Election's Canada investigating "Robocall" Guelph Riding (and other ridings).

[c.t.ner]

Well it looks like there is starting to be too much misinformation being bantered about for their not to be more some sort of investigation in to both voter suppression claims and the "robo call" issues.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/stor...ns-canada.html

Pierre Poilievre and Dean Del Mastro pointed in question period to Liberal candidates who, they said, used a company based in North Dakota to make calls soliciting support.

"The opposition parties said that [their supporters] received calls from a telephone firm with offices in North Dakota. But the only party who hired a firm with offices in North Dakota was the Liberal Party," Poilievre said.

NDP MP Charlie Angus, who spoke right after Poilievre, pointed out that was incorrect.

"Mr. Speaker, they're going to need to get some better researchers, because there is a firm in North Dakota with the same name, but it actually doesn't work for the Liberal Party," he said.

The confusion centred on three call companies with similar names, including Prime Contact Group, based in Canada, and Prime Contact Inc., based in North Dakota

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by First Lady

How/why would the topic of the calls change my position on this? What are you trying to suggest?



Agreed and RackNine didn't plan, approve, fund and/or commit the criminal act.

I guess I wasn't clear. Let me try again.

If I understand you correctly, you would feel that Racknine would have no responsibility, not even a moral one, if their system was used to make thousands or tens of thousands of anti-gay or anti-Semitic calls to Canadians.

If I understand you correctly, I understand that you're fine with them closing their eyes to any abuse of their service.

Secondly, I didn't mean to suggest that Racknine was criminally responsible for planning or initiating the robocalls. My intention was to say that the blame for the fiasco shouldn't lay with some Conservative party lowly staffer. The investigation will have to identify those, even if they occupy senior positions in the Party, who planned, funded and approved the campaign. THOSE individuals, not an intern following orders, are the ones who should face any legal repercussions.


I guess you didn't have time to address my rebuttal to your analogies.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by old-fart

And I'd suggest the question shouldn't be "did Conservative Party staffers break election law in the last election" but rather "were any election laws broken in the last election, and if so by whom"?

We already know funding rules were broken and that Senior Conservative Party personnel have been charged with that crime, so maybe the question should be "were any additional election laws broken in the last election, and if so were those mischievous Conservatives at it again"?

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

While we are at it do we think Hewlet Packard should be responsible for any homophobic or bigoted crap people print on their printers?

This company rents out an automated call center, they have nothing to do with what their clients use it for, all they should be expected to do is cooperate fully with the investigation.

With your keen legal mind, I'm sure owners of the file sharing sites that have been shut down and/or prosecuted wish they had you as their lawyer.

They only provided a 'clearing centre' for those wanting to share files, yet somehow they, in many cases, were found criminally responsible for providing nothing more than a service.


*** It seems the In and Out scandal was the previous election. My apology for that, however, it helps establish a pattern of dirty tricks by the Harper Conservatives. ****

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

If I understand you correctly, you would feel that Racknine would have no responsibility, not even a moral one, if their system was used to make thousands or tens of thousands of anti-gay or anti-Semitic calls to Canadians.

If I go to Staples and use their self serve copiers to reproduce anti-gay letters do you think the blame should fall entirely on me, entirely on Staples for providing the service or should it be shared between us?

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

With your keen legal mind, I'm sure owners of the file sharing sites that have been shut down and/or prosecuted wish they had you as their lawyer.

They only provided a 'clearing centre' for those wanting to share files, yet somehow they, in many cases, were found criminally responsible for providing nothing more than a service.

Little bit different, they were/are knowingly spreading copyrighted materials. They also paid people to upload that copyrighted material.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

I guess I wasn't clear. Let me try again.

If I understand you correctly, you would feel that Racknine would have no responsibility, not even a moral one, if their system was used to make thousands or tens of thousands of anti-gay or anti-Semitic calls to Canadians.

I don't expect any business that offers a "user operated" service to monitor everything they do. And they certainly can't be held liable after the fact if they were unaware of what was happening.

If I understand you correctly, I understand that you're fine with them closing their eyes to any abuse of their service.

No and they haven't. I'm sure if Matt had known what they were doing he likely would have said "WTF?" and pulled the plug on them.

Secondly, I didn't mean to suggest that Racknine was criminally responsible for planning or initiating the robocalls. My intention was to say that the blame for the fiasco shouldn't lay with some Conservative party lowly staffer. The investigation will have to identify those, even if they occupy senior positions in the Party, who planned, funded and approved the campaign. THOSE individuals, not an intern following orders, are the ones who should face any legal repercussions.

I too want to see those responsible identified and face the full extent of the law. However, I will be incredibly surprised if any of this was authorized by someone in an authority position. It's just way too stupid of a thing to do.

I guess you didn't have time to address my rebuttal to your analogies.

I felt others had covered it quite well. And there was a very good graphic posted as well.

Perhaps you can share exactly what it is you think makes them different than a service provider? Why does Rack Nine have a greater responsibility than Telus or Rogers to monitor what goes out over their lines?

