Police seeking wider eavesdropping powers

[Osborn F Enready]

Dieval said: How did you come up with "immient threat"? Is that in their laws or are you just making it up as you go along?

Its common sense. If a person sees a piano falling from the sky towards them, the piano poses an imminent threat, and if they value their existence in life, they step out of the way, dealing with the threat.

Much like a nation, if it expects to have credibility by reasonable people, can't use force against people or another nation without PROOF and EVIDENCE of imminent threat to justify it.

It doesn't come from law, its comes from philosophy, which should back all reasonable law.

Dieval said: Um, you miss the point that calls and emails are NOT private to begin with.

You miss the point that only a fool would accept that as a reason, regardless of where that reason eminates from, since it contains no reasoning.

Dieval said: No, it doesn't. It sounds like they want to go through a judge to be able vew records, emails, etc, similiar to how it works here.

I am against how it works here, and have been before the latest assault on privacy by the Patriot Act and the farce called "Homeland Security".

Dieval said: Your police state references are getting old. Canada and the US are not nearly the police states you imagine...

And you have a right to an opinion, as I do. You look at what is, and say that what it "is" is not what I describe. In some cases, this is true. The path of what is, and where what is is heading is what shows the path of what is to come, and both nations are clearly on a path to authoritarian police statism.

Dieval said: As for privacy, again, I realize that emails and phone calls already aren't private...you seem to have a misguided illusion of privacy..

I seem to have a right, which I refuse to sacrifice just because some partisan in blacks robes says I should.

[Autolykos]

Quote by: Dieval So, what do you suggest? Continue to let technology out-pace the authorities? Let the criminals use the most advanced forms of communications because it's extremely hard for the police to catch them? Don't YOU see a problem with this?

Red herring - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please answer my original question. Thanks in advance! :)

- Rob

[Dieval]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Its common sense. If a person sees a piano falling from the sky towards them, the piano poses an imminent threat, and if they value their existence in life, they step out of the way, dealing with the threat.

I guess it's a good thing that piano's don't use cell phones or email because Canada would never see it coming...

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Much like a nation, if it expects to have credibility by reasonable people, can't use force against people or another nation without PROOF and EVIDENCE of imminent threat to justify it.

So, if the evidence of an imminent threat was in cell phone records or emails that the authorites didn't have access, how would they know it's coming?

Quote by: Osborn F Enready It doesn't come from law, its comes from philosophy, which should back all reasonable law.

So basically, you want Canada's entire law enforcement system changed to meet your philosophy??

Quote by: Osborn F Enready You miss the point that only a fool would accept that as a reason, regardless of where that reason eminates from, since it contains no reasoning.

Only a fool assumes he has privacy.

[Praxius]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Hahahah.... nice... The authorities don't need "access" unless there is otherwise PROOF of an imminent threat. They have no right to monitor private calls, e-mails or any other private conversation except through BS Laws created through judicial activism.

Don't forget, through:

"The Toronto chief stressed that authorities are asking for "lawful access" to communication devices and records rather than warrant-less eavesdropping."

^ Not quite what exactly is going on in the US... hint hint. From my interpretation of this so far, they are seeking methods which allow them to access these sources, which are "Lawful access" which since we're not living in the future.... would mean what is currently lawful, not what they want to change as lawful.

They get a warrent, they go get the information they want.... much like if they wanted a warrent to search your home... Currently, warrents don't cover some new technology.... that's what is in question.

This is Canada we are speaking of though, so, it's not like as a Canadian I would have much stance on individual rights in law. Good thing I am not Canadian.

Shows what you know about Canadians.... We know more about liberty and freedom then any of you.... or your country wouldn't be in the mess it currently is in.....

Since when has the US been in the top 5 best countries to live in?

Iceland best place to live, Africa worst: UN - Yahoo! News

Rich free-market countries dominate the top places, with Iceland, Norway, Australia, Canada and Ireland the first five but the United States slipping to 12th place from eighth last year in the U.N. Human Development Index...... .....U.N. officials played down the significance of minor short-term shifts in the rankings including the slide in the U.S. position. They said if subsequent data for the year in question been available for last year's report, the United States would have been in 10th, not eighth place.

