[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Barrister]

BB says they could harrass gun owners because of the registry.  They could harrass anyone. Or they could get their data stolen.  If someone was able to steal the list of undercover agents from Montreal police, they are likely to steal anything.  We know cops have used, in the past, illegally obtained information for their own personal purpose.  It's illegal, yet they've done it.

We also know that police force accross the country routinely make search without warrant, finding probable cause elsewhere, or getting a warrant after the search.  Sometimes, they're caught, sometimes they're not.  What's to stop them from doing the same here?

When I said "harass" I meant by the PITA of having to register your guns, and making a criminal case out of someone who forgets to register.  Police certainly were not physically going out to harass gun owners (nor sex offenders, though I don't really like comparing the two).

Police routinely make search without warrant?  Really?  Not in my experience.  I have had a few cops tell me about some RARE times when they're under-manned they may search someone without warrant and merely seize anything illegal - i.e. ask some high school kids to open their backpacks and seize any alcohol or drugs.  But they know they could never charge them.  It's rare, and heaven help them if they find something juicy like a loaded handgun, because they'd never be able to get that evidence in.

Finding probable cause elsewhere?  No idea what you're talking about.  Besides, probable cause is an American term.

Getting a warrant after the search?  Doesn't help them if the initial search was illegal.  I did a whole case where police conducted a good faith warrantless search, found a grow op, then went and got a warrant.  Now in certain cases a warrantless search is not an illegal search.  But in my case in a particularily bad ruling the judge said it was an illegal search, and therefore the fact police subsequently got a warrant was no help to them at all.

Again, whats the stop the cops from doing "the same"?  Same answer as before - the Charter.

[Barrister]

-police determine that a computer on IP address w.x.y.z had been accessing child porn.  Police can quickly find out that w.x.y.z is used by ISP customer Joe Blow.  That's it - who has the account with the ISP.  In order to determine what exactly was accessed, who used that computer, they still need a warrant.  What reasonable expectation of privacy do you have in who your ISP is?

I've received a few e-mails from my ISP telling me I've accessed copyrighted content.  Apparently, someone knew I'd downloaded the first season of Spartacus, or Age of Empires III (it wouldn't install) or KOTOR (same problem) or other tv series/movies (and sometimes, I can't even remember downloading the stuff).

So, how come police can't know this already?  If they know an IP adress accessed a child porn site at 18:01 on Saturday 18th Feb. 2012, they can get a warrant to access the ISP's records.  In fact they do it already.  For child porn, for child pornographers, for pedophiles, for criminals, etc, etc.

Have you been paying attention?

Police can't know this because in some cases the ISP is refusing to give out any information without a warrant.  This legislation is specifying that certain kinds of basic information can and should be disclosed without a warrant.

So again, how will this change the rate at wich they catch criminals?  How much more efficient will this new bill make our police force?  20? 30? 50% more effective?
'Cause if the gun registry was no good because it didn't prevent crime (and it didn't) I don't see how snooping my on-line activities will make it easier.
It might make it easier to stop piracy as defined by the media industry, but to stop real criminals?  Let me laugh please.

All I see, is a big privacy flag being raised here, letting police do identity search without any kind of warrant or legal basis.

Even if it only makes police 10% more effective - isn't that a good thing?  And to repeat myself - it doesn't make 'your on-line activities' fair game, only your subscriber information.

[Ed Anger]

Keep on Rockin in a free world Neil.

Just call me...  Neil Young.

[viper37]

When I said "harass" I meant by the PITA of having to register your guns, and making a criminal case out of someone who forgets to register.  Police certainly were not physically going out to harass gun owners (nor sex offenders, though I don't really like comparing the two).

and you could be harassed because you downloaded a movie which you already owned on a broken DVD... it is illegal to do so.

Police routinely make search without warrant?  Really?  Not in my experience.

There have been a few cases where all charges where drop after it was revealed the cops either fabricated the evidence or searched without a warrant.  These are the ones we know for sure.  Just the other day, the police threatened someone I know to search his house. Had he not insisted they get a warrant, they would have proceeded anyway.  There are probably more. 

But they know they could never charge them.  It's rare, and heaven help them if they find something juicy like a loaded handgun, because they'd never be able to get that evidence in.

and that's harassment.  Just like following someone constantly, waiting for that person to drive a few km/h above the speed limit.  It's bound to happen when you keep following the same car.

Finding probable cause elsewhere?  No idea what you're talking about.  Besides, probable cause is an American term.

Police is not supposed to enter your house without a warrant, or -whatever the term- a good, serious reason.  Though they have the right to arrest you anywhere now when you drive, that's about as much as I can tolerate.  There's already tons of reports about racial discrimination - and they don't even hide behind the discriminative nature of their controls (young people, black people, etc), but I'm willing to accept that it seems to work with drunk driving.

Getting a warrant after the search?  Doesn't help them if the initial search was illegal.
I did a whole case where police conducted a good faith warrantless search, found a grow op, then went and got a warrant.  Now in certain cases a warrantless search is not an illegal search.  But in my case in a particularily bad ruling the judge said it was an illegal search, and therefore the fact police subsequently got a warrant was no help to them at all.

Had the cops not told about the warrantless search, but came back with a warrant, how would the judge rule it as illegal?

Again, whats the stop the cops from doing "the same"?  Same answer as before - the Charter.

then, if the law is truly worthless, why create the hassle of having a law that serves no purposes, yet intrudes on our privacy?  Even the government acknowledge it might be going too far and is prepared to make amendments to the bill...

