Bryan Posted February 17, 2012 Report Posted February 17, 2012 seems to me there's a lot of misinformation going around and maybe the Tories are having a problem communication the actual content ? There's no doubt that is the largest part of the problem, coupled with the left's insatiable insistence on flat-out lying about anything the Conservatives are doing. That having been said, I still think the bill goes too far. Without a warrant, no government or police agency should have any right to ANY information about me beyond what I decide to give them. That includes linking a name/email/IP/etc to my internet traffic. If they really do have sufficient reason to suspect that I'm doing something wrong, they should have no trouble convincing a judge to issue a warrant. If there's not enough there for a judge to issue that warrant, then they really don't have any legitimate reason for keeping any kind of tabs on me. Quote
Guest Manny Posted February 17, 2012 Report Posted February 17, 2012 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. Yeah, well rednecks don't use da internet... Quote
WWWTT Posted February 17, 2012 Report Posted February 17, 2012 That having been said, I still think the bill goes too far. Without a warrant, no government or police agency should have any right to ANY information about me beyond what I decide to give them. That includes linking a name/email/IP/etc to my internet traffic. If they really do have sufficient reason to suspect that I'm doing something wrong, they should have no trouble convincing a judge to issue a warrant. If there's not enough there for a judge to issue that warrant, then they really don't have any legitimate reason for keeping any kind of tabs on me. In the past and currently it is has bein well documented that police will fabricate and outright lie to judges about evidence to extract a search warrant. WWWTT Quote Maple Leaf Web is now worth $720.00! Down over $1,500 in less than one year! Total fail of the moderation on this site! That reminds me, never ask Greg to be a business partner! NEVER!
WWWTT Posted February 17, 2012 Report Posted February 17, 2012 Its funny that this government wants to give the police extra ability to "big brother" the publics use of the home computer/internet. Just last federal election was there not some controversy about liberal supporters trying to attend a conservative rally?And something about them on the net?(maybe someone here can clarify) WWWTT Quote Maple Leaf Web is now worth $720.00! Down over $1,500 in less than one year! Total fail of the moderation on this site! That reminds me, never ask Greg to be a business partner! NEVER!
capricorn Posted February 17, 2012 Report Posted February 17, 2012 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. And then...and then they'll create a department staffed by spooks who will sit at computers 24 hours a day to root out perverts. And while they're at it, maybe they'll catch public servants downloading from porn sites during working hours. I mean, the possibilities are endless. <sarc off> Treating everyone who uses the internet as criminals. I don't like some of what's in that Bill either Newfoundlander. But come on, let's stay grounded and focussed. The Bill is going to Committee and will be debated in the H of C. I'm confident the finished product will do what is intended. That is make sure the authorities have the technological tools to get the upper hand on lowlifes who abuse children and, distribute and profit from child pornography. Although the Conservatives have a majority, I'm confident the opposition can make their case, the Conservatives will amend the Bill and in the end the objective will be achieved. Quote "We always want the best man to win an election. Unfortunately, he never runs." Will Rogers
dre Posted February 17, 2012 Report Posted February 17, 2012 And then...and then they'll create a department staffed by spooks who will sit at computers 24 hours a day to root out perverts. And while they're at it, maybe they'll catch public servants downloading from porn sites during working hours. I mean, the possibilities are endless. <sarc off> I don't like some of what's in that Bill either Newfoundlander. But come on, let's stay grounded and focussed. The Bill is going to Committee and will be debated in the H of C. I'm confident the finished product will do what is intended. That is make sure the authorities have the technological tools to get the upper hand on lowlifes who abuse children and, distribute and profit from child pornography. Although the Conservatives have a majority, I'm confident the opposition can make their case, the Conservatives will amend the Bill and in the end the objective will be achieved. No bill is required at all though for law enforcement to get the upper hand, and ISP's shouldnt have any role in law enforcement what-so-ever. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Topaz 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 Not so fast. The tweeting was done within the House of Commons and it could be ANYONE, even the Tories or their staff. The Speaker is looking into it and until it is make persfectly clear, there's no proof of who it actually is. Who ever started it is one thing but its the public that kept it going and I think the more than a million Canadians out of work should do the same to the Industry Minister and to Minister Findley asking for a job, maybe they get results by this government. Quote