Considdering our officers are trying to seek legal access, rather then the US's so-called Warrentless Wire Tapping, I don't think you're in any position to bitch about Canada and our ability to comprehend individual rights and freedoms.... as you guys have a ways to go yourselves.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Praxius Don't forget, through: "The Toronto chief stressed that authorities are asking for "lawful access" to communication devices and records rather than warrant-less eavesdropping." ^ Not quite what exactly is going on in the US... hint hint. From my interpretation of this so far, they are seeking methods which allow them to access these sources, which are "Lawful access" which since we're not living in the future.... would mean what is currently lawful, not what they want to change as lawful. They get a warrent, they go get the information they want.... much like if they wanted a warrent to search your home... Currently, warrents don't cover some new technology.... that's what is in question. Shows what you know about Canadians.... We know more about liberty and freedom then any of you.... or your country wouldn't be in the mess it currently is in..... Since when has the US been in the top 5 best countries to live in? Iceland best place to live, Africa worst: UN - Yahoo! News Considdering our officers are trying to seek legal access, rather then the US's so-called Warrentless Wire Tapping, I don't think you're in any position to bitch about Canada and our ability to comprehend individual rights and freedoms.... as you guys have a ways to go yourselves.

It still sounds like data mining to me.

[Dieval]

Quote by: Autolykos Please answer my original question. Thanks in advance! :) - Rob

Quote by: Autolykos In this day and age, "lawful" is defined however the State wants to define it. Do you see a problem with this?

Well, since the State typically creates laws, how else would you define "lawful"?

So, i'll ask again, what's your solution to this issue?

[Dieval]

Quote by: Chancellor It still sounds like data mining to me.

Potentially...but it's all in what you do with the data....The authorities trying to prevent people from doing harm to a country and it's people are not quite the same as a marketing company targeting ads to you....right?

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Dieval So, what do you suggest? Continue to let technology out-pace the authorities? Let the criminals use the most advanced forms of communications because it's extremely hard for the police to catch them? Don't YOU see a problem with this?

Yeah, the problem is globalism, and opening up markets to our enemies to give them access to the very best equipment to terrorize people.


But hey, if it's going to complicate matters at home, and make our "sovereign laws" seem inadequate, lets go for it in the name of a few dollars profit. Then we'll have ample evedence to suggest we make the freest nation on Earth more like a Police State so we can mind everybodies business.


This is the mentality that makes me want to hurt people.

[Praxius]

Quote by: Chancellor It still sounds like data mining to me.

I'll be honest, I am still hessitant on what will come out of this, but until I hear further details on exactly how they plan to approach this, I won't jump to conclusions.

If it turns out to be a similar tactic as what's used in the US, then I'm sure they'll hear plenty from many.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Praxius Considdering our officers are trying to seek legal access, rather then the US's so-called Warrentless Wire Tapping, I don't think you're in any position to bitch about Canada and our ability to comprehend individual rights and freedoms.... as you guys have a ways to go yourselves.

Keep in mind the fact that we USED to require warrants before any type of searches or wiretaps. We only arrived at the point we're in now because our law enforcement agencies needed "legal access" to "keep up with technology". Then FISA judges to expedite approvals. Then PATRIOT. Then we allowed the police to issue their own warrants. Now no warrants at all are required.

Yeah, sure, your cops are only interested in "legal access".

Once the camel gets it's nose into the tent.....

[Dieval]

Quote by: Milton Bradley Yeah, the problem is globalism, and opening up markets to our enemies to give them access to the very best equipment to terrorize people.

Are you saying "yeah" to letting the criminals get ahead of the authorities technology wise or "yeah" we need to not let them do that? I would agree that we should close the markets to our enemies, but I think that goes a little beyond what we're talking about here.

[Dieval]

Quote by: Zeebadee Keep in mind the fact that we USED to require warrants before any type of searches or wiretaps. We only arrived at the point we're in now because our law enforcement agencies needed "legal access" to "keep up with technology". Then FISA judges to expedite approvals. Then PATRIOT. Then we allowed the police to issue their own warrants. Now no warrants at all are required. Yeah, sure, your cops are only interested in "legal access". Once the camel gets it's nose into the tent.....

