Anonymous gives Toews 7 days ...

[waldo]

clarification... I'm just so curious why you've spun your magic away from the NSA and toward Europol. Is there a problem?

- I don't follow your just offered qualification/distinction between NSA versus Europol. As I said, you initially emphasized the NSA and only shifted to a Europol focus in relatively recent thread posts. Does your just stated "YES" apply in regards to both the U.S. NSA & Europol?

[waldo]

not a refutation, per se; however, as I state, I am puzzled by your source and how it appears to contradict your acknowledged "YES". Perhaps, in your heightened intellectual honesty and truth seeking, you could elaborate, yes?

Do you care to refute the EUROPOL/Government of Canada document?

- I am puzzled by your "YES" answer and the following quoted references from your linked Europol focused document; references that, to me, speak to a contradiction in your interpretation and "YES" answer. How do the following quoted bold-highlighted phrases align with your assertion that, "Canadian authorities can... and regularly do... bypass Canadian oversight and domestic surveillance capabilities, preferring instead to make requests of foreign agencies (e.g., NSA/Europol), to provide monitoring and surveillance on Canadians, within Canada"? Notwithstanding, of course, I don't read anything in your linked document that addresses the latter part of your assertion that Europol can (and regularly does) perform surveillance on Canadians, within Canada.

=> 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]

not a refutation, per se; however, as I state, I am puzzled by your source and how it appears to contradict your acknowledged "YES". Perhaps, in your heightened intellectual honesty and truth seeking, you could elaborate, yes?

[/indent]

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?

So you don’t dispute that you “spun” my quotes through the Waldo washer?

Yes or No?

[waldo]

So you don’t dispute that you “spun” my quotes through the Waldo washer?

nice! Buddy, stand up for your acknowledgements, your affirmations! I couldn't have been any more precise in each and every attempt to get you to... finally... offer a, 'yes or no'. Explicit wording was presented to you, over and over again. No washing - none needed!

[Guest Derek L]

clarification... I'm just so curious why you've spun your magic away from the NSA and toward Europol. Is there a problem?

I’ve posted my response above………….the NSA is a sole organization, where as EUROPOL draws upon numerous national organizations.

[Guest Derek L]

nice! Buddy, stand up for your acknowledgements, your affirmations! I couldn't have been any more precise in each and every attempt to get you to... finally... offer a, 'yes or no'. Explicit wording was presented to you, over and over again. No washing - none needed!

Sure, but the same can be said, though still unsuccessful, of my effort to have you offer more than a trollish response to various questions through this topic………..And surely your infliction with megalomania, that allows you to deem relevance in a discussion, should be noted.

[waldo]

I’ve posted my response above………….the NSA is a sole organization, where as EUROPOL draws upon numerous national organizations.

a non answer. The requests you speak of, the requests outside of Canadian oversight, the requests made by Canadian authorities of foreign agencies to provide monitoring and surveillance on Canadians, within Canada... are those requests directed to both the NSA as well as to Europol? To both?

[Guest Derek L]

a non answer. The requests you speak of, the requests outside of Canadian oversight, the requests made by Canadian authorities of foreign agencies to provide monitoring and surveillance on Canadians, within Canada... are those requests directed to both the NSA as well as to Europol? To both?

I would expect it would differ on a case by case basis as it would depend on which organization(s) inherent abilities would best fit said request.

Edited March 5, 2012 by Derek L

[waldo]

ya see, when all you do is throw down quotes without offering comment, replying to 'whatever you were trying to say with those quotes', brings out the essence of your posting self. Empty nothingness!

[Guest Derek L]

ya see, when all you do is throw down quotes without offering comment, replying to 'whatever you were trying to say with those quotes', brings out the essence of your posting self. Empty nothingness!

I agree, clearly having the ability to edit other peoples words, and intent, not to mention them there fancy multicoloured indented quotes is a sure sign of intellect……your parents must be proud.

[waldo]

re: your linked Europol document - 2 key article extracts were provided to you; document article extracts that highlighted Canadian authorities were those responsible under Canadian law... document article extracts that emphasized actions by Canadian authorities must be consistent with the mandates and subject to the applicable laws and legal framework governing Canadian authorities. Under the proviso of your own linked reference document:

=> 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

=>

what Canadian law(s)

support your assertion to allow the actions of Canadian authorities, "those authorities responsible under Canadian law, consistent with the mandates and subject to the applicable laws and legal framework governing Canadian authorities"?

