Anonymous gives Toews 7 days ...

[cybercoma]

What? No transcripts this time?

[olpfan1]

What? No transcripts this time?

unfortunately not

can't really confirm this information anyway

Edited March 2, 2012 by olpfan1

[Jack Weber]

That's kind of underwhelming,frankly...

Go away Anonymous!!!

[Guest Derek L]

you seem to keep dancing around your earlier statement/implications; i.e., that, again, in an almost routine operational manner, "the U.S. NSA is an easy, end-around, go-to outlet to circumvent in-place Canadian protection requirements (i.e., judicial warrants)".

what is your basis to suggest/support your claim that, as a matter of routine domestic requirement, Canadian policing can, and does, forgo the need for Canadian judicial oversight, and avails itself of a 'back-door, roundabout' U.S. NSA outlet to monitor and gather information on Canadians. Your basis and support for this, your claim, is...???

I’m not dancing around anything, I’ve made myself clear numerous times, with links to corresponding laws/acts……..All sources readily available for public consumption……If that’s still not sufficient for you, I’d suggest obtaining a Queen’s Commission and finding out for yourself first hand.

One question for you Waldo, what do you think the purpose of agencies like the CSEC/NSA are?

[Sa'adoni]

And one Quick question for Sa'adoni and olpfan1. How far do you live from Dwyer Hill?

I'm fit but it'd take months of training to get in that sort of form.

[waldo]

Read the Patriot Act, in particular section 206 on FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) and our Anti Terrorism Act, in particular it’s incorporation of section 273.61(1) of the National Defence Act....Then get back to me.

nice hand-wave - as I peruse the exchange this vacuous 'go fetch' routine seems to be the closest you ever come to offering substantiation for anything you're saying.

you seem to keep dancing around your earlier statement/implications; i.e., that, again, in an almost routine operational manner, "the U.S. NSA is an easy, end-around, go-to outlet to circumvent in-place Canadian protection requirements (i.e., judicial warrants)".

what is your basis to suggest/support your claim that, as a matter of routine domestic requirement, Canadian policing can, and does, forgo the need for Canadian judicial oversight, and avails itself of a 'back-door, roundabout' U.S. NSA outlet to monitor and gather information on Canadians. Your basis and support for this, your claim, is...???

I’m not dancing around anything, I’ve made myself clear numerous times, with links to corresponding laws/acts……..All sources readily available for public consumption……If that’s still not sufficient for you, I’d suggest obtaining a Queen’s Commission and finding out for yourself first hand.

another hand-wave and go-fetch! Apparently you have an aversion to providing direct answers to direct questions. Again, as a matter of routine operations, "what is your basis to suggest/support your claim that, as a matter of routine domestic requirement, Canadian policing can, and does, forgo the need for Canadian judicial oversight, and avails itself of a 'back-door, roundabout' U.S. NSA outlet to monitor and gather information on Canadians. Your basis and support for this, your claim, is...???"

[Guest Derek L]

another hand-wave and go-fetch! Apparently you have an aversion to providing direct answers to direct questions. Again, as a matter of routine operations, "what is your basis to suggest/support your claim that, as a matter of routine domestic requirement, Canadian policing can, and does, forgo the need for Canadian judicial oversight, and avails itself of a 'back-door, roundabout' U.S. NSA outlet to monitor and gather information on Canadians. Your basis and support for this, your claim, is...???"

You’ve got me, I’ve made up the entire thing…….ECHELON………..CSEC……..the NSA……

I’m a fraud, 100%.

Now, what is it, do you feel, that these Government organizations do?

[cybercoma]

You’ve got me, I’ve made up the entire thing…….ECHELON………..CSEC……..the NSA……

I’m a fraud, 100%.

Now, what is it, do you feel, that these Government organizations do?

That's not what he said. He's asking for you to show the evidence that you use to support your claim that "as a matter of routine domestic requirement, Canadian policing can, and does, forgo the need for Canadian judicial oversight, and avails itself of a 'back-door, roundabout' U.S. NSA outlet to monitor and gather information on Canadians." If it's just a baseless opinion, then you don't need facts to backup your claims. You can just say that's what you believe happens, but you've been presenting it as fact.

Edited March 3, 2012 by cybercoma

[Guest Derek L]

That's not what he said. He's asking for you to show the evidence that you use to support your claim that "as a matter of routine domestic requirement, Canadian policing can, and does, forgo the need for Canadian judicial oversight, and avails itself of a 'back-door, roundabout' U.S. NSA outlet to monitor and gather information on Canadians." If it's just a baseless opinion, then you don't need facts to backup your claims. You can just say that's what you believe happens, but you've been presenting it as fact.

Nope it’s a “baseless opinion” , and everyone should enjoy their privacy with impunity.

