Anonymous gives Toews 7 days ...

[cybercoma]

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?

Nobody's disputing that, but that wasn't your initial claim either.

Now shift those goal posts....

It's not shifting goal posts when the information you provide doesn't support your argument. Your example is on a case involving a Canadian doing business outside the country via the internet and being involved in a criminal organization that spans several countries. The RCMP did not request this information on a Canadian in order to sidestep warrants, as your argument claims. In another post, you ask if the RCMP busted an online child pornography ring if they would inform the authorities in another country. Yes they would and they have. The most recent case in Ontario involved them informing authorities in the United States. They still had to obtain warrants to arrest the people and confiscate their computers.

So, your example does not support your claim that as a matter of routine, our agencies ask for information on Canadians and their domestic affairs in order to side-step warrants. You've now taken to "moving the goalposts" as you tried to claim waldo was doing here. You've watered down your argument from the routine sidestepping of Canadian law by our agencies to merely sharing information. No one's disputing the latter. For that matter, nobody has disputed the former either. We're just asking you to provide evidence for your claim, evidence that is as significant as the claim itself.

[cybercoma]

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?

I provided a link, possibly in another thread, where one analyst brought up the fact that this would be an unsecured registry that could be exploited by criminal organizations. Moreover, the bill would not catch child pornographers and other criminal organizations because they're not stupid enough to surf the internet without several layers of protections hiding their identity, possibly acting as an imposter someone else. Those that you hear of being busted are either those too stupid to hide their identities or those taking a fall for the major organizations out there. The fact that this registry would be unsecured and maintained by the ISPs, means that it would not take much for criminals to exploit its contents, monitor its contents in real time (imagine criminal organizations being able to see that you're logging into the internet via your cellphone from across the country and having your home address in the same file), or worse yet change its contents incriminating innocent people. This isn't the stuff out of scifi novels. These are things that can be done by anyone with any significant amount of computer know-how.

Add to those things the additional cost to ISPs and you push out the smaller competitors out of the market, as if Bell, Telus, and Rogers haven't been bending us over enough. What happens when they're the only players in the game? Furthermore, they'll just pass the costs of the new registry onto us and we already pay some of the worst fees per megabyte of information transferred. Canada has some of the most regressive internet and cellular pricing on the planet.

So the idea that the police are going to monitor every last Canadian like the East German Stasi (movie recommendation: The Lives of Others) may be far-fetched, but there are many other issues that need to be considered as well.

[Argus]

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.

The thing is, Waldo made up his own premise. Nobody else has ever suggested that the Canadian cops simply 'routinely' call up the NSA to ask about what some internet flake is doing or whatever. What was said was, and I quote "If the government wants to see what you've done on the internet it's going to see it". Frankly, my understanding is the cops don't routinely survey internet usage of anyone but people they suspect of using the internet to break the law, or of fairly high level criminals whose communications they want to tap into. Fairly high level criminals tend to operate in multiple jurisdictions, btw, which could fairly easily interest authorities in other jurisdictions. I'd expect, for example, that anyone suspected of being involved in espionage, or terrorism, or organized crime, or even intensive hacking would easily be monitored by electronic surveillance operations in multiple countries.

So if the RCMP or CSIS wants information on someone's internet usage then it's not difficult for them to get it, one way or another.

As far as finding out what name is assigned to a particular account or IP address, I would think that would be almost childishly simple for most hackers, let alone government operators. Or do you think none of those cops involved in high tech crime know enough about the internet, or have any friends/contacts in ISPs to find that stuff out now anyway, even without involving foreign agencies?

[Argus]

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………

25 anonymous members arrested

[Argus]

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"!

You're a dreary repetitious troll. No one ever made such claims but you. You've now 'recapped' your own interpretation of what was said something like four times just to express your triumph that nobody has provided you with hard evidence to back up your own assertion.

[cybercoma]

The thing is, Waldo made up his own premise. Nobody else has ever suggested that the Canadian cops simply 'routinely' call up the NSA to ask about what some internet flake is doing or whatever. What was said was, and I quote "If the government wants to see what you've done on the internet it's going to see it". Frankly, my understanding is the cops don't routinely survey internet usage of anyone but people they suspect of using the internet to break the law, or of fairly high level criminals whose communications they want to tap into. Fairly high level criminals tend to operate in multiple jurisdictions, btw, which could fairly easily interest authorities in other jurisdictions. I'd expect, for example, that anyone suspected of being involved in espionage, or terrorism, or organized crime, or even intensive hacking would easily be monitored by electronic surveillance operations in multiple countries.

So if the RCMP or CSIS wants information on someone's internet usage then it's not difficult for them to get it, one way or another.

As far as finding out what name is assigned to a particular account or IP address, I would think that would be almost childishly simple for most hackers, let alone government operators. Or do you think none of those cops involved in high tech crime know enough about the internet, or have any friends/contacts in ISPs to find that stuff out now anyway, even without involving foreign agencies?

