Slashdot Mirror


Cable Giants Step Up Piracy Battle By Interrogating Montreal Software Developer (www.cbc.ca)

New submitter wierzpio writes: In more news about TVAddons, Canadian cable companies used a civil search warrant to visit the owner and developer of TVAddons, a library of hundreds of apps known as add-ons that allow people easy access to pirated movies, TV shows, and live TV. According to Adam Lackman, founder of TVAddons and defendant in the copyright lawsuit launched by the television giants, "The whole experience was horrifying. It felt like the kind of thing you would have expected to have happened in the Soviet Union." During the 16 hour-long visit, he was interrogated, denied the right not to answer the questions, and denied the right to consult his answers with his lawyer, who was present. His personal possessions were seized. Adam is fighting back (link to Indiegogo fundraising page) and already the judge declared the search warrant "null and void." "I am of the view that its true purpose was to destroy the livelihood of the defendant, deny him the financial resources to finance a defense to the claim made against him," the judge wrote. "The defendant has demonstrated that he has an arguable case that he is not violating the [Copyright] Act," the judge continued, adding that by the plaintiffs' own estimate, only about one per cent of Lackman's add-ons were allegedly used to pirate content. Lackman's belongings still haven't been returned, and he can't acess the TVAddons website or its social media accounts, which were also seized. "Bell, Rogers and Videotron has appealed the court decision and a Federal Court of Appeal judge has ruled that until the appeal can be hard, Lackman will get nothing back," reports cbc.ca.

185 comments

  1. This is absolutely... by ckatko · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...disturbing.

    Like... what the hell is going on in Canada? And how long are Canadians going to stand around before they burn the place down and put this thing called a reasonable "Bill of Rights" into their constitution.

    Because it's pure insanity to allow a party to directly inspect a defendant's property (as opposed to having the police / third-party investigator do it).

    For every attack people put on the USA (and many are warranted), I look over at the UK and Canada and watch back in horror as their civil liberties are worth less than the paper they aren't printed on.

    1. Re:This is absolutely... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Why the rant against Canada?

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Bill_of_Rights

      This private action by Canadian Cable companies is atrocious, and it violates Canadian law as reported by the judge in this case. The victim was illegally interrogated and his assets seized in violation of what the law permits.

      Yes this was a terrible thing, but this isn't happening because Canada has lax rights laws. What the hell is going on in Canada? Asshole companies are being assholes, just like asshole companies worldwide.

    2. Re:This is absolutely... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... huh? The judge is eviscerating this. The appeal will fail.

      This is what checks and balances looks like. Good thing in Canada, and good thing in the United States: VERY good thing to see Trump being brought to heel.

    3. Re:This is absolutely... by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 4, Informative

      The victim was illegally interrogated and his assets seized in violation of what the law permits

      What was the most disturbing about this is how it says he was 'denied the right to not answer questions'; how, pray tell, do they 'deny' him that? From the original article:

      Lackman was "not permitted to refuse to answer questions" and his lawyer wasn't permitted to counsel him in his answers. "Any time I would question the process, they would threaten me with contempt of court proceedings," says Lackman.

      Absolute fucking bullshit.

    4. Re: This is absolutely... by nitehawk214 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Obviously the Canadian Bill of Rights is worth about as much as toilet paper considering this action.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    5. Re:This is absolutely... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wow, are all Americans actually this stupid or just the ones on the internet?

    6. Re:This is absolutely... by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The victim was illegally interrogated and his assets seized in violation of what the law permits.

      Shit happens sometimes... Law enforcement and prosecutors overstep their bounds, and are set straight by a judge. What really boggles the mind in this case is that the seized property wasn't returned pending the appeal, as the search warrant was rules "null and void". I would have at least expected a court of appeals to rule that his stuff is returned pending the appeal, unless the prosecutor can make a damn convincing argument that they need his stuff to make their case. And given the extent to which his rights were violated, the appeals court would probably do well to uphold the original verdict.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    7. Re:This is absolutely... by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      The guy still lost a day of his life, and they still have all his stuff for an indefinite period of time. So he's already been punished pretty hard whether he ultimately wins or not. And the cablecos obviously intended for this to send a clear message, "Pirate and we'll make you pay." And they've already sent that message loud and clear, whether they ultimately lose or not.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    8. Re:This is absolutely... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is also the nation that allowed a criminal harassment trial against a man for non-threatening comments made on Twitter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Elliott

      In the end the charges were dropped, but only after the falsely accused was ordered to stay off the internet for the 3 years that the trial was delayed.

    9. Re: This is absolutely... by Entrope · · Score: 2

      In the US, that is the point where your lawyer would interrupt and tell them he'll happily see them in court, because there's no way that any competent judge would hold him in contempt of court.

      Why is it so different in Canada?

    10. Re:This is absolutely... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Unless it was a court and a judge had issued the ruling, I would have ignored them and kept asking my solicitor.

      And any attempt to arrest without cause is merely kidnap and assault.

    11. Re: This is absolutely... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, there's an idea!

      Make the value of your country's currency not be GDP/GNP related, but based on the number of violations of your country's bill of rights equivalent!

      I mean, Canada would HAVE to be lower than ...say, the UK...or the USA, right?

    12. Re:This is absolutely... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I know it is against Slashdot policy but RTFA. "A bailiff, two computer techs, an independent consel (whatever the hell THAT is) and a company lawyer" did the dirty work.

      I assume this will end really badly for the cable companies - at least I hope so. Off to phone my cable provider and tell them my opinion

    13. Re:This is absolutely... by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      It depends how bad they lose. So can you generate profits by becoming their target, in the knowledge their arrogance and greed will get them to break they law, allowing for maximum civil penalty against them. This case might well become the standard trap to strip mine them of their capital.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    14. Re:This is absolutely... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Was he also illegally *detained*? Because deprivation of freedom is also called kidnapping, whatever your intentions are.

    15. Re:This is absolutely... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh they're set straight alright.

      Like those cops in the US that will not be getting charged for having fired 108 rounds into and around two innocent women completely at random, while a few minutes later their buddies elsewhere, after realizing they were arresting the wrong person (wrong car, wrong race, wrong everything) and letting him go had a second cruiser t-bone the guy as he started leaving and then emptied their magazines into his car.

      They've certainly learned A lesson that's for sure.

      If the Canadian justice system does not jail everyone involved in this illegal "enhanced interrogation", then Canadians have to dispense justice themselves, before bullshit like this becomes too commonplace.

    16. Re:This is absolutely... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What was the most disturbing about this is how it says he was 'denied the right to not answer questions'; how, pray tell, do they 'deny' him that?

      Illegally. For all we know they held a gun to his head and said 'no you don't get to talk to a lawyer', or perhaps they told him he was going to be sued/arrested unless he fully cooperated. See that's the thing about illegal actions. They're not done by people acting within legal bounds.

    17. Re:This is absolutely... by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 2

      Why the rant against Canada?

      Asshole companies being assholes most certainly, but there is justification for blaming Canada here. We're talking about a country that has speech codes like the ones on American liberal arts campuses, but applying to the whole country. You can be hauled before a secret tribunal for criticizing religious practices or even a public figure's arrest record:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      or a list of other parameters which is continually being expanded:

      http://www.theblaze.com/news/2...

      These categories of "hate speech" include large areas of what in the US and Europe would be ordinary political discourse.

    18. Re:This is absolutely... by SlaveToTheGrind · · Score: 1

      What really boggles the mind in this case is that the seized property wasn't returned pending the appeal

      Keeping the materials is the only way to guarantee they'll still exist if the appellate court reverses the trial court and holds the search warrant was proper.

    19. Re:This is absolutely... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Canadians doing anything? Fat chance. Sheepish indifference is all you'll get.

    20. Re:This is absolutely... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What baffles me is how he even let them in at all. Montreal's no Detroit but it's still not a place you just carelessly open up to strangers.