[old-fart]

Originally Posted by Slava

I don't know why you want to make this a partisan issue? We get it. no party is perfect. Lets just leave that aside for the time being.

I'm more concerned that the current government has now alleged to have broken the election laws twice in a row. If the Liberals had this same record I would be just as concerned. Its one thing to have a different opinion politically than someone, but a whole other thing to try to screw around with elections laws and fairness.

I'm pretty sure I'm the one saying that ALL issues need to be investigated regardless of party affiliation. You seem to be the one stuck on partisan issues like "the conservatives did it before, they must have done it again" yet when I point out that the Liberals have also done it before, why isn't it possible that they have done it again" I get called out for being partisan.

I'll make it very simple.

The Cons got there fingers caught in the cookie jar with the in-and-out scandal in the last election. Very bad for them.

The Liberals did the exact same thing in the last election, yet the mainstream Liberal media barely reported on it. They have also been caught circumventing political donation limits (in Volpe's riding no less) among other things. Has Dion ever paid back his leadership loans?

In this most recent election, the Cons are being accused of using a robo-dialer to send voters in Guelph to a different (and incorrect) polling station. If that is true, the person or persons responsible need to be prosecuted to the fullest extent possible and I don't care if they are conservative, liberal, green or rhino.

Further, the opposition parties are trying to tie any phone call that was made that was annoying, offensive, on the sabbath, late at night or early in the morning to some grand scheme of the Cons to steal the election. This is completely nonesense as there is ZERO evidence that these calls were even made by the Conservatives. Every party made calls last election, and I'd be willing to bet that everyone of them made some annoying calls, rude calls, calls on the sabbath, etc. This is the part that is completely assinine.

Let the investigation happen, and let those responsible pay the price.

[EddyBeers]

Originally Posted by old-fart

The Cons got there fingers caught in the cookie jar with the in-and-out scandal in the last election. Very bad for them.

The Liberals did the exact same thing in the last election, yet the mainstream Liberal media barely reported on it. They have also been caught circumventing political donation limits (in Volpe's riding no less) among other things. Has Dion ever paid back his leadership loans?

In this most recent election, the Cons are being accused of using a robo-dialer to send voters in Guelph to a different (and incorrect) polling station. If that is true, the person or persons responsible need to be prosecuted to the fullest extent possible and I don't care if they are conservative, liberal, green or rhino.

Are you saying that the Liberals were also laundering money in the last election? Do you have any proof of that, cause the only party I have ever heard of that was laundering money was the Conservative Party.

There definitely are Liberals who have outstanding leadership loans, of course this is almost entirely because Harper reduced the amount that an individual can donate to a political party by 80% after the Liberal leadership convention, but Dion has paid his off.

But I am really curious if what you meant to say in your post was that the Liberals laundered money last election the same way the Tories did in 2006.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by First Lady

Perhaps you can share exactly what it is you think makes them different than a service provider? Why does Rack Nine have a greater responsibility than Telus or Rogers to monitor what goes out over their lines?

Because I don't believe choosing to be willfully ignorant is a valid defense. "i didnt know people were using my software to illegally share copyrighted material" didn't work for those providing file sharing software.

"I didn't know the person I lent my car to was going break traffic laws" isn't going to get me out of paying a photo radar or red light camera fine even though I did nothing more than provide my car.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

Because I don't believe choosing to be willfully ignorant is a valid defense. "i didnt know people were using my software to illegally share copyrighted material" didn't work for those providing file sharing software.

"I didn't know the person I lent my car to was going break traffic laws" isn't going to get me out of paying a photo radar or red light camera fine even though I did nothing more than provide my car.

By your reasoning, if volunteers sat in their homes and made these calls you would want Telus/Shaw/Rogers all brought up on charges too.

[Jacks]

Stop comparing this to filesharing sites, I would bet at least 90% of the files on filesharing sites are copyright protected content. The owners of the filesharing sites not only know that but they pay people to upload the content.

By saying that Racknine was "willfully ignorant" you are making the assumption that they knew an illegal act was taking place and that they chose to ignore it. Care to justify that theory? or do you think that they should be monitoring every message being sent out and editing out anything that could be deemed illegal, offensive, annoying, etc.?

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by First Lady

By your reasoning, if volunteers sat in their homes and made these calls you would want Telus/Shaw/Rogers all brought up on charges too.

That's twice you've deflected rather than addressed my points.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

That's twice you've deflected rather than addressed my points.

I think when you respond to this....

Originally Posted by First Lady

By your reasoning, if volunteers sat in their homes and made these calls you would want Telus/Shaw/Rogers all brought up on charges too.

my point will be established.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by Jacks

Stop comparing this to filesharing sites, I would bet at least 90% of the files on filesharing sites are copyright protected content. The owners of the filesharing sites not only know that but they pay people to upload the content.

By saying that Racknine was "willfully ignorant" you are making the assumption that they knew an illegal act was taking place and that they chose to ignore it. Care to justify that theory? or do you think that they should be monitoring every message being sent out and editing out anything that could be deemed illegal, offensive, annoying, etc.?

