Anonymous gives Toews 7 days ...

[Guest Derek L]

incredible! You recognize and acknowledge that Canadian authorities are, themselves, subject to and constrained by oversight/(judicial authorization). You would have us believe that Canadian authorities, although with the capability/means to perform surveillance on individuals in Canada, choose to instead flaunt 'the law' by knowingly and wantonly bypassing the need for oversight/(judicial authorization)... by undertaking your described 'end-around' requests to foreign agencies to do the actual surveillance and information gathering on individuals within Canada.

incredible! (notwithstanding, of course, that you haven't substantiated this scenario actually occurs. And, again, we're talking about domestic level surveillance on individuals akin to the types of individual actions comparable to those Bill C-30 intends to address).

I recognized and acknowledged that in one of my first posts in our exchange.

[waldo]

I recognized and acknowledged that in one of my first posts in our exchange.

how droll! How cutesy... my 'incredible' exclamatory was targeted to your nonchalant rationale on the how/why Canadian authorities would flaunt the law and make your claimed and unsubstantiated requests of foreign agencies; i.e., your, "would you expect Canadian agencies to just “give up”, statement?

equally, my 'incredible' exclamatory was offered in regards your, "would you expect Canadian agencies to just “give up”?, nonchalant rationale when it, quite obviously and quite contradictorily, presumes upon the absence of oversight/(judicial authorization)... blatant and absolute contradiction to your earlier convoluted reach for the Privacy Act and the Charter as the supposed laws that allow Canadian authorities to do the end-around. Huh! How many ways can you spin wildly about? Do you even know what you're arguing anymore?

let me again highlight extracts from one of your own linked source references - your described EUROPOL - Government of Canada “working relationship” agreement. You know, the agreement article extracts that emphasize co-operation under the agreement consistent with Canadian laws and legal framework... hardly the stuff of your blatant knowing & wanton bypassing of Canadian oversight/(judicial authorization), wouldn't you say?

=> Article 2: The Parties may co-operate under this Agreement in the exchange of strategic technical and operational information

consistent with the mandates and subject to the applicable laws and legal framework governing

Europol and the Canadian competent authorities as referred to in Article 4.

=> Article 4: Competent authorities: Within Canada, competent authorities are Canadian authorities

responsible under Canadian law

per your assertion, per your linked document, "

consistent with the mandates and subject to the applicable laws and legal framework governing Canadian authorities

", just how would, "

Canadian authorities responsible under Canadian law

", with regularity, bypass Canadian oversight to make requests of Europol... to have Europol perform surveillance on Canadians within Canada?

[Guest Derek L]

how droll! How cutesy... my 'incredible' exclamatory was targeted to your nonchalant rationale on the how/why Canadian authorities would flaunt the law and make your claimed and unsubstantiated requests of foreign agencies; i.e., your, "would you expect Canadian agencies to just “give up”, statement?

equally, my 'incredible' exclamatory was offered in regards your, "would you expect Canadian agencies to just “give up”?, nonchalant rationale when it, quite obviously and quite contradictorily, presumes upon the absence of oversight/(judicial authorization)... blatant and absolute contradiction to your earlier convoluted reach for the Privacy Act and the Charter as the supposed laws that allow Canadian authorities to do the end-around. Huh! How many ways can you spin wildly about? Do you even know what you're arguing anymore?

let me again highlight extracts from one of your own linked source references - your described EUROPOL - Government of Canada “working relationship” agreement. You know, the agreement article extracts that emphasize co-operation under the agreement consistent with Canadian laws and legal framework... hardly the stuff of your blatant knowing & wanton bypassing of Canadian oversight/(judicial authorization), wouldn't you say?

What Canadian law, in the earlier example given, allowed EUROPOL to “share” information relating to the trafficking of Child Porn with the RCMP, prior to the RCMP obtaining a warrant?

You point to this specific law, mentioned in the agreement, but don’t state what law this is. What is it? Please be specific with links and quotations etc.

[waldo]

as I stated earlier, the first time you brought forward that example, the example is not representative of your assertion. Your example doesn't have Canadian authorities making a request of Europol to perform surveillance on individuals within Canada... your example doesn't have Canadian authorities knowingly and wantonly bypassing required Canadian oversight/(judicial authorization), in favour of an end-around request of Europol to undertake surveillance on individuals within Canada. Again, your example is not representative of your stated assertion.

