Shots Fired On Parliament Hill

[Guest]

I've never looked into it, but how do the Crime stoppers "tips" lines work? And don't we already have a tips line aimed at tax cheats?

Might as well have one aimed at ideological nutjobs with guns too (or cars).

Rather that than tax dodgers anyday.

Edited October 28, 2014 by bcsapper

[Argus]

I hope this is a wake up call that war isn’t some abstract concept that takes place far overseas. Soldiers dying on our soil are new to us, but it’s a daily occurrence in the places we are sending soldiers to fight.

We send military people places to STOP the fighting, not to terrorize people.

Edited October 28, 2014 by Argus

[Argus]

If we don't stand up for our rights, we can slip into something that looks a lot like Russia.

You don't even know what your rights are or why they're important.

[Argus]

They certainly haven't. Most of the horrific violence in Canada is committed by non-Muslims.

Wow, talk about a low bar to make you happy.

Most killing here is thugs killing other thugs, and is mainly drug related. Thus most people feel fairly immune to it. What remains is mostly family related and involves drugs/alcohol.

The difference with terrorism, which you appear to be dismissing as a threat of any importance, is it can hit anyone anywhere. And most people with even minimal effort realize that had this been an organized group things would have been far, far, far worse.

[Argus]

This idea of initiating an action and using the excuse that it was "pre-emptive" has no validity.

No validity? What the hell is that supposed to mean? Is that English? Pre-emptive action is an intelligent thing to do depending on the circumstances, and quite workable.

It seems to be a recent concept to initiate war and conflict.

If by 'recent' you mean about five thousand years ago.

It is as silly as those "defensive invasions" that the USA has initiated.

None of which the US has initiated.

Like Pearl Harbour. The Japanese "had no choice but to attack" because the USA was about to join the war and invade Japan.

You clearly know nothing about the Second world war.

Canadian planes are in the Middle East bombing a bunch of guys dressed in black on Toyotas, guys who cannot even take down a helicopter, from invading North America.

And nothing about what we're doing in the middle east.

[Argus]

Amazing that you would post something that ridiculous.

Like I said... we arent talking about paranoids, or pedophiles. These concerns are global, and shared by almost everybody.

And yet, none of you has been able to articulate a single legitimate example of actual consequences to your 'privacy' being endangered.

Despite this you are all clawing at your hair and urging on the pedophile networks, Russian mafia and terrorists in their determination to find ways around government surveillance.

Edited October 28, 2014 by Argus

[Argus]

Maybe in hollywood movies. In the real world though theres both practical and theoretical limits on what can be done.

Yeah, okay. But let's look at your fantasy world, where encryption is actually able to defy government efforts at breaking it. What does that give you? Complete anonymity on the internet, for one. The ability of organized crime networks to move money around freely without interference or detection. Pedophile exchange sites which the government can't crack. Like minded, would-be terrorists free from government surveillance and able to get together and organize. The ability to make death threats and to stalk and attack people on the internet without impediment, and a massive amount of electronic crime and fraud, which is already growing, but which would be much harder to track.

All so you can heave a sigh of relief that the CIA isn't peering into your toilet bowl or something.

[dre]

Yeah, okay. But let's look at your fantasy world, where encryption is actually able to defy government efforts at breaking it. What does that give you? Complete anonymity on the internet, for one. The ability of organized crime networks to move money around freely without interference or detection. Pedophile exchange sites which the government can't crack. Like minded, would-be terrorists free from government surveillance and able to get together and organize. The ability to make death threats and to stalk and attack people on the internet without impediment, and a massive amount of electronic crime and fraud, which is already growing, but which would be much harder to track.

And THAT is why bulk electronic surveillance is such a bad idea. It has generated huge demand for secure communications. At least before this trend of governments spying on their own citizens law enforcement could go and get a warrant, and tap the phone or the internet connection of someone suspected of those crimes. And they could get at the data because most of it was either plain text (not encrypted) or the point of encryption was an ISP or Service provider that could be compelled by the courts to turn over the keys.

Now the government and the supporters of bulk electronic surveillance have unwittingly given all these criminals tools to allow secure communications. They cant get at the data even with a warrant. Great job.

As for the rest of it... you could make the same case for recording every single phonecall to be datamined, or opening every piece of mail to be scanned into a database. These would have been awsome tools for law enforcement and they might have caught some pedophiles. But governments in free societies dont do that kind of thing. They dont sieze communications from people that arent even suspected of crimes.