    21. Re:This is absolutely... by Altrag · · Score: 2

      The UK has been as bad or worse than the US for the better part of a decade now, maybe longer. So that's not really been a fair comparison for quite a while.

      Canada is still better than the US for protecting civil liberties. That hardly means we're perfect though and there's no shortage of people attempting to abuse our civil liberties either. Occasionally things break down and one of those attempts is successful.

      The main benefit that Canada (and even the UK) people usually talk about though is health care. The US is the only developed country that doesn't guarantee their citizens that rather essential component in ensuring their right to life, preferring business' "right" to profit.

      With regards to this particular case though, it sounds like a judge authorizing a valid legal procedure (though I personally find it kind of sketchy that the plaintiffs are allowed to execute the order themselves rather than being done by an independent party..) But they abused their privilege and went way overboard, causing the whole thing to be subsequently thrown out as it should be.

      The order is supposed to at least be overseen by an independent lawyer to ensure this kind of crap doesn't happen and that all parties remain within the bounds of the order, but apparently in this case they were either lazy or not as independent as they're supposed to be. I'd be surprised if the appeal gets upheld and the search results reinstated, assuming the reporting was even remotely accurate.

    22. Re: This is absolutely... by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 2

      In the US, that is the point where your lawyer would interrupt and tell them he'll happily see them in court, because there's no way that any competent judge would hold him in contempt of court.

      Why is it so different in Canada?

      Because the US has a Constitution that includes (as part of the Fifth Amendment) a protection against self-incrimination. That's where the right to say nothing and not be penalized for it goes from a claim of natural rights to an integral part of the legal system.

      Canada's legal system works by different rules.

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    23. Re: This is absolutely... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't get to take people's stuff in the vague hope of making a case. You seize when there's clear evidence.

      If someone barges into your home and takes stuff without authority it's at best unlawful search, at worst theft. Quite why these people aren't being prosecuted for acting like mafia thugs is beyond me. They're making the law up as they go.

    24. Re:This is absolutely... by Minupla · · Score: 1

      secret tribunal

      I think that's overstating it a bit. As can be seen by following your first link, the findings of the tribunal are public (unlike the national security ones on either side of the border, which I'll grant you, are egregious, although at least on the CND side, they've been getting a bit more transparent, ( http://ca.reuters.com/article/... ). We'll see how it works out.

      On a personal note, I don't mind the CND hate speech laws. In cases where I've had the stomach to review the actual objectionable material that has been found to be in violation (and there have been cases where the tribunal found that it wasn't hate speech too) I wouldn't personally say that it was an indispensable part of the social commentary on the subject, and I was just as glad to have it judged as such.

      Min

      --
      On the whole, I find that I prefer Slashdot posts to twitter ones because I don't get limited to 140 chars before
    25. Re: This is absolutely... by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Apparently in Canadian law, if it's a civil discovery, you can be compelled to provide evidence, which means that protections against self-incrimination only work in criminal cases. Where it gets complicated is that this may or may not be used against you in a criminal case, in addition to the civil case.

      https://www.bennettjones.com/P...

      Honestly I'd be a little on edge in Canada in general, or at least in Toronto anyways. There are actual undercover PC police that listen for anybody making comments or light jokes that might in some way be discriminatory against "any identifiable group", and they like to make examples out of people for violating hate speech laws.

      If the USA were like Canada, then half of slashdot would be serving life sentences right about now.

    26. Re:This is absolutely... by yorgasor · · Score: 1

      Of course, if this were the US, an entire SWAT team armed with machine guns and other military gear would've been used during the initial invasion. Then they'd claim terrorist jurisdiction to keep him from legal counsel and waterboard him if he didn't answer their questions.

      --
      Looking for a computer support specialist for your small business? Check out
    27. Re:This is absolutely... by IcyWolfy · · Score: 1

      There was a court-bailiff there to enforce the search order.
      He just didn't stop any actions.

    28. Re:This is absolutely... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      this happens in the USA too. you just don't hear about it.

    29. Re:This is absolutely... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yup. what happened to me, was way worse. makes his case look like foreplay. I haven't publicised it, yet.

    30. Re:This is absolutely... by IcyWolfy · · Score: 1

      The companies own their own internal law company: "independent" but do business with anyone other than the cable company.
      The independent council -should- have been there to give a non-biased opinion, or to object.

    31. Re: This is absolutely... by rastos1 · · Score: 1

      the right to say nothing and not be penalized for it

      Is the bold part actually true? If the interrogator says: "if you don't speak, we will pursue a harsher sentence" - isn't that a common scenario?

    32. Re:This is absolutely... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the Canadian justice system does not jail everyone involved in this illegal "enhanced interrogation", then Canadians have to dispense justice themselves, before bullshit like this becomes too commonplace.

      Hey, fuck off, eh? We Canadians are even more apathetic, cowed into submission, and dumbed-down than you Yanks!

      Once again and as usual, Canada is ahead of the US.

      You hosers!

    33. Re:This is absolutely... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No, this was a "civil search warrant" - the police were never involved. This was nothing more than a private company performing its own invasion, search, imprisonment, interrogation, and theft of "evidence".

      The US doesn't even have the concept of such a thing. This would never be allowed - neither the courts nor the People would allow it.

    34. Re: This is absolutely... by Entrope · · Score: 2

      Not in the US. A sentence would be a possible outcome of a criminal case, where the Supreme Court has been very clear. That's why we have Miranda declarations ("You have the right to remain silent", etc.). Testimony gets excluded quickly if it's found to be procured in violation of tha right.

      In a civil case like this one, the finder of fact (jury if you use one, otherwise the trial judge) may make what is called an "adverse inference" if one party asserts his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. He can't be compelled to testify, but the court can assume the facts are not helpful to that party.

    35. Re: This is absolutely... by Entrope · · Score: 1

      Independent of that, in the US it would be a gross breach of ethics (and maybe the law? I'm not sure) for any lawyer to try to communicate directly with a party once they have been informed that that party has retained counsel, in large part to prevent exactly this kind of illegal bullying. Do Canadian lawyers not have any similar ethics rule?

    36. Re:This is absolutely... by cardpuncher · · Score: 3, Informative
      What's going on is an over-zealous application of an Anton Piller Order. Its intent is to allow a Plaintiff in a civil case to secure vital evidence before it is destroyed by the Defendant. It is effectively a court order to the Defendant to deliver up any relevant evidence and failure to do so is a Contempt of Court. The only relevant questions that a Defendant may be asked relate to the existence or whereabouts of evidential material. They were judicially invented in the mid 70s in the UK. Even if they are used precisely for the purpose for which they are granted they are extremely controversial and have been the subject of challenges in the various common-law jurisdictions where they are applied.

      For that reason, there are very clear rules in Canada about how searches may be conducted and those rules were clearly violated in this case, but that doesn't invalidate the evidence itself.

    37. Re: This is absolutely... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are actual undercover PC police that listen for anybody making comments or light jokes that might in some way be discriminatory against "any identifiable group",

      Eww. If that happened here, I'd make a t-shirt with "I hate&discriminate all 'identifiable groups'. " Free speech is worth some trouble.

    38. Re:This is absolutely... by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Digital evidence can be copied and checksummed. No reason to hold onto it other than because they can get away with it.

    39. Re:This is absolutely... by chuckugly · · Score: 1

      In America, if a bunch of armed people (who are not officers of the court engaged in legally sanctioned acts) try to enter a private home by force we call it a home invasion and the guns are often pointed at the invaders, not the other way around. If they tried this in Texas they'd probably get ventilated.

    40. Re:This is absolutely... by strikethree · · Score: 1

      "Any time I would question the process, they would threaten me with contempt of court proceedings," says Lackman.