I retract my previous comments and apologize for the misinformation.

Clearly, if this was not the case, I’d provide such “proof”, at the risk of imprisonment, to win an internet debate……..All the international treaties, legal acts, government agencies and legislation that I’ve since provided were to merely cloud the issue, and they too should be discounted.

How about them Leafs.

[waldo]

Clearly, if this was not the case, I’d provide such “proof”, at the risk of imprisonment, to win an internet debate

alright then... thanks for offering an explanation as to why you didn't substantiate your statements/assertions. However, as was pointed out to you, you simply could/should have qualified your statements/assertions as a matter of opinion... rather than factual.

[Wild Bill]

Nope it’s a “baseless opinion” , and everyone should enjoy their privacy with impunity.

I retract my previous comments and apologize for the misinformation.

Clearly, if this was not the case, I’d provide such “proof”, at the risk of imprisonment, to win an internet debate……..All the international treaties, legal acts, government agencies and legislation that I’ve since provided were to merely cloud the issue, and they too should be discounted.

How about them Leafs.

This is hilarious, Derek! Some folks would rather appear to win an argument than arrive at truth!

Everything you have posited is just common sense. Now, you are facing demands to come up with proof that a spy-type deal exists!

Anybody with hair in their ears would know that there's no way such can be provided. Do they think there's a website listing covert agreements between the USA and Canada, with a list where item 10 says "We will use this method to get around the rules in each of our respective countries"?

However, obviously they feel that if YOU can't provide such a cite for them then they have won the debate!

Meanwhile, Eppur si muove!

[Guest Derek L]

This is hilarious, Derek! Some folks would rather appear to win an argument than arrive at truth!

Everything you have posited is just common sense. Now, you are facing demands to come up with proof that a spy-type deal exists!

Anybody with hair in their ears would know that there's no way such can be provided. Do they think there's a website listing covert agreements between the USA and Canada, with a list where item 10 says "We will use this method to get around the rules in each of our respective countries"?

However, obviously they feel that if YOU can't provide such a cite for them then they have won the debate!

Meanwhile, Eppur si muove!

Indeed Bill……..I’ll just pose this one question though:

In the cases of previous, again going back to the OP, Anonymous member being arrested, how would investigators locate said hackers with a previous obtained warrant? I would opine that getting a warrant would be rather difficult without knowing with whom you wish to serve it to, not to mention, what country/city/residence to put on said warrant………

[waldo]

However, obviously they feel that if YOU can't provide such a cite for them then they have won the debate!

let's recap: the principal MLW member 'Derek L' assertion was one that Bill C-30 was not needed since, effectively, it's 'reach' was already occurring. That morphed somewhat into a suggestion that Bill C-30 was simply Harper Conservative 'streamlining'. Of course, this all centered on the underlying premise that, as a matter of routine operation, Canadian policing regularly circumvents the need for judicial oversight (i.e. warrants) in order to monitor/gather information of a domestic nature... regularly circumvents judicial oversight by doing a roundabout, end-around, by simply calling up the U.S. NSA. Routine, matter of fact, standard op! Apparently, 'asking Derek L' for qualified substantiating support for such an assertion is verboten... something to do with said claims of "self incrimination and imprisonment"!

[cybercoma]

alright then... thanks for offering an explanation as to why you didn't substantiate your statements/assertions. However, as was pointed out to you, you simply could/should have qualified your statements/assertions as a matter of opinion... rather than factual.

I think you misread his reply. He's still claiming it as fact, but providing evidence will get him locked up. Since he's a coward, you'll just have to take his word for it. See.

[cybercoma]

This is hilarious, Derek! Some folks would rather appear to win an argument than arrive at truth!

Everything you have posited is just common sense. Now, you are facing demands to come up with proof that a spy-type deal exists!

Anybody with hair in their ears would know that there's no way such can be provided. Do they think there's a website listing covert agreements between the USA and Canada, with a list where item 10 says "We will use this method to get around the rules in each of our respective countries"?

However, obviously they feel that if YOU can't provide such a cite for them then they have won the debate!

Meanwhile, Eppur si muove!

So you're basing your opinion on a hunch, rather than evidence. That's fine. But it doesn't make it factual.

[olpfan1]

Toews appointed a judge while sleeping with her & Harper quietly axed him as Justice Minister as a result.

New scandal ^

[Guest Derek L]

I think you misread his reply. He's still claiming it as fact, but providing evidence will get him locked up. Since he's a coward, you'll just have to take his word for it. See.

