Well, seeing as I live in Quebec, and voted in both referendums, I think I'm in a position to know a bit about what was going on.
In particular, I guess you missed the part where the Quebec government had, in cooperation with the Caisse de Depot et Placement and Hydro Quebec, amassed enough currency so that, in the event of a referendum win, they could unilaterally declare independence and weather out any economic fallout. It was the central tenet behind Parizeau's "Lobster Pot" approach - secure a majority in areferendum, then quickly declare independence, followed by "shotgun negotiations" while holding the knife to the throat of the rest of the country.
Our laws recognize that not all situations are black and white. That's why our Constitution is different form yours. A good example - the statement that "All men are created equal". A second's thought shows this isn't true, and that any laws based on this fundamentally flawed assumption are also potentially flawed.
We, on the other hand, state that everyone is equal in and before the law. Everyone has the same rights, but not everyone brings the same abilities, characteristics, strengths and weaknesses to the table.
Its a compromise position, and we try to keep the compromises reasonable.
However, you do not have free speech in the United States. Try going up to someone and saying that you're going to kill them. Try sending an email to the white house with a death threat. Try putting a notice in the local paper saying you are looking for people to help you plant bombs and overthrow the government. Try posting kiddie pr0n on the net under the guise of "free speech".
None of these are "protected speech" in either country. We're all in this together, no matter which side of the border we're on.
As for addressing the substance - concrete examples are much better than a bunch of hand-waving over the ususal hypothetical "what-if" that usually passes as "informed discussion" on the net.
As a practical example of just how free our speech and actions are - in Canada, you CAN legally plot to break up the country, as long as its by peaceful means, such as elections. We have several political parties that advocate this, and one of them was the official opposition for a time. Their elected members get their salaries, offices, and research resources paid by the federal government, same as all other elected officials. Now THAT's "putting your money where yur mouth is" in regards to free speech.
Explaining it to the end users was probably a waste of time, since THEY didn't have to clean up their machines - they foisted it on you. Its the same as explaining to an IE addict why they should switch to Firefox... over and over and over and...
Besides, I see that there's a Celine Dion album on the list. I would argue that the world is a better place if everyone who bought that CD ends up with a non-functional computer.
Come on boys, I think i figgered out where those Weapons of Mass Destruction are. Last one over the northern border is a rotten Canuck!!!
No. We gave you back (most || some of) your nukes back when the Parti Quebecois first came into power.
We've got better stuff now.
biological weapons : Poutine (cheese curds and gravy on french fries). Kills you off by extreme cholesterol poisoning.
psy-ops : Celine Dion and Bryan Adams
psy-ops : Just For Laughs Comedy Festival (you'll die laughing)
psy-ops : Blackberries - a.k.a. "Crackberries" (addictive technology from R.I.M. - a "rim job?")
biological weapons : Canadian beer, a lower drinking age, and bouncers who look the other way for Spring Break
biological weapons : Canadian women (at one point, 1 out of every 5 playboy centerfolds was from British Columbia)
psy-ops: Gay marriage (so future generations of movie producers and Apple fans will think better of their northern neighbours - plus we like the tourist dollars they bring)
Gee, just look at all the speeches used to sell a quick and clean war in Iraq to the US public - "6 months duration, tops" " WMDs ", "nuk-you-leer (sic) war", "axis of evil".
Hurt? Well, thousands dead, a huge and ever-growing deficit that has forced the govt to raid everyone's pension plans and short-change education, including the "No Child Left Behind" program,...
Just because some people aren't smart enough to think for themselves before they do something doesn't mean that all of society should forfeit their rights./blockquote>
The hate speech laws recognize that there are people too stupid to think for themselves, and that there are OTHERS who would like to use these people as tools to commit crimes against people. The hate speech laws are directed against those who would use other people in an attempt to "keep their own hands clean".
Think of it as the moral equivalent of yur RICO or money-laundering laws.
