This will probably end up downmoded amongst the fearmongering, but this "analysis" is based on a gross misreading. Surveillance under section 34 can't be used for legalized spying because:
1. Section 34 doesn't authorize it. It authorizes the use of those inspection powers only to check for ISP conformance with the rest of the act, and 2. C-30 amends, but does not derogate the Criminal Code, and section 34 powers aren't given an exemption to Section 184 of the Criminal Code. An inspector operating under section 34 is not considered to be authorized to intercept telecommunications for the purposes of 184. Doing so would be a criminal offence.
Rule of thumb: If you read anything online about Canadian law, it's probably wrong.
The proposed bill is like the Government of Canada forcing the phone companies to keep a record of every call that you make or receive, and insisting that Canada Post keep a register of every piece of mail that you send or receive. They'd still need a warrant to actually open your mail, but they don't need anyone's permission to build a profile of who you correspond with including who, how often, at what time of day etc...
Except that's not true. Any long-term data preservation under bill C-30 requires an order signed by a judge.
487.013 (1) On ex parte application made by a peace officer or public officer, a justice or judge may order a person to preserve computer data that is in their possession or control when they receive the order.
People are calling this warrantless wiretapping are simply wrong. If you read the actual bill - not what some talking heads are saying - any production of data requires judicial oversight, just like a phone wiretap. There is a provision that lets the police order ISPs to start recording data, but it's only allowed as the first step of an investigation, and has to be approved by a judge within a couple of weeks... the law requires that they immediately destroy that data without releasing it to the police if they don't get approval. Any collection after that point in time, and any release of data has to have judicial oversight and approval. That's all covered in section 487.
There are some privacy issues in this bill, but suggesting there's any sort of general long-term data collection mandate is laughably wrong.
This same thing happened regarding bill C-11... people started campaigning against it by comparing it to SOPA. That was a gross overreaction, as C-11 had very little in comparison, and after people started realising the significant difference, the critics of C-11 began to look very foolish. There are some problems with C-30, but again if people insist on campaigning against it with outright falsehoods, you're going to look very silly - and undermine your own cause in the long run - after the more levelheaded commentators start picking it apart and discover that the original critics have been fibbing.
Not too long? Years. The mandatory minimum sentence the judge decided was contrary to the charter was a gun mandatory minimum. Those were created by the Liberals over a decade ago.
That's completely wrong. Not just wrong, completely backwards.
India was the lead member of the non-aligned movement during the cold war, with strong socialist leanings, and had good ties with the Soviet Union. That's why they operate so much old soviet and Russian equipment. That's also why Pakistan is seen as a historical US ally, and operates a lot of American and Western European military equipment. It wasn't until the 90s that the relationship started to turn friendly.
In fact, American-Indian relationships were one of the few successes of the Bush administration. Bush put a lot of effort into it in the early days into turning India into a strategic ally.
What? No it's not. The unit cost of a Rafale is around $90M USD. The unit cost of the F-16 is around $20M.
The Rafale is a little cheaper than the F-35, but it's 4G+, not "near 5th generation." There's a reason nobody else is buying them... everybody else is buying Eurofighter Typhoons or waiting for the F-35.
The problem is that today most people without the formal education are inferior candidates to most people with the degree. If you are in HR and you've got a thousand applicants to a job opening, then a checkbox 'has degree' is an easy way to cull the pool.
College networking is not very useful. As an exercise, networking is about give and take; you need to be a valuable contact in order to attract valuable contacts. And as a college student, you are incredibly interchangeable and ultimately not very useful. Almost the only people you successfully 'network' with are the other college students you go out drinking with, and as far as contacts go, they're just as useless as you. It is absolutely not worth the tens of thousands in debt you seem to suggest. The only useful contacts you'll gain at university are professors and work related contacts from internships and jobs, and those are the contacts you'll gain from standing out from all of your 'networking' peers by working hard.
Now, it's possible that one of your drinking buddies is going to be successful 10-15 years down the road, but you're going to have plenty of opportunity to network usefully between now and then, when you have real experience and expertise you can market yourself with, instead of "that guy who was really good at beer pong back in college."
