Anonymous gives Toews 7 days ...

[Guest Derek L]

and yet, isn't your/Argus' reference to CSEC a bit misconstrued? Isn't CSEC, by law, prohibited from intercepting domestic communications? Just askin, just sayin. Perhaps you can throw up another catchy toon vid, hey?

They sure are. But they aren’t restricted by law from monitoring, for example, Americans. Just as the NSA isn’t restricted in monitoring Canadians…….Catch my drift?

Would you rather be spied on by the American government (and the information passed on to Canadian law enforcement and intelligence services) or by our own Government directly?

[Guest Derek L]

and yet, isn't your/Argus' reference to CSEC a bit misconstrued? Isn't CSEC, by law, prohibited from intercepting domestic communications? Just askin, just sayin. Perhaps you can throw up another catchy toon vid, hey?

I forgot the catchy tune for you Waldo:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-2LrfiJw8g

[cybercoma]

And you're probably one of those who dismisses the Sun chain as "sleazy tabloid journalism".

What did they do which was wrong? Gee, how about delving into someone's personal life in order to attack a government bill? You don't think that's wrong? You think everything about a politicians' personal life is fair game for the media? Does that include looking into the sexual exploits of say, Scott Brison? Do we want to know if he goes to gay clubs and what he does there? What about the past affairs of female MPs? Surely that's grist for our salivating gossip fodder? I mean, should we pay any attention to an MP who sleeps around, or who used to sleep around?

I mostly agree with you. To be fair, however, whoever's behind these Anonymous messages did point out the fact that Mr. Toews was the one that brought his family into his politics. He sent out that ridiculous message with the poem and constantly talks about his "family values" to score political points with his base. Mr. Toews brought his family into his politics himself. Anonymous, therefore, used his family to attack him because he used his family to advance his political career. Toews brought them into this first, not Anonymous. Now when it's inconvenient he wants to play the "leave my family out of this" card. I don't agree with Anonymous bringing his family into it and I likewise don't agree with him bringing his family into his politics either.

[capricorn]

I don't agree with Anonymous bringing his family into it and I likewise don't agree with him bringing his family into his politics either.

Do you think politicians, like Justin Trudeau, should send xmas cards with pics of their families?

[cybercoma]

Do you think politicians, like Justin Trudeau, should send xmas cards with pics of their families?

Do you think that's the same thing as what Toews does?

[waldo]

Do you think politicians, like Justin Trudeau, should send xmas cards with pics of their families?

nice - have a cookie!

[Jack Weber]

Certainly. "How dare you mess with my internet!? How dare you interfere with or question my personal enjoyment and web browsing!? I don't care about your reasons! I don't even want to know what your reasons are! They can't be as important as my personal enjoyment!!"

Besides, as I've said before, if you think the government and all manner of other entities doesn't already have access to anything and everything you've done or do on the internet you're nuts. And all this bill would do is let cops have your IP and name. So? How is that going to hurt you? What is it you're posting that you think the cops would want to ask about your IP address and name for? And what do you think they'd do with that information given they still need a warrant to actually see anything about your web browsing or communications? If you're really worried about privacy you should be directing your efforts at Google, not Toews. They're a hell of a lot more of a danger to it than he and his bill.

So this long winded response is essentially the standard "submission to authority" arguement of the acquiescent right in this country???

Do I have that right,Argy??

Unless we submit to the will of Toews,we're whiners?

[capricorn]

Do you think that's the same thing as what Toews does?

I was just curious to know how far your feeling goes about politicians who put their families in the public eye.

[waldo]

and yet, isn't your/Argus' reference to CSEC a bit misconstrued? Isn't CSEC, by law, prohibited from intercepting domestic communications?

They sure are. But they aren’t restricted by law from monitoring, for example, Americans. Just as the NSA isn’t restricted in monitoring Canadians…….Catch my drift?

Would you rather be spied on by the American government (and the information passed on to Canadian law enforcement and intelligence services) or by our own Government directly?

catch your drift? No, not at all... in regards to CSEC, you and Argus presumed to cast Bill C-30 as, "no biggie"; that Canadians privacy, for some time per you, has been and is being regularly, consistently, methodically, and quite as a matter of fact, compromised by CSEC. I point out the inconsistency in your assertion, particularly in regards to CSEC mandates and lawful intercepting of domestic communications... and you go all Jack Bauer on me!

just walk-it-back and we'll fine, hey?

Besides, as I've said before, if you think the government and all manner of other entities doesn't already have access to anything and everything you've done or do on the internet you're nuts.

do tell, do tell

There's this little organization in Ottawa. They have a computer or two and can basically read anything you put onto the internet, or for that matter, onto your computer through any wireless device 24/7 if they so desire.

