Yet another attack on our internet privacy! !!!Please Sign this!!!!

[Cock]

Salvador, from that post you aren't clear on what this bill does, I ask that you please read this before making a decision.
https://docs.google.com/a/openmedia.../edit?hl=en_GB&authkey=CI2st_EI&ndplr=1&pli=1

 

[$alvador]

Nah man I read the bill's original text. It's pretty much what I expected it to be. What I don't understand is why this is shocking or revolutionary. Cops can get this shit done WITH a warrant, the bill clearly states that these extremes are only to be used if there is reason to suspect that the information is time-sensitive which points to what I was talking about with terrorist plots and shit. Who do you think is going to complain if someone blows up The Ex because the authorities had to wait for a warrant to find out what's going on? The only new thing is that ISPs are required now to decrypt the information as well, but of course that is only if it was encrypted through an ISP service in the first place. None of this concerns me because I'm not a career criminal and if I were you bet your ass I'd be using client-side encryption and sending messages via laptop through random wifi connections. Furthermore, I did not vote Conservatives in the past federal election so I'm fully entitled to sit back and wait to see how bad everything gets before I give my big, righteous told-ya-so.

 

[Cock]

Nah man I read the bill's original text. It's pretty much what I expected it to be. What I don't understand is why this is shocking or revolutionary. Cops can get this shit done WITH a warrant, the bill clearly states that these extremes are only to be used if there is reason to suspect that the information is time-sensitive which points to what I was talking about with terrorist plots and shit.

That link wasn't to the bill.
Since you clearly don't have enough respect to even click on it, I guess I have to go point by point.
Why are you talking about Police as the only "authority" when in the bill is loosely worded?- Hence why the word "authority" is in quote's on OpenMedia.
Why is there is a need for this extreme change when the government has presented no evidence that demonstrates how Canada’s current legal regime has hindered police investigations, and why this extreme legislation is needed?
Why should an "authority"be able to *go around* the police and our judicial system?
Why should can an "authority" elect to put an electronic "wire tap" on your internet connection without a warrant?
Why are these new laws not getting a proper debate in the House of Commons or committee hearings?
Having Privacy is part of our Canadian Charter of Rights. You're pulling a classic "I've got nothing to hide so go ahead" Having Privacy doesn't mean you're hiding a wrong, it means you're sticking to your Rights.

Who do you think is going to complain if someone blows up The Ex because the authorities had to wait for a warrant to find out what's going on?

again this has nothing to do with bill, plus your argument in invalid.

While it is important that law enforcement has the necessary tools to address online crime issues, there is no evidence that the current legal framework surrounding online surveillance has impeded police investigations.

The only new thing is that ISPs are required now to decrypt the information as well, but of course that is only if it was encrypted through an ISP service in the first place.

No this means that ALL ENCRYPTED DATA bank info, paypal, VPN, etc etc will be accessible to any "authority" and can get this info without going though our Police to get a Warrant.

Internet service providers will be forced to take steps to counter online encryption and anonymity and implement tracking technology, and they will pass the cost of doing so onto their customers.

Oh and the Government isn't going to pay for any of these things, the ISP's will which means everyone's Internet bill goes up. It's Harper's wet dream, you get to pay to have your privacy ripped away. It's a Win-Win for him.

None of this concerns me because I'm not a career criminal and if I were you bet your ass I'd be using client-side encryption and sending messages via laptop through random wifi connections.

As i stated above, all encrypted data is unencrypted, and having privacy doesn't mean you're hiding something bad.

the problem with the nothing to hide argument is the underlying assumption that privacy is about hiding bad things. Agreeing with this assumption concedes far too much ground and leads to an unproductive discussion of information people would likely want or not want to hide.

As Bruce Schneier aptly notes, the nothing to hide argument stems from a faulty ‘premise that privacy is about hiding a wrong.’

Furthermore, I did not vote Conservatives in the past federal election so I'm fully entitled to sit back and wait to see how bad everything gets before I give my big, righteous told-ya-so.

So while Harper slowly demolishes our healthcare your going to sit back and say "I told you so"? That doesn't really help anything...... since you didn't vote Conservative it's even more important for you to get off your ass and do something.

