Slashdot Mirror
Supreme Court of Canada Rules That Text Messages Are Private
An anonymous reader writes "The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that text messages are private communication (Official Ruling) and therefore police are required to get a warrant to gain access to the text messages of private citizens. The CBC reports: '[Supreme Court Justice Rosalie Silberman] Abella said the only practical difference between text messaging and traditional voice communications is the transmission process. "This distinction should not take text messages outside the protection to which private communications are entitled," she wrote.'"
Quite different from the attitude in the U.S.
Text messages are not generally stored on the telco's equipment. They log times and source/destination, but not the message contents. The contents are stored withing telco equipment until they are delivered and then they are deleted. If the recipient's phone always on.
It would cost telcos money to store these things, and if they don't legally have to store them, they're not going to spend money to do so. It's akin to recording phone conversations - it's generally not done because there's no reason to pay for something which doesn't add value.
(edit, captcha: "greedy")
however it's not going to stop the US telco's from bending over backwards to give up all the info they can at the slightest provocation...
I got here through a series of tubes
The only question now is how long before we can get the same protection for ALL forms of communication, regardless of the technology used.
I think I want to move to Canada when I retire. They seem to have a lot more common sense than the idiots that run the US.
This comes just after some fat-ass cock sucker border crossing guy in Canada went through my phone and read all my text messages. He even laughed at some of them. He took up a lot of my time and then let me proceed into Canada. Hmm maybe this ruling wouldn't have helped... I'm not a Canadian citizen.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The thing to remember is that the US is a much larger country. This is in terms of population. For that reason, there are likely to be more extremes in the US, just as a numerical property of a larger population.
(Not really a complete thought, just thinking on /.)
PS: I don't reply to ACs.
How can anyone be in favor of both warrantless spying and democratic form of government?
Those that are in favor are those in power or those that "think of the children" without actually pausing to consider what it means when those children become adults.
It seems many people would rather the government give the appearance of trying to stop the terrorist bogeyman than respect people's freedom and privacy.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
There are extreme circumstances where obtaining a warrant will take more time than you have, and in such cases, I don't oppose implementing a wire tap or intercepting communications to get the information needed, on two very important conditions: there is disclosure after the fact, and a warrant is subsequently obtained. The first speaks for itself, and for the second: If the warrant is not obtained for any reason, then any information gathered by this means can't be used in criminal proceedings. Given how much information can be gotten through such a tap, you'd better be absolutely certain that there is an urgent and immediate need to implement a tap, and that your evidence to justify it is adequate, otherwise you can throw your own case out by doing it.
It is still possible to have that form of warrantless information gathering while still having an open and democratic government, but you need to be open about the information gathering too, when it happens. What passes for democracy in the states is a far cry from how I actually envision it.
As always, TFS is incorrect. Reading THE FIRST PARAGRAPH of the linked decision will tell you that.
The police HAD a warrant. The court determined that a general warrant was not sufficient and that they required a specific WIRETAP warrant.
The next question: How is sending a written message to a selected number of friends on a social network different from doing the same with text messages on a phone?
If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
If Canada has such an awesome legislative body, why did a court have to make this ruling? Wouldn't have this been on the books all along? /Am I not being anti-American enough for Slashdot?
There are extreme circumstances where obtaining a warrant will take more time than you have
Too bad. Get a warrant.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
98% of the voters (in the US) voted for warrantless spying in the last election and the two previous ones before that. What could possibly be more 'democratic'?
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Think it through real hard.
If you don't get the cognitive dissonance you are not smart enough to ask those sorts of questions.
hint: If you so disdain the opinions of people who are going to be a (major) part of the democracy, why in the world would you want a democratic form of government?
ironic captcha: wretch
The Supreme Court decision requires a wiretap authorization, which is harder to get than a warrant. A warrant was always required and no one was arguing that it wasn't. Telus, for whatever reason, stores its text messages for some time. In this case the cops wanted to access these stored text messages as they were coming in. To work around the more difficult requirements of a wiretap authorization, they used a general warrant on the grounds that this was saved correspondence, not live communication. The majority of the Court didn't buy that argument, saying that this went against the purpose of the wiretap provisions, which is to protect interactive communication. What's interesting is that the majority didn't get tied up in the specifics of how the messages were handled and went with this purposive analysis.