CSEC

And they have been for decades

[g_bambino]

Its the governments fault for tabling extreme legislation such as the Copyright and Internet surveillance bills.

It's not the government's fault. The people who run Anonymous operate by their own free will. Like many others, I am quite concerned with the content of Bill C-30. However, I think Shady's questions are still spot-on; this country is a democracy in which we have responsible government and the supremacy of parliament, not an oligarchy run through threats and blackmail from a self-appointed group of egomaniacal, cowardly geeks.

[cybercoma]

this country is a democracy in which we have responsible government and the supremacy of parliament, not an oligarchy run through threats

Tell that to the party that says Canadians support pedophiles if they don't support their bills, calls those concerned about the environment terrorists, and cuts debate short in the House.

[g_bambino]

Tell that to the party that says Canadians support pedophiles if they don't support their bills, calls those concerned about the environment terrorists, and cuts debate short in the House.

What a nice red herring.

[cybercoma]

Damn.

[olpfan1]

It's not the government's fault. The people who run Anonymous operate by their own free will. Like many others, I am quite concerned with the content of Bill C-30. However, I think Shady's questions are still spot-on; this country is a democracy in which we have responsible government and the supremacy of parliament, not an oligarchy run through threats and blackmail from a self-appointed group of egomaniacal, cowardly geeks.

The government is responsible? this is a govmnt that muzzles scientists, who disregards facts, polls,

The only country that believes Iran is about to bomb Israel when even Israel doesnt believe so anymore

who admitted to lying about irwin cotler resigning

theyve lost the right to govern

[Guest Derek L]

catch your drift? No, not at all... in regards to CSEC, you and Argus presumed to cast Bill C-30 as, "no biggie"; that Canadians privacy, for some time per you, has been and is being regularly, consistently, methodically, and quite as a matter of fact, compromised by CSEC. I point out the inconsistency in your assertion, particularly in regards to CSEC mandates and lawful intercepting of domestic communications... and you go all Jack Bauer on me!

just walk-it-back and we'll fine, hey?

You’re assuming a lot here. I can’t speak for Argus, but I’ve been consistently opposed to this bill long prior to it’s tabling for the many of the same reasons as I was opposed to the Long Gun Registry…..I’m quite simply opposed to granting any Government, of any political stripe, further tools to erode a person’s privacy.

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.

All the “outrage” and condemnation directed towards the Bill is a futile and wasted effort, since in practice, “They” have been already doing this long prior. Any changes made to C-30 will be a result of the opposition to said bill by the majority membership of the Conservative Party of Canada and will be for the purpose of purely political optics.

I’m also forced to laugh when people reference groups like Anonymous, Wikileaks, Alex Jones etc as being a saviour to or a plight on society……“They” already know who these groups are, who finance them and who support them and if these groups were a threat, “They” would/could have already shut them down……But “They” have more grown up concerns to deal with first, and once these groups become more than a nuisance, they are quickly dealt with. {see Julian Assange}

Edited February 26, 2012 by Derek L

[g_bambino]

The government is responsible?

No, the government is not responsible for Anonymous' actions.

theyve lost the right to govern

The constitution says otherwise.

[Guest Derek L]

No, the government is not responsible for Anonymous' actions.

The constitution says otherwise.

I wouldn’t worry too much about Anonymous’ “actions” as of yet……They are after all, not all that “Anonymous”.

[waldo]

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.

as a walk-back to your piggy-back on Argus' post intended to suggest Bill C-30 is no... relative... biggee, this will not do. Unless you're prepared to state, unequivocally, that CSEC has been going beyond it's legislated mandate, that CSEC has been intercepting domestic communication - as a matter of regular routine/operations... is that what you're saying?

All the “outrage” and condemnation directed towards the Bill is a futile and wasted effort, since in practice, “They” have been already doing this long prior. Any changes made to C-30 will be a result of the opposition to said bill by the majority membership of the Conservative Party of Canada and will be for the purpose of purely political optics.

it is always heartening to have a vocal Conservative partisan acknowledge that Harper accepts no public consultation and/or Opposition input... or that any changes forthcoming will be strictly for appearances sake.

But “They” have more grown up concerns to deal with first, and once these groups become more than a nuisance, they are quickly dealt with. {see Julian Assange}

quickly dealt with? Nice... care to go a step further? Care to comment on the timing/legitimacy of the charges/extradition of Assange? Are you also suggesting we won't see anything more from Wikileaks? In your "insiders best", are you that confident?