=>

what Canadian law(s)

support your assertion, the assertion you affirmed with a "YES"; this assertion, the 'Derek L' assertion:

The Derek L affirmed assertion

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

what Canadian law(s)?

[Guest Derek L]

re: your linked Europol document - 2 key article extracts were provided to you; document article extracts that highlighted Canadian authorities were those responsible under Canadian law... document article extracts that emphasized actions by Canadian authorities must be consistent with the mandates and subject to the applicable laws and legal framework governing Canadian authorities. Under the proviso of your own linked reference document:

=>

what Canadian law(s)

support your assertion to allow the actions of Canadian authorities, "those authorities responsible under Canadian law, consistent with the mandates and subject to the applicable laws and legal framework governing Canadian authorities"?

=>

what Canadian law(s)

support your assertion, the assertion you affirmed with a "YES"; this assertion, the 'Derek L' assertion:

what Canadian law(s)?

Are you suggesting the Canadian Government entered into an illegal agreement with EUROPOL?

Going back to the previous case involving EUROPOL and the transfer of information to the RCMP, coupled with the Government of Canada/EUROPOL agreement linked to above, this clearly demonstrates that both parties are able to obtain and transfer information regarding each others citizens………Your reference to local jurisdictions from the text, coupled with the case example, coupled with my previous quote which you edited, clearly outline how said local authorities will legally “make use” of said information within their own jurisdictions.

As I’ve said, as in the case example, the RCMP doesn’t require a warrant to be in possession of foreign obtained surveillance information pertaining to Canadians, nor do they require a warrant to transfer said information to a local jurisdiction (In this case Victoria PD). This does not preclude the fact that for said information to not be deemed inadmissible in court, law enforcement does not require a local investigation and warrant for any personal information obtained in said investigation.

This was clearly outlined in my previous post that you “edited”:

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

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.

[Boges]

So what did Anonymous end up doing?

[waldo]

This was clearly outlined in my previous post that you “edited”:

nothing was edited - your words speak for themselves, speak volumes on your own back-pedaling.

what Canadian law(s) support your assertion? It's a most simple question. Just answer it.

you can attempt to deflect this to an 'after-the-fact' pursuit of a warrant, after your presumed information has been gathered by your presumed foreign agency, at the behest of Canadian authorities, sans warrant. You can attempt that, but it's so blatantly transparent!

per your assertion, per your self-affirmed assertion, what Canadian law(s) allow Canadian authorities to request foreign agencies provide surveillance on Canadians within Canada? What Canadian law(s)? And more pointedly, as has been explicitly stated now several times in this thread, since the essence of this discussion reflects upon domestic surveillance of Canadians (not related to terrorism, not related to pedophilia/child pornography), what types of "Canadian citizen actions" would align with your assertion?

per your assertion, what Canadian law(s) and what types of Canadian citizen actions would spur Canadian authorities to circumvent Canadian oversight and Canadian surveillance capabilities, to instead pursue an end-around request to foreign agencies to provide surveillance on Canadians, within Canada?

[Guest Derek L]

nothing was edited - your words speak for themselves, speak volumes on your own back-pedaling.

what Canadian law(s) support your assertion? It's a most simple question. Just answer it.

you can attempt to deflect this to an 'after-the-fact' pursuit of a warrant, after your presumed information has been gathered by your presumed foreign agency, at the behest of Canadian authorities, sans warrant. You can attempt that, but it's so blatantly transparent!

per your assertion, per your self-affirmed assertion, what Canadian law(s) allow Canadian authorities to request foreign agencies provide surveillance on Canadians within Canada? What Canadian law(s)? And more pointedly, as has been explicitly stated now several times in this thread, since the essence of this discussion reflects upon domestic surveillance of Canadians (not related to terrorism, not related to pedophilia/child pornography), what types of "Canadian citizen actions" would align with your assertion?

per your assertion, what Canadian law(s) and what types of Canadian citizen actions would spur Canadian authorities to circumvent Canadian oversight and Canadian surveillance capabilities, to instead pursue an end-around request to foreign agencies to provide surveillance on Canadians, within Canada?

Nothing edited?

Let's have another look:

Your quote:

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

My quote:

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.

