# Telcos push back on expanding police powers



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

An interesting article.

Canadian telecoms push back on proposed police powers - Rogers, TekSavvy and others say the government hasn't justified why it needs expanded digital powers
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/rogers-teksavvy-itac-cwta-bill-c51-national-security-1.3903930

There has been a push to expand police powers in Canadian telecom, similar to what the US has done. Now the experts (the telcos themselves) have weighed in and said: *Canada's existing laws governing police powers are adequate*, and that the government has not provided enough evidence to justify expanding those powers.

After Trudeau initially promised to repeal some of the expansion of powers, his recent discussion paper (linked to in the article) actually proposes the _expansion_ of police powers.

I have written a letter to my MP expressing my views on this. I write it from the perspective of a digital security professional who works within the US, and sees first hand the mess caused by wide-reaching digital law enforcement powers in the US.

I'll let the article do the talking, but I also want to point out a hidden issue: Stingrays, or IMSI catchers which intercept cell phone calls.

It is now routine in the US for police, even small municipal police, to use Stingray devices to intercept and hack cell phones. This is really messy and it disrupts normal cell phone usage. Rogers points out that Stingrays can interfere with 911 and normal cell phone operation.

I really hope that Canada doesn't adopt these American tactics.


----------



## wraphter (Sep 21, 2016)

james4beach said:


> An interesting article.
> 
> Canadian telecoms push back on proposed police powers - Rogers, TekSavvy and others say the government hasn't justified why it needs expanded digital powers
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/rogers-teksavvy-itac-cwta-bill-c51-national-security-1.3903930
> ...



'OK. So first you allow the terrorists in the country because they really aren't so bad and anyways the real terrorists are the white supremacists . '

---Yep.

'And then when the government wants to listen on the phone lines to prevent terroristic attacks you don't allow it.'

---Yep.

I see. Very sensible. Thank you.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

In the US, local police forces have Stingray devices and routinely intercept cell phone calls. They are being used for every purpose imaginable, and the police are not accountable to anyone for their usage. There are no warrants -- the police use them as they want.

If police really think someone is dangerous, they should go and present the rationale and then get approval to intercept the cell phone. With the warrant, they can intercept cell phones... just like they can intercept land lines with warrants. Or search a home with warrants.



> 'And then when the government wants to listen on the phone lines to prevent terroristic attacks you don't allow it.'


Rogers is saying the same thing I'm saying. A clear rationale, and a warrant from a judge, should be required before intercepting phone calls. Otherwise we'll be living in a police state where everyone is being monitored all the time.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

I'm pretty happy to let cops listen in on my calls if it is a means to more efficiently fight crime. I hate criminals and that probably makes me racist/fascist though.


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

Given the terrorist threat it makes all sense in the world to use software to monitor electronic communications and parse them for signs of terrorist activity. This has already saved multiple lives in Europe and the US.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

You could also mount cameras in every home and bathroom in the country, and it will make things safer still. And you can make it even safer if you implant RFID transmitters in every citizen's body to be able to track and identify them 24 hours a day.

In the west, we value privacy and personal rights and freedoms. Forfeiting our freedoms and liberties, for the sake a few terrorists would be a horrible sacrifice. We also all have the right to be treated as innocent until proven guilty, and to not be treated as suspects by default. If you allow pervasive surveillance then everyone is being treated as a potential criminal, all the time -- *completely contrary to Canadian values.*

In my opinion the threat from terrorists is not serious enough to overhaul all aspects of surveillance, nor is it serious enough to compromise personal rights and freedoms to the point where all our communications are constantly monitored.

The point to Rogers, Teksavvy, & friend's letter is that police and intelligence agencies already have all the legal tools they need to investigate criminals. They don't need more capabilities. They already are able to get warrants to monitor internet traffic for suspects. They can intercept phone calls, sniff internet traffic, and identify owners of IP addresses. Police can do it all today... they don't need more power.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

I'm a big booster of our police & want them to have all the tools they deem necessary to do their job even if it means putting a few noses out of joint. And it may suprise many what rights and freedoms we are guaranteed in Canada lol.

here they are

freedom of religion, of thought, of expression, of the press and of peaceful assembly
the right to participate in political activities and the right to a democratic government
the freedom to move around and live within Canada, and to leave Canada
legal rights such as the right to life, liberty and *security*
equality rights
language rights

Nothing about your precious cell phone calls though etc etc


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

I am thinking James should not speak for "us in the west", unless he was appointed a spokesman. He can also stick his patronizing stupidity where the sun don't shine. 

The reality is that many western countries have been tought a lesson or two in blood (eg UK). UK monitors not just electronic communications but also has cameras on every corner and can track your movements in any town. Accounts are also screened for a range of criteria, such as if you have money transfers on Friday (special day for Muslims) and specific attacks have been prevented in this manner. Most of the public are very supportive, they much prefer it to being blown up.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

james4beach said:


> It is now routine in the US for police, even small municipal police, to use Stingray devices to intercept and hack cell phones. This is really messy and it disrupts normal cell phone usage. Rogers points out that Stingrays can interfere with 911 and normal cell phone operation.


Where's your proof that this has ever interfered with emergency services? I operate sophisticated military equipment on aviation navaid frequencies so people often claim it will make planes fall out of the sky. It never has and it never will because of a number of technologies but we do a lot of paperwork and spectrum management to make sure we aren't accused of it (when interference does happen they blame us, and then realize they just need to cut the bushes around their navaid etc..)

Any new military device I buy that uses the spectrum has to go through extensive testing before it is ever allowed to operate in Canada (you know those symbols on the back of your phone, wifi router etc) There are different rules in every country as to what device can operate on what spectrum. The same would go for these StingRays. I also work often in the US and the FCC is lightyears ahead of IC in terms on spectrum management. You should already know this if you work in the industry, james.

Everyone let alone criminals should know by now that phone conversations are not private. If you don't like it you can use whatsapp or facebook or some other app that provides encrypted communication. The police are so restricted even when they have reasons to believe there is terrorist or criminal activity because everyone has the right to be treated as innocent. The StingRay is just another tool to prove guilt. Next you're going to say the police can't look in your direction without a search warrant


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

Bill C-51 granted broad and unchecked surveillance powers to police and security personnel. Trudeau promised to repeal the problematic portions of that bill. It is a promise that many of his voters expect him to keep.

Sophisticated criminals and terrorist encrypt their communications. All these police surveillance powers do is make it a little more convenient for them to nail small time criminals and to intimidate law abiding citizens. Thanks, but no thanks. I'd rather live in a society where there is respect for human dignity and privacy.


----------



## Nelley (Aug 14, 2016)

mordko said:


> I am thinking James should not speak for "us in the west", unless he was appointed a spokesman. He can also stick his patronizing stupidity where the sun don't shine.
> 
> The reality is that many western countries have been tought a lesson or two in blood (eg UK). UK monitors not just electronic communications but also has cameras on every corner and can track your movements in any town. Accounts are also screened for a range of criteria, such as if you have money transfers on Friday (special day for Muslims) and specific attacks have been prevented in this manner. Most of the public are very supportive, they much prefer it to being blown up.