This can be changed with a simple new law, and Canadian conservatives have been pushing for that. Like many other nations, there are also numerous exceptions. Furthermore, AFAIK illegally obtained evidence is still admissible in Canadian courts, which is a huge loophole.
As it should be. However, telephone companies should not be archiving them, without permission from the client.
98% of the voters (in the US) voted for warrantless spying in the last election and the two previous ones before that. What could possibly be more 'democratic'?
There was nothing on my ballot about that. If you're saying that voting for Candidate A is an automatic endorsement of all the policies claimed by that Candidate, then Go Fuck Yourself. Half the time they are lying, the other half the time they're contradicting themselves.
98% of the voters (in the US) voted for warrantless spying in the last election and the two previous ones before that. What could possibly be more 'democratic'?
Really? I find that interesting because I voted and there was nothing about warrentless spying on my ballot. Also there is no single issue that 98% of Americans agree on. We are a rather polarized country right now.
How many warrant requests - even in Canada - are not automatically rubberstamped by Judge Judy when handsome Constable John Law comes calling? Especially when there is no one arguing against the request or even know it's occuring.
It's the right ruling, but the effect will be depressingly miniscule.
There are extreme circumstances where obtaining a warrant will take more time than you have
BS. In this province, police can get a warrant via video conferencing combined with fax/e-mail, and IIRC that's 24 x 7.
The only way that could take too long is either if the judge delays in issuing the warrant (which would because the police haven't presented adequate grounds for a warrant), or if there is a life threatening emergency (in which case there is sufficient evidence in plain sight to arrest the perpetrators; i.e. no warrant would be immediately needed).
So it's okay to get a warrant to obtain information using information obtained without a warrant? Or if you suspect you need a warrant but can't get one and you're afraid it might be too late? How about we just start preemptively start pulling people over for speeding because they are going downhill. I guess the whole concept of innocent until proven guilty is kind of lost here isn't it.
The authorities should not have a right to go on a fishing expedition and hope they find something incriminating. If they need evidence they need to obtain it legally, that is what they are supposed to do because that is the law. If they need to break the law to enforce the law, doesn't that just tell you how silly it is to begin with?
When it comes to the point that the authorities cannot follow their own rules to enforce them then where does the line between good guy and bad guy lay? I mean if we as a society condone using bad guys to catch bad guys then why bother with the whole charade to begin with?
I got here through a series of tubes
Too bad. Get a warrant.
There was a case in my country some years ago when a teenage girl disappeared. If I remember correctly the police took about a day to get a warrant to use her mobile phone to locate her. She was later found dead (I don't remember if her phone did play a role in finding her and guy who killed her). There was a small media controversy if that was the right approach, or if they should have the right to do it without a warrant in such cases. In the end it turned out that she was already dead at that time, so it would not have mattered, and the controversy turned down.
I think this is a valid example for a case where the police should have the right to just do it and get the warrant retrospectively. Such a policy has a good chance of saving some lives over the years; it doesn't even need to be a crime, there was a case recently where a car crashed on a forest road and ended up at the lower end of a slope, out of sight of the road, and was not found for several days. Of course there should be checks and balances, e.g. the cases where they are allowed to do so should be exclusively enumerated to prevent misuse of that privilege, and if the warrant is not granted they should have to end surveillance immediately and delete all data.
I was under under the impression that there was the ability to have immediate action based on critical need (lives endangered etc), after which the warrant could be requested. The caveat being that frivolous use of this would be dealt with harshly.
E.G. if it's used in a non-critical event, any evidence obtained would be considered tainted/inadmissible.
The thing to remember is that the US is a much larger country. This is in terms of population. For that reason, there are likely to be more extremes in the US, just as a numerical property of a larger population.
The grandparent poster meant "extremes" as in "people who lean towards extreme positions on some scale".
The actual word he was looking for is "extremists".
And yes, a larger population would have a greater number of extremists - all other things being equal.
Which they are kinda not.
Total number of extremists in a given population is a function of the percentage of their prevalence in said population and the size of that very same population.
2 million gingers in a country of 200 million here they represent 1% of population, is not the same situation as 2 million gingers in a country of 4 million where they are 50% of population.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
or if there is a life threatening emergency (in which case there is sufficient evidence in plain sight to arrest the perpetrators; i.e. no warrant would be immediately needed).
