Anonymous gives Toews 7 days ...

[Guest Derek L]

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

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

Desperate? There are links, from the link I posted with numerous other cases……Now go fetch

As for your second question, how about a little Quid pro quo first?

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?

To add, what would be demonstrated by the Italian police giving information to the RCMP?

Edited March 4, 2012 by Derek L

[waldo]

Still waiting Waldo....

keep waiting - 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, hey!

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"!

[Guest Derek L]

keep waiting - 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, hey!

Nice dodge…….so……back to the real world example, "ripped from the Headlines":

what would be demonstrated by the Italian police giving information to the RCMP?

[waldo]

Desperate? There are links, from the link I posted with numerous other cases……No go fetch

quit posturing, quit hand-waving, quit blustering

numerous other cases! Sorry, you must have me confused with one of your regular monkey-boys... I most certainly won't attempt to pour through your, "links to numerous other cases". Ya see, the way this works is the onus is on the guy making the unsubstantiated assertions - that would be... you!

[Guest Derek L]

quit posturing, quit hand-waving, quit blustering

numerous other cases! Sorry, you must have me confused with one of your regular monkey-boys... I most certainly won't attempt to pour through your, "links to numerous other cases". Ya see, the way this works is the onus is on the guy making the unsubstantiated assertions - that would be... you!

what would be demonstrated by the Italian police giving information to the RCMP?

I don’t think of you as a monkey boy Waldo:

[waldo]

Nice dodge…….so……back to the real world example, "ripped from the Headlines":

dodge! You pompous *** - you added that quote, the following quote, as an edit:

To add, what would be demonstrated by the Italian police giving information to the RCMP?

This post has been edited by Derek L: Today, 10:01 PM

what would be demonstrated? Oh snap! As i said, per your linked reference:

you're desperate... business records of an Italian indicate an email purchase by a Canadian...

[Guest Derek L]

dodge! You pompous *** - you added that quote, the following quote, as an edit:

This post has been edited by Derek L: Today, 10:01 PM

what would be demonstrated? Oh snap! As i said, per your linked reference:

You asked above:

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.

We have EUROPOL, giving surveillance information about a Canadian, from Victoria BC, to the RCMP, who didn’t have nor later apply for a warrant…….What would you call that?

[Guest Derek L]

dodge! You pompous *** - you added that quote, the following quote, as an edit:

This post has been edited by Derek L: Today, 10:01 PM

what would be demonstrated? Oh snap! As i said, per your linked reference:

Perhaps you should stick with “Environmental theory”

[waldo]

We have EUROPOL, giving surveillance information about a Canadian, from Victoria BC, to the RCMP, who didn’t have nor later apply for a warrant…….What would you call that?

as I said, you are truly desperate to... attempt... to make a point.

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.

again, per your linked reference:

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.

[waldo]

Perhaps you should stick with “Environmental theory”

it's always gratifying to see the flailing actions of someone desperate to save (anonymous) face!

[waldo]

and again, as you said, 'still waiting':

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

[Guest Derek L]

as I said, you are truly desperate to... attempt... to make a point.

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.

again, per your linked reference:

So, the Italians/EUROPOL are just helping out the RCMP as a courtesy? Being good neighbours as all right?

Would it be reasonable to assume, if the inverse was the case, the RCMP would “help out” the Italians?

[Guest Derek L]

and again, as you said, 'still waiting':

Quite clearly, I won’t play “fetch” and discuss ways and means, or in other parlance, direct methods of Governments obtaining surveillance information………Revealing some Magicians tricks can land oneself in prison……

But I’ll gladly provide open source references to (that have) prove my point.

[waldo]

So, the Italians/EUROPOL are just helping out the RCMP as a courtesy? Being good neighbours as all right?

Would it be reasonable to assume, if the inverse was the case, the RCMP would “help out” the Italians?

if that's your new, latest interpretation, if that's where you're now wanting to run with ... it still doesn't rise to the measure of your most forceful, and unsubstantiated, assertion

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"!

[waldo]

and again, as you said, 'still waiting':

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

Quite clearly, I won’t play “fetch” and discuss ways and means, or in other parlance, direct methods of Governments obtaining surveillance information………Revealing some Magicians tricks can land oneself in prison……

oh... so, you're a magician! Of course, this isn't the first link you were called on, and it's now the second time you've reached to play the 'self-incriminating, fearing imprisonment' card. Good to know that you're quite prepared to, with abandon, liberally drop links... for the sake of dropping links. Perhaps you could tee them up a bit better - you know, let us know which ones you're simply blustering over, that you're not actually prepared to discuss or attach relevance to.

[Guest Derek L]

if that's your new, latest interpretation, if that's where you're now wanting to run with ... it still doesn't rise to the measure of your most forceful, and unsubstantiated, assertion

So you dispute that various national police agencies “share” information retaining to each nations citizens, and in doing so, sidestep local jurisdictions on privacy and the obtaining of warrants?

[Guest Derek L]

oh... so, you're a magician! Of course, this isn't the first link you were called on, and it's now the second time you've reached to play the 'self-incriminating, fearing imprisonment' card. Good to know that you're quite prepared to, with abandon, liberally drop links... for the sake of dropping links. Perhaps you could tee them up a bit better - you know, let us know which ones you're simply blustering over, that you're not actually prepared to discuss or attach relevance to.

So you’ve discounted the relevance of European policing agencies sharing of information pertaining to Canadians, with the RCMP (requiring a warrant?)

