Argus Posted February 16, 2012 Report Posted February 16, 2012 For all the squealing I still haven't seen a single example of how this bill would hurt anyone. 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
Guest Manny Posted February 16, 2012 Report Posted February 16, 2012 You mean he's heterosexual? Oh I see. So now you assert it's ok, because he's a real HE-MAN for knocking up a little girl.I mean, what real man could refuse, right? Quote
cybercoma Posted February 16, 2012 Report Posted February 16, 2012 For all the squealing I still haven't seen a single example of how this bill would hurt anyone. It wouldn't hurt anyone if the cops put cameras in everybody's home either. If you're not doing anything wrong, there's nothing to worry about. Of course, there's some people that value their privacy. Quote
Wild Bill Posted February 16, 2012 Report Posted February 16, 2012 For all the squealing I still haven't seen a single example of how this bill would hurt anyone. Obviously Argus, you have a childlike faith that the police will always do the right thing, would never abuse their position or use the Law as a tool against the suspected until and unless they were proven innocent. This Bill would hurt someone because you are giving too much power into the hands of those who are not always perfect in how they wield it! There are legions of stories of people who are abused at the hands of police! Not all of course but hey, a small percentage can do a great deal of damage when given powerful tools, as this Bill is trying to do! I'm still not comfortable with giving harsher mandatory sentences to those growing more than 6 pot plants than to those caught practicing pedophilia! I would have expected such silliness more from the opposition parties, as we saw when the Liberals introduced their gun registry and had a harsher sentence for someone not registering than for someone using a gun to rob a variety store. Here in Hamilton a young black man coming home off the GO bus was arrested, held in jail for days, and treated roughly as a burglary suspect. The witness identification of the robber was a man nowhere near his height and white, not black! He was stonewalled when he tried to lodge a complaint. To his credit, he eventually had his day but it was a hard row for him to hoe to achieve it! If you want to google the case, his name is Michael Dixon. You can't give such powerful tools to those who are chosen and trained more for their proficiency with force than for their understanding of human rights. There are also always pressures for cops to get their man, ANY man! Ask David Milgaard. I don't mean to be insulting Angus but sometimes you make me think you live in Mayberry, with Andy, Barney and Opie! Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
Argus Posted February 16, 2012 Report Posted February 16, 2012 Oh I see. So now you assert it's ok, because he's a real HE-MAN for knocking up a little girl. I mean, what real man could refuse, right? A little girl? How tall was she? 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
Guest Derek L Posted February 16, 2012 Report Posted February 16, 2012 You know Scribb, this whole issue was as predictable as dawn's light! I'm starting to wonder if there's more to it. Vic is the front man and he's the one who caused all the blowback. Perhaps he was given enough rope? Maybe Harper needed an excuse to clip his wings and that of the social conservatives in the party who support Vic's kind of thinking. Or am I reading too much into it? Harper has always been pretty sharp. I can't believe he didn't see the backlash coming... Quote
Argus Posted February 16, 2012 Report Posted February 16, 2012 It wouldn't hurt anyone if the cops put cameras in everybody's home either. If you're not doing anything wrong, there's nothing to worry about. Of course, there's some people that value their privacy. How is your privacy threatened? 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
Argus Posted February 16, 2012 Report Posted February 16, 2012 Obviously Argus, you have a childlike faith that the police will always do the right thing, would never abuse their position or use the Law as a tool against the suspected until and unless they were proven innocent. I suggest you do a search on the G20 police riots and my very clearly expressed opinion about police in Canada. This Bill would hurt someone because you are giving too much power into the hands of those who are not always perfect in how they wield it! There are legions of stories of people who are abused at the hands of police! The power to do what? They can already access everything you've done on-line with a warrant. They will still need a warrant to look at it. The only real difference is that when they get a warrant they'll be able to look back on 90 days, instead of whatever it was your ISP had stored. 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