Unless, say, the whereabouts of the suspect was unknown, in which case you'd need a warrant to subpoena their cell phone data to get a location....
So it's okay to get a warrant to obtain information using information obtained without a warrant? Or if you suspect you need a warrant but can't get one and you're afraid it might be too late? How about we just start preemptively start pulling people over for speeding because they are going downhill. I guess the whole concept of innocent until proven guilty is kind of lost here isn't it.
That's a slippery slope, and you know it. Any lawyer worth their salt would have a field day in court against police using a warrant in such a manner. In fact, I do believe that's how Gotti managed to get off a few times....
The exemption I'm talking about is in the case where there's a life threatening emergency, and you simply don't have the time to get a warrant, in which case as long as the need was immediate, you disclose that it's been done, and the warrant is issued after the fact (on basis of the information you already had), then I don't see any wrong having been done. When I went to the point of saying that anything you got would be inadmissible if the warrant wasn't subsequently issued, I have no idea how you're stretching that to mean what you claim it would...
Such a policy has a good chance of saving some lives over the years
I'd much prefer that a few lives be lost than allowing for random exceptions. As I keep saying, I'd be against the TSA even if it was actually effective.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
There was a case in my country some years ago when a teenage girl disappeared. If I remember correctly the police took about a day to get a warrant to use her mobile phone to locate her.
They could have just as easily asked the parents/guardians of said teenage girl (read: minor) if they couldl tap her cell phone to locate her.
Police don't need a warrant to search your home if they simply ask and you invite them in; the warrant merely allows them to not take no for an answer.
Canada is a ridiculous right wing myth. There is no Canada.
Just last month, the Ontario Appeals Court ruled that a cellphone that's not digitally locked (such as with a password) can be searched without a warrant... but if locked, a warrant is required.
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/13/02/21/1343231/cellphone-privacy-in-canada-encryption-triggers-need-for-warrant
Now the Canadian Supreme Court says that access to text messages requires a warrant. This is interesting because the Ontario case from last month involved text messages that were searched without a warrant.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/02/cops-can-search-mobile-phoneonly-if-its-not-password-protected/
I would assume that the Canadian Supreme Court ruling takes precedence over the Ontario Appeals Court ruling... for text messages. However, photos, video, chat logs, etc apparently don't get the same protection.
So... lock your phone with a password, no matter what... even if it's just a minimal one that's easy to type.
Getting tired of Slashdot... moving to Usenet comp.misc for a while.
It's "wiretap authorization". And more...
From the ruling:
The technique sought to be authorized here is not the substantive equivalent of a wiretap authorization. On the facts of this case, a wiretap authorization alone would not allow the police to obtain the information that Telus was required to provide under the general warrant. Three separate authorizations would be required in order to provide the police with the means to access the information provided to them under the general warrant. Therefore, even if one were to accept reading into s. 487.01(1)(c) a âoesubstantive equivalencyâ test, neither the facts nor the law would support its application in this case.
I.e. What they were asking for was not covered by a single type of warrant. They would need three different authorizations for all that.
The conditions for issuing a production order are similar to those for a search warrant. The issuing justice or judge must be satisfied by information on oath that an offence has been or is suspected to have been committed, the documents or data will afford evidence respecting the commission of the offence and that the person to whom the order is directed has possession or control of the documents or data (s. 487.012(3)). In addition, the person to whom the order is directed cannot be a person under investigation (s. 487.012(1)).
unlike search warrants and production orders that may be issued by judges or justices of the peace, general warrants may only be issued by judges (s. 487.01(1)). Second, âoethe judge [must be] satisfied that it is in the best interests of the administration of justice to issue the warrantâ (s. 487.01(1)(b)). Third, a general warrant must âoecontain such terms and conditions as the judge considers advisable to ensure that the search or seizure authorized by the warrant is reasonable in the circumstancesâ (s. 487.01(3)). Fourth, a general warrant may be issued only if âoethere is no other provision . . . that would provide for a warrant, authorization or order permitting the technique, procedure or device to be used or the thing to be doneâ (s. 487.01(1)(c)). In other words, a general warrant may not be used to authorize a âoetechnique, procedure or device to be used or . . . thing to be doneâ if there are other provisions in the Code (or elsewhere) that could authorize it.
