be agreeable for me to pursue that.
For example, I don't really want to own a house to begin with, but if I did it would be a modest condo in or close to my current neighborhood where I've established myself, not some arbitrarily cheaper place where I'd get some bungalow and there'd be no jobs outside of trades anyway, not many people to re-establish a social life with, or would require a car, or a remote job that I don't have and wouldn't want to do from home in an isolated prairie town. These are just all factors in the system I'm in that don't serve anyone but people who already have quite a lot of money and want to make more by sitting on property. Until then, I'll eek by living in this studio basement suite owned by boomers, sharing rent with my partner, figuring out what the next move is. Maybe eventually I'll have to yield and bail, but I'll cross that bridge when I end up at zero (real zero, not zero + savings) again.
The systems have more or less been the same for many decades, and they've been getting pushed for at least the last one, just not everywhere all at once to their breaking point. They are slow, complex systems that require people to give up control usually, and that's unfortunate, but it is what it is.
I was under the impression that cars and garage doors are essentially 100% immune to replay attacks. How could they possibly be susceptible to something to rudimentary? Or am I not understanding some context?
In practice, you could start a Hyundai with an USB key, because the manufacturer did not bother to implement any security measures (it's cheaper that way).
Not 100%. Some are basically CSPRNGs that iterate with every successful unlock; if you capture the “play” from a key AND block the car from getting the signal, you get a replay attack you can only use once. And which desyncs the key with the car, making it useless until a dealer re-pairs them.
This is my understanding - I guess I shouldn't have said "100%". It's just that it seems like there are vanishingly rare real-world scenarios in which one could engineer this situation that don't involve gaining access to the actual key, at which point you could simply take it, so the choice to use the Flipper instead would be moot for the topic of vulnerability.
it means don't travel with it, and if you do get caught with it a zealous officer could say you were "carrying a prohibited device" or something like that.
This just means that only criminals will use Flipper Zero. And they were already stealing cars. I don’t think they will mind one additional illegal activity.
But how many previously law abiding citizens will be hurt by not having this technology, or becoming criminals now?
Wait, so I can use my Flipper as a backup key for my car (mid 2010s Mazda)?
I thought the rolling code thing prevented this. If anyone has a doc on how to use the Flipper for a car, please send it! I promise it's for legit use. I bought it originally to dupe the NFC key fob for my apartment and the RF fob for the garage door.
Snail mail tends to work better for reaching out to Members of Parliament just out of the blue, though still no guarantee since it's still an intern that's opening and reading it.
Emails seem to work fine if they already know you.
340 comments
[ 1267 ms ] story [ 4462 ms ] thread*see https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto-man-finds-stolen-truc...
See also:
- banning various types of (previously) legal firearms vs cracking down on illicit handguns being smuggled in over the border from the US
- banning purchase of property by foreign owners vs addressing supply
- banning single use plastics vs buying a goddamn oil pipeline for billions of dollars rather than cutting oil extraction subsidies
etc. etc.
Just how many thefts are linked to its use.
Criminals will be add FZs to their gun and drug shipments to Canada
Thanks to our Parliament!
Similar to how moving ssh to a non-standard port stops most attacks.
Text uses the flipper zero as an example, not as the specific target of the ban.
So.. I think CP rail is maybe a co-conspirator here? They have immunity from local law enforcement, and don't seem to require any title checks to move vehicles across border.
https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/2306728515530
The problem here is probably the criminal lied about what was in the cargo container, and to process the tens of thousands of titles to ship new vehicles to manufacturers is obscene - and even then, criminals will still find ways to transport cars in shipping containers.
At the end of the day, it’s up to the ports (which again are a federal agency) to scrutinize cargo containers destined for these locations - which they don’t have the staffing or funds to do.
And now they'll be stretched further inspecting incoming shipments for flipper zeros.
> to process the tens of thousands of titles to ship new vehicles to manufacturers is obscene - and even then, criminals will still find ways to transport cars in shipping containers.
What whining is this about? Are you suggesting that we just let the thefts continue at scale using rail because 'paper work hard'? Are you serious?
It's going to take some manpower, but every container going overseas will have to be inspected during loading.
The government's "solution" is putting in high tech x million dollar scanners that will take years to implement while the gangs keep stealing and shipping.
How can you use a Flipper Zero to steal a car? Flipper Zero can't crack hard encryption.