 

[$alvador]

That link wasn't to the bill.
Since you clearly don't have enough respect to even click on it, I guess I have to go point by point.

i did check out your link, it was just someone talking about the bill not the bill itself. i'm just sayin source documents are best.

Why are you talking about Police as the only "authority" when in the bill is loosely worded?- Hence why the word "authority" is in quote's on OpenMedia.
Why is there is a need for this extreme change when the government has presented no evidence that demonstrates how Canada’s current legal regime has hindered police investigations, and why this extreme legislation is needed?

It's no more loosely worded than anything else presented to parliament and the senate. To the contrary, it's fairly clear about intentions. I don't personally see any need for this extreme legislation but that doesn't mean there isn't one. IIRC, some such laws were introduced under some initiative to stop child porn rings operating through the internet and nobody thought this was suspect then.

Why should an "authority"be able to *go around* the police and our judicial system?
Why should can an "authority" elect to put an electronic "wire tap" on your internet connection without a warrant?
Why are these new laws not getting a proper debate in the House of Commons or committee hearings?
Having Privacy is part of our Canadian Charter of Rights. You're pulling a classic "I've got nothing to hide so go ahead" Having Privacy doesn't mean you're hiding a wrong, it means you're sticking to your Rights.

the judge is an "authority" too, he's the one who signs warrants. where does it say any old authority can "go around" the police? Feds are police too, they just don't wear a uniform.

again this has nothing to do with bill, plus your argument in invalid.

my argument is invalid because i disagree on this?

No this means that ALL ENCRYPTED DATA bank info, paypal, VPN, etc etc will be accessible to any "authority" and can get this info without going though our Police to get a Warrant.

You do realize the bank encrypts your banking information, not your ISP, and the bill says nothing about involving any banks or installing keyloggers on our PCs.

Oh and the Government isn't going to pay for any of these things, the ISP's will which means everyone's Internet bill goes up. It's Harper's wet dream, you get to pay to have your privacy ripped away. It's a Win-Win for him.

It says in the bill that CSIS or the RCMP will foot the bill for equipment required. I'm sure that cost comes back to us too, but if the government doesn't spend it on this they'll spend it on something else. As long as the deficit gets eliminated and they don't raise taxes to pay for it, that's not such a big deal for us.

As i stated above, all encrypted data is unencrypted, and having privacy doesn't mean you're hiding something bad.

If you had read the actual document presented to parliament, you'll notice that there is a section talking about how ISPs are not expected to even attempt to decrypt 3rd party encryption.

So while Harper slowly demolishes our healthcare your going to sit back and say "I told you so"? That doesn't really help anything...... since you didn't vote Conservative it's even more important for you to get off your ass and do something.

I don't need to do anything because I don't have a problem with it. I'll leave it up to the Supreme Court to decide whether my rights are being upheld or not. They've had a pretty good track record at that kinda shit. Anyway, this bill could just bite the dust before the senate.

Honestly I don't see what's to be gained by completely overreacting. Police will use these powers to help build a case, and you're acting like police are for some mysterious reason going to use this to build whole cases around mild-mannered Canadians. We're talking about people who abandoned roadside drug testing because it cost too much to process all the spit. Chill da fuck out mon :)

 

[Cock]

I'm not going to quote anything it's too much freeking work.

Okay i'll admit, I went a little nuts with the Encryption stuff. - I hadn't read that part of the bill, I just drank the openmedia koolaid.
Yes I'm aware that my ISP doesn't encrypted my Bank/Paypal info, but that doesn't mean they can't get into it.
Are you aware that DNS has nothing to do with tracking people?
Also your comment of "anyone who thinks we are actually anonymous online is seriously ignorant of how this internet thing works" With this and the the Previous DNS statement I think you're the one who's "ignorant".

I think we differ on the whole "authority" thing. I don't trust any "authority" (police or other wise) that has free range access to any and all information about every Canadian who's online. I don't see why anyone's "digital footprint" should be tracked by any system.
Personally I see this bill as taking away my online privacy and anonymity, I will always fight to keep them. I will never give up my civil liberties for more security. Any bill that threats to spy on me and my life is a direct attack on my privacy, and further more I will never "chill out" when my privacy is on the line or trust any court to uphold such things. To me there is no such thing as overreacting when privacy is being threatened.