An authorization to intercept private communications under Part VI of the Code allows police to receive messages as they are being sent or received by subscribers. These sorts of authorizations are subject to even more strict conditions than those which apply to general warrants. They may only be issued by a judge of a superior court of criminal jurisdiction. The Attorney General, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness or a specially designated agent must bring the application (s. 185(1)). There are specific and detailed provisions relating to what must be placed before the judge. The issuing judge must be satisfied not only that it would be in the best interests of the administration of justice to issue the authorization but also that the so-called âoeinvestigative necessityâ test has been met (s. 186(1)). This means that the judge must be satisfied that âoeother investigative procedures have been tried and have failed, other investigative procedures are unlikely to succeed or the urgency of the matter is such that it would be impractical to carry out the investigation of the offence using only other investigative proceduresâ (s. 186(1)). The authorization may generally not be valid for more that 60 days (s. 186(4)(e)) and there are notice and reporting requirements (s. 196).
In short, they'd need to "rubberstamp" the Attorney General or the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
It's called Fascism, and most people have forgotten what it looks like.
---Up Up Down Down Left Right Left Right B A START
It's a Potemkin country. I went up "there" once, and somebody obviously went through a lot of trouble to create a fake country. But for all the effort, they didn't do a very good job. They didn't even change the accents.
...Go Fuck Yourself...
I suppose I could do that, but it wouldn't change the fact that a vote for a candidate is an endorsement of his actions. You shouldn't pay attention to what they say, especially when it conflicts with what they do. This seems to be a point that flies high over peoples' heads.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
...there was nothing about warrentless spying on my ballot...
Reelecting a politician that authorized it is a vote for warrantless wiretapping. Maintaining the status quo is a single issue that over 98% of the voters agree on.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
No shit it's a slippery slope. The whole thing is a slippery slope which is why you have to objectively say "no" right out of the gate. There are already a special set of rules for life threatening situations. The police don't need a warrant to enter your house if you're holding a gun to someone's head. The don't need a warrant to arrest you if you're waving a gun around in public. Those are separate issues than spying on someone and if a threat is really imminent enough that you need to illegally tap a phone to save a life, you're kind of already too late. Make the police do the job they were hired to do like everyone else. No cutting corners. Period.
I got here through a series of tubes
"The CBC reports: '[Supreme Court Justice Rosalie Silberman] Abella said the only practical difference between text messaging and traditional voice communications is the transmission process." I wish judges in USA all were this intelligent... So many laws have been passed to benefit big business that I think judges get confused and forget about the basic fundamental laws.
What passes for democracy in the states is a far cry from how I actually envision it.
Democracy is process for allowing governed people a voice in the laws that govern. It is only a process, a means, it is not the object or ends. The majority cannot have unlimited power, if the government is to have limited power. The purpose of a constitution is to limit the power of government, or of the majority, over the individual citizen. Without a constitution (hard limits on power) that is accepted by the all, and protected by all, the government will constantly encroach on peoples liberties and freedoms. I would say the constitutional government of the states is a far cry from what one might expect.
Reelecting a politician that authorized it is a vote for warrantless wiretapping. Maintaining the status quo is a single issue that over 98% of the voters agree on.
Making up statistics doesn't make them real. If it were an actual statistic you would cite the source.
Voting for someone who I agree with on the majority of issues but disagree with on a minority of issues is not condoning warrantless wiretapping, even if that individual once authorized it. If we followed your logic, we become morally bankrupt when we cast a vote for any politician that we even slightly disagree with. It is nonsensical to expect that every person that votes for someone agrees with 100% of the candidate's issues.
Who exactly is it that I voted for that condones warrantless wiretapping? Oh yeah, you don't even know who I voted for.
Who do you think you are to be so morally high that you can be didactic to me about who I vote for? I am entitled to my freedom to vote for whomever, and no one ever needs to justify who they voted for.
It's called Fascism, and most people have forgotten what it looks like.
Maybe if you were completely ignorant of what Fascism means, then perhaps you have a case. As long as the US is a democracy with free elections and a capitalistic economy, there is no way you can remotely call us Fascist. Why? The US employs checks and balances. Term limits for presidents, for one, completely unravels your argument.