I won't attempt to make the argument you're failing to do. In any case, if you're going to conjure up a hypothetical you want commented on, at least have it represent the scenario you presumed to champion

what surveillance information of a Canadian, in Canada, performed by a foreign entity? What surveillance performed at the request of Canadian policing, a request made to the foreign entity without Canadian judicial oversight? What surveillance information? Per your link, Italian police (?) while searching business records of an Italian, found reference to a purchase made by a Canadian... as implied, I expect that was passed to Europol and then on to the RCMP. None of that is foreign initiated surveillance of a Canadian, performed by a foreign entity on a Canadian, in Canada... surveillance done at the request of Canadian policing... done without judicial oversight.

[Guest Derek L]

as I stated earlier, the first time you brought forward that example, the example is not representative of your assertion. Your example doesn't have Canadian authorities making a request of Europol to perform surveillance on individuals within Canada... your example doesn't have Canadian authorities knowingly and wantonly bypassing required Canadian oversight/(judicial authorization), in favour of an end-around request of Europol to undertake surveillance on individuals within Canada. Again, your example is not representative of your stated assertion.

I’ve been a lifelong GM person, but that is a beautiful Dodge

Again what law allows the Government of Canada to receive information from a foreign agency (As clearly established in the prior example) but disallows them from making a request as per your claim in highlighting the above passage?

You’re basing your argument in disproving myself on some unnamed law………Name said Law.

The proverbial burden is on you………I’ve cited an International agreement that in it’s wording allows for an exchange of information and I’ve provided an example of said exchange of information under said agreement………So now it’s on you to prove your assertion.

[waldo]

Again what law allows the Government of Canada to receive information from a foreign agency (As clearly established in the prior example) but disallows them from making a request as per your claim in highlighting the above passage?

your chutzpah! Again, your example is not representative of your assertion. Your example, I presume (although I don't recall you explicitly stating so), relies upon your linked reference agreement document between Canada-Europol. You know... the document with the same article extracts I keep trying to focus you on; the article extracts that state and emphasize co-operation under the agreement must be consistent with Canadian laws and legal framework. Of course, your own document doesn't specifically say 'what Canadian laws and legal framework'! And you want me... me... to tell you which law(s). You want me to make your argument for you; notwithstanding, of course, stating once again, your example is not representative of your assertion.

The proverbial burden is on you………I’ve cited an International agreement that in it’s wording allows for an exchange of information and I’ve provided an example of said exchange of information under said agreement………So now it’s on you to prove your assertion.

no - the onus is most certainly not on me! This is almost... almost... as good as your flummoxed moves to attempt to substantiate your assertion based on the Privacy Act and the Charter! It's almost... almost... on par with your grasping and flailing gem, "would you expect Canadian agencies to just “give up” statement".

as a part of your own described "beautiful Dodge", how about you advise how your example rises to the level of your assertion; how your example, equates to how: "You would have us believe that Canadian authorities, although with the capability/means to perform surveillance on individuals in Canada, choose to instead flaunt 'the law' by knowingly and wantonly bypassing the need for oversight/(judicial authorization)... by undertaking your described 'end-around' requests to foreign agencies to do the actual surveillance and information gathering on individuals within Canada."

You would have us believe that Canadian authorities, although with the capability/means to perform surveillance on individuals in Canada, choose to instead flaunt 'the law' by knowingly and wantonly bypassing the need for oversight/(judicial authorization)... by undertaking your described 'end-around' requests to foreign agencies to do the actual surveillance and information gathering on individuals within Canada.

(notwithstanding, of course, that you haven't substantiated this scenario actually occurs. And, again, we're talking about domestic level surveillance on individuals akin to the types of individual actions comparable to those Bill C-30 intends to address)

.

