# Twitter account attacking Toews tied to Parliament



## larry Strong (17 Feb 2012)

Not sure where to put this so if there is a better thread to add this to, feel free to move it.

Shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Copyright Act.

Seems like someone inside the House of Commons may be tweeting private information. I hpoe they are cought, and have the book thrown at them. Why do I get a feeling that someone who likes to swear might be involved......

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/02/16/toews-twitter-attack-house-of-commons.html



> A user account on the social networking site Twitter that's being used to post personal information on Public Safety Minister Vic Toews has been linked to an IP address on Parliament Hill.
> 
> The anonymous account uses an IP address that originates within the House of Commons, the Ottawa Citizen reported Friday.
> 
> ...


----------



## jollyjacktar (17 Feb 2012)

You may be right.  I'm sure they will be found out, and nothing will really come of it  except a news conference.  Most of them are teflon and they get away with things on the hill that you or I would not.  Politics is a dirty game down in the pen, I'm sure Vic is used to it.


----------



## The Bread Guy (17 Feb 2012)

Larry Strong said:
			
		

> Seems like someone inside the House of Commons may be tweeting private information. I hpoe they are cought, and have the book thrown at them. Why do I get a feeling that someone who likes to swear might be involved......


Are court docs linked to divorce proceedings private?  I thought court documents  were public unless judges order otherwise (in Ontario, anyway, given that's the only jurisdiction I know a bit about).

Still....





			
				jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I'm sure they will be found out, and nothing will really come of it  except a news conference.  *Most of them are teflon and they get away with things on the hill that you or I would not.  Politics is a dirty game down in the pen*, I'm sure Vic is used to it.


 :nod:


----------



## Robert0288 (17 Feb 2012)

The worst that could happen is somone in the house calling for what I'm assumming is a staffer to resign.  And if your a staffer and your party/MP likes you then nothing will happen.


----------



## FSTO (17 Feb 2012)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Are court docs linked to divorce proceedings private?  I thought court documents  were public unless judges order otherwise (in Ontario, anyway, given that's the only jurisdiction I know a bit about).
> 
> Still.... :nod:



I understand that all you have to do is go to the courthouse in the jurisdiction where the divorce was settled and ask for the documents. They are completely public.


----------



## Nemo888 (20 Feb 2012)

This is such an embarrassment for the Conservatives. To scrap the gun registry then give police the ability to snoop on anyone at anytime and force ISP's to keep records on Law Abiding Citizens. The bill has an "exceptional circumstance" clause that allows _any_ police officer the right to invade people's privacy without judicial supervision. That really needs to be pulled out. Who was the idiot who put that in there in the first place. Hire a few more judges and make them available 24/7 and use the existing system.  Vic Toews is now the poster boy for privacy protection. Everyone is now privvy to the fact he knocked up the babysitter and dumped his wife. This was completely legal under existing law. Once those records are kept they will be abused. Consider a VAC staffer getting access to them. This is a horribly thought out law. 

The Minister of Public Safety and the Attorneys General of every Province can already go around such rules with their own exceptional circumstance clause. One I think already could look after the problem.  Things like an encrypted darknet can easily be cracked and all that is needed is a signature from the Minister or an AG saying they think the activity is beyond the scope of conventional law enforcement.


----------



## The Bread Guy (20 Feb 2012)

A bit more detail on the alleged IP link to the Twitter account....


> For those following the ongoing saga of the public safety minister, the online surveillance bill and the anonymous twitter account that was purportedly inspired by the latter to post possibly embarrassing personal revelations regarding the former, here's the letter that was sent to House of Commons Speaker Andrew Scheer on Friday.
> 
> (....)
> 
> ...


Spam email as journalism?  Interesting....