Is the real problem that cars were made with security that they already knew was negligently weak at the time? If so, is a recall of those cars more appropriate?
You're pulling a "Think of the children" here. Rest of your comment is fine, but this first statement doesn't hold water. Any incredibly small number of engineers and scientists would ever use this device. A Raspberry PI, Ardiuno, or other general purpose micro controllers and small form computing devices sure, I could believe that. But some niche device, no.
Edit: I wasn't aware of the popularity of the device, as suggested by comment below, when I wrote this
I couldn't possibly comment on the practical consequences to STEM of banning it. I wouldn't make that argument. But it's silly to claim that it's a "think of the children" argument and nothing more.
> Any(sic) incredibly small number of engineers and scientists would ever use this device.
I personally know over a dozen people who own them and have tinkered with them in various ways. I managed to "break" my air conditioner unit (permanently setting it to C, not that bad of a "break") with one. Definitely less popular than a Pi or Arduino, but growing in popularity very fast.
Numbers? I see in 2023 they did 80m rev which is what, half a million devices sold worldwide? That’s very niche. % wise close to 0; it’s a geek tool. Nice but not immensely popular.
500K is a _lot_.
Runaway success unless you're: A) Apple B) Samsung
The 350K product I'm referring to defined a whole category for years and is universally well-known in tech.
To be 100% clear, next time you see "500K sold", your decision tree is:
Is it Apple? If yes, can be disagreeable whether it is well-known / successful.
Is it Samsung? If yes, can be disagreeable about whether it is well-known / successful.
Still here? It's well-known and successful, you'll look silly if you choose to be disagreeable.
FWIW, I "funded" the Kickstarter for Flipper Zero because my startup was doing something a little innovative with various kinds of RF tags, to help solve a significant societal problem. (Which, besides what we could've contributed to a country in monetary value of our company, the application domain had significant implications for national economies, as well as for public safety. All things that lawmakers care about, in addition to reducing auto thefts.) We had Android diagnostic software, plus bespoke iOS apps with NFC that I wrote, but a Flipper Zero would've helped me work better and faster at some things.
I agree with OP, it's bad that its being used to try and take down phones on flights and also if it's being used to steal cars.
Because honestly there are lots of ways of gaining access to the inside of a vehicle, and if it can’t enroll a new key it’s neither necessary nor sufficient for stealing a vehicle.
An example: Contactless payments, I can pay up to €50 by just pressing my bank card against the receiver. Very convenient, but, anyone can hold a receiver up to where I have my card and steal money that way. There's insurances of course, in this case the bank is pretty clear in saying "we know this is a risk and you will be compensated", same as with their apps etc. But it is a tradeoff.
It's the same approach they used for their recent (last 5 years) firearm bans. Whether or not I agree with what they're trying to accomplish with the bans, the ability to arbitrarily ban specific items without meaningful oversight isn't great for democracy.
Someone on the plane I was on kept triggering it to do bluetooth attacks ('not your airpods') while I was trying to read (and have my earphones on connected via bluetooth so fuck me right?).
There's hacked firmware's you can install [0]. I understand that there are probably tons of other devices like this out there but this one was SO fucking popular and easily accessible.
I've already seen this thing abused and used in a super obnoxious way. Frankly I think you should be arrested for having it on in the passenger cabin of an airplane.
[0] https://github.com/DarkFlippers/unleashed-firmware
I am not excusing the behavior, but I also don't see arrest as an appropriate remedy.
This is in no way an endorsement of fucking around with one on an airplane, or even off an airplane when used without the consent of the target.
Probably best not to have the tool in carry-on, even powered-off, and I'd understand if TSA didn't permit that (like they wouldn't let a chef carry-on their knives, another tool with very legitimate purposes).
The TSA also doesn't care, they don't look for, and don't remotely have the training to detect suspicious electronics. Even if they did the flipper looks very innocuous unless you know what it is. You can reliably get much more entertaining things onto airplanes without them batting an eye.
It’s like getting upset by a lock picking set except this isn’t even a lock picking set and more like a door knob diagnostic tool.
It's a dick move but banning the hardware doesn't do anything because you can port such simple hacks to any platform. It's the action that should be policed.
Sounds like running this is illegal and github hosting it, too
Look at the state of CB radio. Anybody can buy and use one. The airwaves are clogged with the trucker equivalent of YouTube Poop. It's like being in a fucking mental hospital.
