Battletoads Posted April 26, 2011 Report Posted April 26, 2011 As most know the Conservative party has promised to pass their draconian anti-crime bill within 100 days if given a majority. You can read the full platform here In this crime bill the conservatives have tacked on numerous pieces of digital legislation, which they say are designed to curb digital crime. In reality these pieces of legislation seem to be designed to curtail any online freedoms and privacy Canadians currently enjoy. The first major piece digital legislation in this bill mandates that internet providers must hand over user information to authorities upon request. Such information includes your name, your email address, the web pages you visit, your ip address, and your device identification numbers. No warrant or legal process is needed to procure this information, it is simply requested and the internet provider must under this legislation comply. The second major component of this legislation mandates that internet providers must rework their networks to allow for the real time surveillance of users. Such surveillance would include the ability to intercept communications between individuals, and communication between individuals and web servers. Again no legal process would be required to implement such surveillance. The third and final component of this legislation states that authorities can issue a preservation order which would require that internet providers hold onto user information for up to 90 days. This bill seems more like something that would come out of a Communist country rather than Canada. In fact this reminds me of how the Soviets would steam open the mail of their citizens. So why is it that the Cons are planning to pass this sovietesque bill that places Canada's digital future in jeopardy? Quote "You can lead a Conservative to knowledge, but you can't make him think."
mikedavid00 Posted April 26, 2011 Report Posted April 26, 2011 This bill seems more like something that would come out of a Communist country rather than Canada. I agree. The CPC is so Jaded now it's crazy. I support the CPC during this election though. Quote ---- Charles Anthony banned me for 30 days on April 28 for 'obnoxious libel' when I suggested Jack Layton took part in illegal activities in a message parlor. Claiming a politician took part in illegal activity is not rightful cause for banning and is what is discussed here almost daily in one capacity or another. This was really a brownshirt style censorship from a moderator on mapleleafweb http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1oGB-BKdZg---
Moonbox Posted April 26, 2011 Report Posted April 26, 2011 Battletoads you're out of control! Could you please actually cite some of the stuff you're saying? You've linked the entire conservative platform but none of that references the so-called ability to intrude on internet privacy without warrant or legislation. I agree that this would be concerning, but I'm having trouble believing it. Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he does for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
Battletoads Posted April 26, 2011 Author Report Posted April 26, 2011 Battletoads you're out of control! Could you please actually cite some of the stuff you're saying? You've linked the entire conservative platform but none of that references the so-called ability to intrude on internet privacy without warrant or legislation. I agree that this would be concerning, but I'm having trouble believing it. Feel free to look it em up, bill C-50, C-51 and C-52, which are part of the conservatives crime legislation that they plan to pass within 100 days if give a majority. Heres a link to Michael Geist's opinion on the matter, an expert in the field of Canadian e-law. Quote "You can lead a Conservative to knowledge, but you can't make him think."
Rick Posted April 27, 2011 Report Posted April 27, 2011 Battletoads you're out of control! Could you please actually cite some of the stuff you're saying? You've linked the entire conservative platform but none of that references the so-called ability to intrude on internet privacy without warrant or legislation. I agree that this would be concerning, but I'm having trouble believing it. You honestly didn't know about the draconian measures the Conservartives have planned which will allow spying on Canadians internet use without warrants or legal process?It's a very hot topic on several computer related websites I frequent and not the least bit popular amongst the members there. In fact it has zero support to the end that several memmbers have stated it's because of actions like that, that they will NO longer support Harper's growing police state style of government. It really is shades of the old Soviet Union... Quote “This is all about who you represent,” Mr. Dewar (NDP) said. “We’re (NDP) talking about representing the interests of working people and everyday Canadians and they [the Conservatives] are about representing the fund managers who come in and fleece our companies and our country. Voted Maple Leaf Web's 'Most Outstanding Poster' 2011
Scotty Posted April 27, 2011 Report Posted April 27, 2011 The first major piece digital legislation in this bill mandates that internet providers must hand over user information to authorities upon request. Such information includes your name, your email address, the web pages you visit, your ip address, and your device identification numbers. Kinda like being able to find out your address just from looking at your phone number, eh? So what does your average joe have to fear about this? The second major component of this legislation mandates that internet providers must rework their networks to allow for the real time surveillance of users. Again, kinda like the telephone companies... Click! "Hey, is that you listening in again, Steve?" The third and final component of this legislation states that authorities can issue a preservation order which would require that internet providers hold onto user information for up to 90 days. Certainly true of work. Actually, they save everything for years. Why do you imagine the government would have the slightest interest in any of this UNLESS you were involved in something criminal? Why do you imagine, given the tight budgets of the RCMP and other policing agencies, they would show the slightest interest in any of this except for people suspected of being involved in organized crime or terrorism? Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Battletoads Posted April 27, 2011 Author Report Posted April 27, 2011 (edited) So what does your average joe have to fear about this? What does the average joe have to fear about constant government surveillance of their every online motion? Do I really need to answer that? Edited April 28, 2011 by Battletoads Quote "You can lead a Conservative to knowledge, but you can't make him think."
