dre Posted October 25, 2014 Report Posted October 25, 2014 What does that even mean? If it's legal it doesn't violate anyone's rights. And the only people it's going to cause issues with are the screwballs and nutjobs. No if the legislation includes the kind of measures you are talking about "scanning email", or any other warrantless wiretap provisions it will be an issue for anyone capable of rational thought, and only supported by authoritarian state power sycophants. A large majority of Canadians including both Liberals and Conservatives are against such measures. That leaves only cowardly little authoritarians. June 19, 2014 – A new opinion poll just released by Forum Research reveals massive opposition to Peter MacKay’s Bill C-13. The poll shows that 73% of Canadians oppose C-13, with just 15% approving - a ratio of nearly 5 to 1. Large majorities oppose C-13 across every region, age group, gender, and income level. Notably, the poll reveals that just 24% of Conservative voters support the bill, with 62% opposing it. The poll results deal a second devastating blow to the government’s spying bill in less than a week, following last Friday’s historic Supreme Court of Canada decision that warrantless spying is unconstitutional. The government has ignored repeated calls to reform the bill from privacy experts, public interest groups, elder statesmen in their own party, and even their own Privacy Commissioner. Which, btw, might well apply to a few of the people on this web site. God only knows what's on some of your computers. Are you 8 years old? Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
poochies Posted October 25, 2014 Report Posted October 25, 2014 Absolutely there's a line. This is a silly question. Just because someone is mentally ill doesn't mean that they're evil. In this case, he was intent on killing people and needed to be stopped. The end result is unfortunately the same whether he's mentally ill or not. I actually agree with you, some people seem to think that there was some other option in particular because it apparently wasn't his fault because he was ill, most people who kill people aren't in their right mind, but they still have to be stopped, and if those people are being pushed in that direction by extremist Islam, that also needs to be stopped, if that's even possible. Quote
cybercoma Posted October 25, 2014 Report Posted October 25, 2014 He may not have been criminally responsible for his actions, depending on the nature of his mental illness though. However, I'm careful to note that not all killers are mentally ill. Justin Bourque in Moncton was by no means mentally ill. He was very lucid and rational about his decisions. People were immediately saying how he must have a mental illness because he murdered 3 RCMP officers and seriously injured an additional 2. This perpetuates the stigma that those with mental illnesses are inherently dangerous and should be locked away. It depends on the mental illness, what treatments a person has, and myriad other things. Regardless, when someone, mentally ill or not, is on a rampage with a gun, then something must be done to protect people from harm. If his actions were from mental illness, it might be a tragedy, but that in no way changes the necessity of the outcome. Quote
dre Posted October 25, 2014 Report Posted October 25, 2014 Well tabled........hence hand-wringing over laws that have yet to be written, let alone tabled or passed, is premature. Normally I would agree but this government but in this case its very well known what kind of putrid legislation this government wants to pass. They are obsessed with warrantless wiretapping, that it seems unlikely this wont be used as another opportunity to ramrod through a c-30 variant. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Derek 2.0 Posted October 25, 2014 Report Posted October 25, 2014 Normally I would agree but this government but in this case its very well known what kind of putrid legislation this government wants to pass. They are obsessed with warrantless wiretapping, that it seems unlikely this wont be used as another opportunity to ramrod through a c-30 variant. I suppose prejudging based on precedent is valid for some.........none the less, I'll await further information. From what is known, the additional powers to be given to CSIS (like allowance of tracking suspects overseas or informant protection) doesn't seem cause for concern.......to me anyways. Quote
webc5 Posted October 25, 2014 Report Posted October 25, 2014 Is this in any way related to ISIS? Quote
