Do you support the internet surveillance bill C-30

[TheNewTeddy]

Of course I support C-30, anyone who does not stands with the child pornographers and the pedos, and, not only do I support C-30, but I support taking it's measures even farther; we need to give not only police, but random citizens the right to burst into your home and check your computer. Anyone who disagrees with me stands with the pedos and murders and rapists and support putting ketchup on spaghetti, like ew.

[Bryan]

I agree that the Conservatives made a mistake with C-30, but IMO, it's not the one most people are criticizing. In fact it's the CPCs odd attempts to defend the bill that exposed their big faux pas. It's actually the same problem there was with the failed copyright reform bill(s).

That is, the reason they weren't even sure what was actually in the bills was because they didn't write them. What I think actually happened was they got caught plagiarizing some-one else's work. They copied and pasted huge sections from previous (unsuccessful) bills proposed by the previous government.

[olpfan1]

Has anyone noticed Harper has not spoken publicly about this and it has been a week?

Is he letting Toews hang out to dry?

[olpfan1]

I agree that the Conservatives made a mistake with C-30, but IMO, it's not the one most people are criticizing. In fact it's the CPCs odd attempts to defend the bill that exposed their big faux pas. It's actually the same problem there was with the failed copyright reform bill(s).

That is, the reason they weren't even sure what was actually in the bills was because they didn't write them. What I think actually happened was they got caught plagiarizing some-one else's work. They copied and pasted huge sections from previous (unsuccessful) bills proposed by the previous government.

everyone knows by now they plagarise american bills

[Bryan]

everyone knows by now they plagarise american bills

They definitely are getting the material for this and the copyright bills directly from Martin's bills. If the original source is the US, then that's where Martin got it from.

[olpfan1]

They definitely are getting the material for this and the copyright bills directly from Martin's bills. If the original source is the US, then that's where Martin got it from.

I wouldn't put it past you to blame the liberals on everything Bryan

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/1048993--leaks-show-u-s-swayed-canada-on-copyright-bill

Secret U.S. government cables show a stunning willingness by senior Canadian officials to appease American demands for a U.S.-style copyright law here.

The documents describe Canadian officials as encouraging American lobbying efforts. They also cite cabinet minister Maxime Bernier raising the possibility of showing U.S. officials a draft bill before tabling it in Parliament.

The cables, from the U.S. Embassy in Ottawa, even have a policy director for then industry minister Tony Clement suggesting it might help U.S. demands for a tough copyright law if Canada were placed among the worst offenders on an international piracy watch list. Days later, the U.S. placed Canada alongside China and Russia on the list.

....

The U.S. cables describe a December 2006 meeting between Bernier, industry minister at the time, and then U.S. ambassador David Wilkins.

“Bernier also stated that the final copyright legislation ‘would be in line' with US (government) priorities, but was not specific,” says the U.S. Embassy cable.

“Bernier promised to keep the Ambassador informed on the copyright bill's progress, and indicated that US (government) officials might see the legislation after it is approved by Cabinet, but before it is introduced in Parliament,” the cable adds.

Bernier also “encouraged the Ambassador to speak publicly about the importance of (intellectual property rights) to the United States, saying such efforts would improve the chances of Cabinet and Parliament approving a good copyright bill,” the cable says.

Bernier never had a chance to leak the bill; he was shuffled to the foreign affairs portfolio before it was tabled. But other officials did provide the U.S. with confidential information.

A 2007 cable reveals that Ailish Johnson, working in the Privy Council Office, told U.S. officials that Prime Minister Stephen Harper's “mandate letters” to new industry minister Jim Prentice and new Canadian heritage minister Josée Verner charged both with introducing a copyright reform bill before the end of the year. The content of ministerial mandate letters is not public information.

Edited February 23, 2012 by olpfan1

[olpfan1]

They definitely are getting the material for this and the copyright bills directly from Martin's bills. If the original source is the US, then that's where Martin got it from.

by the way, where is your fearless leader harper on C-30? he's not said a thing about it publicly

and its been a week

why is your PM a coward and do you support said coward?

[Bryan]

I wouldn't put it past you to blame the liberals on everything Bryan

I'm not blaming anyone, just noticing that Toews' bill was not terribly original, large sections of it were copied verbatim from the previous one. Who wrote the other one is not nearly as important to me as the fact that Toews clearly did not.

by the way, where is your fearless leader harper on C-30? he's not said a thing about it publicly

and its been a week

He's a busy man, this theatrical BS is not worth his time.

why is your PM a coward and do you support said coward?

Choosing to frame the question that way says a lot more about you than it does about him.

[olpfan1]

He's a busy man, this theatrical BS is not worth his time.