That's the thing. The government, police, and ISPs have already admitted that the ISPs give up customer information most of the time without a warrant anyway. This is what makes me wonder why the bill is necessary. What exactly is it that they are trying to pass with this legislation if they already have the powers they're allegedly seeking?

And if that premise was indeed waldo's interpretation and not Derek's argument, then I apologize to Derek L.

Edited March 4, 2012 by cybercoma

[Argus]

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

Crusty old perv? Now I'm not a particular fan of Toews, but I find your continued indignation and shock that a heterosexual man would find some interest in a heterosexual woman to be rather bizarre. You do realize that the majority of heterosexual men find young women to be attractive, right?

[Argus]

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?[

Because such things go in the paper all the time.

The government itself admits it has agreements with other nation's surveillance agencies, that they cooperate. But in fact, the work of these organizations is highly secret. Even their budgets are often clouded in secrecy. If you read the Wikipedia entry you'll note that the European Parliament, which looked into it, evidently got no cooperation from the governments involved because they could only surmise the name!

In a report published in 2001, the European Parliament stated that the term ECHELON is used in a number of contexts, but that the evidence presented indicates that it was the name for a signals intelligence collection system.

ECHELON

[Argus]

That's the thing. The government, police, and ISPs have already admitted that the ISPs give up customer information most of the time without a warrant anyway. This is what makes me wonder why the bill is necessary. What exactly is it that they are trying to pass with this legislation if they already have the powers they're allegedly seeking?

Governments like things to be set in stone, especially with regard to policies and procedures. Relying on the cooperation of an ISP is not something they want to do, nor do police agencies want to rely on the contacts their individual investigators may or may not possess. Bureaucracy does not like a haphazard way of operating.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

punked, you completely missed my point! You really should read the thread before you make such statements!

Who cares if they reveal their info? Vic is a politician! Bury him in his own dirt, I say!

The issue is that Anonymous is using it as blackmail to get the government to withdraw the Bill and have Vic resign!

Plus a few more demands of the same sort. This is what disgusts me! Who appointed Anonymous as our head of government? When do I get to vote for any of them?

What happens when the next issue is something that perhaps some of today's supporters don't agree with at that time?

I've made my position clear in earlier posts. Some seem to support Anonymous as a sort of benevolent dictator that as far as Vic and his crime Bill are concerned is on their side so they see nothing wrong with what they are doing.

As I said, if the shoe is on the other foot with the next issue it would be interesting to see how today's supporters handle it!

Talk about your situational ethics! Or rather, a total lack of ethics, replaced by blind partisanship!

Again, if they want to hang Vic I might buy the rope! It's just as a libertarian when some vigilante political group wants to use blackmail for their own political ends I truly start to fear for my country!

Anonymous should just reveal everything they have on Vic! Or any other politician, for that matter. I would hope they would not be partisan about it but after this I won't hold my breath.

If you were running for office I would vote for you dude. Damn well said.!

[Guest Derek L]

Nobody's disputing that, but that wasn't your initial claim either.

It's not shifting goal posts when the information you provide doesn't support your argument. Your example is on a case involving a Canadian doing business outside the country via the internet and being involved in a criminal organization that spans several countries. The RCMP did not request this information on a Canadian in order to sidestep warrants, as your argument claims. In another post, you ask if the RCMP busted an online child pornography ring if they would inform the authorities in another country. Yes they would and they have. The most recent case in Ontario involved them informing authorities in the United States. They still had to obtain warrants to arrest the people and confiscate their computers.

So, your example does not support your claim that as a matter of routine, our agencies ask for information on Canadians and their domestic affairs in order to side-step warrants. You've now taken to "moving the goalposts" as you tried to claim waldo was doing here. You've watered down your argument from the routine sidestepping of Canadian law by our agencies to merely sharing information. No one's disputing the latter. For that matter, nobody has disputed the former either. We're just asking you to provide evidence for your claim, evidence that is as significant as the claim itself.

My original claim?

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=20413&st=105

26 February 2012 - 01:35 PM

My reference to CSEC though is a demonstration to those unaware that past Governments (since the 70s) have already the ability to spy on their respective populations and that Bill C-30 will only make the process legal for our Government to spy on us directly.

Clearly, aside from the principle and the associated costs, nothing will change in the day-to-day lives of the majority of Canadians. There won’t be a sudden spike of sightings of black helicopters on “whisper mode” or visits to the citizenry by the door kickers from Dwyer Hill.

