Tories on e-snooping: ‘Stand with us or with the child pornographers’

[TenPenny]

The Charter of Rights - you're either for it, or against it, and we know where Toews stands.

 

[lone wolf]

Harpco governs from behind one-way glass

 

[Spade]

Ain't it great to live in a democracy?

 

[Goober]

Strong words coming from NP...

Jesse Kline: Lawful access bill set to become the new gun registry
[/URL]

You should read more of the NP - The go after Cons quite often and are better at it than the Globe or the Star.

 

[GreenFish66]

Tories on e-snooping: ‘Stand with us or with the child pornographers’ -

Deplorable choice of words from a politician who knows better....

Big brother is watching you ....And so are " They" ...

I sure hope the kids and any girlfriends they might have keep things on the up and up online....
Sometimes many people use 1 computer/laptop( why I don't believe online Businesses(eg.search engines/social websites) trying to "specialize" a users online experience is ultimately a profitable idea..Unless the online user is asked if they want the option 1st.)
Parents can monitor( to a degree )..but lord knows what goes on when they're not..Or what 1 might accidently come across when they do...

Is it really the parents business to be aware what the kids are doing on the computer?....Yes..
Is it the cyber polices' business to monitor the kids?....hmmm....Easy answer NO!..Deeper answer?...Perhaps ...When inappropriate internet use is brought to their attention by a peer or another who has been upset by 1's online actions ...in a PHYSICALLY PUBLIC place..( eg..library..restaurant..School..( Social environment?))

It would be embarassing to find something potentially unacceptable on 1s computer and have a cyber police officer come knockin at the door.Take the computer and anything else they wish to...Could be a career/life killer ..having to explain what happened..to everyone; like neighbors/friends/ the public.

..Teenage minds turn to mush with all the changing hormones and chemicals sloshin around upstairs....Especially when it comes to teenage attraction issues.....Or for younger kids..Curiosity ..Hope this Bill will not negatively impact them ..

Sure hope the kids are not attracting any unwanted heat.That might have an unwanted visitor go through 1's personal computer files..Or let's hope 1 doesn't make A wrong click/choice in the heat of a moment, that might unintentionally have them ruin their, and their parents reputation, career, future, life, because of a few emotionally charged, clouded thoughts....

Education; not Embarrassment or Conviction, is more often the best solution....

The worse, is when security and politicians use the worst of all crimes to pass otherwise unfavorable laws/bills..To justify Laws/Bills that would usually be deemed unacceptable..( like; Invasions of Privacy/Rights)
Or use contraversial issues to do little more then stir up the publics awareness to draw attention to themselves( or away from something else ); to seemingly do little more then justify their own positions/interests.

Who knows what "They" will really do given the power to prowl unabatedly over the people.....

Unfortunately, due to the barbaric/animalistic few ...Laws and regulations are necessary; BUT...The more Big Biz/Big Gov interfere with the freedom of cyberspace and its inhabitants for their own $interests$..The greater the chance it will Crash and Burn..Life in Cyberspace will die..

Do you like when someone you don't know takes your picture or asks you for your personal information ?
Keeping in mind..Police/Biz Leaders/Polticians are human too...

Proceed with caution ...

http://forums.canadiancontent.net/news/89536-big-brother-watching-so-they-2.html

Canadian Club, January 13 2012 - Justice Minister speaks to Canadian Club of Canada about Violent Crime agenda..--- skip through the beginning if you like ...to about 6 min...20 sec...

__________________________________

http://www.canadianclub.org/Home.aspx​

 

[mentalfloss]

You should read more of the NP - The go after Cons quite often and are better at it than the Globe or the Star.

I wasn't insinuating the NP was biased, I just meant that the content of the article was very strong.

 

[eh1eh]

Dear Mr Toews:

Please go fukify yourself. You should be ashamed of this idiocy, this 'you're either in full agreement with this idiotic measure, or you support child pornography' ****. Anyone with a half a brain (which therefore means anyone not sitting in government) knows that this is a stupid comment from a moronic collection of assholes. That **** might play well on Sun media television, when they're not sucking you off for government grants, but really, shut the fuk up.

