Canadian Politician: You're Either In Favor Of Letting The Gov't Spy On Your Internet Usage… Or You're For Child Pornography
from the kicking-puppies dept
Up in Canada, they’re pushing for a new “lawful access” bill, which is basically a “government can spy on your internet usage” bill. Michael Geist has a full and complete run down about the new effort and why it’s crazy. But, the insane part came out of the introduction when Public Safety Minister Vic Toews apparently told people: “You can stand with us, or you can stand with the child pornographers,” according to Dale Smith, a journalist who was present. In other words, like Lamar Smith here in the US, he’s trying to push through a widespread internet surveillance bill by hiding behind claims that those against it are somehow “for” child porn.
This is beyond ridiculous, and an incredibly cynical political move that assumes that people are stupid. These kinds of arguments may have worked in the past, but I’m increasingly skeptical that they’ll continue to work in the future. More and more people are learning about the details of these kinds of bills, and making ridiculous claims and false dilemmas won’t cut it, and only call more attention to the ridiculousness of what’s actually in the bill.
And, thankfully, some of that pushback comes in the form of people openly mocking such ridiculous claims. Smith points to an amusing response from Lukas Neville: “You can stand with false dilemmas, or you can stand with kicking puppies.” Count me in for kicking puppies.
Filed Under: canada, internet, lawful access, spying, surveillance, vic toews
Comments on “Canadian Politician: You're Either In Favor Of Letting The Gov't Spy On Your Internet Usage… Or You're For Child Pornography”
And yet … I still have family that accuses me of being “pro terrorist” because I was against the Iraq war. There’s no paucity of stupid people to fall for false dilemmas/analogies.
:'(
*whimper*
Trying this again are they?
Saw this BS already back in 2006/2007 when some MP’s in Toronto were trying to justify bills to extend police powers to enter into your home via the Internet.
Pathetic part, they always use “child porn” as the trigger to get votes, but never mention how under CURRENT laws they have been busting people for actual child pornography WITHOUT invading the privacy of our homes!
Re:
I have an idiot “uncle” who is the same, convinced Iran will have a nuke by the end of 2010. It’s now 2012 and no nuke!
I think mentioning Child Porn should be the new Godwin’s Law.
If you have to mention it, you’ve lost the argument.
What’s really funny is the excuse for pushing through such legislation:
While technology has evolved considerably since then, Canada’s lawful access laws have not kept pace.
Yeah, my computer can draw circles, better update the math behind calculating the area of a circle.
Please. No updates needed. It is unlawful (and disgusting) to have child pornography in your home, in printed form, in film-negative form, in painted form, in video form etc.. why do you need to extend that to digital form? What, because it’s in digital format somehow viewing child porn has changed in legality because the medium of delivery has changed?
I really hope the Supreme Court of Canada sets Mr Toews straight with that.
Last time I checked, the law stated you could not kill someone, not specifying what medium or method you chose to use, so no updating was required.
You’re not allowed to possess or view child pornography, period. It is medium independent!
You can find it without reading our emails or intercepting our cellular signals or land line conversations.
:'(
We have to kick you as part of our security procedures. If you resist being kicked or even suggest that this is something we don’t need to do, you will be “detained” for further kicking at a remote location outside of the United States. So do you want to allow us to kick you or are you a terrorist?!?
P P P PORN!!!!
Um 1 vote for child porn. Thats right I said it.
“You can stand with us, or you can stand with the child pornographers,”
Hmm where have we heard that before:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpPABLW6F_A
Citing child pornography has become akin to the Streisand Effect.
Maybe a law should be enacted that requires politicians who use this claim must provide references to objective studies that support the statement or be forced to make a very loud and prominent apology for lying to the public.
P P P PORN!!!!
It’s called “assumed inference” and is the perfect argument from people who have no argument.
Re:
No, they had a nuke, it was stolen in 2009.
Just like how Iraq had WMD’s. They would have used them on the Americans, but it was stolen.
By who, you ask?
Well, you’ll have to search around the world asking where Carmen Sandiego is.
