Police seeking wider eavesdropping powers

[Osborn F Enready]

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

I fully 100% agree, but many of the measures you champion, on the platform of security, certainly do infringe on my rights and freedoms.

[Keith Hamburger]

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

We'll start with ...

The Justice Department said it has used authority given to it by the PATRIOT Act to crack down on currency smugglers and seize money hidden overseas by alleged bookies, con artists and drug dealers.

A North Carolina county prosecutor charged a man accused of running a methamphetamine lab with breaking a new state law barring the manufacture of chemical weapons. If convicted, Martin Dwayne Miller could get 12 years to life in prison for a crime that usually brings about six months.

A simple Google search of "patriot act abuse" will give you lots of results.

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

Well, in this point, at least one other has agreed that what I credited you with matches your previous posts. I'll stand by my comment.

Keith

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Dieval Being safe doesn't have to violate your rights and freedoms.

Those of you willing to give up liberty for a little security don't deserve to have either one.

[Dieval]

Quote by: Keith Hamburger We'll start with ... A simple Google search of "patriot act abuse" will give you lots of results.

Sorry, but I don't have much in the way of sympathy for currency smugglers, bookies, con artists, drug dealers, drug manufacturers.....

Quote by: Keith Hamburger Well, in this point, at least one other has agreed that what I credited you with matches your previous posts. I'll stand by my comment. Keith

So one other person agreeing with you make it true? I think not.

[Dieval]

Quote by: Chancellor Those of you willing to give up liberty for a little security don't deserve to have either one.

Ahhh...that famous line... "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

It's always good to take security advice on 21st century matters from a 1700's writer...he knew all about wiretapping and the internet!

[Charlatan]

So we got the rights of people at stake, the right to privacy. What is privacy? Is showering by yourslef a right? Are your rights revoked when you shower in the army in a group, without said privacy? Is gossip private? Is having your gossip repeated to a friend of your friends an invasion of privacy, as they were not in on the privacy to start with? Where is the harm in having someone know that you are going out tonight to the pub? If someone repaeats it out of confidence is that an invasion of privacy? The only problem with this whole eavesdropping thing is business deals that might be listened in on, but then there will be evidence of corporate espionage with the police, hopefully.

[Osborn F Enready]

Dieval said: It's always good to take security advice on 21st century matters from a 1700's writer...he knew all about wiretapping and the internet!

As if it matters.

You discredit the forefathers with equal fervor to the privacy advocates today.

You simply don't want to rationally argue anything that goes against your point of view.

[Osborn F Enready]

Charlatan said: The only problem with this whole eavesdropping thing is business deals that might be listened in on, but then there will be evidence of corporate espionage with the police, hopefully.

What would give you that hope? What examples can you show that would lead us to think there is any hope of that?

[Dieval]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready As if it matters. You discredit the forefathers with equal fervor to the privacy advocates today. You simply don't want to rationally argue anything that goes against your point of view.

What I'm saying is that mis-quoting a line from a 1700's writer, who knew nothing about todays security threats and technology, and using it as justification for not allowing legal access to phone calls and emails is completely irrational.

[Osborn F Enready]

And I am saying Deival, that rationality apparently does haven't much affect on your argument.

We have gone over this issue repeatedly before haven't we?

The Constitution is still Law of the Land is it not?

This government still claims to be held and liable to the Constitution and Bill of Rights, does it not?

[Autolykos]

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

Many people hold to a "higher law", if you will. It's also known as "morality".

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

What issue are you talking about, exactly?

- Rob

[Dieval]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready And I am saying Deival, that rationality apparently does haven't much affect on your argument. We have gone over this issue repeatedly before haven't we? The Constitution is still Law of the Land is it not? This government still claims to be held and liable to the Constitution and Bill of Rights, does it not?

You insist on making this issue about the US, while I'm trying to take a bit more general approach, as this thread is about what Canadian authorities are trying to do.

