BIG Brother

There is a new bill up in parliament that will let the RCMP with out a warrant, let them check cell phones, internet activity, and any other wireless device on anybody for any reason. This bill also asks the providers (telus, bell, Citytel ) to keep all data and records of these transmissions. So all phone messages all internet activity, what sites you went to what you downloaded what email you sent or received. Would all have to be kept!

This bill will probably not make it through Parliament; thank God and also it would cost a lot of money for the providers to keep all transmission from all the subscribers.
I find this bill scary we are not at war with anyone, I know if this bill went forward it would mean the end of freedom of speech, freedom to express ones thoughts. And ton more we take for granted.

I don’t disagree with you that any bill like that would be a real bad thing to go through, but just some food for thought:

From the RCMP perspective they are at war against crime. You may not see it as “war” in the traditional sense, but they certainly do. Also keep in mind that although we are not at war with any particular country, we are extremely vulnerable to being caught up in a terrorist action. It’s just a matter of time before we get our own 9/11.

Now before anyone jumps all over me, let me say it again… I don’t think that any of this justifies giving any group in Canada that kind of power to snoop around our lives. I’m just merely throwing out another perspective.

Mike

Just because the cops are at war with crime doesnt justify them wanting to tap even innocent peoples phone lines. I believe 100% if they want the ability to tap our lines we should be able to listen to all of their private conversations as well rcmp/government related or not. If they want to take our freedom they dont deserve theirs.

Oh and guess what, the terrorism shit is just fear mongering we are not under any threat of attack. Its funny that the only way the governments can apparently combat terrorism is to take away our rights.

This is always an interesting topic because on one side of the coin we tie the hands of those who protect us and critisize them when they seek the tools to do so. On the other when we are victimized we then complain that those same people aren’t doing thier jobs and how they should do more to protect us.

Mike

You know what really grinds my gears… Theres alot of RCMP that abuse their power in the sense that it’s almost like they are like certain creepy retarded people I know. So a couple of us are in a car driving back to the house from Tim Hortons last night, all sober, doing NOTHING wrong ect. Come to a four way stop, and a cop pulls up to the intersection right after us… the cop continues to follow us, till we pull upto the house, then he drives by slow, and stares at us. Like WTF guy, are you that bloody bored that you have to stock some inocent people, driving home from the local coffee shop. Now giving them the power to snoop through our phone calls and see what we do on the internet, gives that creepy stocker even more motive to jack off to some persons private life. That just goes too far. Cops aready abuse their power enough, and I don’t think giving them more power can do any good. Now, on the other hand, if you have “some” proof, but not enough, that somebody is involved in a criminal activity, then i can see them being able to get something like a prewarrent to attain information from their media devices.

[quote=“CrazyMike”]I don’t disagree with you that any bill like that would be a real bad thing to go through, but just some food for thought:

From the RCMP perspective they are at war against crime. You may not see it as “war” in the traditional sense, but they certainly do. Also keep in mind that although we are not at war with any particular country, we are extremely vulnerable to being caught up in a terrorist action. It’s just a matter of time before we get our own 9/11.

Now before anyone jumps all over me, let me say it again… I don’t think that any of this justifies giving any group in Canada that kind of power to snoop around our lives. I’m just merely throwing out another perspective.

Mike[/quote]

But, if we give in to lawmakers who want to take our away our freedom and privacy, then . . . . .

. . . . yes . . . .

. . . . . wait for it . . .

. . . the terrorists have won.

So what is wrong with the cops following you?
Here is a list of possible reasons for the “slow speed pursuit”:
You looked like someone else that they needed to talk to.
You may have done something at Tim’s that they wanted to check out further.
The car you were in might have been redflagged for speeding so they were just checking up on you.
If it was late at night, he/she/they might have wanted to follow the vehicle to ensure that the people were not DUI.
Or he/she/they might have been bored and just wanted to give a couple of innocent guy an escort to their house :wink:

CrazyMike is right, the RCMP sometimes have their hands tied by the rules and sometimes changing some would help them make the place safer. The problem is, nobody knows exactly what is the appropriate amount of power to give them. I certainly don’t agree with the bill discussed earlier in this thread, but the mere fact that it is presented means that some people want it in effect to allow more power to the RCMP.
On the other hand, big drug dealers and gangs can do a lot of bad things before enough evidence is gathered to nail them. And even then, one small mistake in the evidence collection can throw the whole thing out of the courts and back to square one with the offenders more knowledgeable on how to avoid being caught. In such cases, I think the RCMP should have more power. But that would also mean that some innocent people could be caught in the process.
There lies the dilemma.

[quote=“CrazyMike”]

This is always an interesting topic because on one side of the coin we tie the hands of those who protect us and critisize them when they seek the tools to do so. On the other when we are victimized we then complain that those same people aren’t doing thier jobs and how they should do more to protect us.

Mike[/quote]

Im sorry, its called a warrant, as in they need an unbiased third party to decide it is ok to invade your privacy. Their hands should be tied down if they have the power to invade our lives who will police them to make sure they arent just tapping everyone and filtering for keywords?

