The police want access to your conversations

No, no, no, no, NO!
In our private communications we should not have to worry about anyone's interpretations but the recipients'.

You don't board an aircraft and make remarks about bombs, hijacking or boxcutters, no matter how "private" the conversation is supposed to be.
Similarly, if making death threats about others to a third party is a regular part of one's routine, perhaps that routine needs revisiting.
 
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.

So then you wouldn't mind if you were under continuous surveillance 24/7, as long as the information were only used after having a warrant?
 
You don't board an aircraft and make remarks about bombs, hijacking or boxcutters, no matter how "private" the conversation is supposed to be.
Similarly, if making death threats about others to a third party is a regular part of one's routine, perhaps that routine needs revisiting.

You're taking what I said out of context. I don't regularily walk around uttering death threats. My point is I shouldn't have to be paranoid about blowing off steam should I be having a bad day that day. Everyone has a day where you wish you stayed in bed for x y z reasons. Your cat ****** in your shoe, it ****** rain soaking your clothes, you dropped your coffee on your way to work and finally your boss throws your report back in your face because he doesn't like the font. Rather than tell him to go eff himself (and probably get fired), you text your buddy/girlfriend/brother how you'd like to wax the floor with his ***. I firmly believe that should stay between you and whoever you happend to send it to. Everyone has a coping mechanism or release when one has a bad day.
 
Slippery slope?

That was after the whole 9/11 thing and paranoia was rampant. I think law enforcement was under a lot of pressure to keep out "the evil doers" and they were trying to slip one past the charter guards. They weren't keeping up to technology.

I don't disagree at all with you though. There are basic rights and freedoms that are guaranteed because sometimes, you just don't know what government will do with information. You hope they do the right thing, but you never know. And once you're on a list, it's hard to get off of it. They have the ability to get access to your phone conversations via court order..that should be the same for your ISP. If they want access, they can apply to a judge with specific cause and be looking for specific information. No fishing expeditions.
 
Hahaha.... they just want to read the dirty stuff....
 
So then you wouldn't mind if you were under continuous surveillance 24/7, as long as the information were only used after having a warrant?
With the proliferation of security cameras, we are practically under 24/7 surveillance.
And in the context of the article, the warrant is required prior to surveillance.
Believe it or not, I'm not in favour of having civil liberties run roughshod but the predictable knee-jerk reactions from the usual anti-police crowd here would have one believe that the sky is falling.
I doubt that anyone here would argue that catching pedophiles, child pornographers, and other scumbags who use the internet to victimize children is a bad thing. Well, the only way the police can do that is by using technology.
How about bike thieves? The latest thread here on the subject sounded like a Western movie, with calls to string up the rustlers. What if the police used this technology to track a bike theft in progress and as a result, someone here's bike was saved?
 
I doubt that anyone here would argue that catching pedophiles, child pornographers, and other scumbags who use the internet to victimize children is a bad thing. Well, the only way the police can do that is by using technology.

Oh for chrissakes. This is exactly how they take away people rights... "OH YOU HAVE TO THINK OF THE CHILDREN."

If they were really interested in that, they'd install cameras at the Catholic church.

How about bike thieves? The latest thread here on the subject sounded like a Western movie, with calls to string up the rustlers. What if the police used this technology to track a bike theft in progress and as a result, someone here's bike was saved?

Nope. The ends don't justify the means.
 
if the police force back doors into the systems for them to easily access your information then others can use it as well. would you like just anyone to have the ability to access your info? i know, the average person isn't interested (or probably capable) in accessing your info, but those that are, would you want them being able to access your bank account, being able to see the encrypted info means they can see your online login and password to access the bank. when was the last time the newspapers reported that the police are infallible, don't make mistakes, there's no cops on the take, no cops using their postion... not saying all cops are dirty (though from the way they protect themselves after g20 it makes you wonder), but there are bad apples in every bunch and i don't want those bad apples with this much power.

and canadian biker keeps going on about how a warrant is required.... have you ever heard of evidence being tossed due to lack of warrant?
 
So the police want access to all our information/communication/conversations....

Interesting then..... that they are being paranoid about being recorded.... something about information gained might be used improperly against them...

http://forthesakeofscience.com/2010/07/12/the-police-fear-of-being-recorded/

Funny you say that, our own toronto police dont want cameras in their cruisers...

Well ladies and gentlemen if you have nothing to hide then what seems to be the problem?? I guess that line only works when you're trying to take away the average citizens rights...
 
Funny you say that, our own toronto police dont want cameras in their cruisers...

Well ladies and gentlemen if you have nothing to hide then what seems to be the problem?? I guess that line only works when you're trying to take away the average citizens rights...

Yeah I tried to film a traffic stop one day with my camera phone and the cop lost it on me, threatend to take me to jail.
 
Yeah I tried to film a traffic stop one day with my camera phone and the cop lost it on me, threatend to take me to jail.

You should have told him "But constable, you have nothing to hide, nothing to worry about, right? You are legally going about your legal duties, right? Why should I not film you while protecting us from evil speeders and seatbelt unbucklers?" :cool:

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.

Who would they make their case to? I see some vague references to "a judiciary" but that could damn well be a JP, a purely political appointment, not requiring any formal legal training or respect for the Charter. Also, would they have to justify collecting evidence before or after collecting it? If it's after, why not collect everything on everyone and then cherrypick as they see fit? Hey Mike, I didn't like the way this sucker looked at me during the traffic stop, call IT and see what else they can dig up on him! I'll just justify it later :cool:
 
You should have told him "But constable, you have nothing to hide, nothing to worry about, right? You are legally going about your legal duties, right? Why should I not film you while protecting us from evil speeders and seatbelt unbucklers?" :cool:



Who would they make their case to? I see some vague references to "a judiciary" but that could damn well be a JP, a purely political appointment, not requiring any formal legal training or respect for the Charter. Also, would they have to justify collecting evidence before or after collecting it? If it's after, why not collect everything on everyone and then cherrypick as they see fit? Hey Mike, I didn't like the way this sucker looked at me during the traffic stop, call IT and see what else they can dig up on him! I'll just justify it later :cool:

I'm sure if I did that to the cop right now I'd either be fighting a HTA172 convinction, in the hospital or in jail. Either way i holstered the phone and paid the fine.
 
I'm sure if I did that to the cop right now I'd either be fighting a HTA172 convinction, in the hospital or in jail. Either way i holstered the phone and paid the fine.

I love the level of confidence in our police services that our hard working professionals have in them, after paying $500-$1000 a year for them :cool: As for paying the fine.. Take it to court next time.
 
No, no, no, no, NO!
In our private communications we should not have to worry about anyone's interpretations but the recipients'.
Unless the recipient chooses to show it to the police, then what?

And I don't think saying "I want to kill xxxxxx" will land you in jail. Now maybe if you said "I plan on killing him in the bedroom with a candlestick" and that's precisely how the person dies, then the text could be incriminating (although, the police would still need probable cause to read the texts in the first place).
 

Back
Top Bottom