Friday, March 9, 2012

"If you don't agree with me, you like kiddie porn"

What sort of clown says something like this?
I sorta liked Vic Toews, until I heard this stupidity, spoken from the floor of the House of Commons. Don't take my word for it, let Vic tell you himself, "He can either stand with us or with the child pornographers".
Nice.  Vic was defending his latest Crime bill, claimed to make the world a safer place for children, protecting them from online predators.
His line was (sort of) stolen from George W. after 9/11, W was referring to the US foreign policy and frankly, Canada must have been viewed as being "against" our best friends... good on Canada.
This is borderline fascism, so I guess I should quote a fascist.  

" What good fortune for governments that the people do not think."
Adding to the fray of mis information and propaganda while claiming to clear things up and tell people the "truth" is the Vancouver Deputy Police Chief.
Apparently, this pillar of trust (who couldn't coordinate security at a Stanley Cup viewing, nor send officers to the disruption in a timely fashion, nor charge people for their crimes in any less than almost 9 months) thinks this Bill is a-OK. He comes out defending the bill saying,

 "This bill does not allow police to monitor emails, phone calls or Internet surfing at will without a warrant, as has been implied or explicitly stated,"
 
Umm... not exactly true... and he was speaking FOR the Canadian Association of Police Chiefs. You'd hope he would get his story at least a little closer to reality. 
The bill says,

17. (1) Any police officer may, orally or in writing, request a telecommunications service provider to provide the officer with the information referred to in subsection 16(1) in the following circumstances: 

(a) the officer believes on reasonable grounds that the urgency of the situation is such that the request cannot, with reasonable diligence, be made under that subsection; 

(b) the officer believes on reasonable grounds that the information requested is immediately necessary to prevent an unlawful act that would cause serious harm to any person or to property; and 

(c) the information directly concerns either the person who would perform the act that is likely to cause the harm or is the victim, or intended victim, of the harm.

What else does this "esteemed" Deputy Chief say?

"The global internet, cellular phones and social media have been widely adopted and enjoyed by Canadians, young and old. …These new technologies are also being used as a safe haven for criminal activity — identity theft, child and sexual exploitation, gangs, organized crime and national security threats," he said.

Why stop there? Why only internet, cellular and social media? Why not open my mail and tap my phone without a warrant? Why not place surveillance audio equipment in my home to record conversations? Why not just come in the door and check things out in person? Why would you need a warrant for those things assuming you are believing there is an "urgent situation"?

Here in Winnipeg, Police have already been circumventing a need for a warrant. Remember Constables Jess Zebrun and Peter O'Kane? Forgot them? What, so soon?

These two "officers of the law" were charged with perjury after allegedly lying to a magistrate about how they got information about a whack of coke in a room at the Westin. It is alleged that they lied to a hotel employee about a kidnapped girl, got into the room, took a "sneak-and-peak" and when asking for a warrant to go arrest the drug dealer, claimed they got their intel from an "informant". (They were acquitted on a technicality)

THESE are the type of Police I want to be protected from. The guys who read my blog, where I say things like, "Chief Hair-Do should get his boys to close up the drug houses in the West End instead of ticketing people for having too little washer fluid." and think they can now track my IP address for anything they might want to "fish" for.  Don't think it can happen? 

"Oh no... not in MY Canada!"

Ya right. 

Winnipeg Police are no less excited than Vancouver Police about the new Bill. 
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/cops-back-internet-snooping-140407113.html

What I really like is the name of the Bill. It's called the Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act  (http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/media/nr/2012/nr20120214-1-eng.aspx) Or is it?

“ What?”, you say, “An official government page couldn't possibly be lying to us... could it? Not in MY Canada!” Ya right.

  If you look at the Bill itself, that same name is provided in the section called "short title", but then RIGHT BELOW that, the REAL title becomes clear.  Investigating and Preventing Criminal Comunications Act .
 (BTW, the word "comunications" was copied right out of the PDF document, so don't tell me it's spelled "communication... I know.)

Sure, some pin head could say, "That's just the title of Section 1", except that neither sections 2 or 3 have titles.

This act is a complete erosion of our rights, and to quote Ben Franklin,

"They that would give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."


Vic goes on to pontificate about how hard Police have a time at investigating "these types of crimes" alluding again to the exploitation of children, but his own example is SO lame he should have been embarrassed to have even used it. 

“In just one wrenching example from the Kingston Police, as reported in the Kingston Whig Standard, Det. Const. Stephanie Morgan received information via the Internet that an individual might attempt suicide.
When she approached an Internet service provider for help in locating the individual, she ran into a brick wall.
"In that case, the Internet service provider refused to give us that information because of the person's privacy," Morgan said"To this day, I don't know who that person was who sent the message. I don't know if they really were in distress or if they later committed suicide. I think that would not have happened if this legislation was in place."

OK Vic. Was this child going to commit suicide because they were exploited on the internet? Nope... this was one example where a Police officer might have attempted to prevent someone from possibly harming themselves... maybe. These are the same Police who don't have time to review surveillance tapes to solve crimes, but now they want to monitor social media, or even if they don't monitor it, they want to be able to follow up on "tips". 

Vic is getting older... he says he has proposed the Bill, but doesn't even know what's in it. The first time I skimmed through it I found Section 17, but Vic didn't even know it was there! Honestly... I'm not making this up! I couldn't!  WHAT ARE WE PAYING YOU FOR VIC? 
Honestly?

Here's my theory about how this Bill came about.

People, (not saying people like me, just saying...)used to be able to steal satellite TV, oops, access "free to air"  by downloading codes from a site. These codes could be written to a flash drive and installed on a satellite box, and voila! "free satellite" including all the movie channels... everything. Bell, Star Choice, sports, hockey...( ya... that too). 
To combat this, Bell and the other service providers had a code written that is much more difficult to hack, but it's been done. Problem is, it changes so you have to stream the hacking info from a site to your box as it changes or your program gets scrambled. Bell wanted to have this piracy stopped, but couldn't go after the people doing it.They didn't have to tools (or laws) in place to allow it.

So what’s my point? Let’s see if the Bill can make it for me.

327. (1) Everyone who, without lawful excuse, makes, possesses, sells, offers for sale,
 imports, obtains for use, distributes or makes available a device that is designed or
adapted primarily to use a telecommunication facility or obtain a telecommunication
service without payment of a lawful charge, under circumstances that give rise to a reasonableinference that the device has been used or is or was intended to be used for that purpose, is
(a) guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than
two years; or 
(b) guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
(2) If a person is convicted of an offence under subsection (1) or paragraph 326(1)(b), in
addition to any punishment that is imposed, any device in relation to which the offence was
committed or the possession of which constituted the offence may be ordered forfeited to
Her Majesty and may be disposed of as the Attorney General directs.
(3) No order for forfeiture is to be made in respect of telecommunication facilities or
equipment by means of which an offence under subsection (1) is committed if they are
owned by a person engaged in providing a telecommunication service to the public or
form part of such a person’s telecommunication service or system and that person is not
a party to the offence.
(4) In this section, “device” includes 
(a) a component of a device; and
(b) a computer program within the meaning of subsection 342.1(2).

Not in MY Canada!

Ya... right.

BTW, that first quote, the one from the fascist, remember it?

"What good fortune for governments that the people do not think."

Adolf Hitler 

Sign the petition against Bill C-30 at  http://openmedia.ca/StopSpying

2 comments: