The police want access to your conversations

Aaaannnnnd cue the left wing "Conspiracy Theorist, Anarchist and OMG We're Living In A Police State" crowd in 3...2...1...
 
What the **** is going on. first he wants to lock us up without cause, now he wants to invade our privacy. I bet you'll find most people will actually be supporting this. If it's to keep us safe at night it must be good right? **** no sheep!

I don't understand how people can give up their rights, just to feel safe.
 
Oh hell no. I don't want some copper reading what I'm sending to my buddies, girlfriend, family etc. You know how many times we vent to someone about "I wanna kill x y z person because (insert reason here). Next thing you know, cops are on your doorstep with a search warrent and an arrest warrent.
 
"The change also wouldn’t allow police to simply monitor anyone’s communication whenever they want, he said. The law would still require police to make their case to intercept the communication, like they do now with search warrants.
“It will maintain that we have to believe there is an offence, we have to prove to the judiciary that we have reasonable grounds to intercept communications,” said Downie. “That isn’t changing. We’re not asking for changes in that regard.”"

They would still require a warrant or court order, they wouldn't be able to willy-nilly eavesdrop (the NSA does that already, btw). All this is is a request for tools to keep abreast with current technology.
As for being worried about messages being misinterpreted, e.g., "I want to kill so-and-so", maybe if you send messages like that with enough frequency that it causes you concern, you should reconsider your writing habits.
Of course, none of that is anywhere near as fun or satisfying as interpreting the article to mean that facist jackboots are now kicking down the doors of the innocent.
 
CanadianBiker said:
" maybe if you send messages like that with enough frequency that it causes you concern, you should reconsider your writing habits.
Click to expand...
No, no, no, no, NO!
In our private communications we should not have to worry about anyone's interpretations but the recipients'.

Are people really that afraid of criminals?
You'd think that random violent crime would be rampant with the intrusions of privacy that people are willing to accept.
 
And whats wrong with the laws we have right now? When is it enough? When cops have access to everything?
 
CanadianBiker said:
Of course, none of that is anywhere near as fun or satisfying as interpreting the article to mean that facist jackboots are now kicking down the doors of the innocent.
Click to expand...

Oh, come on, you don't actually think any of the conspiracy theorists here actually READ the entire article, do you?! ;) Let's hope none of them ever find out about the CSE and what they've been up to in Canada for many years now. Oops, I've said too much!
 
sounds good to me.

i never understood why people are so against this kind of stuff.
i really think its "cool" to be against the man. its "cool" to be the one to argue.

**** it!
listen.watch.read.track...... do what ever the hell you want.
PROVIDED!!!!!.......you can tangibly show me results.
I want to see a reduction of crime, deaths, thefts, guns, drugs, ect.
I want to see tangible evidence that you "monitoring me" has resulted in change.

If this is just for the gov't to snoop around and sell our info to marketers then I am not on board.

You can apply this to insurance also.....
You may have noticed that some insurance companies offer a discount (25%) to track your vehicle.
I say YES PLEASE!!!
If that means you are able to lower my rate and prove that I am not like the rest of the people in my postal code area that is ok with me.

I have nothing to hide. Nothing to worry about being tracked, monitored, or watched.

As far as I am concerned, if someone wants to read the text I got about a friend touching herself.......enjoy the read. :D
 
anth1414 said:
sounds good to me.

i never understood why people are so against this kind of stuff.
i really think its "cool" to be against the man. its "cool" to be the one to argue.

**** it!
listen.watch.read.track...... do what ever the hell you want.
PROVIDED!!!!!.......you can tangibly show me results.
I want to see a reduction of crime, deaths, thefts, guns, drugs, ect.
I want to see tangible evidence that you "monitoring me" has resulted in change.

If this is just for the gov't to snoop around and sell our info to marketers then I am not on board.

You can apply this to insurance also.....
You may have noticed that some insurance companies offer a discount (25%) to track your vehicle.
I say YES PLEASE!!!
If that means you are able to lower my rate and prove that I am not like the rest of the people in my postal code area that is ok with me.

I have nothing to hide. Nothing to worry about being tracked, monitored, or watched.

As far as I am concerned, if someone wants to read the text I got about a friend touching herself.......enjoy the read. :D
Click to expand...

You're naive to say the least. You really think insurance companies want to track you so that YOU can save 25?? |they want to do it so that when you wreck and they have a 50K claim they can go back, show that you were going 10km/h over the speed limit at the time of the accident and then tell you that because you broke the law they will no longer pay out... but go ahead, go with the flow, cause im the crazy one lol
 
anth1414 said:
As far as I am concerned, if someone wants to read the text I got about a friend touching herself.......enjoy the read. :D
Click to expand...

Yes, please. So how does this work, do you PM me, or...?
 
Slippery slope?