      Fine. I actually am in contempt of the court so you probably should find me in contempt. I will not be treated this way.

      Fortunately, it wasn't me but that would have been my attitude. I would keep escalating until it became a full-blown terrorist campaign, burning down courthouses, shooting government officials, etc. The government almost always wins but it is important to stand up for yourself anyways.

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
    41. Re:This is absolutely... by LeftCoastThinker · · Score: 1

      Just a matter of time before the US has to invade Canada and liberate them from their "dictatorship of virtue" to restore basic human rights... Assuming the US can survive a similar onslaught by the fascist progressives.

      --
      If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
    42. Re:This is absolutely... by LeftCoastThinker · · Score: 1

      In the US, as long as you are a productive member of society, you get health insurance through your job and access to the best health care on the planet (which is why there are plenty of affluent Canadians who visit the US for heart surgery/etc.) Most medications are developed in the US, as are most medical procedures and medical equipment.

      If you are poor in the US, you get access to Meidcaid, which is socialized medicine (the same thing you have in Canada). The poor also have free clinics available, and no one can be turned away from any hospital ER in the country. But you can keep telling yourself you have better healthcare if it lets you sleep at night.

      --
      If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
    43. Re: This is absolutely... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL. Brainwashed.

      Tell that to my neighbor who just had to get a second job to pay for her health insurance. The reason? Her main jobs health insurance plan cost $790 a month for 3 people. $790 a month. She makes probably $2500 a month before taxes. Let's call it $2000. So about 40% of her salary after taxes goes to healthcare. Yea fuck our system.

    44. Re: This is absolutely... by Brockmire · · Score: 1

      Good on him for hiring the right lawyer to get the Anton Pilar order thrown out. When it happens, you think, "how the fuck does this happen in Canada?" When this happened almost 2 decades ago, a high priced lawyer was brought in who was supposed to be a specialist in APO, but failed to get it overturned despite Bell lying in the APO request by leaving out contrary legal rulings (judge did not like that at all) and hiding the fact the business operated in the open. But the fucking lawyer saw Supreme Court case and didn't push for search overturn. I fucking hate lawyers as a result. Fuck Bell in the face, too. APO's are abused and used as a tool to crush the little guy. They should be stopped ASAP.

    45. Re:This is absolutely... by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      Assuming the US can survive a similar onslaught by the fascist assholes like LeftCoastThinker.

      FTFY.

    46. Re:This is absolutely... by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      Inability to pay hospital bills is the #1 cause of bankruptcies in the U.S.
      Such things never happen in Canada or in any other civilised nation.

    47. Re:This is absolutely... by LeftCoastThinker · · Score: 1

      True, in other countries they just die because they can't get the procedure because it is too expensive. Also, the rest of the world does not pay full price (AKA their fair share) in the first place. The US absorbs the vast majority of the development cost of new drugs, procedures and devices. The rest of the world waits for the generics which don't incur all of the R&D necessary to make it happen in the first place...

      --
      If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
    48. Re:This is absolutely... by LeftCoastThinker · · Score: 1

      Nice, but being obscene or emotional doesn't validate your position or make you right, it only re-enforces my opinion that lefties by and large are emotional idiots who believe whatever pile of crap the alt left media and the Democrats feed them regardless of reality.

      --
      If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
    49. Re:This is absolutely... by Altrag · · Score: 1

      in other countries they just die because they can't get the procedure because it is too expensive

      [Citation needed]
      I've heard of lots of people dying in the US because they couldn't afford a procedure and their HMO found a loophole to let themselves off the hook. While I'm sure such a thing has happened elsewhere, you certainly don't hear about it as often.

      he US absorbs the vast majority of the development cost of new drugs, procedures and devices

      [Citation needed]
      According to http://www.pharmaceutical-technology.com/features/featurethe-top-10-biggest-pharmaceutical-companies-of-2014-4396561/, only 5 of the top 10 drug makers are US-based. So even if we ignore the fact that they're all multinational anyway and thus spread the cost around between many labs in multiple countries, the US is still only covering at most half of the R&D costs.

      And no, we don't "wait for" the generics. We use the patented products just like you do, and pay the full price (sort of.. we implement price controls to prevent life-saving drugs from being unattainably expensive, but of course the companies charge the maximum allowed under the controls and of course we pay that rather than letting people die needlessly.)

      Once the patent expires though, sure we switch to generics because why wouldn't we? For that matter, the US switches to generics as well when a patent expires because well.. why wouldn't they?

    50. Re:This is absolutely... by Altrag · · Score: 1

      you get health insurance through your job

      If you're lucky. And you're assuming that whatever healthcare your job sticks you with is better than whatever healthcare the government would stick you with. The only distinction I see is that your employer has little incentive to give you more than the bare minimum unless you happen to be in a position that's difficult to replace and healthcare can be used as a perk. Aka: not most jobs. Maybe I'm not American enough but for me, people's literal lives is not a thing I want to be nickle and diming on.

      access to the best health care on the planet

      True, you do have the best healthcare on the planet. Too bad only 1% of your citizens can afford it. For the other 99%, you have at best equal and in many ways worse healthcare because the people can't pay for the good stuff themselves and nobody else is willing to cover it. That job-based insurance, assuming you didn't get fired for missing work in the first place, will only pay for the minimum possible procedures and drugs, and they'll still try to stiff you on the bill if they can find a way to do so.

      If you are poor in the US, you get access to Meidcaid

      For now anyway, Trump and McConnell are doing their best to get rid of that as well. Thankfully they've been unsuccessful so far.

      So you have Medicaid to cover the poorest people of society. There's also Medicare to cover the elderly. Between those two groups, you've accounted for most of the "unproductive" people (children being the last large group.) By definition, these people don't have the money to pay for their own healthcare so guess what? You are!

      So you're saying that in your perfect world, you're happy to cover the healthcare of everyone except yourself -- your own healthcare you want to be tied to whether or not you happen to be employed, and at whatever level your employer can be bothered paying. And then having to deal with the HMOs trying to screw you at every opportunity to boot. Rather than just paying into the pot and knowing for sure that you'll be covered if you happen to get sick a week after your company lays you off.

    51. Re:This is absolutely... by skam240 · · Score: 1

      You're retarded. You just suggested the US invade a reasonably free and democratically elected government who is a major ally of ours because of some short comings in their government. Get a fucking clue. We have short comings in our own government. Let's tend our own garden before we TELL other countries how to operate their own business.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    52. Re:This is absolutely... by skam240 · · Score: 1

      I'm reading through your posts and Jesus Christ are you stupid. We don't live in the conservative utopia your stupid brain pretends we live in where everyone's needs are met by the market. Quite a lot of full time jobs in America dont offer health insurance and put you at a level of wealth that disqualifies you from government healthcare.
      Generally speaking, these jobs dont pay well either.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    53. Re:This is absolutely... by LeftCoastThinker · · Score: 1

      Sorry if my statement went over your head. I am not advocating we invade them tomorrow, however Canada and parts of western Europe do have some serious problems. Thought crimes are fascist and are one of the key ingredients that evil dictatorships need to get off the ground. Those countries are literally one bad elected leader away from a new Nazi Germany...

      --
      If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
    54. Re:This is absolutely... by LeftCoastThinker · · Score: 1

      So I agree that one of us is at least self important and ignorant, I will leave you to try to figure out who. The reality is that those in the middle who don't qualify for medicaid can still go to free clinics (I know because I was that person for a while and I did). That still counts as health care. Alternatively you can move to a state that requires 40h jobs provide health care, or work for one of dozens of companies that provide health care for their unskilled/semiskilled workers (like Starbucks or Costco).

