Police need new internet surveillance tools

[steven lloyd]

Isn't this it?

http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications ... 65&File=59

1. This Act may be cited as the Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act.

Looks like some of the hate promotors around might have to start toning it down as well. That's a good thing too.

[FreeRights]

yes they can always read posts, but under the requested law everything as i see is open for them.
they can ask who it is posting whatever and the information would have to be given.
i believe if you are not breaking any Canadian laws you should have the expected right to privacy.
so if you post a opinion on CBC that the police dont like they can instantly access who and where you are.

I don't think they, or anyone, cares if you make a post on CBC.

As long as it isn't criminal.

[OnTheRoadAgain]

They can do all of that now without a warrant. If they want to read your posts they just have to look in here like anyone else and the mods know who you are....oooh so scary!

There are some things that I agree they don't need instant access to though. We need some privacy.

yes they can always read posts, but under the requested law everything as i see is open for them.
they can ask who it is posting whatever and the information would have to be given.
i believe if you are not breaking any Canadian laws you should have the expected right to privacy.
so if you post a opinion on CBC that the police dont like they can instantly access who and where you are.

I don't think they, or anyone, cares if you make a post on CBC.

As long as it isn't criminal.

\Watch that at the border too folks. They know all your letters to the editor, and anything they can dig up online, and they will use it against you, including your political views.....

[OnTheRoadAgain]

Reasonable grounds is what you need for a warrant too...... Why would we remove our only protection?

I would think if they are looking, they must have reasonable grounds.
I don't think they check up on people for fun.

[OnTheRoadAgain]

They can make some of the people happy all of the time;
they can make all of the people happy some of the time;
they cannot make all of the people happy all of the time.
As you can see here, that would be impossible.

[mrj222]

Reasonable grounds is what you need for a warrant too...... Why would we remove our only protection?

I would think if they are looking, they must have reasonable grounds.
I don't think they check up on people for fun.

Again if they are going to still require reasonable grounds why remove the warrant process. Surely the risk of abuse by police outweighs the inconvenience of proper paperwork and having to prove reasonable grounds to a third party. Im willing to admit not all police would abuse the system but some certainly will. Lets keep our protections and if needed streamline the warrant process.

[SurplusElect]

This is like the police saying "...with this new "telephone" technology that has been invented, we need to be able to get information without warrants to save peoples lives and stop criminality" 100 years ago.

Get a warrant. End of story.

[OnTheRoadAgain]

Reasonable grounds is what you need for a warrant too...... Why would we remove our only protection?

I would think if they are looking, they must have reasonable grounds.
I don't think they check up on people for fun.

Again if they are going to still require reasonable grounds why remove the warrant process. Surely the risk of abuse by police outweighs the inconvenience of proper paperwork and having to prove reasonable grounds to a third party. Im willing to admit not all police would abuse the system but some certainly will. Lets keep our protections and if needed streamline the warrant process.

ONline bullying is time sensitive. So is child pornography. It's right there in front of their faces, in print.
Risk of abuse with online bullying doesn't really concern me yet, but I may be missing something.
The human rights fighters would have a problem with this 'slippery slope', I think.
Our protections are in full place with this act, if we are not abusing others online, aren't they?
All ears here...

[keith1612]

it takes no more than 10 minutes to get a legal warrant for a judge.
why do they need the rights to violate our civil rights?
the simple answer is the same as the .05 law, they want the ability to penalize and search and do whatever they like with no reason explained.
why do they need to know every gun owner in canada?
even with the gun registry its been shown they sure as hell cant win in a shoot out.
its a control issue, look at the olympic police in vancouver telling people to remove signs on our property.
we are slowly becoming a police state and allowing it.
shouldnt we have the rights to decide if our kids can tan?
maybe all these laws and city bylaws should be put to a public vote.
i dont smoke weed personally but why the hell should Harper go nuts and make it jail time when the general public doesnt mind.
all these new laws and nobody to really enforce them.
slow down and just concentrate on the criminals now.
and do it legaly within canadian civil rights

[Fancy]

I don't think much has changed except people's perceptions of this Act. Time can be of the essence.