As I've said, reads alot different

[waldo]

As I've said, reads alot different

no, no it doesn't. If it did, why would you have provided your affirmations? Just what did you provide the "Why certainly" to? Just what did you provide the "YES" to? Oh, that's right... this:

in your own words... in your own acknowledgements! Why deny what you've written?

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

:

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 and domestic surveillance capabilities, preferring instead to make requests of foreign agencies (e.g., NSA/Europol), to provide monitoring and surveillance on Canadians, within Canada.

Is the preceding correct -

yes or no?

Clearly a yes

based on the above open source evidence.

Do you care to refute the EUROPOL/Government of Canada document?

wow! Finally...

a 'YES'!

there is no need for you to deny your own words, your own writing - do the right thing and reply to the following:

"

per your assertion, what Canadian law(s) and what types of Canadian citizen actions would spur Canadian authorities to circumvent Canadian oversight and Canadian surveillance capabilities, to instead pursue an end-around request to foreign agencies to provide surveillance on Canadians, within Canada?

"

what Canadian law(s) support your assertion? It's a most simple question. Just answer it.

you can attempt to deflect this to an '

after-the-fact

' pursuit of a warrant,

after

your presumed information has been gathered by your presumed foreign agency, at the behest of Canadian authorities, sans warrant. You can attempt that, but it's so blatantly transparent!

per your assertion, per your self-affirmed assertion, what Canadian law(s) allow Canadian authorities to request foreign agencies provide surveillance on Canadians within Canada? What Canadian law(s)? And more pointedly, as has been explicitly stated now several times in this thread, since the essence of this discussion reflects upon domestic surveillance of Canadians (not related to terrorism, not related to pedophilia/child pornography), what types of "Canadian citizen actions" would align with your assertion?

per your assertion,

what Canadian law(s) and what types of Canadian citizen actions

would spur Canadian authorities to circumvent Canadian oversight and Canadian surveillance capabilities, to instead pursue an end-around request to foreign agencies to provide surveillance on Canadians, within Canada?

[Guest Derek L]

no, no it doesn't. If it did, why would you have provided your affirmations? Just what did you provide the "Why certainly" to? Just what did you provide the "YES" to? Oh, that's right... this:

wow! Finally...

a 'YES'!

[/size]

there is no need for you to deny your own words, your own writing - do the right thing and reply to the following:

"

per your assertion, what Canadian law(s) and what types of Canadian citizen actions would spur Canadian authorities to circumvent Canadian oversight and Canadian surveillance capabilities, to instead pursue an end-around request to foreign agencies to provide surveillance on Canadians, within Canada?

"

Of course it doesn’t read different to the editor………admit it Waldo, you’re a fraud.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/fraud

fraud (frôd)

n.

1. A deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain.

2. A piece of trickery; a trick.

3.

a. One that defrauds; a cheat.

b. One who assumes a false pose; an impostor.

My quote:

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.

Waldo's spin of said quote:

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

Now do the right thing Waldo, and admit that you doctor my posts in such a way to change the meaning.

[waldo]

Now do the right thing Waldo, and admit that you doctor my posts in such a way to change the meaning.

you definitively affirmed the most explicit statements I asked you to respond to. When you're painted into a corner, shouting fraud and claiming edit/manipulation of your posts is a tawdry attempt to deflect from your own affirmed assertion. Stand on it, be proud of it. Now, get back to responding to the crux, the following:

"

per your assertion, what Canadian law(s) and what types of Canadian citizen actions would spur Canadian authorities to circumvent Canadian oversight and Canadian surveillance capabilities, to instead pursue an end-around request to foreign agencies to provide surveillance on Canadians, within Canada?

"

there is no need for you to deny your own words, your own writing - do the right thing and reply to the following:

"

per your assertion, what Canadian law(s) and what types of Canadian citizen actions would spur Canadian authorities to circumvent Canadian oversight and Canadian surveillance capabilities, to instead pursue an end-around request to foreign agencies to provide surveillance on Canadians, within Canada?

