So it looks like our privacy doesn't mean crap anymore. I am hoping they are using this Child Pornography stuff as an excuse to create this bill. I am all for doing it to protect the kids but if the government will be watching all our online activities then this sucks.
Make no mistake, this isn't about child pornography. The police currently have the tools, if they suspect that someone is involved (creating, distributing, viewing, etc.) in child pornography, to obtain a warrant and gather evidence. The thing about a warrant is that there needs to be a reason, and the judicial system oversees it. The new bill would give the police a portal that they can log into, for no reason whatsoever, and obtain personal information about you from your ISP.
The police don't need these powers to catch criminals, whether kiddie porn scum, terrorists, etc. The system of warrants works well and keeps the rights of the people intact. This is simply about giving the police and government a tool to spy on private citizens without reason.
The worst part about this is the divisive rhetoric that they are wrapping this bill in. It seems that whenever the government wants to take away some of your freedom, they bunch it in with something heinous and horrifying. Post 9/11 America saw a lot of this with the Patriot Act and other laws. If you provide any sort of reasonable opposition or resistance to your rights being taken away, then you're on the side of the terrorists & pedophiles.
This is simply about giving the police and government a tool to spy on private citizens without reason.
Not sure it's that...I'd probably be of the mind to think it's an incremental weighing. The tools work now (and from our perspective, they work great). The Conservatives, for whatever reason, think it isn't good enough and are willing to jeopardize large possibilities of abuse (notably, as photon mentioned earlier, the ability to track a person down without judicial intervention given a bit of luck) for whatever incremental benefit they may find in child porn cases.
I think the government believes it is legitimately helping out...I'm just not sure, such as was very noticable in the attempted legislation of SOPA (especially the committee review), that the politicians voting it in are aware of the consequences...nor do they care to learn them.
__________________
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to kirant For This Useful Post:
Not sure it's that...I'd probably be of the mind to think it's an incremental weighing. The tools work now (and from our perspective, they work great). The Conservatives, for whatever reason, think it isn't good enough and are willing to jeopardize large possibilities of abuse (notably, as photon mentioned earlier, the ability to track a person down without judicial intervention given a bit of luck) for whatever incremental benefit they may find in child porn cases.
I think the government believes it is legitimately helping out...I'm just not sure, such as was very noticable in the attempted legislation of SOPA (especially the committee review), that the politicians voting it in are aware of the consequences...nor do they care to learn them.
Good point. That's the scariest part. "I hate child porn/piracy/(insert cause here), and this will help stop it. I'll vote for this - the collateral damage is worth this noble cause."
What makes me skeptical of the government's motives, however, is that there has been opposition from citizens, privacy commissioners (most notably Ontario's), lawyers, privacy advocates, etc. and the government seems determined to push it through regardless. Basically: "Here's our bill, like it or you're a kiddie porn sympathizer, and we have a majority so it'll become law regardless of what anyone thinks."
I'm sure that they'll vote to end debate on it as well, as the Conservatives have been known to do.
Well, its good to know that we no longer need judges, just do away with them, the police can handle everything, we just need to give them the power to do whatever they want, whenever they want to whomever they want. They only have our best interests at heart afterall, and they'd never do anything to hurt or inconvenience us.
The Police are our friends, our best friends, the only friends we'll ever need.....
__________________ The Beatings Shall Continue Until Morale Improves!
This Post Has Been Distilled for the Eradication of Seemingly Incurable Sadness.
The World Ends when you're dead. Until then, you've got more punishment in store. - Flames Fans
If you thought this season would have a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention.
The Following User Says Thank You to Locke For This Useful Post:
While there are a lot of competent and intelligent cops there are a lot who are border line morons and I don't feel comfortable with their ever increasing powers.
Well, its good to know that we no longer need judges, just do away with them, the police can handle everything, we just need to give them the power to do whatever they want, whenever they want to whomever they want. They only have our best interests at heart afterall, and they'd never do anything to hurt or inconvenience us.
The Police are our friends, our best friends, the only friends we'll ever need.....
You've just summed up the judicial reasoning of former Supreme Court justice Mme Justice L'Hroux-Dube. Sorry, for the aside.
Obviously, his personal information should not be published in a public forum. But when you equate wanting privacy with supporting child pornography, the irony of his privacy being compromised is timely.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Jimmy Stang For This Useful Post:
Here is the new bill (C-30) for those who want to give it a read through. I will try and get to it at lunch to form my opinion and see if I need to send Mr Kenney an email.
I know a few who work at the ITCU. Let's just say there's a couple of guys that I would be worried about as they are not exactly the most ethical people in the world. I won't go into details in case they read this forum, but I would be worried if this bill is passed.
And there lies the problem. You can't always trust the people who have the ability and power to do the right things.
I know a few who work at the ITCU. Let's just say there's a couple of guys that I would be worried about as they are not exactly the most ethical people in the world. I won't go into details in case they read this forum, but I would be worried if this bill is passed.
And there lies the problem. You can't always trust the people who have the ability and power to do the right things.
At some point, you need to trust law enforcement to do their jobs as the law allows. If you can't then it is a different issue entirely, a bad cop is a bad cop.
__________________
"Wake up, Luigi! The only time plumbers sleep on the job is when we're working by the hour."
At some point, you need to trust law enforcement to do their jobs as the law allows. If you can't then it is a different issue entirely, a bad cop is a bad cop.
I'd rather have a judge overseeing the bad cop than giving the bad cop an open door. I'm not anti-police by any stretch, and I agree that you need to let them do their job as the law allows. It's what the proposed law will allow is what's scary.
(BTW - I think we're making the same point here).
The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to Jimmy Stang For This Useful Post:
At some point, you need to trust law enforcement to do their jobs as the law allows. If you can't then it is a different issue entirely, a bad cop is a bad cop.
All I'm saying is that the abuse of power with this bill comes easier vs if an ITCU employee had to obtain a warrant.
The Following User Says Thank You to TheyCallMeBruce For This Useful Post:
Well, its good to know that we no longer need judges, just do away with them, the police can handle everything, we just need to give them the power to do whatever they want, whenever they want to whomever they want. They only have our best interests at heart afterall, and they'd never do anything to hurt or inconvenience us.
The Police are our friends, our best friends, the only friends we'll ever need.....
I get the sarcasm, and yeah the G-20 abuses clearly show we can only trust them so far...
Obviously, his personal information should not be published in a public forum. But when you equate wanting privacy with supporting child pornography, the irony of his privacy being compromised is timely.
I guess the information is part of the public record, and publishing court records is legal in Manitoba (where I assume the stuff in question took place).
So it's not even being compromised.
Now we can read about him having an affair with the former babysitter for 7 years.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
The Following User Says Thank You to photon For This Useful Post:
This government has no shame. Celebrating the abolition of the gun registry the same week they introduced the internet registry. Good work "public safety minister".
And vikileaks30 is not "ironic timing" at all. The person who created it even put the bill number in the account name. It's a direct response.
Sorry, for the aside.
