Pirate Party to provide secure browsing services to protect
Curtman @ Sat Apr 23, 2011 3:03 pm
EyeBrock EyeBrock:
Curtman Curtman:
You could also have a look at the bills that they introduced during the last session.
C-50
C-51
C-52
Which authorize warrantless wiretaps.
C-50
C-51
C-52
Which authorize warrantless wiretaps.
I share your concerns on warrant-less wiretaps. Not good.
Well, they say it's only for exceptional circumstances..
I'm sure someone will have a problem with the "The Wire Report" as a news source.. But they have this to say in summary of the bills:
Lawful access bills back in Parliament
$1:
The legislation has been controversial because it would provide law enforcement authorities access to ISP customer information without court-ordered warrants.
Bill C-50, the Improving Access to Investigative Tools for Serious Crimes Act, was introduced in the House of Commons on Oct. 29.
The bill allows law enforcement authorities to intercept private communications under “exceptional circumstances,” including an urgent situation where “an authorization could not, with reasonable diligence, be obtained” under the law; where the interception is “immediately necessary to prevent an offence that would cause serious harm to any person or to property”; and where the “private communication or the person intended by the originator to receive it is the person who would commit the offence that is likely to cause the harm.”
Bill C-51, the Investigative Powers for the 21st Century Act, was introduced Nov. 1, and would extend investigative powers now restricted to telephones to all means of telecommunications.
Bill C-52, the Investigating and Preventing Criminal Electronic Communications Act, was also introduced Nov. 1. It would require telecom providers to put technologies in place to facilitate the law enforcement interceptions.
Bill C-50, the Improving Access to Investigative Tools for Serious Crimes Act, was introduced in the House of Commons on Oct. 29.
The bill allows law enforcement authorities to intercept private communications under “exceptional circumstances,” including an urgent situation where “an authorization could not, with reasonable diligence, be obtained” under the law; where the interception is “immediately necessary to prevent an offence that would cause serious harm to any person or to property”; and where the “private communication or the person intended by the originator to receive it is the person who would commit the offence that is likely to cause the harm.”
Bill C-51, the Investigative Powers for the 21st Century Act, was introduced Nov. 1, and would extend investigative powers now restricted to telephones to all means of telecommunications.
Bill C-52, the Investigating and Preventing Criminal Electronic Communications Act, was also introduced Nov. 1. It would require telecom providers to put technologies in place to facilitate the law enforcement interceptions.
EyeBrock @ Sat Apr 23, 2011 3:06 pm
I looked at the actual Act links you gave. I'm all for judicial approval of such intrusive tools as wire taps and house searches. Exigent circumstances are way too subjective. Put the paper before a JP or judge.
Curtman @ Sat Apr 23, 2011 3:12 pm
This was interesting too from Michael Geist..
$1:
Few would argue that it is important to ensure that law enforcement has the necessary tools to address online crime issues. But these proposals come at an enormous financial and privacy cost, with as yet limited evidence that the current legal framework has impeded important police work. In fact, when then Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan tried to justify his lawful access package, he pointed to an emergency situation that I later revealed (via access to information) had nothing to do with the Internet.
Curtman @ Sat Apr 23, 2011 3:16 pm
These bills started out as Liberal ones for the most part too. So you can't call me a Liberal partisan for complaining about them. Especially after I voted NDP yesterday. I showered 3 times, but still feel dirty.
EyeBrock @ Sat Apr 23, 2011 3:30 pm
Nah, you have partisan tendencies but your not a bad guy really! Even if you did vote NDP...
Curtman @ Sat Apr 23, 2011 4:19 pm
EyeBrock EyeBrock:
Nah, you have partisan tendencies but your not a bad guy really! Even if you did vote NDP...
$1:
partisan: par·ti·san
an adherent or supporter of a person, group, party, or cause, especially a person who shows a biased, emotional allegiance.
an adherent or supporter of a person, group, party, or cause, especially a person who shows a biased, emotional allegiance.
Being primarily anti-Harper, I consider myself an anti-partisan.
Khar @ Sun Apr 24, 2011 8:17 am
Definitions:
•An adherent to a party or faction; A fervent, sometimes militant, supporter or proponent of a party, cause, faction, person, or idea;
•a fervent and even militant proponent of something
•devoted to a cause or party
A source.
Anti-Harperism (lacking a better word to call it) is a cause, which you have in your own post and in the list of definitions above in mine. Being partisan only requires you to be a fervent supporter or an idea, or a faction. It does not necessarily mean that you must be an ardent backer of a specific group, since you can also be an ardent backer of ideals contrary to that group.
Partisanship can be loosely translated to "ardent, biased support" of anything mentioned above. I don't wish to call anyone partisan here, I just wanted to come in and quickly remark on the use of the term "partisan." One of the larger problems on discussion boards is the ability for words to be misused, especially misused innocently, and I hate to see future discussion troubled with semantics.
Hope I didn't offend anyone, and sorry for the tangential post!
EDIT @ below: Oh, now I feel like a douchebag. 
Curtman @ Sun Apr 24, 2011 8:40 am
Khar Khar:
Hope I didn't offend anyone, and sorry for the tangential post!
EDIT @ below: Oh, now I feel like a douchebag.
EDIT @ below: Oh, now I feel like a douchebag.
My post wasn't meant to be taken seriously.
EDIT: I should have put the winky emoticon with the other post. Hahah.