[Guest Derek L]

as a walk-back to your piggy-back on Argus' post intended to suggest Bill C-30 is no... relative... biggee, this will not do. Unless you're prepared to state, unequivocally, that CSEC has been going beyond it's legislated mandate, that CSEC has been intercepting domestic communication - as a matter of regular routine/operations... is that what you're saying?

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.

it is always heartening to have a vocal Conservative partisan acknowledge that Harper accepts no public consultation and/or Opposition input... or that any changes forthcoming will be strictly for appearances sake.

As I’ve said, it’s par for the course for all political parties………Parroting partisan talking points is simply put, intellectually dishonest……..Let’s not mince words here…….makes for multiple boring pages of dribble.

quickly dealt with? Nice... care to go a step further? Care to comment on the timing/legitimacy of the charges/extradition of Assange? Are you also suggesting we won't see anything more from Wikileaks? In your "insiders best", are you that confident?

Certainly. In my opinion, Assange is no longer a factor, and regardless of the result of the pending trial etc, is now damaged goods in relation to Wikileaks……As for Wikileaks in general, I’d also assume that other, less publicly known figures are carrying on with their “cause”…….If they are still “relevant”, who’s to say.

Information has been power since Man started communicating………..I’ll place my chips with the establishment (CIA/NSA/FBI/CSIS/RCMP/MI5 & 6/Mossad etc) over hacktivists any day.

[Guest Derek L]

For Waldo:

What we do

CSEC is Canada's national cryptologic agency. Unique within Canada's security and intelligence community, CSEC employs code-makers and code-breakers to provide the Government of Canada with information technology security (IT Security) and foreign signals intelligence (SIGINT) services. CSEC also provides technical and operational assistance to federal law enforcement and security agencies.

Our IT Security products and services enable our clients (other federal government departments and agencies) to effectively secure their electronic information systems and networks. CSEC also conducts research and development on behalf of the Government of Canada in fields related to communications security.

Our SIGINT products and services support government decision-making in the fields of national security, national defence and foreign policy. CSEC's SIGINT activities relate exclusively to foreign intelligence and are directed by the Government of Canada's intelligence priorities.

Signals Intelligence (SIGINT)

CSEC's signals intelligence program - know as SIGINT - produces intelligence that responds to Canadian government requirements.

CSEC collects foreign intelligence that can be used by the government for strategic warning, policy formulation, decision-making and day-to-day assessment of foreign capabilities and intentions.

The success of this process is founded on CSEC's understanding of the key technologies used within the global information infrastructure.

CSEC relies on its closest foreign intelligence allies - the US, UK, Australia and New Zealand to share the collection burden and the resulting intelligence yield. Canada is a substantial beneficiary of the collaborative effort within the partnership to collect and report on foreign communications.

During the Cold War, CSEC's primary client for signals intelligence was National Defence, and its focus was the military operations of what was then Soviet Union. Since the end of the Cold War, Government of Canada requirements have evolved to include a wide variety of political, defence, and security issues of interest to a much broader range of client departments.

While these continue to be key intelligence priorities for Government of Canada decision-makers, increasing focus on protecting the safety of Canadians is prompting greater interest in intelligence on transnational issues, including terrorism.

CSEC now provides foreign intelligence based on SIGINT to a growing number of senior clients in Government.

About IT Security

Ensuring that critical information systems are secure.

The IT Security team at the Communications Security Establishment Canada provides leading-edge guidance and strategic advice on IT security to the Government of Canada.

Working in partnership with departments, agencies and the private industry, CSEC's focus is on shaping new IT products, services and service strategies that directly align with Government of Canada operational needs and priorities - to ensure critical information systems are secure.

In this day and age, being connected and protected only makes sense.

[waldo]

wow, Derek L - a link just for me! Why don't you walk us down the line between the expressed "Canadian government requirements" and police-state. Hey now, maybe you really are saying there's no need for Bill C-30, after all!

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.

and there you go again... under what auspices might CSEC be engaged by NSA? Obviously, nothing to do with "standard" domestic surveillance, ala Bill C-30. Are you suggesting the "Toews pursuit of child pornographers" rises to the level of anti-terrorism/foreign communication? Is that what you're saying?

Certainly. In my opinion, Assange is no longer a factor, and regardless of the result of the pending trial etc, is now damaged goods in relation to Wikileaks……As for Wikileaks in general, I’d also assume that other, less publicly known figures are carrying on with their “cause”…….If they are still “relevant”, who’s to say.

