[gangstalking]

http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublication ... e=e&Mode=1

$1:

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

If I read it correctly, they can request it, but the ISP can say no without a warrant, but with this new law, the ISP can not say no. Again you apparently would have everyone believe you know Canadian law. People trust lawyers and politicians so I guess they are in good hands.

$1:

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.

Buddy never said that, and my post does not imply that he said that. He was really clear, and I believe he understood this law very well. He said he would now have to retain records, which he did not have to do before. He said that now if they request the information without a warrant he will have to comply.

The new law does not require production orders before the fact, they require the officers inforamtion and then the paper work can be done after the fact. Again I glaced quickly at C-47, but I believe this is one of the differences.

$1:

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!

My post was correct. Under Echolon this type of monitoring does happen, but it does not now happen at a local level, which is what the guy was saying. He is saying he will now be required to retain this information, at his own cost, to be made available. He said that he will have to provide name and details, such as name, address, email, without a warrant.

I was not saying the info retained would be without a warrent, because C-47 implys that paper work would have to be done after this inforamtion was obtained. My point was that this information should not be obtained, name, email, address, without a warrant.

$1:

Bullshit. How would this allow fishing expeditions?

Back to my stalker, hotchick, ex-wife example.

$1:

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..

Sure audits can be done, and they usually are done after the fact, after abuses come to light. If you are good with that, that's great, that's your standard. I just thought some others might not be ok with this, and infact some were not, if you read the comments in the article.

[gangstalking]

$1:

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?

I believe based on my research that laws are often abused, or misused and then covered up after the fact. I am not thinking that they are in on it, they are in on it. So to say that police have covered for each other, broken laws, and misused policies is not a leap.

$1:

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.

I am pointing out that there will be abuses, just like there are now. There is no implying. So we both agree that I am not lying.

$1:

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.

See maybe you missed the point. Since info will now be kept and retained, what's to stop someone from looking at the info being kept and retained and then if anything good comes pass that name to your cop friend, who then get's name and address, and warrant after the fact. What will stop this again? Oh yes Dayseeds wishful thinking.

$1:

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

If I have a mind about how this will be abused, it's because I read every day about how powers are abused, misused, and that often there is no over sight or governing body to step in and do anything about it.

[Dayseed]

gangstalking gangstalking:

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.

Goddamit. The point of the question is not how people use the telephone book. The point is the information that is available IN the phonebook, which is readily available without a warrant, and what is available to the police without a warrant. In both cases, and peer in close to your monitor because this is the salient part, the name, address and ISP/phonenumber are available. The ISP is interchangeable with the telephone number. This is nothing new.

Now, if you want to explain technical legal differences that would alter this fundamental understanding, please do so.

And don't tell me how people use the phonebook as your example.

$1:

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

Oh yes, either you read it on the internet or it happened during one of your delusions.

$1:

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.

Firstly, your first sentence doesn't make any sense. Please fix it since it's incoherent. Secondly, your example falls flat because you make too many assumptions. Tailing a person to their home doesn't reveal the identity of that person, since it implies that you can learn who resides at a place by mere address, PLUS it implies the person lives there.

If a person says anything of note, like uttering a threat, inciting genocide or inciting a riot, that person gets arrested. Nobody lives in your fantasyland of cops following people around because they heard a disparaging comment. And your internet anecdotes don't impress.

$1:

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.

Great! And once they learn who subscribes to an ISP, how do they determine who was at the keyboard to make those comments? I'll let your army of mental demons wrestle with that one for a while. Plus, I don't believe in your fantasyland where the police track down people who hurt their feelings.

$1:

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.

Firstly, don't worry about hot chicks talking to me. I don't live your sheltered life. Secondly, and this is the part that will scare you, you can ask OTHER people who she is! It's called socializing, try some today!

$1:

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.

Once again, we follow old Gangstalking down her onslaught of assumptions after assumptions. Yup, some cop sitting at home cruising the internet sees a sexy commment and somehow knows how to get the ISP of the person who sent it. Then, because he has no life, he calls up the ISP and lies because he knows that people who make steamy comments on line are sexy in real life. And women too. From where he lives so it's worthwhile, because it only works in Canada and why stalk a woman in Cornerbrook when you live in Winnipeg. And then, the "paper work after the fact" is called a production order with all of its legal trappings, but hey, there's a potential slut on the internet to track down, so the ISP dutifully turns a blind eye and erases the query from its database in case the audit reveals their complicity in tracking down a chick.

For Christ's sake!

$1:

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.

Echelon is American and irrelevant. Yes, the information is retained PENDING A GODDAMN WARRANT!

$1:

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.

I don't care for your generalizations about the public, I think your perspective is skewed, flawed and wrong. And if it cuts down on whackos like you gumming up the internet, then this law is long overdue.

$1:

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.

The police can get from the ISP all of that. Did you read R v. Plant or just have "a quick gander"?

$1:

I did have a quick gander,

Oh, I thought so.

$1:

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.

Your quick gander failed you, oddly enough. The point of posting R v. Plant was for you to read the 4 prong test the Supreme Court uses to identify potential breaches of a person's S. 8 rights.

$1:

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.