Guest Derek L Posted February 16, 2012 Report Posted February 16, 2012 Oh I see. So now you assert it's ok, because he's a real HE-MAN for knocking up a little girl. I mean, what real man could refuse, right? You got any evidence that she was a “little girl”? My Neighbour has a 39 year old Filipino Nanny……just saying….Best watch the idle libel…. Quote
Argus Posted February 16, 2012 Report Posted February 16, 2012 It wouldn't hurt anyone if the cops put cameras in everybody's home either. If you're not doing anything wrong, there's nothing to worry about. Of course, there's some people that value their privacy. I do value my privacy, but I haven't seen how the police are going to be able to violate it any more thoroughly under this bill than they can now. And honestly, if anyone thinks that ANYTHING they do on-line is private they're really kidding themselves. If the government, if any government wants to know what you've been up to they won't have the slightest difficulty finding out, warrant or not. 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
Guest Derek L Posted February 16, 2012 Report Posted February 16, 2012 It wouldn't hurt anyone if the cops put cameras in everybody's home either. If you're not doing anything wrong, there's nothing to worry about. Of course, there's some people that value their privacy. Would you want a camera in your home? Quote
Sa'adoni Posted February 16, 2012 Report Posted February 16, 2012 Would you want a camera in your home? Many people have cameras in their homes these days, often connected to the internet I might add. Quote
capricorn Posted February 17, 2012 Report Posted February 17, 2012 My Neighbour has a 39 year old Filipino Nanny……just saying…. Sorta like Schwarzenegger except she was Guatemalan. Quote "We always want the best man to win an election. Unfortunately, he never runs." Will Rogers
Guest Derek L Posted February 17, 2012 Report Posted February 17, 2012 Many people have cameras in their homes these days, often connected to the internet I might add. That’s by choice no? Quote
Guest Derek L Posted February 17, 2012 Report Posted February 17, 2012 Sorta like Schwarzenegger except she was Guatemalan. Sure it might be morally repugnant for a married man to cheat on his wife with the nanny, but not illegal. Quote
Newfoundlander Posted February 17, 2012 Report Posted February 17, 2012 Turns out the NDP are responsible for the Vikleaks30 twitter account. http://www.ottawacitizen.com/business/Vikileaks30%2Blinked%2BHouse%2BCommons%2Baddress/6165497/story.html Quote
Evening Star Posted February 17, 2012 Report Posted February 17, 2012 There's not enough there yet to jump to conclusions as to who's responsible. Quote
Newfoundlander Posted February 17, 2012 Report Posted February 17, 2012 There's not enough there yet to jump to conclusions as to who's responsible. Hmmm... it's coming from a computer on parliament hill that has been updating wikipedia with pro-NDP information. Quote
Guest Derek L Posted February 17, 2012 Report Posted February 17, 2012 Hmmm... it's coming from a computer on parliament hill that has been updating wikipedia with pro-NDP information. Well posting on a Paul Simon fan site: Any NDPers we can call Al? Quote
Guest Derek L Posted February 17, 2012 Report Posted February 17, 2012 The current NDP caucus with names similar to Al………or Betty: http://www.ndp.ca/ourcaucus Alain Giguère Marc-Aurèle-Fortin Alexandre Boulerice Rosemont--La Petite-Patrie Malcolm Allen Welland Randall Garrison Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca Alex Atamanenko British Columbia Southern Interior I leave the investigation into finding the rollie pollie bat faced girl to others Quote
scribblet Posted February 17, 2012 Report Posted February 17, 2012 For all the squealing I still haven't seen a single example of how this bill would hurt anyone. Actually that's what I'd like to know, and how many have actually read the bill which is more than just the one issue people are hyperventilating about. I sent out emails to all MPs, so far I've received a few replies that are not automated that generally go like this: Despite what you may have heard, the police will not be able to read emails or view web activity unless they obtain a warrant issued by a judge. Bill C-30 requires telecommunications service providers to put in place and maintain certain capabilities that facilitate the lawful interception of information transmitted by telecommunications. This will enable them to provide basic subscriber information when required in order to assist law enforcement investigate crimes committed via telecommunications, especially the internet. Basic subscriber information would be limited to a customer's name, address, telephone number, email address, Internet Protocol (IP) address, and the name of the telecommunications service provider. It absolutely does not include the content of emails, phones calls or online activities. Giving authorities access to basic subscriber information does not give them either the technical ability or the legal authority to monitor personal communications and activities. We have also constructed safeguards in the legislation to protect the privacy of law-abiding Canadians, including audits by privacy commissioners. seems to me there's a lot of misinformation going around and maybe the Tories are having a problem communication the actual content ? Quote Hey Ho - Ontario Liberals Have to Go - Fight Wynne - save our province