[Osborn F Enready]

I have no reason, none whatsoever, to believe that Canada is doing this for any other reason than the U.S. has done this.

On claims of noble cause, which truly is just another removal of an individual right which was prieviously viewed as reasonable, necessary and "moral".

[Dieval]

Quote by: Autolykos Many people hold to a "higher law", if you will. It's also known as "morality".

"morality" is not Canadian law.

Quote by: Autolykos What issue are you talking about, exactly? - Rob

This thread. What do YOU suggest the authorities dilema? How do they keep up with what criminals are doing if it is extremely hard for them to get access to cellphone records and emails?

You seemed awfully quick to criticize what they're trying to do, without supplying any alternatives of your own.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Dieval Ahhh...that famous line... "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." It's always good to take security advice on 21st century matters from a 1700's writer...he knew all about wiretapping and the internet!

Hmmm, I notice that in the final part of that sentence, even the author reduced it down to "liberty", and "safety".


For you to suggest that the Founding Sathers had no concept of the threat today speaks to your ignorance of history. "Terrorists" predate the bible.


The advice of the Founding Fathers, if heeded, provides a secure bastion against the extremist mentality by simply being absent from their struggle, and therefore, their target list. They're only acting against the players who involve thierselves in the theater in which they operate.


We can have the same secure home today for the same reason they were not being targeted by extremists in their time, by minding our own business, and not attempting to rule an empire, or dictate terms to sovereign entities.


Even the most extreme terrorists, like Osamma himself admit that fundamental truth, why can't you?

[Dieval]

Quote by: Milton Bradley For you to suggest that the Founding Sathers had no concept of the threat today speaks to your ignorance of history. "Terrorists" predate the bible.

So, the founding fathers new of emails and cell phone records?
Yet again, we seem to be fixated on US history rather than what Canadian is trying to do...

Quote by: Milton Bradley The advice of the Founding Fathers, if heeded, provides a secure bastion against the extremist mentality by simply being absent from their struggle, and therefore, their target list. They're only acting against the players who involve thierselves in the theater in which they operate.

With the technological advances we've had to date and the way our global economy works, being "absent" from places is far more difficult than it was 200+ years ago.

Quote by: Milton Bradley We can have the same secure home today for the same reason they were not being targeted by extremists in their time, by minding our own business, and not attempting to rule an empire, or dictate terms to sovereign entities.

Well, back in the day, no countries had nuclear weapons, radiological bombs, WMD's, nuclear power, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc...

Quote by: Milton Bradley Even the most extreme terrorists, like Osamma himself admit that fundamental truth, why can't you?

Osama also believes it's ok to kill innocent people. Should we go along with that as well?

[Keith Hamburger]

Quote by: Dieval Sorry, but I don't have much in the way of sympathy for currency smugglers, bookies, con artists, drug dealers, drug manufacturers..... So one other person agreeing with you make it true? I think not.

However, if they're not terrorists, they are simply common criminals, and it is a travesty to use such powers against common criminals, as you yourself said.

Keith

[Keith Hamburger]

Quote by: Dieval Osama also believes it's ok to kill innocent people. Should we go along with that as well?

We have gone along with that and we are going along with that.

Keith

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Dieval Ahhh...that famous line... "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." It's always good to take security advice on 21st century matters from a 1700's writer...he knew all about wiretapping and the internet!

Yes, well, I wasn't actually quoting the famous statement. And I will always take advice from one of the founding fathers (or from people contemporaneous to the founding fathers) over a bunch of big government nanny staters out to usurp every bit of power they can.

If you want to live in a police state then please get the hell out of my country and go live in Cuba!

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Dieval What I'm saying is that mis-quoting a line from a 1700's writer, who knew nothing about todays security threats and technology, and using it as justification for not allowing legal access to phone calls and emails is completely irrational.

Well, since I wasn't actually QUOTING anyone, you have no basis for accusing me of MISQUOTING. If I had been QUOTING, there would have been QUOTATION MARKS around the statement!