Slashdot Mirror
CND Government Demands Widespread Tap Access
north_of_49 wrote to mention a Globe and Mail article stating that the Canadian government is seeking the ability to conduct surveillance on the communications of its citizenry. From the article: "The major boost in interception capacity is in proposals the government has put forward in confidential negotiations with the telecom industry as it prepares new legislation on high-tech wiretapping scheduled to be introduced next month. Government officials insist their proposals will bring Canada's laws on wiretaps -- drafted when people still attached alligator clips to telephone lines to listen in -- up to speed with new technologies. But privacy advocates fear an erosion of safeguards, and telecom companies worry the government wants them to build in a costly interception system."
is CDN - Thanks!
Nothing better than maple leaves and big brother, eh?
~ slashdot.org - Where some of the world's greatest minds come together to scrutinize grammar.
CAN or CDN are accepted shortforms for Canada. I know anyone could miss Canada. All tucked away down there
Three cheers for big government and reduced citizens' rights! Hip-hip HUZZAH...
Fortunately laws like this are only good for 5 years until a new government has to pass another exception to the charter (charter exceptions are only good for 5 years, no more, and must be passed repeatedly by all new successive governments for the law to stay on the books).
Specifically, this violates section 8 of the charter:
A comment made by someone at the bottom of the article:
The real purpose is to give the Recording Industry access to people who trade music files.
Correct.
Look, the ability is currently NOT THERE. This is a request to put the ability to listen properly into place. That doesn't mean that every conversation is going to be tracked; they want the ability to there in the event that it's needed. Funding a listening program is going to likely be a separate concern. Northern Paranoids can relax for now; Big Maple Leaf Brother isn't going to be listening into your pseudo-French/English conversations about hockey, you hoser.
Now where am I supposed to flee to when things go south in the US.
I'm packing my bags and moving to -- oh sh*t!
Okay, it's a joke, and I know that a large part of the Canadian population lives in urban areas - BUT, having said that: why would a country like Canada resort to such drastic measures? To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin, 'Who would give up liberty to gain security deserves neither liberty nor security.' I live here in the U.S. and am disgusted by all the increasing trickle of loss in civil liberties. One of these days we're going to wake up and it's Big Brother - we're really getting dangerously close. If Bin Laden wanted to destroy our 'way of living' - well, I hate to say that he already succeeded. Michael
Awww, how cute, America Junior is trying to be like it's big brother...
The second comment on the article says it all:
"Criminals and terrorists can easily bypass these measures using
encryption, stegonography, etc. The real purpose is to give the
Recording Industry access to people who trade music files. Anne
McLellan has been working with them on this for a couple of years. For
the sake of the greed of a few huge music corporations they're taking
up the tools of the Police State. Political surveillance is a heartbeat
away from this.You are the target. "
Nice.
Perhaps it has something to do with the recent finding that China has more spies in Canada than in any other nation? The government can't be too happy about that - they may be feeling they've been too lax.
In a couple of years, once this has passed, they'll make it an offence not to keep your encryption keys. Just look at the U.K.
Come on!!! CANADA???
Exactly what kind of crime do they have to deal with in Canada?
Maple Syrup Trafficing?
Echelon
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
So, where will all the Americans who moved to Canada to protest the invasion of Iraq move to now?
"At the end of the day, we cannot let technological change stand in the way of, for example, law enforcement agencies dealing with organized crime. They use technology to conceal what they do, to move their laundered money, to traffic in humans, to traffic in drugs, to traffic in guns, and we have to be able to intercept their communications to break up those kinds of networks."
that's bull crap. Just because you'll have access to a lot more information doesn't automatically translate to all of that information instantly becoming useful. They used Hells Angels as an example. Have they actually thought about asking the neighbours where they have gathering if they've noticed anything "strange" lately? That will save telecom companies a lot of money and certain the 24/5/365.25 survalence costs.
So you want the technology to be there for you when you use it. How often are you going to be using that? It just doesn't justify the cost and the privacy concerns. And phone/internet tapping is almost always NOT the first thing that tip authorities off anyway -- when something BECOMES suspicious, there are already devices out there that will let cops tap THOSE specific lines.
Why build a nuke bomb to take care of a few cockroaches?
