[gangstalking]

http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2009 ... alcomments

I found the below comment on the article and I found it interesting enough to repost it here.

$1:

OMFriday wrote:Posted 2009/06/21
at 12:08 AM ET

It is essential for all requests for private information by police to be examined by a judge that has the authority to grant or deny access to that information. Currently, to protect the public, the police must present a reason for wanting any information but this legislation will let them get it without reason, ie unwarranted. We must demand that there is a proven need for that information. The reasons police give for the need to circumvent a warrant are false and misleading. Police want this legislation passed because they want to gather information for their own purposes, not for the prevention of crime. They are currently forbidden from gathering information on people that are not suspects in ongoing investigations. This legislation would allow them to gather information on political adversaries, people who stand in the way or speak out against the police, or simply people they don't like. They would use this information unofficially by providing it to those who would assist the police. But there are many other ways the police would abuse this information and their code of silence and brotherhood will ensure these criminal activities are never exposed.

I think it's wonderful that Canadians have no problem with the police being able to request address, name, and other information without a warrent. I mean I have been on this forum so many times and watched people give opinions about Taser deaths and other information and it's wonderful that every is so open and willing to have their information accessable without any sort of fight.

$1:

# Allow law enforcement officials to obtain transmission data (routing information) that is sent or received via telephone or internet if authorized by a production order or warrant.
# Require telecommunications companies to keep data related to specific communications or subscribers if that information is needed in an investigation and requested via a preservation order.
# Allow police to remotely activate existing tracking devices that are found in some cars and in devices such as cellphones.

Wow activating those tracking devices on the cellphones, which can be done now in some cases, but it seems this will give them more leeway.

Sure they can request some of this information now, but ISP's have the right to refuse without a warrent. Also they are only support to request this information without a warrent under emergency conditions if I understand it correctly, but once this law passes, this will not be a factor and most people are not the least bit concerned.

Anyways I can't find the words.

[Dayseed]

gangstalking gangstalking:

Sure they can request some of this information now, but ISP's have the right to refuse without a warrent. Also they are only support to request this information without a warrent under emergency conditions if I understand it correctly, but once this law passes, this will not be a factor and most people are not the least bit concerned.

Anyways I can't find the words.

Because, how is that any different from a telephone book? Why is your ISP subscriber information different from having your name in the bloody phonebook? Come on, let's see some expert legal articulation!

Maybe you should read some caselaw, specifically R v. Plant, before you come back with your expert analysis. Tell the head-demons to shut-up and do some real research for a change.

[gangstalking]

Dayseed Dayseed:

Because, how is that any different from a telephone book? Why is your ISP subscriber information different from having your name in the bloody phonebook? Come on, let's see some expert legal articulation!

Maybe you should read some caselaw, specifically R v. Plant, before you come back with your expert analysis. Tell the head-demons to shut-up and do some real research for a change.

Well Dayseed this will probably escape your attention, but many people do not have thier personal details in the phone book.

Also if I write Dayseed is feeding people kool aid and they should not drink it, let's say you were an officer of the law, you could request my ISP provide my name and information without a warrent.

Also if some hot chick is posting steamy messages online, this could be abused to find out her name and address. I think that is slightly different than having one's name in the phone book.

Also the rules about the fact that ISP's will now have to retain your information is going to be different.

So that annonymous whistle-blower who posts information about police abuse, will not do so anymore, because no warrent will be required.

I know you were feeding people the fact that police can get this information anyways, but again they can now only do this in an emergency and otherwise they require a warrent? A warrent which leaves a trail and someone can go back and say hey this was justified.

There are so many senarios that I can think of. So in my opinion, if you post something right now, I can't pick up a phonebook and go looking for Dayseed, because you are posting on some forum and I have no way of knowing who you are, with this law, I could hire someone to dress as a cop, or hire a cop and request the information of that irritating poster. They don't have to provide a warrent, to get the name and address.

I have seen threads here where posters go off about taser deaths, so let's say some cop does not like that comment you made, this could be used to get your inforamtion, because a warrent is not required.

Not to mention the other portions about remotly activating tracking software that is on cellphones and cars. Currently the process is more difficult and this would make it more easy, to track the ex-wife as will do. Stalk others, etc.

I am sure that there will be some who will not abuse it, but as we have seen with the investigation into the taser death, there are bad elements that will abuse what they can.