You're making shit up. I never told you who to vote for. However, if you vote for a politician that voted for warrantless wiretapping, then you did too. It's that simple, regardless of the other issues. On that 98%, 51.1% voted democrat. 47.2% voted republican. You do the math.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
I still think the warrant must be obtained in advance. Otherwise the ability to do this will be abused. It's better to let a few guilty people go in this case. For special circumstances we already have special police-friendly courts that rubber stamp warrants. This is a fundamental principle that we shouldn't relax.
The government and law enforcement agencies around the world have proved through long experience that they will not voluntarily restrict their powers but will instead stretch it as far as they can.
I think the correct response in this situation is that the police break the law, save the girls life, then go to jail with a clear conscience. If it is important enough to not require a warrant then it should also be important enough to accept the consequences of not having a warrant.
But once you give special exemptions that don't require warrants, law enforcement agencies will continue to expand that loop hole until it encompasses anything they want.
If everyone only voted for someone they agree with 100% on all issues and policies, than 99.999% of all people wouldn't vote. The only people that you will agree with 100% is yourself. What it boils down to is that someone is going to be in charge and of the options presented you are going to support either the guy you mostly agree with or the guy that doesn't support that thing you really hate.
Taking the opposite extreme only makes the other side dig in deeper. A middle ground is best.
You're making shit up. I never told you who to vote for. However, if you vote for a politician that voted for warrantless wiretapping, then you did too. It's that simple, regardless of the other issues. On that 98%, 51.1% voted democrat. 47.2% voted republican. You do the math.
You were clearly being didactic, sir, and you were clearly saying that the reelected parties should not have been elected, thus you were telling me, as I am sure you define me in your 98%, who I should be voting for. I say its not your business, and I'll vote without fear of your judgements.
"Its that simple," you say. I say there is nothing simple about warrantless wiretapping, and your attempts to blame 98% of voters is unfounded.
You still have to CITE A CREDIBLE SOURCE. You haven't even defined who these elected people are, or what specific election this involves. No, you just write down some numbers and say I told you so. Your math does not work because I rejected the assumptions you based those numbers on.
You have no credible argument just unsupported opinions.
Taking the opposite extreme only makes the other side dig in deeper.
What?
A middle ground is best.
That's your opinion. Obviously I disagree that the "middle ground" is the best choice here. I don't care for them having the ability to take action without a warrant for things that a judge would possibly never have given a warrant for to begin with, which is what would happen in some cases if such a thing was allowed.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
...you were clearly saying that the reelected parties should not have been elected...
You will have to point to where I said that. I'll wait...
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
You're making shit up. I never told you who to vote for. However, if you vote for a politician that voted for warrantless wiretapping, then you did too. It's that simple, regardless of the other issues. On that 98%, 51.1% voted democrat. 47.2% voted republican. You do the math.
Do you know what the word didactic even means? Here let me tell you what the Oxford English dictionary says:
Having the character or manner of a teacher or instructor; characterized by giving instruction; having the giving of instruction as its aim or object; instructive, preceptive.
As you were clearly trying to give us instruction on this 98% number, you thus became didactic. I never said you told me explicitly who to vote for, but I reject your judgement of this so-called 98%, and I further reject you basic assumptions regarding voting and how voting for candidates somehow becomes voting directly on the issues.
There is nothing simple about warrantless wiretapping.
Your numbers do not add up because I rejected your premise. Next time try citing credible sources before you make your argument, because at this point you have no argument, just an opinion, and some numbers you made up. I must conclude they are made up because you have not provided a credible source, even after you decided to break it down by party.
"98% of the voters (in the US) voted for warrantless spying in the last election and the two previous ones before that. What could possibly be more 'democratic'?"
Your use of both a made up statistic and the rhetorical mechanic of a question with quotations around democratic denotes contextual negativity and thus reveals your opinion about who should be elected.
Since you insist on trying to deflect the issue, I will tell you this, if your vote can have a negative effect upon me, then I have every right to try to influence that vote. Your compromising has consequences that extend beyond yourself.
And yes, some things are that simple. Needless complications are nothing but distractions and contribute nothing useful.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
What is this word "private" .. it interests me.