26 February 2012 - 03:39 PM

Not at all, that would clearly be illegal. That said, the RCMP and/or CSIS can (and do) make a request to the American NSA for surveillance of Canadians……Just as the FBI/Home Land Security can expect the same favour from CSEC. After said electronic surveillance request is made, the RCMP/FBI can use said information to “steer them in the right direction” of obtaining conventional surveillance, through legal means, to obtain a warrant and/or charges brought against the intended target.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=20413&st=120

26 February 2012 - 04:30 PM

My point exactly, all that C-30 will do is allow further Canadian resources to be directly used on Canadians……Opposition to C-30 is clearly a wasted effort……If the RCMP/CSIS wants transcripts of Derek L or Waldo’s cellphone conversations, internet usage etc without obtaining a warrant, they already have them indirectly.

All C-30 will do is “streamline” the process.

It doesn’t mater…….If the Government suspects you or I are terrorists, ChiCom spies, downloading child porn or illegally pirating Lady Gaga music they already have the “tools” to check…….C-30, as mention above, will just skip several steps in the process……..No more queuing the Americans or British for domestic information, followed by going through the motions of obtaining a warrant so as to inable the use of said information.

[waldo]

nice! Buddies, you see, when your attempts are so convoluted to begin with, you invariably trip up your own walk-back attempts claiming... "it's all my premise"!

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.

Why certainly:

of course, your "why certainly" offering failed the smell test, with you quite clearly steering far and away from my subsequent challenge to you; specifically:

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.

let's recap: clearly, there are very precise oversight controls within Canada - very precise. You've also gone to great lengths to emphasize the 'big brother' capabilities Canadian authorities have for domestic surveillance purposes... and yet... in your attempts to play amateur spook, you posit that Canadian authorities simply bypass Canadian oversight and their own domestic surveillance capabilities, to call up their NSA buddies... for a domestic surveillance end-around!

[Guest Derek L]

nice! Buddies, you see, when your attempts are so convoluted to begin with, you invariably trip up your own walk-back attempts claiming... "it's all my premise"!

of course, your "why certainly" offering failed the smell test, with you quite clearly steering far and away from my subsequent challenge to you; specifically:

let's recap: clearly, there are very precise oversight controls within Canada - very precise. You've also gone to great lengths to emphasize the 'big brother' capabilities Canadian authorities have for domestic surveillance purposes... and yet... in your attempts to play amateur spook, you posit that Canadian authorities simply bypass Canadian oversight and their own domestic surveillance capabilities, to call up their NSA buddies... for a domestic surveillance end-around!

And you’re suggesting that our domestic law enforcement agencies don‘t, without a warrant nor judicial oversight, make use of foreign surveillance information regarding Canadians…….This is clearly false as demonstrated with the above example………..

And are you suggesting that foreign intelligence agencies don’t perform surveillance on Canadians? And information on any unlawful acts done by said Canadians is not shared with our Government? Again this has proven false.

Now why do these foreign agencies “share” information with the Canadian Government? What’s in it for them?

[waldo]

And are you suggesting that foreign intelligence agencies don’t perform surveillance on Canadians?

quit dancing! Simply address the following:

let's recap: clearly, there are very precise oversight controls within Canada - very precise. You've also gone to great lengths to emphasize the 'big brother' capabilities Canadian authorities have for domestic surveillance purposes... and yet... in your attempts to play amateur spook,

you posit that Canadian authorities simply bypass Canadian oversight and their own domestic surveillance capabilities, to call up their NSA buddies... for a domestic surveillance end-around!

[Guest Derek L]

quit dancing! Simply address the following:

Not much of a discussion when only one side is doing the discussing

A little quid pro quo first I think is in order:

Now why do these foreign agencies “share” information with the Canadian Government? What’s in it for them?

[Guest Derek L]

Let’s recap on what has been determined in our discussion with established facts

- The Canadian Government can, without a warrant, perform surveillance on Canadians via the Department of National Defence

- Foreign police and intelligence agencies “share” information relating to Canadians, with the RCMP and other government agencies, prior to said agencies obtaining a warrant from a Canadian judge

-Canada is a signatory of a international agreement with the Governments of the USA, UK, Australia and New Zealand, that enables each nations police and intelligence agencies to share electronic intelligence all garnered without a Canadian warrant

-Such “shared” information has allowed Canadian policing agencies to obtain a warrant, from a Canadian Judge, that has allowed said agencies the ability to search and seize a Canadian’s personal electronic information.

[waldo]

Let’s recap

no need, just address the following:

Simply address the following:

let's recap: clearly, there are very precise oversight controls within Canada - very precise. You've also gone to great lengths to emphasize the 'big brother' capabilities Canadian authorities have for domestic surveillance purposes... and yet... in your attempts to play amateur spook,

you posit that Canadian authorities simply bypass Canadian oversight and their own domestic surveillance capabilities, to call up their NSA buddies... for a domestic surveillance end-around!

[Guest Derek L]

no need, just address the following:

quid pro quo

Now why do these foreign agencies “share” information with the Canadian Government? What’s in it for them?