The stats about minorities in Canada don't include the 20% french minority. Add them, and at least half our population is a minority.
Then you have to add people like me, an english person in a french province - making me part of the english minority. In fact, everyone up here is part of a minority, since there isn't any one group that makes up 50% of the population.
but that is by far the lesser evil compared to criminalizing speach against one's government.
"the government" isn't on the list of groups that is coverred by hate speech legislation. We're pretty tolerant of people speaking out against the government - FAR more tolerant than the US. We not only tolerate it - we're willing to FUND it. We have one party (the Bloc Quebecois) that seeks to break up the country. They were at one time the official opposition to the government. They collect their pay as representatives of the people, they are provided space and funding and resources to further their cause, all on the taxpayer's nickel, just like any other elected officials.
An equivalent party would be illegal in the US, and their campaign literature would be siezed as promoting sedition or treason. So much for a comparison between Canadian and American free speech when it comes to government.
We try to take a reasonable approach up here. You're free to think whatever you want. You can also say pretty much whatever you want in private. What you can't do is publish it all over the place (and the internet is a public, not private, medium) in an attempt to either cause harm, intimidate, or offend vulnerable groups, or incite others to do the same.
Its a logical extension of the law. If your public speech can be shown to be harmful to a certain group, and it is motivated by hatred, then you are attempting to harm someone, and should be stopped. Same as libel and slander. Same as any other tort.
That the harm is done by word instead of any other deed is immaterial. The act was done with the intent is to harm someone else, rather than for a constructive or neutral purpose.
So, would you feel comfortable with someone going around saying something like this:
And that's what I truly believe, not just about homosexuals and the transgendered- but also about divorce, premarital sex, prostitution, and any other sexual immorality. From an evolutionary standpoint it's a dead end. If it wasn't for Church teaching against discrimination, I'd be for hunting permits to end this false "diversity".
... and this...
a few million people ahead of the gays in line should my Sweedish Mauser sniper rifle ever be aimed at another human being.
Maybe its a good thing he doesn't have the money right now to buy bullets...
BTW - if you follow the linky http://slashdot.org/~tomhudson/journal/130969, where I've outlined what's going on, and links to other posts by this person, you'll see he believes "immoral sex" includes any sex when you're not trying to make a baby. So, anyone who's engaged in a "blow-job" or "carpet-munching" is fair game, as is anyone who's used any form of birth control. Talk about being "more Catholic than the Pope"...
So, would you want such a nutcase to enter your country? Would you want them living down the steet from you? Or maybe someone should be able to say "hey, we have reasonable limits to what you can say and do, and this is way over the line", and make sure that those around him aren't in danger?
Free speech isn't a license to promote hatred or incite others by example.
The "right to safety" is actually phrased "right to security of the person" in most province's Human Rights legislation. This means, among other things, right to have your privacy respected, freedom from undue search and siezure, the right not to be physically or mentally abused, the right to aa safe working environment, etc.
All these things could be called a "right to safety."
The previous government was even looking for ways to punish churches that refused to perform gay weddings
No they weren't. The proposed law specidfically addressed that - NO church would be obliged to perform a wadding that went against their beliefs.
We've had same-sex marriages here for a few years now - and that was under the previous government - and there hasn't been one court order forcing a church to marry someone they didn't want to.
Your analogy breaks down really easily - "erasing" the bits didn't remove them from the drive - it just set them to another pattern. They're still there. The company can still "own" them - but they don't have a right to the software that was licensed to me, not them, and never did.
Come on, that has got to be the lamest attempt at trolling in this whole thread.
So let them serve one. The point is, his agreement with them required him to either return or delete all files. If they only realized after, and they were stupid enough that they didn't back up their snapshot server, they've got a LOT of problems.
After all, if I delete files on my machine, then sync with the snapshot, its going to delete those files without any action out of the ordinary on my part - that's the way it works...