Ugh
What a disgusting statement by Public Safety Minister Vic Toews. If Mr. Toews is so sure that this bill will only be used for catching child abusers, then he should be willing to sign an agreement whereby he receives capital punishment if this law is ever used for anything other than catching child abusers.
If he should be unwilling to sign such an agreement, that should just be evidence that catching child abusers is not the intent of this law.
Re:
Pedobear’s Law.
“Think of the children” is the politician’s Chewbacca Defense.
Ugh
Or we could just kill the &^^&%$ now and save time…..
Re:
That just made my day.
Canadian Politician
It’s politicians like this that really has one considering the possibility of being oppressed and looking for another new world. One without ignorance and perhaps a land of the free. I see it all now. I wonder sometimes if, in an earlier life, I may have been a passenger on the Mayflower. Looking for a life free from oppression, oh wait – is this deja vue?
Only a Sith deals in absolutes…
Re:
/me tries to get Carmen Sandiego song out of head.
Not a fan of the ‘child porn’ rhetoric, but the bill itself doesn’t look like much of a threat to a free and open Internet. It basically allows the Canadian government to monitor Internet communications with a court-approved warrant. This is something the US government already does. Lamar Smith’s so-called anti-child-pornography bill would be much worse because it mandates data retention and creates a national database of people’s information, which could easily be accessed by government insiders and hackers and subsequently used for blackmail or other nefarious purposes. This bill, according to Toews, doesn’t do that. Of course, I wouldn’t necessarily put it past Toews to lie, and his rhetoric makes him a scumbag politician of the lowest order.
So, where's the browsing records for the politicians?
Hmm, one now has to wonder if those pesky politicians are really……
Surveillance for your safety
You can stand with us for camera surveillance inside every home or you can stand with murderers, rapists and thieves.
Been there, done that
In Australia, one of the Labor party’s arguments for the universal internet filter (i.e.’Great Firewall of Oz’) was that if you opposed the filter you supported child porn.
Nothing to do with the fact that the URL list was and would remain secret, thus giving the population no idea what was filtered and why (a great tool for dictatorships) and that a leaked version already contained a number of false positives, including a dentist in Queensland…
Been there, done that
Doesn’t matter anyway. These idiot politicians presume that everyone is as technologically illiterate as they are…and they’re not. The people who are seriously into CP aren’t using web sites, aren’t using DNS, aren’t using unencrypted connections, aren’t using anything that enforcement of these bills would ever catch.
Catching them — which I support — won’t be done via grandstanding bills like this. It’ll be done by hard detective work. But of course that doesn’t generate headlines.
Re:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1QI4P0YqtM
If I must choose between not having liberty and death then I will choose death every single time just as my ancestors before me.
Re:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clKi92j6eLE&feature=related better version
ignoranus
I?ll support government-supported internet spying when Vic Toews stops beating his wife.
Re:
seconded, any objections?
Been there, done that
Indeed, and the list also included a pet training facility, they always seem to be after the puppies!
The relevant (sic) minister down here, Sen. Conroy, affectionately renamed ‘conboy’ in some sectors, also had a similar play on the theme when asked his opinion of a fellow politician’s ‘opt in’ amendment to his filter mumbled “well I’m not opting into child pornography” which was greeted with massive derision… particularly as the other politician was from his own party!
ethical debate law
“A law should be enacted that requires politicians [to] provide references to objective studies“. Period. Failure to result in summary expulsion plus variable financial penalties.
I say we add onto the bill Dale Smith must stand in the center of a big circle for horse whipping to prove that he is not secret communist plant placed there to undermine Canada.
Secret communist plants wouldn’t particularly enjoy a horse whipping, so it is for our own national security that Mr Smith be horse whipped at once to disprove his involvement with shadowy forces inside Canada. Since we know he is a law-abiding man with no ulterior motives, I’m sure he’ll be just ecstatic to hear that we have a means to prove that he is not a secret communist plant and will be volunteering every day to prove that he isn’t.
Since he seems like such a law abiding citizen, I think we can just merge this provision with the lawful access bill and be done with it. Since the only reason someone should disagree is if they are a communist.
Re:
thirded for sure
Re:
Whoops, I meant Vic Toews, not Dale Smith. Since he was only the journalist.