Does it make things harder for law enforcement in some cases? Sure... But so what. They already have a broad and powerful set of tools to deal with crime, and theres a reason to suspect someone is a pedophile or terrorist they can get a warrant very quickly and easily.

[dre]

And yet, none of you has been able to articulate a single legitimate example of actual consequences to your 'privacy' being endangered.

Ive given you a whole pile of adverse consequences attached to bulk electronic surveillance. Just because you ignore whats posted doesnt mean its not there.

Despite this you are all clawing at your hair and urging on the pedophile networks, Russian mafia and terrorists in their determination to find ways around government surveillance.

No... its the government and supporters of bulk collection that unwittingly aided terrorists and pedophiles and they are the ones to thank for the trend towards encryption and cryptographic devices.

[Moonlight Graham]

Completely horrible act last week obviously, but one silver lining is that at least these homegrown killers have only targeted the military as well as the politicians responsible for military actions against ISIS, and didn't target or harm civilians unlike in most other terrorist attacks. At least the military was given some warning from ISIS too of their intentions to attack. If you're a non-state actor wanting to use violence to fight back against a country, I guess this is one of the least unethical ways of doing so.

The attacks in Ottawa and Quebec were very sad and horrific but they could have been much, much worse with many innocent civilian casualties.

[Peter F]

I'd like to know what this need is for a changing of the laws to allow greater surveillance. Seems to me the cops didn't have too much trouble arresting the

wanna-be terrorists in toronto or the other wannabe's planning to derail a train. The present security system seemed quite capable of dealing with those threats. What more is needed that can't be done with the present laws?

[jbg]

Completely horrible act last week obviously, but one silver lining is that at least these homegrown killers have only targeted the military as well as the politicians responsible for military actions against ISIS, and didn't target or harm civilians unlike in most other terrorist attacks. At least the military was given some warning from ISIS too of their intentions to attack. If you're a non-state actor wanting to use violence to fight back against a country, I guess this is one of the least unethical ways of doing so.

So you see as a silver lining that it's "open season" on police or military interests inside Canada? Wow.

[Keepitsimple]

Completely horrible act last week obviously, but one silver lining is that at least these homegrown killers have only targeted the military as well as the politicians responsible for military actions against ISIS, and didn't target or harm civilians unlike in most other terrorist attacks. At least the military was given some warning from ISIS too of their intentions to attack. If you're a non-state actor wanting to use violence to fight back against a country, I guess this is one of the least unethical ways of doing so.

The attacks in Ottawa and Quebec were very sad and horrific but they could have been much, much worse with many innocent civilian casualties.

Give yourself a shake. You're attaching some sick form of "honour" to these terrorists.....don't think for a moment that the Parliament Hill killer would have spared anyone's life if he himself had not been killed. He was going after the politicians - and anyone who would get in his way.

Edited October 28, 2014 by Keepitsimple

[Mighty AC]

The Prime Minister did not hide in a closet, his aides put him there to get him as far from harm as possible. He's far more valuable alive than dead. No one should be asking Harper to be a hero given his position.

That's what you took from my comment? Nobody was calling for Harper to be a hero.

People, often innocent civilians, live in fear of attacks and die in wars every day. I hope that due to the incident in Ottawa and the brief fear it created, Canadian politicians will never again clap and cheer when deciding to send the sons and daughters of others off to war.

[Mighty AC]

We send military people places to STOP the fighting, not to terrorize people.

Is that right? There was a time when that statement was correct...for the most part.

[Smallc]

That's what you took from my comment? Nobody was calling for Harper to be a hero.

People, often innocent civilians, live in fear of attacks and die in wars every day. I hope that due to the incident in Ottawa and the brief fear it created, Canadian politicians will never again clap and cheer when deciding to send the sons and daughters of others off to war.

Again, no one ever clapped and cheered the idea of that. Only your narrow world view blinds you.

[Mighty AC]

Again, no one ever clapped and cheered the idea of that. Only your narrow world view blinds you.

Certainly nobody was clapping about the thought of dead soldiers and terrorized civilians, but that's what war entails. War can be necessary at times but entering into it should be treated with solemnity. I think defending some idiots cheering about winning a vote on this matter shows that your partisan view of the world is the one in need of widening.

[GostHacked]

You don't even know what your rights are or why they're important.

I do know my rights and why they are important. I think I know better than you. Even the SCC knows my rights. You have no idea of what your rights are and how your rights are being violated. That seems to be an issue of ignorance and naivety.

'My government would not violate the rights of Canadians, now would they?' I think we know what the answer was from the SCC on at least two other occasions.