If you give them free reign then you need someone to police the police and who will police the police of the police? and so on and so on. Having just cause and getting a warrant to tap phone/internet usage is not perfect but its the best option we have.

I certainly don’t disagree with you. Think about my original point though. What you say now is all fine. Think about how you’ll feel on this topic tomorrow though if tonight someone breaks into your mothers home and brutally rapes and kills her. Would you then be amongst the many MANY people out there slamming the police because they don’t keep people like that off the streets?

There are no easy answers here. Just “how far” we let the police go is a constant struggle for those who make the rules.

Mike

[quote=“CrazyMike”]

I certainly don’t disagree with you. Think about my original point though. What you say now is all fine. Think about how you’ll feel on this topic tomorrow though if tonight someone breaks into your mothers home and brutally rapes and kills her. Would you then be amongst the many MANY people out there slamming the police because they don’t keep people like that off the streets?

There are no easy answers here. Just “how far” we let the police go is a constant struggle for those who make the rules.

Mike[/quote]

Honestly no, I would probably kill the guy but thats besides the point. Until you commit a crime you should not be treated like a criminal. Now if this guy had already been convicted of rape and got off early well thats a totally different story isnt it.

I dont expect the police to monitor my phone calls/internet browsing history simply because someone might rape my mother or bomb some building and kill thousands of people. How many major terrorist attacks have there been against canada? how about the US? is it really worth it to give up our freedom to prevent the random occurance of these acts.

I dont believe it is the freedom to express your opinions without fear of being arrested is vitally important to all of our other freedoms. There is an easy answer to this problem its called due process ie going to judge getting a warrant and then tapping my phone lines that way you need a GOOD reason.

Yes in some cases its already too late and really thats too bad but more people sacrificed their lives in the world wars to defend our freedom than died in 9/11. Should we forget the sacrifices made by the soldiers to defend our freedom in order to prevent a few people from dying? If you restrict all of our freedom of thought/actions would we really be safer? NO!

So whats the point take away our rights so we can all go to sleep at night believing the great osama cant come and get us? Any jackass can kill thousands of people and theres nothing anyone can do to stop it.

If the bill is passed, police will be able to see all of the webpages you’ve been to? If you’ve been somewhere like… a porno… a site of porno, they’ll know?

What are the logs going to look like? Is it just going to say

or is it going to be detailed?

[quote=“Shaw.ca”]Charles_T opened up 5 porno sites (4 girl-on-girl and one Kiddie). After minimizing all windows save one, his cursor lay still for 3 minutes 14 seconds, whereupon all windows were closed.
Thu Nov 17, 2005 5:48 am - Thu Nov 17, 2005 9:16 am - Thu Nov 17, 2005 9:50 am - Thu Nov 17, 2005 2:01 pm - Thu Nov 17, 2005 8:23 pm - Thu Nov 17, 2005 9:31 pm[/quote]

That’s the problem. Crimes are being committed and in order for the RCMP to solve them they need evidence collection. How much power are we ready to give them to gather that evidence is the dilemma I alluded to earlier.

You know, in these threads where we discuss issues, it is difficult to give a different perspective without being seen as taking one side. For example, CrazyMike never said he wanted the bill about the internet to be passed. He just wanted to use the idea to show a different perspective. Yet, because he said it in the thread talking about the bill, he gets pinned as being on one side without any nuance.
The same thing happened to me in the Bush thread. I never said I believed the conspiracy theorists. I just said tha the video was persuasive and that there were some things that I too found difficult to swallow in the official story. But I got pinned as being a defender of the conspiracy theory which I’m not.

Unfortunately, this is how some people get turned off discussions because when giving an opinion, the whole things turns into a debate where a winner must be declared. If everything was black and white, life would be simple. Alas it isn’t and so are issues.

From BigThumb, the sensitive guy!

That means there will be alot of Cops, lawyers and judges looking stupid once again. It will never go.

I am not saying he is for or against the bill, but the bill is wrong 100% wrong.

So what you are saying is in order to catch the criminals who would ordinarily get away because the crimes either leave no trace or go un-noticed we need to track everyones calls and internet traffic.

If a crime has been commited i believe they should have the right and do have the right to search your phone records computer history etc.
However if no crime has been commited should your computer/phone be tapped in order to prevent it? I dont believe so Why should the innocent suffer because of the guilty?

This just brings up more questions so if i was to say talk about smoking a joint in my house on the phone and that call was monitored I just commited a crime and will be arrested? where do we draw the line?

Perhaps we need a faster system of issuing warrants but I do not believe we should give free reign to monitor anyone they see fit that is just bad.

Here is the perfect example of what I was talking about!

[quote=“jesus”]
So what you are saying is in order to catch the criminals who would ordinarily get away because the crimes either leave no trace or go un-noticed we need to track everyones calls and internet traffic.
.[/quote]

Even though:

[quote=“BigThumb”]
I certainly don’t agree with the bill discussed earlier in this thread[/quote]

[quote=“BigThumb”]Here is the perfect example of what I was talking about!