"

what Canadian law(s) support your assertion? It's a most simple question. Just answer it.

you can attempt to deflect this to an '

after-the-fact

' pursuit of a warrant,

after

your presumed information has been gathered by your presumed foreign agency, at the behest of Canadian authorities, sans warrant. You can attempt that, but it's so blatantly transparent!

per your assertion, per your self-affirmed assertion, what Canadian law(s) allow Canadian authorities to request foreign agencies provide surveillance on Canadians within Canada? What Canadian law(s)? And more pointedly, as has been explicitly stated now several times in this thread, since the essence of this discussion reflects upon domestic surveillance of Canadians (not related to terrorism, not related to pedophilia/child pornography), what types of "Canadian citizen actions" would align with your assertion?

per your assertion,

what Canadian law(s) and what types of Canadian citizen actions

would spur Canadian authorities to circumvent Canadian oversight and Canadian surveillance capabilities, to instead pursue an end-around request to foreign agencies to provide surveillance on Canadians, within Canada?

[Guest Derek L]

you definitively affirmed the most explicit statements I asked you to respond to. When you're painted into a corner, shouting fraud and claiming edit/manipulation of your posts is a tawdry attempt to deflect from your own affirmed assertion. Stand on it, be proud of it. Now, get back to responding to the crux, the following:

"

per your assertion, what Canadian law(s) and what types of Canadian citizen actions would spur Canadian authorities to circumvent Canadian oversight and Canadian surveillance capabilities, to instead pursue an end-around request to foreign agencies to provide surveillance on Canadians, within Canada?

"

I’ve had not a problem answering your questions during this discussion and will continue to do so in an adult manner, once you’ve admitted to doctoring the meaning of my posts and apologise.

What say you Waldo, shall we continue?

[waldo]

I’ve had not a problem answering your questions during this discussion and will continue to do so in an adult manner, once you’ve admitted to doctoring the meaning of my posts and apologise.

What say you Waldo, shall we continue?

I have done no such thing... you clearly responded in the affirmative to the most explicitly declared statements - these:

Just what did you provide the "Why certainly" to? Just what did you provide the "YES" to? Oh, that's right... this:

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

:

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 and domestic surveillance capabilities, preferring instead to make requests of foreign agencies (e.g., NSA/Europol), to provide monitoring and surveillance on Canadians, within Canada.

Is the preceding correct -

yes or no?

Clearly a yes

based on the above open source evidence.

as I said, your shouting fraud and edit/manipulation is most telling, most transparent. Why not simply provide the Canadian law(s), and related Canadian citizen actions, to support your assertion - is there a problem?

you definitively affirmed the most explicit statements I asked you to respond to. When you're painted into a corner, shouting fraud and claiming edit/manipulation of your posts is a tawdry attempt to deflect from your own affirmed assertion. Stand on it, be proud of it. Now, get back to responding to the crux, the following:

"

per your assertion, what Canadian law(s) and what types of Canadian citizen actions would spur Canadian authorities to circumvent Canadian oversight and Canadian surveillance capabilities, to instead pursue an end-around request to foreign agencies to provide surveillance on Canadians, within Canada?

"

[cybercoma]

The argument is getting tired.

[Guest Derek L]

I have done no such thing... you clearly responded in the affirmative to the most explicitly declared statements - these:

as I said, your shouting fraud and edit/manipulation is most telling, most transparent. Why not simply provide the Canadian law(s), and related Canadian citizen actions, to support your assertion - is there a problem?

Privacy Act

Collection, Retention And Disposal of Personal Information

Personal information to be collected directly

5. (1) A government institution shall, wherever possible, collect personal information that is intended to be used for an administrative purpose directly from the individual to whom it relates except where the individual authorizes otherwise or where personal information may be disclosed to the institution under subsection 8(2).

Individual to be informed of purpose

(2) A government institution shall inform any individual from whom the institution collects personal information about the individual of the purpose for which the information is being collected.

Exception

(3) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply where compliance there with might

(a) result in the collection of inaccurate information; or

(defeat the purpose or prejudice the use for which information is collected.

Where personal information may be disclosed

(2) Subject to any other Act of Parliament, personal information under the control of a government institution may be disclosed

(d) to the Attorney General of Canada for use in legal proceedings involving the Crown in right of Canada or the Government of Canada;

(e) to an investigative body specified in the regulations, on the written request of the body, for the purpose of enforcing any law of Canada or a province or carrying out a lawful investigation, if the request specifies the purpose and describes the information to be disclosed;

(f) under an agreement or arrangement between the Government of Canada or an institution thereof and the government of a province, the government of a foreign state, an international organization of states or an international organization established by the governments of states, or any institution of any such government or organization, for the purpose of administering or enforcing any law or carrying out a lawful investigation;