----------



## Bzzliteyr (20 Feb 2012)

Because we all know how ethical journalism is...right? Completely neutral and never interested in hurting anyone.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (20 Feb 2012)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> This is such an embarrassment for the Conservatives. To scrap the gun registry then give police the ability to snoop on anyone at anytime and force ISP's to keep records on Law Abiding Citizens. The bill has an "exceptional circumstance" clause that allows _any_ police officer the right to invade people's privacy without judicial supervision. That really needs to be pulled out. Who was the idiot who put that in there in the first place. Hire a few more judges and make them available 24/7 and use the existing system.  Vic Toews is now the poster boy for privacy protection. Everyone is now privvy to the fact he knocked up the babysitter and dumped his wife. This was completely legal under existing law. Once those records are kept they will be abused. Consider a VAC staffer getting access to them. This is a horribly thought out law.
> 
> The Minister of Public Safety and the Attorneys General of every Province can already go around such rules with their own exceptional circumstance clause. One I think already could look after the problem.  Things like an encrypted darknet can easily be cracked and all that is needed is a signature from the Minister or an AG saying they think the activity is beyond the scope of conventional law enforcement.



I love how everyone is up in arms because the cops can get at them without a warrant.

Where were all these self righteous people when these same rights were abrogated from Canadian gun owners all those years ago?

The two faced Opposition parties are still screaming and yelling to keep the LG Registry and all the warrantless search and seizure powers of Bill C-68, affecting gun owners, but insisting that the ISP legislation, with those same powers has no place in Canadian society.

For all you outraged citizens, welcome to our personal hell.


----------



## Nemo888 (20 Feb 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I love how everyone is up in arms because the cops can get at them without a warrant.
> 
> Where were all these self righteous people when these same rights were abrogated from Canadian gun owners all those years ago?
> 
> ...



I don't want everyone to know I watch midget porn. I don't care who knows I own a gun.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (20 Feb 2012)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> I don't want everyone to know I watch midget porn. I don't care who knows I own a gun.



I think you missed my point.

"When they came for the Jews, I wasn't Jewish, so I didn't care"..........


----------



## GAP (20 Feb 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I think you missed my point.
> 
> "When they came for the Jews, I wasn't Jewish, so I didn't care"..........



 :goodpost:


----------



## Kat Stevens (20 Feb 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I think you missed my point.
> 
> "When they came for the Jews, I wasn't Jewish, so I didn't care"..........


Maybe, RG, but now you're wearing that other footed shoe too.  You (absolutely correctly) have bitterly shouted for years about gun owners having their rights trampled.  Now you're criticizing those who complain about losing even more of our right to privacy.  Colour me confused.


----------



## Jarnhamar (20 Feb 2012)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> I don't care who knows I own a gun.



How about if I'm a tech savvy criminal who wants a specific firearm that just so happens to belong to you. 
Now I'll come to your house grab your firearms and probably your laptop full of midget porn. Hopefully you or your family isn't home at the time.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (20 Feb 2012)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Maybe, RG, but now you're wearing that other footed shoe too.  You (absolutely correctly) have bitterly shouted for years about gun owners having their rights trampled.  Now you're criticizing those who complain about losing even more of our right to privacy.  Colour me confused.



Simply, that those people never cared about the abuse of those rights when they weren't affected. Where were they then, when a group of ordinary, law abiding Canadians had those same rights taken from them? The same people, whining now, legislated to confiscate those rights from Canadians. Now it affects them personally and they want something done about it and their rights preserved. 

The Opposition still refuses to draw the parallel and wants those rights to be continued to be confiscated from gun owners, but not from themselves.

You can't have it both ways.

I don't want those rights removed from them, but I want them to acknowledge and fight to restore mine.


----------



## Nemo888 (20 Feb 2012)

At least the Gun Registry was kept secure by the RCMP. Every fly by night ISP and cell service reseller will have your  internet usage data/location and text messages. The chances of that being kept secure are zero. Sony can't even keep my credit card info safe. 

I was half joking about the midget porn and owning a gun thing. I don't currently own a firearm.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (20 Feb 2012)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> At least the Gun Registry was kept secure by the RCMP. Every fly by night ISP and cell service reseller will have your  internet usage data/location and text messages. The chances of that being kept secure are zero. Sony can't even keep my credit card info safe.
> 
> I was half joking about the midget porn and owning a gun thing. I don't currently own a firearm.



Actually, documentation and admission by the RCMP has shown the Registry has been breeched by outside sources on a number of occasions. Gun owners have been victimised by thefts through information that could only be obtained through the Registry.

 It is not secure.


----------



## Jarnhamar (20 Feb 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Actually, documentation and admission by the RCMP has shown the Registry has been breeched by outside sources on a number of occasions. Gun owners have been victimised by thefts through information that could only be obtained through the Registry.
> 
> It is not secure.