Scotty Posted April 27, 2011 Report Posted April 27, 2011 What does the average go have to fear about constant government surveillance of their every online motion? Do I really need to answer that? Why would you imagine the government has the time, inclination or money to put into monitoring what the average joe is doing with his or her time? I know people working in the RCMP. That place is as cash strapped as any agency in the government. You think they have the money to put into cataloging what porn sites you visit? Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
ToadBrother Posted April 27, 2011 Report Posted April 27, 2011 Why would you imagine the government has the time, inclination or money to put into monitoring what the average joe is doing with his or her time? I know people working in the RCMP. That place is as cash strapped as any agency in the government. You think they have the money to put into cataloging what porn sites you visit? In other words, the police should go to a judge even they need this kind of surveillance. Quote
RNG Posted April 27, 2011 Report Posted April 27, 2011 (edited) Why would you imagine the government has the time, inclination or money to put into monitoring what the average joe is doing with his or her time? I know people working in the RCMP. That place is as cash strapped as any agency in the government. You think they have the money to put into cataloging what porn sites you visit? Come on, some cop or some bureaucrat or some politician gets a mad-on for you. With these powers, given without need of warrent, they could make just about everyone except Mother Teresa go through hell. What you say makes sense if one assumes there are no evil persons in positions of power, but think about it. I have worked in countries where civil liberties are a joke. It is really bad. Edited April 27, 2011 by RNG Quote The government can't give anything to anyone without having first taken it from someone else.
ToadBrother Posted April 28, 2011 Report Posted April 28, 2011 Come on, some cop or some bureaucrat or some politician gets a mad-on for you. With these powers, given without need of warrent, they could make just about everyone except Mother Teresa go through hell. What you say makes sense if one assumes there are no evil persons in positions of power, but think about it. I have worked in countries where civil liberties are a joke. It is really bad. I realize cops hate due process, but the amount of influence they've gained with a number of Western governments boggles the mind. If getting warrants is such a big problem, then hire more frickin' judges. Quote
RNG Posted April 28, 2011 Report Posted April 28, 2011 I realize cops hate due process, but the amount of influence they've gained with a number of Western governments boggles the mind. If getting warrants is such a big problem, then hire more frickin' judges. It isn't a lack of judges, it's that judges respect rule of law and civil liberties. Quote The government can't give anything to anyone without having first taken it from someone else.
Bonam Posted April 28, 2011 Report Posted April 28, 2011 Why would you imagine the government has the time, inclination or money to put into monitoring what the average joe is doing with his or her time? I know people working in the RCMP. That place is as cash strapped as any agency in the government. You think they have the money to put into cataloging what porn sites you visit? Actually, the cheapest solution is to just automatically log and archive everything. Data storage is cheap. You can store a record of thousands of people's daily internet activities for a span of years for the cost it takes one RCMP officer to spend an hour (or even a fraction thereof) of work looking up someone's name and requesting that they be monitored. And data storage is only getting cheaper. If the government has the right to monitor everyone, and it wants to monitor just a few people, the cheapest and easiest solution due to the way the internet and computers work is to just monitor and record everything. Of course, whether any of that data will ever be accessed by a live person is another story, but I can see how your average Joe might not like the fact that a record of him surfing porn for hours every night is sitting on some government hard drive. Quote
Battletoads Posted April 28, 2011 Author Report Posted April 28, 2011 It isn't a lack of judges, it's that judges respect rule of law and civil liberties. Ironic that the right wing, the party that pretend to champion 'individual freedoms', does not. Quote "You can lead a Conservative to knowledge, but you can't make him think."
