Canadian Internet Surveillance Dies a Quiet, Lonely Death

Dr Caleb writes "According to the Globe and Mail, 'The Internet surveillance legislation sponsored by Public Safety Minister Vic Toews has disappeared down a dark legislative hole. For all intents and purposes, the bill is dead. If the Harper government still wants to pass a law that would make it easier for police to track people who use the web to commit crimes, it will have to start from scratch.' The bill has been sent to a public safety committee for extensive revision, but it must be debated for five hours on the House floor first, and that won't happen before summer recess. This is a followup to the story we discussed in February titled 'Against Online Surveillance? You Must Be "For" Child Porn.'"

Comments

Quiet? Lonely?

[Cyphase]

Weren't we all there cheering?

Re:Quiet? Lonely?

[Capt.DrumkenBum]

I am cheering. I am sure I am not alone.
There is a system in place. I don't see any reason for a new law. I personally would bet that any law enforcement official asking a judge for a warrant for a pedo case is going to get their warrant in a flash.
Deserved or not, pedophiles are the biggest boogiemen of our time.

Re:Quiet? Lonely?

[MightyMartian]

Orders in Council can only be made where legislation has given the Government the authority to do so. It cannot concoct new government powers out of thin air.

Re:Quiet? Lonely?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, just conjure up a phony war, any kind. If the Yanks can do it, why not Harper too? War on terror. War on drugs. War on bubble gum (good job, Singapore!) - the possibilities are endless. Then pass another wartime measures act, same as the one that gave us income tax.

We've seen it happen south of the border often enough, and these things take on a life of their own. When do you think the DEA will get their mandate revoked, or the GST will be repealed*? Not in our lifetimes.

(this was a temporary tax that successive Liberal and Con. prime ministers have campaign-promised to repeal since the nineties)

Re:Quiet? Lonely?

[tixxit]

Recently discussed this with a cop. It isn't so easy. He said most warrants for wiretaps are 600-odd pages and take a god awful long time to get through. Part of the bill would let them tell the phone company to start collecting data on someone while they went through the process of getting warrant signed. Once the warrant was approved, then they'd get access to all the data and could make their case. One of the problems, even with pedos, is that they know the guy is a Bad Dude, they know he's committing crimes, but they can't get the evidence because they can't get the wiretap in time. I definitely don't agree with the bill, but it isn't so cut a dry as some people make it out to be.

Re:Quiet? Lonely?

[deimtee]

It should not be easy. I think the 4th amendment to the US constitution has it pretty close to right.
However, it also shouldn't take 600 pages. If you can't say what you want to intercept and why in a couple of pages, you shouldn't be doing it anyway.

Re:Quiet? Lonely?

[starfishsystems]

The Conservatives [...] have been in and out of power for decades.

The Progressive Conservatives were indeed in and out of power for decades, but that party no longer exists. The present government was originally called the Reform Party of Canada, and never governed under that name. It renamed itself the Conservative Reform Alliance party after the PC party collapsed. It's so far to the right that all the other parties are relatively clustered on the left, hence splitting the vote among them and allowing this party to form a majority in the last election with only 39.6% of the popular vote.

In terms of overreach, this party is setting new lows at an aggressive pace. The list is already dozens of items long, with suspicion of election fraud being only the latest. We've seen corrupt politics across the spectrum in Canada before, but never on this scale.

Re:Quiet? Lonely?

[realityimpaired]

Despite your claims that the party is so far right, it in fact governs pretty much in the centre, as most gov'ts find they must do unless they want to lose power. On at least some issues, the Conservative Party is to the left of the previous Progressive Conservative government from 1984-1993.

Most of the actual Progressive conservatives, you know, the ones who actually know what the word "progressive" means, have jumped ship and are now part of the other parties. Just ask the premier of Quebec.