As for the potential actions that a Canadian citizen could do…….Clearly terrorism and espionage would be key, followed by any other crime that can transcend national boundaries with ease i.e. “Cyber crime” or drug smuggling

Edited March 6, 2012 by Derek L

[waldo]

Privacy Act

Privacy act? In regards to regular and exception handling of an individuals personal information... information that has already been collected?

in regards to the Privacy Act, in regards to the disclosure of personal information, in regards to where personal information may be disclosed, let me wade through the Privacy Act extract references you provided to highlight a key pointer for you; notwithstanding you provided a dated extract:

the current

Privacy Act - Section 8.2.f

: under an agreement or arrangement between the Government of Canada or an institution thereof and the government of a province, the council of the Westbank First Nation, the council of a participating First Nation — as defined in subsection 2(1) of the First Nations Jurisdiction over Education in British Columbia Act —, the government of a foreign state, an international organization of states or an international organization established by the governments of states, or any institution of any such government or organization,

for the purpose of administering or enforcing any law or carrying out a lawful investigation

I'm quite mystified how you would presume to rely upon the Privacy Act as the vehicle to support your assertion. In any case, it was a worthwhile diversion if only to reinforce the legal foundation behind the actual disclosure of collected information... that in regards to those stated agreements/arrangements, the actual disclosure of any collected personal information must be, "for the purpose of administering or enforcing any law or carrying out a lawful investigation."

allow me to refocus you:

- the essence of your assertion assumes upon requests made to foreign agencies, requests that are made without oversight (i.e., without judicial authorization), for the purpose of having those foreign agencies perform surveillance on personnel within Canada. Notwithstanding this blatant end-around premise, intended to circumvent Canadian oversight, you somewhat muddled the blatant premise by suggesting information gathered would allow Canadian authorities, in an after-the-fact pursuit to, in turn, subsequently secure the required judicial oversight.

- I highlighted two key article extracts from your linked Europol document reference - two key article extracts that highlighted Canadian authorities were those responsible under Canadian law... document article extracts that emphasized actions by Canadian authorities must be consistent with the mandates and subject to the applicable laws and legal framework governing Canadian authorities.

- your assertion stemmed from your initial suggestion that Bill C-30 was unnecessary as, effectively, Canadian authorities were already capable of and were performing the same degree/levels of domestic surveillance that Bill C-30 was intending. That initial suggestion shifted somewhat into you suggesting that Bill C-30 was simply Harper Conservative 'streamlining'. Your assertion truly came forward when discussion began to evolve to include CSEC, the U.S. NSA and relations between each, most particularly with you advising that Canadian authorities, outside the bounds of judicial oversight, can/do make requests of the U.S. NSA to perform domestic surveillance on individuals within Canada. Again, your assertion,

the one you affirmed

, is, once again:

In regards domestic surveillance within Canada, Canadian authorities can... and regularly do... bypass Canadian oversight 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.

once again, per your assertion:

=> what Canadian law(s) and what types of Canadian citizen actions would spur Canadian authorities to circumvent Canadian oversight and Canadian surveillance capabilities, to instead pursue an end-around request to foreign agencies to provide surveillance on individuals, within Canada?

[Tilter]

Here's the transcript, I'd be interested in how old the mistress babysitter was when he was screwing her

Hello Mr. Toews. We are Anonymous. Over the past several days, we have been watching you.

You have continued to deceive the Canadian people by claiming that the information made accessible to police by Bill c-30 is no greater than that which can be found in a phonebook. Tell us Mr. Toews, in what phonebook can you find an individual's internet browsing history? Their private emails? Their financial information? Their credit card number? And all their personal contacts?

How convenient it is that you fail to mention Bill C-30 would not only allow police access to this information without a warrant, but would make it illegal for internet service providers to inform their customers that their information has been accessed by the RCMP or CSIS.

You have continued to waste the Canadian public's time and money by demanding a parliamentary investigation into the legal release of public records. We are not shocked in the slightest, as this is consistent with your pattern of ignoring true wrongdoings in favour of feigning moral outrage.

What is shocking-- not to mention extremely disturbing-- is that you have claimed you are surprised by the contents of Bill C-30, a bill that you yourself tabled. This is a pathetically transparent attempt to feign ignorance in the face of a massive public backlash. However, let us imagine for a moment that you are telling the truth. Let us imagine that you, an elected official in the House of Commons, either did not take the time or are simply too dimwitted to understand a piece of legislation that you yourself championed. A piece of legislation that legalizes governmental spying on Canadian citizens, and effectively ends the right to privacy in this country.

