Anonymous gives Toews 7 days ...

[waldo]

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.

yes, it is ludicrous - yet you had no problem referencing CSEC as the ready in place entity that "obsoletes" the need for Bill C-30... notwithstanding you're quite obviously speaking out of turn in regards to the legal mandate reach of CSEC. In terms of police being currently engaged in warrantless pursuits, or ISPs not informing customers their information has been provided to police... those types of activities without judicial oversight will be the kinds of positive results from a properly consulted upon and crafted Bill - one Toews has nothing to do with, even remotely.

[mentalfloss]

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.

Avoiding a warrant is the new "streamline".

Edited February 27, 2012 by mentalfloss

[GostHacked]

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.

This is a reality that many don't see. Canadian intelligence services give the USA information on their citizens (aka we spy on them and give the USA the information, because they can't do it themselves based on laws) and the same in reverse for us. We get information from the US about what our citizens are doing.

There is a way around all this. Governments working together to help each other circumvent local laws. These guys are the ones making laws for us, and yet they do things that compromise our rights and security more than the real terrorists.

Looks like you agree in a sense.

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.

Agreed.

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.

Exactly.

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

I still don't trust Anon.

[Guest Derek L]

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?

I’m sorry if I was not clear prior……..CSEC doesn’t obtain or store any information on Canadians citizens, within Canada, without a warrant……..If, for example, the RCMP wanted information pertaining to a Canadian citizen, they would make use of our long standing, bilateral agreement (As mentioned by Argus) that allows for a reciprocal transfer of signals intelligence. In this instance, the American NSA would provide said intelligence.

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.

As was mentioned prior by myself and Argus, the Government, if it so desired, via foreign Governments (Namely the USA, UK, Australia and New Zealand directly, and via working relationships with Israel, Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Norway, Denmark and the Dutch) are capable of “listening” and storing the cell phone conversations and internet traffic of any individual within Canada. As for the “agents” involved, quite clearly, the equivalent agencies of the RCMP, CSIS and CSEC from all the above mentioned countries.

As was mentioned by Argus though, they don’t monitor every person due to lack of need and resources, and are generally concerned with Terrorism and the actions of other “unfriendly nations”………but that’s not to say if a individual or group became, as I said, more than a nuisance, they are quite capable of monitoring them.

For example, and since they are mentioned in the OP, let’s use a group like Anonymous. Now every couple of months local (Greater Vancouver FYI) members of the group perform a legal protest in front of the Church of Scientology in downtown Vancouver. They come wearing their best Guy Fawkes garb, armed with signs and slogans, but are namely peaceful, but they do draw local uniformed (usually bicycle) cops to ensure everyone stays safe and peaceful (and doesn’t interrupt traffic on West Hastings street)

Unknown to the Anonymous members, they also draw plain clothed members of the RCMP “E” Division. Some of these RCMP members might be dressed as city workers, businessmen/women, curious on looking families or tourists or even Anonymous members themselves.

Once the protest has ended, and the Anonymous members head off to their cars, public transit, Starbucks or the local pub, they are quite obviously trailed by the RCMP, photographed and/or followed home so as (with the aid of a facial recognition system) to be Identified.

Now fast forward to the next couple of protests of the Church of Scientology, or even your standard protest of a visiting Foreign dignitary (Let’s say Bush or Cheney, since they’ve both recently visited Vancouver), the Olympics, Oil pipeline,G8/20 and the Occupy movement……….. “E” Divisions starts a process of trending protestors and identifying those that are most vocal and never miss one. Up to now, the RCMP doesn’t require a warrant or conduct any actions that would be worthy of Jack Bauer.

Now fast forward to the next headline grabbing action undertaken by Anonymous, be it hacking a public/private website and obtaining credit card information, leaking damning information of a Government official etc……..Now a senior member of “E” division, acting on a request from a senior official in Ottawa, with all the previously compiled information on person’s of interest heads down to the American consulate (several blocks away from the Church of Scientology and location of Occupy Vancouver funny enough) and gives said information to the resident CIA/FBI/Homeland Security attaché with a formal requests for extensive electronic signals surveillance.