Ham radio requires licensing. There are still cranks but now there's a barrier to entry for most of them. It's still usable.
Lockpicks are illegal to carry in parts of America, unless you're a licensed locksmith.
Look at the state of the internet, 1997 vs now. The difference is we onboarded everybody.
Broadly speaking, trolling/crime (and tools to perpetrate it) should not be frictionless. Attacks on infrastructure (malware, etc.) are getting too expensive and social attacks are basically free to execute and costly to respond to.
You can bring any western company to a grinding halt by getting a bunch of entry-level stooges to file false workplace violence and other complaints indiscriminately in bad faith. There's no cost or consequence for this, and the company will panic trying to accommodate in good faith, but do the same with police reports and everyone gets charged with misdemeanors for abusing the system.
Unearned privileges are always abused.
A lot of vehicles - my wife’s 2015 Kia included - have a very flawed implementation of rolling key encryption. Basically, you need to capture three consecutive keys. The receiver is programmed to allow any future key (in case the fob was pressed away from the car), and will happily reset to past keys when you send three consecutive keys in sequence.
Ostensibly this is to avoid people’s fobs from becoming “unpaired” somehow if the car receives a future key. You just hit the button a few times and it works. In practice, it’s trivially easy to exploit.
https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/usenixsecurit...
This is a good start.
Here's my template:
I am a Canadian citizen in your riding (A1B 2C3) and multiple business owner in the technology sector.
As an expert in the field of electronics and information security, I am concerned about the ISED’s initiative to ban Flipper Zero and similar devices, announced at: https://www.canada.ca/en/public-safety-canada/news/2024/02/f...
The Flipper Zero is a general-purpose tool for engineering and information security research. By banning the device, we will be doing a disservice to our country’s practitioners in these fields, while doing little to thwart car thefts.
If possession of a device like Flipper Zero is the enabler for car theft, then it leads me to believe that such cars had negligently insecure encryption from the day they were manufactured, and a recall of such cars would be more appropriate.
If different people want to mix up approaches, and hit various notes, to see what resonates, a couple thoughts (as a tech nerd, not a political communicator):
* "Information security research" has different connotations for different people. No matter how professionally you conduct yourself and respect the term, and no matter how much you promote the term positively as professional... if a particular reader considers the term to be a euphemism for behavior they think should be curtailed, and they think that's the only use of FZ, that might hurt your effort. (Unless you can find a way to promote both at the same time, to those readers, without compromising on either more than you want to.)
* All the hobbyist experimenting and building things, by kids and adults alike, I consider constructionist "education", which is valued. And I suspect it doesn't hurt to say "STEM", as a keyword for the kinds of jobs and economic development this leads to. (Imagine kids figuring out how modern devices work, which today requires more than just unscrewing an appliance and finding the motor and gears. Or getting interested in the RF that backs much of our global technology infrastructure, and inspired to pursue engineering or science. Or using that knowledge to build things that help get them into universities, or that become a tech startup company.)
While accurate, the standard may not be as rigorous as you'd like to imagine; there was a time not long ago when a wire coat hanger was enough to unlock a car.
It’s impossible, you can’t even use it against garage doors rolling keys without accessing the garage unit and program it like a new remote. The ban has nothing to do with car theft.
::slow clap:: The brilliance of the Canadian government on display here.
edit: Further perspective: You need something that can perform a relay attack. You need someone with a powerful enough antenna to find the remote inside someone's home and relay it to a person near the car. This involves at least 2x CC1101's
> As you can see, small embedded antennas are very inefficient, however convenient. In all cases here, the antenna radiated less than 1% of the available RF power. Using a full sized high efficiency antenna has the potential to increase TRP by at least 20 dB, which is 100 times more power or about a 10x increase in communications range.
https://antennatestlab.com/antenna-education-tutorials/consu...
This is the type of device still available, far more useful and powerful than a banned FZ: https://www.analog.com/en/resources/evaluation-hardware-and-...
They banned a bunch of sport shooting and hunting guns because they look “scary” when criminals largely use handguns to commit crime.
Licensed gun owners in Canada are statistically the least likely people out of all to commit crime of any kind (let alone gun crime), as they are background checked every day. Let alone the fact that criminals use illegal black market handguns smuggled from the US to commit the majority of gun crime and won’t have a firearms license.