“But there’s no provision being put forward to track somebody’s surfing habits, for instance,” said Downie. “There’s no requirement for ISP providers to record those things.”

This is purely untrue. What happens is incrementalism, they take one thing, and then creep up on the next and make it law, ad infinitum.

In 2002 I (along with several other ISPs) had protracted and long arguments with the police in a small board room in Toronto. I had 32 officially recorded questions to them which were universally answered with typical stuffed-shirt arrogance or not at all, and I plainly spoke out that they were engaging in treason against the Canadian citizen, because they wanted the following:

  • Up to 10 different enforcement agences to have instant full intercept capabilities and capture of all data from up to 25% of the subscriber base of an ISP at any time
  • These 10 agencies included the United States FBI, Interpol and other non-Canadian enforcement agencies (thus, my remarks on it being treasonous)
  • An ISP was to be expected to foot the bill to provide full capture of all data from all users at all time, and on-demand would include being able to view that collected data
  • At any time, the full intercept involved "teeing" data from any customer to be viewed by any or all 10 different agencies in real-time
  • Full web firewalling capabilities, to be managed by the enforcement agencies, to block "unwanted materials"
  • They wanted some unreasonables, like GPS data linked to a person's IP address... pure stupidity, while claiming to know more about technology than the ISPs assembled at the table
This was the day that I met Fantino in person for the first time and instantly disliked the man with intensity. He attempted to shout me down several times, and I reminded him that his badge meant nothing - he was just another guy in a blue suit with a big mouth. You can imagine I got glared at for a whole hour after that, right?

This was also the day - the one and only - that I was happy to hear Bell representatives speak, as they told the enforcement panel that they would not participate and that what they wanted was pure lunacy, simply impossible. They weren't nearly as pointed as I was in regards to sovereignty, etc. but they did make sure to get their point across that they would fight these measures with the full force of their legal and public relations teams. Sadly, most of the other ISP owners were sheep, bahhhhing about the cost of having to comply rather than asking whether they should or even could.

None of this came to pass because it was far too ambitious and far too stupid to be plausible. But they tried. And they were REALLY arrogant throughout the whole thing.

I remind you, that was 2002.
 
Last edited:
anth1414 said:
I have nothing to hide. Nothing to worry about being tracked, monitored, or watched.
Click to expand...

I'll just be kind and say that you haven't thought this through well enough. But hey... if you really want to pay someone to monitor and correct your actions, you can send me your first installment...
 
Shaman said:
In 2002 I (along with several other ISPs) had protracted and long arguments with the police in a small board room in Toronto.
Click to expand...
As a private citizen who wishes to stay private, I thank you for your contribution to keeping our country free.
 
Shaman said:
Slippery slope?

“But there’s no provision being put forward to track somebody’s surfing habits, for instance,” said Downie. “There’s no requirement for ISP providers to record those things.”

This is purely untrue. What happens is incrementalism, they take one thing, and then creep up on the next and make it law, ad infinitum.

In 2002 I (along with several other ISPs) had protracted and long arguments with the police in a small board room in Toronto. I had 32 officially recorded questions to them which were universally answered with typical stuffed-shirt arrogance or not at all, and I plainly spoke out that they were engaging in treason against the Canadian citizen, because they wanted the following:
  • Up to 10 different enforcement agences to have instant full intercept capabilities and capture of all data from up to 25% of the subscriber base of an ISP at any time
  • These 10 agencies included the United States FBI, Interpol and other non-Canadian enforcement agencies (thus, my remarks on it being treasonous)
  • An ISP was to be expected to foot the bill to provide full capture of all data from all users at all time, and on-demand would include being able to view that collected data
  • At any time, the full intercept involved "teeing" data from any customer to be viewed by any or all 10 different agencies in real-time
  • Full web firewalling capabilities, to be managed by the enforcement agencies, to block "unwanted materials"
  • They wanted some unreasonables, like GPS data linked to a person's IP address... pure stupidity, while claiming to know more about technology than the ISPs assembled at the table
This was the day that I met Fantino in person for the first time and instantly disliked the man with intensity. He attempted to shout me down several times, and I reminded him that his badge meant nothing - he was just another guy in a blue suit with a big mouth. You can imagine I got glared at for a whole hour after that, right?

This was also the day - the one and only - that I was happy to hear Bell representatives speak, as they told the enforcement panel that they would not participate and that what they wanted was pure lunacy, simply impossible. They weren't nearly as pointed as I was in regards to sovereignty, etc. but they did make sure to get their point across that they would fight these measures with the full force of their legal and public relations teams. Sadly, most of the other ISP owners were sheep, bahhhhing about the cost of having to comply rather than asking whether they should or even could.

None of this came to pass because it was far too ambitious and far too stupid to be plausible. But they tried. And they were REALLY arrogant throughout the whole thing.

I remind you, that was 2002.
Click to expand...

That would have been the easily.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom