I want a public apology from Vic Toews - only last I heard he’s not only saying he’s been misquoted (*by Hansard?!) * but he’s flat out denying that he said what he said when he lined up all his opponents with child pornographers.
Why is it that no one in this group of clowns can own up to the bullshit they spout?
I don’t know what’s worse - a corrupt government that insults me, or a corrupt government that doesn’t ? :rolleyes:
Well, I was trying to give the current government the benefit of the doubt. Maybe it was a common way to hide controversial measures under Chrétien or Martin as well, but I must say I’d never heard of it until now.
Is it just me or has this government been particularly prone to missteps and public backlash? It certainly could be my left leaning perspective or misremembering previous government gaffes, but it seems like they’ve been dodging new bullets on a weekly basis.
I’d suggest it is fairly recent. For the most part, the names of laws have been fairly descriptive:
Short Title: Criminal Code
Long Title: An Act Respecting the Criminal Law
They can get a little wordy:
Short Title: Broadcasting Act
Long Title: An Act respecting broadcasting and to amend certain Acts in relation thereto and in relation to radiocommunication
… but it’s still a good descriptor.
No, it’s always been this way. But now the Internet results in very rapid and crushing shaming.
The change from measured-in-days news cycles to instant news has really changed politics. Back in the day it would have taken at least 24 hours for Toews’s comments to hit the papers or the nightly news, and then further news cycles for editorialists to weigh in. Now it takes hours. The news is spread, editorials are writted, Facebook updates are posted, and now there’s a Twitter feed about Vic Toews’s divorce, all in 24-48 hours.
It’s not you.
There is a race between Conservativies in Canada and Republicans in US on who will come up with crazier political idea.
Following is the short list of stuff Cons have done in maybe last couple of months:
Tory Abortion motion - http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/backbench-tory-files-motion-to-study-human-being-definition/article2328201/
Tory and Foreign aid & protests - http://www.edmontonjournal.com/business/Tory+calls+foreign+protest+funds/6131442/story.html
Harper and aboriginals - http://www.vancouversun.com/life/Harper+should+admit+mistake+Martin/6035265/story.html
Fake problem of bogus refugees - http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tories-unveil-bill-to-thwart-bogus-refugees/article2340521/
Fake citizenship ceremony - Opinion Articles | Guelph Mercury-Tribune
Fake Lake - http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/tories-pilloried-for-fake-lake-at-g8g20-media-centre/article1595348/
Fake Old Age Security crisis - http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/theres-no-old-age-security-crisis-pbo-report-shows/article2330998/
Fake comparisons (Baird compares Iran’s threats to Hitler’s racist book) - http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/baird-compares-irans-threats-to-hitlers-racist-book/article2327090/
It’s all fake.
Yup. Latest news reveals the account was created from within the House of Commons via computer. The IP address also traces unreleated content uploaded to the net promoting NDP policies. Might not be an NDP MP, but someone working on the Hill did.
Classy.
BTW the Ottawa Citizen sleuthed out this information, not Vic Toews.
That’s rather funny, actually, that it seems to be coming from the House of Commons. I wonder though - are IP addresses randomly reassigned to different employees at any given time? Also, could a proxy be used to make it look like it’s coming from the House, even if it’s coming from Yellowknife or something? I’m just wondering whether the source of the IP address really means anything.
From what I can tell, nothing @vikileaks is doing is actually illegal, as all the information is taken from public records.
I’m rather impressed by the public backlash on this.
Individual devices connected to the House’s network will use an internal IP address that won’t go beyond the gateway router. As far as the outside world is concerned, all the traffic is to/from the IP address of the gateway router - a journalist wouldn’t be able to fine it down any further than that without having access to internal logs from the time - assuming that they even opt to log their traffic with that much granularity and retention.
Because they are too busy creating legislation to collect the names and addresses of children who use the internet. Or wait, that’s what the child predators do . . .
So does this mean that police will be able to identify who calls lawyers via the internet? So much for client confidentiality. A good way to put a chill on people getting counsel to protect their rights.
In matters like these, it is best to ask “What Hoover would do?”
Oh, wait a minute . . .
I have no concerns whatsoever that my personal data is of any concern to anyone in the police service or CSIS, therefore it is not necessary for them to obtain, keep, or disseminate any of my personal data.
Let’s identify what tools the police truly need to get the job done in going after predators, but at the same time, let’s not throw the baby out with the bath water by being over-broad in the granting of police powers against the public. After all, are we not supposed to be innocent until proven guilty?
Requiring warrants is a minor thing to require that goes a long way to protecting innocent persons’ rights. Too bad the Harper government wanted to skip this very vital part of the investigatory process.
I can’t parse the first sentence or make sense of the second. Do people call lawyers via the internet? Doesn’t someone who’s arrested or under suspicion call a lawyer anyway? How would this bill stop people from summoning a lawyer?
I don’t think Maher Arar thought he had anything to hide, either. Guilt by association can have drastic consequences.
Yes, people contact lawyers via the internet. The legal advice is not necessarily tied to having been arrested. People may chose to not seek legal counsel if they think it will lead to the police identifying them. Lawyers of our jurisdiction are formally bound to not reveal the identiy of their clients without consent or necessity, which therefore means that if we communicate with clients via the internet we would be risking their being identified and breaching our formal obligaiton to client confidentiality.
VOIP- that’s voice-over-IP, right? - things like Skype or the phone plan cable providers offer, via a modem…all of that would be subjected to this law? Anything I say on the phone, to anyone, since that’s the type of phone plan I have, could be arbitrarily recorded by the government and police without a warrant?
No thank you.
No. No. And no.
All the police would be able to do (without a warrant ) is ask for your address, email, phone # and IP from your ISP: that’s it.
Personal information like what web sites you’ve visited, etc. would still require a warrant.
But I don`t want them too and currently I fail to see the pressing need for them to have access to that data.
Or, to put it another way, they can have that allowance when every single police action is streamed live on the internet for everyone to see. Actually I have *more *of a right to that, then they have a right to anything a business and I opt to have.
Neither do I.
I find it interesting that the bill that may end up being the Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act, mentions children only once, in the short title. Nowhere else in the bill are children mentioned; and as I pointed out above, the bill’s provisions are very broad in scope. This leads me to believe that the bill can be used for more than just attacking child porn–it could be used any time the police get a little curious about somebody for any reason at all. That in itself is worrisome.