      The other issue you seem incapable of grasping is that under Obama the economy/job market was shit, average annual wages fell by around $4500 during his tenure and there was a glut of workers as employers were afraid to re-hire because of Obama and the democrats suppressed the natural rebound that we normally see after a recession with Obamacare, all the new and expensive federal regulations being put out, etc. as well as the threat of more. Now that Obama is out, the economy is growing faster, employers are doing more hiring, and as the job market tightens and real unemployment gets somewhere south of 6% while Trump simultaneously enforces immigration laws and cracks down on illegal immigrant workers and H1B visas, we will see better benefits packages as well as employers vie for a valuable and more limited resource (labor). (As an added bonus, if we deport the 10-20 million illegal aliens, most of which use the ER without paying, our medical system will no longer be billing us for their very expensive medical treatment).

      Liberals live in a theoretical bubble where if it isn't perfect or part of their worldview, the person/idea must be evil/a lie/racist/???phobic/etc. Reality is far different. Think for a moment what will happen to all those full time jobs that make too much to qualify for medicaid but don't offer health insurance because it is too expensive. When we cut the cost of health insurance by 50% (using HSAs, RNP minute clinics, rider policies for risky behavior like smoking, skydiving, bungee jumping, no longer paying for illegal alien health care, eliminating malpractice lawsuits and insurance and defensive medicine, etc.) and simultaneously they start losing employees to other jobs that do offer health insurance? In order to stay in business, they will have to start offering insurance to be competitive in the job market (99% of employers would love to offer health insurance, but it has gotten way too expensive under Obamacare). Are there still some small number of people who will go bankrupt from health issues? yes, but in the real world, there are always winners and losers, always some people who get hurt. People go bankrupt every day for any number of reasons, that is just part of life and having the freedom to make your own choices in a free country. But everyone in the US is still guaranteed medical care at any ER and bankruptcy laws limit the damage that massive debt can do.

      --
      If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
    55. Re:This is absolutely... by skam240 · · Score: 1

      You've said nothing even vaguely profound here. Every country is one elected leader away from a new Nazi Germany. Hitler wasn't the second person in his political party to be elected.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
  2. Good work, Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'm glad I live in Germany, where we have reasonable laws and don't allow crap like this. You Canadians and Americans are so smug, but your laws are a joke. This is clearly an unreasonable way to interrogate someone. Enjoy your copyright gestapo.

    1. Re:Good work, Canada by chuckugly · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Actually this wouldn't fly in the USA, plus unlike Germany we have actual freedom of speech here. Canada, sadly, gets neither apparently.

    2. Re:Good work, Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Canada does actually, under section 2 of fundamental freedoms of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

      Cheers

    3. Re: Good work, Canada by nitehawk214 · · Score: 0

      Right, the country that stands by and lets Antifa burn a city and arrests people that speak against it.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    4. Re:Good work, Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      this isn't legal here either.... and uhh enjoy your actual gestapo

    5. Re:Good work, Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Actually this wouldn't fly in the USA, plus unlike Germany we have actual freedom of speech here. Canada, sadly, gets neither apparently.

      So...how goes that Civil Forfeiture fun in the courts right now?

      Or the planting of drugs by Baltimore cops?

      Or...

      Or...

    6. Re:Good work, Canada by elrous0 · · Score: 2

      Canada does actually, under section 2 of fundamental freedoms of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

      Well, you might want to let this guy know then.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    7. Re:Good work, Canada by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      this isn't legal here either.... and uhh enjoy your actual gestapo

      Says the guy from the country where cops are kicking in doors and arresting people for blasphemy against Islam.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    8. Re:Good work, Canada by Calydor · · Score: 1

      Because Germany, of all countries, has never seen laws change little by little from reasonable to unreasonable.

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    9. Re: Good work, Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Pro tip: Saying "antifa" outs you as a fascist. Kind of like saying "SJW" outs you as a reactionary culture warrior, or saying "cuck" as a conservative with deep psychosexual issues.

    10. Re:Good work, Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, I'll take "copyright gestapo" over the other one any day. You know, the one I'm talking about, the one in Germany circa 1933-1945.

    11. Re: Good work, Canada by chuckugly · · Score: 1

      Citation for both needed.

    12. Re: Good work, Canada by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      Pro tip: Saying "antifa" outs you as a fascist.

      No, 'antifa' is what the black-masked thugs call themselves. 'Ventilated' is what we call them if we encounter them here in Arizona.

    13. Re:Good work, Canada by NewtonsLaw · · Score: 2

      It might not fly in the USA but it doesn't stop US corporations and government agencies from pushing other countries to do exactly what has happened here. Just look at Kim Dotcom -- effectively exactly the same thing happened to him here in New Zealand at the behest of US authorities. They UNLAWFULLY survielled him, raided his home, held him and his family at gunpoint and seized his assets.

      These kind of jackboot tactics are becoming all too common when it comes to alleged issues of copyright.

      What a shame the authorities can't be as effective when it comes to dealing with real crime - like burglaries, assaults and fraud -- especially white-collar crimes and crimes committed by our politicians.

      What annoys me most is that if *we* (as mere citizens and taxpayers) commit such crimes, we get our asses kicked and huge fines or imprisonment. When it's a large corporation or agents of the government who commit the "unlawful" acts, nobody is punished in the least and it's considered to be merely a transgression rather than a crime.

      Two sets of rules eh?

    14. Re:Good work, Canada by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      It's ironic that your .sig is railing against "SJW" as having run out of real adversity when you simply go and make up some adversity of your own:

      Says the guy from the country where cops are kicking in doors and arresting people for blasphemy against Islam.

      that didn't happen, you made it up and you're doing precisely what you claim so-called "SJW" do.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    15. Re:Good work, Canada by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      The law gets things wrong sometimes. This developer has been able to challenge the procedures used and should get recompense.

    16. Re:Good work, Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fun thing: that did not happen so much as you seem to think it did. Rule of law still existed in early Nazi-Germany, it was just that well-connected officials could ignore it with impunity. So you had one set of rules for normal people and a second unofficial unwritten set for people who had the right connections, pulled the right strings and paid off the right people.

    17. Re:Good work, Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're referring to stuff that happened the thirties - the laws changed drastically. Not little by little.

      No slippery slope, more like being tossed off a cliff.

    18. Re:Good work, Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We outlaw hate speech, Americans protect it. How is that working out for you?

    19. Re: Good work, Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given the weather in Arizona, wouldn't some ventilation be considered desirable?

    20. Re:Good work, Canada by LeftCoastThinker · · Score: 1

      Hate speech is defined by who exactly? (Hint: the bureaucracy and/or the majority). So the rights of the minority get trampled in Canada (and all Canadians just hope they never end up in the minority, I guess). When the government decides that some of your particular views fall into the hate speech category, you will realize that you don't have free speech in Canada anymore. In the US, we guarantee all speech is free (outside of inciting immediate violence and a few other minor exceptions for immediate safety). We in the US do not guarantee a platform for your speech, or that there will be no societal consequences for your speech, but you are free to speak your mind without fear that the Gestapo will break down your door and drag you away for some view that you hold...

      --
      If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
    21. Re:Good work, Canada by LeftCoastThinker · · Score: 1

      Civil Forfeture has calmed down quite a bit. Many sates have outlawed it entirely unless there is a conviction of a crime first.

      Law enforcement in the real world is not perfect, you cannot point to a few criminals in the police force and extrapolate systemic problems, especially with nearly 1,000,000 LE officers in the US. In the US we have internal affairs within police departments with the specific charter to hold criminal police officers to account. I would argue that the US is in the top 10 countries in the world for honest law enforcement. Name the country and you can find stories about criminal law enforcement (unless they are fascist countries that regulate the news).

      --
      If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
    22. Re: Good work, Canada by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1
      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    23. Re: Good work, Canada by chuckugly · · Score: 1

      What does Germany have to do with the freedoms and protections we enjoy in the USA? Maybe you need to reread my post, where I said "this wouldn't fly in the USA" ....