Beat me to it.


----------



## Remius (20 Feb 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I think you missed my point.
> 
> "When they came for the Jews, I wasn't Jewish, so I didn't care"..........



Are you seriously using that comparison?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (20 Feb 2012)

Crantor said:
			
		

> Are you seriously using that comparison?



Simply as a metaphor.

To wit: "So long as my rights aren't infringed, I don't care if other Canadians suffer that fate."


----------



## Jarnhamar (20 Feb 2012)

Crantor said:
			
		

> Are you seriously using that comparison?



When you think of it and the opinions of non-firearm owners towards what gun owners deal with it can be pretty accurate .


----------



## Remius (20 Feb 2012)

Grimaldus said:
			
		

> When you think of it and the opinions of non-firearm owners towards what gun owners deal with it can be pretty accurate .



While I agree that the whole thing is a taste of your own medicine (from both sides as far as I can tell) and that yes, people don't care unless it affects them, I always find the whole Nazi, Hitler, Jewish comparisons in any argument diminishes the validity of the argument (i think that it's Godwin's rule/law or whatever).  Unless of course you use the comparison with something that is actually comparable.

The 2nd metaphor by Recceguy is much better in my mind.

And no, I don't think that non-firearm owners attitude towards firearm owner's is accurate in any way to the experience that Jewish people went through at the time.

I agree with the argument, not the example being used to support it.

I used to be pro-registry until a few people argued the case against it to me in a reasoned way with facts and evidence.  If they had gotten all emotional and talked about how Hitler did the same things etc etc, I would likely still be pro-registry.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (20 Feb 2012)

Crantor said:
			
		

> While I agree that the whole thing is a taste of your own medicine (from both sides as far as I can tell) and that yes, people don't care unless it affects them, I always find the whole Nazi, Hitler, Jewish comparisons in any argument diminishes the validity of the argument (i think that it's Godwin's rule/law or whatever).  Unless of course you use the comparison with something that is actually comparable.
> 
> The 2nd metaphor by Recceguy is much better in my mind.
> 
> ...



You have to chill out and keep your view on the main point(s) and not an example. Don't get all wrapped up and out of focus because you're somehow offended at a simple saying. Don't forget, it's only one line, and not verbatun either, in a whole poem attributed to Martin Niemöller. There are dozens, if not hundreds, of permutations of the original poem out there.

It's certainly not about gun owners relating their plight to communists, trade unionists or Jews. It's about a current mindset of  politicians and  people in Canada.

Others thought it apt. It's a matter of opinion and perspective is all.


----------



## armyvern (20 Feb 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Simply as a metaphor.
> 
> To wit: "So long as my rights aren't infringed, I don't care if other Canadians suffer that fate."



Bang on. Too many suffer from this lapse of not giving a crap until it's on their own doorstep these days.


----------



## Remius (20 Feb 2012)

RG:  I'm hardly offended by the phrase.  I just don't think it's an effective quote for the reason's I stated.   And trying to stay on the main point is what I was trying to emphasise.  By throwing out hyperbolic statements or quotes the main message gets lost.  Your second quote is much more supportive of the argument than what you said before ie the Jewish comparison.  I mentioned Godwin's law for example.

I realise after you explained yourself that wasn't your intent but it still comes off that way.


----------



## jollyjacktar (20 Feb 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I love how everyone is up in arms because the cops can get at them without a warrant.


Unless we end up with a police state, I fail to see what they are up in arms about.  If you are behaving yourself on line, what do you have to worry about?  If BB wants to look at what I do on line, they're welcome to do so.  I'm already monitored at work and watched at what I do anyhow.  I'm still here and expect to be so tomorrow.  If you are over the line, or skating on it... well maybe you need some oversight.

And RG, as a "former" gun owner I can feel your pain and frustration.  That was one of the reasons I decided many years ago to lose the iron, but not the main ones which have more to do with restricted weapons issues and requirements.  But again, unless we become a police state I don't anticipate anyone coming for your guns unless you warrant it.  I would be more worried about some shitrat coming into your house and relieving you of them than the law.


