The_Squid Posted February 15, 2012 Report Posted February 15, 2012 I like your idea too WIld Bill.... and if internet was provided by small companies with a handful of nerds, it would work. But when Shaw, Bell and Telus tell their techies to make it happen, it will happen. The gov't will have access to information that should be private. We will all become potential perverts for the gov't to investigate. Quote
Vendetta Posted February 15, 2012 Report Posted February 15, 2012 Claims that Harper will move us closer and closer to being a police state don't sound so far-fetched anymore, do they? Quote
waldo Posted February 15, 2012 Report Posted February 15, 2012 Mr. Toews just shook my confidence in this government to a certain degree. baby steps Quote
olpfan1 Posted February 15, 2012 Author Report Posted February 15, 2012 Its going to push the real child porn freaks underground .. instead of looking at pics they'll be out there kidnapping children, raping them and killing them taking their own pics Quote
DogOnPorch Posted February 15, 2012 Report Posted February 15, 2012 Still far fetched, sorry. Maybe so. But, given an inch, the RCMP will take a mile. One might get arrested reading the wrong section of a SEARS catalogue if they could have their way. As well, I seriously doubt there's a CP industry in Canada. Want to stop this sort of thing? Come down hard on Eastern Europe and places like Thailand. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Smallc Posted February 15, 2012 Report Posted February 15, 2012 (edited) I didn't say I agree with the legislation. In fact, I very much oppose it. Still, this country won't be allowed to become a police state. Hell, I'd phone my Conservative MPs office, but I'm not sure what I would even say at this point. Edited February 15, 2012 by Smallc Quote
DogOnPorch Posted February 15, 2012 Report Posted February 15, 2012 I didn't say I agree with the legislation. In fact, I very much oppose it. Still, this country won't be allowed to become a police state. I'm pretty sure we BOTH oppose it. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Guest Derek L Posted February 15, 2012 Report Posted February 15, 2012 Hmmmm……..So a Federal Canadian Government is implementing a policy, under the auspices of crime prevention and public safety, that will allow the police/courts unfettered access into it’s citizens private lives………..What’s next? Allowing the Police search and seizure rights outside the normal channels?………..Sounds familiar. What do you wanna bet it won’t be the least effective in reducing online CP, but the RCMP will call it a useful law enforcement tool. For the record, I’ve signed several online petitions against this last year……..Too bad we didn’t have a capable opposition that would have been able to garner further attention to this issue as opposed to the weeks spent on the MND’s helicopter ride. Quote
Smallc Posted February 15, 2012 Report Posted February 15, 2012 I did phone my MPs office, and the assistant called the Ministers comments a definite false dichotomy, and said that he personally shares my concerns. I'm hoping that the rest of the government views things that way. I still don't support this bill as it is currently proposed. Quote
Evening Star Posted February 15, 2012 Report Posted February 15, 2012 Too bad we didn’t have a capable opposition that would have been able to garner further attention to this issue as opposed to the weeks spent on the MND’s helicopter ride. I mean, Charlie Angus does seem to be riding it pretty hard. But yeah, I wish they'd raise its profile higher than e.g. whatever tantrum Justin Trudeau is throwing this week. Quote
Smallc Posted February 15, 2012 Report Posted February 15, 2012 (edited) whatever tantrum Justin Trudeau is throwing this week. I think the focus on Trudeau's comments is important, because it shows that he doesn't really understand this country well enough to be a top tier MP. Also, the fact that he apparently has his Facebook page monitored and censored also says something about him (my comments were very respectful, and yet they were removed, because they went against him). Edited February 15, 2012 by Smallc Quote
Guest Derek L Posted February 15, 2012 Report Posted February 15, 2012 I mean, Charlie Angus does seem to be riding it pretty hard. But yeah, I wish they'd raise its profile higher than e.g. whatever tantrum Justin Trudeau is throwing this week. Indeed, I live in a NDP (Fin Donnelly) riding and the only literature that I’ve received from him over the last few months has been a “snazzy” 2012 calendar with black and white pictures of local scenery and the back page full of “important phone numbers”……..I won’t bother calling him. Quote
Evening Star Posted February 15, 2012 Report Posted February 15, 2012 (edited) I think the focus on Trudeau's comments is important, because it shows that he doesn't really understand this country well enough to be a top tier MP. Also, the fact that he apparently has his Facebook page monitored and censored also says something about him (my comments were very respectful, and yet they were removed, because they wen't against him). Well, yeah, it's worth talking about his idiocy because it's so idiotic. What I meant, and probably expressed poorly, was that I wish the Opposition would focus on raising the profile of a real issue like this instead of having an Opposition MP throw tantrums about minor or made-up things. (I remember your comments and they were very respectful! That's pretty lame that they were removed.) Edited February 15, 2012 by Evening Star Quote
The_Squid Posted February 15, 2012 Report Posted February 15, 2012 A majority in Parliament means this type of garbage will be passed and privacy rights (privacy privelages? How is a right so easily taken away?) have been eroded. The cure for this is to remember at election time and vote accordingly. No, this doesn't mean that you have to vote Liberal or NDP... vote Libertarian.... Vote Green... this is not a 3 party state. Don't be so scared to exercise your democratic right! Quote
The_Squid Posted February 15, 2012 Report Posted February 15, 2012 George Carlin on (American) "rights": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQ7XFvniWWE Quote
Argus Posted February 15, 2012 Report Posted February 15, 2012 I have some issues with this but I really don't see what everyone is getting so worked up over. The bill requires telcoms to ensure they are capable of recording and storing what users do. Well, the big ones already can do that. And routinely DO do that. It also says the police can get your name and address without a warrant. Well, they can do that for your phone by checking a phone book, so... As for other things you do on the internet, where you go, etc. They can't access that without a warrant. Which, come to think of it, is not really any different than it is now. All the bill will do is ensure that the data is actually stored long enough that when they get a warrant they can check back over the previous 90 days. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