Read the commentary on groklaw for a better analysis than you'll find on slashdot.
I also posted that the whole argument was totally bogus to start with. Too bad slashdot doesn't allow you to group posts in a thread by author...
What he did was stupid. He should have bought another laptop. Its not like he doesn't have the money - they guy is worth millions, he was part-owner of the business.
This is one case where he had more money than brains.
However, there is no obligation on his part to just hand over any proof without a subpoena. His contract said he had to return the laptop and either return or delete the data. He deleted the data. As per the contract.
Both sides were stupid.
Same for the data on the snapshot server. No backup. Both sides were stupid. May they spend all their money on legal fees, and end up with nothing.
nothing - after they blow the breakers. 1 kw is a lot of juice. per 1U.
So quick - convince your boss he needs one of those for his desktop, and you'll "inherit" the dual cpu you conned him into buying a few months ago so you could "inherit" his last desktop.
The vast majority of companies are small. They don't have a handbook, never mind procedures. Thats why these things end up in courts, because its NOT so clear-cut.
The point is that any data of any kind even if it was created by the employee for the employee's own use, was at one point on a company owned resource (the laptop), and hence owned by the company.
Did Jesus just kill another kitten or something?
Nope. No more than if I put my lunch in a company-owned drawer, or install developer software bought, paid for, and licensed to ME on a company-owned computer, or even on their server.
Your theory of "company-owned" is more viral than Microsoft's "shared-source".
I leave, my stuff leaves with me.
I'll agree the guy WAS stupid to delete the files, and he WAS stupid to even bother using the company laptop. But lets reverse your argument - the company-owned laptop was at one point on an employee-owned resource - the employee's lap. Does that mean he owns it? Of course not. Ownership is not transferred by putting something next to, inside of, or on something. Its transferred by either mutual agreement or act of law.
The employer can demand anything he wants. And the employee can say "sue me."
In this case, though, the employer is putting the cart before the horse - attempting to claim vandalism to their property (destruction of files on a networked computer) without first proving the files in question were their property. They wanted the files to show he broke his non-compete and, as such, was no longer an employee, and thus not authorized to delete the files. Seems to me, if they can't first show he broke his non-compete, they can't claim uncontested ownership to the files.
The REAL case is that the guy was setting up his competing business, and they wanted the laptop data to prove it.
They shouldn't be going after him for "destruction of data on a networked device" but for violating his non-compete. Especially since, if they can't prove he violated the non-compete, then it IS his data to do as he pleases, even if it was sitting on their laptop.
Look at it this way: If they can't first show he violated his non-compete, then they have no claim to the data he erased, as it may have been "his" data just as much, or more, than theirs.
On the other hand, prove first that he violated his non-compete, and you can THEN also get him on the data destruction.
What you CAN'T do is the reverse - prove the destruction of your data if you can't first prove that it is uncontestedly your data.
Slashdot Mirror
In particular, I guess you missed the part where the Quebec government had, in cooperation with the Caisse de Depot et Placement and Hydro Quebec, amassed enough currency so that, in the event of a referendum win, they could unilaterally declare independence and weather out any economic fallout. It was the central tenet behind Parizeau's "Lobster Pot" approach - secure a majority in areferendum, then quickly declare independence, followed by "shotgun negotiations" while holding the knife to the throat of the rest of the country.
Our laws recognize that not all situations are black and white. That's why our Constitution is different form yours. A good example - the statement that "All men are created equal". A second's thought shows this isn't true, and that any laws based on this fundamentally flawed assumption are also potentially flawed.
We, on the other hand, state that everyone is equal in and before the law. Everyone has the same rights, but not everyone brings the same abilities, characteristics, strengths and weaknesses to the table.
Its a compromise position, and we try to keep the compromises reasonable.
