Anonymous gives Toews 7 days ...

[waldo]

And the above exception to the rule:

wow! You're actually going to double-down on the... Privacy Act! Clearly you have no grasp of the purpose of the Privacy Act. The exception you're trumpeting reflects upon a condition where a release of information can be done, "without the consent of the individual to whom it relates". But, of course, as I highlighted, this is all after-the-fact... disclosure on information already collected. It's absolutely amazing you would construe that as some vehicle to support your assertion - bloody amazing! It is absolutely mind-numbing that you would propose the Privacy Act as your support for, your substantiation behind, Canadian authorities bypassing Canadian oversight (i.e., judicial authorization) to request foreign entities perform surveillance on individuals within Canada. You have absolutely no grasp of what the Privacy Act is intended for - none!

Your doctored quote again……vs. mine:

no matter how many times you keep repeating it, nothing was doctored, edited, manipulated, changed. You absolutely affirmed the assertion I most explicitly detailed for you. I certainly have no problem in continuing to replay your affirmations for you... would you really like another?

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.

this seems par for the course with you when you're cornered and unwilling to simply state you made a mistake or even to suggest your assertion was more a matter of unsubstantiated opinion. Because certainly, you haven't substantiated your assertion in any way, shape or form. Clearly this has become personal for you... claiming a virtual level victory, pining for an apology and 'graciously' offering the last word

[cybercoma]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/story/2012/03/06/pol-toews-vikileaks-ruling.html

The videos posted online by the group Anonymous about Public Safety Minister Vic Toews constitute a "direct threat" to him and all MPs, Speaker of the House of Commons Andrew Scheer ruled Tuesday.

Shadow MP is ok, but Anonymous's videos are not. Sure thing, Andy.

[Guest Derek L]

wow! You're actually going to double-down on the... Privacy Act! Clearly you have no grasp of the purpose of the Privacy Act. The exception you're trumpeting reflects upon a condition where a release of information can be done, "without the consent of the individual to whom it relates". But, of course, as I highlighted, this is all after-the-fact... disclosure on information already collected. It's absolutely amazing you would construe that as some vehicle to support your assertion - bloody amazing! It is absolutely mind-numbing that you would propose the Privacy Act as your support for, your substantiation behind, Canadian authorities bypassing Canadian oversight (i.e., judicial authorization) to request foreign entities perform surveillance on individuals within Canada. You have absolutely no grasp of what the Privacy Act is intended for - none!

no matter how many times you keep repeating it, nothing was doctored, edited, manipulated, changed. You absolutely affirmed the assertion I most explicitly detailed for you. I certainly have no problem in continuing to replay your affirmations for you... would you really like another?

this seems par for the course with you when you're cornered and unwilling to simply state you made a mistake or even to suggest your assertion was more a matter of unsubstantiated opinion. Because certainly, you haven't substantiated your assertion in any way, shape or form. Clearly this has become personal for you... claiming a virtual level victory, pining for an apology and 'graciously' offering the last word

What to do you expect Waldo the purpose/mandate of the Privacy Act is?

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/P-21/page-2.html#docCont

In particular section 4:

Collection of personal information

4. No personal information shall be collected by a government institution unless it relates directly to an operating program or activity of the institution.

Under this above passage, are you suggesting that the RCMP (Government institution) can’t collect personal information during an investigation (activity)?

No this portion clearly state that the individual must be made aware:

(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.

Unless:

(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.

Let's jump back up here:

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).

Now this above passage indicates said information should be collected from the individual…………Unless:

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

(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;

Are you suggesting, based on the above text, the RCMP can’t “share personal information” that they’ve obtained with another Government agency?

What about this though:

(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;

Would you, Waldo, expect one could claim that EUROPOL or the NSA, could be defined as a "international organization established by the governments of states" or a "institution of any such government"?

If so, under the Privacy Act, does this not indicate that with an agreement with said organization/institution, the institutions (i.e RCMP) of the Government of Canada can share a Canadian's personnel info to aide in "enforcing any law or carrying out a lawful investigation"?

I think you’ll need to crack your thesaurus, blister the page with emoticons and use your finest indentations of spun quotes……..

Why not answer the above questions Waldo?

[olpfan1]

Here is the laugh of the day... the speaker of the house wants to bring Anonymous into committee

HAHAHAHAHAHA

[cybercoma]

Here is the laugh of the day... the speaker of the house wants to bring Anonymous into committee

HAHAHAHAHAHA

You're kidding right?

[waldo]

Under this above passage, are you suggesting that the RCMP (Government institution) can’t collect personal information during an investigation (activity)?

If so, under the Privacy Act, does this not indicate that with an agreement with said organization/institution, the institutions (i.e RCMP) of the Government of Canada can share a Canadian's personnel info to aide in "enforcing any law or carrying out a lawful investigation"?

sigh! You are so hopelessly lost. The Privacy Act is not a legal foundation to support direct domestic surveillance, or your asserted 'end-around' surveillance requests to foreign agencies; nor to the resulting collection pursuits of personal information. Most certainly, it is the legal foundation for disclosure of collected personal information, either with the consent of the individual to whom it relates, or in regards to the stated exceptions - one of those exceptions being the one you seem to suggest is your "silver bullet" support for your failed/unsubstantiated assertion. Of course, it's the same exception I took lengths to attempt to bring reality to your nonsensical reach for the Privacy Act; specifically:

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.

"

once again, per your assertion... per your unsubstantiated 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?

[olpfan1]

I watched all of the videos and there were no violent threats made, not one, and they even said it was unacceptable to retaliate with violence

so I wonder what Scheer was smoking..

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1141706--hacker-group-anonymous-threatened-vic-toews-says-commons-speaker

“These videos contained various allegations about the minister’s private life, and made specific and disturbing threats,” Scheer said.

“The minister has stated that he accepts that coping with vigorous debate and sometimes overheated rhetoric are part of the job of a politician, but argued that these online attacks directed to both him and his family had crossed the line into threatening behaviour that was unacceptable.

“He contended that the threatened actions contained in these videos constituted a deliberate attempt to intimidate him with respect to proceedings in Parliament.”

Videos posted on YouTube show a headless man in a black suit under a red maple leaf and laurels as a computer-generated voice demands Toews’ resignation and calls for a controversial online-surveillance bill to be scrapped.

“I have carefully reviewed the online videos in which the language used does indeed constitute a direct threat to the minister in particular, as well as all other members,” Scheer said.

“These threats demonstrate a flagrant disregard of our traditions and a subversive attack on the most fundamental privileges of this House.

“As your Speaker and the guardian of those privileges, I have concluded that this aspect — the videos posted on the Internet by Anonymous — therefore constitutes a prima facie question of privilege and I invite the minister to move his motion.”

The Commons can now debate whether to order the hackers to appear before a committee.

Edited March 6, 2012 by olpfan1

[Guest Derek L]

sigh! You are so hopelessly lost. The Privacy Act is not a legal foundation to support direct domestic surveillance, or your asserted 'end-around' surveillance requests to foreign agencies; nor to the resulting collection pursuits of personal information. Most certainly, it is the legal foundation for disclosure of collected personal information, either with the consent of the individual to whom it relates, or in regards to the stated exceptions - one of those exceptions being the one you seem to suggest is your "silver bullet" support for your failed/unsubstantiated assertion. Of course, it's the same exception I took lengths to attempt to bring reality to your nonsensical reach for the Privacy Act; specifically:

once again, per your assertion... per your unsubstantiated 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?

Let’s recap

- Waldo has not addressed the passages from the Privacy Act, that allow for the collection of personal information (The subsection specifically says collection)

-Waldo has not addressed the passages of the Privacy Act that allow Government agencies to share information with other Government agencies, without prior permission of the individual, when the mater is related to Law enforcement.