Seems very effective-1. Cause a problem (importing masses of persons known for terrorism) 2. propose and implement the solution for the problem you caused (the entire domestic population must submit to 24/7 monitoring to stay safe). 3. Shear the stupid sheep population for your own purposes.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

mordko said:


> I am thinking James should not speak for "us in the west", unless he was appointed a spokesman.


Freedom & liberty are core values in western societies.

I don't like it when I hear Canadians (or Americans) dumping on some of the most important values in our society. I'm less surprised when people from countries like Russia or Saudi Arabia dump on personal liberties.

But if you're calling yourself a Canadian, yes I do expect that you respect these core values.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

m3s said:


> Where's your proof that this has ever interfered with emergency services?


It's in the statement from Rogers and the other telcos.

Stingrays are not operated by professionals, not operated by telco companies. Operators like Bell and Rogers go to efforts to make sure that their network functions properly, to specifications, and debugs and diagnoses problems.

When the Memphis Police Department pulls out their Stingray and fires it up, they are not telecom experts. They can not assure anyone that their equipment is operating properly, nor can they debug and diagnose problems it causes. They just pump out high powered signals that jam the legitimate cell towers and force phones to negotiate with the Stingray.

Now you have Memphis PD playing "amateur telecom", and the user of that cell phone... someone who may have to dial 911 or depend on the phone in an emergency... is dependent on Memphis PD's equipment and operator technical skill. It also drains the user's battery more rapidly, possibly impacting their life -- like leaving them stranded somewhere.

And then, when there are problems with the cell service, what is the real telco (AT&T) supposed to say when someone comes to them and says -- "your service failed me!". The police are trampling on the telecom company's network, jamming their signals, interfering with their services. Not cool.


----------



## wraphter (Sep 21, 2016)

James you are trying to change the subject from what happened in Berlin.Facts contradict your belief system that Muslims are benign and you deal with it by looking for an external party to blame. You are an unwitting defender and enabler of Islamist terrorism, with your righteous search for justice. 


Previously you adopted the position that white supremacist violence and the alt-right were the more serious problems.You attempted to defend your position with statistics showing Islamism was less violent than home-grown right wing groups.

Now you protect the Muslims by saying it is the governments fault for adopting over-aggressive surveillance methods.

You are looking for somebody else to blame rather than the group that is really responsible,the Muslim community and the extremists they produce.

It is the right's fault or it is the government's fault. It is never the fault of the real guilty party--Islam and the terrorists it engenders.

Terrorism works on the minds of people. It is primarily psychological. 
It works by leveraging random unpredictable violence to create fear and uncertainty in the larger population.
The trauma of what happened in the Christmas market is still fresh in our minds and you try to change the subject 
and blame the security forces attempting to counter this random violence.

Charlie Hebdo in Paris, the Bataclan attack in Paris, Nice, Brussels airport, the Istambul airport , San Bernadino,Orlando.........Who will be next?

People do not want to live with this uncertainty and fear. You are enabling the traumatization of our society.
People are fed up. They have had enough.

Enter the strongman stage right to solve our problem.


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

james4beach said:


> Freedom & liberty are core values in western societies.
> 
> I don't like it when I hear Canadians (or Americans) dumping on some of the most important values in our society. I'm less surprised when people from countries like Russia or Saudi Arabia dump on personal liberties.
> 
> But if you're calling yourself a Canadian, yes I do expect that you respect these core values.


Heh. Like the pathos. And the flag waving combined with chest thumping. Always signs of a bright man. Looks like we only have one Canadian here. Also, by coincidence, it would be the only one who does not actually live in Canada.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

james4beach said:


> And then, when there are problems with the cell service, what is the real telco (AT&T) supposed to say when someone comes to them and says -- "your service failed me!". The police are trampling on the telecom company's network, jamming their signals, interfering with their services. Not cool.


Another reason we never should have privatized our telcos. While privatization was supposed to stimulate innovation, short term rewards for shareholders and executives prevailed. Canada invented telcos and now we lag behind developing countries that get much more for less

If we privatized all the roads then would you accuse the police of interfering with profits and private property by monitoring for criminal activity on these roads? If the telcos cooperated with the police then monitoring would be entirely passive and non disruptive to the law abiding users

The world is changing and telcos need to be monitored to enforce a reasonable rule of law just like the streets are monitored to enforce a predetermined rule of law. If the police can't monitor anything we might as well stop paying for them and go WROL a la Iraq and Syria.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

m3s said:


> Everyone let alone criminals should know by now that phone conversations are not private. If you don't like it you can use whatsapp or facebook or some other app that provides encrypted communication. The police are so restricted even when they have reasons to believe there is terrorist or criminal activity because everyone has the right to be treated as innocent. The StingRay is just another tool to prove guilt. Next you're going to say the police can't look in your direction without a search warrant


So criminals and terrorists switch to encrypted communication and average citizens lose their privacy rights.

So are we going to grant police powers to enter our homes at will to search our papers and effects and to look under our beds for bad guys.

Civil liberties are what makes the west worth living in. We should not be so eager to have them stripped from us for the remote danger terrorism represents.


----------



## new dog (Jun 21, 2016)

Usually I am against James on this side of the forum and wasn't sure how I wanted to reply to this and and andrewf just did it for me. Thanks andrewf I agree with what you just said.


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

andrewf said:


> Civil liberties are what makes the west worth living in. We should not be so eager to have them stripped from us for the remote danger terrorism represents.


Firstly, many terrorists are not the brightest; you don't need to be awfully clever to murder. 

Secondly, hypothetical statements are not worth much. In the real world terrorist communication intercepts helped to catch Bin Laden. Guess nobody told Al Qaeda they should encrypt. In 2013 NSA stated that 50 terrorist attacks have been prevented thanks to intercepted communications. It is known that major terrorist attacks have been prevented in the UK via blank monitoring of banking activities by all citizens (they automatically trigger suspicions based on meeting certain criteria). 

Thirdly, most western countries monitor communications; apparently they are "not worth living in". UK is probably top of the line. 

The real difference between totalitarian regimes and free countries => how the governments use the information and how the use of information is controlled. Totalitarian regimes can do what they like to any citizen. In free countries governments using information against law-abiding citizens would be immediately punished. 

Claiming that US and Britain are on par with Russia and China because all 4 countries monitor electronic communications = stupidity.


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

andrewf said:


> remote danger terrorism represents.


Terrorism represents anything but "remote" danger. While the risk of death might be small, many more people get permanent injuries or psychological damage. Even for those not immediately impacted, terrorism changes way of life. Flying is not the same experience it once was. These days people in Europe are apprehensive going to large gatherings around Christmas time. The whole economy of France has been damaged, millions of people have suffered economic damage. The country has been living in the state of emergency for months. And the French far right party has very real chance of grabbing power.


----------



## wraphter (Sep 21, 2016)

> Civil liberties are what makes the west worth living in. We should not be so eager to have them stripped from us for the remote danger terrorism represents.