Pretty bad mistake to make.
Teows has a long standing habit of engaging mouth before engaging brain. Basically what the Bill says is that the police can go to a judge, get a warrant, essentially in secret and never, ever disclose what they intercepted even, it seems, to the defense should a criminal case follow which by the Criminal Code of Canada they must. Now Teows is the attack dog of the Tory “base” so how much of this is hot air and how much will actually make it through the House and Senate unscathed.
Not to mention past 13 Privacy Commissioners and one Supreme Court of Canada if it survives Provincial Supreme and Appeal Courts where this will certainly end up if it’s as bad as Geist says it will be though he is a reliable source.
And no, I’m not on the side of kiddy porn downloaders or kiddy porn of any description. Nor do I want to kick a puppy. The Honourable Minister’s left kneecap does seem a tempting target at the moment though.
Oh well, given that this started in 1999 under a Liberal administration like, in the United States all we’ve proven now is that there is NO difference between our two main political parties. Not so much as a eyebrow hair.
Has anyone contacted CSIS and asked them to investigate these lawmakers yet? Because honestly they keep talking about how Child Porn is the most horrible thing and we have to stop it.
There is a reason other than the absolute lulz, in the US you have a history of those screaming the loudest about the latest ill facing society being the biggest hypocrites on the subject. And well stupid knows no borders.
This also is keeping with my idea that when someone proposes a law like this that it should apply to those passing it first for at least a year. So they can work all of the kinks out of it. And well maybe to punish them for being short sighted, they claim it will only benefit and nothing bad will happen and I am willing to bet that tune would change rapidly when they figure out it applies to them as well.
Re:
CSIS has refused comment as it’s not allowed by legislation to spy on Canadians.
Doesn’t mean they don’t try out the lastest and greatest technologies domestically. But please understand they’re just tests. It isn’t spying. We promise!
Re:
According to The Globe & Mail:
“The bill will require Internet service providers to store and to make available to the government and police forces information on the Internet activity of their customers.
Police will require a warrant to obtain that information. But the bill would also permit them to obtain IP addresses (which identifies someone on the Internet), email addresses, mobile phone numbers and other information without any warrant.”
Re:
Yep. We just need to put that into urbandictionary and the Streisand effect can take hold from there.
But, but...
Will someone PLEASE think of the PORN?!
Lobbyists are running the Cdn government
Big telecom et al., are running the Canadian government. Where in the hell has common sense gone? Well, it goes when politicians have obligations to corporations rather that their constituents.
And what do Canadians do about it? Massive rallies like in Europe? No. Phoning/writing to their Member of Parliament to ask them WTF is going on? No.
We Canadians whine and bitch about just about everything, but do nothing about it except, well, bitch and whine.
Bend over Canadians, you’re getting exactly what you fcuking deserve! Damn it I just shake my head and wonder how we came to a place where government works for corporations and not constituents. Unbelievable. Our government is trying to send us back to the early 20th Century. And that’s not a Good Thing?.
Somebody bitch-slap us and wake us up…PLEASE!
I’ve already let my MP know how I feel about this. She is a conservative, so fat chance she’ll care.
!!!!
We had this in australia! Search for Stephen Conroy on youtube. Ours was in relation to ISP’s blocking websites that are on a list that they wouldn’t let anyone see.
It took over 2 years for it to be dropped. Good luck guys!
Re:
It mandate ISP to create a backdoor for the police to snoop in. So it makes no big difference whether they retain data per se or not.
Lobbyists are running the Cdn government
Make me suspivious if these coordinated use of Child pornography worldwide have to do with a comment by the music industry that
?Child pornography is great,? the speaker at the podium declared enthusiastically. ?It is great because politicians understand child pornography. By playing that card, we can get them to act, and start blocking sites. And once they have done that, we can get them to start blocking file sharing sites?.
http://www.tjmcintyre.com/2010/04/music-industry-says-child-pornography.html
Re:
The only time they MIGHT care is if large number of people sign a petition with a pledge that if they support the bill, you pledge not to vote for them and will campaign against them in the next election
Only if there are large number of signatures that they might care.
