Online Surveillance Bill

[Rob MacLennan]

http://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc...07oncj255.html

Tsk, tsk.... I wanted to make him work for it

[jay-d]

Tsk, tsk.... I wanted to make him work for it

I am the ashamed

[bitzz]

If that's what you think, then I strongly suggest that you review the judgment in R. v. Linton, 2007.
....

OK, now I'm not understanding.
What does R. v Linton, 2007 have to do with the topic discussion?
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. Try harder!
Mr. Linton's charge of obstruct police was withdrawn because of the Canadian Charter of Rights S24.2. Nothing what so ever to with failure to identify himself to a peace officer.
Right off the top: HE DID IDENTIFY HIMSELF TO THE PEACE OFFICER... with a false identity... or did you miss that part.

My turn.
Here is a link to a copy of C30
http://www.scribd.com/doc/81598609/Bill-C-30
Post up the sections you find objectionable.

I re-read the bill today and I don't find anything REALLY objectionable, as I have stated MANY times before; the police aren't getting any power's that they didn't have before.

[OpenGambit]

the police aren't getting any power's that they didn't have before.

if you live in lala land I suppose.

Then again, what can I expect from someone that thinks failure to identify is a crime

we are all still waiting for you to identify the act the offence is in by the way. Meanwhile, I am going to write a christmas list to santa and leave my tooth under my pillow.

[Rob MacLennan]

OK, now I'm not understanding.
What does R. v Linton, 2007 have to do with the topic discussion?
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. Try harder!
Mr. Linton's charge of obstruct police was withdrawn because of the Canadian Charter of Rights S24.2. Nothing what so ever to with failure to identify himself to a peace officer.
Right off the top: HE DID IDENTIFY HIMSELF TO THE PEACE OFFICER... with a false identity... or did you miss that part.

My turn.
Here is a link to a copy of C30
http://www.scribd.com/doc/81598609/Bill-C-30
Post up the sections you find objectionable.

I re-read the bill today and I don't find anything REALLY objectionable, as I have stated MANY times before; the police aren't getting any power's that they didn't have before.

[44] If Mr. Linton and the others were detained for the purpose of requiring them to provide identification, the detention was clearly unjustified. In R. v. Mann, Justice Iacobucci specifically declined to recognize a general power of detention for investigative purposes[10]. Rather, he held, the police must have reasonable grounds to suspect “a clear nexus” between the individual to be detained and “a recent or on-going criminal offence”, something to indicate that “the particular individual is implicated in the criminal activity under investigation”. But even if the purpose of the police really was to investigate the men for possession of marihuana, the detention would still be unlawful if the decision to detain was made, as I suspect it was, before the police arrived at the scene. Prior to their arrival, the only basis that the police had for suspecting that an offence was occurring was that people had smoked marihuana at this location after basketball games in the past. That circumstance did not give rise to reasonable grounds to detain everyone who was present on this occasion. In R. v. Mann, Justice Iacobucci stated that “the presence of an individual in a so-called crime area is relevant only so far as it reflects his or her proximity to a particular crime. The high crime nature of a neighbourhood is not by itself a basis for detaining individuals.”[11] In Simpson, in the context of evidence that the accused had been seen leaving a crack house, Justice Doherty stated:

Attendance at a location believed to be the site of ongoing criminal activity is a factor that may contribute to the existence of "articulable cause". Where that is the sole factor, however, and the information concerning the location is itself of unknown age and reliability, no articulable cause exists. Were it otherwise, the police would have a general warrant to stop anyone who happened to attend at any place which the police had a reason to believe could be the site of ongoing criminal activity. [emphasis added][12]

[Rob MacLennan]

http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/News/Polit.../ID=2198943511

[dr_sarcasm]

http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/News/Polit.../ID=2198943511

Oh stop it, this bill is clearly not giving police any more power than they have now...I mean, it's a superbly constructed piece of legislation that Vic Toews knows inside and out...no amendments are needed...

Lol. Can't wait to see the rebuttal to this one.

[Rob MacLennan]

Oh stop it, this bill is clearly not giving police any more power than they have now...I mean, it's a superbly constructed piece of legislation that Vic Toews knows inside and out...no amendments are needed...

Lol. Can't wait to see the rebuttal to this one.