[gangstalking]

$1:

The Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, or PIPEDA, already allows for internet service providers and other private companies to disclose personal information to law enforcement officials to comply with subpoenas or warrants, or in emergency situations where an individual's life, health or security is potentially threatened.

I like these guidelines because subpoenas, warrents, and emegency situations are still a protective barrier that many would like to have.

$1:

Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic privacy lawyer Kris Klein said the reason privacy advocates have resisted this kind of legislation in the past is that wiretapping electronic communications is fundamentally different from traditional phone taps.

Very different. It's not like picking up a phone book.

$1:

With a phone wiretap, police would obtain a warrant from a judge giving them the right to listen in on conversations after the warrant is issued, and they needed to be listening to the communication while it was happening.
Powers would broaden

With the kind of electronic wiretap law enforcement officials are seeking, those powers would broaden, said Klein, since law enforcement officials could require internet service providers to provide access to months of older communications.

"This is going to recruit the private sector, whether it's Bell, Rogers or whoever, to become agents of the state," Klein told CBC News.

That or they will become further agents of the state then before. One gentleman who provides security explained that with these new changes, he would be required to retain the information of his clients, and then hand it over if required. That is different than now, because without a warrent, he could still say no.

$1:

"They will be recording all the conversations people are having by email, text message or whatever and storing it so that when the police do come with the warrant, the police can retroactively look back at what people are saying," he said.

"I think that's a huge move towards the totalitarian state where everybody is eavesdropping on one another and handing over information to the police," he said.

Sure this is already happening, but this would make it more so legal, at least now we people can pretend or try to put up a fight.

$1:

Bell Canada spokeswoman Jacqueline Michelis said the company had some concerns about the costs that would be incurred for ISPs to comply with the legislation being discussed, as well as concerns about protecting customers' privacy.

Klein said one way to mitigate these concerns would be to only allow law enforcement officials to access electronic information from the time a warrant is issued, as with phone surveillance.

If that is the case, but still this would also allow fishing expaditions.

When I think of some of the comments on a forum such as this, if someone had a police officer friend, what fun they could have. Sure it would be illegal, but who could stop them?

[Proculation]

$1:

Also if some hot chick is posting steamy messages online, this could be abused to find out her name and address. I think that is slightly different than having one's name in the phone book.

Also the rules about the fact that ISP's will now have to retain your information is going to be different.

So that annonymous whistle-blower who posts information about police abuse, will not do so anymore, because no warrent will be required.

Those are situations that the police can already do. But, they CAN'T do it without facing some charges. That's not different at all.

[gangstalking]

http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_35432.aspx

$1:

The bill, with the unwieldy name of "An Act Regulating Telecommunications Facilities to Support Investigations," would allow police to force your ISP to hand over any records of your emails, chat room conversations, website history or surfing habits to authorities without a warrant.

See without a warrent, currently they need and require one, or a subpeona, or have it be an emergency. Sure they can request it and get it, but currently companies can say no.

$1:

Allow cops to get access to information on any Internet subscriber, including their name, home address or email, all without a warrant.
*

Force ISPs to keep a copy of the data generated by people under investigation on their company hard drives to prevent suspects from deleting anything incriminating or of evidence.

It's funny there was a case recently where a company asked for user names and passwords of facebook accounts and it caused such an international stir that within a few days they had to repell their outragous actions. Yet here cops will be able to get your personal email address, home address, and name without a warrent and no one is concerned.

$1:

Make all Telecom companies invest in technology that allows for the interception of Internet communications. Critics worry this could prove a financial hardship for smaller ISPs.
*

Let police remotely activate tracking devices that may already be embedded in your cell phone or car without your knowledge.

Sure they know where I am 24/7, but do the rest of you want to be remotely tracked 24/7 any easier than you have to be. Remotely activate tracking devices and embed them in your cellphones and cars without your knowledge. Again in specific criminal cases in the states this has been used, it sounds like this will make it more wide ranged.

$1:

Allow law enforcement to get data on where your communications over the web are coming from and who they're going to.

They can now now only find out my personal details, but they can snoop into who the communications are coming from, and to whom they are going to. I can think this actually might be fun if this is used on some of our politicians, what interesting things we could find.

But for the average person, do you really want this?

[gangstalking]

Proculation Proculation:

Those are situations that the police can already do. But, they CAN'T do it without facing some charges. That's not different at all.

