Occupy Toronto Protestors

Shwa · November 14, 2011

‘Anonymous’ threat doesn’t faze Mayor Ford

But should the mayor be worried about the potential cyber attack?
Last week, a hacker claiming to be part of Anonymous targeted Mayor Francis Slay of St. Louis after an eviction notice was sent to the city’s Occupy protesters. “You can remove the movement from the city, but you cannot remove the movement from your systems!" said a message posted on the mayor’s website.

Thousands of Slay’s emails, as well as contact information for hundreds of his political backers were also dumped online by hackers.

They do, but sometimes they don't. However, I wonder if Mayor Ford is thinking about the ramifications of having all his email exposed on the Internet? No doubt the IT folks at the City have hardened their systems. But if Anon has already done the hack and are just waiting for the opportunity.

Boges · November 14, 2011

If Occupiers believe their "Rights" are being trampled I look forward to seeing the lawsuit that would come from their impending eviction.

If it is in fact illegal, I'm sure they have a case. I bet CUPE would even pay for the lawyer.

Edited November 14, 2011 by Boges

Boges · November 14, 2011

‘Anonymous’ threat doesn’t faze Mayor Ford

They do, but sometimes they don't. However, I wonder if Mayor Ford is thinking about the ramifications of having all his email exposed on the Internet? No doubt the IT folks at the City have hardened their systems. But if Anon has already done the hack and are just waiting for the opportunity.

Mabye they should commit Cyber Terrorism against members of the 1% they are raging against instead of everyone that works for the City of Toronto.

Edited November 14, 2011 by Boges

jacee · November 14, 2011

Thousands of Slay’s emails, as well as contact information for hundreds of his political backers were also dumped online by hackers.

Omigod ... I LOVE that!

Do it to HARPER!!!

:lol:

I don't believe, however, that 'Anonymous' is an organization at all. I think they're just independent hackers who choose to identify themselves as 'Anonymous'.

Edited November 14, 2011 by jacee

jacee · November 14, 2011

If Occupiers believe their "Rights" are being trampled I look forward to seeing the lawsuit that would come from their impending eviction.

If it is in fact illegal, I'm sure they have a case. I bet CUPE would even pay for the lawyer.

Currently this is happening in Vancouver, not because of a lawsuit but because of the city applying for an injunction.The constitutional battle will be quite interesting.

It is also possible that there could be class action lawsuits by evicted protesters. Because of a precedent set a few years ago, people can now sue for damage$ resulting from violations of constitutional rights as well. This makes it a whole new era for the 'power of the people'.

Shwa · November 14, 2011

If Occupiers believe their "Rights" are being trampled I look forward to seeing the lawsuit that would come from their impending eviction.

If it is in fact illegal, I'm sure they have a case. I bet CUPE would even pay for the lawyer.

So you are of the school that would suppress or oppress people and sort it out in court later?

Shwa · November 14, 2011

Mabye they should commit Cyber Terrorism against members of the 1% they are raging against instead of everyone that works for the City of Toronto.

Well, for one, Mayor Ford is seen as 'unfazed' by any attack from Anon, so there would be no terror involved. Plus, I don't think anyone at the City of Toronto would be terrified if their website went off line for a couple of hours or someone hacked a funny message into the content.

So where's all the "Cyber Terrorism?"

More like Cyber Hyperbole if you ask me.

Boges · November 14, 2011

Well, for one, Mayor Ford is seen as 'unfazed' by any attack from Anon, so there would be no terror involved. Plus, I don't think anyone at the City of Toronto would be terrified if their website went off line for a couple of hours or someone hacked a funny message into the content.

So where's all the "Cyber Terrorism?"

More like Cyber Hyperbole if you ask me.

The threat was rather vague so I'm only speculating on what could actually happen.

They said "Toronto will be removed from the internet"

That could mean they could attempt to eliminate every IP address in Toronto, If that was even possible.

Edited November 14, 2011 by Boges

Boges · November 14, 2011

So you are of the school that would suppress or oppress people and sort it out in court later?

In this instance yes.

If a person's right to protest supersedes other laws then that could open a Pandora's Box of people doing all sorts of illegal activity under the guise of protest.

cybercoma · November 14, 2011

In this instance yes.

If a person's right to protest supersedes other laws then that could open a Pandora's Box of people doing all sorts of illegal activity under the guise of protest.

A person's right to protest may only be limited if it's reasonably justified. So far the justifications have not been reasonable for a free and just society. It doesn't supersede all laws, but it does supersede petty fees for permits and nonsensical time limits

Edited November 14, 2011 by cybercoma

Shwa · November 14, 2011

In this instance yes.

If a person's right to protest supersedes other laws then that could open a Pandora's Box of people doing all sorts of illegal activity under the guise of protest.

But where do you draw the line Boges? Or do you allow the state to trample people's rights because of convenience, cost effectiveness or expediency? Today it is peaceful protest that is inconvenient, where will you be when it is freedom of the press or freedom of expression? Or perhaps the freedoms are allowed providing they match a particular ideology or religious view?