I'm as protective of my civil liberties as the next person (maybe even more so) but why do so many people think that technology should be permitted to make existing wire-tap laws obsolete and that any effort to update these laws is unjustifiable?
/.ers) should be focus on the inclusion of strict controls and transparancy to prevent abuse, not dig their heels in and fight all modernization of wiretapping laws.
Privacy advocates (and tin-foil hatted
canadian are pushing this?????
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
BFD. According to that map, ginormous Canada has only one substation. :-)
Governments always seem to load up their shotgun and miss the wrong target. They stumble on a solution to a problem, and don't ever question whether that's a problem they really should be solving or if the solution will actually work.
For the anti-terror ops, knowing who talks to whom is important, and can lead to fairly detailed knowledge of the workings of an organization. The contents of the conversations are in many ways less important, since it takes a real idiot to spill details over the phone. They are also labor-intensive, since you have to wait a long time between calls and then work hard to decipher exactly what's said.
A wiretap could reveal that two guys are "ready to go for the big trip this weekend", leading jackbooted thugs to sweep in and prevent the crime. Later the perps claim those rifles, hip waders and fishing rods in the trunk are there because they were going camping.
Wiretaps are for old people.
There are some bigger holes in the protection of the Canadian people:
Canada has gillions of miles of uncontrolled coastline.
Canada has thousands of miles of open border with the US. And we're armed!
There is this little fad called the Internet (and encrypted communications) that reached Canada a few years back. Like in 1975.
sigs, as if you care.
Where are all the Bush bashers now?
;)
They moved north to get away from Bush's AmeriKKKa, little knowing they were moving to KKKanada.
All movements for social change begin as missions, evolve into businesses, and end up as rackets.
But before you do so, have a look his voting history. No doubt that your MP is doing his best to represent you but it is your job to tell him when you think he should support something else than the party line. Do you want a Remote sensing space system ? Tell him.
If you're going to ape canadian, it's not a ? it's a !
Tap access? Let'em buy their own Molson, eh!
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Lets make a law saying that all our elected officials are required to have a live webcam feed 24/7/365 from their offices, cars and houses.
In this most democratic form of the 'Big Brother show', we would be able to hold our elected officials directly accountable. We would see what lobbyists are met, how long a lunch break they take, how ethically they shop, if they are really recycling and so on.
My little Linux and tech blog
does anyone else think that encrypted/steganographic snail mail will stage a comeback with all this surveillance being done on email ?
Authorities still need a warrent to tap someones line/telephone. So we can still talk about punching Paul Martin in the face all you want. Damn politicians! This really doesn't change a whole lot.. everyone take off their tinfoil hats now.
The Good Life
I trust most reforms the Canadian government makes, they've shown they know how to be mature without going overboard!
cf. the laws they made concerning p2p.
Coding projects blog - Code Slim
And now, GWB wants the ability to use the military for local handling of any crisis. That includes saying that the avian flu has arrived. Nice thing about that, is the feds can declare such, and only a very small percentage of ppl (with access to the right equipment) can confirm or deny it. That means that the military can be brought out on the local civialians on trumpped up data. Worse, I am guessing that the congres will give it to him.
And you think that big brother is real close?
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Is that they country that officially sanctioned a talking dog puppet? Because the talking dog puppet said something that hurt their feelings?
Related Link
I tease. :)
But seriously, I support any Draconian law that makes countries (other than the USA) even more fascist because it's, like, really funny. :D Sorry, but I *am* a misanthrope.
Or were you talking about the guy from Akira? No, that was Kaneda. Never mind.
You may think that the Netherlands is a free country, but we have had laws like that for years here.
Every company providing public communication has to be able to tap all traffic on demand. This not only includes fixed telephone lines, but also mobile (including location of the mobile set), Internet, etc.
The number of active taps per capita here is amongst the highest in the world. And the consumer is paying for all this, as the cost compensation given to the companies is not nearly covering the real cost of making these taps.
Furthermore, tapping is addictive. Now that the secret service has so many taps running, they start to see that it would be even better when everything is tapped and kept, so that after-the-crime analysis of data can be done as well.
Current law proposals are moving in this direction. Call records, mobile position data, Internet logs etc have to be kept longer and be made available on request.