I own guns, wish I could own more, and dislike 'liberal' and conservative infringements of my rights equally, but at least get the claims straight.
Hint: your mini 14, my g3, and my buddy's SKS all fell under this rule, despite having some distinct aesthetics (and all being pretty distinct from the dreaded AR15).
I'm so confused now.
Again, you are saying "no they're stated goal was X" but I've never heard them state that. You're going to have to show the receipts because I followed this closely and I have told you _exactly_ why they banned them - it's because of how they look.
Why are you commenting on things you know nothing about and arguing about this with Canadians who actually know what's going on up here? This isn't worth engaging anymore, go to google.com and search for "Canada assault style gun ban" to learn more.
Being ignorant, asking me questions, and then disputing the answers when you don't know what you're talking about is not productive. I gave you all the information you need to educate yourself, so leave me alone and stop arguing with me about it.
In other words they were designed to be given to young men in the military to shoot at other people.
I don't particularly like the new gun rules, but I think that gun advocates do themselves a disfavour when they pretend that an SKS or G3 wasn't designed first and foremost as a military weapon.
You don't have to be a gun nerd to know that a gun that comes standard with an attached bayonet is materially different from a rifle designed with deer hunting in mind. https://www.cabelas.ca/product/110383/chinese-sks-semi-autom...
How does this argument hold water? If any military, anywhere, purchases your firearm design, it's now "too military" for the citizenry? Where is the line drawn?
How many bayonet attacks have happened in the US or CA in the last 100 years?
An M1 Garand is a weapon that was designed and produced by the US military specifically with war usage (killing people) in mind.
The issue isn't "how many bayonet attacks have there been?", the issue is "how many attacks with rifles designed as weapons of war have happened in the US or CA in the last 100 years?". The answer is that there have been thousands.
People want to draw the line at weapons designed as weapons of war, or more broadly, weapons designed as anti-personnel weapons (which is how handguns get included).
Pretending that an M1, or an SKS wasn't designed specifically for killing other human beings makes people rightfully doubt the honesty of the rest of the argument. I personally think that under the right circumstances it is not unreasonable for a Canadian to shoot weapons of war recreationally. But I also think that if you can't acknowledge that an M1 was designed to kill people, and it has been used to kill tens or hundreds of thousands of people very effectively, then you have no business handling it.
If gun people keep making arguments about "looks" or guns being "too military" as a bad criteria, then legislators will come up with functional criteria, and I really doubt that it will be less restrictive than what they already came up with.
What defines "weapon of war?"
Quit intentionally hand-waving with this "designed specifically for killing human beings" garbage - what does this mean in technical, industry terms rather than circular terms?
In the United States, Miller explicitly stated you only have a right to own things of military value (expanded in 2008 (Heller), 2016 (Caetano), 2022 (Bruen) but this was decided almost 100 years ago.)
> then legislators will come up with functional criteria
Let's write some! What would that criteria look like? The 1994 AWB and every similar state statute written since use cosmetic features.
Once we've written some, is there historical precedent for this kind of criteria (required under Bruen)?
> What defines "weapon of war?"
I already defined it, but to be clear: A weapon originally designed for the military market, or one derived from such a model. We can also include any gun designed for the police market, or for the self-defense market. If the primary design intentions was killing humans, then it shouldn't be allowed. They are inferior tools for the allowed uses of guns in Canada, and they are a fetish item for deranged individuals and the type of gun culture that isn't welcome in Canada. This doesn't have to be the only criteria.
As far as functional criteria lets start from first principles. The allowed uses of guns in Canada are: hunting, target shooting, and protection from wild animals. So for rifles: Single shot bolt action allows you to hunt and target shoot, a rifle is a poor choice for defense against a charging animal, if your aim is so poor that you need to spray bullets in a panic use pepper spray instead like the other 94% of the population. The sale and transfer of handguns is already prohibited, but if it wasn't: You don't hunt with a handgun, they are less effective than bear spray for defense, and for target shooting, you don't need anything more than a single shot 22. Shotguns: Hunting, target shooting, and animal defense can all be done with a double barrel. So any break action gun, and any pump action with a capacity limit of 2.
> Once we've written some, is there historical precedent for this kind of criteria (required under Bruen)?
Historical precedent is that American gun law is completely irrelevant north of the border. My criteria pass the test.