I'm trying to find audio of the original interview, on CBC Radio. I heard a couple of clips from it and it was hilarious, to hear that he doesn't know the content of the bill he's pushing

[Rob MacLennan]

OK, now I'm not understanding.
What does R. v Linton, 2007 have to do with the topic discussion?
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. Try harder!
Mr. Linton's charge of obstruct police was withdrawn because of the Canadian Charter of Rights S24.2. Nothing what so ever to with failure to identify himself to a peace officer.
Right off the top: HE DID IDENTIFY HIMSELF TO THE PEACE OFFICER... with a false identity... or did you miss that part.

My turn.
Here is a link to a copy of C30
http://www.scribd.com/doc/81598609/Bill-C-30
Post up the sections you find objectionable.

I re-read the bill today and I don't find anything REALLY objectionable, as I have stated MANY times before; the police aren't getting any power's that they didn't have before.

Section 16, and pretty much anything using the words "exigent circumstances", rings alarm bells for me.

[bitzz]

Section 16, and pretty much anything using the words "exigent circumstances", rings alarm bells for me.

Yeah I know BUT "exigent circumstances" already exists in the crimminal code and the charter, and is already used and abused, so nothing new there.

When you actually READ the bill, it's not so bad. The bill is NOTHING like what the media is portraying it as.

[OpenGambit]

Yeah I know BUT "exigent circumstances" already exists in the crimminal code and the charter, and is already used and abused, so nothing new there.

When you actually READ the bill, it's not so bad. The bill is NOTHING like what the media is portraying it as.

If you read the bill as well as you read the responses in this thread, your assertion holds no credibility whatsoever.

[Rob MacLennan]

Yeah I know BUT "exigent circumstances" already exists in the crimminal code and the charter, and is already used and abused, so nothing new there.

When you actually READ the bill, it's not so bad. The bill is NOTHING like what the media is portraying it as.

Even leaving aside the phrase "exigent circumstances", which makes my skin crawl every time I see it, you're ignoring section 16.

[bitzz]

I am not ignoring section 16.
Section 16 comes from an EU agreement that Canada signed in 2006.

I think you're getting the wrong impression here. I am not supporting or defending Bill c30, I am not complaining about Bill C30. I am saying it is already here.
You do know the US has been packet sniffing BEHIND every Canadian ISP's firewall for years and years (that means they CAN read your email and content).
Most ISPs have been disclosing user information happily for years, as per EU regulations. One of the major telcos doesn't supply this information, and it has become an international embarassment for SteveO.
I don't think c30 will pass because of all the politico BS, like the new name, that is now attached to it, but we're going to get something very very similar, with section 16 (probably verbatim), soon. Probably alot quieter next time.

[Rob MacLennan]

If someone is with a telecom company that discloses, then that person can vote with his or her feet. If it's mandated by government, then that option is gone.

I'm going to use an old homily: If everyone else was jumping off a bridge, would you? Just because every other country in the world wants to kill personal freedom is no reason that we should. Sure, I'm aware that the US has monitoring programmes. That doesn't mean that we have to legitimize the bloody thing.

[OpenGambit]

I don't see how the fact that something exists is justification for such thing.

[Rob MacLennan]

I don't see how the fact that something exists is justification for such thing.

Admitting that something exists is no more, and no less, than just that. Codifying it is justifying it.

[bitzz]

We jumped off that bridge in 2006... c30 is codifing that fact.

[ypcat]

Soap box time - sorry.

This bill is a threat and the rights and freedom it subverts are not a joking matter. I have signed a petition against this bill and there's more going on here than most people realize. The conservative party politics scare the hell out of me - and not for my own sake but for the sake of Canada's future.

To wit: The politicians serve a few years, vote themselves a raise and take the summer off and then retire on about 350k tax free per year while the average retiree works until age 65 and beyond and some of them are eating cat food to save money so they can exist which is different to living.

This is indicative of a non-equitable government and the politicians are not interested in representing the proletariat agenda but a large group of them are keenly interested in preserving this lop sided arrangement. The result is they and their families gain real power and long term position and wealth, and more or less become part of a ruling class complete with privileges and riches to match. The general populace will be powerless against them - at least on a legal basis - and let the atrocities of injustice begin.

The government has put itself above the law on so many major issues I've lost count. Having no legal recourse is scary and makes me think of fascism. For example, take something simple like bankruptcy. Consider whom it is supposed to protect and what it should provide, and realize that the government's student loan money will still be owed until you pay it or die - with no recourse for the impoverished student who for whatever reason needed to declare bankruptcy to get a fresh start on life. Well the government doesn't care about all that they just expect to be paid NOW or they will garnish, and the interest on what you owe is compounded. They victimize above a law that was designed to prevent citizens being victimized. Don't even get me started on Revenue Canada... and if you think this doesn't affect you, think again. Every right that they remove politically only serves to make you easier to oppress and squeeze even more money from you.

Social media threatens them; we all saw what happened with social media and the Egyptian revolt. The only thing the lying politicians fear besides your vote is unified social action by a populace that can react in semi-real time, and is tired of being raped by the ruling class. The ability to execute this is based on the freedom of using social media and the internet. If they're allowed to police it without recourse then we lose; it's reminiscent of not teaching the serfs and peasants to read lest they rise up and strike down the local gentry.

/rant off

[OpenGambit]

Soap box time - sorry.

This bill is a threat and the rights and freedom it subverts are not a joking matter. I have signed a petition against this bill and there's more going on here than most people realize. The conservative party politics scare the hell out of me - and not for my own sake but for the sake of Canada's future.

To wit: The politicians serve a few years, vote themselves a raise and take the summer off and then retire on about 350k tax free per year while the average retiree works until age 65 and beyond and some of them are eating cat food to save money so they can exist which is different to living.

This is indicative of a non-equitable government and the politicians are not interested in representing the proletariat agenda but a large group of them are keenly interested in preserving this lop sided arrangement. The result is they and their families gain real power and long term position and wealth, and more or less become part of a ruling class complete with privileges and riches to match. The general populace will be powerless against them - at least on a legal basis - and let the atrocities of injustice begin.

The government has put itself above the law on so many major issues I've lost count. Having no legal recourse is scary and makes me think of fascism. For example, take something simple like bankruptcy. Consider whom it is supposed to protect and what it should provide, and realize that the government's student loan money will still be owed until you pay it or die - with no recourse for the impoverished student who for whatever reason needed to declare bankruptcy to get a fresh start on life. Well the government doesn't care about all that they just expect to be paid NOW or they will garnish, and the interest on what you owe is compounded. They victimize above a law that was designed to prevent citizens being victimized. Don't even get me started on Revenue Canada... and if you think this doesn't affect you, think again. Every right that they remove politically only serves to make you easier to oppress and squeeze even more money from you.

Social media threatens them; we all saw what happened with social media and the Egyptian revolt. The only thing the lying politicians fear besides your vote is unified social action by a populace that can react in semi-real time, and is tired of being raped by the ruling class. The ability to execute this is based on the freedom of using social media and the internet. If they're allowed to police it without recourse then we lose; it's reminiscent of not teaching the serfs and peasants to read lest they rise up and strike down the local gentry.

/rant off

Your understanding of bankruptcy and student loans is wrong, its student loans within 7 years that arent' erased. There is also a hardship clause allowing discharge after 5 years. There is nothing wrong with that, otherwise there would be no downside to immediately declaring bankruptcy upon graduation. You might want to check your facts before you get on a soapbox.

[ypcat]

Your understanding of bankruptcy and student loans is wrong, its student loans within 7 years that arent' erased. There is also a hardship clause allowing discharge after 5 years. There is nothing wrong with that, otherwise there would be no downside to immediately declaring bankruptcy upon graduation. You might want to check your facts before you get on a soapbox.

You left out the part where the government reserves the right to order you to pay it anyway, with no legal recourse at their discretion. Whatever the downside, the government has put itself above the law by instituting a special case here only for them which tacks on an extra seven years that no other merchant, institution or bank gets, and the worst part is that after you suffer the seven extra years there is no legal recourse through the courts should the government deign to arbitrarily exercise that power over you.

The fact that they're trying to do this on a massive scale with the internet and this bill now using scare tactics is the central point. You'll have to forgive my less than articulate example - or whatever. I could easily use the G20 example instead - which we all got to see on 60 minutes in high definition.