Sure if they manage to get caught in these case they would be in trouble, but they cover for each other, will not liekly get caught and again, currently for the hot chick they would have to pretend it's an emergency, or get a warrent. Now it will be free for all. Or that feminest chick that is so irritating, you get the idea for abuse.

Again, I am not trying to imply that this will be abused, but there are people in the world who will use and abuse this. I can think of so many ways to abuse this right now it's not even funny.

You are a cop, you have that ISP friend, you could use this to just tap into what people have been doing for months, cause the info is all kept, then who is to say why you suddenly wanted their name and address, and then when you get the warrent, you can be all like, I was right.

They are so many ways to work this. I say we try this out on the politicians for a year, and if there are no abuses, then consider it. Unlimited access to what they write, think, who they sleep with, etc. It has it's potential for good, but then it has it's potential for bad.

Make the wrong comment online and it could open up a can of worms.

[gangstalking]

Anyways Canadians my hats off to you, while many freak out about something like a company wanting access to their user name and password, which get's international condemnation and stopped, you are willing to allow so much more than that.

Who needs 1984 when you will soon have 2010. Anyways have a good rest of the day.

[Dayseed]

gangstalking gangstalking:

Well Dayseed this will probably escape your attention, but many people do not have thier personal details in the phone book.

I asked how it was different not if people used the telephone book. You skipped the question, so I'll assume you simply don't have an answer.

$1:

Also if I write Dayseed is feeding people kool aid and they should not drink it, let's say you were an officer of the law, you could request my ISP provide my name and information without a warrent.

Goddammit, warrAnt! Secondly, you're presuming cops have nothing better to do than randomly search people. Thirdly, again, how is this any different from learning that Gangstalking feeds poisoned meat to dogs and then looking her up in the phonebook to find out her address? Oh wait, you don't answer that one...

$1:

Also if some hot chick is posting steamy messages online, this could be abused to find out her name and address. I think that is slightly different than having one's name in the phone book.

Why? Why is that different? If some hot chick is saying steamy things at the bar, I can look her up in the phonebook. Don't announce a difference, state why they're different.

$1:

Also the rules about the fact that ISP's will now have to retain your information is going to be different.

Telco's retain your cellular data for the exact same reasons. Your tolls are available to the police.

$1:

So that annonymous whistle-blower who posts information about police abuse, will not do so anymore, because no warrent will be required.

Good. Call CrimeStoppers if you think you've got a police abuse case. Next.

$1:

I know you were feeding people the fact that police can get this information anyways, but again they can now only do this in an emergency and otherwise they require a warrent? A warrent which leaves a trail and someone can go back and say hey this was justified.

Firstly, you're simply wrong. The police don't require a warrant nor an emergency to learn your ISP information. Read R v. Plant for help on understanding Section 8 (which I bet you didn't do) and a recent Ontario Court of Appeal decision which says they don't. Sure, a warrant leaves a trail, but what the police are getting from the ISPs doesn't qualify as an unreasonable search and seizure as per the Supreme Court of Canada. Sorry, they disagree with you. Read the above noted case to find out why.

$1:

There are so many senarios that I can think of. So in my opinion, if you post something right now, I can't pick up a phonebook and go looking for Dayseed, because you are posting on some forum and I have no way of knowing who you are, with this law, I could hire someone to dress as a cop, or hire a cop and request the information of that irritating poster. They don't have to provide a warrent, to get the name and address.

Oh for fuck's sake, let's keep this within the realm of reason! Do you think uniformed officers head on down to the local Rogers Plus to ask about ISP information? Perhaps leave the engine running on the ol' squad car?

$1:

I have seen threads here where posters go off about taser deaths, so let's say some cop does not like that comment you made, this could be used to get your inforamtion, because a warrent is not required.

Again, what is the difference between the above scenario and you having a bumper sticker that insults the police? They can run your licence plate to get your name and info without a warrant! This is nothing new!

$1:

Not to mention the other portions about remotly activating tracking software that is on cellphones and cars. Currently the process is more difficult and this would make it more easy, to track the ex-wife as will do. Stalk others, etc.

Read Section 492.1 of the Criminal Code. It requires a warrant to get the above done. Wasn't that your beef? I'll highlight the relevant part for you. Currently, tracking warrants require you to install something, which preloaded software on phones already have. The police aren't installing anything. However, under S 492.2, they can use a Number Recorder Warrant to locate the physical location of a telephone, but that's not the spirit of the warrant. This actually makes the law make sense. That will upset you.