[hitops]

They certainly haven't. Most of the horrific violence in Canada is committed by non-Muslims. That's the problem. You create a definition that provides self-fulfilling prophecy. The majority of attacks by Muslim extremists is committed by Muslim extremists. You don't look at violence others commit. It's tautological myopia.

I did exactly address your question, and specifically considered the fact that most violence in Canada is not Muslims. You just can't read, or perhaps don't know the definition of disproportionate.

And you didn't address in any way the fact that Muslims are vastly over-represented in worldwide religious-motivated violence.

I'll repeat the other point you didn't read, or ignored. Everyone knows governments all over the place commit violence. But the specific point stated that 'all religions do it', that's absolutely false. Only one religion's adherents compose 95%+ of all violence where religion is cited as the motivation. That was the specific claim, that I was specifically responding to.

'Most violence is not Muslims', is a misleading statement. It's not that most violence is non-Muslim, most violence is non-religious in Canada. But of that violence that is motivated by religion, Islam is far over-represented given it's size in the country. The same is true worldwide.

Edited October 28, 2014 by hitops

[Smallc]

Certainly nobody was clapping about the thought of dead soldiers and terrorized civilians, but that's what war entails. War can be necessary at times but entering into it should be treated with solemnity. I think defending some idiots cheering about winning a vote on this matter shows that your partisan view of the world is the one in need of widening.

If you think I have a partisan view of the world you don't really know my view of the world. I was a card carrying Martin Liberal.

[Argus]

And THAT is why bulk electronic surveillance is such a bad idea. It has generated huge demand for secure communications. At least before this trend of governments spying on their own citizens law enforcement could go and get a warrant, and tap the phone or the internet connection of someone suspected of those crimes. And they could get at the data because most of it was either plain text (not encrypted) or the point of encryption was an ISP or Service provider that could be compelled by the courts to turn over the keys.

I think your argument is more than a little confused. First, while encryption might well interfere with bulk surrvielance, what's commercially available is never going to be able to stop a targeted effort at a specific number or individual from a specialized government agency.

So in the end you're left with the bulk surveilance was a bad idea because once everyone is using hyper secure electronics the government won't be able to do bulk surveilance very easily.

As for the rest of it... you could make the same case for recording every single phonecall to be datamined, or opening every piece of mail to be scanned into a database.

That wasn't what was done. What was done was to develop a broad database about who was in contact with who. That way, when Abdul Abdullah was considered to be a terrorist, they could check to see who he'd been in communication with over the past time period, then have a look at them. The contents of those communications, be they voice or electronic, were not recorded and would not be available.

Does it make things harder for law enforcement in some cases? Sure... But so what.

And here is where you and I part ways. So what is not part of my lexicon in terms of making things harder on law enforcement. What law enforcement is or is not allowed to do is a decision based on good and bad, pros and cons. You've identifed the con here - making it harder for police to enforce laws. You've identifed no pro. Who is being helped and how? We're paying a price in terms of law enforcement so... so... so why exactly? How will your life be bettered by this?

[Big Guy]

I am surprised that so many have fallen for this "war on terror". It is the blanket acceptance of using violence to curtail anything that the government deems to be "terror". So we are now going to wage a battle against "extreme fear"?

This term "terrorist" has been used so often that it has now lost its credibility. Right now our airplanes are dropping bombs on people who are fighting organizations which are listed on our list of "terrorist" organizations. There are even the simple minded who try to equate terrorism with one of the oldest religions in the world. A religion practiced peacefully by about one quarter of the population of this earth. But I guess we need the odd delusional xenophobe to make the rest of us look sane and normal.

[Argus]

I do know my rights and why they are important. I think I know better than you. Even the SCC knows my rights. You have no idea of what your rights are and how your rights are being violated. That seems to be an issue of ignorance and naivety.

The only way you know what your rights are is when a court rules on something. And for the most part, you wouldn't notice if you had most of these 'rights' or didn't.

[Argus]

I am surprised that so many have fallen for this "war on terror". It is the blanket acceptance of using violence to curtail anything that the government deems to be "terror".

Most of us feel those beheading children and raping and eslaving women to be something bad. Evidently if it's no skin off your nose you couldn't care less.

Edited October 28, 2014 by Argus

[GostHacked]

The only way you know what your rights are is when a court rules on something. And for the most part, you wouldn't notice if you had most of these 'rights' or didn't.

You would not even notice if they were taken away. That is the problem part. The SCC knows our rights and even told the government that the actions they would take violate the rights of Canadians. Do you side with the SCC or the government trying to ram some unconstitutional legislation through?