Re:
approve
it might even a bit more honest
We can play the same game.
“You can stand with us, or you can stand with the neofascists and corporate shills.”
Re:
The government can already monitor you without a warrant, your consent, or any other legal instrument.
Did you not read the Patriot Act?
There coming for you...
3 am. A knock at the door… Shadows outside your window.
Whom did you offend? Perhaps a politician or; was it something you blogged about?
It makes no difference, you will be dragged out, a black hood put over your head and told that someone like you; has no rights.
If...
The only way I could ever put the slightest iota of support to this, would be if the politicians, who advocate and vote for this, accept to have their entire web browsing history, Google searches and all, on a publicly accessible website. After all, if you have nothing to hide…
Oh, and the website would be real-time, and it would be for any Internet account under any of their family.
If they don’t accept that, then what are they hiding?
Is Reddit going to do anything about this? If it passes here it’ll create an international precedent that will allow other western countries to follow in their tracks.
If not, they’d better get right on it ASAP.
Re:
I approve of this product and/or service.
Re:
Devil advocate here.
How painted childs porn hurts children?
Did you heard about anime? All hentai and probably half ecchi can qualify as “painted childs porn”. It may be disgusting, but it doesn’t harm childrens in any way (well, maybe, if children are watching it).
Re:
All hentai and probably half ecchi can qualify as “painted childs porn”.
It really depend on the level of ecchiness… Queen’s Blade and The Qwaser of Stigmata isn’t. >.>
*avid fan here*
so when are the next Canadian elections? you all know what to do!
Wouldn't this proposal help pedos?
Spying on internet users includes spying on children and governments are not noted for storing personal information safely.
Hidden wolves
I don’t like that conclusion at all.
General society and the Police well tackled Child Pornography long before these web filters came about. It is true to say that the real CP these days are on dark nets and well removed from the web.
I have in fact seen a CP censorship list thanks to Wikileaks and the whole thing is little more than one age questionable photo on an otherwise pure adult site. Then many site owners soon correct the problem themselves when it becomes apparent.
Let us never forget why web filters exist when it was the RIAA and MPAA pushing ISPs to web filter in the name of filtering CP to protest children. They did that so when the CP filter was active they could then abuse it to censor copyright infringement.
So I do certainly say that all censorship should be removed from ISPs and to tackle CP in more traditional ways. It helps none to sweep CP under the rug and to pretend that it does not exist when little boys and girls still get sexually violated if you want to see it or not.
Protecting the children is the morally lowest excuse in the book and one that is often employed in politics to stir the voters. So when they make such claims you do need to look closely to see their true intentions. And here we have one more person thinking about copyright infringement.
My last comment is one famous quote… The greatest threat to society are those people who speak with good deeds in mind.
Well, we can always use the same tactics:
Censorship: either you are completely against it or you are for mass murder.
Sounds nice because that’s precisely what happens in China and other countries that censor. They simply kill dissenting voices.
Shame on you Toews, shame on you. Beware of this mass murderer ppl ;))
Re:
General lying is never a crime and politicians do it as part of their job description.
Re:
If a person is not prepared to fight for their very freedom then what are they prepared to fight for?
The Internet has provided us with the greatest freedom of our generation and we should not allow politicians to sign that away so easily.
Down with SOPA. Down with PIPA. Down with ACTA. Down with TPP. Down with Pro-IP. And the attack on our freedom goes on and on and on.
Re:
Sounds a great idea. Then if any politician mentions CP in an argument then someone in the audience can just stand up and shout out “Pedobear’s Law. You lose”
That would certainly promote the failed argument concept.
Either use shorter titles or a url tool like bityl. Your stories can’t be tweeted –
Re:
Let us never forget that Iraq’s WMDs were supplied by the United States during the Iran-Iraq War. So they were running around looking for barrels with like “Made in Texas” stamped on them.
And why did they find no WMDs? That was because during Gulf War 1 Iraq as part of their surrender agreement had to destroy all WMDs overseen by the UN and the United States.