I'll bite - what are these relevant material differences?
You seem to think that "designed" is important but is that a material difference by itself? If so, how does that work? Is that true for anything else? (There's a lot of cross-over between other outdoor equipment, such as vehicle drive systems, clothing, and shelter, so ....)
If it's that the intent results in other differences, what are they?
It's not the ammunition. It's not how the gun functions. (Yes, the SKS is supposed to be more tolerant of rough handling than most guns, but the AR-15 is less tolerant.) Surely it's not appearance....
Yes, people tend to shoot back, but what material difference in gun design/function is a consequence of that?
You contrasted deer hunting with shooting people, but how are they appreciably different at the same distance? (The obvious difference, that the military prefers wounds to deaths, works against your conclusion.)
.223, which is what the AR-15 shoots, isn't legal for deer hunting in some jurisdictions because it isn't powerful enough. 7.62x39, which is what the SKS shoots, usually is legal for deer, because it is roughly equivalent to the ancient 30-30. However, typical deer rifles are significantly more powerful. (Of course, people do hunt things other than deer.)
You seem to think that a bayonet is important, but are bayonetings a problem? If not, what material difference does a bayonet make? Does that difference persist after the bayonet is removed? If so, how? (I ask because the first thing that most people do with an SKS is to remove the bayonet.)
From family history, you can't shoot a rifle well during a flat out four mile cavalry charge on machine guns, but you can sling a rifle and hold a bayonet.
https://anzac100.initiatives.qld.gov.au/remember/battle-of-b...
For one, I can stab someone in close quarters with a bayonet. It is a feature designed specifically with killing humans in mind. A bayonet has no legitimate or legal use in recreational hunting or shooting. It makes the weapon less useful for legitimate purposes if only as a weight penalty.
The issue isn't "how many bayonet attacks have there been?", the issue is "how many attacks with guns designed specifically as human killing weapons have happened?". The answer is that there have been thousands.
People want to draw the line at weapons designed as weapons of war, or more broadly, weapons designed as anti-personnel weapons (which is how handguns get included).
Pretending that an SKS wasn't designed specifically for killing other human beings makes people rightfully doubt the honesty of the rest of the argument. I personally think that under the right circumstances it is not unreasonable for a Canadian to shoot weapons of war recreationally. But I also think that if you can't acknowledge that an SKS was designed to kill people, and it has been used to kill tens or hundreds of thousands of people very effectively, then you have no business handling it.
If gun people keep making arguments about "looks" or guns being "military" as a bad criteria, then legislators will come up with functional criteria, and I really doubt that it will be less restrictive than what they already came up with.
Sometimes tech lowers the barrier to commit crimes and should be regulated.
The debate in the US is largely about what constitutes well-regulated and is a mess as States are not aligned.
My neighbour here in the Australian wheatbelt enjoys ULR shooting at 5,000 yards.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7owwTz7Z0OE
Perhaps you might like to do some actual fact checking before being utterly wrong in public?
W.Aus Firearms Act 1973 (current): https://www.legislation.wa.gov.au/legislation/statutes.nsf/l...
W.Aus Firearms Regulations 1974 (current): https://www.legislation.wa.gov.au/legislation/statutes.nsf/l...
That can be repealed, if so there is no right for our government to make firearm regulations.
The 1974 Regulations are the evolving regulations, the fine detail about what the licence requirements are, the purchase and sale requirements are, the various classes, storage requirements, and conditions for disqualification.
These can be changed.
Their point was nonsense.
We have a "Washminster" system of government, it's a bit like the UK Westminster system and a bit like the US Washington system .. only it was formed after looking at the shortcomings of both.
> Australia [..] done mass firearm bans or confiscations in recent years
Awww, you read the US NRA dot points on Australia then?
Twenty eight years ago Australia took out the (then) mass shooting world record https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_massacre_(Australi...
The response here was to unify gun regulations across all states and territories. At the time the bulk of the Australian population had gun regulations .. Queensland (then low population), Tasmania, and Territories (low population) did not.
Once regulation was uniform and gun licencing was taken seriously there were a lot of guns that people didn't want to licence ("we have the three we mainly use and another three out the back that grandad used in the war") - so there was a federally funded buy back scheme "cash for guns" to encourage handing in unlicenced weapons for cash, this resulted in pictures of skip bins full of "confiscated guns".