[Guest Derek L]

your chutzpah! Again, your example is not representative of your assertion. Your example, I presume (although I don't recall you explicitly stating so), relies upon your linked reference agreement document between Canada-Europol. You know... the document with the same article extracts I keep trying to focus you on; the article extracts that state and emphasize co-operation under the agreement must be consistent with Canadian laws and legal framework. Of course, your own document doesn't specifically say 'what Canadian laws and legal framework'! And you want me... me... to tell you which law(s). You want me to make your argument for you; notwithstanding, of course, stating once again, your example is not representative of your assertion.

no - the onus is most certainly not on me! This is almost... almost... as good as your flummoxed moves to attempt to substantiate your assertion based on the Privacy Act and the Charter! It's almost... almost... on par with your grasping and flailing gem, "would you expect Canadian agencies to just “give up” statement".

as a part of your own described "beautiful Dodge", how about you advise how your example rises to the level of your assertion; how your example, equates to how: "You would have us believe that Canadian authorities, although with the capability/means to perform surveillance on individuals in Canada, choose to instead flaunt 'the law' by knowingly and wantonly bypassing the need for oversight/(judicial authorization)... by undertaking your described 'end-around' requests to foreign agencies to do the actual surveillance and information gathering on individuals within Canada."

So that's a no?

[waldo]

So that's a no?

I accept your unconditional capitulation. You have been unable to support and substantiate your assertion; more pointedly, you have never provided anything to actually state the particulars of your assertion even occur. Your assertion is nothing more than your unsubstantiated statements.

clearly you have been cornered and in a most pathetic display of fake-bravado, insist on posturing with your example that bears no relation to and no association with your actual assertion. In fact, you can't even state what laws support your own unrelated example. You have provided no lawful foundation to support your assertion. More pointedly, you overtly disrespect Canadian law by, without foundation, claiming Canadian authorities knowingly and wantonly bypass Canadian oversight/(judicial authorization), in favour of your described/unsubstantiated claim that Canadian authorities do an end-around the law by requesting foreign agencies perform surveillance on individuals within Canada.

again, the Derek L affirmed assertion, per the Derek L scenario - the one you can't substantiate, the one you haven't shown even occurs, the one you can provide no legal foundation for:

let's recap...the scenario...

the Derek L scenario

:

- the essence of the Derek L scenario is one that presumes on Canadian authorities circumventing the need for Canadian oversight/(judicial authorization), to allow surveillance and data collection on individuals within Canada. Derek L suggests collected data would subsequently be used as the basis to secure actual oversight/(judicial authorization).

- the Derek L scenario presumes upon Canadian authorities choosing to bypass their own capabilities, resources and infrastructure... capabilities and means that Derek L has trumpeted.

- the Derek L scenario has Canadian authorities, sans Canadian oversight/(judicial authorization), outside of their own capabilities/resources/infrastructure, requesting foreign agencies perform surveillance on individuals within Canada, to collect information on individuals within Canada.

- the Derek L scenario has Canadian authorities making these requests of foreign agencies because they can't be bothered with pesky Canadian oversight/(judicial authorization) and/or they have no respect for the need for Canadian oversight/(judicial authorization).

- the related

Derek L affirmed assertion

behind the Derek L scenario, once again is:

Derek L affirmed assertion

: In regards domestic surveillance within Canada, Canadian authorities can... and regularly do... bypass Canadian oversight/(judicial authorization) and domestic surveillance capabilities, preferring instead to make requests of foreign agencies (e.g., NSA/Europol), to provide monitoring and surveillance on individuals, within Canada.

as I said, I accept your unconditional capitulation!

[Guest Derek L]

I accept your unconditional capitulation. You have been unable to support and substantiate your assertion; more pointedly, you have never provided anything to actually state the particulars of your assertion even occur. Your assertion is nothing more than your unsubstantiated statements.

clearly you have been cornered and in a most pathetic display of fake-bravado, insist on posturing with your example that bears no relation to and no association with your actual assertion. In fact, you can't even state what laws support your own unrelated example. You have provided no lawful foundation to support your assertion. More pointedly, you overtly disrespect Canadian law by, without foundation, claiming Canadian authorities knowingly and wantonly bypass Canadian oversight/(judicial authorization), in favour of your described/unsubstantiated claim that Canadian authorities do an end-around the law by requesting foreign agencies perform surveillance on individuals within Canada.

again, the Derek L affirmed assertion, per the Derek L scenario - the one you can't substantiate, the one you haven't shown even occurs, the one you can provide no legal foundation for:

as I said, I accept your unconditional capitulation!

Sure…….call it what you wish…….But I’m the one that’s provided examples to affirm my position, and you’re the one that’s provided nothing.