-Waldo has not addressed the passages of the Privacy Act that allow Government of Canada agencies to exchange information with Foreign Government agencies that we have agreements with.

-Waldo has not addressed the agreement between the Government of Canada and the members of EUROPOL, in which allows said Governments to exchange information regarding their citizens.

-Waldo has not outlined his mythical illegalities in the case in which the RCMP received information regarding a Canadian citizen, from EUROPOL.

-Waldo has not stated, what he expects the purpose of the Intelligence agreement between the Governments of Canada, the United States, United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand is.

-Waldo has “edited” the meaning of my posts

-Waldo has provided a significant amount of fancy indented, multicoloured, edited, quotes (They are quite impressive!)

[Guest Derek L]

But in other Anonymous news:

Hacking "mole" helps FBI arrest Anonymous leaders

One of the world's most-wanted hackers secretly became an FBI informant last year, providing evidence that led to charges on Tuesday against five other suspected leaders of the Anonymous international hacking group.

In a major blow to Anonymous, which has attacked the websites of government agencies and companies around the world, U.S. authorities revealed that a leading hacker "Sabu" was Hector Xavier Monsegur and that he was arrested at his small apartment in a Manhattan housing complex last June.

I guess like the old saying goes, live by the sword, die by the sword……..Like terrorism, I highly doubt this will be the “end of them” though….

[waldo]

no... let's recap:

- Derek L has shown the depth of his vanity... his virtual anonymous vanity... by dredging up this thread that had almost sunk out of sight.

- Derek L, after spinning wildly and frantically, presumes to rely upon the Privacy Act

... the act intended to protect the disclosure of Canadians personal information... as the vehicle to support his failed assertion; the explicitly defined assertion he affirmed in writing.

- Derek L, has once again been unable to substantiate his assertion, and is once again requested to state:

=> 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?

[Guest Derek L]

no... let's recap:

- Derek L has shown the depth of his vanity... his virtual anonymous vanity... by dredging up this thread that had almost sunk out of sight.

- Derek L, after spinning wildly and frantically, presumes to rely upon the Privacy Act

... the act intended to protect the disclosure of Canadians personal information... as the vehicle to support his failed assertion; the explicitly defined assertion he affirmed in writing.

- Derek L, has once again been unable to substantiate his assertion, and is once again requested to state:

=>

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?

I’ve answered both questions previous……..You were hoping this discussion would, “go away”?

Hardly dredging up an “old post”…..There was what? 10 hours between my two posts? You might find this hard to believe Waldo, but some people do have other responsibilities in their day-to-day lives

[waldo]

let's recap...the scenario... the Derek L scenario:

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

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

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

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

- in a late twist to the Derek L scenario, under intense grilling pressure from, 'the waldo', a flummoxed Derek L, in a most incredulous reach, posits the Canadian Privacy Act as the supporting, substantiating basis behind the scenario's, 'Derek L affirmed assertion'. In spite of attempts by, 'the waldo', to save Derek L from further embarrassment, Derek L insists on doubling-down on the Privacy Act, presuming to rely upon the act intended to provide protections on the disclosure of personal information, as the basis for Canadian authorities circumventing the need for Canadian oversight/(judicial authorization) and their own capabilities/resources/infrastructure!

- the Derek L scenario and related assertion stemmed from Derek L's 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. Derek L shifted his initial suggestion somewhat into describing Bill C-30 as simply Harper Conservative 'streamlining'. The Derek L assertion truly came forward when discussion began to evolve to include CSEC, the U.S. NSA and relations between each, most particularly with Derek L advising that Canadian authorities, outside the bounds of Canadian oversight/(judicial authorization), can/do make requests of the U.S. NSA to perform domestic surveillance on individuals within Canada.

- the related Derek L affirmed assertion behind the Derek L scenario, once again is:

Derek L affirmed assertion

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

- the Derek L scenario and related Derek L affirmed assertion remain unsubstantiated. Derek L has failed to state:

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

[Guest Derek L]

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

Fixed that for you.