    24. Re:Good work, Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Civil Forfeture has calmed down quite a bit. Many sates have outlawed it entirely unless there is a conviction of a crime first.

      Bullshit.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United_States

      Look at the list. NC, MN, MO, and NM all require convictions or more before evidence can be seized by the state. For all others, it's up to the cop and/or judge, BEFORE sentencing and/or conviction.

    25. Re: Good work, Canada by Brockmire · · Score: 1

      This is supposed to only be used in extreme cases where evidence is highly expected of being destroyed if the usual process is followed. You're supposed to present a shit load of evidence and meet three tests. It should look like a slam dunk on a criminal since there's no counter evidence presented. One is generally correct. One is half stretched and the 3rd is bald face lie. They should hardly be granted, but most lawyers are scum. It's fucking abused like a $2 Tiajuana crack whore.

    26. Re:Good work, Canada by chuckugly · · Score: 1

      We outlaw hate speech ...

      We still have free speech here. Whether that's viewed as good or bad probably depends a lot on how one values freedom. We like freedom, so we think it's working great. other places can make other choices.

    27. Re:Good work, Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What? No we don't. I can call a n!gger a n!gger all day long, I just can't tell other people to hate n!ggers...

    28. Re: Good work, Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And "murderer" is what he judge calls after he convicts you.

    29. Re:Good work, Canada by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      Civil Forfeiture has calmed down quite a bit.

      Not for long.
      A.G. Jeff Sessions is pushing to have it reinstated, big time.

  3. Rogers, consider my cellphone, cable and internet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cancelled.

    I'll never deal with Rogers, Bell or Videotron again. I hope everyone who has an option of an independent provider in Canada will switch quickly away from them.

  4. Maybe if you offered HBO Now in Canada by elrous0 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    People wouldn't have to pirate.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    1. Re:Maybe if you offered HBO Now in Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HBO would be nice, but it's just one part of a flawed system. Half the time Superbowl ads are marked as not available in Canada. When you've developed a system so strict that people are violating laws to voluntarily watch commercials, you know the system is broken.

    2. Re:Maybe if you offered HBO Now in Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or, offered a download solution. I don't know anyone that has a connection fast enough to download HD video, and I live in the second largest tech center in the world which is Seattle. I would gladly pay to watch Game of Throes in HD, but since they don't have a download option, I can't. Instead, I have to download it via BitTorrent which usually takes four to five days.

    3. Re: Maybe if you offered HBO Now in Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same here. I get tired of constant buffering and terrible resolution.

    4. Re:Maybe if you offered HBO Now in Canada by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      I don't know anyone that has a connection fast enough to download HD video, and I live in the second largest tech center in the world which is Seattle.

      To get your Internet up to its best speed in Seattle, remember to hold your tin can just by the bottom edge, and then carefully step backwards until the string is stretched as tight as you can make it. Of course, call your ISP help desk first to make sure they don't get caught by surprise and let go of the can on their end.

    5. Re:Maybe if you offered HBO Now in Canada by Maury+Markowitz · · Score: 1

      > When you've developed a system so strict that people are violating laws to voluntarily watch commercials
      >, you know the system is broken

      Or the people are.

    6. Re: Maybe if you offered HBO Now in Canada by Brockmire · · Score: 1

      There's no issue with the premium movie channels in Canada. We've had HBO Canada for years now. I don't do on demand, but I assume it's available with cable. Some argue you get better value with HBO Canada and the super channels than paying for 4 movie networks in the US. I've had Canadian and US satellite for over 20 years. The need to keep the US subscription is coming to a near end. There's still some content not yet in Canada, like USA network, but largely I'll watch Canadian Sat because I get east and west networks instead of West in the US.

  5. Who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I live in Japan. This doesn't affect me at all. Why should I care about this at all? Why can't Slashdot stick to posting stories that actually affect more than an extremely tiny percentage of people?

    1. Re:Who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      japan is the greatest country on the planet

    2. Re:Who cares? by Khyber · · Score: 1
      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    3. Re:Who cares? by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      I live in Japan. This doesn't affect me at all. Why should I care about this at all?

      Just take the subway over to Akihabara and buy yourself a Kodi box. Canadians only wish they could do that.

      While you're there, bid ohayo to the good folks at Llaox for me.

    4. Re:Who cares? by Maury+Markowitz · · Score: 1

      > Just take the subway over to Akihabara and buy yourself a Kodi box. Canadians only wish they could do that

      There's a half dozen vendors selling Kodi boxes in my town. And my town is small.

    5. Re:Who cares? by rikkards · · Score: 1

      I work with a guy who does, he gets about 50 or so android boxes imported and installs Kodi on them.
      He also has a Youtube channel with about 15000 followers on how to setup Kodi

  6. So Let's Get This Straight by MightyMartian · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The cable companies' lawyers went WAYYYY beyond any search warrant, clearly violated his legal rights by refusing him access to legal counsel while they were questioning them, and somehow they still can keep possession of what amounts to ill-gotten evidence (seeing as the warrant was fairly narrow in what it was allowing them to seize) because they have an ongoing appeal?

    In a properly running judicial system, there would currently be disbarment hearings against the lawyers in question and significant financial penalties against Rogers and Videotron.

    I can tell you this, civil proceedings or not, anyone who wouldn't let me get my lawyer in the room while they were interrogating me would find themselves faced with this simple statement from me "Either my lawyer is a present, or I leave this room, and if you try to detain me, I'll be filing criminal charges for unlawful confinement", because nowhere in the Common Law world am I aware of lawyers in a civil case being allowed to detain anyone for questioning.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    1. Re:So Let's Get This Straight by Calydor · · Score: 1

      With the search warrant rendered null and void, how is it not considered theft of property at this point?

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    2. Re:So Let's Get This Straight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't get this. I'm over 30 and I've never had to talk to a lawyer. Where/How/When do people form such personal relationships with a specific lawyer that they'd come over to your house from a phone call and protect you?

    3. Re:So Let's Get This Straight by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "The judge who signed the warrant was probably some smelly Frenchie"

      Videotron is a French-Canadian (Quebec) company, so there's a possibility.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    4. Re:So Let's Get This Straight by ls671 · · Score: 1

      These relationships are easy to develop as long as you have enough money. You simply use your phone to initiate them. It can get relatively expensive if you want premium service from a good lawyer.

      --
      Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
    5. Re:So Let's Get This Straight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Restitution, Damages and more

      This could get expensive for the crook plaintiffs. Use a Permanant Injunctions to tie their hands going forward, and suponea WHO financed the raid in future discovery motions, and seize their email records for all email forwards

      Damages must include loss of intellectual property. (especially if ilegally passed on) as well as income and lost opportunity.
      Include propery damage - the server could have a virus implanted - so like any intrusion, the who exosystem must be rebuilt and checked.

      Its just not loss of income - damages need to be on a par with libel and defamation.

    6. Re:So Let's Get This Straight by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      With the search warrant rendered null and void, how is it not considered theft of property at this point?

      You have to ask, considering who is involved!?

      Lawyers, guns, and money!

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    7. Re:So Let's Get This Straight by fluffernutter · · Score: 2

      Most Canadians won't take responsibility for anything that happens in Quebec.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    8. Re:So Let's Get This Straight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      - money
      - cash money
      - liquid asset
      - money

    9. Re: So Let's Get This Straight by Brockmire · · Score: 1

      You can do what you want, just that you'll be held in contempt by Justice of the peace guy. In retrospect, it's a bunch of very bad sounding threats, but you'd probably cry foul to the judge that is supposed to penalize you for the contempt. Fuck gag laws that aren't related to actual fucking human safety. I understand protecting undercover spies with a gag rule, but you get your shit civilly "stolen" and your customers lose their minds with conspiracy theories because the guy can't just say, "hey, these fuckers just came in and took all our stuff". I feel that rage...