scribblet Posted February 17, 2012 Report Posted February 17, 2012 You know Scribb, this whole issue was as predictable as dawn's light! I'm starting to wonder if there's more to it. Vic is the front man and he's the one who caused all the blowback. Perhaps he was given enough rope? Maybe Harper needed an excuse to clip his wings and that of the social conservatives in the party who support Vic's kind of thinking. Or am I reading too much into it? Harper has always been pretty sharp. I can't believe he didn't see the backlash coming... I'm surprised at that too, they had to know this would happen, but, the Tories have now said there will be amendments. Quote Hey Ho - Ontario Liberals Have to Go - Fight Wynne - save our province
waldo Posted February 17, 2012 Report Posted February 17, 2012 I'm surprised at that too, they had to know this would happen, but, the Tories have now said there will be amendments. amendments? What for? You're so adamant that there's nothing wrong within the proposed legislation... why, oh why, would any amendments be needed? Makes no sense - can you explain, please? Quote
Sa'adoni Posted February 17, 2012 Report Posted February 17, 2012 (edited) Part of the issue of unrestrained police powers is the following. 1. Organized crime infiltrates all organs of government thus organized crime gains access to the information 2. Spook operations and the criminalization of dissent means that police can target people for their beleifs (direct charter violation) 3. Foregin intelligence sharing - means that information will be passed outside of Canada,and italready is a breach of privacy laws. 4. It will put up the cost of administering the internet and communications services such as cell phones, thus the cost to subscribers of cell phones and the internet. (and prices are alread ridiculously high) 5. People don't like the gun registry, but now if anyone ever mentions you have a gun it will be on record. This is like taking the gun registry and applying it to everything. Say they want to know if you have a gun when they reespond to a call they can now get a complete online profile of you, and link that in and gather intel on anyone that knows you also, and listen in on your phone all at the same time. Now if a cop does a search on you speeding they can have access to your email. Ontop of this they can see where you are headed and if you told anyone on phone or email chat etc.. they will be able to verify that for purgery. They could also track your cellphone position if it is connected with cellphone towers to determine your rate of speed. all this without a warrant. and they can keep tabs up to the court date and after to see what angle you will take with your lawyer, etc.. oh and remember to leave your cellphone off if you want privacy as remote backdoors into cellphones means they can listen anytime your cellphone has power. And what if they need that confession and they know you are having an affair or have cancer etc.. It is taking the CIA concept when they deployed facebook to a whole new level, its not just your facebook account now its all online communications, and they can intercept and change communications. (and think of all the flak facebook privacy concerns had) worst of all the infrastructure is succeptable to hackers both domestic and foreign. at the earliest possible time... http://www.zdnet.com/news/fbi-taps-cell-phone-mic-as-eavesdropping-tool/150467 this from ctv in 2009 http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Canada/20090212/internet_privacy_090212/ Edited February 17, 2012 by Sa'adoni Quote
Newfoundlander Posted February 17, 2012 Report Posted February 17, 2012 amendments? What for? You're so adamant that there's nothing wrong within the proposed legislation... why, oh why, would any amendments be needed? Makes no sense - can you explain, please? The reason the Conservatives didn't agree with the gun registry was because it treated law abiding citizens who owned guns like criminals. Now they want to bring in a bill on all internet users to monitor what they're doing to see if they can find people who are looking at child porn. Treating everyone who uses the internet as criminals. Quote
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.