mentalfloss Posted February 17, 2012 Report Posted February 17, 2012 Someone in the NDP must be really into child pornography. Tories accuse NDP of ‘dirty, sleazy’ Twitter attack on e-snooping champion Quote
bjre Posted February 17, 2012 Report Posted February 17, 2012 “He can either stand with us or with the child pornographers.” That all political liars likes to say. So, if there is one criminal in the world, all people's freedom should be take away; all people should be treat just as the criminal. That's what western style "freedom" all about. Someone reported that there is a child pronographer, cops could not find him, so they want check everyone's communication to make sure you are not the child pronographer. Compare this case, which is same: Someone report that there is a murder with a gun, cops could not find him, so they want everyone naked walk in the street, so that they can make sure you are not the murder. Otherwise, you are stand with the murder. That is the logic, in a place that it is said people have "freedom". Quote "The more laws, the less freedom" -- bjre "There are so many laws that nearly everybody breaks some, even when you just stay at home do nothing, the only question left is how thugs can use laws to attack you" -- bjre "If people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." -- Thomas Jefferson
Topaz Posted February 17, 2012 Report Posted February 17, 2012 How it doing to hurt is in your bill from your ISP. It's was stated in the House thast the ISP will have to spend millions and probably for the smaller ISP they can't afford and go out of business and all of this will be sent on to YOU, I would think any where from 25-100.00, is the government going to give us a rebate?? There is a middle road on this and the Privacy Commissioner says she has a way but its alway the Tories way or the highway. Quote
cybercoma Posted February 17, 2012 Report Posted February 17, 2012 Don't Toews me, bro! It's coming from INSIDE the House! Quote
cybercoma Posted February 17, 2012 Report Posted February 17, 2012 (edited) I still can't stop laughing at the fact that the CPC is foaming at the mouth trying to investigate who is making public information.... well... public! The personal attacks are still unnecessary, but the way the CPC has handled it is an absolute trainwreck. Edited February 17, 2012 by cybercoma Quote
punked 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 Typical Liberal. Doesn't have any proof who did anything jumps to conclusion it was the NDP because he must always agree with the Conservatives. Thanks for proving the stereotype my friend. Quote
Guest Manny Posted February 17, 2012 Report Posted February 17, 2012 NDP are the new Liberals. Didn't you know? Quote
Argus Posted February 17, 2012 Report Posted February 17, 2012 How it doing to hurt is in your bill from your ISP. It's was stated in the House thast the ISP will have to spend millions and probably for the smaller ISP they can't afford and go out of business and all of this will be sent on to YOU, The government is also talking about compensation for those ISPs. 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
dre Posted February 17, 2012 Report Posted February 17, 2012 The government is also talking about compensation for those ISPs. Nobody has explained why ISP's should even be involved in this though. And if its the public that has to pay for all this storage and recall, how much will that cost? This is just a bad idea from the outset and its not necessary. They can get a warrant, sieze the suspects computer and router, and get this data themselves, and if they cant its too bad for them. THe existance of pedophiles and cyber criminals doest not in any way justify the archiving of every packet sent across the internet. Its utterly rediculous, and what are we going to record next? How would recording say the movements of your vehicle into a huge database to mine later be any different? And as more and more activities become electronically trackable, where does this stop? Give me a logical reason why the communications between two privately owned computers should be treated any differently than a private conversation between two individuals on the beach? There isnt one. In both cases nefarious communications can happen. In both cases illegal contraband could change hands. So what!!! Law enforcement in a free society is a challenge... We should be going in the OPPOSITE direction. ISP's should not even be allowed to cache any of your activity. IF law enforcement can get a search warrant then a listener could be installed for that one particular user. This is essentially how phone taps work. The warrant allows you to record a person for a certain ammount of time, NOT to have a history of everything they ever said when no such warrant was in place. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
waldo Posted February 17, 2012 Report Posted February 17, 2012 The government is also talking about compensation for those ISPs. ya, ya... this potential lil' ditty would be a perpetual infrastructure capital and operational cost... as new technologies surface ISPs would be required to keep step to ensure existing infrastructure requirements meet/align with new technologies. Over and over - see groundhog day! Which, of course, is separate from actual correlated requirements to manage required changes in security management - which, in themselves, can involve significant capital cost. Quote