It doesn't matter if it is remote or not.The perception is that the danger is very real and palpable. Human beings are not totally 
rational. You can't do a statistical analysis to determine the extent of the danger. Our minds don't work that way. It's the uncertainty
that is important.

Look how irrational people are investing in the stock market. Do you think you can just admonish them to be rational and not sell 
when the stock goes down or not to buy an overpriced stock. The fear of loss is said to be twice as strong as the joy of winning. We are wired that way. There is nothing you can do about it.

Neuroscience tells us that freedom doesn't exist. You may think your actions are spontaneous but they are not.
A couple of seconds before walking across a room ,there was electrical activity in a certain part of your brain that anticipated that action.From a scientific point of view, freedom doesn't exist. We are really robots. We just don't feel we are.

The quality of our lives has been reduced by the fear of terrorism. 
We have already given up our freedom when we get on an airplane. Everybody has to be scanned and take of their shoes and turn on their laptop.

To live in society we must compromise and give up some of our freedom. 
Of course adolescents that's another story.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

andrewf said:


> So criminals and terrorists switch to encrypted communication and average citizens lose their privacy rights.


Like everything it's always a game of cat and mouse. The more disciplined and strategic side tends to find a way to prevail but you never catch everything. You'd be surprised how difficult it is to secure all your communications in practice, and how simple tactics and knowledge can be used to reveal key information.

I think monitoring communication is a lot more efficient and less obtrusive than searching under every suspects bed or trying to intercept all suspicious activity in the streets. Everyone communicates digitally now and it's an effective and relatively affordable way to detect suspicious activity


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

mordko said:


> Terrorism represents anything but "remote" danger. While the risk of death might be small, many more people get permanent injuries or psychological damage. Even for those not immediately impacted, terrorism changes way of life. Flying is not the same experience it once was. These days people in Europe are apprehensive going to large gatherings around Christmas time. The whole economy of France has been damaged, millions of people have suffered economic damage. The country has been living in the state of emergency for months. And the French far right party has very real chance of grabbing power.


yes, there is psychological damage, and you don't seem to notice your personal psychological state in which you rationalize the erosion of core values. james is correct on this. 
There is a historical reasons for privacy laws and the requirement for warrants that is being overlooked in your rationalizations for tyranny.


----------



## hboy54 (Sep 16, 2016)

wraphter said:


> It doesn't matter if it is remote or not.The perception is that the danger is very real and palpable. Human beings are not totally
> rational. You can't do a statistical analysis to determine the extent of the danger. Our minds don't work that way. It's the uncertainty
> that is important.
> 
> ...


Debates like this are really debates of economics.

One group, let's call them the Irrationals is perfectly happy to give the government licence to have full access to our electronic devices and communications. They fear a terror attack, no matter how remote and irrational, yet have see relatively little value in communications privacy because they "have nothing to hide". They are attempting to have others pay in freedom for their benefit in perceived security.

Another group, let's call them the Freedoms, have a more rational understanding of the world. Plus they are kinky and like to send naked pictures of themselves. So this group would rather not have government snooping in their lives at the cost of a few more victims of terror attacks than there otherwise might be. They too are attempting to have others pay with lives for their benefit of privacy.

So this is why there is no right answer to this issue. Only various sides trying to get maximum benefits for themselves while having others pay the costs.

So you when you say "To live in society we must compromise and give up some of our freedom" is to be disingenuous, for you are really wanting someone else to give up their freedom, a freedom that they value and you do not, for your security benefit. No need to feel bad about this, people want different things, but I would hope you can be honest about it.

Just as I am being honest in saying I will take more lives lost to terrorism in order to enhance freedom and privacy. Again, no need for me to feel bad about this, it is perfectly rational based upon what I value vs the costs I or someone close to me might suffer a terror incident.

However, when you look at issues such as this more globally, what ends up happening is that activities pursued by the minority that are perceived to be, but actually are not statistically dangerous, get banned. For example, one man with one crossbow killed one woman in Kanata 20 or 30 years ago, and crossbows were promptly banned in that jurisdiction. And conversely, highly statistically hazardous activities get a pass because the majority enjoy them. Think alcohol here for example.

This is why I do not support banning many things and activities that are perceived to be hazardous, even at times actually hazardous. Someone always pulls out "But if even one life can be saved ...". Bullshit to that. If I supported some of these ideas, then who is to say that after a particularly deadly boating season, someone won't move to ban recreational boating? Really, my boating activities have no particular "necessity" like automobiles do. Or cycling on secondary roadways? "Take a car or the bus".

No the cost of freedom is lives, and it is not just military and police lives. We pay for the freedom to boat with drownings every year, as we do the freedom to cycle with deaths by automobile strike. 

hboy54


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

andrewf said:


> So criminals and terrorists switch to encrypted communication and average citizens lose their privacy rights.
> 
> So are we going to grant police powers to enter our homes at will to search our papers and effects and to look under our beds for bad guys.
> 
> Civil liberties are what makes the west worth living in. We should not be so eager to have them stripped from us for the remote danger terrorism represents.


This is a good point. on rare occasions andrew has an uncharacteristic flash of insight.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

wraphter said:


> It doesn't matter if it is remote or not.The perception is that the danger is very real and palpable. Human beings are not totally
> rational. You can't do a statistical analysis to determine the extent of the danger. Our minds don't work that way. It's the uncertainty
> that is important.
> 
> ...


This is strange. 
1. "We are really robots." How then do you explain originality? 

2. First you say we are not really free, but are just robots. Then you say we have to give up some freedom. How can we give up some of it, if we don't have it in the first place?


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

Pluto said:


> yes, there is psychological damage, and you don't seem to notice your personal psychological state in which you rationalize the erosion of core values. james is correct on this.
> There is a historical reasons for privacy laws and the requirement for warrants that is being overlooked in your rationalizations for tyranny.


You have no idea what constitutes tyranny.

This whole notion that screening communications within the law is somehow bad only exists in N America. It's like with guns.


----------



## s123 (May 3, 2015)

olivaw said:


> Bill C-51 granted broad and unchecked surveillance powers to police and security personnel. Trudeau promised to repeal the problematic portions of that bill. It is a promise that many of his voters expect him to keep.
> 
> Sophisticated criminals and terrorist encrypt their communications. All these police surveillance powers do is make it a little more convenient for them to nail small time criminals and to intimidate law abiding citizens. Thanks, but no thanks. I'd rather live in a society where there is respect for human dignity and privacy.


+1

It could makes a harmful effects of too much of anything . 
(too much eat, drink, sleep, pride, pressure, work, rest. power/force etc.)
Too few is not good either. 

We should stay off of unbalanced new rules that introducing to us frequently.
Push through unfairness of deeds will fail and also that will bring themselves nothing but trouble.

All our life becomes much better off if we choose the well balanced rules. 