  7. Insanity by unknown_user_name · · Score: 1

    I have never heard of a civil search warrant?? At least the judge seems to have stated, clearly and unequivocally, a sane opinion of the true intent of the search. I don't know what recourse he has available under Canadian law but hopefully some justice will prevail. It clearly hasn't so far.

    1. Re:Insanity by Maury+Markowitz · · Score: 1

      > I have never heard of a civil search warrant

      Gebus, google it.

      http://www.fasken.com/anton-piller-order-civil-search-warrant/

    2. Re:Insanity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      anton pillar orders MUST believe that the evidence is in peril and would be destroyed and is supposed to have a pretty high bar

      Going after coders is wrong at multiple levels. Test Data is not IP, but the leaking of specifics would be damaging -as others could copy this guys
      setup - damaging his future income stream. Judge should slam the plaintiffs for not demonstrating remorse after the raid

    3. Re:Insanity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Both in the US and in Canada, with civil law you're pretty much guilty until proven otherwise, unlike criminal law... This is an example that is pretty scary really. If he had health issues and wasn't provided with proper care he could have died after 16 hours. With my health issues I'd be dead for sure.

  8. Summary doesn't make sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The summary of events doesn't make sense. It seems to imply representatives from the cable companies visited Adam, questioned him for 16 hours and took his stuff. And it seems to imply the police were not involved, but his lawyer was. None of that makes sense.

    If the police were not there the cable companies would have no right or ability to hold Adam, make him answer questions or take his equipment. If the police were there and no criminal charges were presented then he should have been able to kick them out or cancel the meeting at any time via his lawyer.

    There are some pretty big red flags and gaps in this story and it's not passing the smell test.

    1. Re:Summary doesn't make sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The article also claims the companies' lawyers threatened Adam with contempt of court and "forced" him to give us passwords. I call BS. They may have demanded those things, but they'd have no authority to hold him, stay in his home or force him to give up anything. If Adam was half awake or had a lawyer who was still breathing, that interview would have been an hour and the companies would have left empty handed.

    2. Re:Summary doesn't make sense by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      The article says they had a court bailiff with them.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    3. Re:Summary doesn't make sense by BitterOak · · Score: 4, Informative

      If the police were not there the cable companies would have no right or ability to hold Adam, make him answer questions or take his equipment

      Canadian and U.S. law are very different. In Canada, plaintiffs have very broad powers of discovery. It's up to the judge to later sort out all the evidence and decide what's relevant and what isn't. Generally if you refuse to assist in the discovery process, by refusing to answer questions or give up passwords, you risk a default judgment against you, which can be very, very costly.

      --
      If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
    4. Re: Summary doesn't make sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The judge declared the search null and void. This bailiff acted independently in bad faith under the color of law and against the ruling of a judge. This bailiff should be looking for a new job right about now.

    5. Re:Summary doesn't make sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Generally if you refuse to assist in the discovery process, by refusing to answer questions or give up passwords, you risk a default judgment against you, which can be very, very costly.

      So, you have a "guilty until proven innocent" system, eh? Good to know....

      Going to Canada? Remember this folks:
      1. "Non-compliance" = Guilt.
      2. Your judge will pick the quickest and easiest ruling to make, so be sure to make your case simple for him / her / it.
      3. You have no right to privacy. Post those passwords and encryption keys up, son.
      4. Canadian courts apparently have no regard for ruling their cases based on actual evidence (especially when it's complex and hard to follow, or if they have to expend effort to get it). So, make sure that evidence is pre-analyzed "CSI" style for them, so their ruling is just them reading a report.

    6. Re:Summary doesn't make sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      fuck Canada

    7. Re:Summary doesn't make sense by BitterOak · · Score: 1

      Generally if you refuse to assist in the discovery process, by refusing to answer questions or give up passwords, you risk a default judgment against you, which can be very, very costly.

      So, you have a "guilty until proven innocent" system, eh? Good to know....

      Keep in mind, my statement was made in the context of CIVIL suits, not criminal proceedings. They are very different. There's no concept of "guilt" or "innocence" in a civil suit. Defendants do have some rights against self-incrimination in a criminal case, even in Canada, although they are not as strong as in the U.S.

      --
      If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
  9. denied right to lawyer == he wins? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    was interrogated, denied the right not to answer the questions, and denied the right to consult his answers with his lawyer, who was present.

    Not a Canadian here, and I know there are differences between the legal system up there and ours down here, but I thought a lot of basic things like "right to a lawyer" were similar to the US. Is the above not an "I win" card for the guy?

    In the US if you are denied due process, the whole case against you can be (and often is) thrown out for that reason alone. The reasoning is that you don't want the state to be able to ignore due process without repercussions, or those rights become effectively meaningless.

    1. Re: denied right to lawyer == he wins? by elrous0 · · Score: 1, Troll

      Justin Trudeau has already issued a statement calling the female lawyers heroes and offering them government jobs.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  10. Hey BeauHD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Stop framing copyright infringement as piracy.

  11. How was "not allowed to not answer" enforced? by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

    denied the right not to answer the questions

    I can see how they might physically deny him the right/ability to call a lawyer, but how was the above achieved?

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    1. Re:How was "not allowed to not answer" enforced? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought this sounded fishy, too. It says his lawyer was present. Did they lock them in separate rooms in his own house?

    2. Re:How was "not allowed to not answer" enforced? by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      Lackman was "not permitted to refuse to answer questions" and his lawyer wasn't permitted to counsel him in his answers. "Any time I would question the process, they would threaten me with contempt of court proceedings," says Lackman.

      They basically intimidated the living daylights out of him. I hope those jackbooted thugs get everything they have coming to them for violating someones rights like this.

    3. Re: How was "not allowed to not answer" enforced? by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      Not being allowed to consult your lawyer without them listening is a violation of the right.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    4. Re:How was "not allowed to not answer" enforced? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In a just society the people that made the plan to carry this out with intent and those that actually did the dirty work with intent would be put up against the wall.

      Jackboot is the correct term to use here and deserves the same punishment.

      We should be done with this lack of humanity, systemic suffering and leveraging of the government for evil ends.

  12. News flash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Guy that supplies burglar tools surprised when people use them to burgle.

    1. Re:News flash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >burglar tools
      Like the internet connection you're writing on.

  13. this is how it is going to play by mapkinase · · Score: 1

    Your ISP already knows all your URL visits. In nearest future it will start identifying content and paying content owners their share proportional to number of views.

    Everybody will pay flat ISP fee.

    --
    I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
  14. Re: Rogers, consider my cellphone, cable and inter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can either get Viedeotron cable or a better company such as Teksavvy which resells me Videotron or I can get Bell DSL or a better company like Teksavvy that resells me Bell. Needless to say I have been w/ Teksavvy ever since I could but whereever I have lived all they could do is resell one of the options you mention.

    Very sad indeed.

  15. This is how it went down by Spy+Handler · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Well, that sounds like a really good deal. But I think I have a better one.

    How about I give you the finger (shows finger), and you give me my goddamn phone call?

    You can't scare me with this gestapo shit, I know my rights."

    [cable company agents gag the computer nerd and shove a tracking device into his bellybutton*]

    1. Re:This is how it went down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lmfao, where are mod points, i need them.

  16. Re:This is absolutely...has to be a troll. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    Really? You HAVE to be trolling us.

    Nothing out of the norm is happening in Canada generally.

    In this very specific case, non-governmental persons walked all over the bounds set by law, precedent and custom in enacting a Pillar order. Sections 7 through 14 I suspect. Not, and I stress this, not the government walking all over Mr. Lackman.

    Not a lawyer, but I can make reasonable guesses as to the outcome.