[waldo]

Sure…….call it what you wish…….But I’m the one that’s provided examples to affirm my position, and you’re the one that’s provided nothing.

you can keep saying it over and over again - I'll just keep highlighting your example has nothing to do with your assertion.

and you want me to make your argument for you? Buddy, that's not how it works. You have no trouble/difficulty acknowledging Canadian authorities are subject to Canadian oversight/(judicial authorization). You simply haven't shown the assertion you maintain actually occurs... you simply haven't shown that the assertion you maintain occurs, with regularity, has a foundation in Canadian law. You haven't provided anything. You have not substantiated your assertion, the Derek L affirmed assertion:

Derek L affirmed assertion

: In regards domestic surveillance within Canada, Canadian authorities can... and regularly do... bypass Canadian oversight/(judicial authorization) and domestic surveillance capabilities, preferring instead to make requests of foreign agencies (e.g., NSA/Europol), to provide monitoring and surveillance on individuals, within Canada.

[cybercoma]

Are you two still at it? Yeesh.

[punked]

Are you two still at it? Yeesh.

I know, and it has to be the most boring fight this board has seen in a long long time.

[cybercoma]

It's amazing how relentless waldo can be.

[punked]

It's amazing how relentless waldo can be.

I guess when you are right though you are right.

[lukin]

I guess when you are right though you are right.

Too bad he's always wrong. The guy makes a career of posting on this forum . Nuff said.

Mind you punked, you haven't been right about anything yet, so what would you really know.

[Guest Derek L]

you can keep saying it over and over again - I'll just keep highlighting your example has nothing to do with your assertion.

and you want me to make your argument for you? Buddy, that's not how it works. You have no trouble/difficulty acknowledging Canadian authorities are subject to Canadian oversight/(judicial authorization). You simply haven't shown the assertion you maintain actually occurs... you simply haven't shown that the assertion you maintain occurs, with regularity, has a foundation in Canadian law. You haven't provided anything. You have not substantiated your assertion, the Derek L affirmed assertion:

Again Waldo, that is your affirmed assertion………..Find the quote where I stated Canadian authorities prefer foreign surveillance……..I dare you.

And you’ve yet to explain and or disprove my prior example of a international surveillance sharing agreement between the Government of Canada and EUROPOL nations……..Just as you’ve yet to disprove the prior example in which intelligence was shared without a prior Canadian warrant obtained.

[waldo]

Again Waldo, that is your affirmed assertion………..Find the quote where I stated Canadian authorities prefer foreign surveillance……..I dare you.

you dare me! Well, keep barking! I'll just keep replaying your affirmation... this one:

so, is that a yes... or a no?

simply address my summation on your initial assertion... a simple yes or no will suffice to allow us to continue to the next level. Yes or no?

Is the following correct -

yes or no?

In regards domestic surveillance of Canadians, you asserted that Canadian authorities can... and regularly do... bypass Canadian oversight/(judicial authorization) and domestic surveillance capabilities, preferring instead to make requests of foreign agencies (e.g., NSA/Europol), to provide monitoring and surveillance on individuals, within Canada.

Is the preceding correct -

yes or no?

Clearly a yes

based on the above open source evidence.

wow! Finally...

a 'YES'!

And you’ve yet to explain and or disprove my prior example of a international surveillance sharing agreement between the Government of Canada and EUROPOL nations……..Just as you’ve yet to disprove the prior example in which intelligence was shared without a prior Canadian warrant obtained

these are simply your distraction attempts and have no relation/bearing on your assertion. In any case we've dealt with this, several times now - I will keep giving you the same answer - the following quoted one, emphasizing within the Canada-Europol agreement that Canadian authority actions must be, "consistent with the mandates and subject to the applicable laws and legal framework governing Canadian authorities.":

Your reference to a Canadian-Europol agreement and suggestion that judicial authorization is inherent to the agreement, is a non starter. I highlighted the key articles of your linked Canada-Europol reference document that clearly point back to Canadian authority actions that must be, "

consistent with the mandates and subject to the applicable laws and legal framework governing Canadian authorities

."

I'm not sure why you think this has relevance, particularly as the example you tied to the agreement, again, has no relation to your assertion. I'm also puzzled why you would want to keep highlighting something that clearly showed you in a big-time fail... where, when challenged to provide the lawful foundation to this agreement (the emphasized, "applicable laws and legal framework"), you bumbled from the Privacy Act to the Charter and finally to "inherent authorization".

in any case, outside of your distraction, in regards to your affirmed assertion, as I said:

You have been unable to support and substantiate your assertion; more pointedly, you have never provided anything to actually state the particulars of your assertion even occur. Your assertion is nothing more than your unsubstantiated statements.