The Americans sent UN weapon’s inspectors to every dirt hole in Iraq they claimed could have WMDs. The Iraqi’s were not always happy what with American involved spies but they did comply. The UN weapons inspectors did testify that Iraq had no WMDs. Colin Powell then give his speech to the UN which he now admits was the worst speech of his life.
So the United States well knew that Iraq was defenceless long before they invaded and carpet bombed Iraqi teenage conscripts trying to defend their country from the invaders. A glorious day for the United States to send them back to their loving family in bits.
Then once they had destroyed the former power in Iraq they had no plans to stabilize the region allowing every extremist to come to the front. Then in a genius act they removed one religion from power and put a rival religion in power which then triggered the first ever battles between the two religions in over 100 years.
Things in Iraq then got real nasty with regular bombings and an exodus of those fearing for their lives. Well at least the situation in Iraq has now improved.
Now before any Americans start moaning then remember this man went out of his way to deceive you and he lied to you hundreds of times. Remember the Iraqi Supergun that was nothing more than pipes used in their oil and gas production? Could a President backed up by experts have made such a mistake? Then we cannot forget how he used propaganda in a muck raking exorcise against Iraq. The CIA in their honesty and accuracy could not give him the dirt he wanted so he ordered his own Whitehouse staff to penetrate the CIA to turn up every unconfirmed and false rumour that could be used against them. Pure crap used to lie to millions of American voters and to the World.
I do directly claim that George W. Bush is a War Criminal and had he not been former President to the most powerful county in the World then he would soon be on trial for crimes against humanity and executed as the truly evil person he is.
This Iraq invasion caused well over 100,000 Iraqi deaths and 1.5 million refugees. Not to forget the 4485 US troops who lost their lives because their warmonger President lied to them.
Re:
Carmen Sandiego and Wally had a lovechild – it was named Intellectual Property Sandiego and it went missing back in 1998. That child is now 14 and still both alive and missing.
ethical debate law
No, failure to provide and objective study into how peoposed laws affect actual crime should result in immediate expulsion from humanity by hanging from a tree.
The Harper Government
Every single one hand picked for their ability to say whatever Harper wants them to say. This is the same guy who is justifying “tough on crime” bills in the face of lower and lower crime rates by saying “well most crimes go unreported!”
Canada under Harper is not Canada. I actually feel raw hatred for him and all his lackeys. Not even good enough to have them voted out. Thrown in the ocean with cement boots is a better idea.
Re:
I’m Anonymous and I support this product and/or Service.
Re:
The implied image was that of an actual child, not an anime character.
Funny thing…when I use that argument in Real Life (Either you agree with my position, or you are for child pornography) ALWAYS gets me in trouble.
Re:
2015. These clowns just got elected last year.
Courtesy call
Somebody please remind the government to update their calendars from 1984 to 2012.
stupid people
By the content of your comment, I assume you’re in the USA? There are considerably fewer braindead people in Canada than the USA, and the Canadian court system has not yet been bought off like the US counterpart.
So while we’re headed in the same direction as the US, we’re not there yet.
Re:
Did you not read the article?
The USA PATRIOT Act is a set of laws in the USA, not Canada.
The USA is not in fact the entire world.
REALLY
so no need to get a warrant and have any oversight right…absolute no need to have a judge say go ahead….
THEY would not use this any abusive way now would they.
I NOW introduce you all to
apachefriends.org to host webservers your self ban port 80 and enable port 443 for ssl
then if you want a easy irc/bultin board like chat via that ssl
use this
https://blueimp.net/ajax/
Re:
What@?! It isn’t??
Re:
Or you could just use bityl yourself…
Re:
It’s like Bush’s comment that you’re either with us or you’re with the terrorists. Why? Because Bush said so? Who says I have to be with either one? Bush?
Carmen Sandiego
Carmen Sandiego now has a rap music career.
http://www.myspace.com/carmensandiego1
Re:
i will die on my feet before i live on my knees
Stop child porn
It would seem we are already capable of stopping CP
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2012/02/02/toronto-internet-pornography.html
This bill makes no sense. Kids will be raped and videotaped no matter how many people can see it. The difference is that the more people who see it, the greater chance there is of it getting reported. Therefore, the rapists are easier to find.