So, since you are obviously worried about privacy, has there been any issues brought up, in recent times, where the authorities have examined emails, phone records, whatever and use the information they gained for something other than their intended purpose? (ex: stealing money from the bank, Identity theft, etc, etc)

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Dieval Are you saying "yeah" to letting the criminals get ahead of the authorities technology wise or "yeah" we need to not let them do that?

I'm saying it's looks a lot like hegemony to me. Create a problem that you know you have the answer for, and then just wait for the ill informed public to ask you to slove the problem. Too bad the solution is always some illegal, unconstitutional legislation like the Patriot Act.

Quote by: Dieval I would agree that we should close the markets to our enemies, but I think that goes a little beyond what we're talking about here.

No it doesn't, it goes directly to the retarded philosopy being practiced, and the people who passed it into law. ( Despite being informed exactly what was going to happen because of their reckless, illegal actions. ) This is a classic case of sedition.


They're the ones directly responsible for the situation before us now, and they are the supporters of Globalism.


Coincidntally, they all have another thing in common, they all wear Republican, or Democrat pins on their lapells.

[Keith Hamburger]

Quote by: Dieval So, since you are obviously worried about privacy, has there been any issues brought up, in recent times, where the authorities have examined emails, phone records, whatever and use the information they gained for something other than their intended purpose? (ex: stealing money from the bank, Identity theft, etc, etc)

Actually, there are numerous examples of such things being used for other than their stated purpose. There is the claim that FISA warrants are to protect from terrorist attacks, but, then, they're used for tax collection or RICO issues or something that is nowhere at all related to "national security" but goes to an issue that amounts to petty larceny.

Given the chance to abuse "privleges" given to the federal government to protect the people from real danger, the government, both federal, state and local, will take any chance they can get.

Keith

[Dieval]

Quote by: Keith Hamburger Actually, there are numerous examples of such things being used for other than their stated purpose. There is the claim that FISA warrants are to protect from terrorist attacks, but, then, they're used for tax collection or RICO issues or something that is nowhere at all related to "national security" but goes to an issue that amounts to petty larceny.

If they ran across other crimes in the course of their investigation, they'd be negligent to not follow up and prosecute. I'm talking about the authorities using the information for their own gain, such as stealing someone identity, or money from their bank, you know, CRIMES committed by authorities....

[Dieval]

Quote by: Milton Bradley Coincidntally, they all have another thing in common, they all wear Republican, or Democrat pins on their lapells.

I guess one of us isn't talking about Canada any more....

[Keith Hamburger]

Quote by: Dieval If they ran across other crimes in the course of their investigation, they'd be negligent to not follow up and prosecute. I'm talking about the authorities using the information for their own gain, such as stealing someone identity, or money from their bank, you know, CRIMES committed by authorities....

I'm not referring to running "across other crimes in the course of their investigation", I'm referring to using the tools designed to "combat terrorism" to investigate other crimes.

If these tools are to "combat terrorism", there is no justification to use these tools for common domestic crime. If they are used for such it is a clear abuse of power and a violation of rights.

But, of course, you don't really care about rights and freedom. Safety is all that matters to you.

The real solution, based on your responses in this thread and elsewhere, is "Fortress America". But, Ron Paul is the isolationist and must be defeated. How else can we control the world, Pinkey?

Keith

[Dieval]

Quote by: Keith Hamburger I'm not referring to running "across other crimes in the course of their investigation"

I was. This would be a TRUE abuse of power.

Quote by: Keith Hamburger , I'm referring to using the tools designed to "combat terrorism" to investigate other crimes. If these tools are to "combat terrorism", there is no justification to use these tools for common domestic crime. If they are used for such it is a clear abuse of power and a violation of rights.

So why don't you provide an example of such and we'll take a look at it.

Quote by: Keith Hamburger But, of course, you don't really care about rights and freedom. Safety is all that matters to you. Keith

I'll let you know what I care about, thank you very much. No need to put words in my mouth.

[Osborn F Enready]

Dieval said: I'll let you know what I care about, thank you very much. No need to put words in my mouth.

While I don't support putting words in peoples mouth, I thought his words matched your "seeming" philosophy, based on your own words, fairly well.

[Dieval]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready While I don't support putting words in peoples mouth, I thought his words matched your "seeming" philosophy, based on your own words, fairly well.

Being safe doesn't have to violate your rights and freedoms.