Said request, is forwarded to the NSA headquarters in Fort Meade Maryland, and once resources are available, the surveillance of said persons of interest begin. Their cellphone conversations are monitored as are their emails and internet usage, and in some case more importantly, with whom they are in contact with.

Now obviously any contacts within the United States will not be legally monitored by the NSA, but a reciprocal requests is made to CSEC for the very same.

Now let’s say said persons of interests are in contact with numerous other members, located throughout Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States. Said member countries, if anything of real concern is found, will then create a “international taskforce” made up of various national police forces, intelligence agencies and most importantly, legal advisors.

Once said taskforce finds enough information, it’s handed over to local, parent nation, police forces, to conduct further local investigations to obtain enough evidence to either obtain a warrant or charges themselves.

the varsity also loses games once in while, hey?

Certainly, but once they start caring about said losses, they’re out for blood………I would say, using my above example, that for a group like Anonymous, once they’ve “pushed to much” and become labelled as “cyber terrorists”, the end is nigh and instead of looking over their shoulders, they’d be best advised to find good lawyers.

[Guest Derek L]

Avoiding a warrant is the new "streamline".

Not necessarily, the police in most instances presently would require a warrant to obtain evidence that they would hope lead to a conviction…No warrant, said evidence is inadmissible.

All C-30 will do is allow policing and intelligence agencies the use of direct Canadian surveillance, as opposed to going through existing international channels. This will allow Canadian interests to have a higher priority and in turn, cut the length of time said process takes.

If it’s used to convict terrorists, pedophilias, organized crime or computer hackers, that’s simply in relation to our Government’s given priorities.

[PIK]

I think the moment most Canadians feel sympathetic to Toews will be the moment hell freezes over

How can anyone feel sympathetic to this man? He hasn't even apologized to Canadians for saying Canadians sided with child pornographers if they weren't supportive of this bill he supposedly hasn't even read... NOT ONE APOLOGY

Yeah.. I don't think we'll feel any sympathy for ol' Vic, he hasn't shown any for us

He did not say canadians sided with child pornographers , just you and your ilk. Again alot of fake rage over something that the libs actually started, but I don't remember all the fake rage when they did it.

[Guest Derek L]

This is a reality that many don't see. Canadian intelligence services give the USA information on their citizens (aka we spy on them and give the USA the information, because they can't do it themselves based on laws) and the same in reverse for us. We get information from the US about what our citizens are doing.

There is a way around all this. Governments working together to help each other circumvent local laws. These guys are the ones making laws for us, and yet they do things that compromise our rights and security more than the real terrorists.

Looks like you agree in a sense.

In a sense….My confliction stems from said principle of Government surveillance in a Orwellian sense…Who watches the watchers? And to a lesser extent, any inherent cost increases that will be passed down the food chain.

In a practical setting, the utility of said bill will streamline the process and increase response time and efficiency…Being pragmatic, as outlined, all the doom and gloom associated with the bill, is already here.

[Guest Manny]

The privilege to possess such information without a warrant should never be bestowed upon a minister. They are not sufficiently at arms length, are too partisan, career motivated and not sufficiently vetted to be entrusted with making decisions purely in the public interest.

For example, what if a minister such as Toews found out that there was an organized movement on the internet to collect information about him, to defame him in a scandal that might even ruin his career? Would he be able to use his powers of influence to squash this rabble's uprising? What about confidential information shared by a political group, making plans that might expose government corruption. Could we trust a minister to allow it? Certainly not. That's why we have judges who make the decision to issue warrants. It ensures that protection of public and political action goes both ways.

[Guest Derek L]

The privilege to possess such information without a warrant should never be bestowed upon a minister. They are not sufficiently at arms length, are too partisan, career motivated and not sufficiently vetted to be entrusted with making decisions purely in the public interest.