[Guest Derek L]

you dare me! Well, keep barking! I'll just keep replaying your affirmation... this one:

wow! Finally...

a 'YES'!

these are simply your distraction attempts and have no relation/bearing on your assertion. In any case we've dealt with this, several times now - I will keep giving you the same answer - the following quoted one, emphasizing within the Canada-Europol agreement that Canadian authority actions must be, "consistent with the mandates and subject to the applicable laws and legal framework governing Canadian authorities.":

I'm not sure why you think this has relevance, particularly as the example you tied to the agreement, again, has no relation to your assertion. I'm also puzzled why you would want to keep highlighting something that clearly showed you in a big-time fail... where, when challenged to provide the lawful foundation to this agreement (the emphasized, "applicable laws and legal framework"), you bumbled from the Privacy Act to the Charter and finally to "inherent authorization".

in any case, outside of your distraction, in regards to your affirmed assertion, as I said:

Again, you're simply twisting my words........As you stated in your quote:

simply address my summation on your initial assertion... a simple yes or no will suffice to allow us to continue to the next level. Yes or no?

Clearly a loaded question if there is one........Have you stopped beating your wife Waldo?

As I said prior, my quote, that your summation is based, reads different.

And I'll keep asking the same question........What Canadian Laws allow our Government to receive information on a citizen without a warrant, but disallow our Government to make such a request?

My prior examples clearly demonstrate that it is legal for the RCMP to receive and use information obtained under such circumstances correct? Yes or No?

What law disallows the RCMP from making a request?

You are the one that claims such agreements are not a proverbial “two way street”, hence the onus is on you to prove it.

[waldo]

And I'll keep asking the same question........What Canadian Laws allow our Government to receive information on a citizen without a warrant, but disallow our Government to make such a request?

I realize you're cornered but continuing to ask me to make your argument for you is a non-starter.

the "make such a request" you're so flippantly smoothing over, is you claiming it as a request to foreign agencies to have them perform surveillance on individuals within Canada. The context for this being, as you affirmed, that although Canadian authorities have the capabilities/means to do this same surveillance on individuals in Canada... these choose not to. Rather, instead, they choose to bypass their own lawful constraints associated with their own oversight/(judicial authorization), in favour of doing an end-around, in favour of flaunting the law, and requesting foreign agencies perform the surveillance on individuals within Canada. And, of course, you have never substantiated that this actually occurs or that it has a foundation in Canadian law. Oh, wait... what law would exist to allow Canadian authorities to flaunt and bypass another law associated with oversight/(judicial authorization)?

[Guest Derek L]

I realize you're cornered but continuing to ask me to make your argument for you is a non-starter.

the "make such a request" you're so flippantly smoothing over, is you claiming it as a request to foreign agencies to have them perform surveillance on individuals within Canada. The context for this being, as you affirmed, that although Canadian authorities have the capabilities/means to do this same surveillance on individuals in Canada... these choose not to. Rather, instead, they choose to bypass their own lawful constraints associated with their own oversight/(judicial authorization), in favour of doing an end-around, in favour of flaunting the law, and requesting foreign agencies perform the surveillance on individuals within Canada. And, of course, you have never substantiated that this actually occurs or that it has a foundation in Canadian law. Oh, wait... what law would exist to allow Canadian authorities to flaunt and bypass another law associated with oversight/(judicial authorization)?

Are you suggesting the wording, regarding the sharing of information, in the Government of Canada & EUROPOL agreement was either incorrect or illegal?

Clearly I'm not asking you to make my argument for me, or I wouldn't have posted said links, but for you to provide evidence for yours.......

Do you not have any evidence to prove the agencies of the Government of Canada, though legally able to receive unsolicited private information pertaining to Canadians, are unable, contrary to the wording of the provided document (by me) , to request personal information relating to Canadian citizens from foreign Government agencies?

Yes or No?

Or, are you just unwilling to confirm your claim?

Yes or No?