Justifying potentially tens of thousands of dollars of debt so that you can 'network' with a bunch of other college students is about the worst financial advice I've heard.
Higher energy x-ray photons actually makes the devices safer, since they have a flatter absorption profile, i.e. the photons are absorbed more uniformly throughout whatever you're scanning, rather than at the surface. This means you can do your imaging with lower overall radiation flux, and thus lower overall absorbed dose. So the backscatter machine is actually much safer than the CT scanner it's being compared to.
So this point isn't just moot, it's actually completely backwards. Whoever originally made it doesn't know anything about radiation safety and should be ignored.
Well, if you think about the Langmuir equation, decreasing the partial pressure of water vapour in the atmosphere by inducing precipitation will increase the evaporation rate. Then it's just a matter of prevailing winds which, assuming the Chinese aren't complete idiots, they've probably thought about.
Well, the US claims it was in Afghanistan. But I'm sure it was in Iran, just like those British sailors the Iranians abducted a couple of years ago.
I'm not American, but you have to be a complete moron to think the Iranian government is more trustworthy than the US. If it comes down to he-said/she-said, I'm willing to give the Yanks the benefit of the doubt. Iran has a history of "flexible" borders.
Yes, that's exactly how the private sector works. If your pension funds' assets drop below its liabilities, the company has to inject money to correct the imbalance. IIRC, you have about 3-5 years to do so.
That's now how catastrophe bonds work. If you buy catastrophe bonds you lose money when a disaster strikes, because your bond is what pays for all the rebuilding and insurance claims.
If you own catastrophe bonds, you have a vested interest in the world being peaceful and boring.
That's pure spin. Changing the USPS to account for 75 years worth of liabilities brings it in line with the private sector. It used to be under normal government accounting rules, which are a lot more "flexible." If anybody in the private sector tries the accounting tricks the government lets itself get away with, they find themselves on the sharp end of an audit pretty damn quick.
In the private sector, federal law requires you to fully fund a pension plan, including all future liabilities. That's stricter than the USPS's 75 year requirement. In practice they're pretty similar, because you're not likely to have any significant liabilities beyond 75 years.
Yes, and that's the same kind of weapon it would take to blow a hole in a containment vessel: a one tonne bunker buster bomb, dropped from 20,000 feet with a hardened steel or depleted uranium tip. A reactor containment vessel is thick high strength steel, surrounded by meters of reinforced concrete. If you think "satchel charges" are going to do it, you've been playing too many video games.
Imagine the consequences if it were some band of ne're do wells who attacked the plant and resulted another Chernobyl
And how would they accomplish that? The French authorities claim they were monitoring the activists the entire time and decided not to create an incident by intercepting them. But suppose they were ne're do wells, climbing the walls of the containment building... what exactly are they going to do? Do you know what happens when you set off a man portable bomb next to the two meters of high-strength reinforced concrete of a reactor containment building? It bounces off.
The US airforce has specially designed weapons to crack those kinds of structures, like the GBU-28. It weighs 2 tonnes.
You have to distinguish between a theory, and a model based on a theory. "Dark matter" is a hypothesis/theory... this paper on the other hand isn't proposing anything new, it's just a different way of modelling galaxies that accounts for "far-field" interactions. The theory here is just general relativity, and the author claims that when you account for the relativistic effects of distant matter in your calculations, the unexplainable rotation curves that originally justified the hunt for 'dark matter' are now explainable.
Now this doesn't prima facie explain things like the Bullet Cluster; you'd have to redo the bullet cluster calculations accounting for these long distance effects. And of course, if it were simply the case that 'we did the math wrong and assumed something was insignificant when it isn't,' then it would be an enormous amount of egg-on-face for a lot of physicists and research groups. But personally I find it likely that the math was wrong AND there are still-not-understood dark matter/quantum gravity effects at work.
Slashdot Mirror
This will probably end up downmoded amongst the fearmongering, but this "analysis" is based on a gross misreading. Surveillance under section 34 can't be used for legalized spying because:
1. Section 34 doesn't authorize it. It authorizes the use of those inspection powers only to check for ISP conformance with the rest of the act, and
2. C-30 amends, but does not derogate the Criminal Code, and section 34 powers aren't given an exemption to Section 184 of the Criminal Code. An inspector operating under section 34 is not considered to be authorized to intercept telecommunications for the purposes of 184. Doing so would be a criminal offence.
