RCMP wants warrantless access to online subscriber info......

ReeferMadness · November 27, 2015

Me neither, but I'll take the risk and accept the results.

I'm happy with you accepting the risk - providing I don't need to accept it as well.

dialamah · November 27, 2015

Shut down the internet. It's the only solution.

Plus we'd all get more exercise and housework done!

jacee · November 27, 2015

Me neither, but I'll take the risk and accept the results.

Without even knowing what/who they're looking for ?

Blanket warrantless internet surveillance and disclosure?

That's extreme.

.

Smeelious · November 27, 2015

Did he find you? You do understand that there is no such thing as complete anonymity on these boards.

So, you'd need an admin out to get you and a friend who works for a telco to risk his job on a personal thing. Well I suppose you wouldn't even need either of those things. The IP(s) alone would get you a few things too many probably.

bush_cheney2004 · November 27, 2015

...That's extreme.

No...that's PM Trudeau's new "Sunni Ways".

Michael Hardner · November 28, 2015

I'm happy with you accepting the risk - providing I don't need to accept it as well.

Here's how it works: everybody makes up their mind, and the government picks a place in the middle. If many people feel the way that I do then your rights will suffer. That's the price of living in a group.

Michael Hardner · November 28, 2015

Without even knowing what/who they're looking for ?

Blanket warrantless internet surveillance and disclosure?

That's extreme.

.

No - I believe in checks and balances, including an abuse protocol, audits and limits as to what this is to be used for.

jacee · November 28, 2015

No - I believe in checks and balances, including an abuse protocol, audits and limits as to what this is to be used for.

I don't hear the RCMP asking for 'audits and limits'.

Re your comment about police and governments/politicians being 'under surveillance' ... Darn right! We pay their salaries. They work for us! We have a right to know.

They do not, however, have a right to know (without a warrant) what every one of us is doing online or anywhere else ... unless they have reasonable grounds for suspicion that we are involved in crime ... and that reasonable suspicion will get them a warrant when necessary.

Warrantless access to identifying info simply is not necessary, and is a violation of Charter rights.

.

Big Guy · November 28, 2015

So, you'd need an admin out to get you and a friend who works for a telco to risk his job on a personal thing. Well I suppose you wouldn't even need either of those things. The IP(s) alone would get you a few things too many probably.

All you need is motivation and money. There are professional services which will track down individuals starting with their participation on the Internet. Any enquiry by any law enforcement will open all your information from providers and web owners.

WestCoastRunner · November 28, 2015

Years ago some guy on this site had a problem with me and threatened to find out where I lived so he could deal with me in person. He was banned immediately.

If that's true, why wouldn't a member be banned for threatening to report a poster to the RCMP based on his unfounded beliefs?

Michael Hardner · November 29, 2015

They do not, however, have a right to know (without a warrant) what every one of us is doing online or anywhere else

What about asking telecom providers to run a voice-to-text filtering system to pick out key words ? Wiretapping is a very specific thing, and what I'm describing isn't wiretapping. The answer to the question is more complicated and may not have been tested.

jacee · November 29, 2015

What about asking telecom providers to run a voice-to-text filtering system to pick out key words ? Wiretapping is a very specific thing, and what I'm describing isn't wiretapping. The answer to the question is more complicated and may not have been tested.

What about police seize and search everyone's personal outgoing and incoming snail mail ... 'just in case'?

What about police enter and search any and every home ... 'just in case' ?

What about police access and search everyone's car GPS unit to see where you've been, who you've seen ... 'just in case'?

Are you OK with those?

Because I don't see the difference.

.

Michael Hardner · November 29, 2015

What about police seize and search everyone's personal outgoing and incoming snail mail ... 'just in case'?

You didn't answer my question. I'll answer yours if you answer mine.

Because I don't see the difference.

.

You may not see the moral difference, but you know that these are different activities. I'm trying to find out at what point you do see somewhat of a moral difference, eg. when there's no actual human listening to you.

jacee · November 29, 2015

You didn't answer my question. I'll answer yours if you answer mine.

You may not see the moral difference, but you know that these are different activities. I'm trying to find out at what point you do see somewhat of a moral difference, eg. when there's no actual human listening to you.

Wiretapping requires a warrant.

So does monitoring any other of my forms of communication.

I believe it should stay that way.

I do not believe police should have a right to go searching through my communication - looking for "keywords" or anything else - any more than they can search through my cupboards, unless they have reasonable grounds to suspect I am committing a crime, and can convince a judge to give them a warrant.

.

Edited November 29, 2015 by jacee

ReeferMadness · November 29, 2015

What about asking telecom providers to run a voice-to-text filtering system to pick out key words ? Wiretapping is a very specific thing, and what I'm describing isn't wiretapping. The answer to the question is more complicated and may not have been tested.

According to Snowden, the spy agencies are already doing this type of thing today. Why do the police need to do it too?

Michael Hardner · November 29, 2015

I do not believe police should have a right to go searching through my communication - looking for "keywords" or anything else - any more than they can search through my cupboards, unless they have reasonable grounds to suspect I am committing a crime, and can convince a judge to give them a warrant.

.

The police aren't doing it, the telcos are. My answer is that I don't think there's any advantage in seizing 'snail mail' so I'm not in favour.

Michael Hardner · November 29, 2015

Why do the police need to do it too?

I don't know.

ReeferMadness · November 29, 2015

I don't know.

You don't know why they need it. You've admitted that you have concerns about them misusing it. And you still want to give it to them?

Michael Hardner · November 29, 2015

I'm not differentiating between police and security.

eyeball · November 30, 2015

I'm not differentiating between police and security.

A lot of people seem to be associating police with insecurity. I don't know what you think you're doing to allay that insecurity but it's not working for me.

freeloader1969 · December 1, 2015

Get a warrant. Most warrants are rubber stamped anyway.

GostHacked · December 2, 2015

Most people use a pool of IP addresses assigned to their ISP. This means having the IP address tells the RCMP nothing if they can't compel the ISP to hand over their records of who was using the IP within the time range in question. The RCMP wants to be able to demand this information from the ISP without a warrant and without any notification being sent to the subscriber in question. I have not heard any compelling reason to skip the warrant if there is probable cause so the RCMP must want to be able to go on fishing expeditions when there is no probable cause.

The IP can be tied to something called the MAC address on the router/modem. Each device has a unique ID unless you know how to spoof it in some way. And that takes a little more PC knowledge than most can get into. For the most part your ISP gives you a 'persistent IP' meaning, it is essentially DHCP, but your modem typically gets the same IP over and over again unless you do a hard reset (even then you still get the same IP) or you call your ISP to switch it up.

But I agree warrants are needed.

GostHacked · December 2, 2015

Those are both risks, but they are acceptable to me if weighed against the benefits of having more tools to use against criminals. What do you think ?

Alright, so... you are not a criminal. What would more tools do to help other than monitor you 24/7 even though they know you are not doing anything criminal.

If you are not doing anything wrong, why are you worried?

Then ask :

If you are not doing anything wrong, what use is the constant monitoring?

GostHacked · December 2, 2015

No - I believe in checks and balances, including an abuse protocol, audits and limits as to what this is to be used for.

Good, then you believe a warrant is necessary. Otherwise you WILL and already have seen abuse of protocol.

GostHacked · December 2, 2015

What about asking telecom providers to run a voice-to-text filtering system to pick out key words ? Wiretapping is a very specific thing, and what I'm describing isn't wiretapping. The answer to the question is more complicated and may not have been tested.

Do you understand the implications of being able to voice-to-text filtering?