If you provide such information relating to Canadian laws, that allow the agencies of the Government of Canada to receive (and use for investigative purposes) personal information pertaining to Canadians, without a warrant (as was the case in the provided example), but disallows the agencies of the Government of Canada to make a request to Foreign Government agencies for information on Canadians, I’ll gladly concede the debate and put for one month as my status the following:

“Derek L was wrong and Waldo was right”

Do you have the stones Waldo? Yes or No?

[waldo]

Are you suggesting the wording, regarding the sharing of information, in the Government of Canada & EUROPOL agreement was either incorrect or illegal?

how obtuse are you? It's an agreement - one that, again, I pointed out to you, includes articles that emphasize actions must be, "consistent with the mandates and subject to the applicable laws and legal framework governing Canadian authorities." You continuing to beat down on this, in relation to your stated example, once again, is nothing more than a purposeful distraction... your example has nothing whatsoever to do with your assertion. Not only are you purposely distracting away from your assertion, you presume to put the onus on me to identify the, "applicable laws and legal framework" mentioned in your linked-to referenced agreement's article extracts. Sure you do!

Clearly I'm not asking you to make my argument for me, or I wouldn't have posted said links, but for you to provide evidence for yours.......

evidence for my what? For my what? You are the one who made the assertion - not me. You are the one who hasn't shown the circumstances of your assertion actually takes place... you are the one who hasn't substantiated the oversight/(judicial authorization) associated with your assertion. You haven't substantiated anything.

Do you not have any evidence to prove the agencies of the Government of Canada, though legally able to receive unsolicited private information pertaining to Canadians, are unable, contrary to the wording of the provided document (by me) , to request personal information relating to Canadian citizens from foreign Government agencies?

nice BS end-around on your end-around. Again, your "to request personal information" is not representative of your assertion... this is you attempting to cloud over your failed assertion. Feel free to point out where in your linked-to agreement reference, your assertion can be found... where it lays out the particulars of Canadian authorities bypassing their own capabilities/means, bypassing their own oversight/(judicial authorization) to, instead, request Europol to perform surveillance on individuals within Canada. In all your flummoxed glory, just show where your linked-to agreement outlines your scenario & affirmed assertion. Sure you can!

of course, I must take personal liberty to showcase, once again, your stated rationale on why this supposed request you assert would actually occur/be made... what was that you stated? Oh, right... "do you expect them to just give up"! That's right, even though you fully acknowledge the capabilities/means of Canadian authorities to perform required surveillance on individuals in Canada, you assert that they will, instead, in the spirit of "not giving up", choose to bypass their own capabilities/means and related constraints associated with oversight/(judicial authorization)... you asserted they'll bypass all this, choosing instead to flaunt Canadian law and do an end-around request to a foreign agency to perform surveillance on individuals within Canada. Clearly, your rationale is nonsensical.

Or, are you just unwilling to confirm your claim?

the claim is yours... the affirmed assertion is yours. In the face of your failure all you have left is to try to turn this around on me - sooooo transparent!

Do you have the stones Waldo?

clearly, you've lost it. Just accept that you haven't been able to substantiate anything associated to your affirmed assertion. Again, you have never substantiated that the circumstances of your affirmed assertion actually occur... or that it has a foundation in Canadian law. You tried the Privacy Act, then you made a broad sweeping reach for the Charter... and after apparently coming to your senses, you backed off these and decided to go with the catch-all, "inherent authorization"!

give it up buddy, give it up!

[Guest Derek L]

how obtuse are you? It's an agreement - one that, again, I pointed out to you, includes articles that emphasize actions must be, "consistent with the mandates and subject to the applicable laws and legal framework governing Canadian authorities." You continuing to beat down on this, in relation to your stated example, once again, is nothing more than a purposeful distraction... your example has nothing whatsoever to do with your assertion. Not only are you purposely distracting away from your assertion, you presume to put the onus on me to identify the, "applicable laws and legal framework" mentioned in your linked-to referenced agreement's article extracts. Sure you do!

evidence for my what? For my what? You are the one who made the assertion - not me. You are the one who hasn't shown the circumstances of your assertion actually takes place... you are the one who hasn't substantiated the oversight/(judicial authorization) associated with your assertion. You haven't substantiated anything.