For example, what if a minister such as Toews found out that there was an organized movement on the internet to collect information about him, to defame him in a scandal that might even ruin his career? Would he be able to use his powers of influence to squash this rabble's uprising? What about confidential information shared by a political group, making plans that might expose government corruption. Could we trust a minister to allow it? Certainly not. That's why we have judges who make the decision to issue warrants. It ensures that protection of public and political action goes both ways.

Your’s is a moral argument, that though I tend to personally agree with, is not based on reality………Could a Government Minster abuse such powers? Of course, just as any number of Politian’s, of any political stripe, engage in abuse of power and privilege.

Do you think Judges are incapable of abusing their power?

In the context of this thread, said surveillance is the precursor to obtaining a warrant…….Perhaps the powers that be, can’t use the data received by said surveillance directly under our legal framework to obtain a warrant and/or charge someone, but they find indirect uses to locate any further proverbial skeletons, ala Al Capone/tax evasion or Julian Assange/sexual molestation.

[Guest Manny]

I don't consider it a purely moral argument. It's about the separation of powers, important to maintain a democracy. And although judges are human beings too and just as fallible, politics is not their primary mandate. Making judgement on a legal basis, and all that entails without bias, is. That may be idealistic but those are the structures as a society we put in place, and they have a purpose. It's to maintain a certain level of impartiality and ultimately, protect our system of justice. Any attempt to blur those lines, as in parliamentarians giving themselves more powers and taking away from judges is a threat to our liberty. A politician has a career where he or she may only be in office for a few years, and so has to constantly compete for that position. A judge is not subjected to the same pressures, they will tend to be less corruptible. They are also carefully trained in making judgements. Not so for career politicians.

The moral part is, I would not trust my personal fate to fools such as these.

Edited February 27, 2012 by Manny

[Guest Derek L]

I don't consider it a purely moral argument. It's about the separation of powers, important to maintain a democracy. And although judges are human beings too and just as fallible, politics is not their primary mandate. Making judgement on a legal basis, and all that entails without bias, is. That may be idealistic but those are the structures as a society we put in place, and they have a purpose. It's to maintain a certain level of impartiality and ultimately, protect our system of justice. Any attempt to blur those lines, as in parliamentarians giving themselves more powers and taking away from judges is a threat to our liberty. A politician has a career where he or she may only be in office for a few years, and so has to constantly compete for that position. A judge is not subjected to the same pressures, they will tend to be less corruptible. They are also carefully trained in making judgements. Not so for career politicians.

The moral part is, I would not trust my personal fate to fools such as these.

You have no real argument from me in terms of morality…..I agree.

Where we perhaps differ is in that belief that bill C-30 will really change anything….I tend to think not, aside from “speeding the process up”. Spying is one of the oldest professions, born out of the Human psyche to distrust others……and as I said earlier, information is power……….Bill C-30 is only the natural progression.

We need someone to write a sequel and entitle it 2084

Edited February 27, 2012 by Derek L

[olpfan1]

watching cpac .. every party is afraid of anonymous LOL

they cant do anything about it though .. they probably dont live in canada

[olpfan1]

If the US cant find the people in those videos Canada won't

all US has found were people who took their cause to heart but werent computer savvy

followers if you will

[Guest Derek L]

watching cpac .. every party is afraid of anonymous LOL

they cant do anything about it though .. they probably dont live in canada

Then who attends their protests here?

[olpfan1]

Then who attends their protests here?

The wannabes.. those arent the real hackers

real hackers dont put themselves out in the open like that.. too dangerous

[Guest Derek L]

The wannabes.. those arent the real hackers

real hackers dont put themselves out in the open like that.. too dangerous

What’s the “danger” ? I thought you said Government can’t “track” them………

[olpfan1]

What’s the “danger” ? I thought you said Government can’t “track” them………

you never know when police will find a reason bust in and arrest them

theyre gonna put anonymous on the terrorist list.. you watch

[Guest Derek L]

you never know when police will find a reason bust in and arrest them

theyre gonna put anonymous on the terrorist list.. you watch

I know, but thanks:

Today, 07:46 AM

Certainly, but once they start caring about said losses, they’re out for blood………I would say, using my above example, that for a group like Anonymous, once they’ve “pushed to much” and become labelled as “cyber terrorists”, the end is nigh and instead of looking over their shoulders, they’d be best advised to find good lawyers.