[waldo]

quid pro quo

irrelevant to this discussion since you won't speak to the actual particulars of your posited end-around "share", the one you keep avoiding... again:

just address the following:

Simply address the following:

let's recap: clearly, there are very precise oversight controls within Canada - very precise. You've also gone to great lengths to emphasize the 'big brother' capabilities Canadian authorities have for domestic surveillance purposes... and yet... in your attempts to play amateur spook,

you posit that Canadian authorities simply bypass Canadian oversight and their own domestic surveillance capabilities, to call up their NSA buddies... for a domestic surveillance end-around!

[Guest Derek L]

irrelevant to this discussion since you won't speak to the actual particulars of your posited end-around "share", the one you keep avoiding... again:

Who decides it irrelevant? You?

Once more for good luck:

Now why do these foreign agencies “share” information with the Canadian Government? What’s in it for them?

[waldo]

why would the following be so difficult for you to respond to? It's either the essence of my, as you/Argus implied, "false premise"... or... it's the essence of your assertion; the one you haven't and, apparently, can't substantiate. Just address the following - is there a problem?

irrelevant to this discussion since you won't speak to the actual particulars of your posited end-around "share", the one you keep avoiding... again:

just address the following:

Simply address the following:

let's recap: clearly, there are very precise oversight controls within Canada - very precise. You've also gone to great lengths to emphasize the 'big brother' capabilities Canadian authorities have for domestic surveillance purposes... and yet... in your attempts to play amateur spook,

you posit that Canadian authorities simply bypass Canadian oversight and their own domestic surveillance capabilities, to call up their NSA buddies... for a domestic surveillance end-around!

[Guest Derek L]

why would the following be so difficult for you to respond to? It's either the essence of my, as you/Argus implied, "false premise"... or... it's the essence of your assertion; the one you haven't and, apparently, can't substantiate. Just address the following - is there a problem?

So that's a no?

Now why do these foreign agencies “share” information with the Canadian Government? What’s in it for them?

[waldo]

So that's a no?

I qualified an answer to your question. One can't speak to the nature of your stated "share" until you qualify the surrounding attachments. What's the point of me answering the question when I'll simply defer to my own interpretation of those surrounding attachments. It's simply a way for you to slither away and attempt to avoid answering what is most glaringly obvious. You won't... you can't... address the following. Why is that? Is there a problem?

irrelevant to this discussion since you won't speak to the actual particulars of your posited end-around "share", the one you keep avoiding... again:

just address the following:

Simply address the following:

let's recap: clearly, there are very precise oversight controls within Canada - very precise. You've also gone to great lengths to emphasize the 'big brother' capabilities Canadian authorities have for domestic surveillance purposes... and yet... in your attempts to play amateur spook,

you posit that Canadian authorities simply bypass Canadian oversight and their own domestic surveillance capabilities, to call up their NSA buddies... for a domestic surveillance end-around!

[Guest Derek L]

I qualified an answer to your question. One can't speak to the nature of your stated "share" until you qualify the surrounding attachments. What's the point of me answering the question when I'll simply defer to my own interpretation of those surrounding attachments. It's simply a way for you to slither away and attempt to avoid answering what is most glaringly obvious. You won't... you can't... address the following. Why is that? Is there a problem?

What was the qualification again of said answer?

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

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.

These bolded sections I understand to be your response………The underlined passage your qualification?

You expect……….Would that be fair to say that you assume Italian police “just handed over information to the RCMP”?

What would you assume the Italians/EUROPOL intent was?

Would you expect/assume Canadian police/intelligence agencies to reciprocate? the “favour”?

[waldo]

I qualified an answer to your question. One can't speak to the nature of your stated "share" until you qualify the surrounding attachments. What's the point of me answering the question when I'll simply defer to my own interpretation of those surrounding attachments. It's simply a way for you to slither away and attempt to avoid answering what is most glaringly obvious. You won't... you can't... address the following. Why is that? Is there a problem?

What was the qualification again of said answer?

Yeesh! Are you purposely being obtuse? How is it relevant for you to revert back to the particulars of your failed Italian example? Oh, that's right, it's not - it's simply your way to continue to avoid addressing the following: Again, note the bold (red) colour highlighting of the qualification. Simply address it... quit your song & dance charade!

irrelevant to this discussion since you won't speak to the actual particulars of your posited end-around "share", the one you keep avoiding

... again:

just address the following:

Simply address the following:

let's recap: clearly, there are very precise oversight controls within Canada - very precise. You've also gone to great lengths to emphasize the 'big brother' capabilities Canadian authorities have for domestic surveillance purposes... and yet... in your attempts to play amateur spook,

you posit that Canadian authorities simply bypass Canadian oversight and their own domestic surveillance capabilities, to call up their NSA buddies... for a domestic surveillance end-around!