The only remnants of the original Progressive Conservatives who are still supporting the CPC are the ones who are too stupid to realize that it's not the PC party any more, and the ones who were the right-wing extremist minority in the days of the PC.

And no, they really don't govern in the center. A centrist government would never have put forward the internet surveillance bill being discussed here. They also never would have allowed one of their members to put forward a bill defining a 3-day old zygote as a human being. They're nowhere near the center of the political compass.

Re:Quiet? Lonely?

[realityimpaired]

Why not since I can buy the same gun that was used in the Montreal Massacre? How come that wasn't banned?

The Browning 9mm HP is a restricted firearm, meaning you need a special permit to own it, it is illegal to transport it unless it's locked in a case in a "made safe" state (firing pin removed, not loaded, magazine stored in a separate case). Additionally, it doesn't support a fully automatic firing mode like an MP5 or an AK-47, and the maximum legally allowed magazine size is 5 rounds.

These laws/requirements existed before the Ecole Polytechnique massacre, btw... the reason the laws didn't get updated is because the person who was responsible for the massacre was already violating a half dozen gun laws. More laws wouldn't have made a difference in that case, and the one thing that they *could* have done to prevent it from happening has already been done: it's *significantly* harder to get a restricted weapons permit today than it was 20 years ago. Of course, the cons scrapped the gun registry, which was the *other* law that got changed as a result of that event.

Re:Quiet? Lonely?

[DarthVain]

Then I would say that is a bureaucratic problem with obtaining a warrant. Fix the problem with obtaining a warrant, don't try and create a law to simply bypass the system. That is lazy and stupid, and wrong.

I am not a cop, however I find it VERY hard to believe that it takes a 600 page report to acquire your average wiretap warrant. I would say either you cop friend is full of bullshit, or if indeed that is true, then the system of obtaining warrants needs to be examined in detail and streamlined.

However neither is justification of simply creating a law to circumvent due process.

Not to mention how unreasonable it would be to actually implement as well as the inherent risk that any such system would be fraught with.

But

[future assassin]

the Cons are in full swing to get Bill C11 passed http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6488/125/

I'm am of the belief that only taking up arms is the way to go in the next 15 years to remove corruption and corporate influence and introduce liability to political positions and decisions.

Re:But

[addie]

In Canada we reached just over 61% turnout in the federal election in 2011, which was a slight rise from a historically low 59% in 2008. With the way our first past the post system works, that meant the Conservative Party of Canada became government with only about 40% of the total vote - working out to just 5-6 million people out of a country of 35 million.

Getting people to vote is extremely important, yes. But having a voting system that is fair and accurately represents voter preference is also necessary.

Re:But

[billcopc]

We had a 61% turnout last year, but since the FPTP system is so retarded, our Canadian version of Dubya won a (narrow) majority despite getting less than 40% of the votes.

The way most of us read the results, it means over 60% did NOT want that guy to win. Either way, since getting his majority he's been ramming all these big brother bills down our throat, along with unprecedented military spending and all the other abusive stuff you neighbours have been subjected to for the last few terms. Shit's going downhill fast and riots are become more and more frequent. Amazing how easiy one sellout can ruin a country for millions of people.

Re:But

[mirix]

Bingo. One bad bill draws too much heat, so let it lay low for a while and railroad through some other cancerous bill.

Re:But

[MightyMartian]

He didn't keep Canada from sinking. Banking governance and policies put in place by previous governments were largely responsible for that. And all that money that Harper found in 2009-2010 was because the Governor General forced him to make a budget that Parliament would support before she would grant him the prorogation that saved his government from being replaced in a vote of no confidence.

Re:But

[Beardo the Bearded]

Economists? Interesting.

Jim Flaherty's first budget in 2006: 468 billion

Today's debt: 584 Billion

That's $116 BILLION in overspending in the last six years.

Conservatives. Discuss and define, please.