[waldo]

So you dispute that various national police agencies “share” information retaining to each nations citizens, and in doing so, sidestep local jurisdictions on privacy and the obtaining of warrants?

sticking to your offered linked reference, local Italian authorities discovered the name of a Canadian within an Italian's business records... how does "sharing" that name with Canadian authorities rise to the level of your assertion? Specifically, how does that "sharing" rise to the level of Italian authority surveillance of a Canadian, in Canada?... surveillance done at the request of Canadian authorities without Canadian judicial oversight?

interesting, you seem to have backed well away from more of the specifics of your assertion, relative to Canadian policing, CSEC and the U.S. NSA. Is there a problem? And more pointedly, your assertion wasn't constrained to the levels of investigative pursuits concerning suspected terrorism... or pedophilia/child pornography. Rather, your assertion was more along the lines of a de-facto domestic surveillance practice, at large; one where Canadian policing would just bypass those pesky lil' warrant thingees and call up the NSA to do an end-around!

[Guest Derek L]

sticking to your offered linked reference, local Italian authorities discovered the name of a Canadian within an Italian's business records... how does "sharing" that name with Canadian authorities rise to the level of your assertion? Specifically, how does that "sharing" rise to the level of Italian authority surveillance of a Canadian, in Canada?... surveillance done at the request of Canadian authorities without Canadian judicial oversight?

It quite clearly proves my assertion, that foreign police agencies will and do share information about Canadians with our federal Government……..The RCMP obtained said information without a judge granting a warrant prior no? How do these actions differ from my prior points, in that Canadian law enforcement is aided by surveillance of Canadians, all well sidestepping obtaining a warrant?

interesting, you seem to have backed well away from more of the specifics of your assertion, relative to Canadian policing, CSEC and the U.S. NSA. Is there a problem? And more pointedly, your assertion wasn't constrained to the levels of investigative pursuits concerning suspected terrorism... or pedophilia/child pornography. Rather, your assertion was more along the lines of a de-facto domestic surveillance practice, at large; one where Canadian policing would just bypass those pesky lil' warrant thingees and call up the NSA to do an end-around!

Sure, I’ve gotten back on topic, in that Anonymous’ contention was over Bill C-30, which the Government is tabling under the auspices of “fighting child porn”….

As I’ve said, it doesn’t mater if it’s Child Porn, hacking/bank fraud, terrorism, spying or drugs…….Our Government can obtain information on unlawful Canadians, via another nation(s) police services, without obtaining a warrant. You’ve yet to refute my “assertion”.

[Sa'adoni]

I find it funny conservatives are saying robocall is a smear until there is evidence to the contrary while toews sleeping with a woman he later appointed judge isn't called a smear.

I'm pretty sure receiveing sexual favours to give public office is illegal and a criminal offence, and the guy is public safety minister...

Edited March 4, 2012 by Sa'adoni

[dre]

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?

They waste money, violate our rights, and cause trouble.

[waldo]

It quite clearly proves my assertion, that foreign police agencies will and do share information about Canadians with our federal Government……..The RCMP obtained said information without a judge granting a warrant prior no? How do these actions differ from my prior points, in that Canadian law enforcement is aided by surveillance of Canadians, all well sidestepping obtaining a warrant?

yes or no... in your referenced linked example, did Italian authorities undertake surveillance of a Canadian, in Canada? Yes or no.

yes or no... in your referenced linked example, did Canadian authorities request Italian authorities to provide surveillance on a Canadian, in Canada? Yes or no.

Sure, I’ve gotten back on topic, in that Anonymous’ contention was over Bill C-30, which the Government is tabling under the auspices of “fighting child porn”….

under the false auspices of "fighting child porn"... naming the bill, as such, was a blatant reach by Harper Conservatives - one intended to obfuscate it's sweeping intent/reach. Clearly, referring to the bill as the "Lawful Access" bill will allow you to avoid the Vic Toews "siding with child pornographers" pratfall

As I’ve said, it doesn’t mater if it’s Child Porn, hacking/bank fraud, terrorism, spying or drugs…….Our Government can obtain information on unlawful Canadians, via another nation(s) police services, without obtaining a warrant. You’ve yet to refute my “assertion”.

you have yet to substantiate your assertion

[Sa'adoni]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misconduct_in_public_office

[Argus]

if they ever did arrest me cause of my interest in anonymous id go on so many news channels telling them

the canadian government detained me cause im friends with anonymous on twitter and youtube

i dare them

Think anyone would care? Didn't they just arrest several dozen of those Anonymous morons last week?

[Argus]

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...???"

Why would that possibly matter? You know, the whole point of all this self-righteousness is the protection of privacy. Only the raving paranoids out there think the police would be routinely surveying everyone on the internet, with or without this bill. They have neither the resources nor the interest. So what is everyone trembling in their shoes about? The mere possibility the police will call up their internet provider and ask for their names? For what? Why would they unless you did something which suggested you were some sort of threat? And if you were seen as a threat, well hell, there are any number of ways they could be looking into you, which, yes, includes some mountie or CSIS guy calling a pal at another federal agency and asking him to have a quick look.

There is no privacy on the internet, and anyone who thinks there is is a fool. If it's not google getting into your data it's the government or hackers, or some other government. Can you say CHINA? I know you can. If Chinese hackers can gain "Full, functional control" over NASA's computer system don't you think they and other governments can crack your account at Rogers?