Information has been power since Man started communicating………..I’ll place my chips with the establishment (CIA/NSA/FBI/CSIS/RCMP/MI5 & 6/Mossad etc) over hacktivists any day.

I wasn't direct enough - you spoke of, "Assange being quickly dealt with"... thoughts on the 'claimed' trumped up charges against him? By the by, when does one person's "hacktivist cause" become another person's whistle-blowing freedom of speech outlet?

[Guest Derek L]

wow, Derek L - a link just for me! Why don't you walk us down the line between the expressed "Canadian government requirements" and police-state. Hey now, maybe you really are saying there's no need for Bill C-30, after all!

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.

and there you go again... under what auspices might CSEC be engaged by NSA? Obviously, nothing to do with "standard" domestic surveillance, ala Bill C-30. Are you suggesting the "Toews pursuit of child pornographers" rises to the level of anti-terrorism/foreign communication? Is that what you're saying?

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.

I wasn't direct enough - you spoke of, "Assange being quickly dealt with"... thoughts on the 'claimed' trumped up charges against him? By the by, when does one person's "hacktivist cause" become another person's whistle-blowing freedom of speech outlet?

I wouldn't know if said charges are “trumped up”, but in the likelihood that I did, do you think I’d share such information? In the end, it doesn't really mater......He could have quite easily been in a “car accident” ala Jack Bauer or James Bond type realm if he posed an actual threat……..

One person’s whistle blower, freedom of speech outlet vs. Hacktivist, is like the saying about one person’s terrorist is another person’s freedom fighter…..simply a mater of perspective.

As I alluded to above, groups like Anonymous are anything but………They are playing against the varsity.

[Argus]

So this long winded response is essentially the standard "submission to authority" arguement of the acquiescent right in this country???

Do I have that right,Argy??

Unless we submit to the will of Toews,we're whiners?

Submit to the will of politicians? Hmmm.

All I'm saying is this delusion that you guys do anything on the internet the government has the slightest interest in is quite comical. And if they did perchance have an interest in what you're doing then you can be fairly sure they're reading your emails before you get them. Bill or no bill. That's one of the reasons I don't really care about this bill one way or another.

[Argus]

catch your drift? No, not at all... in regards to CSEC, you and Argus presumed to cast Bill C-30 as, "no biggie"; that Canadians privacy, for some time per you, has been and is being regularly, consistently, methodically, and quite as a matter of fact, compromised by CSEC. I point out the inconsistency in your assertion, particularly in regards to CSEC mandates and lawful intercepting of domestic communications... and you go all Jack Bauer on me!

just walk-it-back and we'll fine, hey?

The idea that the government, be it police or CSEC has the slightest interest in what porn sites you visit, what singles sites you're registered to, or what email you send back and forth is ludicrous. They have neither the resources nor the interest to inspect more than a miniscule percentage of accounts which interest them. But if your account interests them, then they will indeed have a look. As to domestic eavesdropping. It's been an open secret for a very long time that ECHELON members exchange data on suspected terrorist and other threats within each others borders where each is prohibited from domestic eavesdropping.

[waldo]

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.

bloody hell! You/Argus pipe up with reference to CSEC implying C-30 isn't needed... cause CSEC is already doing the deed! You clearly understand the mandated domestic restrictions on CSEC, you acknowledged them, yet you keep on with this nonsensical nattering that CSEC is a ready go-to for warrantless seizure of Canadian's communications... which, of course, equally implies, all that communication is actively being monitored and "stored". Just what exactly did you acknowledge when I emphasized the legal restrictions on CSEC?

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.

again, short of investigation pursuits related to terrorism or foreign communications, just what are you saying the Government is doing, is prepared to do, today in terms of accessing, monitoring and storing Canadians communication related data (sans Bill C-30)... and, of course, who are the agents acting on behalf of the Government? Be very clear, very precise... speak specifically of the agencies involved.

I wouldn't know if said charges are “trumped up”, but in the likelihood that I did, do you think I’d share such information? In the end, it doesn't really mater......He could have quite easily been in a “car accident” ala Jack Bauer or James Bond type realm if he posed an actual threat……..

I see - you're quite prepared to speak of "Assange being quickly dealt with"... the implication being he was readily taken down when he became a, what was your word... "nuisance"; however, you're not prepared to speculate or offer opinion on the credible nature of that "take down". Interesting.

One person’s whistle blower, freedom of speech outlet vs. Hacktivist, is like the saying about one person’s terrorist is another person’s freedom fighter…..simply a mater of perspective.

As I alluded to above, groups like Anonymous are anything but………They are playing against the varsity.

the varsity also loses games once in while, hey?