Re:But

[PopeRatzo]

I'm am of the belief that only taking up arms is the way to go in the next 15 years to remove corruption

You don't need to "take up arms". You'll only end up hurting yourself. The person a gun owner is most likely to kill is himself.

Start with yourself. Change yourself. You don't like "corruption and corporate influence"? Well, the solution to that is self-evident. Then look at your family, your friends, your community. You've got plenty to do before you get anywhere near a need to "take up arms". When you can fill a single-spaced sheet of paper with the ways you have tried to help the situation and failed, then you can talk about "taking up arms". Until then, I suggest you get out that sheet of paper and get to work. Are you on your local school board? Have you run for any elected office or worked for someone running for elected office? Have you even taken the time to visit the office of an elected representative to speak to him or her? What's that? I didn't hear you? You mean you haven't done shit but decide it's time to go to the mattresses? Oh, and plinking at bottles and cans down by the railroad tracks with your air rifle does not count as "doing something to make a difference".

And stop being so dramatic. It makes you sound like a goof or a crank. Or a cranky goof. Even though I'm inclined to agree with your political opinions, all you're liable to do is make it harder for anything real to get done and get yourself or someone close to you hurt. What's that? Well, maybe the first thing you need to do is find "someone close".

"Taking up arms" my black ass. My guess is you wouldn't even know who to shoot. No, "my mailman" is not the correct answer, "future assassin". And one other thing: even though it must have seemed like a great and noble idea to choose that user name when you first did it in the 12th grade, has it ever occurred to you that you completely neutralize any possible positive social impact you might have accomplished by that little act of nominative cosplay?

Re:But

[mirix]

I've always been partial to Crime Minister Harper.

Re:But

[J Story]

Getting people to vote is extremely important, yes. But having a voting system that is fair and accurately represents voter preference is also necessary.

I think we are seeing in Greece and Italy the downsides of a more fair and accurate representation. As we have seen, voters do not always do what is in their best interests. The multitude of parties in these countries means that outright majorities are all but unknown, and that in order for a coalition to get enough support to form a governemnt, it must do things that are not always wise. We've seen this in the last few years when the Conservatives in Canada were having to do things to appease opposition parties.

On the other hand, there is the example of Germany, which still seems to have its financial head screwed on right, and I don't have an answer for that. Maybe there are some constitutional guards, or maybe it has something to do with German character, whatever that is.

Re:But

[willy_me]

There's nothing sanctified or noble about not showing up at the polls. It's just sheer idiocy and laziness.

If one is indifferent as to who gets elected then it is best that they do not vote. If they vote then, on average, they will vote for whoever invested the most in advertising. This is not the way it should be. If you don't care or are insufficiently informed of the candidate's policies then stay at home or cast a blank vote.

If only 50% of a population votes then that tells you the other 50% do not care which party gets elected. There is nothing wrong with that. Should the governing party screw up then you know that you will get a much higher turnout at the next election. It is the ability to vote that is important and keeps the politicians in line not the actual vote.

Re:But

[Strider-]

Wait. A guy who's an economist and kept us from sinking unlike the US, or Europe and has pushed for actual free trade agreements(instead of fair trade agreements like NAFTA), is an idiot? Amazing.

Harper and his lapdogs did nothing of the sort. He was pushing for more deregulation in the banking sector, until things tanked, then took credit for what Paul Martin and the liberals achieved.

Harper is a liar and a crook, and that's all there is to it.

Re:But

[jaymemaurice]

The majority who were against it, like me voted. The ones who didn't care, didn't.

I am sorry I voted against you because I felt I'd rather have a local candidate who I elected then someone who was appointed by the party. An appointed candidate to me is a shill, and even if I had a local candidate still, a shill would cancel his or her input and be impossible to find when it's lynching time.

I wish our education system did a better job at teaching politics.

System is Working

[tomhath]

Despite all the howling we've been hearing, it sounds like the democratic system worked as designed. Public debate, bad ideas squashed, eh?