- 12 Inspiring Quotes from Steve Jobs That Enrich your Day:
http://www.lifehack.org/articles/lifestyle/12-inspiring-quotes-from-steve-jobs.html

“Your time is limited so don’t waste it living someone else’s life. Don’t be trapped by dogma, which is living with the results of other people’s thinking. Don’t let the noise of others’ opinions drown out your own inner voice. And most important, have the courage to follow your heart and intuition, they somehow already know what you truly want to become. Everything else is secondary.”

― Steve Jobs


- 'Extreme surveillance' becomes UK law with barely a whimper:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...eillance-becomes-uk-law-with-barely-a-whimper

….The US passed a modest bill last year curtailing bulk phone data collection but the victory of Donald Trump in the US presidential election is potentially a major reverse for privacy advocates. On the campaign trail, Trump made comments that implied he would like to use the powers of the surveillance agencies against political opponents. 

Jim Killock, the executive director of Open Rights Group, said: “The UK now has a surveillance law that is more suited to a dictatorship than a democracy. The state has unprecedented powers to monitor and analyse UK citizens’ communications regardless of whether we are suspected of any criminal activity.”


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

m3s said:


> Like everything it's always a game of cat and mouse. The more disciplined and strategic side tends to find a way to prevail but you never catch everything. You'd be surprised how difficult it is to secure all your communications in practice, and how simple tactics and knowledge can be used to reveal key information.
> 
> I think monitoring communication is a lot more efficient and less obtrusive than searching under every suspects bed or trying to intercept all suspicious activity in the streets. Everyone communicates digitally now and it's an effective and relatively affordable way to detect suspicious activity


but you are sidestepping his point: you offered methods for privacy but didn't explain why terrorists couldn't also use those methods.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

Eder said:


> I'm a big booster of our police & want them to have all the tools they deem necessary to do their job even if it means putting a few noses out of joint. And it may suprise many what rights and freedoms we are guaranteed in Canada lol.
> 
> here they are
> 
> ...


The right to security, in section 7, is to be free of abusive actions of your/our own government. Even though you bold face security, as if it is important to you, you promote erosion of that right to be free of abuse from our own government.


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

All this BS tends to evaporate once the country suffers a major attack. Of course UK did, which is why everyone is so happy with monitoring of electronic media. And the best time to take measures is in advance of an attack rather than afterwards.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

Snowden's critique of these methods is they collect too much data that it is information overload such that they don't find anything timely and useful amidst all the haystacks. 

I might add that P Trudeau invoked a suspension of civil liberties in response to the flq crisis, but that was temporary. The suspension of freedoms and rights now seems to be permanent. I think people might be more amenable to it if it was temporary with clearly defined goals to mark the end of it.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Agreed, these regressions in our privacy and freedoms are permanent. Feeding us constant fear about terrorism and "bad guys out to get us" helps justify it all, even though terrorism is a relatively minor threat in our daily lives.

Remember, the largest terrorist attack in Canadian history was the Air India bombing in 1985, killing 329 people. Yet this did not result in new pervasive communication monitoring or widespread enhancements to police powers.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

mordko said:


> Looks like we only have one Canadian here. Also, by coincidence, it would be the only one who does not actually live in Canada.


I was born in Canada and have spent most of my life here. Currently writing to you from Winnipeg.


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

james4beach said:


> I was born in Canada and have spent most of my life here. Currently writing to you from Winnipeg.


But you chose to live and work in the US while beating yourself on the chest how Canadian you are and telling a bunch of people who live and work and pay taxes in Canada how uncanadian they are. You are also ignorant because you claimed it's "unwestern" to screen electronic communications while in fact Europeans don't only screen the but are generally happy with the extra level of security.

Patriotic/idiotic chest thumping is kinda funny, so carry on.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

I don't work in Canada, but I do live here (I'm in my home right now) and I pay taxes in Canada. In fact I go out of my way to pay taxes to Canada even though strictly speaking, I don't have to. This is to make sure I'm doing my part to fund the country and pay for services that I value.


----------



## Nelley (Aug 14, 2016)

mordko said:


> Terrorism represents anything but "remote" danger. While the risk of death might be small, many more people get permanent injuries or psychological damage. Even for those not immediately impacted, terrorism changes way of life. Flying is not the same experience it once was. These days people in Europe are apprehensive going to large gatherings around Christmas time. The whole economy of France has been damaged, millions of people have suffered economic damage. The country has been living in the state of emergency for months. And the French far right party has very real chance of grabbing power.


The MSM spin on this one is that this situation you describe could not have been prevented-it was not engineered by the most powerful persons in France for years-it just somehow happened like a tsunami or something-and now the average law abiding person has to suffer because of this unforseeable occurrence.


----------



## wraphter (Sep 21, 2016)

Pluto said:


> This is strange.
> 1. "We are really robots." How then do you explain originality?
> 
> 2. First you say we are not really free, but are just robots. Then you say we have to give up some freedom. How can we give up some of it, if we don't have it in the first place?


What I was talking about was free will although I referred to it as freedom. perhaps that was confusing. There have been experiments
using fMRI to scan the brain for electrical activity. They found that 7 seconds before the decision to move an index finger the decision was made in the brain. Iow, the decision was made even before the person became aware of it.

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110831/full/477023a.html



> Neuroscience vs philosophy: Taking aim at free will
> Scientists think they can prove that free will is an illusion. Philosophers are urging them to think again.
> 
> The experiment helped to change John-Dylan Haynes's outlook on life. In 2007, Haynes, a neuroscientist at the Bernstein Center for Computational Neuroscience in Berlin, put people into a brain scanner in which a display screen flashed a succession of random letters1. He told them to press a button with either their right or left index fingers whenever they felt the urge, and to remember the letter that was showing on the screen when they made the decision. The experiment used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to reveal brain activity in real time as the volunteers chose to use their right or left hands. The results were quite a surprise.
> ...


So we are robots programmed to believe we are free.We are entitled to have the illusion of freedom.But now we know it is just an illusion.

As far as giving up some freedom in order to live in society, that is based on my reading of Civilization and its Discontents
by Sigmund Freud. He felt a person must give up some of his aggression and sexual desires in order to be part of society
and in order for society to function. In our society it is illegal for a man to have more than one wife at a time.
This is a control of sexual behaviour. Islam allows four wives I believe.


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

mordko said:


> But you chose to live and work in the US while beating yourself on the chest how Canadian you are and telling a bunch of people who live and work and pay taxes in Canada how uncanadian they are. You are also ignorant because you claimed it's "unwestern" to screen electronic communications while in fact Europeans don't only screen the but are generally happy with the extra level of security.
> 
> Patriotic/idiotic chest thumping is kinda funny, so carry on.


I'm an immigrant (from UK) and I take no offence at James comment. People on both the left and the right occasionally make general statements about "Canadian values". NBD. 

The EU recognizes privacy and the sanctity of personal data. Bureaucrats and police departments push to expand surveillance. Numerous lawyers and civil activists push back. The debate is not settled there either. 

Feigned outrage is kinda funny, so carry on.