This alone is grounds for you to tender your immediate resignation. The fact that you spun this catastrophic failure to perform your duties as an argument in your own defense would be laughable were the consequences not so dire.

Of course, we all know this is simply another addition to your ever-growing web of lies. And this isn't the first time you have found yourself tangled up in your own web of deceit, is it, Mr. Toews?

The Canadian public is now well aware that you carried on multiple affairs during your 30-year marriage to your first wife, all the while selling yourself as a devout Christian who championed so-called traditional family values.

Quote: "Marriage is a uniquely heterosexual institution, that indeed is a sacrament. Marriage is one of the cornerstones upon which our society has been built."

And yet, even after demonstrating you do not believe a single word of that statement, you continue to imply that your dedication to your personal family relationships makes you a suitable candidate for political office.

Anonymous has gained access to a letter you recently sent to your constituents. In it, you quote Yeats:

"All this life can give us is a child's laughter; a woman's kiss."

Do you think the Canadian people are stupid, Mr. Toews? Do you honestly think that quoting saccharine poetry to us is going to convince us you are a God-fearing family man? Especially now that you are living in a common-law relationship with your former mistress, the very sort of relationship you turned your nose up at when it suited your political interests.

Mr. Toews, you have used the illusion of a traditional family life, faith, and moral values as tools in your desperate bid for power, all the while trampling on the rights of others. You have used your own family as pawns in the creation of this illusion. Once again, you have inserted your spouse and children into this debate as rhetorical devices.

We warned you that you would not be allowed any secrets if you did not allow the Canadian public any secrets of their own.

Therefore, we are naming the woman you referenced in this letter to your constituents.

The woman Vic Toews is cohabitating with, whom he impregnated in an affair that took place during his first marriage, is Stacey Meek. She is employed in an administrative capacity by Senator Terry Stratton. She runs a public relations firm based in Toronto. She previously worked for Conservative MP Joy Smith, and is currently listed as a constituency assistant for Conservative MP Joyce Bateman. In the past, she was employed by Issues Ink, a consulting and publishing company based in Winnipeg.

Of course, we're sure you had absolutely nothing to do with Stacey Meek being hired by Senator Stratton, Mr. Toews. Surely a man like yourself with such solid moral convictions would never engage in that kind of nepotism!

She has a father, Joe, who is a doctor of veterinary medicine; a brother, Jeff; a sister-in law, Rhea; and two nieces who we shall not name, all of whom reside in Winnipeg. Her mother is deceased and passed away due to cancer in in 2002.

We also have information about your youngest son, who was the product of your affair with Ms. Meek. However, as he is only 4 years-old and entirely innocent in this matter, we will not release this information. Anonymous does not hold the son responsible for the crimes of the father.

However, the woman you are cohabitating with is politically active, a government employee, and in particular is a constituency assistant to MP Joyce Bateman, who voted Yes on Bill C-30. As such, we have no qualms about releasing information about her to the Canadian public.

We have also decided not to release your personal contact information, such as your phone number and address, at this time, as we understand you have received credible violent threats from members of the public.

Shall we continue, Mr. Toews? Do we have your attention? How does it feel to have personal information about your family in the hands of people you know nothing about, with no control over who disseminates it or how it will be used?

Let it be known this is only a taste of the information we have access to. And this is only the beginning.

And yet, it is nothing compared to the personal information of millions of Canadians that will be collected, stored, and scrutinized by the authorities if Mr. Toews and this corrupt government are allowed to pass Bill C-30. If this outrageous piece of legislation is allowed to pass, the government will have access to massive legally-required databases filled with information on your spouses, your children, your parents, your brothers, your sisters, your friends and your neighbours.

Let it be known, Mr. Toews, that Anonymous will do to corrupt politicians exactly what you are attempting to do to the Canadian public. There will be no two-tier system of privacy for the government and the people of this country. You, and any public official who spies or support spying on Canadian citizens, will reap exactly what you have sewn.

It would appear you have made many political enemies, Mr. Toews. Since Anonymous made an email address available through which the public can submit more Vikileaks, we have received no less than a dozen emails from your peers in Ottawa, several of whom have offered information or have made offers to provide us with information. And that does not include the messages from members of the public who know you in a personal capacity.