PIK Posted February 15, 2012 Report Posted February 15, 2012 Another story totally over blown my the leftist mainstream media. Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
waldo Posted February 15, 2012 Report Posted February 15, 2012 Another story totally over blown my the leftist mainstream media. open your ears, unplug your eyes... check out any number of right leaning blogs, check out Free Dominion (no less), check our your favoured SUN schlock media - there is universal condemnation for this Harper Conservative blunder. by the by, since you're one of them... how's about a lil' comment on the following - sure you can! from the aforementioned Q/A... waiting for those fevered MLW gun registry advocates to chime in on this thread and rally the charge! Q: Does the government seem somewhat inconsistent on its crime and privacy policies? A: If by inconsistent you mean supporting the creation of widespread surveillance capabilities, removing foundational privacy principles requiring court oversight, and claiming the need to support police investigations, while: - killing the long gun registry over the objections of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police - planning to delete the data from the long gun registry on privacy grounds (Toews: "to maintain the registry and the information is a complete violation of law and the principles of privacy that all of us in the House respect") - scrapping the mandatory long-form census on privacy grounds then, yes, they seem somewhat inconsistent. Quote
waldo Posted February 15, 2012 Report Posted February 15, 2012 I have some issues with this but I really don't see what everyone is getting so worked up over. The bill requires telcoms to ensure they are capable of recording and storing what users do. Well, the big ones already can do that. And routinely DO do that. It also says the police can get your name and address without a warrant. Well, they can do that for your phone by checking a phone book, so... As for other things you do on the internet, where you go, etc. They can't access that without a warrant. Which, come to think of it, is not really any different than it is now. All the bill will do is ensure that the data is actually stored long enough that when they get a warrant they can check back over the previous 90 days. no - not even close. Quote
guyser Posted February 15, 2012 Report Posted February 15, 2012 . It also says the police can get your name and address without a warrant. Well, they can do that for your phone by checking a phone book, so... No they cannot, for some, like me. And many others. repost from post #21... 'Police agencies are unable to show any investigation that has been hampered by the current laws on the books as relates child porn." http://fullcomment.n...w-gun-registry/ Tell me why they need this again? Tell me how the police were so successful in last weeks child porn ring bust ? Didnt sound as if they were hampered last week, but now they are? Hmmm.... Quote
dre Posted February 15, 2012 Report Posted February 15, 2012 I have some issues with this but I really don't see what everyone is getting so worked up over. The bill requires telcoms to ensure they are capable of recording and storing what users do. Well, the big ones already can do that. And routinely DO do that. It also says the police can get your name and address without a warrant. Well, they can do that for your phone by checking a phone book, so... As for other things you do on the internet, where you go, etc. They can't access that without a warrant. Which, come to think of it, is not really any different than it is now. All the bill will do is ensure that the data is actually stored long enough that when they get a warrant they can check back over the previous 90 days. I object even to THAT part of it. ISP's should sell bandwidth, not store information about how you use it. I dont think phone companies should have to store billions of hours worth of recorded conversations either, nor should they even be allowed to. The contract between you and your ISP is voluntary contract between two private parties. I dont see any role for the government there at all. And the danger is that a lot of this legislation makes things even worse. If people feel that their privacy is threatened, then youll see the further proliferation of encryption technologies and the government will lose even the window it already has. The requirement for ISP's to store a lot of information will also make the service cost more, and Canada already has some of shittiest and most expensive tellecom service on earth. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Argus Posted February 15, 2012 Report Posted February 15, 2012 Tell me why they need this again? Tell me how the police were so successful in last weeks child porn ring bust ? Didnt sound as if they were hampered last week, but now they are? Hmmm.... I don't know that they DO need it. That's why, as I said, I have some issues here. But I also don't see what everyone's going crazy over it. It doesn't sound like it really makes a lot of changes other than ensuring that telcoms must keep the data intact so that if the cops get warrants it's available. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
BubberMiley Posted February 15, 2012 Report Posted February 15, 2012 (edited) It's also worth it because it led to the release of some hilarious material about Vic Toews that should put him in solid with the other christian conservative hypocrites, like the following: "Vic was anxious to remain married and to do anything he could to keep the marriage together including agreeing to have nothing more to do with his mistress and nothing to do with the baby." Edited February 15, 2012 by BubberMiley Quote "I think it's fun watching the waldick get all excited/knickers in a knot over something." -scribblet
Argus Posted February 15, 2012 Report Posted February 15, 2012 It's also worth it because it led to the release of some hilarious material about Vic Toews that should put him in solid with the other christian conservative hypocrites, like the following: "Vic was anxious to remain married and to do anything he could to keep the marriage together including agreeing to have nothing more to do with his mistress and nothing to do with the baby." I don't have a lot of sympathy for men who cheat on their wives or abandon their kids. STill and all, it's kind of weird you'd find the release of such allegations so delightful... Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
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.