So isn’t this bill actually making it harder to find child pornographers?
CIA RUNS FACEBOOK????
…film at 11
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sThcwmx3rs&feature=youtu.be
P P P PORN!!!!
Frankly I’m so tired of these attempts to remove our rights, freedom and to invade our privacy under the guise of “fighting child porn” that I would prefer to legalize child porn (except production of it, since that’s where children are actually abused).
Look, if I were a victim I wouldn’t be happy to know people share the movie of my abuse, but I still think having all our Internet activities monitored is far worse.
Not to mention that, in the end, I think the part where I was raped would bother me far more than the part where the movie was being shared by perverts.
Also, no matter how many times the police take down the movie, I would never have peace of mind that it’s gone from the Internet forever. Copies could still exist on other websites or on the hard drives of pedos, and from there the movie could spread again… Even if every single copy were destroyed, I would never be sure about that and thus I’d always assume copies still exist somewhere and a pedo is jacking of to it at that moment.
I’m fine with reasonable efforts to fight child porn, even though I don’t think it really accomplishes anything (it doesn’t make victims feel better and it doesn’t prevent the movies from being made in the first place).
However, since fighting child porn is pretty much ineffective, I am completely opposed to drastic and extreme measures to fight it. Having my Internet monitored is not a sacrifice I’m willing to make.
Between the two extremes (legalizing child porn or giving up some of my most important rights), I’d prefer the first option. I don’t want any of those, I want the middle ground, but if I’m only given a choice between two extremes, well that’s the one I choose.
Also, Vic Toews must know that fighting online child porn accomplishes nothing, except making society feel better about itself (“We’re a good country, we don’t approve of child porn. We’re not accomplishing much but at least we stand against it”).
If he’s not away of this, then he’s a bad minister because he’s taking on issues he knows nothing about.
But if he does know that fighting child porn online accomplishes nothing (or at most: very little), then he’s either trying to establish a tyranny (he’s passing this law to give the government control over the population) or he is doing it to gain popularity. And using the ordeal of rape victims to gain popularity is a disgusting thing to do.
from the recent spate of cases with politicians and children im more likely to believe that vic is a pedophile then the guy who downloaded the dark night.
plus since when have politicians ever told the truth?
stupid people
Maybe the Canadian population as a whole isn’t, but our politicians are getting close. Just look at the whole prison debacle or Byron Sonne charges or the continued existence of the EI Financing Agency while every other government program is looking to get cut, and you’ll see just how brain dead our great leaders are.
it might even a bit more honest
Except they already stand with the neofascists and corporate shills…
Re:
And if you ever forget it, just say you have a minor disagreement with a Conservative position. They’ll be happy to tell you about the huge mandate they got in October, and how appearently the will of the people are against you.
here is to Toews "You can stand with us, or you can stand with the child pornographers."
This is an easy one. I’ll stand with child pornographers rather that your kind anytime.
Re:
Despite their getting less then 50% of the actual votes. Unfortunately the opposition aren’t much better.
Ugh
We’ll be here for hours if you get me started on how effed up our electorial process is.
Ugh
As drastic as it is sometimes I feel like it’s the only way to secure our rights and freedom…
I kind of wish some psycho would snap and do it. Maybe then all the people who want to remove the rights and freedom of the entire population would think twice.
Vic Toews is shameful for using abused children
Mr. Vic Toews has repeatedly used abused children to forward his political plan. What he says about his opponents is shameful and he should apologize for his tasteless and offensive remarks about Mr. Francis Scarapaleggia and anyone else who questions the lawful access legislation. He uses children as a shield to protect himself, and that makes him as bad as the people he proposes to try to protect our children from. He is no child advocate.
Trying this again are they?
Everyone should be calling him to task on how he repeatedly and shamefully uses abused children to avoid discussion on the legislation.
Re:
No I meant to dump their hard drives and find all the damn child porn on them. They will call them “research” materials, but the ones screaming the loudest and pointing at others are usually the biggest pervs.
stupid people
And it is people like you, making comments like this, that make others think your country is full of assholes. Don’t be an asshole.
http://combustionmoose.blogspot.com/2012/02/you-all-like-child-porn.html
^enough said.