Big Guy Posted October 25, 2014 Author Report Posted October 25, 2014 The problem is that these events feed into the xenophobia and bigotry of people and especially those who hide behind their anonymity on social sites and opinion boards. They twist the news to support their own agenda without having to face the accountability for their anti-Islam or anti-West propaganda. They and their ravings are generally harmless until they get the attention of feeble minded individuals like Anders Behring Breivik. Anders took his phobia to extremes and decided to murder about 70 young people on an island in Norway. The feeble minded are always susceptible to anti-West propaganda or anti-Islam propaganda anti-Semite propaganda or anti ... anything propaganda. Fortunately, most of these feeble minded and radicalized individuals are caught and made to account for their actions. Unfortunately, those anonymous cowards who incite them through spreading of hate on social media never have to account for their participation. Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
Argus Posted October 25, 2014 Report Posted October 25, 2014 (edited) It was not legal, it violated the constitution, this is why the SCC ruled against the broadening powers for CSIS previously. An important point to note. No, there were parts which a judge found were illegal, and other parts which were ambiguous. The legislation is an attempt to clarify things and set them up in a legal manner which the courts will have to approve. At which point they will not be violating any rights. Edited October 25, 2014 by Argus Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted October 25, 2014 Report Posted October 25, 2014 This is a very interesting statement. It IS possible for our government to pass laws which COULD, in fact, violate personal rights. For example, we could pass a law that police could enter your home at any time, without reason, just because they are the police. That would make it "legal" as in: "complying with the law", but also a violation of my rights. But if the courts found this to not be a violation then it would not be a violation. It's really up to whatever the courts decide is or is not a violation of the Charter. If the government passes legislation which the courts approve, then whatever that legislation is would not be illegal or a violation of rights. So why would anyone say they would pass legislation that will violate people's rights? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted October 25, 2014 Report Posted October 25, 2014 (edited) This is first and foremost about perceived political injustices and a rallying behind those. Conversion to Islam occurs later. What political injustices? This guy was a CANADIAN, and clearly acted on behalf of his sympathy for ISIS. Why would anyone in Canada grow sufficiently agitated about overseas activities when he has no connection with the people there? With nearly 2 billion Muslims on the planet, a small fraction of them have an agenda. A small fraction of them actually engage in these activities. And what's worse is it's Muslims killing Muslims and killers/radicals converting to Islam, like this guy. This is why it's nonsensical to blame this on Islam and say Islam is the cause of this violence. It is political violence first and it is radicals using religion second. To say it's the religion first makes absolutely no sense when it's Muslim vs Muslim and when there's literally hundreds of millions of Muslims that do not condone these people. Are you under the illusion that the only geopolitical struggles and injustices of the world occur in Muslim nations? What begats all this extraordinarily brutal violence from amongst the world's Muslims? And given the attitudes amongst those massive number of Muslims, as revealed in a wide variety of research why would you pretend the inherent intolerance and brutality embraced by so many plays no part in why their 'political violence' is so horrifically brutal? I mean, what other groups of revolutionaries behead children? Edited October 25, 2014 by Argus Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted October 25, 2014 Report Posted October 25, 2014 No if the legislation includes the kind of measures you are talking about "scanning email", or any other warrantless wiretap provisions it will be an issue for anyone capable of rational thought, and only supported by authoritarian state power sycophants. A large majority of Canadians including both Liberals and Conservatives are against such measures. That leaves only cowardly little They weren't warrantless, and I literally could not care less if some computer scans my emails for words like 'jihad' 'infidel' 'bomb' and the like. Nobody is going to be reading my emails unless it's Google or Yahoo or Rogers, who apparently do it with a fair degree of regularity anyway. Mostly it's paranoids and terrorist sympathizers who worry about stuff like that. The point is if they pass legislation and if the courts approve then by definition it's legal and not a violation of anyone's rights. Your sneering attitude, positing that I'm agreeing with the government because I'm a 'sycophant' or that this is somehow 'cowardly' are entirely without rational thought, evidence or logic. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted October 25, 2014 Report Posted October 25, 2014 Normally I would agree but this government but in this case its very well known what kind of putrid legislation this government wants to pass. They are obsessed with warrantless wiretapping No, YOU are obsessed with it. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