This is of course only an intermediate step. Once this is implemented, it is found that even more information could be gained from the actual traffic, and the next requirement is to record all phone conversations and keep them for half a year. And to capture all Internet data sent to and from customers.
Worst of all is that we are part of the EU. Politicians abuse the EU for a kind of ping-pong game where they first draft up some idiotic idea, then discuss it (behind closed doors) with fellow politicians in other EU countries, a few countries implement the same idea, and then they report back in their own country that the new laws have to be passed for harmonisation within the EU.
In the first phase, any protest is waved away with "it is too early to discuss it, too early to protest, we are still drafting it and negotiating with EU partners" and then after some time (and a behind-closed-doors decision in the EU), the stance is changed to "we cannot turn this back, we are mandated by the EU to implement these laws, no need to protest because we are not making the decision".
This nearly went wrong with software patents, and now the same risk occurs with extended tapping of all telephone and internet traffic.
What amazes me most is that todays politicians are so easily being abused by terrorists.
Terrorism is achieving its goals using threat, and politicians easily play their game of threat amplification. Without having to actually perform any attacks, they move the entire free world to break down their free societies and destroy all the values they were so proud of a decade ago.
That seems like a bigger victory than blowing up some building.
Three cheers for big government and reduced citizens' rights! Hip-hip HUZZAH...
What does socialism have to do with "Reduced citizens' rights"?
I think it's obvious that the U.S. pressured them into doing this, with the intention to hopefully catch bad guys before they get infiltrate our borders. All of these conspiracies involving the RIAA are short-sighted, simplistic, and cynical; though they probably will piggyback these efforts.
First: It's CDN or CAN .... pft. Americans..
...etc
Second: Wiretapping laws are already in place and have been in place for quite some time. They are merely updating said laws to apply to the terminology and technology of today.
Third: Canadian government and law enforcement does not widely abuse these resources like certain unnamed states do. I as a citizen have no problem with them updating these laws.
Fourth: What's the deal with people who make points by enumerating their points into one jumble by going first, second,
That is all.
This adds up to the misconception that Canada is better than the US.
CND Government Demands Widespread Tap Access
The Canadian Dollar Government?
It was the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police.
Very few others have been allowed to speak before the committee.
The question you have to ask, is:
Why are our governments (Canadian, US, others) so terribly afraid of their citizens?
The question is what constitutes a 'reasonable' search? That alone begs the question, "If i'm not an identified suspect as a party to a criminal act, does the government have reasonable grounds to observe me in ANY fashion?" I believe that the US courts have held that with respect to law enforcement, there must be a legitimate reason for any government entity to entangle itself within activities of a citizen's day-to-day life. Legitimate reason arises when one is a suspect of a criminal act that has been committed, or one's actions are a very clear indication that a crime is about to be committed. Downloading a file, talking on a telephone, walking in a public park, or onto a public transit system do not qualify in any sense. Therefore, any effort to observe the citizenry at large to determine if they *might* be doing something illegal, is completely unreasonable.
we're supposed to PAY (i.e. taxes) so the ISPs can SPY on us?
Wow.
If I had mod points today...
Mod up! SEE your tax dollars at work!
Its George Bush and Karl Rove's fault i tell you! Its all about the extreme right wing Republicans and their lust for power with George Bush! They're all bought off by the record executives - its a plot!
oh wait - did you say Canada?
guns kill people like spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat.
Chimpy McBushitler is so evil he wants to - oh, wait.
Watch as the leftards heads explode as they read this story.
So what? Big friggin deal... come on you guys, deal with it... everyone knows that any self respecting terrorist is going to use very strong encryption, keeping their keys on a thumb drive.... this is why they call it "chatter"... it's because most of the serious stuff is encrypted, so all this horse manuer is a total waste of money... If they (the authorities) want to try and decrypt my strong encryption, I would be honored, but my clients wouldn't appreciate it...
The arguements for this are rediulous...to trace illegal activities or organisations like Hells Angels?? First off, I am sure they are competent enough to encrypt their communications. 2048 bit RSA keys....good luck with that wiretap when you cant even understand the information that is going across the wire.
This type of system would ONLY be useful for the average joe, sitting at home downloading movies and music when they shoudn't. Worth the cost? No...