You have to remember that the Charter of Rights modifies all other existing laws and bylaws, not the other way around. The Consitution isn't found unlawful, but others laws can be found unconstitutional. You should be thankful you have the privledge of living in a nation where we have such fundamental and explicit freedoms even if you do no agree with those that exercise them.

charter.rights · November 15, 2011

A person's right to protest may only be limited if it's reasonably justified. So far the justifications have not been reasonable for a free and just society. It doesn't supersede all laws, but it does supersede petty fees for permits and nonsensical time limits

Police and politicians rarely depend on the Charter to defend oppositions' rights. Rather bully tactics are used to get the opposition to withdraw and only when they are hauled up in court because they violated someone's rights do they bring the law out as a defense.

What is ironic because it is the belief of the vast majority of Canadians, is that the Charter is something that gets looks at after the nuisances and obstacles are forcefully move out of their way. In reality, civil law, by-laws and summary laws are the lowest order of all the laws in Canada and conversely, Charter law must be applied before all others.

blueblood · November 15, 2011

Police and politicians rarely depend on the Charter to defend oppositions' rights. Rather bully tactics are used to get the opposition to withdraw and only when they are hauled up in court because they violated someone's rights do they bring the law out as a defense.

What is ironic because it is the belief of the vast majority of Canadians, is that the Charter is something that gets looks at after the nuisances and obstacles are forcefully move out of their way. In reality, civil law, by-laws and summary laws are the lowest order of all the laws in Canada and conversely, Charter law must be applied before all others.

All right what comes first, right to security of person or right of free speech/assembly?

Rights are a two way street, why do protesters get to trample over others rights and get a free pass on it.

cybercoma · November 15, 2011

How are Occupiers violating the right to security of the person?

blueblood · November 15, 2011

How are Occupiers violating the right to security of the person?

Really???

Aak the sexual assault victims, the police officers who were bitten and the other examples of violence and threats of violence coming from there.

Thanks for that beauty.

cybercoma · November 15, 2011

Really???

Aak the sexual assault victims, the police officers who were bitten and the other examples of violence and threats of violence coming from there.

Thanks for that beauty.

What does that have to do with the movement as a whole or the protest? The people that committed those criminal offenses should be arrested. That has nothing to do with protesting.

cybercoma · November 15, 2011

Which makes one wonder, why aren't the police doing their job?

cybercoma · November 15, 2011

And just a heads up, since you're quite obviously confused about the legal system. Charter Rights don't pertain to actions between individuals. The Charter regulates the activities of the government. ANd the United States has no such right as "security of the person".

Edited November 15, 2011 by cybercoma

blueblood · November 15, 2011

What does that have to do with the movement as a whole or the protest? The people that committed those criminal offenses should be arrested. That has nothing to do with protesting.

When those of the movement obstruct the police from carrying out those arrests and enable an environment for crime to take place. They screwed themselves.

cybercoma · November 15, 2011

When those of the movement obstruct the police from carrying out those arrests and enable an environment for crime to take place. They screwed themselves.

Funny how hundreds of people can move about freely in these camps, yet the police are somehow obstructed.

blueblood · November 15, 2011

Funny how hundreds of people can move about freely in these camps, yet the police are somehow obstructed.

Funny how hard those protestors tried to keep the police out of the camps when investigating sex assaults.

Funny how hard they made it for the fire fighters trying to make their camps a safer environment.

blueblood · November 15, 2011

And just a heads up, since you're quite obviously confused about the legal system. Charter Rights don't pertain to actions between individuals. The Charter regulates the activities of the government. ANd the United States has no such right as "security of the person".

The USA might not have that right, but the protestors don't have the right to cause trouble while protesting. I don't think sex assaults, violence and assaults on police officers are peaceful protests now are they?

ironstone · November 15, 2011

IMO, you would never, ever say that if it were a tea party protest. And if someone on "the Left" said that about a tea party protest, you would wail about the hypocrisy and the attempts to stifle freedom of speech.

I don't think a Tea Party protest could go on for this length of time since it's a safe assumption that most Tea Party supporters actually work for a living.The same cannot be said of those in the "Occupy" movement.

charter.rights · November 15, 2011

All right what comes first, right to security of person or right of free speech/assembly?

Rights are a two way street, why do protesters get to trample over others rights and get a free pass on it.

Neither comes first. A balance must always be struck.

And since there is no security issue at the occupy sites, then the right to free speech and lawful assembly will prevail.

However, the police do not have the legal right to clear the site on the say so of a by-law and the use of force in doing so is clearly a violation of the protesters' Charter rights.

Edited November 15, 2011 by charter.rights

blueblood · November 15, 2011

Neither comes first. A balance must always be struck.

And since there is no security issue at the occupy sites, then the right to free speech and lawful assembly will prevail.

However, the police do not have the legal right to clear the site on the say so of a by-law and the use of force in doing so is clearly a violation of the protesters' Charter rights.

Oh really, ask the officers who were bitten, the sex assault victims, other victims of violence, and the victims of drug overdoses. Not to mention the intimidation of officers/firefighters. Did these things happen or not? Seems like security of person issues to me...