Rule of thumb: If you read anything online about Canadian law, it's probably wrong.
The Liberals wrote the bill, back in 2002. They called it Lawful Access, and then Modernization of Investigative Techniques.
The proposed bill is like the Government of Canada forcing the phone companies to keep a record of every call that you make or receive, and insisting that Canada Post keep a register of every piece of mail that you send or receive. They'd still need a warrant to actually open your mail, but they don't need anyone's permission to build a profile of who you correspond with including who, how often, at what time of day etc...
Except that's not true. Any long-term data preservation under bill C-30 requires an order signed by a judge.
487.013 (1) On ex parte application made by a peace officer or public officer, a justice or judge may order a person to preserve computer data that is in their possession or control when they receive the order.
People are calling this warrantless wiretapping are simply wrong. If you read the actual bill - not what some talking heads are saying - any production of data requires judicial oversight, just like a phone wiretap. There is a provision that lets the police order ISPs to start recording data, but it's only allowed as the first step of an investigation, and has to be approved by a judge within a couple of weeks... the law requires that they immediately destroy that data without releasing it to the police if they don't get approval. Any collection after that point in time, and any release of data has to have judicial oversight and approval. That's all covered in section 487.
There are some privacy issues in this bill, but suggesting there's any sort of general long-term data collection mandate is laughably wrong.
This same thing happened regarding bill C-11... people started campaigning against it by comparing it to SOPA. That was a gross overreaction, as C-11 had very little in comparison, and after people started realising the significant difference, the critics of C-11 began to look very foolish. There are some problems with C-30, but again if people insist on campaigning against it with outright falsehoods, you're going to look very silly - and undermine your own cause in the long run - after the more levelheaded commentators start picking it apart and discover that the original critics have been fibbing.
Not too long? Years. The mandatory minimum sentence the judge decided was contrary to the charter was a gun mandatory minimum. Those were created by the Liberals over a decade ago.
I think you'll find that's the other way around.
That's completely wrong. Not just wrong, completely backwards.
India was the lead member of the non-aligned movement during the cold war, with strong socialist leanings, and had good ties with the Soviet Union. That's why they operate so much old soviet and Russian equipment. That's also why Pakistan is seen as a historical US ally, and operates a lot of American and Western European military equipment. It wasn't until the 90s that the relationship started to turn friendly.
In fact, American-Indian relationships were one of the few successes of the Bush administration. Bush put a lot of effort into it in the early days into turning India into a strategic ally.
What? No it's not. The unit cost of a Rafale is around $90M USD. The unit cost of the F-16 is around $20M.
The Rafale is a little cheaper than the F-35, but it's 4G+, not "near 5th generation." There's a reason nobody else is buying them... everybody else is buying Eurofighter Typhoons or waiting for the F-35.
Happens often in medicine.
As someone who uses almost no data, I don't see why I should subsidize your mobile internet usage.
How would these cope with saccades? The eye makes a lot of involuntary, unnoticed movements.
Reasonable engineering certainly does not.
The problem is that today most people without the formal education are inferior candidates to most people with the degree. If you are in HR and you've got a thousand applicants to a job opening, then a checkbox 'has degree' is an easy way to cull the pool.
College networking is not very useful. As an exercise, networking is about give and take; you need to be a valuable contact in order to attract valuable contacts. And as a college student, you are incredibly interchangeable and ultimately not very useful. Almost the only people you successfully 'network' with are the other college students you go out drinking with, and as far as contacts go, they're just as useless as you. It is absolutely not worth the tens of thousands in debt you seem to suggest. The only useful contacts you'll gain at university are professors and work related contacts from internships and jobs, and those are the contacts you'll gain from standing out from all of your 'networking' peers by working hard.
Now, it's possible that one of your drinking buddies is going to be successful 10-15 years down the road, but you're going to have plenty of opportunity to network usefully between now and then, when you have real experience and expertise you can market yourself with, instead of "that guy who was really good at beer pong back in college."