    What will likely happen is on appeal, the corporations will lose (heck, even on the most basic one of the timeframe allowed). That will likely toss out all evidence gained by the corporations. It may get the corporations or their lawyers sanctioned by the judge or judges in question. It will likely open them up for a counter lawsuit by Mr. Lackman. I suspect the corporations will attempt to settle at that point, as a definitive ruling in favour of Mr. Lackman would certainly be a hit to their stock valuation.

    The fact you chose to use the term "Bill of Rights", I think, says a lot about you. We have something called the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We tend to stick to it. It's why Khadr got the payment he did. And no, not because Trudeau is spineless or such (or regardless of such, if you lean that way instead), that was because the Supreme Court of Canada sat down with their copy of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and decided that by leaving Khadr, a Canadian citizen, in an American military prison and not doing fuck all to repatriate him (he could have stayed in one of our prisons you know, we _do_ have them, and they're not exactly the Tokyo Hilton too, posh-wise) was a basic violation of his rights as a Canadian citizen. Something the government at the time decided to do.

    As they say, the wheels grind slowly.

    But hey, you do your opinions, I'll do mine. Also, to help our your growth as an internet pundit, here's some free education on a foreign body's legal system: Canada's "Bill o' Rightlies"

  17. Confused by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... denied the right not to answer the questions, and denied the right to consult his answers with his lawyer ...

    Do civil warrants allow such de facto imprisonment? Court officials are not police and any attempt to stop him is deprivation of liberty or kidnapping. His lawyer should have called the police.

  18. Recording? by PineHall · · Score: 1

    I would hope that there is at least an audio recording if not some video. I would think there would be one for those serving the warrant and doing the interrogating. They should have to share that recording with the defence too. Unfortunately it would be in the wrong hands. The judge should make the full unedited recording available to all parties.

    1. Re: Recording? by Brockmire · · Score: 1

      No, there's always a gag order attached.

  19. Abuse of law and human rights. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Every last one of the people who ordered and authorized this, from the top down, needs to rot in jail for this. No matter what complete bullshit they will spout, pretending they had no idea, that no one ordered it, that it was just some rogue agents, that they were just following orders and that no one knows just who ordered it or how or when. Doesn't matter.

    These criminals need to be permanently removed from our population, and their loved ones deported to Guantanamo for crimes against humanity. I've had enough of this wishy-washy "no one is really at fault here and we take these issues very seriously" we're likely to get spat on with: It's high time we took the monsters out back and applied the rule of law like they deserve.

  20. Rural communities by rsilvergun · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Canada's far right has learned from the US how to leverage rural communities to get away with this stuff. The interests of city folk and rural folk often don't align. E.g. a rural person with a network connection measured in tens of kilobits probably doesn't care if some city guy gets in trouble for downloading movies. The effect is more pronounced in the US because our political system gives rural voters many, many times more voting power in an effort to be 'fair'.

    I'd like to find some way to bridge that gap but I'm not sure anyone can. The lifestyles are too different.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re: Rural communities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no far right to speak of in Canada. Our Conservatives would be called liberals in the USA. Besides, the Left is in power right now, and Trudeau is too busy taking selfies to notice.

  21. Strip the lawyers of their right to practice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Strip the cable companies lawyers of their right to practice law nationwide and permanently. It's the only thing that will deter this type of activity. The companies could take several million dollars in fines and write it off as an anti-piracy expense. But other lawyers who see their colleagues stripped of the right to practice, are not going to go along with it in the future. Punish the lawyers severely and then they will tell their clients what they will and won't do. No client is going to be able to pay you enough to cover what you can earn during your entire legal career.

  22. Quite disturbing. by WolfgangVL · · Score: 2

    Power begets corruption. Unfortunately, the only way to bring these powers to heel to to simply stop giving them money. Double-Unfortunately for all of us, the entirety of western civilization has been brought up to believe that in order to have any kind of fun, one must pay somebody to provide it for them, and not to pay is stealing, and stealing is a crime. This has been pounded into our collective psyche for so long even the seniors among us are beginning to believe it. As we slowly wean ourselves off of this addiction, or find ways to entertain ourselves without paying for it, our keepers will sell our protections and laws in return for their own entertainment, and this behavior will only intensify.

    It's not a politics problem, and it's not a criminal problem... it's a CULTURE problem... none of our culture belongs to us anymore, and we risk being ruined if we try to make our own... Judging by recent history, politic, and culture, it's going to get a lot worse before it gets better.

    The public lands and parks we pay to use are full of kids consuming media on licensed (not owned) pocket computers, discussing somebody else's great ideas and inventions over somebody else's (monitored) communication system, and racing each other to the bank to buy somebody else's gadgets. They are sadly not allowed to come up with anything of their own.. for fear of trampling somebody else's copyrights and/or patents, which invites this very perversion of justice.

    This behavior will continue for the foreseeable future.

    The only way to win is not to play. Turn off your TV, stop watching movies, ditch the cellphone, and create a new kind culture... without the price tag and gatekeeper. It's the only way.

    Otherwise, we're fucked, and will have to pay for the privilege.

    Boy. That rant felt good.

    --
    You are being ripped off every second of every day, so that advertisers can help rip you off even more tomorrow.
    1. Re:Quite disturbing. by Maury+Markowitz · · Score: 1

      > The only way to win is not to play. Turn off your TV

      Or get an antenna.

    2. Re:Quite disturbing. by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 1

      A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess?

    3. Re:Quite disturbing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess?

      Chess boxing?

  23. Actually they got the idea from RIAA in the USA. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry to break it to you, but you're wrong. Couldn't be wronger.

  24. Returning his stuff would violate the golden rule. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He who has the gold, rules.

  25. Re:This is absolutely...has to be a troll. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > Nothing out of the norm is happening in Canada generally.

    Except we've been reading a LOT of articles about Canadian police trampling over citizen's rights (as if they never swore an oath to uphold them)

    .

  26. Re:Rogers, consider my cellphone, cable and intern by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Better yet just switch to piracy.

  27. That's only because we've moved so crazy far by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    right. We're just shy of places like Saudi Arabia and there's folks working hard to get us there. Our VP is one of them...

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  28. Next time don't talk by future+assassin · · Score: 1

    as you'll get a contempt charge and use that against the Anton Piller order to get a lawyer.

    --
    by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
    1. Re:Next time don't talk by Altrag · · Score: 1

      Pretty sure there's nothing in a standard Anton Piller order that involves an interrogation or requires the defendant to talk. Either the judge issued that part explicitly (article doesn't mention such a thing nor link to the order itself, and I'm too lazy to see if its publicly available somewhere never mind read it..)

      Or the plaintiffs were just exceeding the order's authority and being abusive. I'd hazard to say this is the more likely case given the other abuses already involved that the article did mention.

  29. And when he decides to say fuck it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And go on a kill spree at their corporate offices everyone even the courts will wonder why.
    I personally hope he does.

    1. Re: And when he decides to say fuck it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What a dick for putting it on him. You should do it.

  30. Real Crazy Talk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Okay,

    Contempt of court eh?

    How about the guy just kills everyone who is complicit in conducting such a stupid interrogation. Wow, so many people died, because we over stepped, I guess we better not do that next time? no, let's crank those screws down tighter, because "good" guys died.

    This is the only viable answer to me. These people aren't just "doing their jobs" any more. You have to see this clearly, and if you are asked to do something you know is stupid, quit before you end up meeting someone crazy enough to fucking kill you over it. Of course, this is just bullshit, everyone is a puss that would never say no to law enforcement, lawyers or anything. just mere internet-tough-guy bullshit.

    Seriously though, he should have called shinanigans and said, fine, "We'll see about that contempt of court you're threatening me with, but furst, you can suck my fucking cock"

  31. Canada not US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No constitution, not land of the free

    1. Re:Canada not US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US has exactly the same provisions in law. Why do you think you have bounty hunters?

    2. Re: Canada not US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL what? Wow. Just wow, not even gonna waste my time.

