[dead]
Bill C-22, the Lawful Access Act: Dangerous backdoor surveillance risks remain
331–340 of 374 posts
Re: Bill C-22, the Lawful Access Act: Dangerous backdoor surveillance risks remain
#332Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you suggesting that police should not be allowed to investigate anyone?
It sounds like they're suggesting that police shouldn't be allowed to bypass your civil liberties.
One of which is apparently the liberty to not be investigated without your knowledge.
Re: Bill C-22, the Lawful Access Act: Dangerous backdoor surveillance risks remain
#333Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you suggesting that when investigating members of a criminal organization, they should be notified? It seems pretty reasonable for there to be cases where making a target aware of investigation would be detrimental to proving the illegal activity they are currently engaged in but would likely discontinue if literally told “we are monitoring you specifically now”.
What ever happened to hanging around, being a nuisance, and asking them questions? The real problem is cops are scared to cop. A detective used to show up around a place and just make their presence known. That was enough to notify you of investigation prematurely. Now, in the digital surveillance age, they can just sit in the basement eating Cheetos and phone in a SWAT.
So we're worried about cops violating civil liberties by not getting a warrant, but we'd rather they go harass random (potentially innocent) civilians to do investigations?
Re: Bill C-22, the Lawful Access Act: Dangerous backdoor surveillance risks remain
#334Earlier quoted context omitted.
What ever happened to hanging around, being a nuisance, and asking them questions? The real problem is cops are scared to cop. A detective used to show up around a place and just make their presence known. That was enough to notify you of investigation prematurely. Now, in the digital surveillance age, they can just sit in the basement eating Cheetos and phone in a SWAT.
So we're worried about cops violating civil liberties by not getting a warrant, but we'd rather they go harass random (potentially innocent) civilians to do investigations?
You missed the point. The point was, like in mob movies or crime dramas, you go outside where the criminals are.
Re: Bill C-22, the Lawful Access Act: Dangerous backdoor surveillance risks remain
#335Earlier quoted context omitted.
What ever happened to hanging around, being a nuisance, and asking them questions? The real problem is cops are scared to cop. A detective used to show up around a place and just make their presence known. That was enough to notify you of investigation prematurely. Now, in the digital surveillance age, they can just sit in the basement eating Cheetos and phone in a SWAT.
What happened? We collectively over the course of time decided that the individual right not to be “harassed”, valid or not, overrides the ability to behave in such a manner. That happened because other officers proved they could not be trusted to exercise such power responsibly. “Being a nuisance” is a toe-length away from “harassing an ordinary citizen” when you don’t actually have proof. So, harassing a citizen to…
Bad apples…
Yeah, it’s what happened. It’s not what has to happen.
Re: Bill C-22, the Lawful Access Act: Dangerous backdoor surveillance risks remain
#336Earlier quoted context omitted.
I grant you that it is different, but you kind of left totally unaddressed the fact that it is not very powerful at the moment. The US is in far more danger than Canada.
How is it not very powerful? Just because you don't agree with whatever decisions are made doesn't mean that it's not working exactly as designed. The tariffs which are a lynchpin of foreign policy was deemed unconstitutional, which is something you wouldn't expect under a country controlled by the government. The system is working.
I don't think this tariffs are a good example of
> Americans believe their rights are God-given and protect them from their government
As I understand it, the unconstitutionality of tariffs is due to it being considered a tax so cannot be enforced by the executive branch. But there's no right being infringed if the other branches of government would have made them into law, nor is there anything that would stop the executive branch from implementing more restrictive trade barriers.
Re: Bill C-22, the Lawful Access Act: Dangerous backdoor surveillance risks remain
#337Canadians have no rights that the government can't override, unlike the US where the Constitution grants God-given rights over and above the government. Pierre Trudeau built in a safeguard so that the Canadian government or provinces can override whatever rights they want as they deem fit. They also have the War Measures Act or the Emergencies Act which they've also used to override any rights that Canadians have. Bu…
>unlike the US where the Constitution grants God-given rights over and above the government.
Why don't you ask the folks in towns riddled with ICE agents how well those god-given rights are being respected. Your main point stands about infringement of freedoms and privacy, but your interpretation, or hallucination that anywhere is actually abiding by their founding principals is wildly naive.
The government will always override it's citizens rights and freedoms if it has it's power challenged. 2nd amendment collapsed in California when Black Panthers decided arming themselves was a great way to push back on kkkops. 1st and 14th amendment rights get trampled and attacked at just about any protest in history.
You can talk about ideals until your blue in the face but governments have always done whatever they want and almost never face repercussion. Anything that challenges the government keeping us in place as servants of capital is met with violence and incarceration. Any social progress comes at the cost of innocent blood being spilled to make the situation distasteful enough that the government minimally acquiesces as it keeps marching down the same path it always has.
Re: Bill C-22, the Lawful Access Act: Dangerous backdoor surveillance risks remain
#338From browsing through the linked text of the bill, this sounds reasonable and in line with the lawful access to records granted to the security services in other western democracies, so that they can fulfil their duties. Without diving into hyperbole and far-fetched dystopic speculation, what exactly is the problem?
Government overreach isn't far-fetched dystopic speculation and privacy is important to freedom.
But did you read the bill? The meat of it is the police want to be able to ask a carrier if they have any information on you at all and the carrier has to answer a yes or no and if it’s a yes, then the police can go to a judge and ask for a warrant.. right now the carrier doesn’t have to answer at all so it’s difficult for the police to do their job at all because they have to get the judge to sign off for every carrier just to find out if that carrier even has any information.
Re: Bill C-22, the Lawful Access Act: Dangerous backdoor surveillance risks remain
#339Earlier quoted context omitted.
It sounds like they're suggesting that police shouldn't be allowed to bypass your civil liberties.
One of which is apparently the liberty to not be investigated without your knowledge.
Where did they say you can't be "investigated without your knowledge" ?
Re: Bill C-22, the Lawful Access Act: Dangerous backdoor surveillance risks remain
#340Earlier quoted context omitted.
#2 - Not sure why you think this is a violation. You join a workplace with a union and gain all the benefits from collective bargaining, so yeah, you should pay for union dues.
You say that I gain all the benefits from collective bargaining but I had no other choice. Maybe I don't even like the contract very much and would have bargained for other things than what the union negotiated for. The union claims to negotiate on my behalf but if they really respected me they would give me the ability to opt out. Your hypothetical isn't even always the case. When unions form, usually there are empl…
[dead]