----------



## Jarnhamar (20 Feb 2012)

Crantor said:
			
		

> While I agree that the whole thing is a taste of your own medicine (from both sides as far as I can tell) and that yes, people don't care unless it affects them, I always find the whole Nazi, Hitler, Jewish comparisons in any argument diminishes the validity of the argument (i think that it's Godwin's rule/law or whatever).  Unless of course you use the comparison with something that is actually comparable.
> 
> The 2nd metaphor by Recceguy is much better in my mind.
> 
> ...



Fair enough. I don't think you can evoke Godwin sans the N and or H word - but I know what you mean.  Huge pet peeve of mine is throwing the N/H word into a debate. i just found RGs example was good.

One could use Christopher Reeves as an example. Before he fell off a horse and became paralyzed he didn't care about that stuff.  Afterwards all of a sudden hes a big champion about it.  I feel the same way about people who don't give two shits really about drinking and driving until it directly impacts them then they become crusaders against it.


----------



## Remius (20 Feb 2012)

Right.  And the argument is a good one.  It's hard to see the opposition as credible when they themselves are guilty of the same thing.  And vice versa.  Ultimately we need to judge the legislation for what it is worth.  Gun registry: Not good.  Cyber-law: Not so good either.

jollyjacktar: If the police suddenly had unfettered access to your house or car and you had nothing to hide would you be cool with them just coming in and searching without a warrant or without your permission?  How about wiring your phone?  I think this is what some people compare the online world to.  The technology is moving faster than the rules so things get muddled and or confused.

I think the police need the tools to do their work but not at the expense of people's rights.  If getting warrants in a timely manner is the issue then tackle that problem rather than circumvent it.  If you are found guilty of a crime and on probabtion for example then yeah maybe the police should have access to you IP but a blanket law covering everyone is a little overboard.  What kills me is the minister didn't even know what was in the legislation and now the government sent it to comittee before 2nd reading as a damage control measure.


----------



## larry Strong (20 Feb 2012)

From what I can find out, and I could be wrong, all the police will get is access to basic cell phone and internet user information like home addresses, phone numbers, and IP addresses. Actual usage monitoring (I.e., what you're "up to" online) would still require a warrant. Also from what I can figure out if police tap in without a warrant in such a situation, they are subject to restrictions imposed by the bill and some evidence may not be admissible in court.


Somehow I don't think that police would have the resources to monitor what every person is doing online. 

I personally don't see a big deal.......unless you are doing something illegal. 

I vaguely remember a big stink being raised some years back about surveillance cameras being installed in cities and how it was an invasion of privacy etc. I view this bill as very much the same thing.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (20 Feb 2012)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Unless we end up with a police state, I fail to see what they are up in arms about.  If you are behaving yourself on line, what do you have to worry about?



Where have I heard some thing like that before? Hmmm. Now I remember: "_*Welcome to Westworld, the Playground of the Future. Where Nothing Can go Wrong. Go Wrong. Go wrong. Go Wrong.*"_


----------



## Fishbone Jones (20 Feb 2012)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Unless we end up with a police state, I fail to see what they are up in arms about.  If you are behaving yourself on line, what do you have to worry about?  If BB wants to look at what I do on line, they're welcome to do so.  I'm already monitored at work and watched at what I do anyhow.  I'm still here and expect to be so tomorrow.  If you are over the line, or skating on it... well maybe you need some oversight.
> 
> And RG, as a "former" gun owner I can feel your pain and frustration.  That was one of the reasons I decided many years ago to lose the iron, but not the main ones which have more to do with restricted weapons issues and requirements.  But again, unless we become a police state I don't anticipate anyone coming for your guns unless you warrant it.  I would be more worried about some shitrat coming into your house and relieving you of them than the law.



You'll have to tell that to the hundreds of gun owners who've lost their guns and gained criminal records based solely on the unwarranted searches that have already taken place in this country.

Although there is trepidation on my part of loss from either the police or shitrats, I am reasonably confident about dealing with the later, forcefully and mortally. The former, I have a snowballs chance in hell against.


----------



## Kat Stevens (21 Feb 2012)

I find the whole "if you don't do anything wrong you have nothing to worry about" thing to be more than a little disturbing.  Why should anyone volunteer to have their cyber sphincter probed indiscriminately?  Any peek into my personal life without my expressed consent is a violation, and rest assured, EVERYONE has SOMETHING to hide if they dig deep enough.  Even the most innocuous material can be misinterpreted by an overzealous bloodhound.