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

I've already answered those question.

what types of Canadian citizen actions

As I said several days ago, terrorism, espionage, online fraud/cyber crime, drug trafficking etc….

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

We’re clearly talking fundamentals no? Hasn’t Search & Seizure rights been the crux of this entire thread and discussion relating to Bill C-30?

Come on Waldo, this is High School stuff:

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/charter/page-2.html#l_I:s_24

Exclusion of evidence bringing administration of justice into disrepute

(2) Where, in proceedings under subsection (1), a court concludes that evidence was obtained in a manner that infringed or denied any rights or freedoms guaranteed by this Charter, the evidence shall be excluded if it is established that, having regard to all the circumstances, the admission of it in the proceedings would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

[waldo]

Fixed that for you.

you don't wear weasel well - not at all. You can keep shouting fraud, edit, manipulation, blah, blah, blah... you affirmed your assertion, you affirmed the most explicitly defined wording presented to you. Clearly, you lack the intellectual honesty to accept your own actions/words - these:

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

Is the preceding correct -

yes or no?

Clearly a yes

based on the above open source evidence.

wow! Finally...

a 'YES'!

[waldo]

I've already answered those question.

no - no you haven't. You have not provided any foundation in Canadian law to support your assertion. It is the absolute height of absurdity for you to posit the Canadian Privacy Act as the legal vehicle to support your assertion that Canadian authorities knowingly and wantonly bypass Canadian oversight/(judicial authorization) and their own inherent capabilities/resources/infrastructure, to request foreign agencies perform domestic surveillance on individuals within Canada. Utter and absolute absurdity.

We’re clearly talking fundamentals no? Hasn’t Search & Seizure rights been the crux of this entire thread and discussion relating to Bill C-30?

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/charter/page-2.html#l_I:s_24

nice distraction, hey? On the other hand, perhaps you've seen the error of your "Privacy Act" ways! If you feel the Charter helps your case, don't hesitate to expand on that theme... I certainly won't presume on your next level of flummoxed recourse.

[waldo]

Derek L...

Question: In order for Canadian authorities to perform surveillance and/or information gathering on individuals within Canada, do you agree that Canadian authorities must secure oversight/(judicial authorization)? YES or NO; feel free to add qualifications if required.

Edited March 7, 2012 by waldo

[Jack Weber]

Derek L...

Question: In order for Canadian authorities to perform surveillance and/or information gathering on individuals within Canada, do you agree that Canadian authorities must secure oversight/(judicial authorization)? YES or NO; feel free to add qualifications if required.

Well this gets to the heart of the matter,does'nt it?

Either one feels the cops requre a warrant to spy on/arrest someone,or they don't...

[Guest Derek L]

Derek L...

Question: In order for Canadian authorities to perform surveillance and/or information gathering on individuals within Canada, do you agree that Canadian authorities must secure oversight/(judicial authorization)? YES or NO; feel free to add qualifications if required.

It’s not a black or white question………..Laws can be changed, exceptions made……..Clearly with an inter Government agreement such as EUROPOL one could say the judicial authorization has already been met……Or going back to the Charter and search & seizure rights……….Under the Firearms act (not to derail this into another LGR discussion) the police are afforded the ability to enter into registered firearm owner’s homes, without a warrant and seize private property……….

Are Canadians guaranteed under the Charter, that their cellphone conversations or what they do online are ensured total privacy? Does an Individual “own” the Internet?

[waldo]

It’s not a black or white question………..Laws can be changed, exceptions made……..Clearly with an inter Government agreement such as EUROPOL one could say the judicial authorization has already been met……Or going back to the Charter and search & seizure rights……….Under the Firearms act (not to derail this into another LGR discussion) the police are afforded the ability to enter into registered firearm owner’s homes, without a warrant and seize private property……….