More on the *going around the Law* issue, My ISP will give direct access without a Judge approving a Warrant, and to me that's wrong. We have a system in place for a reason, and so far there is no evidence to change it.

Again you bring up the the whole typical Terrorist **scare tactic**, this is how the states got that lovely Patriot Act to pass. This argument is invalid because these counter measures will only stop the script kiddies and yes, although you want to deny it, Torrents. It will also start to slowly remove other networks like newsgroups alt* libraries. It will fail against smart attacks and the people who are really paranoid about keeping their information private (ex; Terrorists, CP fuckers, and proper hackers). You should never have to give up Civil Liberties for Security it's a no-win situation for all involved.

You have a very different take on this Bill then myself and others do, I find it invasive and unnecessary as does Canada's Privacy Administrator. So, CSIS and the RCMP will pay for it, but their money comes from *drum roll* Tax payers!!!

 

[OG buckshot jr]

Cock's right 100%. Whether you overreact or not, the point still stands - you pay to have your liberties taken away. I don't want to move in the US' direction of "Oh my god it's terrorists!", as they wipe my freedoms out from under me. Harper is notorius for sniffing the US' ass when it comes to its policies, and this is a potentially huge move. Soon enough you'll see a complete loss of privacy, expensive, privatized healthcare and skyrocketing unemployment, terrible credit etc etc. You might call it overreacting, whereas 'we' (we, referring to anyone who might share my view, I don't mean to gang up on you Sal haha) might recognize it as "the first steps" in the wrong direction.

As a Canadian, I highly regard my liberties, as it gave my parents and lots of other people a reason to move here. Without those same liberties, there is no reason to stay here and it will turn into yet another shithole run by some shady-ass, shadow government that's no less corrupt as those in Africa.

So FUCK them, I'll fight until the end. Freedom is king.

 

[$alvador]

Honestly man, I understand the desire for freedom. Not to get all righteous and shit but it's pretty likely I understand fighting for freedom more than you or cock do since my dad had to escape to this very country under threat of death because he fought for freedom, and the rest of my family on both sides was torn apart fighting the same fight. The ripples of events that happened in the 1950s resonate with me to this very day when I wake up and am reminded of the fact that I can't just hop in my car and go visit my family like most people can.

I understand the desire for privacy too, again likely more than most Canadians since I have to swipe my data card through four sets of security doors before I can even get to my desk where I manage and acquire the personal information of thousands of Americans. You think what the cops may want to know about you is personal? You should see the kind of shit I'm up to my fucking eyeballs in daily. I would get my ass chewed out if I so much as wrote down some random person's DOB and left it around the office.

So you see where I'm coming from? If I actually felt for one second that our freedoms were being threatened, you can bet your ass I'd be at the resistance headquarters with warpaint on my face loading shells into the breech before even the janitor gets there. But, I don't, and thankfully, as a citizen of this fine country full of gypsies and other unsavoury native-and-foreign-grown shitheads, I never have felt my freedom of my privacy threatened in the least.

Let's keep in mind once more that this is just one of the MANY bills introduced to parliament with each session. Just because it is written, does not mean it shall be done. It still has to survive the parliament, then the senate, and even after it's brought into effect it can be overturned by the courts responsible for ensuring our rights are in fact upheld, which is the job of the courts not of the legislators introducing crazy laws to parliament for discussion.

Let's also keep in mind that getting all impassioned about one issue doesn't mean there aren't other issues being pushed for vote every other day of the year. What good is fighting tooth and nail to have the best privacy laws in the known universe if we allow the rest of the land we live on to be taken, piecemeal, by entities who are only concerned about profit? I'm all for being passionate about shit but let's calm down for a mo and check the aggression so that we can take a broader look at what's going on in the politics that affect us instead of getting so involved in one aspect of the whole picture that we start missing the forest for the trees and don't notice when all the other trees get taken away.

 

[dead mike]

I love walking out of the mosque every friday with a CSIS agent standing next to tv camera on a tripod recording everyone coming out. feels free man.

 

[dead mike]

2 minute video check it out, alex actually seems kinda calm about this lol.

[video]http://youtu.be/47zOyGUyxfU[/video]

 

[Genesis]

Signed that shizit