----------



## ballz (21 Feb 2012)

I've been in a somewhat heated discussion about this bill with someone, but it was a rational discussion and it led us to finding things out for ourselves as opposed to what the media is reporting. I read all of sections 1-39 (the stuff that deals with what they can / can't do, what's required for what, etc.) and in my opinion there's a few things that need to be looked at but for the most part it's a lot of fear-mongering by the media and a lot of hippies crying wolf.

Here is the bill http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/292611-bill-c-30.html

So, a couple observations (these are all according to my interpretation of what I have read):

1. In order for the police to get your name/address/number/email/IP Address, it has to be a part of a criminal investigation. In other words, if you are caught associating online with someone that they are currently investigating, they can get this information. Doesn't sound much different than if your name comes up during any other criminal investigation does it? They can't access anything, but they can come to your door and ask to speak with you. If you knew someone who was murdered or being investigated for homocide, this is probably what would happen.

2. There is a lot of talk in the media about whether or not they can use that information to profile you / track your movements. The bill specifically says that they are only allowed to use that information for the purpose of the specific criminal investigation it was requested for. However, there needs to be more discussion on this IMO. If that information *can* be used to profile / track someone, there needs to be specific safeguards to make sure that they don't (not one line written into the bill that says they can't, that's not enough).

3. I encourage you all to read Section 17 (well I encourage everyone to read the whole thing), the one that Mr. Toews said he "was not aware of." Under Section 17, the "exceptional circumstances" that allow any police officer to request the above information, without a warrant, are basically the same kind of protocol that a police officer can search you / your vehicle without a warrant when he pulls you over for speeding. 

That officer is required to give his name / badge number to the ISP when making the request. The ISP is then obligated to contact one of his bosses, who is then responsible for ensuring that the member did in fact have "reasonable grounds" to get this info without a warrant.

All of this stuff is of course documented and reported in a formal way. The RCMP and CSIS (and that Competition one) are required to conduct internal audits on an annual basis of all of these instances, and report to the minister. The Privacy Commissioner is also allowed to conduct her own audit at her request.

4. They cannot access any of your communication, web browser history, etc. without a warrant.

5. Section 34 is what concerns me the most. It gives bureaucrats way too much "inspecting" power, including the ability to access your stuff (browser history, emails, etc) and make copies of it, _without a warrant_, all for the purpose of making sure the ISPs are holding up their end of the bargain.


As for the stuff comparing this to the gun registry, they are not even close. Bureaucrats have the power to have the police seize your property at a whim, with no judicial or parliamentary oversight, without compensation, basically because they feel like it (don't believe me? go ask the owners of a certain .22 calibre rifle right now)... a complete violation of the Charter. I am getting posted (restricted) on May 9th, and I am still trying to figure out what the hell I can legally do with my restricted firearm. The only help from the RCMP is they are telling me to transfer the ownership to someone else with a restricted-PAL. That's bullshit, why should have to give away my property just because they came up with this stupid system and don't have a method in place to deal with my circumstances?

When you've got to go get an Authorization to Transport every time you want to leave your house with your laptop or cell phone, then come to talk to me about invasion of privacy. Owners of restricted weapons are lucky they can sneeze without some sort of permit or license.

EDIT: Oh yes, and "if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about" is a terrible argument. The Charter guarantees us (minus firearm owners, of course) the right against unreasonable search and seizure for a very, very valid reason. Sorry to bring it back to the Nazi regime, but a lot of the Jews thought that as long as they were compliant, they would have nothing to worry about...


----------



## larry Strong (21 Feb 2012)

:goodpost:


----------



## dogger1936 (21 Feb 2012)

Ballz that is 100% what I believe and have concluded after reading it. I thought the minister looked unprofessional switching his stance; aside from that your post is 100% bang on in my view.


----------



## jollyjacktar (21 Feb 2012)

ballz, this is still a free country and by all means debate the issues if you fear they might misuse things.  As for myself, as I presently conduct myself on-line and frankly in my personal life I am far to the side of crossing over the middle line and into the dark side.  If the cyber snoops want to look at what I do here in cyber space they are free to do so and welcome to it, and rather bored they'll be too.

Perhaps the day will come where I will be more concerned with how things are headed in this country, but I don't personally smell smoke at present.  As for being a gun owner, my days of that are many years behind me and I am sorely out of date on what is their current plight so in that regard I admit to being very ignorant of things.  