Oh, is there stories like this every day in the news? Show me where the police have abused their current power to get telephone subscriber information, since that's the parallel to the new power currently being discussed.

Go on! Use your wonky websites if you have to.

$1:

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.

I said car, not bag in my example. Why did you have to alter the substance of my example? Could you not think of a rational explanation as to the fundamental difference between querying a licence plate on a vengeful hunch and querying an ISP on same premise?

Another failure. Sigh.

$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.

$1:

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.

Again, that's the States and I don't care. Your whole point is that the warrantless powers of the police should be curtailed. This requires a warrant. You fail.

$1:

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

Really? Do you look at both sides for the potential of abuse? What about the person who's luring a child on the internet, but thanks to bleeding dummies like you, the police have to get a warrant to find out who is doing it? Wow, way to stick up for the pedophiles!

[Dayseed]

gangstalking gangstalking:

If I read it correctly, they can request it, but the ISP can say no without a warrant, but with this new law, the ISP can not say no. Again you apparently would have everyone believe you know Canadian law. People trust lawyers and politicians so I guess they are in good hands.

What do you care about the compulsion on the ISPs? According to you, the police are all corrupt and will lie to the ISPs anyway about exigent circumstances! Secondly, if you want to attack my knowledge of the law, don't do so in a pussy backhanded way, go for the real thing and expose errors in law that I've made.

Go on!

$1:

Buddy never said that, and my post does not imply that he said that.

Fine, the CBC is wrong then.

$1:

He was really clear, and I believe he understood this law very well. He said he would now have to retain records, which he did not have to do before. He said that now if they request the information without a warrant he will have to comply.

You're wrong. Here's what buddy said:

$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

So no, you've got it all up your ass again.

$1:

The new law does not require production orders before the fact, they require the officers inforamtion and then the paper work can be done after the fact. Again I glaced quickly at C-47, but I believe this is one of the differences.

Believe what you want, but you're wrong. The officer who requests the information would have that information stored, but UNAVAILABLE TO HIM, until he obtains a warrant and serves it to the ISP. It's not a case of get all the emails and then see if a warrant is worth doing afterwards.

No wonder you're scared of this, you don't understand it.

$1:

My post was correct. Under Echolon this type of monitoring does happen, but it does not now happen at a local level, which is what the guy was saying. He is saying he will now be required to retain this information, at his own cost, to be made available. He said that he will have to provide name and details, such as name, address, email, without a warrant.

Again, Echelon is American! The small business ISP will have to incur an extra cost to comply with the law and that IS unfair, economically, to them. But tough luck. And providing the above information is the same as the phonebook. You do know the law only allows the police to learn the email address and not the email contents right? This makes sure that when the police get a warrant, they can get it for the correct email address. Jesus, nothing like Parliament assisting the police in keeping innocent people safe.

$1:

I was not saying the info retained would be without a warrent, because C-47 implys that paper work would have to be done after this inforamtion was obtained. My point was that this information should not be obtained, name, email, address, without a warrant.

Then you don't have a point because all of that information already exists available to the police without a warrant because that information does not form a biographical sphere of data that would reveal intimate details of the average person and therefore does not trigger S. 8 of the Charter!

You not liking the Supreme Court's ruling is immaterial.

$1:

Back to my stalker, hotchick, ex-wife example.

Which don't work. So you fail again. Typical.

$1:

Sure audits can be done, and they usually are done after the fact, after abuses come to light. If you are good with that, that's great, that's your standard. I just thought some others might not be ok with this, and infact some were not, if you read the comments in the article.

But what do you care? Your ignorance of the law reduces judicial authorizations to "paperwork", like they're filling in forms or something at Blockbuster, and you presume the judiciary to be complicit in police corruption, so how does any legal protection matter to you?

[Dayseed]

gangstalking gangstalking:

I believe based on my research that laws are often abused, or misused and then covered up after the fact. I am not thinking that they are in on it, they are in on it. So to say that police have covered for each other, broken laws, and misused policies is not a leap.

Firstly, your research is suspect since it amounts to "web-surfin'". Do you compile statistics on successful uses of Special Powers as found in Part XV or under Part VI? Nope? Just one sided web-surfin'? Wow.

Also, I said the judiciary is in on it, not just the police, according to you. So what difference do laws make?

$1:

I am pointing out that there will be abuses, just like there are now. There is no implying. So we both agree that I am not lying.

Nope, you lied.

$1:

See maybe you missed the point. Since info will now be kept and retained, what's to stop someone from looking at the info being kept and retained and then if anything good comes pass that name to your cop friend, who then get's name and address, and warrant after the fact. What will stop this again? Oh yes Dayseeds wishful thinking.

Your ignorance aside, the police don't get access to the emails, webpages or any other intimate detail of a person's internet usage!!!!! They get tombstone data or they get a warrant. Again, if you believe in complicitness and thorough corruption, you shouldn't even be arguing this since no matter what level of protection Parliament affords you, you just presume it can be readily bypassed by all levels of government and private citizens!

$1:

If I have a mind about how this will be abused, it's because I read every day about how powers are abused, misused, and that often there is no over sight or governing body to step in and do anything about it.

No, you web-surf garbage. There's a difference. Also, the Supreme Court is the oversight your failed to mention. Jesus!