ToadBrother Posted April 28, 2011 Report Posted April 28, 2011 It isn't a lack of judges, it's that judges respect rule of law and civil liberties. I, of course, completely agree, but the police in North America and Europe frequently put forth the necessity of stronger surveillance powers as being one of judicial slowdown. "We would have busted those child pornographers/terrorists/drug runners if only the damned judge had been there, but if we just gain the unilateral right to bug anyone we want, then you don't have to pay for those judges." Governments, being dominated by soulless bean counters, are very receptive to that message, and in general politicians don't particularly like the judiciary, they seem to have little problem cutting it out of the loop wherever they can. Quote
Battletoads Posted April 30, 2011 Author Report Posted April 30, 2011 Battletoads you're out of control! Could you please actually cite some of the stuff you're saying? You've linked the entire conservative platform but none of that references the so-called ability to intrude on internet privacy without warrant or legislation. I agree that this would be concerning, but I'm having trouble believing it. Also herre a Macleans article on this issue http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/04/13/harpers-promise-a-warrantless-online-surveillance-state/ Why is the booster club so silent on this issue? Quote "You can lead a Conservative to knowledge, but you can't make him think."
CANADIEN Posted April 30, 2011 Report Posted April 30, 2011 Ironic, isn't it, that the census is a big bad intrusion by the big bad Government in our private lives, but it is perfectly legitimate for it to spy on internet or phone conversation without first obtaining a warrant. Quote
Battletoads Posted May 1, 2011 Author Report Posted May 1, 2011 (edited) Ironic, isn't it, that the census is a big bad intrusion by the big bad Government in our private lives, but it is perfectly legitimate for it to spy on internet or phone conversation without first obtaining a warrant. Not really shocking to anyone who has been watching the Cons. Their enemy number 1 is data, hence their effective canceling of the census. Also I surprised that only one of the cool-aid drinkin' cons have weighed in on this issue. They must be afraid to speak up against their mighty leaders wish for Canada to become a police state. Edited May 1, 2011 by Battletoads Quote "You can lead a Conservative to knowledge, but you can't make him think."
RNG Posted May 1, 2011 Report Posted May 1, 2011 Not really shocking to anyone who has been watching the Cons. Their enemy number 1 is data, hence their effective canceling of the census. Also I surprised that only one of the cool-aid drinkin' cons have weighed in on this issue. They must be afraid to speak up against their mighty leaders wish for Canada to become a police state. I'm still waiting to see the armed black-shirts patrolling the streets. You got any pics? Quote The government can't give anything to anyone without having first taken it from someone else.
CANADIEN Posted May 1, 2011 Report Posted May 1, 2011 I'm still waiting to see the armed black-shirts patrolling the streets. You got any pics? And nobody is mentioning that as well. We are still talking about an unwarrented spying on individuals, without the proper scrutiny that comes with the need to get a warrant. Quote
Battletoads Posted May 1, 2011 Author Report Posted May 1, 2011 I'm still waiting to see the armed black-shirts patrolling the streets. You got any pics? Spying on citizens is one of the characteristics of a police state... Quote "You can lead a Conservative to knowledge, but you can't make him think."
RNG Posted May 1, 2011 Report Posted May 1, 2011 And nobody is mentioning that as well. We are still talking about an unwarrented spying on individuals, without the proper scrutiny that comes with the need to get a warrant. I totally disagree with that concept. I also am very much against Harper's crime stance. It has been proven wrong many times by many people. But Iggy is a joke, and Layton will bankrupt us. Quote The government can't give anything to anyone without having first taken it from someone else.
Battletoads Posted May 1, 2011 Author Report Posted May 1, 2011 I totally disagree with that concept. I also am very much against Harper's crime stance. It has been proven wrong many times by many people. But Iggy is a joke, and Layton will bankrupt us. He'd have to try very hard indeed to outspend Harper. Meh, I guess its up to you, choose someone who is a fiscal joke and staunchly anti-individual or choose someone who is a fiscal joke and staunchly pro-individual. I can't see the NDP doing anymore damage than Harper has done seeing as they can win a minority in the best case scenario. Quote "You can lead a Conservative to knowledge, but you can't make him think."
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.