dre Posted February 17, 2012 Report Posted February 17, 2012 (edited) ya, ya... this potential lil' ditty would be a perpetual infrastructure capital and operational cost... as new technologies surface ISPs would be required to keep step to ensure existing infrastructure requirements meet/align with new technologies. Over and over - see groundhog day! Which, of course, is separate from actual correlated requirements to manage required changes in security management - which, in themselves, can involve significant capital cost. Yup, thats true but the cost to the taxpayer/consumer is the least of the problems here. The real problem here is that this is such an incredibly slippery slope and if we dont protect our privacy in absolute terms it will get gradually chipped away it. My ISP has no business caching my data in case someone wants to use it against me later. Thats not the service that I signed up for. Like I said, if the government can get a warrant, they could be allowed to install a listener on my connection, and legally violate my privacy. But they should not be able to apply a search warrant retroactively on activty that happened months before that warrant was in place!!! The law should enshrine the following principle. The packets that I generate and send out are intended for the specific machine I have named in the header, and are considered my own private property. ANY third party that attempts to intercept my packets and use them for any purpose that is not laid out in a contract between myself and that third party should be considered theft. No different than a piece of mail. The post office isnt allowed to open your mail and record the contents unless there is a court order instructing them to do so. They cant open ALL the mail, and record its contents IN CASE theres a search warrant issued for that individual in the future. Again... thats the same way phone taps traditionally work. Its disturbing the total lack of vigilence on the part of the population around the privacy of their digital information, and the inability of people to understand the concepts involved. We need to make sure the government doesnt get any new powers with digital data that they dont have with snail mail. Edited February 17, 2012 by dre Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
GostHacked Posted February 17, 2012 Report Posted February 17, 2012 ya, ya... this potential lil' ditty would be a perpetual infrastructure capital and operational cost... as new technologies surface ISPs would be required to keep step to ensure existing infrastructure requirements meet/align with new technologies. Over and over - see groundhog day! Which, of course, is separate from actual correlated requirements to manage required changes in security management - which, in themselves, can involve significant capital cost. Actually once the Internet as a whole moves over to IPV6, there is little way to hide your IP or identity. ISPs will be forced to keep up with the technology or risk getting left behind and shut down possibly. At my job we are already getting prepared for IPV6. It's coming and you don't have a choice on it. But this is more like the war on terror. If you are not with us, you are with them. Not supporting this bill means you are with child pornographers??? Really??? It's not about protecting children, it's about a foot in the door of everyones private lives and the government monitoring everything you do. Also the way Toews uis handling this is a freakin joke. The CBC dia bit on it as well, the talking heads were focusing on the divorce and how people feel about that, as opposed to the reasons WHY his information is now up for all to see. He got a taste of his own medicine. I guess he did not like it. And this is just information that is publicly known, but yet he seems upset about it......... Quote
Sa'adoni Posted February 18, 2012 Report Posted February 18, 2012 (edited) Nobody has explained why ISP's should even be involved in this though. And if its the public that has to pay for all this storage and recall, how much will that cost? This is just a bad idea from the outset and its not necessary. They can get a warrant, sieze the suspects computer and router, and get this data themselves, and if they cant its too bad for them. THe existance of pedophiles and cyber criminals doest not in any way justify the archiving of every packet sent across the internet. Its utterly rediculous, and what are we going to record next? How would recording say the movements of your vehicle into a huge database to mine later be any different? And as more and more activities become electronically trackable, where does this stop? Give me a logical reason why the communications between two privately owned computers should be treated any differently than a private conversation between two individuals on the beach? There isnt one. In both cases nefarious communications can happen. In both cases illegal contraband could change hands. So what!!! Law enforcement in a free society is a challenge... We should be going in the OPPOSITE direction. ISP's should not even be allowed to cache any of your activity. IF law enforcement can get a search warrant then a listener could be installed for that one particular user. This is essentially how phone taps work. The warrant allows you to record a person for a certain ammount of time, NOT to have a history of everything they ever said when no such warrant