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

Yes, people do talk about Canadian values. Like PM Harper did in reference to not beating women, not engaging in honour killings, etc... The outrage from the lefties was a miracle to behold. Apparently security is uncanadian while honour killings are practically maple syrup (coming from abroad) while directed to multiple people born and living in Canada, commenting in this thread.

And of course no country can possibly screen more than UK does, not just communications but also videoing every step while you are walking the streets. Apparently UK isn't western. Who knew?


----------



## wraphter (Sep 21, 2016)

james4beach said:


> Feeding us constant fear about terrorism and "bad guys out to get us" helps justify it all, even though terrorism is a relatively minor threat in our daily lives.


If terrorism is so minor how come people spend hours talking about it on the internet and it is so often reported on in the media?

If it is so minor how come a huge bureaucracy called Homeland Security has been created to combat it?

if it is so minor how come it and immigration was the impetus for Britain leaving the EU?

If it is so minor how come it has changed the political landscape in Europe and America with a shift to the right?


If it so minor how come Turkey has been destabilized?


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

Until the UK formally leaves the EU, it is subject to EU protections. British police do not have unlimited surveillance power and there are numerous civil rights groups appealing parliamentary decisions to the European Court of Human Rights. (If Brexit happens, they'll mount a constitutional challenge in the Supreme Court and/or the High Court). 

The cameras are not everywhere. They are in the downtown core of certain cities, underground stations and busy intersections. Don't believe everything you see in the movies.


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

wraphter said:


> If terrorism is so minor how come people spend hours talking about it on the internet and it is so often reported on in the media?


The hours and hours are spent on alt-right and supremacists sites. On this sites it's a tiny subset of individuals discussing terrorism - and much of that descends into Muslim and Islam bashing.


----------



## Nelley (Aug 14, 2016)

olivaw said:


> The hours and hours are spent on alt-right and supremacists sites. On this sites it's a tiny subset of individuals discussing terrorism - and much of that descends into Muslim and Islam bashing.


I know-it is not fair-not a lot of Amish or Buddhist bashing here-everybody knows that those fantastic "Canadian Values" everybody loves are perfectly compatible with Islam.


----------



## SMK (Dec 10, 2015)

james4beach said:


> Feeding us constant fear about terrorism and "bad guys out to get us" helps justify it all, even though terrorism is a relatively minor threat in our daily lives.


It's you who is "feeding us constant fear about terrorism". Read again what you wrote in your fifth post in one of your multiple obsessed-filled threads - it shows your paranoia and bigotry. http://canadianmoneyforum.com/showthread.php/62825-White-right-wing-terrorists-strike-again

There were multiple terror attacks in the last few days in which dozens were injured and killed, including a Canadian teacher but your "heart does not go out for such victims." You instead start yet another thread about "Muslim paranoia" to divert attention to your obsessions.


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

Nobody has "unlimited surveillance powers" in civilized countries, not in Britain or France or Israel or whatever. Everything is regulated 40958490584098 times and has to be executed in line with the law. The point is that in accordance with these powers all electronic correspondence can be screened for certain signs of terrorist activities. And that's awesome. Appreciate the work of security services who have prevented a multitude of attempts to mass murder. Or child porn circles - whatever you are into.


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

Of course the paranoia in this thread is pushed by the junkies eating from the hand of Snowden and the like. He would be the one who just happens to be a Russian spy, working for the country which puts people in prisons for reposting anti-government statements on Facebook. A tad ironic, I suppose but the irony would be lost on the likes of James & co.

I mean what could be more Liberal and freedom-loving than admiration for communist dictators who have prisons filled with political opponents, right?


----------



## Nelley (Aug 14, 2016)

mordko said:


> Of course the paranoia in this thread is pushed by the junkies eating from the hand of Snowden and the like. He would be the one who just happens to be a Russian spy, working for the country which puts people in prisons for reposting anti-government statements on Facebook. A tad ironic, I suppose but the irony would be lost on the likes of James & co.
> 
> I mean what could be more Liberal and freedom-loving than admiration for communist dictators who have prisons filled with political opponents, right?


So does Communist China and Canada grovels before Communist China.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

wraphter said:


> What I was talking about was free will although I referred to it as freedom. perhaps that was confusing. There have been experiments
> using fMRI to scan the brain for electrical activity. They found that 7 seconds before the decision to move an index finger the decision was made in the brain. Iow, the decision was made even before the person became aware of it.
> 
> http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110831/full/477023a.html
> ...


You are uncritically accepting the premises of that problematic study. 
One thing that is problematic is in this sentence: "Long before the subjects were even aware of making a choice, it seems, their brains had already decided." What does the word "subjects" mean in contrast to "their brains". The neuroscientist who wrote that sentence assumed that "the subjects" are an entity different from "their brains". That separation of brain and subject is a contemporary expression of Descartes body/mind philosophy which the neuroscientist seems to be unaware of. 

My view is that we are our body. But you and the neuroscientist seem to assume that "we" is an entity separate from the body. But that's the neuroscientists philosophy. so it isn't neuroscience vs philosophy, its Descartes dualistic philosophy vs a non dualistic philosophy. 

From the perspective that we are our body, it is clear that the subjects of the experiment were free to move their finger as instructed. So they have freedom to follow instructions from scientists. I also think it is possible that a subject could listen to the instructions, indicate compliance, and then quietly decline to follow them. don't you? Seems like a degree of freedom to me. We are not programmed to believe the illusion we are free, we are free to do what our being allows us to do. Originality, such as inventing things that never existed before, in my view is then never a problem. But in your philosophy, that we are robots, you have the challenge of explaining how a robot could invent something entirely new. By inventions I don't just mean stuff like the wheel, but also things like economics, sociology, logic, math, origin theories....Robots do not invent such things. Robots are a tool of intelligent beings. 

Too, robots do not invent things like the Charter of Rights And Freedoms. With all due respect to Freud, he based his theories on his experience with neurotic patients many of whom had challenges with impulse control. Normal people don't have impulses they have to control. I'm concerned that many of those who would have the powers of mass surveillance aren't normal and might fail at controlling their impulse to abuse their power.


----------



## wraphter (Sep 21, 2016)

pluto said:


> "Long before the subjects were even aware of making a choice, it seems, their brains had already decided." What does the word "subjects" mean in contrast to "their brains". The neuroscientist who wrote that sentence assumed that "the subjects" are an entity different from "their brains". That separation of brain and subject is a contemporary expression of Descartes body/mind philosophy which the neuroscientist seems to be unaware of.


There is a seven second gap between the activity in the brain and the decision to push the button with the left or right index finger.Whether the subject has a mind or not is not being measured. What appears to be freely chosen is really determined by previous activity in the brain. This is very reductionistic and perhaps undermines some peoples feelings of autonomy. It undermines the concept of mind or consciousness.It undermines Descartes theory of mind and body. It makes the mind look like an after-the-fact illusion. Something people make up to explain why they did something.The neuroscientist is not the philosopher. He is looking at data. He is not introspecting which is what a philosopher does.