Yeah well, when the guy you vote for can have me thrown into prison, I won't be shy to tell you how I feel about it.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
I've unravelled every argument you tried to make, and yes I found my slashdot login. You asked me where you said whom I should vote for and I quoted you and explained how to derive my interpretation from your words. Now you claim that I am deflecting things. I'm deflecting nothing. I am attacking your opinion that you disguise as an argument. You have every right to post to this board and attempt to to sway public opinion. I have every right to publicly say you don't get to decide who anyone votes for but yourself. I have the right to reveal your use of an opinion as an argument. No. Its not simple. Just saying its simple does not make it so. Using made up statistics doesn't make it so. Warrants and what the police are allowed to do in any nation is not simple. By attempting to reduce it to simplicity you are attempting to minimalism the actual argument that people need to discuss. Is warrantless wiretapping wrong?
What are you hiding that an warrantless wiretap would reveal? You don't know who I vote for. I never said whom I vote for. You didn't define what candidates your referencing or even what election its from. You never even asked me if I support warrantless wiretapping. Now please explain to me how the guy I voted for is going to put you in prison. You cannot. I won't be shy about attacking your line of thinking.
Is warrantless wiretapping wrong?
Yes. The institutional authority that perpetrates it is corrupt, by nature, especially for the lack of oversight.
Made up statistics? No, the official vote count. That's the best we can go by. 98.3% voted to maintain things as they are.
You can rationalize that any way you like, but there it is.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
What are you hiding...?
Ah, thank you!
You don't know who I vote for.
Fine.. If the guy you vote for can have me thrown into prison...
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Is warrantless wiretapping wrong?
Yes. The institutional authority that perpetrates it is corrupt, by nature, especially for the lack of oversight.
Made up statistics? No, the official vote count. That's the best we can go by. 98.3% voted to maintain things as they are.
You can rationalize that any way you like, but there it is.
I agree that warrantless wiretapping is wrong. That is my opinion. Governments are not corrupt by nature, nor is an entire government suddenly corrupt because an elected official supports warrantless wiretapping. Again I ask what election and what candidates? Are you so crass as to base this futile opinion on a presidential election? We have two choices. I chose the one I believe in.
Hmm. Are the hypothetical situations you named really all that different? Every one of them is about an immediate life threatening situation, whether it's entering a house (officer discovers you're about to shoot a hostage) or tapping a phone (officer discovers you're about to order where to plant a bomb), and the same rules can be applied (a short period after the fact to prove to a judge your decision was justified or kiss your badge goodbye).
Makes me wonder if you might live in one of those places where you're already on the slippery slope and looking for a brake.
Dear AC, if you think term limits for presidents "completely unravels" an argument that a country is fascist, you're out of your gourd.
As for checks and balances, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_triangle_(US_politics) and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_voting - real life is not as simple as you'd like it to be.
Free elections and a capitalistic economy do not guarantee a non-fascist democracy if the outcome is predetermined. Sort of analogous to an ocean with big undercurrents on a calm day. You wanted to swim that way? Swim all you like, you're going another way, and if there's not enough reference points you don't even realise it, let alone why.
And is the US fascist? I think... no. Not yet. But it's generally the mark of the insane to just close your eyes and recite 'la la la I can't hear you' when anyone dares point out any cracks in the brickwork.
The tiniest bit of dabbling in laws of nature will clearly reveal the inherent corruption (from a supposedly human standpoint) of all powerful institutions and individuals. Our philosophy has yet to confront, much less overcome our biology.
We have more than two choices. I must assume from your post that you chose between the two dominant ones, I hope not based on some 'lesser evil' crap. If you did, I will also have to assume that warrantless wiretapping isn't really a priority of yours. Feel free to state otherwise. The numbers are from the 2012 presidential election. I don't understand your obsession over this, or why I must spoon feed everything to you, aside from a diversion.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
The situations he described seem to all include people who are in plain sight and putting other people's lives in harm's way; no searches are required in such situations.
It's a tricky discussion for most because there can always be extenuating circumstances. If one's child were abducted, they knew it was the other parent (as is mostly the case), and there was imminent harm, a policy of retrospective warrants should be considered as a possibility.