dre Posted October 25, 2014 Report Posted October 25, 2014 I suppose prejudging based on precedent is valid for some.........none the less, I'll await further information. From what is known, the additional powers to be given to CSIS (like allowance of tracking suspects overseas or informant protection) doesn't seem cause for concern.......to me anyways. Fair enough... I guess you could be right. As far as tracking suspects overseas, I dont have a problem with this as long as its not warrantless. They should have to get a court order, and at least demonstrate reasonable suspicion. Allowing any kind of warrantless surveillance opens up the door the overly broad collection of information on anyone they feel like for any reason. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
dre Posted October 25, 2014 Report Posted October 25, 2014 (edited) .Nobody is going to be reading my emails unless it's Google or Yahoo or Rogers, who apparently do it with a fair degree of regularity anyway. Mostly it's paranoids and terrorist sympathizers who worry about stuff like that. Again... people who dont want the government to have access to their phone, mail, or email rights are not paranoids or terrorist sympathizers. The very suggestion is just too stupid to comment on any further. Your sneering attitude, positing that I'm agreeing with the government because I'm a 'sycophant' or that this is somehow 'cowardly' are entirely without rational thought, evidence or logic. This is rich coming from a guy that just on the last two pages alone has labled people on the other side of the argument "screwballs, nutjobs, terrorist sypathizers, paranoids etc". I literally could not care less if some computer scans my emails Yes thats because not only do you have an authoritarian bent to you, but you have no understanding of whats involved. You are talking about industrial level surveillance, massive data warehousing, etc. And who do you want to task with this project? THE CANADIAN GOVERNMENT!!!! Those are the guys that spent 200 million dollars trying to create a simple database of about 20 million guns ROFLMAO. Limited government indeed... Mostly it's paranoids and terrorist sympathizers who worry about stuff like that. You keep repeating this garbage but its completely false. Almost EVERYONE is against the government having access to electronic communications. The concern is global, and almost universal. Is so big in fact that major providers are now marketing "government proof" communication devices.... (Newser) – Apple says its latest iPhone has an encryption system that will keep users' emails and photos safe from the prying eyes of the NSA or any law-enforcement agency, reports the New York Times. The company says its algorithm is so complex that if it ever had to turn over data from an iPhone 6, it would take the NSA about five years to decode it. Edited October 25, 2014 by dre Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
dre Posted October 25, 2014 Report Posted October 25, 2014 (edited) By the way... on the subject of electronic wiretapping... A year or so ago in a conversation with Hardner i warned him that the trend towards state electronic surveillance would come back to bite the government in the ass and actually REDUCE the ammount of access they have. And Iv been proven right... all this snooping has created demand for bullet proof secure communications and the private sector is stepping in. Apple is marketing their latest device as "NSA Proof". Exactly as I predicted. So now... not only can they not snoop content sent by these devices using man in the middle attacks like the NSA has been doing, and like authoritarians in Canada want to see... BUT THEY CANT EVEN GET AT THE DATA WITH A WARRANT ANYMORE because even if they get a court order to sieze the phone, they STILL cant get at the data. EPIC STUPIDITY. http://www.newser.com/story/196474/apple-iphone-6-is-nsa-proof.html What kind of terrorist is going to communicate on unsecure devices when they can get a snoop-proof device for the same price? From a technological perspective its hard to mention governments shooting themselves in the feet any worse. They are creating a trend that not only renders all of their warrantless techniques obsolete but also the old fassioned courted ordered access that worked so well for so long. You have to wonder... does the government even have access to basic IT consulting? Edited October 25, 2014 by dre Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Keepitsimple Posted October 25, 2014 Report Posted October 25, 2014 The scary part of the whole thing is that it could have been a van instead of a car. It could have been 8 terrorists instead of just one. If one could just run in, then all 8 could have likely done the same. I'll leave it to the imagination as to what could have happened. Quote Back to Basics