> I also think it is possible that a subject could listen to the instructions, indicate compliance, and then quietly decline to follow them. don't you?


Maybe if they were philosophy students who felt their profession was being undermined they might.But if they were biology or 
psychology students they would co-operate.



> But in your philosophy, that we are robots, you have the challenge of explaining how a robot could invent something entirely new.


I am not the philosopher. I am the scientist looking at the 7 second gap between the two events.



> Originality, such as inventing things that never existed before, in my view is then never a problem. But in your philosophy, that we are robots, you have the challenge of explaining how a robot could invent something entirely new. By inventions I don't just mean stuff like the wheel, but also things like economics, sociology, logic, math, origin theories....Robots do not invent such things. Robots are a tool of intelligent beings.


What is the motivation of this original thinker I wonder. Sometimes when these great thinkers are trying to solve a problem the brain is working on its own. Then they miraculously come up with answer and they don't even know where it came from.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

Pluto said:


> but you are sidestepping his point: you offered methods for privacy but didn't explain why terrorists couldn't also use those methods.


I actually use secure communications professionally so trying to explain it here is both cumbersome and risks saying too much

There are many aspects to communications just like there are many aspects to evidence at a crime scene. Using an encryption device and a VPN for example might be like faking an alibi and scrubbing away some fingerprints but if you are acting suspicious the investigators may dig deeper into various other evidence

You can encrypt the nude pictures you send to your significant other but you can't encrypt your entire life. If you are conducting criminal activity there are tell tale signs of suspicious activity that warrant the investigators to have a closer look at your communications. The information is never encrypted at its source..

Problem is the mass majority's understanding of this is based on Hollywood movies rather than reality


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

wraphter said:


> There is a seven second gap between the activity in the brain and the decision to push the button with the left or right index finger.Whether the subject has a mind or not is not being measured. What appears to be freely chosen is really determined by previous activity in the brain. This is very reductionistic and perhaps undermines some peoples feelings of autonomy. It undermines the concept of mind or consciousness.It undermines Descartes theory of mind and body. It makes the mind look like an after-the-fact illusion. Something people make up to explain why they did something.The neuroscientist is not the philosopher. He is looking at data. He is not introspecting which is what a philosopher does.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


1. You are interpreting what is observed according to your prescientific beliefs. You consistently talk as if the preconscious process is some entity separate from the person, or subject. You also talk as if the conscious process is the subject, an entity that is governed entirely by the preconscious processes. I don't share your prescientific, philosophical, dualistic assumptions. Your body(brain)/subject(consciousness) duality is neither logically or empirically necessary. 



2. What if your experiment was done on a hockey goalie, while playing hockey. here the goalie is instructed by the researcher to move to stop the puck when he wants to. But there isn't 7 seconds between the the shot and the save. How would that work in this theory? 

And what if he didn't want to stop the puck under these circumstances? 

3. So if it is only the biology and psychology students who would cooperate, I guess they are the robots who buy into a convoluted theory, and the philosophy students are the ones who actually want a coherent theory of freedom. 

4. What is the motivation of this original thinker, you wonder. Here again you write as if the brain is not part of the person - 'the brain is working on its own', you write.
but why is it necessary that the brain is not part of the person, or subject? I don't see the necessity of that. you assume two entities a) the brain and b) the person. You simply assume they are separate, and that's a philosophical assumption. 

You are trying to eliminate the relevance of consciousness. that can work for a while in the lab, but in the real world it doesn't make any sense. 


However, your underlying point seems to be that we are robots, so freedom is an illusion, so it is ok to abandon civil liberties to a government of robots. I don't get it myself. My best suggestion is to read some history on how the 18th century British abused the colonists. That was certainly the US context for many of their constitutional rights. Out in the real world where many governments abuse their citizens, the philosophical theories of neuroscience are irrelevant.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

mordko said:


> Of course the paranoia in this thread is pushed by the junkies eating from the hand of Snowden and the like. He would be the one who just happens to be a Russian spy, working for the country which puts people in prisons for reposting anti-government statements on Facebook. A tad ironic, I suppose but the irony would be lost on the likes of James & co.
> 
> I mean what could be more Liberal and freedom-loving than admiration for communist dictators who have prisons filled with political opponents, right?


Well I hope we are not going to whitewash America, Canada, and the UK. for example what about Khalid Il-Masri? 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_El-Masri

He is estimated to be among 3000 "detainees" whom the CIA reportedly abducted. 


Such examples make us look like Russia, China and the like. Don't you think it is ironic that in order to fight terror, we rationalize becoming like them? 

I can understand that in a time of war, for example, the rules are different and normal liberties are limited. But to do away with liberties permanently is, I believe, a mistake.


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

mordko said:


> Nobody has "unlimited surveillance powers" in civilized countries, not in Britain or France or Israel or whatever. Everything is regulated 40958490584098 times and has to be executed in line with the law. The point is that in accordance with these powers all electronic correspondence can be screened for certain signs of terrorist activities. And that's awesome. Appreciate the work of security services who have prevented a multitude of attempts to mass murder. Or child porn circles - whatever you are into.


It is not about underappreciating the work of security personnel. It is about understanding that they are human. They are subject to confirmation bias, they generalize, they make mistakes and they may be overzealous. History has taught us that we need to place constraints on the enforcement wing of the government through judicial and civilian oversight.


----------



## wraphter (Sep 21, 2016)

...


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

mordko said:


> Terrorism represents anything but "remote" danger. While the risk of death might be small, many more people get permanent injuries or psychological damage. Even for those not immediately impacted, terrorism changes way of life. Flying is not the same experience it once was. These days people in Europe are apprehensive going to large gatherings around Christmas time. The whole economy of France has been damaged, millions of people have suffered economic damage. The country has been living in the state of emergency for months. And the French far right party has very real chance of grabbing power.


Your mistake is trusting the people granted these powers to act responsibly. When you grant local police the ability to execute warrantless wiretaps, you end up with people abusing those powers. The whole purpose of requiring warrants is to exercise control over these powers and to prevent abuse. There has been no compelling evidence presented that bulk monitoring of communications is effective in preventing terrorist attacks. Most attacks are foiled by good old fashioned police work.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

mordko said:


> You have no idea what constitutes tyranny.
> 
> This whole notion that screening communications within the law is somehow bad only exists in N America. It's like with guns.


Of course the next step, once practical, is to monitor thought patterns to detect thought crime. 1984 was a warning, not an instruction manual.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

mordko said:


> Of course the paranoia in this thread is pushed by the junkies eating from the hand of Snowden and the like. He would be the one who just happens to be a Russian spy, working for the country which puts people in prisons for reposting anti-government statements on Facebook. A tad ironic, I suppose but the irony would be lost on the likes of James & co.
> 
> I mean what could be more Liberal and freedom-loving than admiration for communist dictators who have prisons filled with political opponents, right?


This is, of course, pure BS. Snowden as traitor, maybe. Snowden as Russian spy makes exactly no sense. Even the US security establishment, which hates Snowden, has not accused him of this.