Maybe the CDN version will only be ~.850774 as good, aye?
Bill Clinton. *Insert Clinton joke here*
Am I open minded towards open source, or closed minded towards closed source?
Glad I don't live in that country.
If you lived here, you'd know that: A. If this is passed, our taxes will increase. Probably shown as "Access Fee". A(1). This said tax will be taxed again 7% GST. B. The Canadian Government (defined); is capable of "passing" law, but in-capable of "enforcing" laws. Same with everything from election platform promises to general public funding. C. Oh, and... Hoser Defined I agree. It's a plot to monitor us Canadians downloading our copious amounts of Rush and Tragically Hip music.
The beatings will continue until Morale Improves!
Well, isn't socialism all about the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few? In other words, the needs of society as a whole being more important than the rights of individuals?
As far as understand, this will still require a court order from a judge.
This isn't much different from what's there now-- it's just forcing ISPs to make implementing the court order easier.
And it doesn't mean that the RCMP can just randomly wiretap your internet communications whenever they feel like it-- they still have to go see a judge first, just like if they wanted to wiretap your phone.
The Canadian Government demands Widespread Panic access. Plus a backstage pass, and all the waffles they can eat.
If a baby duck is a "duckling," why would anyone want to eat "dumplings?"
Lets make a law saying that all our elected officials are required to have a live webcam feed 24/7/365 from their offices, cars and houses.
WooHoo! Britney Spears vs. Pamela Anderson for president!
Well, isn't socialism all about the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few? In other words, the needs of society as a whole being more important than the rights of individuals?
That's not socialism, it's Utilitarianism. That which creates the most happiness.
Socialism (from Wiki):
Socialism is an ideology with the core belief that a society should exist in which popular collectives control the means of power, and therefore the means of production.
There is more defining both, but it is essentially Utilitarianism that has "needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few" A nice example from wiki:
A surgeon has six patients: one needs a liver, one needs a pancreas, one needs a gall bladder, and two need kidneys. The sixth just came in to have his appendix removed. Should the surgeon kill the sixth man and pass his organs around to the others? Or, indeed, what would stop him from simply hunting down and slaughtering the first healthy man (the seventh) he comes across on the street, patient or non-patient? This would obviously violate the rights of the sixth/seventh man, but act utilitarianism seems to imply that, given a purely binary choice between (1) killing the man and distributing his organs or (2) not doing so and the other five dying, violating his rights is exactly what we ought to do.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
Sir Humphreys! Beautiful! Who's the lucky minister to have you writing for them now??
Blockwars: free, multiplayer, head to head game.
"They do not preach that their god will rouse them, a little before the Nuts work loose." Kipling, 'The Sons of Martha'
...from bad-mouthing their country and claiming that everything is so much better in Canada or the UK or New Zealand or whatever the grass-is-greener-on-the-other-side de jour is today.
Every time liberal brats complain about how awful civil liberties are being tromped on in the USA, they overlook the small detail that every place else is much worse.
Have you ever read the Canadian Charter of Rights? It's such a lovely document, until you get to the part where the government can pass a law that violates it for a renewable five year period. And if the government gets tired of having to renew it, it can always just change the Charter.
No nasty Constitutional "Congress shall pass no law" in Canada. The government can do whatever the majority votes.
At least Canada has a pretense of having a written constitution and bill of rights. The UK doesn't even have that. Oh, it had a Bill of Rights, but it's been eviscerated over the centuries.
Perhaps the question we should ask is: why aren't modern governments afraid enough of their own citizens to tread very, very carefully when it comes to peeking into our private affairs?
I shouldn't, but sometimes I think wistfully of the time when a political leader who treated the people with disdain ran the risk not just of early retirement, but of being hanged to the nearest tree. I wonder whether the personal risks associated with being too arrogant in an earlier era might have wonderfully cleared the politician's mind of foolish delusions of grandeur and encouraged a salutary humbleness.
In the DMS line of switches already. When we went from analogue switching to digital trunks and all that, there were was the ability to listen in added right from the get-go. VOIP is the biggest issue now and i'm sure thats what they are after.
they still have to go see a judge first
Oh goody. A judge, eh? Like how, in the old days, the bailiff would have to go see the the lord of the manor first, before he could confiscate my crop and sell my barefoot children into slavery.