Are Canadians guaranteed under the Charter, that their cellphone conversations or what they do online are ensured total privacy? Does an Individual “own” the Internet?

there is no need for you to speak of changing laws or possible exceptions. The question was asked in regards to today's law, today's circumstance. We're not talking about search and seizure, we're not talking about firearms... all along we've been talking about surveillance and information gathering - and in the comparative context to Bill C-30, electronic level surveillance. Your reference to a Canadian-Europol agreement and suggestion that judicial authorization is inherent to the agreement, is a non starter. I highlighted the key articles of your linked Canada-Europol reference document that clearly point back to Canadian authority actions that must be, "consistent with the mandates and subject to the applicable laws and legal framework governing Canadian authorities."

- I 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.

the original question should be tightened up, distinguishing your opinion/view from your understanding of current law/circumstance. Let me do so by changing the single word, 'agree', to 'recognize':

Question: In order for Canadian authorities to perform surveillance and/or information gathering on individuals within Canada, do you

agree

recognize that Canadian authorities must secure oversight/(judicial authorization)? YES or NO; feel free to add qualifications if required.

[Guest Derek L]

Question: In order for Canadian authorities to perform surveillance and/or information gathering on individuals within Canada, do you

agree

recognize that Canadian authorities must secure oversight/(judicial authorization)? YES or NO; feel free to add qualifications if required.

Yes, Hence the creation of CSIS on the recommendations of the McDonald Commission and the transfer of CSEC to DND (Who can "spy" on Canadians legally) in the 70s.....With the direct oversight and responsibility of each agency falling under the Minister of National Defence (Mackay) and the Minister of Public Safety (Toews)..........I suppose you expect these events “just happened” without prior design?

[waldo]

Yes, Hence the creation of CSIS on the recommendations of the McDonald Commission and the transfer of CSEC to DND (Who can "spy" on Canadians legally) in the 70s.....With the direct oversight and responsibility of each agency falling under the Minister of National Defence (Mackay) and the Minister of Public Safety (Toews)..........I suppose you expect these events “just happened” without prior design?

well, this is better - at least I have you properly shifted away from your flummoxed reach for the Privacy Act and Charter. The crux of this discussion, of course, is whether oversight is required before electronic surveillance or information gathering can be conducted by Canadian authorities on individuals within Canada... whether that's a judicial level or a Minister of National Defence level oversight. Equally, by extension, your assertion, particularly as relates to Canadian authorities requesting foreign agency surveillance on individuals within Canada, would appear not to accept or recognize the need for oversight/(judicial authorization) - YES or NO?

which brings us full circle to your assertion that required oversight/(judicial authorization) is circumvented by Canadian authorities by choosing to do an "end-around" this requirement, to request foreign agencies perform surveillance/information gathering on individuals within Canada. As you explicitly asserted, the foreign agency gathered information, would/could then be used, after-the-fact, to seek actual Canadian oversight/(judicial authorization). This is the essence of your assertion - YES or NO?

of course, we can't lose sight of the underlying reference point to this discussion; i.e., your premise that Bill C-30 is unnecessary... that for intents and purposes, Canadian authorities can and do, with regularity, undertake the same pursuits as those Bill C-30 intends. Which equally calls into question a comparative reference between the types of domestic level individual actions/pursuits Bill C-30 is purported to address as compared to your rather cavalier assertion that, "those same Bill C-30 targeted actions/pursuits" are regularly being performed by Canadian authorities - today! (whether directly or via the "end-around" circumvention route you assert).

[Guest Derek L]

well, this is better - at least I have you properly shifted away from your flummoxed reach for the Privacy Act and Charter. The crux of this discussion, of course, is whether oversight is required before electronic surveillance or information gathering can be conducted by Canadian authorities on individuals within Canada... whether that's a judicial level or a Minister of National Defence level oversight. Equally, by extension, your assertion, particularly as relates to Canadian authorities requesting foreign agency surveillance on individuals within Canada, would appear not to accept or recognize the need for oversight/(judicial authorization) - YES or NO?