I believe you're only telling half the story about the file sharing. Certainly there were sites that did exactly as you describe however there absolutely were other sites that did nothing more than provide software that enabled peer to peer file sharing then simply looked the other way.

I'd ask you NOT to put words in my mouth. Willfully ignorant does not mean that RackNine knew. Willfully ignorant could mean anything from not caring what clients did with their service to meaning RackNine couldn't be bothered to put reasonable measures in place to prevent abuse despite knowing that their service could be abused. No one is entitled to turn a blind eye.

I'm not trying to say RackNine is the main culprit here. But I won't buy the suggestion that they're pure as the driven snow either. Obviously the investigation should focus on who ordered the calls and who executed the calls.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by First Lady

I think when you respond to this....

my point will be established.

Ladies first.

Originally Posted by long-suffering
Because I don't believe choosing to be willfully ignorant is a valid defense. "i didnt know people were using my software to illegally share copyrighted material" didn't work for those providing file sharing software.

"I didn't know the person I lent my car to was going break traffic laws" isn't going to get me out of paying a photo radar or red light camera fine even though I did nothing more than provide my car.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by First Lady

I think when you respond to this....

my point will be established.

I'm not going to play this game with you all night, but I'll bite one last time.

One obvious difference is that Telus, Shaw and Rogers have whole department's whose only purpose is to identify inappropriate use of their services.

In other words, those 'service providers' take reasonable measures to product the public from abuse of those services. Are they perfect? By no means, but they do make a reasonable effort.

I think we've already established, that the "I had no idea" defence rarely works.

Again, I'm not placing blame on the whole affair on RackNine but taking no measures against abuse of your services is not acceptable or reasonable business practice.

Was it reasonable of RackNine to believe that none of their clients would abuse the service? Of course not. We're all aware of any number of automated caller abuses. Given the likelihood of abuse, a responsible service provider, they - like Telus/Rogers/Bell - would be obliged to take reasonable measures to prevent future abuse.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

I believe you're only telling half the story about the file sharing. Certainly there were sites that did exactly as you describe however there absolutely were other sites that did nothing more than provide software that enabled peer to peer file sharing then simply looked the other way.

The main sites that have shut down, Megaupload, Filesonic, etc. are the ones that had almost entirely illegal content. Of course there was legitimate filesharing going on but it was/is a tiny portion compared to the illegal content, that is the exact opposite of this case where almost all of Racknines users are legitimate and we are hearing about a rare illegal occurence.

Originally Posted by longsuffering

I'd ask you NOT to put words in my mouth. Willfully ignorant does not mean that RackNine knew. Willfully ignorant could mean anything from not caring what clients did with their service to meaning RackNine couldn't be bothered to put reasonable measures in place to prevent abuse despite knowing that their service could be abused. No one is entitled to turn a blind eye.

I guess that depends on what you consider to be "reasonable measures". Do you expect them to be filtering the content of their users? Are they supposed to approve all messages before they are sent? Who gets to decide what is an acceptable message?

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

I'm not going to play this game with you all night, but I'll bite one last time.

One obvious difference is that Telus, Shaw and Rogers have whole department's whose only purpose is to identify inappropriate use of their services.

In other words, those 'service providers' take reasonable measures to product the public from abuse of those services. Are they perfect? By no means, but they do make a reasonable effort.

I think we've already established, that the "I had no idea" defence rarely works.

Again, I'm not placing blame on the whole affair on RackNine but taking no measures against abuse of your services is not acceptable or reasonable business practice.

Was it reasonable of RackNine to believe that none of their clients would abuse the service? Of course not. We're all aware of any number of automated caller abuses. Given the likelihood of abuse, a responsible service provider, they - like Telus/Rogers/Bell - would be obliged to take reasonable measures to prevent future abuse.

The clients in question would have signed this; how they use the list is the party/candidate/volunteers responsibility. They answer to Elections Canada (in this case).

At any rate Elections Canada and RCMP are not (nor have they ever been) investigating RackNine. Even the media has clued in. The only ones still trying to drag them into this are partisans grasping at straws.

[Rathji]

Here is a good question for you longsuffering:

If Racknine suddenly started vetting all content that was submitted by a client to be robo-dialed out, how would they know that this official sounding message was false?

Sure they could check, but even if they were required to check all content, is that really a reasonable thing to expect them to know for a fact or not, if polling stations had been moved? Would they know for a fact that the person that submitted the file was not allowed to advise people of their polling station location?

I have received many calls before, advising me of where my polling station was. I can assure you that none of them were from anyone who worked for Elections Canada, and most certainly would not have been any more important than some shmoe who submitted a file to be robodialed. this is what candidates do to get people to the polls. I have even made those calls and delivered cards with those addresses to peoples homes as a volunteer for a candidate.

I understand that they could have (and maybe should have) had processes in place to review content that thier services are delivering, but I think for an average person to know that this message was fake and/or requiring them to check all facts provided in such a message would be far beyond reasonable.