However, you do not have free speech in the United States. Try going up to someone and saying that you're going to kill them. Try sending an email to the white house with a death threat. Try putting a notice in the local paper saying you are looking for people to help you plant bombs and overthrow the government. Try posting kiddie pr0n on the net under the guise of "free speech".
None of these are "protected speech" in either country. We're all in this together, no matter which side of the border we're on.
As for addressing the substance - concrete examples are much better than a bunch of hand-waving over the ususal hypothetical "what-if" that usually passes as "informed discussion" on the net.
As a practical example of just how free our speech and actions are - in Canada, you CAN legally plot to break up the country, as long as its by peaceful means, such as elections. We have several political parties that advocate this, and one of them was the official opposition for a time. Their elected members get their salaries, offices, and research resources paid by the federal government, same as all other elected officials. Now THAT's "putting your money where yur mouth is" in regards to free speech.
Explaining it to the end users was probably a waste of time, since THEY didn't have to clean up their machines - they foisted it on you. Its the same as explaining to an IE addict why they should switch to Firefox ... over and over and over and ...
Besides, I see that there's a Celine Dion album on the list. I would argue that the world is a better place if everyone who bought that CD ends up with a non-functional computer.
No. We gave you back (most || some of) your nukes back when the Parti Quebecois first came into power.
We've got better stuff now.
Gee, just look at all the speeches used to sell a quick and clean war in Iraq to the US public - "6 months duration, tops" " WMDs ", "nuk-you-leer (sic) war", "axis of evil".
Hurt? Well, thousands dead, a huge and ever-growing deficit that has forced the govt to raid everyone's pension plans and short-change education, including the "No Child Left Behind" program, ...
The stats about minorities in Canada don't include the 20% french minority. Add them, and at least half our population is a minority.
Then you have to add people like me, an english person in a french province - making me part of the english minority. In fact, everyone up here is part of a minority, since there isn't any one group that makes up 50% of the population.
Even The Daily Show is a better news source, in terms of freedom from government bias.
"the government" isn't on the list of groups that is coverred by hate speech legislation. We're pretty tolerant of people speaking out against the government - FAR more tolerant than the US. We not only tolerate it - we're willing to FUND it. We have one party (the Bloc Quebecois) that seeks to break up the country. They were at one time the official opposition to the government. They collect their pay as representatives of the people, they are provided space and funding and resources to further their cause, all on the taxpayer's nickel, just like any other elected officials.
An equivalent party would be illegal in the US, and their campaign literature would be siezed as promoting sedition or treason. So much for a comparison between Canadian and American free speech when it comes to government.
We try to take a reasonable approach up here. You're free to think whatever you want. You can also say pretty much whatever you want in private. What you can't do is publish it all over the place (and the internet is a public, not private, medium) in an attempt to either cause harm, intimidate, or offend vulnerable groups, or incite others to do the same.
Its a logical extension of the law. If your public speech can be shown to be harmful to a certain group, and it is motivated by hatred, then you are attempting to harm someone, and should be stopped. Same as libel and slander. Same as any other tort.
That the harm is done by word instead of any other deed is immaterial. The act was done with the intent is to harm someone else, rather than for a constructive or neutral purpose.
So, would you feel comfortable with someone going around saying something like this:
Maybe its a good thing he doesn't have the money right now to buy bullets ...
BTW - if you follow the linky http://slashdot.org/~tomhudson/journal/130969, where I've outlined what's going on, and links to other posts by this person, you'll see he believes "immoral sex" includes any sex when you're not trying to make a baby. So, anyone who's engaged in a "blow-job" or "carpet-munching" is fair game, as is anyone who's used any form of birth control. Talk about being "more Catholic than the Pope" ...
So, would you want such a nutcase to enter your country? Would you want them living down the steet from you? Or maybe someone should be able to say "hey, we have reasonable limits to what you can say and do, and this is way over the line", and make sure that those around him aren't in danger?
Free speech isn't a license to promote hatred or incite others by example.
All these things could be called a "right to safety."