There are still semi automatics being bought, sold, and used in Australia - these are licenced for feral pig control use.
You cannot get a semi automatic to barrel polish and strut the street in the city with, you can get one if you're going to kill a lot of pigs.
You can get a licence to drive a three trailer prime mover (road train), you are still not permitted to drive these fully loaded on a large number of urban roads.
Rights are by definition not "pending repeal of statute."
The point being, reasonable countries view gun ownership as a privilege that can be lost, instead of a right that cannot.
When in history did we ever need, oh wait...
After Regulations were agreed upon, these were codified.
The base right as that citizens of the state can have weapons, the agreed regulations (that can be overturned) are citizens with violent criminal records, domestic assault allegations, unqualified in handling, not willing|able to safely store cannot have weapons - these are our background conditions.
The US also has background checks for sale and possesion - they're just weak on enforcement.
The US is an oddity is they felt after the fact of constitution that they had to whack on an ammendment to spell out common law for firearms - but not for explosives, poisons, motor vehicles, etc.
You do not have the right to own a firearm in Australia regardless of whatever mental gymnastics you want to perform.
- The fact that a forcible confiscation (governments cannot "buy back" something they never owned) campaign could happen at all means you do not have this right. "Give us these items or go to prison or die when we come to take them" - some right you have there!
- If you cannot own remotely the same articles that your police do, you do not have a right to bear arms. You have a privilege to own a limited set of items under a limited set of circumstances - all of which would be useless for mounting violent resistance.
This is repeated a lot and shows that at bottom, gun ownership ideologues are violent thugs, they all promote using violence to impose their political views dressed up as a fight for "rights".
Ultimately it proves that restrictive gun laws are absolutely correct.
The entire purpose of the Second Amendment - at least in the United States - is to enable violent resistance against tyranny. Not hunting, not culling predators, not sport, not home defense.
> Ultimately it proves that restrictive gun laws are absolutely correct.
"We need to restrict something that prevents further restriction."
You need violence, firearms, and "violent thugs" to go around disarm people who possess them - this in Australia is the threat of prison time.
Pot, meet kettle?
This is plain bullshit, the historical context doesn't support your wishful thinking.
You can justify violence any way you like, but at the end of the day you're promoting violence and killing people based solely on your political views.
You're repugnant.
The most left-leaning members of the United States Supreme Court disagree with you legally on this point, just as much they would agree with you in principle.
> You can justify violence any way you like, but at the end of the day you're promoting violence and killing people based solely on your political views.
Where did I "justify violence?" The Second Amendment is quite clear and contains its own justification.
Again, you need violence to disarm people - so you're really not "against violence" - you're just against those using it that you don't agree with.
> You're repugnant.
Come and take them.
That doesn't make the least bit of sense, but I can see you were desperate to say that, ie "I'm armed, there's nothing you can do!"
But the idiocy of the armed is the delusion that they are safe. A person can kill another person at a safe distance, at their convenience. Having a gun doesn't help you at all.
Maybe one day you'll start thinking for yourself and come to your senses.
But I doubt it.
What other nonsense is in the US Constitution and Ammendments?
Even Ginsburg agreed: "well-regulated" as written in the Constitution does not mean "restricted." The English language has changed some since 1791!
This is settled jurisprudence since at least 2008.
Australia is less than 10% the population of the U.S. Its easy to get to the majority of 20 million people to agree to something. It’s impossible when you have over 300 million. And the U.S. has a wide history of different states with different attitudes.
Also gun laws are codified in the constitution in the U.S. that’s not the same way in every other country in the world. I wish I could remember who said it, but to paraphrase, Constitutional rights are God-given rights as viewed by Americans. Every other country has government-given rights which can be taken away whenever the government wants. That’s not the case in the U.S. and why it’s so much more entrenched and impossible to get rid of.
Just above we can see a clear point that criminals will still have guns.
They won't turn them in. You'll only take away the ability of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves.
My wife carries a gun because she is smaller and weaker than most men, she needs it to protect herself.
I don’t think we (Canada or anybody) should necessarily ban guns, but I don’t think the US should have the 2nd amendment (as it’s now interpreted anyways) either.
But of course anyone is welcome to attempt to get a majority of state legislatures onboard to ratify a new amendment.
Analogous terms are encoded into most state constitutions - probably have to knock those pesky provisions out as well.