This isn't a "think of the children" argument, it's just that I would make a small sacrifice (of personal liberty) to perhaps save someone that someone else holds near and dear. And I would hope that they would make that sacrifice for me if the worst should happen. Lots of people think that way. It's not that I don't think privacy is important, I just think there are lots of more important things I can trade it for.
"In the absence of the ability to establish the attribute of truth they tried to establish the noble attributes."
This isn't a "think of the children" argument
It's an argument not dissimilar to one the TSA would make, with the only real difference being that it's not about the terrorist bogeyman.
it's just that I would make a small sacrifice (of personal liberty) to perhaps save someone that someone else holds near and dear.
That's where you and I differ. I think we've been making far too many 'small' sacrifices as of late and that this 'protect us at the expense of freedom' mentality is poison.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
(-1 Troll) Oh my! The shills are really on the attack!
They ruled that police don't just need a warrant, but a wiretap warrant (takes longer to get, more restrictions). There is only one ISP - Telus - that this primarily applies to as the other ISP's don't store text messages at all. Telus stores them for 30 days (and I don't know why). The court ruled that texts are just like phone calls, and are protected in a similar way.
⦠a friend of mine and his wife just passed the Canadian citizenship test. I said 'Congrats! You have just earned the right to bitch about everything along side the rest of us. And what's the deal with the Oilers eh?'
He said that's exactly what his wife said (minus the hockey bit).
If everyone only voted for someone they agree with 100% on all issues and policies, than 99.999% of all people wouldn't vote.
They don't need to vote for candidates they agree with 100%; they just need to not vote for people who want to take away our freedoms.
Indeed, I never said the US was fascist. I said Fascists generally start with:
> both warrantless spying
and continue the appearance of:
> democratic form of government?
---Up Up Down Down Left Right Left Right B A START
>I think we've been making far too many 'small' sacrifices as of late and that this 'protect us at the expense of freedom' mentality is >poison.
That's just your opinion, and it is subjective.
What gives you the right to force your ideals on other people at the expensive of their lives?
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/09/cellular-customer-data/
At least in the US most keep it for a period of time.
I would assume the same in Canada, but I would hope the interval is shorter.
That's just your opinion, and it is subjective.
Correct. Notice the "I think."
What gives you the right to force your ideals on other people at the expensive of their lives?
What gives you or I the right to do anything? I don't think your question is very meaningful because it seems to assume that there is some entity that gives us the right to do things, and there is no evidence to suggest that that is the case. I simply advocate for things that I agree with, just as you do.
That said, I could just as easily say, "What gives you the right to force your ideals on other people at the expense of their freedoms?"
A bit amusing is the fact that this is something that I'd imagine would come out of a TSA supporter's mouth...
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Personally I'm neutral on the TSA. All the TSA means to me is that the airport security guys have a badge that says TSA.
Before 911, the airport security guys had a badge that said something different on it.
How does the TSA impinge freedom any more than the pre-911 system?
I honestly don't know, so if anybody knows the answer I am happy to read and learn.
Before 911, the airport security guys had a badge that said something different on it.
Before 9/11, you weren't getting fondled and searched by goons from a government agency. If you need to ask how your rights are being violated, I don't really know what to say.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
So you were ok with the fondling and searching when it wasn't done by a government agency?
I feel that my rights are violated by red traffic lights.
I assert my rights by running these red lights and getting traffic tickets.
Civil disobedience at its best.
My freedom to drive how I feel fit trumps other people's rights to perceived safety from car accidents.
I don't remember getting fondled at all before 9/11, truth be told. Furthermore, a search conducted by the government is different from a private company scanning your luggage with a metal detector.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
I suppose you thought you were being clever by implicitly saying that I believe that the freedom to do something trumps safety in all cases, but I must inform you that that's not really what I believe. Or is my interpretation incorrect?
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
I don't remember getting fondled at all before 9/11, truth be told.
And I'd be against any such fondling if it were being done by a private company. I definitely wouldn't go to any such airports. I may even go so far as to say that they shouldn't even be allowed to do that to begin with.
Oh, and I'd be perfectly happy even without metal detectors. Take your security theater elsewhere, and I'll gladly fly on a plane knowing that there's an absolutely minuscule chance that a terrorist will not only break through the secured cockpit doors (the only decent change since 9/11) but also not cause every citizen on board to murder him/her.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!