You can call me what you wish (I’ve been called worse), but let me ask you this:

In the cases of previous, again going back to the OP, Anonymous member being arrested, how would investigators locate said hackers with a previous obtained warrant? I would opine that getting a warrant would be rather difficult without knowing with whom you wish to serve it to, not to mention, what country/city/residence to put on said warrant………

IOW………How do the police locate a suspect that was possibly implicated in a crime done, from anywhere on the planet, via the internet……..That’s your starting point, now who and where are you going to get a warrant for?

The same question can be applied to a “terrorist” who’s yet to commit a crime….Or bringing this back to the stated reason of Bill C-30, a person trafficking online Child Pornography….You and I both know that there is currently child porn on the web, as do the police, now how do the police obtain a warrant without any suspects?

What say you?

[olpfan1]

I can understand why you are not providing your normal text transcript of the Anonymous You-tube. No facts just innuendos and libellous comments. By printing the text does leave you open to libel. You are just lucky you are not highly promoting this video and a transcript.

Defamatory Libel

Defamatory libel is published material that could injure a person’s reputation by exposing him or her to hatred, contempt or ridicule. The act of "publishing" a libellous comment can include exhibiting it in public, causing it to be read or seen, or showing it with intent that it be read by others — all of which would also apply to comments published on a Web page, or posted to a newsgroup or listserv.

No scripts were provided else I would have

toews could sue me all he wanted

[Guest Derek L]

So you're basing your opinion on a hunch, rather than evidence. That's fine. But it doesn't make it factual.

What do you mean by evidence? An actual Canadian that has been charged, due in part to surveillance efforts and evidence obtained by police agencies in other countries?

If that’s all you want, here’s a local case (and challenge) from a couple of years ago:

R. v. Ballendine, 2011 BCCA 221

I think I misunderstood you (and Waldo?) in that I thought you were looking for ways ands means…….If that’s the case, you can keep calling me a "coward"

[Guest Derek L]

No scripts were provided else I would have

toews could sue me all he wanted

As I’ve said, I doubt you are high on the “list”....

[waldo]

What do you mean by evidence? An actual Canadian that has been charged, due in part to surveillance efforts and evidence obtained by police agencies in other countries?

If that’s all you want, here’s a local case (and challenge) from a couple of years ago:

R. v. Ballendine, 2011 BCCA 221

rather than asking us to, once again, play go-fetch... within your above linked reference, simply quote the pertinent specifics of a foreign agency surveillance of a Canadian, in Canada, done at the behest of Canadian policing, sans warrant.

I think I misunderstood you (and Waldo?) in that I thought you were looking for ways ands means

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/O-5/page-5.html#h-5

linkee relevance, s'il vous plait

[olpfan1]

As I’ve said, I doubt you are high on the “list”....

Crusty old perv of a man Toews is one of the highest on my shit list

[Guest Derek L]

rather than asking us to, once again, play go-fetch... within your above linked reference, simply quote the pertinent specifics of a foreign agency surveillance of a Canadian, in Canada, done at the behest of Canadian policing, sans warrant.

linkee relevance, s'il vous plait

Why certainly:

In August of 2006, the co-operative efforts of police agencies in several countries resulted in the arrest of a person in Italy, who was involved in the production and internet distribution of child pornography. That person’s business records disclosed that approximately a year earlier, Ken Ballendine of Victoria, British Columbia, ordered over two dozen child-pornography videos (DVDs) by email. The European Union of Law Enforcement (“Europol”) passed that information on to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police National Child Exploitation Coordination Centre (“N.C.E.C.C.”) in Ottawa, Ontario. After conducting a brief investigation, which included requests for customer-account information made to Mr. Ballendine’s internet service provider (“ISP”) pursuant to the Personal Information and Protection of Electronic Documents Act, S.C. 2000, c. 5 [PIPEDA], the N.C.E.C.C. referred the matter to the Victoria Police Department.

Now shift those goal posts....

[Guest Derek L]

IOW………How do the police locate a suspect that was possibly implicated in a crime done, from anywhere on the planet, via the internet……..That’s your starting point, now who and where are you going to get a warrant for?

The same question can be applied to a “terrorist” who’s yet to commit a crime….Or bringing this back to the stated reason of Bill C-30, a person trafficking online Child Pornography….You and I both know that there is currently child porn on the web, as do the police, now how do the police obtain a warrant without any suspects?

What say you?

Still waiting Waldo....

[waldo]

Now shift those goal posts....

you're desperate... business records of an Italian indicate an email purchase by a Canadian... Europol passes info to RCMP. Again:

rather than asking us to, once again, play go-fetch... within your above linked reference, simply quote the pertinent specifics of a foreign agency surveillance of a Canadian, in Canada, done at the behest of Canadian policing, sans warrant.

and again: clearly the following link meant something to you - what?

I think I misunderstood you (and Waldo?) in that I thought you were looking for ways ands means

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/O-5/page-5.html#h-5

linkee relevance, s'il vous plait