Unfortunately I think Philly is more dysfunctional than GTA. Perhaps the greatest of American cities.
It just depends what your personal circumstances are whether that's a reasonable deal or not, and it's not for me to judge one way or another. If I could make U.S software money from Canada, it's a no-brainer, I just can't and wouldn't really want to live there long-term. The outcome I could hypothetically have doesn't seem all that compelling, but it probably does for a great number of people for obvious reasons.
For me though, there's something a bit too intensely capitalist I guess that rubs me the wrong way. So many things and people are American size, and super, and mega, and excessive, and seemingly lacking nuance in a way I just don't like. I do get used to it and forget I'm there, and always enjoy the visit, but I can't see myself being there for more than 6 months.
However, what we do have is a pretty welcoming, friendly, and adventurous population that's a great basis for building a home, even if that doesn't mean having a house. If you have no sentimental attachments, no social life, no outdoor hobbies, no family, no job, and no prospects for a job, all of those together are perfectly legitimate reasons for getting the hell out and seeking prosperity where it might actually be found.
For me, I haven't had a job for almost a year, nobody's hiring, nobody will be hiring, rent is increasing, I'll almost certainly never own a home or be able to retire, and I don't think having kids would be feasible if I was set on it; all together, a miserable situation to be in. But... I do have friends, I have places to spend my time, I don't need to worry about medical expenses, I have a roof (for now), and I'm in better shape than many people in their early thirties. I like the vibe, and don't think I'd have better opportunities in those respects anywhere else.
That said, I did already move for work once, and picked the most appealing place imo, so anywhere else would have to pass a very high bar in order to compete. I'm also relatively more outgoing and open than people who claim to want strong social lives, and am willing to put in the groundwork. If you're a lonely, socially anxious or inept person, or a sweaty careerist tryhard who doesn't take time away from work anyway, being here vs anywhere else probably won't be such a significant difference except a better account balance.
Edit: I'd qualify my characterization of being welcoming, open, and adventurous, with the possible exception of smaller towns and cities where quite the opposite can be true. No so much because they don't like newcomers or because they're bigoted, but many people in those places—even if they're relatively cosmopolitan—haven't bothered to look beyond their high school friends for connection, even well into adulthood, and I've heard that can be quite difficult to break into. But I also don't think it's unique to Canada and it's a worthwhile experience to get the hell out of your hometown no matter where you're from by your mid-twenties I think, if even for a few years.
Im sorry but this is one of the saddest things I've ever read. As a Canadian of this was my experience of Canada I would be doing everything I could to get out. Thankfully it isn't yet, but things definitely are not looking good and I am worried about the future
For example, I don't really want to own a house to begin with, but if I did it would be a modest condo in or close to my current neighborhood where I've established myself, not some arbitrarily cheaper place where I'd get some bungalow and there'd be no jobs outside of trades anyway, not many people to re-establish a social life with, or would require a car, or a remote job that I don't have and wouldn't want to do from home in an isolated prairie town. These are just all factors in the system I'm in that don't serve anyone but people who already have quite a lot of money and want to make more by sitting on property. Until then, I'll eek by living in this studio basement suite owned by boomers, sharing rent with my partner, figuring out what the next move is. Maybe eventually I'll have to yield and bail, but I'll cross that bridge when I end up at zero (real zero, not zero + savings) again.
The systems have more or less been the same for many decades, and they've been getting pushed for at least the last one, just not everywhere all at once to their breaking point. They are slow, complex systems that require people to give up control usually, and that's unfortunate, but it is what it is.
In practice, you could start a Hyundai with an USB key, because the manufacturer did not bother to implement any security measures (it's cheaper that way).
But how many previously law abiding citizens will be hurt by not having this technology, or becoming criminals now?
I thought the rolling code thing prevented this. If anyone has a doc on how to use the Flipper for a car, please send it! I promise it's for legit use. I bought it originally to dupe the NFC key fob for my apartment and the RF fob for the garage door.
> Office of the Honourable Dominic LeBlanc Minister of Public Safety, Democratic Institutions and Intergovernmental Affairs
mailer-daemon@googlemail.com
An error occurred. Your message was not sent.
Emails seem to work fine if they already know you.
A better contact is Dominic LeBlanc, and your local MP.
https://www.ourcommons.ca/Members/en/dominic-leblanc(1813)