Canada, Britain & U.S. Government want to Spy On Its Citizens?/ Electronic Communications?
The Canadian (Commons recent Bill C-30) would?give any Canadian police officer without a warrant?the power to request Internet service providers turn over customer information (see section 17 of C-30) cause the same loss of electronic privacy and civil liberties that British Government recently proposed?to spy on Brits? electronic communications. Is it coincidence the British and Canadian proposals appear to mirror legislation U.S. Government said it wanted passed in 2011 to spy on U.S. Citizens?
Overlooked by mainstream media is that Britain and Canada signed with the U.S Government an array of (Asset Forfeiture Sharing Agreements) to share with Canadian and British Police/Governments assets seized from Brits, Canadians and Americans that resulted from e.g, evidence or information gleaned from electronic surveillance of Citizens? communications, e.g., emails, faxes, Internet actively, phone records including GPS tracking.
Compare with U.S. Government?s proposal to electronically monitor, spy on Americans without a warrant?with Canada?s recent eavesdropping (Bill C-30) and British Government?s plan to spy on its Citizens? electronic communications.
U.S. Government wants the power to (introduce as evidence) in criminal prosecutions and government civil trials, any phone call record, email or Internet activity. That would open the door for Police to take out of context any innocent?hastily written email, fax or phone call record to allege a crime or violation was committed to cause a person?s arrest, fines and or civil asset forfeiture of their property. There are more than 350 laws and violations that can subject property to government asset forfeiture. Government civil asset forfeiture requires only a civil preponderance of evidence for police to forfeit property, little more than hearsay.
If the U.S. Justice Department has its way, any information the FBI derives from circumventing the Fourth Amendment, i.e. (no warrant searches) of Web Server Records; a Citizen?s Internet Activity, personal emails; fax / phone calls may be used by the FBI for (fishing expeditions) to issue subpoenas in hopes of finding evidence or to prosecute Citizens for any alleged crime or violation. Consider that neither Congress nor the courts?determined what Bush II NSA electronic surveillance, perhaps illegal could be used by police or introduced into court by government to prosecute Americans criminally or civilly. If U.S. Justice Department is permitted (No-Warrant) surveillance of all electronic communications, it is problematic state and local law enforcement agencies and private government contractors will want access to prior Bush II NSA and other government illegally obtained electronic records not limited to?Americans? Internet activity; private emails, faxes and phone calls to secure evidence to arrest Americans, assess fines and or civilly forfeit their homes, businesses and other assets under Title 18USC and other laws. Of obvious concern, what happens to fair justice in America if police become dependent on ?Asset Forfeiture? to help pay their salaries and budget operating costs?
The ?Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000? (effectively eliminated) the ?five year statue of limitations? for Government Civil Asset Forfeiture: the statute now runs five years (from the date) police allege they ?learned? an asset became subject to forfeiture. It is foreseeable should (no warrant) government electronic surveillance be approved; police will relentlessly sift through business and Citizen?s (government retained Internet data), emails and phone communications to discover possible crimes or civil violations. A corrupt despot U.S. Government can too easily use no-warrant?(seized emails, Internet data and phone call information) to blackmail Americans, corporations and others in the same manner Hitler utilized his police state passed laws to extort support for the Nazi fascist government, including getting parliament to pass Hitler?s 1933 Discriminatory Decrees that suspended the Constitutional Freedoms of German Citizens. A Nazi Government threat of ?Property Seizure? Asset Forfeiture of an individual or corporation?s assets was usually sufficient to ensure Nazi support.
Under U.S. federal civil forfeiture laws, a person or business need not be charged with a crime for government to forfeit their property. Most U.S. Citizens, property and business owners that defend their assets against Government Civil Asset Forfeiture claim an ?innocent owner defense.? This defense can become a criminal prosecution trap for both guilty and innocent property owners. Any fresh denial of guilt made to government when questioned about committing a crime ?even when you did not do the crime? may (involuntarily waive) a defendant?s right to assert in their defense?the ?Criminal Statute of Limitations? past for prosecution; any fresh denial of guilt even 30 years after a crime was committed may allow Government prosecutors to use old and new evidence, including information discovered during a Civil Asset Forfeiture Proceeding to launch a criminal prosecution. For that reason many innocent Americans, property and business owners are reluctant to defend their property and businesses against Government Civil Asset Forfeiture.