In other words he is a coward and doesn't want to go anywhere near this because it would make him look bad

not that he looks good

[Guest Manny]

Then it proves that Toews and those associated with implementing this bill in the current government are incompetent. What kind of fool conservative would say, "Here let's take this Liberal bill and copy/ paste it into our bill. No need to read what we're putting in there." and then stand on the political stage and defend it, accuse others of sympathizing with child pornographers, and NOT HAVE READ THE BILL? Only an idiot who deserves to be cast out of office. That's all. Don't give me no horseshit "he's too busy". Too busy doing what? He's not doing his job.

Edited February 23, 2012 by Manny

[olpfan1]

Don't give me no horseshit "he's too busy". Too busy doing what? He's not doing his job.

Bryan means he's too busy trying to throw Elections Canada off his trail to stay out of handcuffs

[bud]

Darn that government---- how's a poor terrorist expected to make a living (or dying) with all these guys listening to every plan we ever make?

I don't see the big deal some people are making about this. If a person is not doing the crime on the I/net they have nothing to worry about--- if they are--- good the cops'll gettum

lols

[Tilter]

"Once"?

Ever notice how every newborn since 1987 has a tiny scar and little bump at the base of the skull?

Haven't noticed? Then your own programming is current.

BBIWY

[dre]

That is how an Act and the associated Regulations are UPDATED. The Statute and Document Writers keep some Sections of an Act and Regulation and UPDATE the Sections of the Act and the Regulations that the governing party in power wishes to UPDATE. A lot of these UPDATES are not done in isolation by only the governing party, but are done in consultation with affected organization and professional associations. These organizations and professional associations will be the ones who will need to work with the Act and Regulations on a day to day basis and the last thing these organizations and professional associations want is large unnecessary wholesale changes to everything because they would already have practices and procedures in place to abide by existing Acts and Regulations.

Federal and Provincial governments routinely update Acts and Regulations every 5 to 10 years. Usually the civil service provides the government with a list of Acts and Regulations that are scheduled to be updated.

It is up to the governing party to select the Acts and Regulations that will be updated and obviously it is up to the governing party how much of the original Act and Regulations will be scrapped and how much will be rewritten and updated, sometimes the governing party consults with organizations and professional associations as to how much needs to be scrapped and how much needs to be updated. And along with the Acts and Regulations that are scheduled for updating the governing party would also introduce or amend legislation that the political party indicated in an election campaign.

The problem is, before there even IS legislation there should be a problem that it addresses. Nobody has told me what that is.... A reference to pedolphiles was used, so does that mean theres an increasing ammount of attacks on children related to the internet?

IMO, what makes the internet valuable is that its basically unregulated compared to other mediums, and anonymity is an important part of it. The politicians are luddites as well, that dont even know how the internet works... Thats why generally the internet has been regulated by industry groups.

I see no role for the government here AT ALL, besides in promoting access.

Theres bills like this springing up all around the world, and no freedom loving person should tolerate any of them. The internet isnt broken, so the government which has a rich history of botching IT projects, and failing to understand technology should not be trying to fix stuff.

Why on earth would you draft a solution before its been established that theres a problem? The internet has been around for 30 years, the laws around warrants and taps have been around for a lot longer than that.

And the justification we are given? Well... here it is.

“We are proposing measures to bring our laws into the 21st century and to provide the police with the lawful tools that they need,” Mr. Toews said to the MP for Lac-Saint-Louis, Quebec. “He can either stand with us or with the child pornographers.”

And people are supposed to take this bill serious? Please...

Canadians dont want this bill besides a tiny handful of sychophants. Every single privacy commissioner in the country has spoken out against it as well.

Time for the government to put this fetid piece of junk back on the shelf permanently, and find something useful to do with their time. The police already have enough internet surveillance power, and the problem with the internet isnt too much privacy its not enough privacy.

If they are going to draft a bill it should be one that makes wiretapping harder, and treats our digital communications as our own private property.

Edited February 23, 2012 by dre

[dre]

And the really scary thing about this, is once its in there it will be there forever. Sure a future government might campaign on rolling back this piece of crap, but they wont do it, because the liberals hate our freedom just as much as the conservatives.

This is our last chance to tell the government of Canada to keep their hands off the internet. We like it how it is.

[bush_cheney2004]

...This is our last chance to tell the government of Canada to keep their hands off the internet. We like it how it is.

We knew you would!

[dre]

We knew you would!

Yup, me and pretty much everyone else. Which is why this bill is about as popular as cancer of the rectum.

Edited February 23, 2012 by dre

[WWWTT]

He's a busy man, this theatrical BS is not worth his time.

Ya,busy wasting tax payer dollars!

I'm suprised he is able to have any time for his family or sleep or do some excercise or practise working on his horrific chalk board and nails banshee John Lennon turning in his grave singing voice which we only hear around election time thank God!(and thats even still too often!)

WWWTT