[viper37]

BB, take a look at this:
http://www.wired.com/politics/onlinerights/news/2007/05/isp_privacy

Right now, police need a warrant, wich, hopefully, means a serious reason, to get my complete identification info from the ISP.
That means no one can get the info from the ISP, short of hacking its database.

With the new bill, that firewall is gone.  Cops can request board owner X of submitting IP for stuff I wrote, then in turn asking my ISP who I am.  They could request my complete info after someone made a complaint for copyright violation.  They could do just about anything, this bill opens a wide door.

Nothing prevents fishing expedition either, collectings IPs for future use (static IPs tends to be permanent).

And this:
The bill also forces tech providers to provide police with a "back door" for easy surveillance. It also lets police get warrants to track any information sent online, who sent it and from where, and will let courts force other parties to preserve electronic evidence.
a back door is an easy way to crack a system.  That means your firewall is no longer secure, you anti-virus is no longer nearly foolproof.  And nothing would prevent criminal organizations from using these backdoors against us, once tech providers start having this. Voluntarily creating a breach in our system's security is a very bad idea.  Letting the court decide who has the right to privacy is also a very bad idea.  I kinda like it the way it is now, the cops have to demonstrate why they need to intrude on my privacy.

Nice text
This last one rather sums up the terror of this new law. While we anguish over Facebook and Google's increasingly blatant use and storage of our online lives, we're blind to the ultimate destination of this information. It can now go straight to the cop who asks for it. As the NDP's Charlie Angus put it, it gives the police a licence for fishing expeditions into all "private communications," the all-inclusive term used in the bill. Cellphones would become an "electronic prisoner's bracelet," Angus said.

Even if it only makes police 10% more effective - isn't that a good thing?  And to repeat myself - it doesn't make 'your on-line activities' fair game, only your subscriber information.

If the gun registry was 10% more effective than other methods of reducing gun induced injuries, was that a bad thing?
If the long form surveys were 50% more effective than the partial form for collecting stats and then deciding public policies, weren't they worth it?

Let's look at it in an extreme way:

Characteristics of a Pedophile :

    Often the pedophile is male and over 30 years of age.
    Single or with few friends in his age group.
    If married, the relationship is more "companion" based with no sexual relations.
    He is often vague about time gaps in employment which may indicate a loss in employment for questionable reasons or possible past incarceration.

so, we monitor, constantly, all the invidivuals fitting this profile.  That would consistantly reduce the number of pedophilia related crimes.  Why don't we do it?  If it means a 90% reduction in crime, why don't we do it?  Why aren't any occidental countries doing it?

[viper37]

If it is irrelevant why do you assume that a warrant would be issued?

we could have cameras everywhere, to monitor criminal activities.  That'd be good too.  I'm pretty sure we'd see a massive drop in crime rate.  In fact, Sherbrooke did it for one problematic sector.  Crime was reduced there, they moved to another street with no cameras.  But imagine with cameras everywhere, nowhere to hide... we'd be safe...  And only criminals would have to worry.  It's not like anyone could abuse of this power.

[crazy canuck]

If it is irrelevant why do you assume that a warrant would be issued?

we could have cameras everywhere, to monitor criminal activities.  That'd be good too.  I'm pretty sure we'd see a massive drop in crime rate.  In fact, Sherbrooke did it for one problematic sector.  Crime was reduced there, they moved to another street with no cameras.  But imagine with cameras everywhere, nowhere to hide... we'd be safe...  And only criminals would have to worry.  It's not like anyone could abuse of this power.

Your comment is not responsive to my question.

edit: and Viper, you need to get your information about the law from somewhere other than wired because most of what you stated in the post above is wrong to the level of loony conspiracy 9-11 was an inside job type wrong.

[Barrister]

I'm sorry Viper.  I like you, but I don't have the time to teach you the law of search and seizure in Canada in order to talk to you about this topic.

[Neil]

I wouldn't rely on the Charter to keep you safe from law enforcement.  They're not to be trusted, especially with Vic 'The Dick' Toews running the show.

[crazy canuck]

So the Cons are sending the bill for more consultation.  Looks like popular misinformed outrage wins the day.

[Neil]

I think this is a win for me, personally.

[Grey Fox]

@BB Of course a database is needed. IP adresses change all the time.

[crazy canuck]

I think this is a win for me, personally.

Which says something.

It seems the Tories didnt think braving the rhetoric from both the left and right was worth the bother.

[Neil]

I think this is a win for me, personally.

Which says something.

It seems the Tories didnt think braving the rhetoric from both the left and right was worth the bother.

Indeed.  It says that I love to win.

[viper37]

So the Cons are sending the bill for more consultation.  Looks like popular misinformed outrage wins the day.

I think you guys are misinformed about the backdoor in tech software&hardware.  That's a very serious infrigement of privacy, and we'd have to trust cops&government officers never to abuse this power.  The moment it's there, it's a serious security risk that hacker can exploit.

Having faced my government in court more than once, and having dealth with tax collectors and various construction inspectors, they don't really care about what's legal or not.  They usually make bogus claim to scare you, than either force you in court (wich, as you know, kinda cost money & time, lawyers ain't exactly cheap) or accept a plea bargain.

I just don't get why, in the name of security, you'd want to voluntarily comprise security softwares&hardwares.  And give a blank check to cops.  And tax collectors.  And government inspectors.  Once someone has the info, it can be passed to any government office.  That's the legally scary part.  All the illegal application scare me even more.  and it has nothing to do with 911 conspiracies.