Actually I believe the complaint was that Triumph the insult Dog was a direct rip off of Ed the Sock.
Ed the Sock has been one of the funniest characters on TV for years.
As for Canadian insulting public figures it happens quite a bit. It is a regular occurance for politicians to end up on comedy shows with self mocking skits.
I don't understand why Telco's haven't build in these Wire tap functions. Maybe it's a Ploy to fatten up the universal service funds that have become the Telco's personal Biggie Banks. Now my service fee will increase because they need to add these features. They Knew damn well this would be coming. Did they suddenly think everyone in the world had gone legit, Ha fat chance. I think the Telco's should be paying for this purely out of there profits. The Board of directors has failed the companies involved. I'm Disgusted -- And i don't care about spelling and grammar -Damn trolls!
Hmmm, I wish I could say that's enlightening, but it's not.
Isn't a "popular collective" just another name for a government? And so isn't a core belief that a "popular collective" should control the means of power just a basic belief that there should exist a government at all?
In which case, what distinguishes socialism from any other form of government? I certainly thought it was an enhanced attention to the good of society as a whole, and hence a decreased attention to individual rights (since the two are continually in conflict, as anyone who has been asked to turn his stereo down late at night can testify...)
Read the U.S. Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act of 1994. It mandates certain levels of wiretap access and availability for all telecom carriers. It's a fairly large financial burden on telecom carriers, but in terms of rights it's same old same old.
Socialism says that society should try its best not to simply abandon people...
Ah, I see. Thanks for the clarification. I never studied this political stuff at school -- too busy with math and science. But these goals sound very nice! May I ask, however, where "society" gets the massive resources needed for this noble mission? I mean, where does "society" get the buckets of money and labor it needs to feed everybody, see to their healthcare needs, and educate them? I take it we're assuming large numbers are unable to do so themselves (hence the need for this kind of government), and I take it we're not talking some kind of voluntary mutual help organization. I appreciate your example (donating money to charity), but I was under the impression that socialism was not an individual philosophical choice (such as donating money to the Red Cross) but a system of government imposed on all.
May I assume that in order to get the resources to meet the noble goals "society" finds it necessary to take money and labor by force from -- I suppose I would've naively said rob -- certain people in order to give to others? Sort of a Robin Hood kind of deal? It seems complicated to sort out the morality...unless, of course, one expects to be usually a member of the "receiving" class, or at least a member of the "deciding" class that chooses from whom to take and to whom to give, in which case it sounds like a great system. I'd sure like people to do more work for me than I do for them, or, at least, I'd sure like to be in charge of deciding how the fruit of everyone else's labor should be distributed.
I read the comment and found it completely illogical. How is the lawful access provision going to give a third party, non-governmental agency access to private information when the courts have refused to do so? The lawful access legislation is simply an attempt to move cellular and internet communications into the telephone wiretap section of the Criminal Code of Canada. The same legal standards that apply to telephone wiretaps (judicial oversight, etc.) will apply to email and the internet. The CRIA tried in civil court to subpoena the information from Canadian ISPs and failed, this is about criminal matters.
The real controversy for ISPs and cellular carriers as I understand it is the cost of the new legislation. It's going to cost them a lot of money to meet the access standards the government wants.
Canada has always outlined greater powers for it's government then the U.S. We do have better checks and balances, more open and accountable government (seemingly of course /tinfoil).
I find it insightful to consider the American motto... "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" (Which should be assumed rights everwhere and go without saying)...
Canadian "Peace, Order, and Good Government".
It's right there on our Clown coloured money! GOOD GOVERNMENT!
I will bet $1000,000 that Canadian government starts broadcasting all government conversations before the U.S. (We already broadcast the house of commons 24 hrs on channel 62 Does the U.S. Do the same?)
...or maybe it's Karl Rove. Oh hell, I don't know, someone tell me what to think!
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Changing the Charter requires 100% of the provinces, plus the federal government, to agree to the changes. Know how many times that has happened since the Charter was enacted in the mid 80's? That's right, zero.