Ahh, but that’s the point, foreign agencies don’t require prior Canadian judicial oversight to conduct surveillance on a Canadian(s), nor do they require Canadian judicial oversight to exchange said information on Canadians, with Government of Canada agencies. (as has been demonstrated in this thread) Nor do said Government of Canada agencies require judicial oversight to posses said information.

Where this changes, is when Canadian agencies wish to enter said residents, obtain their property as evidence (unless it’s a firearms related) and bring said Canadians to court. Obviously none of this foreign obtained information can be directly used within a Canadian court, without prior “judicial oversight”, but there is no law barring it’s possession.

which brings us full circle to your assertion that required oversight/(judicial authorization) is circumvented by Canadian authorities by choosing to do an "end-around" this requirement, to request foreign agencies perform surveillance/information gathering on individuals within Canada. As you explicitly asserted, the foreign agency gathered information, would/could then be used, after-the-fact, to seek actual Canadian oversight/(judicial authorization). This is the essence of your assertion - YES or NO?

No, not directly, as outlined above, in any court across Canada, it would clearly be deemed inadmissible. That is not to say, said information doesn’t have a value is aiding law enforcement in obtaining additional information well conducting a criminal investigation.

of course, we can't lose sight of the underlying reference point to this discussion; i.e., your premise that Bill C-30 is unnecessary... that for intents and purposes, Canadian authorities can and do, with regularity, undertake the same pursuits as those Bill C-30 intends. Which equally calls into question a comparative reference between the types of domestic level individual actions/pursuits Bill C-30 is purported to address as compared to your rather cavalier assertion that, "those same Bill C-30 targeted actions/pursuits" are regularly being performed by Canadian authorities - today! (whether directly or via the "end-around" circumvention route you assert).

If we’re debating opinion on the valve of Bill C-30, and I’m of the opinion that it is not required, what is your opinion? If you choose not to state it, I’ll assume it’s one of opposition. But why?

[waldo]

Ahh, but that’s the point, foreign agencies don’t require prior Canadian judicial oversight to conduct surveillance on a Canadian(s), nor do they require Canadian judicial oversight to exchange said information on Canadians, with Government of Canada agencies. (as has been demonstrated in this thread) Nor do said Government of Canada agencies require judicial oversight to posses said information.

yes, it is the point... the very precise point. It is your assertion that Canadian authorities purposely and knowingly bypass Canadian oversight/(judicial authorization), that Canadian authorities bypass their own inherent capabilities/resources/infrastructure, that they do all this in favour of seeking unauthorized surveillance and information gathering by foreign agencies on individuals within Canada. And why? Notwithstanding you haven't provided a lick of substantiation to this, your assertion, why would Canadian authorities pursue such an approach with foreign agencies? Why would Canadian authorities turn a blind-eye to required Canadian oversight/(judicial authorization)? Why, particularly in the context of your assertion that stemmed from your original statements concerning Bill C-30? Why?

[Guest Derek L]

yes, it is the point... the very precise point. It is your assertion that Canadian authorities purposely and knowingly bypass Canadian oversight/(judicial authorization), that Canadian authorities bypass their own inherent capabilities/resources/infrastructure, that they do all this in favour of seeking unauthorized surveillance and information gathering by foreign agencies on individuals within Canada. And why? Notwithstanding you haven't provided a lick of substantiation to this, your assertion, why would Canadian authorities pursue such an approach with foreign agencies? Why would Canadian authorities turn a blind-eye to required Canadian oversight/(judicial authorization)? Why, particularly in the context of your assertion that stemmed from your original statements concerning Bill C-30? Why?

Clearly to aide in an investigation…………If Canadian agencies don’t have enough information pertaining to an individual, that they suspect of being involved with a crime, that they could use to obtain a warrant within Canada through conventional means, would you expect Canadian agencies to just “give up”?

[waldo]

Clearly to aide in an investigation…………If Canadian agencies don’t have enough information pertaining to an individual, that they suspect of being involved with a crime, that they could use to obtain a warrant within Canada through conventional means, would you expect Canadian agencies to just “give up”?

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

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