----------



## Nelley (Aug 14, 2016)

andrewf said:


> This is, of course, pure BS. Snowden as traitor, maybe. Snowden as Russian spy makes exactly no sense. Even the US security establishment, which hates Snowden, has not accused him of this.


The guy exposed massive criminal activity-to the MSM sheep that qualifies as "traitor".


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

Congressional bipartisan enquiry begs to differ. https://apnews.com/2bb691d389724fde...Snowden-in-contact-with-Russia's-spy-services

In general, anyone on the same wave length as Nelley should take a hard, long look in the mirror.


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

andrewf said:


> Your mistake is trusting the people granted these powers to act responsibly. When you grant local police the ability to execute warrantless wiretaps, you end up with people abusing those powers. The whole purpose of requiring warrants is to exercise control over these powers and to prevent abuse. There has been no compelling evidence presented that bulk monitoring of communications is effective in preventing terrorist attacks. Most attacks are foiled by good old fashioned police work.


One time in a billion police will abuse their powers, although I still find it hard to figure out exactly how ones law abiding emails can be "abused" if screened by software searching for key words related to criminal activity. That is unless the government has the right to persecute opposition, like the regime so admired by our PM or the 1984 version. 

And screening of electronic communication has saved many http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...-mi6-used-powers-to-stop-terror-attacks-on-b/ http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/nsa-...acks-thwarted-controversial/story?id=19428148.


----------



## Nelley (Aug 14, 2016)

mordko said:


> Congressional bipartisan enquiry begs to differ. https://apnews.com/2bb691d389724fde...Snowden-in-contact-with-Russia's-spy-services
> 
> In general, anyone on the same wave length as Nelley should take a hard, long look in the mirror.


Moronko: Very impressive-politicians who agree with you. Don't stare too hard into that mirror-it might crack.


----------



## Nelley (Aug 14, 2016)

mordko said:


> One time in a billion police will abuse their powers, although I still find it hard to figure out exactly how ones law abiding emails can be "abused" if screened by software searching for key words related to criminal activity. That is unless the government has the right to persecute opposition, like the regime so admired by our PM or the 1984 version.
> 
> And screening of electronic communication has saved many http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...-mi6-used-powers-to-stop-terror-attacks-on-b/ http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/nsa-...acks-thwarted-controversial/story?id=19428148.


Whatever you say Stasi boy.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

mordko said:


> One time in a billion police will abuse their powers, although I still find it hard to figure out exactly how ones law abiding emails can be "abused" if screened by software searching for key words related to criminal activity. That is unless the government has the right to persecute opposition, like the regime so admired by our PM or the 1984 version.
> 
> And screening of electronic communication has saved many http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...-mi6-used-powers-to-stop-terror-attacks-on-b/ http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/nsa-...acks-thwarted-controversial/story?id=19428148.


There is an allegation that he has met/cooperated with Russian intelligence. No evidence presented. Of course, Snowden embarrassed the US intelligence establishment and exposed James Clapper's lying to Congress. I'm not ready to give them the benefit of the doubt in their allegations against Snowden. It smacks of attempts to discredit him in order to draw attention away from borderline illegal surveillance of the American public.


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

andrewf said:


> This is, of course, pure BS. Snowden as traitor, maybe. Snowden as Russian spy makes exactly no sense. Even the US security establishment, which hates Snowden, has not accused him of this.


Yes, as opposed to just admitting that your claim was demonstrably false.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

mordko said:


> Yes, as opposed to just admitting that your claim was demonstrably false.


Accusing him of speaking with Russian intelligence is not the same as accusing him of being a Russian spy. He did not abscond with the classified material from the NSA as a Russian agent. That is pure make-believe. 

Unless you are relaxing the definition of the word spy to a nonsensical extent, no one in the US security apparatus has accused him of being a Russian spy.


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

What? Providing intelligence on US to FSB is somehow different from being a spy? What shall we call him? 

And yes, he absolutely did abscond with classified material and passed it on to FSB. Even Russians admit it. 

https://20committee.com/2016/07/02/the-kremlin-admits-snowden-is-a-russian-agent/


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

Let's for a second look at the real world in a strictly factual manner:

1. Russia routinely misuses electronic surveillance for regime's benefit. A few examples:

- FSB recorded Boris Netsov (opposition politician, later murdered) swearing and then published the recording to compromise him. 
- Recorded Kasyanov having sex (another leader of the opposition) and then presented it on TV. 
- Recorded Shenderovich having sex (a writer and a satirist who made fun of Putin) and then presented it on TV. 
- People have been sent to prison for non-violent posts on social media, e.g. for anti-clerical statements.

2. Nothing of the kind has happened in the UK, Canada or US. Right? Wrong. Actually...:
- A Democratic party functionary had to resign after emails to her were published by Wikileaks
- Compromizing emails from Clinton have been published by Wikileaks as part of the effort to undermine her campaign. 

Both cases were in fact executed by FSB. Wikileaks are a known front for the the FSB and they are not really hiding it all that much any more. 

However I am not aware of any major misuse of information by western special services based on their gleaning of emails or other electronic communications.

And yes, Snowden ran away to Russia with secure information and passed it on to FSB. 

Conclusions: 

1. Snowden is a freedom-fighter.
2. Western security services can't be trusted. 

Mindbogglingly dumb logic.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

mordko said:


> What? Providing intelligence on US to FSB is somehow different from being a spy? What shall we call him?
> 
> And yes, he absolutely did abscond with classified material and passed it on to FSB. Even Russians admit it.
> 
> https://20committee.com/2016/07/02/the-kremlin-admits-snowden-is-a-russian-agent/


The evidence is not compelling, and is spun by a member of the intelligence establishment. Are you saying that real media is too afraid to out Snowden as a Russian agent, given the supposedly compelling evidence?


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

I am sorry, is Build not the "real media"? Who knew?


----------



## Nelley (Aug 14, 2016)

mordko said:


> Let's for a second look at the real world in a strictly factual manner:
> 
> 1. Russia routinely misuses electronic surveillance for regime's benefit. A few examples:
> 
> ...


I heard Wikileaks got a thumbs down rating from Snopes, Fakebook and Roger Ebert-must be Russian crap.


----------



## Nelley (Aug 14, 2016)

These Russian stooges are everywhere-just listen to this guy pick on poor downtrodden just trying to do God's Work Donna Brazile https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slvFhQPhf-M


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

In summary, FSB/KGB comes out and tell you everyone's favorite whistleblower is working for them and you still doubt he is a Russian spy and make excuses for him anyway. Then the US intelligence comes out and confirms. Both US parties come out and confirm. And you still consider him a hero anyway.

In this Orwellian world, treason and work for the nastiest totalitarian regimes = heroism.


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

Snowden is neither traitor nor hero. He provided a valuable public service when he confirmed the extent of surveillance by US, UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.


----------



## wraphter (Sep 21, 2016)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden#Criminal_charges

Here are the criminal charges for espionage against him.