$1:

I am sure that there will be some who will not abuse it, but as we have seen with the investigation into the taser death, there are bad elements that will abuse what they can.

And there are people on the internet who invent reasons to horrify themselves. So what? Bad apples get turned out.

[Dayseed]

gangstalking gangstalking:

See without a warrent, currently they need and require one, or a subpeona, or have it be an emergency. Sure they can request it and get it, but currently companies can say no.

Wrong. See above.

$1:

Allow cops to get access to information on any Internet subscriber, including their name, home address or email, all without a warrant.
*

Force ISPs to keep a copy of the data generated by people under investigation on their company hard drives to prevent suspects from deleting anything incriminating or of evidence.

Uh-oes! It looks like old Gangstalky doesn't understand this! This requires the ISP to preserve information about somebody's internet usage so the police can later retrieve it with a production order! It requires a warrant! Huzzah!

$1:

It's funny there was a case recently where a company asked for user names and passwords of facebook accounts and it caused such an international stir that within a few days they had to repell their outragous actions. Yet here cops will be able to get your personal email address, home address, and name without a warrent and no one is concerned.

What private companies do is up to private companies and irrelevant. Secondly, you have yet to demonstrate how that's different than any other warrantless query the police can make! Guess what? The police can also look up who owns a house and how much they paid for it! They can also check utility subscriber information! Guess what? SO CAN GODDAMN REAL-ESTATE AGENTS! Wow, this is nothing new! And just because it's new to you doesn't mean it's new to the world. You're not an explorer like Marco Polo...more like Amelia Earhart.

$1:

Sure they know where I am 24/7,

No they don't. Nobody cares where you are 24/7.

$1:

but do the rest of you want to be remotely tracked 24/7 any easier than you have to be. Remotely activate tracking devices and embed them in your cellphones and cars without your knowledge. Again in specific criminal cases in the states this has been used, it sounds like this will make it more wide ranged.

It'll require a warrant folks! If a Judge says the police can then guess what?

$1:

They can now now only find out my personal details, but they can snoop into who the communications are coming from, and to whom they are going to. I can think this actually might be fun if this is used on some of our politicians, what interesting things we could find.

But for the average person, do you really want this?

Oh good, she's horrified of having it done to her, but sees hilarity in doing it to others. Secondly, THAT'S NO DIFFERENT THAN THE POLICE GETTING A TOLL WARRANT! If you would simply bloody read R v. Plant, you'd have a better understanding of this. Stop relying on yourself to learn things. It's a failure each time!

[Dayseed]

gangstalking gangstalking:

I like these guidelines because subpoenas, warrents, and emegency situations are still a protective barrier that many would like to have.

Well, if you have zero interest in reading PIPEDA, the police can simply request the data without the above qualifiers existing. Oops.

[/quote]Very different. It's not like picking up a phone book. [/quote]

Oh please. Do you read what you quote? He was talking about phone taps and internet taps. It has nothing to do with available information to the police. It's apples and oranges. Read R v. Araujo if you have questions.

$1:

That or they will become further agents of the state then before. One gentleman who provides security explained that with these new changes, he would be required to retain the information of his clients, and then hand it over if required. That is different than now, because without a warrent, he could still say no.

Buddy's wrong. The police don't have to be listening while a communication happens. They can record them and listen to them later. And do you read your own post. He would hand it over, IF REQUIRED. Not simply, if asked. And, because the police would be using production orders, there are provisions in them for a served person to make submissions to court why the production order as issued should be quashed or modified.

Jesus Robotech Christ!

$1:

Sure this is already happening, but this would make it more so legal, at least now we people can pretend or try to put up a fight.

No, no, no! ISPs would be required to retain this information, at their own cost, to be made available to police upon receipt of a warrant! And you can't put up a fight, you're not invited as the warrants can issue ex parte!

$1:

If that is the case, but still this would also allow fishing expaditions.

Bullshit. How would this allow fishing expeditions?

$1:

When I think of some of the comments on a forum such as this, if someone had a police officer friend, what fun they could have. Sure it would be illegal, but who could stop them?

Gee golly! The ISP that records the information they provide to the police and to whom it is given? Audits can be done! Unlike that pesky old phonebook that confuses you so...