Moreover, the 5-year exceptions are quite practical. For example, if we need to pass anti-terrorism laws giving CSIS some sort of special powers that violate our civil rights, they only last for 5 years. Every 5 years (or even more often) we get a new government here, so if we don't like what they enact, we can kick them out and those unpopular exceptions are highly unlikely to be renewed by the new government. It's a damn sight better than signing something like the PATRIOT Act into law for all time (or until common sense once again reigns supreme in your Grand Ole U.S. of A.)
From up here, my Canadian civil liberties seem in much less jeopardy than those of you and your American friends. Your country has been stealthily headed towards totalitarianism for about five years now. Once I would have leapt at a chance to work in the United States, but not anymore. Your government is slowly destroying the foundation of personal freedom and personal accountability on which your great nation was based, and your apathetic citizens aren't doing a damned thing about it.
Our bills are works of art -- assorted indigenous critters on one side, and an 80+ year queen on the other -- but for some reason the rest of the world prefers dead presidents ;-)
What good is a piece of paper (ie. the constitution) if your politicians routinely stomp all over it, ignore it, or otherwise interpret it to be compatible with the desires of the day? I would rather have no piece of paper and a government with some semblance of sanity, rather than a piece of paper and a government that does not give a shit what it says.
There's nothing in the Charter of Rights & Freedoms, or any of the other documents that basically amount to our bill of rights and constitution that bans this kind of power. There's only one clause in the document that's even remotely applicable:
:)
8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.
That's it. That's the entire clause. No subsections, no footnotes, no need to define terms, no need to qualify it with a 4-page essay pontificating exactly what constitutes "unreasonable". You'd do well to read the document: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/, especially since it's the legal grounding for the gay marriage issue... clause 15, if you're wondering.
See... there's not really any definition of "unreasonable" in the document, and as a result, the government can pretty well do whatever they want without violating our rights, as long as it can be justified as a reasonable measure being taken. What really gets me here, however, is that the powers TFA is talking about are already within their capabilities. They have been for a very long time. Remember Echelon? Take a look at what the CSE is responsible for within that organization.
If you believe everything you read, you'd better not read. - Japanese proverb
Our govn't is basically a dictatorship while in, but their laws can quite rapidly be undone with a election
You are right that Canada is really more of an "elected dictatorship" than a democracy, however you are a bit mistaken when it comes to the ease with which we can change our laws (specifically the constitution--the US constitution is probably easier to amend than ours)
A bit of background: From Canada's inception as an independent Dominion in 1967 until 1981 the Canadian constitution was the British North American act. This was a British piece of legislation and as such Canadians technically COULD NOT CHANGE their own constitution until it passed through the British House of Commons, House of Lords and given assent by the Queen. In 1981 we repatriated our constitution and added a Charter of Rights. This most certainly WAS a "huge deal" and it was indeed debated in the British house and had to be given assent by the Queen herself. This was a long, complicated and contentious process and in the end Quebec never signed the repatriated constitution (so they are only obligated to honour the terms of the original BNA Act? Seems that way).
The amending formula of our current constitution requires 7 of 10 provinces representing a majority of the population to pass any changes to the constitution and given the nature of our country (population distribution and culteral diversity) it is practically imposssible to achieve such approval. The last two times we attempted to amend the constitution failed (the Meech Lake and Charlettown Accords--the primary objective was to get Quebec to finally sign on).
The constitution is a fundamental piece of legislation, however other legislation can be written to be made difficult to undo by successive governments as well. The Gun Registry would be very difficult to undo--partly becasue of how big it is and partly because of the huge infrastructure, system of contracts, etc that is involved. Some legislation is also introduced by gov't because it was ordered to do so by the courts (the judiciary in Canada wields quite a bit of power), and such legislation is very difficult to change once it is in place.
There is one challenge that Canadian gov't doesn't have to deal with--and that is with having a divided gov't (such as when you ahve a Republican president and Democrat congress, or HR and Senate led by different parties). We CAN have a minority government which is pretty much as bad though (we have that now--Liberals dominate but do not hold the majority--and they aren't willing to align with the Conservatives or separatists. They are only willing to work with the NDP, which is not large enough to hold the balance of power without the assistance of and independent or two).