[quote=“jesus”]
So what you are saying is in order to catch the criminals who would ordinarily get away because the crimes either leave no trace or go un-noticed we need to track everyones calls and internet traffic.
.[/quote]

Even though:

Uh huh… doesnt matter what you said earlier in the thread I am not attacking you personally I am attacking this idea…

“That’s the problem. Crimes are being committed and in order for the RCMP to solve them they need evidence collection. How much power are we ready to give them to gather that evidence is the dilemma I alluded to earlier.

I disagree with the statement they need more power nothing against you personally. After a crime is commited they should be granted the necissary tools to solve it but it is almost impossible to prevent crimes and a nation wide database of all possible criminals wont help

So there should not be much difference, because now they still work in the same manner, we have the problem with slimballs working chatlines and hitting on many innocent young victims,they have to be stopped. preditors in our communities must be caught with the cooperation of some of the victims.

Because of this post you’re gonna get a stop sign ticket now buddy.

[quote=“jesus”]Until you commit a crime you should not be treated like a criminal. Now if this guy had already been convicted of rape and got off early well thats a totally different story isnt it…

I dont expect the police to monitor my phone calls/internet browsing history simply because someone might rape my mother or bomb some building and kill thousands of people. Is it really worth it to give up our freedom to prevent the random occurance of these acts…

I dont believe it is the freedom to express your opinions without fear of being arrested is vitally important to all of our other freedoms. There is an easy answer to this problem its called due process ie going to judge getting a warrant and then tapping my phone lines that way you need a GOOD reason…

Any jackass can kill thousands of people and theres nothing anyone can do to stop it.[/quote]

I completely agree. “Innocent until proven guilty” seems to be a phrase forgotten in our society lately.

[quote=“jesus”]So what you are saying is in order to catch the criminals who would ordinarily get away because the crimes either leave no trace or go un-noticed we need to track everyones calls and internet traffic.

If a crime has been commited i believe they should have the right and do have the right to search your phone records computer history etc.
However if no crime has been commited should your computer/phone be tapped in order to prevent it? I dont believe so Why should the innocent suffer because of the guilty?

This just brings up more questions so if i was to say talk about smoking a joint in my house on the phone and that call was monitored I just commited a crime and will be arrested? where do we draw the line?

Perhaps we need a faster system of issuing warrants but I do not believe we should give free reign to monitor anyone they see fit that is just bad.[/quote]

Even judges get late-night phone calls to approve a warrant. Our system has its due-processes, and its checks and balances in there for a REASON.

Same reason that an officer has to have “sufficient cause” to search your vehicle. They simply can’t search it because of the size of your spoiler.

This reminds me a few years back when the Calgary Transit cops wanted to carry side-arms. There was no issue (no history either) of violence on the C-Trains or anything like that - they (and the union) wanted to “protect themselves”, and “crack-down” on the people who didn’t pay the fare, and fled when confronted. Then, CFCN did a report on the whole she-bang, and as it turns out, the majority of people on transit who didn’t pay the fare were students and low-income persons.

“Shooting students who didn’t pay the $2.50 fare”. Needless to say, they backed down real quick after that. Of course, I lost track of the story after I left Cowtown…

Personally, I’m surprised at the amount of freedoms that our American neighbors have lost since 9/11 (Patriot Act, etc), and I’ve been glad that it hasn’t followed suit up here… until now.

I respect the job the cops have to do, and I respect at times that it is a life-threating job as well. But there are rules and regulations in place to protect them, to protect us, and most importantly - protect our rights.

I completely agree, but perhaps instead of simply diminishing our personal freedoms to try to remedy the problem, maybe we should correct the cause? Who is really at fault in regards to this?

And so continues the great debate as to how much the “parents” are responsible for this. The computer has taken over as the in-home “babysitter”, and I find that more and more kids under 15 know almost as much as I did before I went to college when it comes to computers.

Personally, I believe that under the age of 15-16ish, the responsibility lies solely with the parent.

In our house, the pre-teen has a locked-down WinXP account, no address bar, no members.msn.com listing, only approved favorites, chat logs, and we have account auditing turned on.

What does that mean?

The computer sits in the living room for all to see, and even if we’re not there we can go through the logs to see what’s been going on. I know many parents don’t take this route - in fact I know that many parents stick a computer in the kids room just to keep them “out of sight, out of mind”. And then they wonder “how could this have happened to MY family?!” Yes, it can happen to my family - but the chance of it happening is greatly diminished.

To use an analogy; I don’t think that we need to fix the bridge while the car’s on it, I think we need to back the car off the bridge in order to fix it right.

Hmmm… let’s see.

Websence-like HTTP tracking.

  • Packet-sniffing each IP, and using reverse DNS to resolve.

  • Storage of the data.

  • Database to sort the data.

  • Interface to access the data.

  • Storage for 7 years.

  • 2 different IT companies to do it

  • Another IT company to do it right


My monthly broadband bill = mulitply by 5