The apparatus is quickly running out of Middle Eastern Terrorists…..

[Guest Derek L]

That was fast:

Liberal staffer revealed as Vic Toews’ Vikileaks Twitter foe by Bob Rae

A Liberal staffer was behind the Twitter account that posted private details of Minister Vic Toews’ life online in protest of a new bill that would increase internet surveillance of Canadians.

That staffer has now resigned, says interim party leader Bob Rae.

[dre]

You have no real argument from me in terms of morality…..I agree.

Where we perhaps differ is in that belief that bill C-30 will really change anything….I tend to think not, aside from “speeding the process up”. Spying is one of the oldest professions, born out of the Human psyche to distrust others……and as I said earlier, information is power……….Bill C-30 is only the natural progression.

We need someone to write a sequel and entitle it 2084

Bill 30 itself is just another small slip down a very slippery slope. The REAL problem is that the government hates our freedom. There should be no question in anyones mind that if people allowed them to do, the government and cops would love to have carte blanche to completely record everything we do and then mine the data to use it against them, and governments around the world are moving down that course in small increments hoping each small change in itself wont be enough to make us freak out.

If we dont tell them when to stop, it WONT stop. Sticking up for our own rights is by far the most important job of citizens in a democracy, and we oughtta start taking it seriously.

This whole movement towards a full on digital surveillance state is a cancer. If you dont catch it early then it will be too late to treat it, and once the government has its hands on all this data it will be extremely hard to every roll any of these laws back. People will be suffering for our failure to be responsible citizens for hundreds of years to come.

Every privacy commisioner in the country has been warning us about this stuff, but they have no real clout. If we are lucky the courts might wiegh in and protect our rights from "government gone wild", but we cant count on that.

Edited February 27, 2012 by dre

[Shady]

you never know when police will find a reason bust in and arrest them

theyre gonna put anonymous on the terrorist list.. you watch

My guess is that the CIA probably already has the group infiltrated. It's much easier than say Al Qaeda. Because it's much easier to find a white, dorky, pretend radical CIA agent, than it is to find a Middle Eastern, arabic speaking one.

[Guest Derek L]

Bill 30 itself is just another small slip down a very slippery slope. The REAL problem is that the government hates our freedom. There should be no question in anyones mind that if people allowed them to do, the government and cops would love to have carte blanche to completely record everything we do and then mine the data to use it against them, and governments around the world are moving down that course in small increments hoping each small change in itself wont be enough to make us freak out.

If we dont tell them when to stop, it WONT stop. Sticking up for our own rights is by far the most important job of citizens in a democracy, and we oughtta start taking it seriously.

This whole movement towards a full on digital surveillance state is a cancer. If you dont catch it early then it will be too late to treat it, and once the government has its hands on all this data it will be extremely hard to every roll any of these laws back. People will be suffering for our failure to be responsible citizens for hundreds of years to come.

Again, no real argument on the moral grounds from me………Hence my strong opposition towards the LGR and Gun Control in particular………..It’s merely a stepping stone towards complete social engineering……..disarm and spy on the populace………Where have we seen that before?

I’d think opposition towards gun control & C-30 should go hand in hand.

Not because I lay awake at night in fear from our Government ( I really don’t), but certain freedoms possessed by the population do act as a natural deterrence towards an overbearing Government…….

Edited February 27, 2012 by Derek L

[cybercoma]

My guess is that the CIA probably already has the group infiltrated. It's much easier than say Al Qaeda. Because it's much easier to find a white, dorky, pretend radical CIA agent, than it is to find a Middle Eastern, arabic speaking one.

they're not a group. lmao.

[Guest Derek L]

they're not a group. lmao.

Nor Al Qaeda in the general sense of the word.

[olpfan1]

lol, funny rick mercer skit on anyonmous