> On June 14, 2013, United States federal prosecutors filed a criminal complaint against Snowden, charging him with theft of government property, and two counts of violating the Espionage Act through unauthorized communication of national defense information and "willful communication of classified communications intelligence information to an unauthorized person."[5][242] Each of the three charges carries a maximum possible prison term of ten years. The charge was initially secret and was unsealed a week later.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

mordko said:


> In summary, FSB/KGB comes out and tell you everyone's favorite whistleblower is working for them and you still doubt he is a Russian spy and make excuses for him anyway. Then the US intelligence comes out and confirms. Both US parties come out and confirm. And you still consider him a hero anyway.
> 
> In this Orwellian world, treason and work for the nastiest totalitarian regimes = heroism.


The treason, in this case, was revealing some of the extent of the vast and potentially illegal surveillance conducted by the US government on its own citizens as well as the rest of the world. Until Snowden, people laughed at conspiracy theories about government surveillance. James Clapper lied to congress. 

Even if some of this surveillance was technically legal, it is not good or right. The whole FISA court process is a laughable rubber stamp, leading to unchecked surveillance with no oversight and no recourse.


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

^not just the US Government. Snowden revealed that five nations, including Canada, are involved in the surveillance through FVEY (five eyes).


----------



## Nelley (Aug 14, 2016)

They are starting to reveal all the dirt on that scam website SNOPES (often cited by the stupid sheep)-HAHAHA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xl8MPBOH-yE


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

Liberal Party's 2015 election promise: 



> We will repeal the problematic elements of Bill C-51, and introduce new legislation that better balances our collective security with our rights and freedoms.
> 
> Canadians know that in Canada, we can both improve our security while protecting our rights and freedoms.
> 
> ...


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

andrewf said:


> The treason, in this case, was revealing some of the extent of the vast and potentially illegal surveillance conducted by the US government on its own citizens as well as the rest of the world. Until Snowden, people laughed at conspiracy theories about government surveillance. James Clapper lied to congress.
> 
> Even if some of this surveillance was technically legal, it is not good or right. The whole FISA court process is a laughable rubber stamp, leading to unchecked surveillance with no oversight and no recourse.


The treason was stealing millions of secret military documents which had absolutely nothing to do with surveillance and everything to do with working for the Russian intelligence.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-fable-of-edward-snowden-1483143143


----------



## OhGreatGuru (May 24, 2009)

What a bunch of hypocrites. The Telcos think it's quite all right for them to track all your internet activity for commercial profit (targeted advertising, consumer data mining, etc.); or sell it to various business partners for profit: but by God they will defend to the death our so-called "Privacy" from duly appointed and authorized government officials!


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Eder said:


> I'm pretty happy to let cops listen in on my calls if it is a means to more efficiently fight crime. I hate criminals and that probably makes me racist/fascist though.


No, it just makes you spineless for not standing up for your right to privacy.

Section 8 of the Charter of Rights & Freedoms spells out: "Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure."

But clearly you do not share this value. You would fail Leitch's test for Canadian values -- maybe you should brush up on Canadian values.

Maybe you have more admiration for societies where government and police can monitor or search anyone, whenever they feel like (Russia, China, Syria, UAE, Oman, Azerbaijan, Iran, etc).

Tell me, how long have you been opposed to Canadian and western values? Do you wish you lived in one of those above countries, where police would satisfy your desire to listen in on you (and question you) whenever they wanted, to help keep you safe?


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

What is "reasonable" and what isn't depends on the objectives of the search. If it's to intimidate and suppress political opponents like in Turkey or Russia then it's unreasonable. If it's to prevent terrorist attacks or mafia operations like in most European countries then I am good with it. Suggesting there is no difference between N America and Iran = nuts.


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

What is reasonable to some may not be reasonable to others. The UK has become the worlds most surveilled state with and estimated 5 or 6 million CCTV cameras and facial recognition software that allows police to surveil almost every citizen. Cameras are located in public spaces, schools, restaurants and hospitals. 

Nick Pickles, director of the privacy campaign Big Brother Watch, said: _“This report should be a wake up call that in modern Britain there are people in positions of responsibility who seem to think ‘1984’ was an instruction manual.”_

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolo...ry-11-people-in-Britain-says-CCTV-survey.html
https://www.engadget.com/2014/07/16/uk-police-first-trial-face-recognition-tech/
https://www.extremetech.com/extreme...automated-face-recognition-to-catch-criminals


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

mordko said:


> What is "reasonable" and what isn't depends on the objectives of the search. If it's to intimidate and suppress political opponents like in Turkey or Russia then it's unreasonable. If it's to prevent terrorist attacks or mafia operations like in most European countries then I am good with it.


It is ALWAYS "to keep you safe" and to "keep your country stable".

Freedom from state monitoring and unreasonable search & detention is a core western value. The reason we don't qualify it in constitutions with wording like "_unless there are terrorists_" is precisely because that rationale has been used in these other countries to suppress rights.

These are core western values and core Canadian rights. There are tradeoffs to everything we have in society. We value freedom, and this means you are not always safe *and you don't always catch every bad guy*. We value religious liberties and this means sometimes some bad dudes will congregate.

I for one am not going to throw away the western values that I believe in just because a few bad dudes are causing problems. If that's how fragile our western values are, then we deserve to get overthrown by the brown invaders.

_Please_ tell me that you believe, as I do, that western values are more resilient than this. Is this all it takes for us to give up our freedoms? Talk about letting the terrorists win!

We've already seen a very significant erosion in freedoms & liberties in western countries. I am not happy with this tradeoff at all. Terrorists are causing problems? Newsflash: there have always been terrorists, yes even in Canada & US.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

Yes...your "western values" are calling people spineless if their view does not conform to yours....you need to get some sleep lol.


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

People who are excessively proud of where they were born make me think of people who are excessively proud of having really, really hairy balls. At least the latter is a personal quality. 

Still, the "western values" performance gets full marks for vacuous pomposity mixed in with zero sense and complete ignorance. 

I also note that:

- "Western values", as described, don't exist anywhere in the world
- "Western values" are not aspired by anyone in this thread except for James. 

Perhaps "the west" is a name for one very special asylum. 

And by the way, people who know a thing or two about free and totalitarian societies usually value real freedom a lot more than dumb and overexcited kids who keep banging about "values". And they usually realize that bending over and offering every "bad dude" to have his way isn't the best approach; nor refusing to do so is the same as depriving us of "freedom".


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

That's funny... so you approve of western values when you think it means keeping muslims out of the country

But when it means freedom, liberty, and religious tolerance... suddenly these western values are silly?


----------



## yyz (Aug 11, 2013)

This is what happens when you dig up a 2 1/2 month old thread to try and get back at someone


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

james4beach said:


> That's funny... so you approve of western values when you think it means keeping muslims out of the country
> 
> But when it means freedom, liberty, and religious tolerance... suddenly these western values are silly?


Remarkable. You don't know the meaning of any of the words you are using in that sentence, except "but" and "when". Nor do I recall making you the spokesman on my behalf for the obvious reason that you are clueless. Both in general and with regards to my views.


----------