Re:System is Working

[Anrego]

Unfortunatly, they can just keep trying. Over and over again. Eventually people will have grown tired of the massive public effort required to kill this stuff, and it'll pass.

I really wish there was a legal remedy for this. Some kind of "can't try it again for 10 years" law. Of course who decides what law is too similar to a previously failed one is the huge problem with that.. but a man can dream.

Re:System is Working

[c]

Yeah, well, apparently going after pirates is more important than saving Canadians from pedophiles...

Re:System is Working

[MightyMartian]

Oh give me a break. When the Liberals were falling to pieces, they were blaming the media for being right wing.

I can't remember who said it, but the saying "A politician complaining about the press is like a captain complaining about the sea."

The Tories have gotten bad press because they've done bad things. In their incarnation as a minority government, they invented out of thin air the notion of executive privilege, which has never existed in the Canadian constitution. They used prorogation to evade a confidence motion, becoming only the second government in Canadian history to use it to avoid censure by Parliament (the first being good old Sir John A Macdonald who was trying to avoid paying the price for the Pacific Scandal). Now they have a pretty silly crime bill that it looks like at least some provinces are going to refuse to pay for, and have been caught fibbing about F-35 cost estimates. And what, you want the media to ignore that and just say nice things?

Omg... proof read

[Anonymous Coward]

How hard is it to proof read a story before submitting it?
It's "For all intensive purposes" ffs.

Re:Omg... proof read

[istartedi]

OK, you brought me out of the woodwork. Everybody knows it's "for all in tents and purchases".

harper didn't keep us from sinking

[Chirs]

I rather suspect that Harper himself (and the Conservatives in general) had little to do with our economic stability. That's more likely due to huge resource exports as well as stricter banking regulation.

Tightening up on crime while the crime rate is dropping is a joke. The claim that they have a majority "mandate" with 40% of the vote is a joke. They've been found to have breached parlimentary privilege multiple times, they've been found to be in contempt of Canadian parliament. They intentionally violated the election spending limit, they prorogued parliament twice to avoid nonconfidence votes, they fired the President of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission for reporting that the Chalk River nuclear facility had a high risk level, they lowballed the F-35 spending costs, they lowballed the Libya mission costs, and a string of other problems.

Re:harper didn't keep us from sinking

[MightyMartian]

And now they're running neck-in-neck with the NDP. The problem in the end isn't the Tories, it's that the bottom fell out of the Liberal party, and someone had to govern in the meantime. Now that it looks like the Bloc is about to be taken off life support and Quebec has decided to re-engage with Federalism, and the majority of center and left-of-center voters have decided to send the last remaining major Western liberal party into the dustbin and gone with a left-of-center party, we ought to see things change.

Yes, Harper's policies, or at least some of them, are pretty fucking stupid. But it's not like the Liberals before the didn't have stupid policies. You go back to Confederation, and it's littered with stupid policies, and some outright abusive ones. Canada has survived far worse governments than Harper's, but because so many people are either just as ideologically handicapped as Tory supporters are, or have so little knowledge of the country's political history, they make Harper into this almost comically Darth Vaderesque figure. It's moronic. He isn't that good and he isn't that bad, and he's now facing a country that's basically throwing the Liberals into a distant third place rump and saying "Those NDP guys look interesting."

And you know what, if the NDP gets in, they'll pass a bunch of stupid policies, and you'll have a bunch of right wing morons of about your equivalent mental capacity comparing Mulcair to Josef Stalin and claiming Canada is going to become a Communist state, blah blah blah,

Gotta wonder about those Tories

[hyades1]

We've all seen examples of how the most homophobic people are the ones who get caught on their knees in men's rooms. Larry Craig comes to mind, of course, but there are many others.

It's hard not to suspect that people like Vic Toews, who are so quick to call everybody who disagrees with them a child molester, don't have some interesting pictures lurking on key drives that are never left lying around.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion