7

It’s target practice in the Commons over the Conservatives’ ‘snoop and spy’ legislation


 

Opposition MPs and critics of the online-surveillance bill tabled by the government of Stephen Harper lashed out at the Conservatives on Tuesday, after Public Safety Minister Vic Toews caused outrage on Monday by referring to opponents of the bill as siding with child pornographers. During Question Period on Tuesday, NDP MP Charlie Angus said the government was setting out to “snoop and spy” on average Canadians, while Interim Liberal Leader Bob Rae asked the Prime Minister whether the alleged friends of pedophiles included the provincial privacy commissioners who wrote an open letter to Toews last year criticizing the bill. In addition to concerns about police being able to obtain information on Internet users without a warrant, the Ontario Privacy Commissioner, Ann Cavoukian, also raised the issue of the bill requiring Internet service providers (including Rogers, which owns Maclean’s) and websites to collect and store users’ data, which, she said, could create a “Fort Knox of information” for hackers and criminals to prey on. It’s an issue Maclean’s blogger and TVO host Jesse Brown also pointed to on Tuesday. An online petition against the bill has already collected close to 90,000 signatures. Steve Anderson, the executive director of OpenMedia.ca, which organized the Stop Online Spying petition in May, compared the effects of the bill to the Orwellian online surveillance practiced by the governments of Syria and China.


 
Filed under:

It’s target practice in the Commons over the Conservatives’ ‘snoop and spy’ legislation

  1. Didn’t Chretien’s government have just such a database?  Didn’t they have to destroy it as a result of the firestorm it raised?  Weren’t the Conservatives against the very existence of such a thing a decade ago?  Hypocrites will out.

    • Are you by any chance thinking of the gun registry? Cuz the implementation of this Act on the one hand and the dismantling of the registry on the other goes well beyond hypocrisy and into what in a person would be a mental disorder.

  2. With this bill, the CONservatives are continuing to show Canadians that they abhor the principals of democracy in Canada.  From bill C-10 to this blatant invasion of privacy, Stephen Harper is actually reforming Canada into a country under the rule of a fascist government. 

  3. “The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation. ” -Mein Kampf, Adolf
    Hitler, Publ. Houghton Miflin, 1943, Page 403  

    This has been used before and thousands of Canadian hero’s died to stop it…LEST WE FORGET>>and this bill coupled with the treatment of Vets by this group of thugs shows exactly what their agenda is!   

  4. They’re arguing that for the sake of catching a certain type of criminal representing less than 1% of the population; they need warrantless access to 100% of the population’s personal life?
     
    Are you kidding me?
     
    Do you know what your average computer expert can do with your IP details related to your computers and phones? All without anyone being the wiser? For Pete’s sake, I can track my kid’s location within 10 metres via his cell phone with just conventional technology I downloaded from the internet!
     
    Are we going to rely on the ISPs to rat out cops if they abuse the backdoor access?
     
    Do we really believe this isn’t an expressway to personal information that hackers will have a field day with?
     
    Cops already routinely get in trouble for conducting searches without proper warrants. The incidents of abuse of the license plate database are well known. For god’s sake they cover each other with lies all the time, even when people get KILLED ON VIDEO IN THE PRESENCE OF DOZENS OF WITNESSES!
     
    So what do you think will happen when they can troll the internet non-stop with little oversight?
     
    Does anyone honestly think they’ll be concerned about the warrant when they can get everything they need to fish around in people’s accounts without it?
     
    They can get the information they need to sneak around without a warrant, but honest, they won’t use it until they get the warrant… Yeah right!
     
    Again, who do they think they’re kidding?

  5. When did the average Canadian become an enemy of the Canadian government and a target for scrutiny?
    Why do the Conservatives feel a need to spy on Canadians? And why, when running a deficit, would any honorable government anywhere piss away borrowed money to do it?

    HINT Mr Harper, drop this unnecessary program and use the budget from it to return the pension to it’s rightful status.

  6.  EXPECT MORE GOVERNMENT/POLICE CORRUPTION WITH NO-WARRANT
    SEARCHES
    Note: Canada will have the same loss of electronic privacy
    and civil liberties that the Obama Government proposed for Americans. See where
    Canada is headed. Canada signed with the U.S., asset forfeiture reciprocal
    sharing agreements that allow the U.S. and Canadian Police to share assets
    seized from Canadians. Canadian police want the power to search Canadian’s
    business and private electronic communications without a warrant—perhaps among
    other objective—to seize billions of dollars in property from Canadian Citizens.
    Isn’t it usually about money?
    Compare: U.S. Government wants the power without a
    warrant, to introduce as evidence in criminal prosecutions and government civil
    trials, any phone call record, email or Internet activity. That would open the
    door for Police to take out of context, any innocent—hastily written email, fax
    or phone call record to allege a crime or violation was committed to cause a
    person’s arrest, fines and or civil asset forfeiture of their property. There
    are more than 350 laws and violations that can subject property to government
    asset forfeiture. Government civil asset forfeiture requires only a civil
    preponderance of evidence for police to forfeit property, little more than
    hearsay.
    If the U.S. Justice
    Department has its way, any information the FBI derives from circumventing the
    Fourth Amendment, i.e. (no warrant searches) of Web Server Records; a Citizen’s
    Internet Activity, personal emails; fax / phone calls may be used by the FBI for
    (fishing expeditions; to issue subpoenas in hopes of finding evidence or to
    prosecute Citizens for any alleged crime or violation. Consider that neither
    Congress nor the courts—determined what Bush II NSA electronic surveillance,
    perhaps illegal could be used by police or introduced into court by government
    to prosecute Americans criminally or civilly. If U.S. Justice Department is
    permitted (No-Warrant) surveillance of all electronic communications, it is
    problematic state and local law enforcement agencies and private government
    contractors will want access to prior Bush II /NSA and other government
    illegally obtained electronic records not limited to Americans’ Internet
    activity; private emails, faxes and phone calls to secure evidence to arrest
    Americans, assess fines and or civilly forfeit their homes, businesses and other
    assets under Title 18USC and other laws. Of obvious concern, what happens to
    fair justice in America if police become dependent on “Asset Forfeiture” to help
    pay their salaries and budget operating costs?
    The “Civil Asset
    Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000” (effectively eliminated) the “five year statue of
    limitations” for Government Civil Asset Forfeiture: the statute now runs five
    years (from the date) police allege they “learned” an asset became subject to
    forfeiture. It is foreseeable should (no warrant) government electronic
    surveillance be approved; police will relentlessly sift through Citizen and
    businesses’ (government retained Internet data), emails and phone communications
    to discover possible crimes or civil violations. A corrupt despot U.S.
    Government too easily can use no-warrant-(seized emails, Internet data and phone
    call information) to blackmail Americans, corporations and others in the same
    manner Hitler utilized his police state passed laws to extort support for the
    Nazi fascist government, including getting parliament to pass Hitler’s 1933
    Discriminatory Decrees that suspended the Constitutional Freedoms of German
    Citizens. A Nazi Government threat of “Property Seizure” Asset Forfeiture of an
    individual or corporation’s assets was usually sufficient to ensure Nazi
    support.
    Under U.S. federal civil
    forfeiture laws, a person or business need not be charged with a crime for
    government to forfeit their property. Most U.S. Citizens, property and business
    owners that defend their assets against Government Civil Asset Forfeiture claim
    an “innocent owner defense.” This defense can become a “Catch 22” a criminal
    prosecution trap for both guilty and innocent property owners. Any fresh denial
    of guilt made to government when questioned about committing a crime “even when
    you did not do the crime” may (involuntarily waive) a defendant’s right to
    assert in their defense—the “Criminal Statute of Limitations” past for
    prosecution; any fresh denial of guilt even 30 years after a crime was committed
    may allow Government prosecutors to use old and new evidence, including
    information discovered during a Civil Asset Forfeiture Proceeding to launch a
    criminal prosecution. For that reason many innocent Americans, property and
    business owners are reluctant to defend their property and businesses against
    Government Civil Asset Forfeiture.
    Re: waiving Criminal Statute
    of Limitations: see USC18, Sec.1001, James Brogan V. United States. N0.96-1579.
    U.S. See paragraph (6) at:http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/96-1579.ZC1.html

Sign in to comment.