In the minority situation we have a REAL problem because the Prime Minister's Office and the governing party hold too much influence over parliament proceedings and we are now seeing how much of our democracy relies on "convention" that can be conveniently circumvented--for example the gov't has stopped granting "opposition days" in which opposition parties can table their own motions so they cannot be easily thrown out on a non-confidence vote. In reality even in a minority gov't the PM can personally control the agenda of the Commons--any meaningful contribution by opposition parties is only granted out of "parliamentary convention". In the US, in order to get anything done in the equivalent situation of a divided gov't the president must cooperate more and his bidding can be vetoed. If Bush had the power over the US that Martin could have over Canada he could HAND PICK ALL Republican candidates in federal elections, declare martial law, draft all young men to fight in Iraq and wire tap anyone he pleases and he couldn't be stopped for up to five years until forced to call an election.
So, yes the proposed legislation on wiretapping just enforces capability and warrants are still required, however given the lack of checks and balances and reliance on "convention" for Canadian democracy (not to mention how the War Measures act was used rather casually in the past) it does disturb me that the gov't is trying to force us all to set up for huge potential abuses.
Compare that text in Canada's Charter with the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Note several important differences:
Canada's Charter (a law, not the constitution) grants a right. The US Constitution forbids violation of the right (which is superior to the constitution).
Canada's Charter grants this right to persons but says nothing about property. The US Constitution protects "persons, houses, papers, and effects".
Canada's Charter says nothing about how "reasonable" search or seizure is done; and in fact Canada allows warrantless searches and seizures. The US Constitution requires detailed warrants with probable cause.
The US has one serious flaw, however. It allows the brats to come back after reality sets in and they realize that the grass isn't really greener on the other side.
What is this "CND" shit? Who made that up?
If you want to use cutesy abbreviations, how about the ISO country code (CAN).
-ben
myselfmusic
I wonder about the issues with global data though. If a wiretap financial intercepts confidential data from a Canadian going to a European client, what are the rules on holding it (and safeguarding it)? It's not quite the same as tapping phones because digital data can contain a lot more information, and you generally don't transfer a couple hundred-thousand financial records out loud on the phone (moreover you can cut recording of the phone conversation if somebody were using such data).
How about if the connection was to somebody in say, the British government, on top-secret matters. What happens then?
We are one of the oil-producing/exporting countries. We meddle with ourselves.
Yes, Acronym Finder lists a number of meanings, none of which is "Canada". The first meaning that leapt to my mind was "Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament".
Canada's not such a long name to type anyway, now, is it?
If you want to use cutesy abbreviations, how about the ISO country code (CAN).
Usually a good idea, although be careful with the UK -- the ISO code is GB, but you might upset unionist Northern Irish if you use it.
See here:
However the police are inherently paranoid and suspicious. In effect everyone is up to no good in their books. They just haven't figured out what you're up to yet, but if they could spy on you a little they'd be able to determine your crime.
Every time liberal brats complain about how awful civil liberties are being tromped on in the USA, they overlook the small detail that every place else is much worse.
The citizen of Oceania is not allowed to know anything of the tenets of the other two philosphies, but he is taught to execrate them as barbarous outrages upon morality and common sense. Actually, the three philosophies are barely distinguishable.
What is this "CND" shit? Who made that up?
It's a well known and widely used term. I've seen it in use for well over twenty years, and I suspect it to be even older than that. I suspect it originated in the financial papers: when I was younger, I used to see expressions like $50 (CDN), to mean "Fifty dollars ( Canadian currency)", and similarly, $50 (US) for "Fifty dollars (US currency). Now, the expressions CAD, for "Canadian dollars" or USD, for "US dollars" are typically used, presumably because they're even more concise.
If you want to use cutesy abbreviations, how about the ISO country code (CAN).
CDN stands for "Canadian". CAN stands for "Canada".
One word is a noun, the other is an adjective. They're not interchangeable.
Hope that clears up your confusion.
--
AC
The difference is that the people who badmouth the USA the most are the ones who are the most ignorant about conditions elsewhere in the world, and those who defend the USA the most are the ones who are the most knowledgable about conditions elsewhere in the world.
In the latter category, you will find quite a few individuals who have lived and worked overseas as regular employees, as opposed to tourists or pampered pets of some political movement. Nobody can claim to understand a place until they've smelled its stinking armpit.