nice BS end-around on your end-around. Again, your "to request personal information" is not representative of your assertion... this is you attempting to cloud over your failed assertion. Feel free to point out where in your linked-to agreement reference, your assertion can be found... where it lays out the particulars of Canadian authorities bypassing their own capabilities/means, bypassing their own oversight/(judicial authorization) to, instead, request Europol to perform surveillance on individuals within Canada. In all your flummoxed glory, just show where your linked-to agreement outlines your scenario & affirmed assertion. Sure you can!

of course, I must take personal liberty to showcase, once again, your stated rationale on why this supposed request you assert would actually occur/be made... what was that you stated? Oh, right... "do you expect them to just give up"! That's right, even though you fully acknowledge the capabilities/means of Canadian authorities to perform required surveillance on individuals in Canada, you assert that they will, instead, in the spirit of "not giving up", choose to bypass their own capabilities/means and related constraints associated with oversight/(judicial authorization)... you asserted they'll bypass all this, choosing instead to flaunt Canadian law and do an end-around request to a foreign agency to perform surveillance on individuals within Canada. Clearly, your rationale is nonsensical.

the claim is yours... the affirmed assertion is yours. In the face of your failure all you have left is to try to turn this around on me - sooooo transparent!

clearly, you've lost it. Just accept that you haven't been able to substantiate anything associated to your affirmed assertion. Again, you have never substantiated that the circumstances of your affirmed assertion actually occur... or that it has a foundation in Canadian law. You tried the Privacy Act, then you made a broad sweeping reach for the Charter... and after apparently coming to your senses, you backed off these and decided to go with the catch-all, "inherent authorization"!

give it up buddy, give it up!

Give it up? I've only just started:

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-89.html#docCont

Interception in exceptional circumstances

184.4 A peace officer may intercept, by means of any electro-magnetic, acoustic, mechanical or other device, a private communication where

(a) the peace officer believes on reasonable grounds that the urgency of the situation is such that an authorization could not, with reasonable diligence, be obtained under any other provision of this Part;

(B ) the peace officer believes on reasonable grounds that such an interception is immediately necessary to prevent an unlawful act that would cause serious harm to any person or to property; and

© either the originator of the private communication or the person intended by the originator to receive it is the person who would perform the act that is likely to cause the harm or is the victim, or intended victim, of the harm.

The above portion of the Criminal Code allowing a Canadian Peace officer to intercept Private Communications sans a warrant.

And below:

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-94.html#docCont

The laws pertaining to the disclosure of personal information:

Disclosure of information

193. (1) Where a private communication has been intercepted by means of an electro-magnetic, acoustic, mechanical or other device without the consent, express or implied, of the originator thereof or of the person intended by the originator thereof to receive it, every one who, without the express consent of the originator thereof or of the person intended by the originator thereof to receive it, wilfully

(a) uses or discloses the private communication or any part thereof or the substance, meaning or purport thereof or of any part thereof, or

(B ) discloses the existence thereof,

is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.

Of course there are always buts:

Exemptions

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to a person who discloses a private communication or any part thereof or the substance, meaning or purport thereof or of any part thereof or who discloses the existence of a private communication

(a) in the course of or for the purpose of giving evidence in any civil or criminal proceedings or in any other proceedings in which the person may be required to give evidence on oath;

(B ) in the course of or for the purpose of any criminal investigation if the private communication was lawfully intercepted;

© in giving notice under section 189 or furnishing further particulars pursuant to an order under section 190;

(d) in the course of the operation of

(i) a telephone, telegraph or other communication service to the public,

(ii) a department or an agency of the Government of Canada, or

(iii) services relating to the management or protection of a computer system, as defined in subsection 342.1(2),

if the disclosure is necessarily incidental to an interception described in paragraph 184(2)©, (d) or (e);

(e) where disclosure is made to a peace officer or prosecutor in Canada or to a person or authority with responsibility in a foreign state for the investigation or prosecution of offences and is intended to be in the interests of the administration of justice in Canada or elsewhere; or

(f) where the disclosure is made to the Director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service or to an employee of the Service for the purpose of enabling the Service to perform its duties and functions under section 12 of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act.

Clearly above, it is proven that Canadian agencies can legally “spy” on Canadians prior to gaining a warrant…….And that agencies within Canada are legally aloud to exchange information with foreign agencies in the pursuit of an investigation or prosecution when in the interests of justice in Canada or elsewhere.