No they weren't. The proposed law specidfically addressed that - NO church would be obliged to perform a wadding that went against their beliefs.
We've had same-sex marriages here for a few years now - and that was under the previous government - and there hasn't been one court order forcing a church to marry someone they didn't want to.
Your analogy breaks down really easily - "erasing" the bits didn't remove them from the drive - it just set them to another pattern. They're still there. The company can still "own" them - but they don't have a right to the software that was licensed to me, not them, and never did.
Come on, that has got to be the lamest attempt at trolling in this whole thread.
After all, if I delete files on my machine, then sync with the snapshot, its going to delete those files without any action out of the ordinary on my part - that's the way it works ...
Read the commentary on groklaw for a better analysis than you'll find on slashdot.
What he did was stupid. He should have bought another laptop. Its not like he doesn't have the money - they guy is worth millions, he was part-owner of the business.
This is one case where he had more money than brains.
However, there is no obligation on his part to just hand over any proof without a subpoena. His contract said he had to return the laptop and either return or delete the data. He deleted the data. As per the contract.
Both sides were stupid.
Same for the data on the snapshot server. No backup. Both sides were stupid. May they spend all their money on legal fees, and end up with nothing.
Companies don't "automatically have a right" to all the data on their computer.
Example: A piece of software licensed to me, installed on their computer. They don't "own" it. When I leave, its erased.
Get over it - they no more "automatically" own it than Apple "owns" the itunes they sell.
My point was that is a LOT of juice. Its in a 1U unit. That's obviously going to need some seriously noisy cooling.
A lot of places, the problem now isn't space - its cooling.
I'd still take one if they gave it to me ...
That's a LOT of juice!
nothing - after they blow the breakers. 1 kw is a lot of juice. per 1U.
So quick - convince your boss he needs one of those for his desktop, and you'll "inherit" the dual cpu you conned him into buying a few months ago so you could "inherit" his last desktop.
The vast majority of companies are small. They don't have a handbook, never mind procedures. Thats why these things end up in courts, because its NOT so clear-cut.
Unless they can first show he violated the non-compete, they have no proof that they have any right to the data that was erased.
Did Jesus just kill another kitten or something?
Nope. No more than if I put my lunch in a company-owned drawer, or install developer software bought, paid for, and licensed to ME on a company-owned computer, or even on their server.
Your theory of "company-owned" is more viral than Microsoft's "shared-source".
I leave, my stuff leaves with me.
I'll agree the guy WAS stupid to delete the files, and he WAS stupid to even bother using the company laptop. But lets reverse your argument - the company-owned laptop was at one point on an employee-owned resource - the employee's lap. Does that mean he owns it? Of course not. Ownership is not transferred by putting something next to, inside of, or on something. Its transferred by either mutual agreement or act of law.
The employer can demand anything he wants. And the employee can say "sue me."
In this case, though, the employer is putting the cart before the horse - attempting to claim vandalism to their property (destruction of files on a networked computer) without first proving the files in question were their property. They wanted the files to show he broke his non-compete and, as such, was no longer an employee, and thus not authorized to delete the files. Seems to me, if they can't first show he broke his non-compete, they can't claim uncontested ownership to the files.
They're in a catch-22.
Of course it's BS. But so is the whole case.
The REAL case is that the guy was setting up his competing business, and they wanted the laptop data to prove it.
They shouldn't be going after him for "destruction of data on a networked device" but for violating his non-compete. Especially since, if they can't prove he violated the non-compete, then it IS his data to do as he pleases, even if it was sitting on their laptop.
Look at it this way: If they can't first show he violated his non-compete, then they have no claim to the data he erased, as it may have been "his" data just as much, or more, than theirs.
On the other hand, prove first that he violated his non-compete, and you can THEN also get him on the data destruction.
What you CAN'T do is the reverse - prove the destruction of your data if you can't first prove that it is uncontestedly your data.