Re: waiving Criminal Statute of Limitations: see USC18, Sec.1001, James Brogan V. United States. N0.96-1579. U.S. See paragraph (6) at:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/96-1579.ZC1.html
Re:
“The USA is not in fact the entire world.”
No, but its the best USA in the world.
Do you want the truth?
http://thecullenreport.blogspot.ca/
U.S. Expanding Cross-border Police Integration With Canada & Asset Forfeiture Sharing
Concurrent with Obama?s proposed law legalizing and expanding cross-border police integration in North America, Canadians earlier this year discovered introduced (Commons Bill C-30 touted to protect children on the Internet?would also give any Canadian police officer?without a warrant?the power to request Internet service providers turn over customers? information (see section 17 of C-30); allow Canadian police to seek into Canadians? private computers. C-30 was strongly opposed by Canadians in April 2012. Canadians further discovered Canada had signed with the United States an array of (Asset Forfeiture Sharing Agreements) for Canada to share
Canadian and Americans assets civilly or criminally confiscated using Asset Forfeiture laws that resulted from U.S. and Canada sharing information gleaned from electronic surveillance of Canadian and American Citizens? communications, e.g., emails, faxes, Internet actively, phone records.
Compare: The Obama Government wants the power (without a warrant) to introduce as evidence in U.S. Civil; Criminal and Administrative prosecutions any phone call record, email or Internet activity. Police can take out of context any innocent?hastily written email, fax or phone call record to allege a crime or violation was committed to cause a person?s arrest, fines and or civil asset forfeiture of their property. There are more than 350 laws/violations that can subject property to Government forfeiture that require
only a civil preponderance of evidence.
The U.S. ?Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000? (effectively eliminated) the ?five year statue of limitations? for Government Civil Asset Forfeiture: the statute now runs five
years (from the date) government or a police agency allege they ?learned? an asset became subject to forfeiture. It is foreseeable should (no warrant) government electronic surveillance be allowed; police will relentlessly sift through business and Citizens? (government retained Internet data), emails and phone communications to discover possible criminal or civil violations. History Repeats: A corrupt or despot U.S. Government/Agency can too easily use no-warrant?(seized emails, Internet data and phone call information) to blackmail Americans, corporations and others in the same manner Hitler used his police state no warrant passed laws to extort support for the Nazi fascist government, including getting members of German parliament to pass Hitler?s
1933 Discriminatory Decrees that suspended the Constitutional Freedoms of German Citizens. A Nazi Government threat of Asset Forfeiture of an individual or corporation?s assets was usually sufficient to ensure Nazi support.
Under U.S. federal civil asset forfeiture laws, a person or business need not be charged with a crime for government to forfeit their property. Most U.S. Citizens, property and business owners that defend their assets against Government Civil Asset Forfeiture claim
an ?innocent owner defense.? This defense can become a criminal prosecution trap for both guilty and innocent property owners. Any fresh denial of guilt made to government when questioned about committing a crime ?even when you did not do the crime? may (involuntarily waive) a defendant?s right to assert in their defense?the ?Criminal Statute of Limitations? past for prosecution; any fresh denial of guilt even 30 years after a crime was committed may allow U.S. Government prosecutors to use old and new evidence, including information discovered during Civil Asset Forfeiture Proceedings to launch a criminal prosecution. For that reason: many innocent Americans, property and business
owners are reluctant to defend their property and businesses against Government Civil Asset Forfeiture. Annually U.S. Government seizes Billions in assets without filing criminal charges. Increasingly local police are turning their criminal investigations over to Federal Agencies to receive an 80% rebate of forfeited assets. Federal Government is not required to charge anyone with a crime to forfeit property.
Re: waiving Criminal Statute of Limitations: see USC18, Sec.1001, James Brogan
V. United States. N0.96-1579. U.S. See paragraph (6) at:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/96-1579.ZC1.html