[mrj222]

ONline bullying is time sensitive. So is child pornography. It's right there in front of their faces, in print.
Risk of abuse with online bullying doesn't really concern me yet, but I may be missing something.
The human rights fighters would have a problem with this 'slippery slope', I think.
Our protections are in full place with this act, if we are not abusing others online, aren't they?
All ears here...

First of all the requirement of a warrant is our ONLY protection from unwarranted spying by police/government. There is absolutely no exception. the if you arent doing anything wrong you have nothing to hide argument is nonsense.

Murders are time sensitive as well, bank robberies also time sensitive should we just abolish warrants altogether?

In fact crime on the internet is less time sensitive than either of those two examples I gave and most others. The logs and other information will be there long after the crime is committed and a warrant can be obtained in short order if required.

Essentially your whole argument is backwards and that's where the problem lies with that line of thinking. In order for a crime to be investigated a crime has to be committed unless we want to try our hand at pre crime....

Once the crime has been committed the police can gather evidence, find a list of suspects, get warrants, obtain information then make arrests. Would I rather be able to catch child predators before hand? absolutely I have a little girl I understand, but its not a feasible goal at least not without trampling the rights of everyone. Frankly that's not worth it.

The only evidence suspects can destroy is evidence in their possession on their computer (the same with any crime) the logs on the ISP, websites etc will remain until the RCMP get their warrant.

[Fancy]

Everyone's rights won't be trampled - still need to have just cause. This is how it stands now:

487.11 A peace officer, or a public officer who has been appointed or designated to administer or enforce any federal or provincial law and whose duties include the enforcement of this or any other Act of Parliament, may, in the course of his or her duties, exercise any of the powers described in subsection 487(1) or 492.1(1) without a warrant if the conditions for obtaining a warrant exist but by reason of exigent circumstances it would be impracticable to obtain a warrant.

[keith1612]

Everyone's rights won't be trampled - still need to have just cause. This is how it stands now:

487.11 A peace officer, or a public officer who has been appointed or designated to administer or enforce any federal or provincial law and whose duties include the enforcement of this or any other Act of Parliament, may, in the course of his or her duties, exercise any of the powers described in subsection 487(1) or 492.1(1) without a warrant if the conditions for obtaining a warrant exist but by reason of exigent circumstances it would be impracticable to obtain a warrant.

so if it wont change our rights why the need for a new law, i call *bleep*.
they are asking for the right to monitor phones with no warrant but promising us they will only ask for some things, again *bleep*.
why do police feel the need to remove basic civil rights to do their job?
it takes one 2 minute phone call to obtain a warrant and it lasts for the amount of time a judge feels is legally required.
its not that i care if they hear me say hi to my wife on the phone or read my emails but more why the hell do they need to.
giving away our rights is silly, once gone they are hard to get back.

[diggerdick]

warrants , Judges, lawyers and the courts seem to be getting in the way Of so-called law enforcement.

The government's control the police and they most certainly control their budgets So we must conclude that this new turn of events is sanctioned by both our federal and provincial governments.

So we should all be unthinking right-wing sheep and go along with the program

[mrj222]

Everyone's rights won't be trampled - still need to have just cause. This is how it stands now:

487.11 A peace officer, or a public officer who has been appointed or designated to administer or enforce any federal or provincial law and whose duties include the enforcement of this or any other Act of Parliament, may, in the course of his or her duties, exercise any of the powers described in subsection 487(1) or 492.1(1) without a warrant if the conditions for obtaining a warrant exist but by reason of exigent circumstances it would be impracticable to obtain a warrant.

Wonderful that makes me feel warm inside. Just one question whos to say if the circumstances were warranted or not? Are we to just trust that it will never be abused?

Sorry we need proper paperwork to ensure things are done correctly.