[Dayseed]

gangstalking gangstalking:

Sure if they manage to get caught in these case they would be in trouble, but they cover for each other, will not liekly get caught and again, currently for the hot chick they would have to pretend it's an emergency, or get a warrent. Now it will be free for all. Or that feminest chick that is so irritating, you get the idea for abuse.

Well, apparently old Gangstalky thinks the judiciary is "in" on it to, since they just hand out warrants to help cover. If you're of that mindset, who cares if it requires a warrant or not?

$1:

Again, I am not trying to imply that this will be abused, but there are people in the world who will use and abuse this. I can think of so many ways to abuse this right now it's not even funny.

I agree. There's no implying. You're flat out stating that the police will spam the crap out of this. Thanks for lying to our faces.

$1:

You are a cop, you have that ISP friend, you could use this to just tap into what people have been doing for months, cause the info is all kept, then who is to say why you suddenly wanted their name and address, and then when you get the warrent, you can be all like, I was right.

Ex post facto warrants are readily exposed. Secondly, when the audit comes, I hope the cop who made the check has an entry in his notebook and can explain what investigation he was doing at the time.

$1:

They are so many ways to work this. I say we try this out on the politicians for a year, and if there are no abuses, then consider it. Unlimited access to what they write, think, who they sleep with, etc. It has it's potential for good, but then it has it's potential for bad.

Make the wrong comment online and it could open up a can of worms.

You're all about how YOU would abuse this power. Quite telling.

[gangstalking]

$1:

I asked how it was different not if people used the telephone book. You skipped the question, so I'll assume you simply don't have an answer.

AS usual you missed the point. I can't see someone on the street and use the telephone book to look that person up. Many people have cellphones and are not listed.

The phone book is very different. Even if I look up Cathy Jones, I might not get the right person.

$1:

Goddammit, warrAnt! Secondly, you're presuming cops have nothing better to do than randomly search people. Thirdly, again, how is this any different from learning that Gangstalking feeds poisoned meat to dogs and then looking her up in the phonebook to find out her address? Oh wait, you don't answer that one...

Warrant, thanks for the correction. Some cops have nothing better to do than randomly search people. I am not assuming this.

It's different because gangstalking, he or she does not feed poisoned meat to dogs, and the phone book does not provide the information in these warrant. A person could make a comment in a public place and a cop could hear it, and unless they tailed them back to their home, they would not know who that person is, where they live or any other info.

Now they can look up protesters who comment online, people who make comments they don't like, or other enemies. It's a big difference.

$1:

Why? Why is that different? If some hot chick is saying steamy things at the bar, I can look her up in the phonebook. Don't announce a difference, state why they're different.

No you can't. If it's a hot chick, I doubt she would give you the time of day, so how would you know her name to look her up in the phone book? Think about it.

If a cop sees some hotchick in a bar, he also can not pick her information up just like that. Where now if a cop sees a sexy comment, and wants to find said sexy comment chick, they could use a pretence to get info on her from her ISP. All you have to say is I am from division such and such, here is my badge, etc. The law did say there would be some paper work after the fact, but the damage is done. Also I am sure many companies will give this info up, and not even bother following up on paper work. That's the difference.

$1:

Telco's retain your cellular data for the exact same reasons. Your tolls are available to the police.

Yes previously cellphone info was retained, but now the emails, and other info will be retained. I am not saying Echelon was not spying, but now local ISP's will legally have to retain your info. They currently are not required to.

$1:

Good. Call CrimeStoppers if you think you've got a police abuse case. Next.

A lot of people will not do that. A lot of people will reveal things online, because there is an audience and the information will get exposed, where crimestoppers not so much. Without the guarantee of privacy we will have fewer of these people.

$1:

Firstly, you're simply wrong. The police don't require a warrant nor an emergency to learn your ISP information. Read R v. Plant for help on understanding Section 8 (which I bet you didn't do) and a recent Ontario Court of Appeal decision which says they don't. Sure, a warrant leaves a trail, but what the police are getting from the ISPs doesn't qualify as an unreasonable search and seizure as per the Supreme Court of Canada. Sorry, they disagree with you. Read the above noted case to find out why.

If you are posting on a forum, you are saying they can learn the ISP, but can they without a warrant ask for a persons name, email, home address, phone, and cellphone info, without a warrant? Please answer this.