As for the bogey men out there, I agree there are bogey men to fear and ponder about.  I just look elsewhere than at Ottawa at present.


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Feb 2012)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> I find the whole "if you don't do anything wrong you have nothing to worry about" thing to be more than a little disturbing.  Why should anyone volunteer to have their cyber sphincter probed indiscriminately?  Any peek into my personal life without my expressed consent is a violation, and rest assured, EVERYONE has SOMETHING to hide if they dig deep enough.  Even the most innocuous material can be misinterpreted by an overzealous bloodhound.



 :goodpost:

Very true: _privacy_ is an acquired (rather than "natural" or inherent) right, but it is an important one none the less.


----------



## ballz (21 Feb 2012)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> ballz, this is still a free country and by all means debate the issues if you fear they might misuse things.  As for myself, as I presently conduct myself on-line and frankly in my personal life I am far to the side of crossing over the middle line and into the dark side.  If the cyber snoops want to look at what I do here in cyber space they are free to do so and welcome to it, and rather bored they'll be too.



Sorry, I did not mean to say you shouldn't raise your point. But the issue I think you are overlooking isn't so much about whether or not they'll find something, but more importantly what precedent are we setting if we allow them to take away rights guaranteed by the Charter just because it doesn't affect us as an individual. You said "unless we end up with a police state," but the question I would ask you is how close are you willing to let them get to being a police state but they're coming into your comfort zone? If we protect our Charter Rights and Freedoms each time they are challenged by bills like this one and bills that would make us register our firearms, they will never get into your comfort zone, or anybody else's.

I don't fear the bogey man in Ottawa either, largely in part because the democratic process has been revealed to be alive and well according to what's happening with this bill. The citizens of Canada have rightfully raised concerns, very loudly, and this bill will likely be amended to something much more appropriate where no one's privacy is invaded without proper judicial oversight on the basis of "reasonable grounds."


----------



## jollyjacktar (21 Feb 2012)

ballz said:
			
		

> 5. Section 34 is what concerns me the most. It gives bureaucrats way too much "inspecting" power, including the ability to access your stuff (browser history, emails, etc) and make copies of it, _without a warrant_, all for the purpose of making sure the ISPs are holding up their end of the bargain.


If I fear anyone in Ottawa or from Ottawa these are the demons.  The Police have lots of hoops to jump through to snoop and must prove cause, things such as writs of assistance died 30 years ago.  But the crats, they seem to be a law unto themselves as evidenced by what has happended at VAC over the past few years.


----------



## Nemo888 (21 Feb 2012)

Ironically Minister Toews knocked up babysitter is now one of those "demon" bureaucrats up on the hill now. Thanks leaked personal information that is none of my business! Won't that be nice to chat about during his next election campaign. 

Records inevitably get used. Access is rather loose since ISP's, telecoms, any police officer who decides it is an "exceptional circumstance"(Whatever that means, the bill only says exceptional circumstance and doesn't delineate what that is.) and bureaucrats will have access. This bill is DOA as is Toews chances for re-election. One Conservative seat less for the next election.


----------



## ballz (21 Feb 2012)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> "exceptional circumstance"(Whatever that means, the bill only says exceptional circumstance and doesn't delineate what that is.)



It says exactly what those "exceptional circumstances" are, what the procedure is, and what the follow up procedures are. I put the link above but I can't copy/paste from it, but it's Section 17 if you're interested.


----------



## The Bread Guy (21 Feb 2012)

ballz said:
			
		

> .... Here is the bill http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/292611-bill-c-30.html ....


And here it is at the Parliament of Canada web page in case the link above is firewalled where you are:
http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&DocId=5380965

And here's an overview of the bill, including where the bill is at:
http://www.parl.gc.ca/LegisInfo/BillDetails.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&billId=5375610


----------



## Jarnhamar (21 Feb 2012)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> I find the whole "if you don't do anything wrong you have nothing to worry about" thing to be more than a little disturbing.



I used to be a smart ass and say this all the time. If you don't have anything to hide why do you care?  If you're innocent then you shouldn't mind anyone snooping around your business.