Justifying potentially tens of thousands of dollars of debt so that you can 'network' with a bunch of other college students is about the worst financial advice I've heard.
Higher energy x-ray photons actually makes the devices safer, since they have a flatter absorption profile, i.e. the photons are absorbed more uniformly throughout whatever you're scanning, rather than at the surface. This means you can do your imaging with lower overall radiation flux, and thus lower overall absorbed dose. So the backscatter machine is actually much safer than the CT scanner it's being compared to.
So this point isn't just moot, it's actually completely backwards. Whoever originally made it doesn't know anything about radiation safety and should be ignored.
Well, if you think about the Langmuir equation, decreasing the partial pressure of water vapour in the atmosphere by inducing precipitation will increase the evaporation rate. Then it's just a matter of prevailing winds which, assuming the Chinese aren't complete idiots, they've probably thought about.
Well, the US claims it was in Afghanistan. But I'm sure it was in Iran, just like those British sailors the Iranians abducted a couple of years ago.
I'm not American, but you have to be a complete moron to think the Iranian government is more trustworthy than the US. If it comes down to he-said/she-said, I'm willing to give the Yanks the benefit of the doubt. Iran has a history of "flexible" borders.
Yes, that's exactly how the private sector works. If your pension funds' assets drop below its liabilities, the company has to inject money to correct the imbalance. IIRC, you have about 3-5 years to do so.
You are a retard. Obviously not all companies offer pension plans. Companies that offer pension plans, on the other hand, have to fully fund them.
That's now how catastrophe bonds work. If you buy catastrophe bonds you lose money when a disaster strikes, because your bond is what pays for all the rebuilding and insurance claims.
If you own catastrophe bonds, you have a vested interest in the world being peaceful and boring.
That's just... factually wrong. The ribbon doesn't do that in any Microsoft product I've ever used.
That's pure spin. Changing the USPS to account for 75 years worth of liabilities brings it in line with the private sector. It used to be under normal government accounting rules, which are a lot more "flexible." If anybody in the private sector tries the accounting tricks the government lets itself get away with, they find themselves on the sharp end of an audit pretty damn quick.
In the private sector, federal law requires you to fully fund a pension plan, including all future liabilities. That's stricter than the USPS's 75 year requirement. In practice they're pretty similar, because you're not likely to have any significant liabilities beyond 75 years.
Yes, and that's the same kind of weapon it would take to blow a hole in a containment vessel: a one tonne bunker buster bomb, dropped from 20,000 feet with a hardened steel or depleted uranium tip. A reactor containment vessel is thick high strength steel, surrounded by meters of reinforced concrete. If you think "satchel charges" are going to do it, you've been playing too many video games.
Imagine the consequences if it were some band of ne're do wells who attacked the plant and resulted another Chernobyl
And how would they accomplish that? The French authorities claim they were monitoring the activists the entire time and decided not to create an incident by intercepting them. But suppose they were ne're do wells, climbing the walls of the containment building... what exactly are they going to do? Do you know what happens when you set off a man portable bomb next to the two meters of high-strength reinforced concrete of a reactor containment building? It bounces off.
The US airforce has specially designed weapons to crack those kinds of structures, like the GBU-28. It weighs 2 tonnes.
Suppose you did. This is a 100psi+ containment building you're talking about. What would you expect to accomplish... maybe scratch the paint?
There is no man-portable weapon that is a real threat to a nuclear facility.
You have to distinguish between a theory, and a model based on a theory. "Dark matter" is a hypothesis/theory... this paper on the other hand isn't proposing anything new, it's just a different way of modelling galaxies that accounts for "far-field" interactions. The theory here is just general relativity, and the author claims that when you account for the relativistic effects of distant matter in your calculations, the unexplainable rotation curves that originally justified the hunt for 'dark matter' are now explainable.
Now this doesn't prima facie explain things like the Bullet Cluster; you'd have to redo the bullet cluster calculations accounting for these long distance effects. And of course, if it were simply the case that 'we did the math wrong and assumed something was insignificant when it isn't,' then it would be an enormous amount of egg-on-face for a lot of physicists and research groups. But personally I find it likely that the math was wrong AND there are still-not-understood dark matter/quantum gravity effects at work.