Conservatives keeping list of Jews

[Shakeyhands]

I'm not sure that you guys are right on this one... Should political parties keep this kind of information on us? Thats really the question.

[Fortunata]

I'm not sure that you guys are right on this one... Should political parties keep this kind of information on us? Thats really the question.

Of course that is the issue here, however the Cons on here will deny, decry and strawman anything if it is their party that is involved in possible unethical behaviours. If, however, it was the Libs holding that list I'm sure you'd hear an outcry. It's too bad a serious matter of privacy has to turn partisan.

[ScottSA]

I hear the trucks rolling in the night.

[Michael Bluth]

It's too bad a serious matter of privacy has to turn partisan.

Talk to the op about that. Or are you denying the thread was started in a highly partisan manner?

[Fortunata]

It would be nice to have a non-partisan discussion about a lot of things, privacy and ethics included; what is right and what isn't no matter what the party. Or do people really see the "bad" about the party they cheerlead? Do they only see it about the opposition?

[Michael Bluth]

There is no problem at all with having a discussion about those things.

If you really want to have a non-partisan discussion perhaps it would be best to start another thread.

Despite any protestations to the contrary, this thread began with a horribly partisan and biased original post, including the thread title and sub-title.

There is no way to have a non-partisan discussion within this thread now.

[fellowtraveller]

I hear the trucks rolling in the night.

Only in the rural areas.

In the cities, the silent black helicopters are at work picking up dissidents.

Of course, none of the Sea Kings would start so we've had to borrow them from the Americans.

[ScottSA]

Only in the rural areas.

In the cities, the silent black helicopters are at work picking up dissidents.

Of course, none of the Sea Kings would start so we've had to borrow them from the Americans.

The seakings are used only in emergencies, to plummet sweep down on top of unsuspecting list members.

[jdobbin]

I'm not sure that you guys are right on this one... Should political parties keep this kind of information on us? Thats really the question.

I'm surprised that not a lot of people seem uncomfortable with lists being drawn up without consent. Political parties shouldn't be profiling people and keeping lists compiled without the person giving permission.

[jdobbin]

Of course that is the issue here, however the Cons on here will deny, decry and strawman anything if it is their party that is involved in possible unethical behaviours. If, however, it was the Libs holding that list I'm sure you'd hear an outcry. It's too bad a serious matter of privacy has to turn partisan.

I have no doubt that we'd hear it if the Liberals had compiled a list by people's religion that there would be an outcry. And the critics would be right. There is no place to collect that sort of data without consent.

[ScottSA]

I'm surprised that not a lot of people seem uncomfortable with lists being drawn up without consent. Political parties shouldn't be profiling people and keeping lists compiled without the person giving permission.

If the information is in the public domain, there is implied consent. Look it up. You don't even have to; you admitted as much yourself. The privacy act covers the release of information, not its subsequent uses. You're flogging a dead pony here.

[jdobbin]

If the information is in the public domain, there is implied consent. Look it up. You don't even have to; you admitted as much yourself. The privacy act covers the release of information, not its subsequent uses. You're flogging a dead pony here.

I am very aware of public domain and it is not implied consent if someone compiles a list based on information collected from people who are relatives and friends. They have no right to give access to people's personal data either.

[ScottSA]

I am very aware of public domain and it is not implied consent if someone compiles a list based on information collected from people who are relatives and friends. They have no right to give access to people's personal data either.

Where exactly did that come from?

[jdobbin]

Where exactly did that come from?

the mailing lists the Prime Minister's Office uses are drawn from community directories, free publications available to the general public or word of mouth from friends and relatives.

Word of mouth is not in the public domain.

[ScottSA]

Word of mouth is not in the public domain.

I doubt that's true, but I don't have the time nor inclination to look it up.

[old_bold&cold]

JD never mind being sick of public domain, be very sick of the people who nit pick at the privacy laws and think they can bend them for their own personal gain. That is worse then anything public domain ever has done. You yap and yes I say yap that this maybe or could be against privacy act, when you know it really is not the case, and it is not even close to the case. I used to think you open minded but in this you closed your mind and have made a huge mess of everything about this whole issue. This should have been a 5 minute piece and it should have been over. The liberal party will take the blame and it should, because this shows just how out of touch and low they and their supportters really are. You have not done any favours here with this and yourself a large disservice.

Edited October 9, 2007 by old_bold&cold

[jdobbin]

I doubt that's true, but I don't have the time nor inclination to look it up.

We have a few lawyers here. I'm sure they know the answer.

I know of no instance of public domain that allows my neighbor to release information on me for a profile to be used by a third party.

[jdobbin]

JD never mind being sick of public domain, be very sick of the people who nit pick at the privacy laws and think they can baend them for their own personal gain. That is worse then anything public domain ever has done. You yap and yes ai say yap that this maybe ort could be against privacy, when you know it really is not the case and it is not even close to the case. I used to think you open minded but in this you closed your mind and have made a huge mess of everything about this whole issue. This should have been a 5 minute piece and it should have been over. The liberal party will take the blame and it should, because this show just how out of touch and low they their supports really are. You have not done any favours here with this and yourself a large disserive.

And I thought you were concerned with privacy and keeping government, organization and companies from accessing and using information that they have no business knowing.

[old_bold&cold]

And I thought you were concerned with privacy and keeping government, organization and companies from accessing and using information that they have no business knowing.

I have limits to the levels I think the laws should go to, and this kind of thing and even knowing religions etc., that are just really basic level garbage, should never in any way shape or form be considered invasion of privacy. I have the good sense to know the spirite of the law. And this does not pass the smell test.

[jdobbin]

I have limits to the levels I think the laws should go to, and this kind of thing and even knowing religions etc., that are just really basic level garbage, should never in any way shape or form be considered invasion of privacy. I have the good sense to know the spirite of the law. And this does not pass the smell test.

I totally disagree. I don't want any political party keeping a database on me that I have not consented to. If I can get you on a NDP list just by telling them you are say...a victim of crime and they send you mail on gun control, I think that is a violation of your privacy as they have no business knowing that information or soliciting you based on that information. I don't think friends or family have a right to give your private information away without consent.

I don't want political parties to give my data to the media. I don't want them to give it to a polling company. I think it wrong and can be abused at any time.

[Pliny]

When I worked in the public sector, the small print on the union package I got said that the union would use my information to send me political and informational literature. I was able to contact the union and under the privacy act, I could opt out of that mailing.

But you didn't, right?

[jdobbin]

But you didn't, right?

I have no love for the provincial NDP at all. My $2000, if it is $2000, is in limbo as they drag on the labour fund implosion year after year. As for the federal NDP, I will not vote for a party that seems about unequal to to the task of fiscal management as its provincial counterpart.

As soon I got the note package, I opted out and never received a direct mailing from the NDP ever. Sadly, the union did its NDP electioneering in its newsletters instead. No opting out of the union in Manitoba so no opting out of the literature.

[M.Dancer]

I an forced to conclude that it appears that if the Tories actually compile lists by ethnicity or religeon, thatis plain strange.

I for one would rather they didn't waste money sending me a samhain card or even a hogsmeade......

[Michael Bluth]

I an forced to conclude that it appears that if the Tories actually compile lists by ethnicity or religeon, thatis plain strange.

All parties with standing in the House of Commons have done that. Guaranteed.

[M.Dancer]

Still weird