That is until someone made completely false allegations against me once.  I didn't want a lawyer (I wasn't guilty of anything after all)  Everyone told me I was being stupid but I stuck with the I'm not guilty I got nothing to hide.  Until friends of mine on the police force told me I was an idiot for being so trusting and started telling me stories about innocent guys getting railroaded.  Same with my father.  When I spoke up and said well maybe I should look at getting a lawyer just to make sure everything is on the up and up?  I became guilty to the police.
"Why would you change your mind huh? That's very suspicious of you, clearly you have something to hide. We're going to have to step this investigation up a notch and really get down and dirty.  Attitude towards me changed from hey buddy we believe you it's all good just procedure to you're a scumbag.


----------



## Remius (21 Feb 2012)

Yep.  I had a similar story happen to one of my MCpls in regards to a missing piece of serialised kit.  They started by saying they wanted him to come in to give a statement.  Turned into an accusation and outright accusing him.  It was all baseless of course.  Then they asked if he would be willing to take a lie detector test.  I got a panicked phone call from him.  Referred him to the JAG hotline.  They explained the legalities of the test and they pretty much said what I had said and he refused the lie detector test or to give any more statements without a lawyer present.  They left him alone after that. 

I once went in to provide a witness statement to the MPs and I was treated like an accused.

I have no issues helping and cooperating with the police but if I choose to exercise my rights for whatever reason that's my perogative.  If I know I'm innocent I have nothing to prove and shouldn't have to either.  My car, my bags, my home.  Unless I give them reason to of course.


----------



## dogger1936 (23 Feb 2012)

And it will only cost 80 million. Sounds like another great idea in times of budget cuts and pension slashing. Brilliant stuff.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2012/02/22/pol-lawful-access-costs.html


----------



## GAP (23 Feb 2012)

dogger1936 said:
			
		

> And it will only cost 80 million. Sounds like another great idea in times of budget cuts and pension slashing. Brilliant stuff.
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2012/02/22/pol-lawful-access-costs.html



Hah....the Liberals beat them out!!! The LGR was only gonna cost 2 Million, then be self sustaining.....

so there nasty Cons!!!.................

uh.....wait one.....that didn't work out quite that way, did it.................


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Feb 2012)

And Bob Rae apologizes, according to this article which is reproduced under the fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/rae-apologizes-after-liberal-staffer-admits-to-vikileaks-attack/article2351521/


> Rae apologizes after Liberal staffer admits to ‘Vikileaks’ attack
> 
> GLORIA GALLOWAY
> 
> ...




No comment.


----------



## Nemo888 (4 Sep 2012)

Toews is not going to seek reelection. Rumour mill says he is being thrown a bone and is going to be appointed to the Manitoba Court of Appeal. Must be nice to be well connected.


----------



## PuckChaser (4 Sep 2012)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> Toews is not going to seek reelection. Rumour mill says he is being thrown a bone and is going to be appointed to the Manitoba Court of Appeal. Must be nice to be well connected.



His rumoured appointment to the bench was released weeks ago, and I fail to see how that has anything to do with the thread topic. If we want to talk about well connected, how about the staffer that conducted this privacy breach was given a plum job back by the Liberal party. Glad to see the Patronage Liberal party is still as crooked as ever.


----------



## Nemo888 (4 Sep 2012)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> His rumoured appointment to the bench was released weeks ago, and I fail to see how that has anything to do with the thread topic. If we want to talk about well connected, how about the staffer that conducted this privacy breach was given a plum job back by the Liberal party. Glad to see the Patronage Liberal party is still as crooked as ever.



Toews not seeking reelection because he is now an embarrassment to the party is not relevant to the thread about his public shaming?

Please go on.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (5 Sep 2012)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> Toews is not going to seek reelection. Rumour mill says he is being thrown a bone and is going to be appointed to the Manitoba Court of Appeal. Must be nice to be well connected.



We don't deal in rumour around here. Especially from you, who has no real connection to that particular subject.



			
				Nemo888 said:
			
		

> Toews not seeking reelection because he is now an embarrassment to the party is not relevant to the thread about his public shaming?
> 
> Please go on.



That is only an assumption on your part and you will have to prove it, or shut up.

And not with your rumours or innuendo.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## dogger1936 (22 Sep 2012)

While I may disagree with how this turned out......however according to what is pushing forward into law this fall it seems to have worked!


----------