I did have a quick gander, they used external information to find out what was going on in his home. I get that they can do that now, but this goes a step further. When it said that they ascertained his address, there was nothing to indicate they had used this method, unless I am mistaken. I thought the tip from the person contained the info.

$1:

Oh for fuck's sake, let's keep this within the realm of reason! Do you think uniformed officers head on down to the local Rogers Plus to ask about ISP information? Perhaps leave the engine running on the ol' squad car?

Too many of them abuse the current structure. Many will abuse this new structure. Seeing a post they don't like online, or someone who argues with them in a forum, and then using their power and abusing it. There are stories of abuse every day in the news.

$1:

Again, what is the difference between the above scenario and you having a bumper sticker that insults the police? They can run your licence plate to get your name and info without a warrant! This is nothing new!

If someone has an insulting sign on their bag, they would have to follow that person to get their info, that is the difference. If someone posts a not nice message, they will be able to go after this person a lot easier, that is the difference, and the potential for abuses.

$1:

Read Section 492.1 of the Criminal Code. It requires a warrant to get the above done. Wasn't that your beef? I'll highlight the relevant part for you. Currently, tracking warrants require you to install something, which preloaded software on phones already have. The police aren't installing anything. However, under S 492.2, they can use a Number Recorder Warrant to locate the physical location of a telephone, but that's not the spirit of the warrant. This actually makes the law make sense. That will upset you.

I stated this has been done before in the states with a mob boss, they had the ISP download software unto his computer. I don't think I said that this could be done without a warrant, just that this will make it easier and broader based to do or perform this function.

$1:

And there are people on the internet who invent reasons to horrify themselves. So what? Bad apples get turned out.

And there are some who will tell the people to sleep, and who refuse to see the potential for abuse.

[gangstalking]

$1:

Uh-oes! It looks like old Gangstalky doesn't understand this! This requires the ISP to preserve information about somebody's internet usage so the police can later retrieve it with a production order! It requires a warrant! Huzzah!

Yes but to get the name, address, email etc, it no longer requires a warrant. That's what the bill said, from what I could make of it.

I understood this part perfectly, the person who posted about having to afford to update his equipment so he could retain the information was pretty clear.


The point is he can no longer say no to the above.

$1:

What private companies do is up to private companies and irrelevant.

You are wrong. Asking for the user name and password is a privacy violation and a brech of contract. Most social networking sites say that it's illegal to share your passwords and login's with third parties. You are wrong about this, and I wonder what else you are wrong about?

$1:

Secondly, you have yet to demonstrate how that's different than any other warrantless query the police can make!

I don't have to demonstrate that. My point is today they can not ask for this information, and it's not retained, if this bill is passed, it will be retained and they can just request the info without a warrant. The difference is however the car you drive very public even, the house you own, again public, any stranger could walk past and connect the two. What you post is not the same thing, in the sense that Dayseed's postings though public to read, are done in the privacy of his home, or other.

$1:

Guess what? The police can also look up who owns a house and how much they paid for it! They can also check utility subscriber information! Guess what? SO CAN GODDAMN REAL-ESTATE AGENTS! Wow, this is nothing new! And just because it's new to you doesn't mean it's new to the world. You're not an explorer like Marco Polo...more like Amelia Earhart.

Doesn't matter. This is a new breach of privacy. I could care less if the police looked up a house and what they paid. This is a bit more invasive. The point is it one more shore they are charting, it's one more passage they are breaching.

It's something that they can not do today, and tomorrow they will be able to do, based on comments posted, on the internet. Go to an ISP and say who is that person, we have reasonable grounds, even if they don't and find out all about you.

The difference is posting online though public, you still in many cases expect some forms of privacy. How lives where and who drives what care are somewhat public events, who posted something on the internet is something very different, in my opinion and many others.

[gangstalking]

$1:

Oh good, she's horrified of having it done to her, but sees hilarity in doing it to others. Secondly, THAT'S NO DIFFERENT THAN THE POLICE GETTING A TOLL WARRANT! If you would simply bloody read R v. Plant, you'd have a better understanding of this. Stop relying on yourself to learn things. It's a failure each time!

Canadian laws are little to no concern to me. I just thought to bring this to your attention. My life is already being investigated. I worry about others who just sheepishly let things like this pass, and then don't realise what could happen down the line. Who trust that this will not be abused, when in fact it could be.