Is this guy George Bush or Hitler? Sounds and acts like both.

'If you haven't done anything wrong you have nothing to fear.' Yep, that's the call of fascism.

'You either with us or against us.' Oops, fascism again.

BTW, this thread is officially Godwin'd.

 

[mentalfloss]

Is this guy George Bush or Hitler? Sounds and acts like both.

'If you haven't done anything wrong you have nothing to fear.' Yep, that's the call of fascism.

'You either with us or against us.' Oops, fascism again.

BTW, this thread is officially Godwin'd.

A few things before we continue this thread.. from what I understand, it isn't really as if the government will be spying on you, but they will allow authorities to intercept messages and conversations.

Now, while that already sounds a bit scary, it belays the more important point.

Is it necessary?

You know, we can sit here and bicker about 1984 and lost rights and blah blah blah.. but in a world where there is a serious and legitimate threat that could actually cause a great deal of harm, people would give up some freedoms if they really thought that their lives were at stake.

But the reason most people are up in arms about this is precisely because there is no serious threat or harm from hackers. Nothing that would require police to have access to ISP customer data without a warrant.

If the government wants to convince Canadians that there is a legitimate threat, then they need to do their homework because people won't fall for the fear mongering rhetoric. "Oh, the child pornographers" just isn't going to cut it.

 

[eh1eh]

A few things before we continue this thread.. from what I understand, it isn't really as if the government will be spying on you, but they will "allow authorities to intercept messages and conversations."

Now, while that already sounds a bit scary, it belays the more important point.

Is it necessary?

You know, we can sit here and bicker about 1984 and lost rights and blah blah blah.. but in a world where there is a serious and legitimate threat that could actually cause a great deal of harm, people would give up some freedoms if they really thought that their lives were at stake.

But the reason most people are up in arms about this is precisely because there is no serious threat or harm from hackers. Nothing that would require police to have access to ISP customer data without a warrant.

If the government wants to convince Canadians that there is a legitimate threat, then they need to do their homework because people won't fall for empty rhetoric. "Oh, the child pornographers" just isn't going to cut it.

So it's a law that "allow authorities to intercept messages and conversations." without due process of a warrant signed by a judge?
Sounds clearly like spying to me.

People who give up 'some' of their freedoms have taken a step backward and as history shows don't get the freedom back without bloodshed.

You're right. They better do their homework.

They could hire Anonymous to find the pedos.

 

[GreenFish66]

Tories table online-surveillance bill | Canada | News | Toronto Sun - Online surveillance Bill - This is worth listening to/reading..Is interesting ..

 

[CDNBear]

Police will require a warrant to obtain that information. But the bill would also permit them to obtain IP addresses (which identifies someone on the Internet), email addresses, mobile phone numbers and other information without any warrant.

So to track my activity, they need a warrant. Hmmm, OK, they need that now, so no change there.

They won't need a warrant to acquire my IP address, email address, mobile phone number(?) and other information?

Oh sh!t, I have to go rip the plates off my Yota. If I don't, they might find out where I live, height, hair colour, eye colour, and gender. Not to mention my name, and that combined with my address, my home phone number is as easily accessible!

Oh crap, CC has my IP address...

OMG!!!! I need tin foil!!!

 

[petros]

OMG!!!! I need tin foil!!!

Brass mesh man. Brass mesh!



Or mylar....

 

[L Gilbert]

Wonder what Harpy's stance is on crime in Canadian gov't ranks: HARPER IGNORES Canada's Child Crimes - YouTube

 

[Tonington]

Here's a take from a lawyer who specializes in privacy issues:

The Canadian federal government is expected to table its latest iteration of "lawful access" legislation in Parliament this week. This is a BIG DEAL.