Derek 2.0 Posted October 25, 2014 Report Posted October 25, 2014 Fair enough... I guess you could be right. As far as tracking suspects overseas, I dont have a problem with this as long as its not warrantless. They should have to get a court order, and at least demonstrate reasonable suspicion. Not to be flippant, but how does one obtain a warrant in a ISIS controlled region? I see granting CSIS the powers to gather intelligence overseas (in turn rewriting section 16 of the CSIS act) as a positive move, granting an allowance to gather our own intelligence as opposed to relying upon information given to us by our allies. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 25, 2014 Report Posted October 25, 2014 There is no such thing as NSA proof....just sayin'. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Derek 2.0 Posted October 25, 2014 Report Posted October 25, 2014 The scary part of the whole thing is that it could have been a van instead of a car. It could have been 8 terrorists instead of just one. If one could just run in, then all 8 could have likely done the same. I'll leave it to the imagination as to what could have happened. Or it could have been 8 terrorists spread out among 8 targets within Canada........As potential Government targets become further hardened (like in the United States), I fully expect (and surprised it hasn't happened yet) such groups to shift their aims to softer targets like schools, coffee shops, transit hubs or shopping malls......... Quote
Topaz Posted October 25, 2014 Report Posted October 25, 2014 After reading some of the comments here I think some of you should hug each and start over. After al, if Harper can hug Justin, you guys can hug each other! Peace. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted October 25, 2014 Report Posted October 25, 2014 There is no such thing as NSA proof....just sayin'. So says you!!! Quote
dre Posted October 25, 2014 Report Posted October 25, 2014 Not to be flippant, but how does one obtain a warrant in a ISIS controlled region? I see granting CSIS the powers to gather intelligence overseas (in turn rewriting section 16 of the CSIS act) as a positive move, granting an allowance to gather our own intelligence as opposed to relying upon information given to us by our allies. No no... What I mean is that they obtain a warrant from our own courts to surveille a Canadian citizen overseas. And they dont need to prove anything, they just need to show that their suspicion is reasonable and they arent just going on pure fishing expeditions. As soon as you take the courts out of the picture you run the risk of massive abuse. Any techniques that make it easier to watch suspected terrorists could also be used against anyone else for any reason. Just as is the case with conventional wiretaps, judicial oversight is there to limit misuse. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Derek 2.0 Posted October 25, 2014 Report Posted October 25, 2014 No no... What I mean is that they obtain a warrant from our own courts to surveille a Canadian citizen overseas. And they dont need to prove anything, they just need to show that their suspicion is reasonable and they arent just going on pure fishing expeditions. As soon as you take the courts out of the picture you run the risk of massive abuse. Any techniques that make it easier to watch suspected terrorists could also be used against anyone else for any reason. Just as is the case with conventional wiretaps, judicial oversight is there to limit misuse. CSIS is already allowed to gather intelligence on Canadians overseas and at home. Quote
dre Posted October 25, 2014 Report Posted October 25, 2014 CSIS is already allowed to gather intelligence on Canadians overseas and at home. Yes so are the police. But if they want to go beyond a certain point they need a warrant. And if they need a warrant to tap a canadian citizens phone here in Canada for example, they should need one overseas as well. The courts should be in position to protect Canadians from government abuse no matter where they are. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Derek 2.0 Posted October 25, 2014 Report Posted October 25, 2014 Yes so are the police. But if they want to go beyond a certain point they need a warrant. And if they need a warrant to tap a canadian citizens phone here in Canada for example, they should need one overseas as well. The courts should be in position to protect Canadians from government abuse no matter where they are. You're confusing CSIS with CSEC..........As stated in a thread from several years ago, collection of Canadians electronic communications is already a reality, it just collected (without a warrant) by the Americans, British, Australians and New Zealanders........said data can be legally given to Canadian agencies, but can't be used in a court of law, because it was obtained sans a warrant. What said rumored changes include, is the use of said information in obtaining a Canadian warrant......The current laws allow the Canadian Government to revoke a passport based on gathered intelligence, but Canadian agencies can't use said information to detain said suspect. Quote
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.