And to the rest of the Parliament of Canada: you would do well to mind your words about Anonymous. Any attempt to score political points by claiming we are associated with a particular political party will not be met kindly. Your party affiliations are utterly irrelevant to us. Our only interest in this matter is protecting the freedom of information, and protecting the privacy of Canadians from the tyranny of our own government.

Anonymous demands the immediate resignation of Vic Toews, the scrapping of Bills C-30 and C-11 in their entirety, and a formal apology to the people of Canada for referring to them as supporters of pedophiles, and importantly, for attempting to undermine their most basic civil rights.

We are Anonymous.

We are Legion.

We do not forgive.

We do not forget.

Expect us.

You forgot one line--:

"We are being sued".

[Guest Derek L]

Privacy act? In regards to regular and exception handling of an individuals personal information... information that has already been collected?

in regards to the Privacy Act, in regards to the disclosure of personal information, in regards to where personal information may be disclosed, let me wade through the Privacy Act extract references you provided to highlight a key pointer for you; notwithstanding you provided a dated extract:

I'm quite mystified how you would presume to rely upon the Privacy Act as the vehicle to support your assertion. In any case, it was a worthwhile diversion if only to reinforce the legal foundation behind the actual disclosure of collected information... that in regards to those stated agreements/arrangements, the actual disclosure of any collected personal information must be, "for the purpose of administering or enforcing any law or carrying out a lawful investigation."

allow me to refocus you:

- the essence of your assertion assumes upon requests made to foreign agencies, requests that are made without oversight (i.e., without judicial authorization), for the purpose of having those foreign agencies perform surveillance on personnel within Canada. Notwithstanding this blatant end-around premise, intended to circumvent Canadian oversight, you somewhat muddled the blatant premise by suggesting information gathered would allow Canadian authorities, in an after-the-fact pursuit to, in turn, subsequently secure the required judicial oversight.

- I highlighted two key article extracts from your linked Europol document reference - two key article extracts that highlighted Canadian authorities were those responsible under Canadian law... document article extracts that emphasized actions by Canadian authorities must be consistent with the mandates and subject to the applicable laws and legal framework governing Canadian authorities.

- your assertion stemmed from your initial suggestion that Bill C-30 was unnecessary as, effectively, Canadian authorities were already capable of and were performing the same degree/levels of domestic surveillance that Bill C-30 was intending. That initial suggestion shifted somewhat into you suggesting that Bill C-30 was simply Harper Conservative 'streamlining'. Your assertion truly came forward when discussion began to evolve to include CSEC, the U.S. NSA and relations between each, most particularly with you advising that Canadian authorities, outside the bounds of judicial oversight, can/do make requests of the U.S. NSA to perform domestic surveillance on individuals within Canada. Again, your assertion,

the one you affirmed

, is, once again:

In regards domestic surveillance within Canada, Canadian authorities can... and regularly do... bypass Canadian oversight 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.

once again, per your assertion:

=> what Canadian law(s) and what types of Canadian citizen actions would spur Canadian authorities to circumvent Canadian oversight and Canadian surveillance capabilities, to instead pursue an end-around request to foreign agencies to provide surveillance on individuals, within Canada?

Yes, let us refocus indeed:

5. (1) A government institution shall, wherever possible, collect personal information that is intended to be used for an administrative purpose directly from the individual to whom it relates except where the individual authorizes otherwise or where personal information may be disclosed to the institution under subsection 8(2).

And the above exception to the rule:

( defeat the purpose or prejudice the use for which information is collected.

And the part that allows our Government to exchange information with a foreign body:

(f) under an agreement or arrangement between the Government of Canada or an institution thereof and the government of a province, the government of a foreign state, an international organization of states or an international organization established by the governments of states, or any institution of any such government or organization, for the purpose of administering or enforcing any law or carrying out a lawful investigation;

Would you expect, EUROPOL for example, to be considered a "international organization established by the governments of states"?

In regards domestic surveillance within Canada, Canadian authorities can... and regularly do... bypass Canadian oversight 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.

Your doctored quote again……vs. mine:

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.

Spin, spin spin Waldo, you're clearly a fraud and a sore loser.......Most unbecoming.

Let me know when that admission and apology is forth coming and we’ll continue, until then, I’ll allow you the last word.