First, let's set the record straight: Assuming this bill is roughly the same as the last one that fell off the order paper, it will NOT allow warrantless access to the contents of any online communications. They can't read your email or watch you surf the internet, unless they get a warrant. But what it does is requires anyone who offers telecommunications services to the public (which would include Microsoft's MSN, Google Talk, Skype, etc.) to build in a backdoor so the police can wiretap it with a warrant. This involves, in many cases, compromising the security of these systems.

But it is expected to set up a system under which the police can get a huge list of non-content personal information without a warrant. And this is very bad.

Ask yourself this:

• Should the police be able to get access to the names and addresses of anyone who shows up at a G20 protest? An Occupy* protest? A Stanley Cup riot? Parliament Hill? The PM's residence? An abortion clinic? A sketchy part of town? If this bill looks anything like the last, they will be able to on a whim without any judicial oversight. (All they need is an "IMSI Catcher" (here's an example of one meant for law enforcement and one made by some guy for $1500), which grabs the unique identifiers of all the cell phones within range and a request to the relevant telcos to hand over the names and addresses associated with the phones. Heck, they can ask for your e-mail address while they're at it.)
• Should be police be able to get the name and address of someone who seems to be spending an inordinate amount of time perusing the Criminal Code on the Department of Justice website? They'll be able to do just that.
• Should the police be able to get your name and address based on your web browsing activities without having to swear before a judge that there is any compelling reason to get it? If this bill looks anything like the last, they will be able to.
• Should the police be able to get your e-mail address, IP address and phone numbers without any probable cause? Yup, they'll be able to get that too.

The Internet is not quite like the real world. When you go to a library or a book store, you don't have to provide ID or leave a record of what you looked at or that you were even there. When you step into a store in the real world, you don't necessarily leave a trace of what you perused and what you bought (if you paid cash). You can send an anonymous letter to the editor of your local newspaper to voice an unpopular opinion without giving your name or any other identifying information. (They probably will not publish it, but that's beside the point.) But the Internet doesn't work like that.
​

Like with the mandatory minimums, we should probably be listening to the experts in the respective field. You can read the rest without me cutting and pasting here:
Canadian Privacy Law Blog: What lawful access is all about and why it matters

 

[L Gilbert]

The best defense is not to have anything on your computer that others would want.

 

[CDNBear]

Some conflicting commentary in there Ton. How can the Police tell if I'm perusing the CCoC without a warrant, if they need a warrant to see my surfing activity?

Besides that...

I needed ID for my last library card.

And most stored have CCTV to beat all hell nowadays.

 

[TenPenny]

Any time they trot out the with us or against us line, you know they are so full of it they need to

be in jail.

 

[Tonington]

Some conflicting commentary in there Ton. How can the Police tell if I'm perusing the CCoC without a warrant, if they need a warrant to see my surfing activity?

They need a warrant for real time tracking of your activity. They don't require one for internet provider customer information. They don't require a warrant to issue a production order, which would compel ISP's to provide evidence for specific requests. The last bill allowed the police to access your name, address, phone number, email address(es), IP address, and a host of other identifying information related to cell phones and providers. This information can be linked to other data. So as the lawyer said, if you read the CCoC web page a lot, the police could flag your IP if it shows up a lot in requests for evidence from ISP's and get lots of information about you without needing a warrant.

I don't pretend to know all this stuff, which is why I say we should listen to the subject matter experts. I don't understand all the ins and outs, nor do I even know what are all the ins and outs...

I needed ID for my last library card.

But you don't need one to get into the library, or to walk around and browse.

And most stored have CCTV to beat all hell nowadays.

True, but I don't walk around with a big name tag on. I'm not identified on a stores CC recorders.

 

[lone wolf]

Any time the government promises they're not going to do something, you can almost bet it's part of the scheme

 

[mentalfloss]

Any time the government promises they're not going to do something, you can almost bet it's part of the scheme

This has been a theme recently, especially with the OAS fiasco.