  32. Not Really Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This took place in Quebec, a place where you can not have english road signs etc. Rules are a bit different and one sided there and anytime the federal government says something about it, they all start to froth and try and get the separatist party back with super powers. See it as Canada's wart.

    1. Re:Not Really Canada by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      I second this. Very little that happens in Quebec is actually representative of Canada as a whole. They 'threaten' to separate once in a while, then everyone else says 'go ahead, and good luck to you', and then they stop.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    2. Re: Not Really Canada by Brockmire · · Score: 1

      Fuck you guys. This shit has been going on in satellite industry for 20 years across Canada. Wake the fuck up.

  33. White bois are cucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A man would have killed these intruders on the spot, no matter the costs.

    With your shield or on it.

  34. Blame Canada by dbIII · · Score: 0
    I actually thought you were serious until you got to this bit:

    There are actual undercover PC police that listen for anybody making comments or light jokes that might in some way be discriminatory against "any identifiable group"

    Well played - the "alt-right" tribalist clueless troll persona joke is very believable.

    1. Re:Blame Canada by rikkards · · Score: 2

      Not sure about the undercover police but technically they could be doing it since recent changes to the laws.

    2. Re:Blame Canada by mrclevesque · · Score: 1

      "technically they could be doing it since recent changes to the laws."

      No they couldn't.

    3. Re:Blame Canada by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Would they bother?
      That's why the joke from the guy pretending to be a special snowflake raised on how he is so much better than the "little people" is so funny. The "little people" do not really have those intricate plans to catch the superior snowflakes and drag them down to the level of people who have to work for a living.

    4. Re:Blame Canada by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 2

      It's amazing how anything you say that doesn't toe the social media populism line is immediately considered alt-right, simply because you don't toe the line. I'm not a member of the "right", let alone the "alt-right". And of course you use this as an attempt to discredit me, but it's not going to work, asshole, so take your irrational ad-hominem bullshit elsewhere. But if you do want to debate this rationally, then stop using logical fallacies.

      And yes, I'm pretty serious about this. It's probably not uniform across Canada, but go to Toronto and try making edgy jokes to the locals. Inevitably, they're going to avoid the subject. But if you meet with them in private, especially the local Iranians, they make jokes about homosexuals, jews, etc, all day long, as Iranians often do. But, they'll specifically tell you that you NEVER do this in a public place in Toronto.

      Comedians notoriously have this exact same problem:

      http://www.torontosun.com/2017...

      http://www.salon.com/2015/06/1...

  35. On the bright side... by orlanz · · Score: 1

    This is a nice attention alert to all the white hats, script kiddies, hackers, and delinquents. This appears like a David and Goliath situation. Guess who the general populace sides with?

    What old farts in their golden chairs don't realize is that their business sits on a large solid foundation of social tolerance.

    You pissing off even a small part of society, you start getting equipment and infrastructure stolen, vandalized, or damaged. You have trouble recruiting and keeping the best and brightest. You get more hackings, and people start "stealing" your service more.

    Why not? You lost their respect. It's not laws and rules that keep people honest, it's respect and tolerance.

  36. copyright law is corrupted and evil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and you the people are being taken to the cleaners

    losers and suckers

  37. A civil search warrant? by Robert+Goatse · · Score: 1

    No i didn't read TFA, but who did the searching? The cops or some weird tv guys in blue windbreakers? Since when can cable people execute such a warrant. I would have laughed them out of my house and kicked 'em in the ass on the way out.

    1. Re:A civil search warrant? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_Piller_order

      It's a little fucked up.

  38. "Escrow" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The average person only thinks of escrow services in relation to financial transactions, but they do have more uses. Canada has escrow firms too.

    A case like this where there is dispute over who owns the property seems tailor made for putting the property into escrow so that neither party can access it until the legal ownership is settled.

  39. everyone is clueless, this can be done in USA too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everyone here is clueless saying it wouldn't happen in USA.
    IT COULD, and it's in the law. We have a law that permits movie theater employees to detain and interrogate people if they suspect them (say they used a cell phone to snap a selfie), and are immune from all lawsuits if they do so.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Entertainment_and_Copyright_Act

  40. Re:This is absolutely...has to be a troll. by LeftCoastThinker · · Score: 1

    The proper recompense on appeal is an award of 100% the value of the companies that perpetrated this shit to the victim, plus a criminal probe/investigation of the personal finances/relationships of the judge that signed off on the original warrant, as well as the government officials that executed it. The only way to deal with this kind of Gestapo tactic is brutal consequences. Just like the Gawker case in the US, it is high time that these companies grossly violating the laws and basic human rights be liquefied or handed over to their victims. Stockholders and CEOs will pay a lot closer attention and be a lot less aggressive if they know they can lose it all with this kind of shit.

    --
    If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
  41. Y'all Yankees got'st to learn how to read werds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The second paragraph of the story details how a Canadian judge threw out the search because it greatly violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The victim will likely get his stuff back after the corporate appeal of the judge's ruling fails.

    Far stronger property protections in Canada than in the U.S. In fact, American civil forfeiture laws are very scary, and about to get scarier...

    https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/07/sessions-forfeiture-justice-department-civil/534168/

    But, you know, America-Number-One-Best-Country-Most-Free blah blah blah *puke*!

    https://www.cato.org/human-freedom-index

    "The top 10 jurisdictions in order were Hong Kong, Switzerland, New Zealand, Ireland, Denmark, Australia (6), Canada (6), the United Kingdom (6), Finland (9), and the Netherlands (10). The United States is ranked in 23rd place. Other countries rank as follows: Germany (13), Chile (29), France (31), Japan (32), Singapore (40), South Africa (74), Brazil (82), India (87), Russia (115), Nigeria (140), China (141), Saudi Arabia (144), Zimbabwe (148), Venezuela (154), and Iran (157)."

    Canada is tied for 6th as most free, USA is way down at 23rd...

  42. Re:This is absolutely...has to be a troll. by Blue23 · · Score: 2

    The proper recompense on appeal is an award of 100% the value of the companies that perpetrated this shit to the victim, plus a criminal probe/investigation of the personal finances/relationships of the judge that signed off on the original warrant, as well as the government officials that executed it.

    So you want to punish the shareholders of the corporation and not the employees who made this decision? Oh, and all the other employees who are now out a job. And, of course, destabilize the entire concept of publicly owned corporations.

    I'm for him getting over-fairly compensated. I'm for punitive measures against the people who did this both on the corporate and public level as a discouragement for others to follow that path. I am not for screwing over plenty of people innocent of this crime even if it will also get the few guilty.

    --
    LITTLE GIRL: But which cookie will you eat FIRST? C. MONSTER: Me think you have misconception of cookie-eating process.
  43. They need to go to jail by fox171171 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    While I don't condone anything (allegedly) illegal on the part of the developer, if any such thing has even been done, I don't care if he is as guilty as they come, this behavior is totally unacceptable.

    The seizure is theft. If I walked into the "cable giants" building and started "seizing" stuff, I'd be off to jail. And that is where these people need to go. Anyone involved. Any lawyers should be disbarred and jailed. The CEO is responsible for everything, and should also be jailed. You or I would be. And the "theft" is very minor compared to the violation of rights.

    The Canadian government (using taxpayers money) just paid off an alleged terrorist because his rights were violated.

    The gross violation of this developer's rights are an abomination, and criminal, and these companies should pay up, and as I said above, there should be jail time for those involved/responsible.

    They need to be slapped down and hard. These industries are fond of trying to make an example out of people, and they should be treated the same.

  44. Re:This is absolutely...has to be a troll. by LeftCoastThinker · · Score: 1

    This kind of behavior flows down from the C- level and the board of directors, and yes, in the end the shareholders should take it in the pants, as they are responsible for holding the company accountable. They are the owners after all.

    --
    If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like