was in place. The government would rather pay ISP's to deploy infrastructure, than use tax payer funds to deploy technology and infrastructure that is owned and controlled by the public because they are corporatist not public servants. That is communism after all and private individual must get the benefits of tax dollars especially the rich who can buy stock, not the public and the disenfranchised poor. What if the poor has benefits of infrastructure, they wouldn't be poor and then how can you be better than them? This goes back to when the government sold the phone lines to Bell, now Bell is a multibillion dollar company, and the public has multibillion dollars of debt. The process repeats itself time and time again to sure fire profits based on public utility sales. Edited February 18, 2012 by Sa'adoni Quote
The_Squid Posted February 18, 2012 Report Posted February 18, 2012 Telus and other phone providers should have to record all phone calls and keep the records handy for the police in case there is evidence of a crime. Perhaps someone might confess to murder. Or someone might be trying to defraud someone over the phone. Why the Internet and not phone calls? Quote
Sa'adoni Posted February 18, 2012 Report Posted February 18, 2012 (edited) Telus and other phone providers should have to record all phone calls and keep the records handy for the police in case there is evidence of a crime. Perhaps someone might confess to murder. Or someone might be trying to defraud someone over the phone. Why the Internet and not phone calls? Why stop there? Why not just record all phones cell and otherwise all the time and use technology to log all sounds as cues? gunshot detector, hearing someone say rape, the sound of broken glass.. all this can be done for every camera on cellphones and every microphone in Canada. That is over 24 million points of sound inputs from cell phones... cameras on cell phones can accumulate a certain amount of information also. The bill will allow this to happen. Surely there must be a crime happening somewhere, does one not want to stop that crime? If you have the choice of knowing or not knowing what is the more responsible action? Wouldn't you want the police watching your home from your webcam, just encase someone breaks in, or you have a heart attack? Think of all the freedom and safety and security it will give you! Knowing someone is watching and listening to you at all times. You don't have anything to hide do you? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hATC_2I1wZE We all know how this one ends. Edited February 18, 2012 by Sa'adoni Quote
BubberMiley Posted February 18, 2012 Report Posted February 18, 2012 Why stop there? http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/ECHELON/echelon.html Quote "I think it's fun watching the waldick get all excited/knickers in a knot over something." -scribblet
Sa'adoni Posted February 18, 2012 Report Posted February 18, 2012 http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/ECHELON/echelon.html fast forward 50 years.... Quote
dre Posted February 18, 2012 Report Posted February 18, 2012 (edited) The government would rather pay ISP's to deploy infrastructure, than use tax payer funds to deploy technology and infrastructure that is owned and controlled by the public because they are corporatist not public servants. Im sure the government would LOVE IT if every private business that facilitates a transaction between individuals would archive all the data for the government to mine later. The problem is this radically changes the data collection paradigm, without any specific political conversation. This is a huge legal shift... And people dont understand it. Traditionally with phone, mail, private conversations, etc... The government could only get FORWARD LOOKING evidence... They get a court order and start recording. The requirement to for ISP's to archive allows them to retroactively get access to data that was transmitted while no such court order was in place, and it gives them a virtually limitless ocean in which to conduct an outright fishing expedition. Why should those packets of data not be treated as your intellectually property just as if you had written a song or invented a new kind of toaster? Why should an ISP have the obligation to record X months of transmition, but not a phone company, or a restaurant for that matter. What happens when theres cameras and mics EVERYWHERE. Do they have to archive X months of data that can be used against us as well? Nobody has answered this question... Why should the communation between two individuals be legally protected while communcation between their personal devices is not? And what is the legal basis to force content archiving? When did we have a social/political discussion about this? When did we decide that suddenly search warrants would be retroactive? The government needs no new powers what-so-ever to regulate the internet. Theres no legal reason to not just treat it like snail mail or analog phone calls. They can get a court order to invade your privacy, but they cant force the phone company to record every single phonecall for every single subscriber, or force the post office to open every single piece of mail and archive it.... just in case a valid warrant is issued at some time in the future. Edited February 18, 2012 by dre Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
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.