Remember that video posted a few pages back with the cat and the rat? Yes or No?

See you in the next debate

[waldo]

Give it up? I've only just started:

Remember that video posted a few pages back with the cat and the rat? Yes or No?

See you in the next debate

and how do those criminal code exceptions rise to the level of your assertion? Notwithstanding your initial premise relative to Bill C-30 discussion was not founded on exceptions, all you've done by referencing those described specific criminal code passages is provide the foundation for something no one has disputed. All you've done is; 1- highlight a circumstance where police, themselves (not foreign agencies), under exceptional circumstance, may perform surveillance and intercept communication on individuals within Canada and, 2- highlight a circumstance where police, under exceptional circumstance, may disclose information without the received approval of persons associated with/to the personal information... we already talked around this earlier with your Privacy Act diversion. But, again, how does any of that provide substantiating support for your affirmed assertion that:

In regards domestic surveillance within Canada, Canadian authorities can... and regularly do... bypass Canadian oversight/(judicial authorization) and domestic surveillance capabilities, preferring instead to make requests of foreign agencies (e.g., NSA/Europol), to provide monitoring and surveillance on individuals, within Canada

again, do you actually have an example of your assertion played out... in reality... described in reality? Surely, something that so blatantly bypasses oversight/(judicial authorization), must be considered an... exception. Surely, that exception must have it's roots in fundamental law. I mean, perhaps you just need to look further into the criminal code... look for additional exceptions to find something that actually lines up with your affirmed assertion.

and, oh ya, once more with vinegar... why would Canadian authorities undertake such an exception that lines up with your affirmed assertion to engage foreign agencies in the first place... particularly when they have, as you stated, full capabilities/means themselves. Again, why would your affirmed assertion be needed and carried out?

[Guest Derek L]

and how do those criminal code exceptions rise to the level of your assertion? Notwithstanding your initial premise relative to Bill C-30 discussion was not founded on exceptions, all you've done by referencing those described specific criminal code passages is provide the foundation for something no one has disputed. All you've done is; 1- highlight a circumstance where police, themselves (not foreign agencies), under exceptional circumstance, may perform surveillance and intercept communication on individuals within Canada and, 2- highlight a circumstance where police, under exceptional circumstance, may disclose information without the received approval of persons associated with/to the personal information... we already talked around this earlier with your Privacy Act diversion. But, again, how does any of that provide substantiating support for your affirmed assertion that:

again, do you actually have an example of your assertion played out... in reality... described in reality? Surely, something that so blatantly bypasses oversight/(judicial authorization), must be considered an... exception. Surely, that exception must have it's roots in fundamental law. I mean, perhaps you just need to look further into the criminal code... look for additional exceptions to find something that actually lines up with your affirmed assertion.

and, oh ya, once more with vinegar... why would Canadian authorities undertake such an exception that lines up with your affirmed assertion to engage foreign agencies in the first place... particularly when they have, as you stated, full capabilities/means themselves. Again, why would your affirmed assertion be needed and carried out?

My assertion Waldo?

[waldo]

My assertion Waldo?

are you laughing at your affirmed assertion... the following one?

simply address my summation on your initial assertion... a simple yes or no will suffice to allow us to continue to the next level. Yes or no?

Is the following correct -

yes or no?

In regards domestic surveillance of Canadians, you asserted that Canadian authorities can... and regularly do... bypass Canadian oversight/(judicial authorization) and domestic surveillance capabilities, preferring instead to make requests of foreign agencies (e.g., NSA/Europol), to provide monitoring and surveillance on individuals, within Canada.

Is the preceding correct -

yes or no?

Clearly a yes

based on the above open source evidence.

once again, feel free to ignore the following most pointed questions/requests... while you also deny your affirmed assertion

again, do you actually have an example of your assertion played out... in reality... described in reality? Surely, something that so blatantly bypasses oversight/(judicial authorization), must be considered an... exception. Surely, that exception must have it's roots in fundamental law. I mean, perhaps you just need to look further into the criminal code... look for additional exceptions to find something that actually lines up with your affirmed assertion.

and, oh ya, once more with vinegar... why would Canadian authorities undertake such an exception that lines up with your affirmed assertion to engage foreign agencies in the first place... particularly when they have, as you stated, full capabilities/means themselves. Again, why would your affirmed assertion be needed and carried out?