Police need new internet surveillance tools

[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.

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.

we have seen in BC and all over Canada way too much police corruption to allow a open door system for them.
people can say thats police bashing and i will say BS.
almost every day in the news is another corruption story.
they hit the wrong door and beat a innocent man to a pulp and are found to be doing a proper job etc.
no we need checks and balances in place to at least attempt some human civil rights.
sure we want to see child molesters and criminals arrested but whats the problem with getting a proper warrant.
make a law taking that right away and real criminals will just be let go by the supreme court for rights violations.
Harper and Christy can try and remove civil rights but the court can and will eventually trump them.
do the job within the law and save cases being tossed for shoddy work.

[Fancy]

to allow a open door system for them

it's not - I suggest reading up on the laws.

[keith1612]

to allow a open door system for them

it's not - I suggest reading up on the laws.

well the laws are fine the way they have them, the police have stated they want the rights to bypass a warrant, that to me is criminal.

[keith1612]

Association president and Vancouver police Chief Jim Chu says he is concerned Bill C-30 will die on the order paper, meaning officers investigating criminal activity on cellphones and the internet will still have to get a warrant every time they want to intercept communications by cybercriminals.

thats a pretty basic and straight forward statement.
they want to bypass warants.
they want to destroy our civil rights.
there is no need to remove our rights to expected privacy.

[Fancy]

the police have stated they want the rights to bypass a warrant, that to me is criminal.

They can bypass a warrant under certain circumstances and no, it is not criminal.

[keith1612]

the police have stated they want the rights to bypass a warrant, that to me is criminal.

They can bypass a warrant under certain circumstances and no, it is not criminal.

they want the right to when they feel like it.
they havent earned or deserve that trust.

[Fancy]

they want the right to when they feel like it.

That hardly comes under "reasonable grounds".

[keith1612]

they want the right to when they feel like it.

That hardly comes under "reasonable grounds".

nowhere in Chief Jim Chu's request or statement did i see "reasonable grounds".
we have reasonable grounds laws now, thats not what he is asking for.
maybe you should go and re read the statements made by him.
he is asking for the rights to go warrantless.
yes to me that is criminal and should be treated as such.

[Fancy]

nowhere in Chief Jim Chu's request or statement did i see "reasonable grounds".
we have reasonable grounds laws now, thats not what he is asking for.
maybe you should go and re read the statements made by him.
he is asking for the rights to go warrantless.
yes to me that is criminal and should be treated as such.

His statement doesn't supercede the laws. His right to ask for something doesn't mean parliament will push the bill through and that sure as heck doesn't make it criminal. Have you read it?

He did say this:

"Criminal bullying is extremely concerning to all Canadians, especially the parents of young children, and Bill C-30 also provides new legislation to help police intervene and investigate cyber bullying in their early stages to prevent needless tragedy."

[keith1612]

nowhere in Chief Jim Chu's request or statement did i see "reasonable grounds".
we have reasonable grounds laws now, thats not what he is asking for.
maybe you should go and re read the statements made by him.
he is asking for the rights to go warrantless.
yes to me that is criminal and should be treated as such.

His statement doesn't supercede the laws. His right to ask for something doesn't mean parliament will push the bill through and that sure as heck doesn't make it criminal. Have you read it?

He did say this:

"Criminal bullying is extremely concerning to all Canadians, especially the parents of young children, and Bill C-30 also provides new legislation to help police intervene and investigate cyber bullying in their early stages to prevent needless tragedy."

well he is correct, criminal bullying by the government and police is concerning.
we have seen Harper change and alter and do what he wants to bills now havent we.

[Fancy]

Don't change the meaning of his statement. Chu also stated that section should be clarified.

[mrj222]

you need reasonable grounds for a warrant..... warrants mean a second set of eyes looking at it to ensure the grounds are in fact reasonable seems like a no brainer that warrants should be required for any invasion of privacy especially since one can be obtained on short order.

Removing the need for warrants "under certain circumstances" means all circumstances will become those that require less work. People are lazy they will take a shortcut if one is available. Not only that but this WILL be abused because there is no system to prevent abuse. I support the police but lets be honest not all of them are honourable people.

[Fancy]

People are lazy they will take a shortcut if one is available. Not only that but this WILL be abused because there is no system to prevent abuse

That's assuming there are no safeguards in place - I read that there will be and the repercussions are severe. The fact that abuse happens can happen anywhere and anytime. It's not the police that will pass this bill but certainly I can understand supporting it.

[mrj222]

That's assuming there are no safeguards in place - I read that there will be and the repercussions are severe. The fact that abuse happens can happen anywhere and anytime. It's not the police that will pass this bill but certainly I can understand supporting it.

Without proper paperwork who will know if its abused? I mean that seriously all situations will be "exigent circumstances". Are the repercussions going to be 10 years in prison? because anything less is not enough. Proper safeguards (paperwork) could be called a warrant and be issued by a third party like say a judge and I'd be happy.

What I'm saying is there is absolutely nothing wrong with the system we have in place. If warrants arent issued fast enough fix that but I don't think that is what the problem is here. The police want fancy new rights and I can understand why it cuts down on their paperwork dramatically but it removes one of the publics very few protections and that is NOT acceptable.

Risk vs reward this is a no go.

[keith1612]

That's assuming there are no safeguards in place - I read that there will be and the repercussions are severe. The fact that abuse happens can happen anywhere and anytime. It's not the police that will pass this bill but certainly I can understand supporting it.

Without proper paperwork who will know if its abused? I mean that seriously all situations will be "exigent circumstances". Are the repercussions going to be 10 years in prison? because anything less is not enough. Proper safeguards (paperwork) could be called a warrant and be issued by a third party like say a judge and I'd be happy.

What I'm saying is there is absolutely nothing wrong with the system we have in place. If warrants arent issued fast enough fix that but I don't think that is what the problem is here. The police want fancy new rights and I can understand why it cuts down on their paperwork dramatically but it removes one of the publics very few protections and that is NOT acceptable.

Risk vs reward this is a no go.

100% correct.
the police can obtain a warrant anytime they want in under 10 minutes with proper grounds.
to say they need the ability faster goes beyond common sense.
to also say they wont abuse extra power also goes beyond common sense going by past history.
and as to punishment if they break the rules we all know thats a joke, they almost never get any punishment now for what they do.
in a life or death situation now they can bypass a warrant so the need for more reasons to bypass it make no sense.