[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Neil]

And so, you're saying, because a journalist, a misinformed one at that, asked a question that Toews answered wrongly, they're going back and re-write the bill? But what's to rewrite, if there's nothing objectionable in it?

They could always change the verbiage a bit but retain everything.  Public relations would be enough to dictate such a rewrite.

Then again, crazycanuck is a lawyer, and as such we shouldn't trust him to properly interpret the law.  Lawyers lie, usually to hurt people.

[Maximus]

Then again, crazycanuck is a lawyer, and as such we shouldn't trust him to properly interpret the law.  Lawyers lie, usually to hurt people.

To be fair, hurting people is usually a side effect, not the primary goal.

[Barrister]

Then again, crazycanuck is a lawyer, and as such we shouldn't trust him to properly interpret the law.  Lawyers lie, usually to hurt people.

To be fair, hurting people is usually a side effect, not the primary goal.

To be fair, much of my career is dedicated to hurting people.

[Neil]

Then again, crazycanuck is a lawyer, and as such we shouldn't trust him to properly interpret the law.  Lawyers lie, usually to hurt people.

To be fair, hurting people is usually a side effect, not the primary goal.

To be fair, much of my career is dedicated to hurting people.

I rest my case.

[Jacob]

I rest my case.

You know he only said that to hurt you.

[Maximus]

I'll cut a lot of slack for prosecutors.

Civil servant prosecutors, not political prosecutors.

[Barrister]

Then again, crazycanuck is a lawyer, and as such we shouldn't trust him to properly interpret the law.  Lawyers lie, usually to hurt people.

To be fair, hurting people is usually a side effect, not the primary goal.

To be fair, much of my career is dedicated to hurting people.

I rest my case.

Yes, but the people I hurt deserve it. 

[Neil]

Then again, crazycanuck is a lawyer, and as such we shouldn't trust him to properly interpret the law.  Lawyers lie, usually to hurt people.

To be fair, hurting people is usually a side effect, not the primary goal.

To be fair, much of my career is dedicated to hurting people.

I rest my case.

Yes, but the people I hurt deserve it. 

Occasionally.

[viper37]

Apparently, ISPs are not asking for a warrant when cops tell them it's an emergency or if there's kids involved.
So the basic point of this bill is moot.  Trying to fix an imaginary problem to give people more power over our lives, on the guise of protecting children, when it will change nothing.
I'm really disapointed of this government.

[Barrister]

Apparently, ISPs are not asking for a warrant when cops tell them it's an emergency or if there's kids involved.
So the basic point of this bill is moot.  Trying to fix an imaginary problem to give people more power over our lives, on the guise of protecting children, when it will change nothing.
I'm really disapointed of this government.

Counting on the goodwill of ISPs seems like a rather dangerous thing to base public policy on.

[crazy canuck]

And so, you're saying, because a journalist, a misinformed one at that, asked a question that Toews answered wrongly, they're going back and re-write the bill? But what's to rewrite, if there's nothing objectionable in it?

No, I am saying that your post was wrong.

Also, if you recall, my point is that the Conservatives had to back down to an avalanche of uninformed backlash to the Bill.

I am disappointed they did so.  The legislation is well crafted but needed someone who understands this area of law to answer the "omg police state" ranting that occured.  But in this age of misinformation traveling faster than the speed of sound over the internet its hard to fight the mob.

[crazy canuck]

Apparently, ISPs are not asking for a warrant when cops tell them it's an emergency or if there's kids involved.
So the basic point of this bill is moot.  Trying to fix an imaginary problem to give people more power over our lives, on the guise of protecting children, when it will change nothing.
I'm really disapointed of this government.

Your "apparently" must be taken with a large grain of salt.  You then go on to say that since isp "apparently" cooperate this bill is moot.  But your premise is wrong.  Isps do not always cooperate (indeed they face claims of breach of privacy if they do) and so the Bill is necessary. 

I am really dissappointed in the affect of uninformed rumour on the formation of government policy.

[viper37]

Counting on the goodwill of ISPs seems like a rather dangerous thing to base public policy on.

not really.  We base many policies on the goodwill of individuals and corportations.  We don't generally assume all corporations are criminals, unless we're in Cuba, I suppose.

[viper37]

Apparently, ISPs are not asking for a warrant when cops tell them it's an emergency or if there's kids involved.
So the basic point of this bill is moot.  Trying to fix an imaginary problem to give people more power over our lives, on the guise of protecting children, when it will change nothing.
I'm really disapointed of this government.

Your "apparently" must be taken with a large grain of salt.  You then go on to say that since isp "apparently" cooperate this bill is moot.  But your premise is wrong.  Isps do not always cooperate (indeed they face claims of breach of privacy if they do) and so the Bill is necessary. 

I am really dissappointed in the affect of uninformed rumour on the formation of government policy.

well, according to the ISP's federation representative, they always cooperate in case involving children.  In fact, no one could cite and instance of ISPs refusing to divulge details regarding the customer info.

Opening a backdoor in all security program is way too dangerous.  And there are significant costs involved for ISPs.  Guess who will foot the bill?  The generous corporations like Videotron, Shaw, Bell, Telus?  I don't think so.  I'm gonna end up paying more for my internet connection and my cell phone connections.  ISPs are even required to decrypt the communications themselves.
http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Docid=5380965&File=59#10

I may not be a lawyer, but I know a thing or two about technology.  And this bill is freakish.

[Neil]

Yeah, I'm not sure who would make a worse steward of public policy as regards to the internet.  Sure, the ISPs wouldn't be great, but I would never, ever trust the government with anything to do with the internet, especially a Conservative government.