Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Canadian Police Want New Internet Surveillance Tools

Soulskill posted about 2 years ago | from the don't-we-all dept.

Canada 64

danomac writes "Police agencies in Canada want to have better tools to do online surveillance. Bill C-30 was to include new legislation (specifically Section 34) that would give police access to information without a warrant. This can contain your name, your IP address, and your mobile phone number. This, of course, creates all sorts of issues with privacy online. The police themselves say they have concerns with Section 34. Apparently, the way it is worded, it is not just police that can request the information, but any government agent. Would you trust the government with this kind of power?"

cancel ×

64 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Fight this now! (5, Insightful)

gweihir (88907) | about 2 years ago | (#41795657)

As somebody who grew up in Germany, I have seen ample historic precedent where this kind of snooping leads. Either fight it now or explain to your children in a decade or two why you did not prevent a surveillance state, where there is no free speech and no tolerated dissent.

We need a Wikileaks (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41795845)

What we need is Wikileaks to reveal whose really behind it and why. Like the Swedish prosecution of Pirate Bay, where torrent tracking is equated to copyright infringement is equated to a criminal act. Wikileaks revealed this was a demand from the US during secret discussions on laws that would be passed. Interesting the discussion was between the Swedish govt and the US govt and didn't include Swedish people:

http://torrentfreak.com/wikileaks-cable-shows-us-involvement-in-swedish-anti-piracy-efforts-101207/

Interestingly, I did a search to find that wikileak link, and found this one , which shocked me somewhat and explains why they want Assange prosecuted for something:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8202745/WikiLeaks-Swedish-government-hid-anti-terror-operations-with-America-from-Parliament.html

"The secret cables, seen by The Daily Telegraph, disclose how Swedish officials wanted discussions about anti-terrorism operations kept from public scrutiny. ....Making the arrangement formal would result in the need for it to be disclosed to Parliament, they said. "

Wow, the Swedish government had closer links to the Bush government (this was 2008) than it does to the Swedish Parliament.

Re:We need a Wikileaks (2)

xenobyte (446878) | about 2 years ago | (#41801919)

I was very surprised when the story of the illegal raid on TPB and the international corruption that led to it broke. I regarded Sweden as one of the pinnacles of democracy in the world and now that image was shattered forever. I now have absolutely no doubt that the rape charges against Assange are pure fiction and that strange things would happen if the Swedish police got their hands on Assange; maybe he would 'disappear' or something similar - I would not trust the Swedish government one bit anymore.

Both TPB and Assange/Wikileaks are freedom fighters in my book - fighting for the freedom of information.

Re:Fight this now! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41795911)

Wow, from 0 to Godwined in one post! Is that a record?

FWIW, I agree with you, but who could resist pointing that out?

Stasi not Nazi (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41795963)

Presumably he's referring to *STASI* Surveillance, not Nazi Germany, so Goodwin doesn't apply.

Interesting, watching Naomi Wolf talk about how the Stasi actually only had 10% of the people under surveillance, and it was the fear of being watched that kept people from rising up. With all the new computer technology, states about to flip over to dictatorship can watch *everyone* all the time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjALf12PAWc

It's well worth watching that video. The odd thing is that if you 'like' it, that will go into a log somewhere and laws like this one can datamine it and use it against you. All without oversight, all without checks and balances.

Re:Stasi not Nazi (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41797343)

It's well worth watching that video. The odd thing is that if you 'like' it, that will go into a log somewhere and laws like this one can datamine it and use it against you. All without oversight, all without checks and balances.

What if I tell them I 'liked' it because I thought it was a great elevator pitch? Maybe they'd just give me VC funding for a new social media startup!

Re:Fight this now! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41796017)

Good luck fighting something when 98% of the population don't give a fuck?

Jacqui Smith Ex MP (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41796301)

In the UK we had Jacqui Smith, who wanted to index everything you did on the Internet ready for searching by the police in very similar ways. She was voted out at the next election along with her party.

Good riddance.

98% of the population DO give a fuck. You just have to make a loud enough noise so people are made aware of what they're up to.

Re:Jacqui Smith Ex MP (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41798145)

Nope, it hasn't solved anything AT ALL.

Jacqui Smith was replaced with someone who while isn't quite as bad, still wants to push through legislation called "mastering the internet"

You haven't researched this thoroughly have you?

And the population still doesn't give a fuck.

Re:Fight this now! (1)

sgtrock (191182) | about 2 years ago | (#41796299)

Says the Slashdotter whose tag says he ignores anonymous commentary. So, what? You ignore those who have something to say who fear reprisals if they are found out?

Re:Fight this now! (2, Insightful)

gweihir (88907) | about 2 years ago | (#41797121)

Slashdot supports pseudonymity. That does not break anonymity. Your argument is wrong.

ACs are just people that it is rarely worthwhile to listen to as they do not participate in the reputation system.

Re:Fight this now! (1)

craigminah (1885846) | about 2 years ago | (#41796397)

We kind of have this in the USA right now but instead of hauling people off they call them racists and ridicule them...step 1 of a 12 step program to control speech.

Re:Fight this now! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41796783)

As somebody who grew up in Germany, I have seen ample historic precedent where this kind of snooping leads. Either fight it now or explain to your children in a decade or two why you did not prevent a surveillance state, where there is no free speech and no tolerated dissent.

we have courts, due process, and a constitution.

Re:Fight this now! (3, Insightful)

Jessified (1150003) | about 2 years ago | (#41797901)

Indeed. The headline should have read: "Police Everywhere Want New Internet Surveillance Tools"

Canada needs a workers government! (1)

For a Free Internet (1594621) | about 2 years ago | (#41795679)

Independence for Québéc! Also,

ROWSDOWSER!!!!!

Canada government is full of dog-farts and smells like dog-fart!

Works two ways. (4, Informative)

PsychoSlashDot (207849) | about 2 years ago | (#41795701)

Canadian citizens want to police. While we're at it, we also want new politicians.

These ass-clowns just don't get it that while laws that enable them to use new technologies are reasonable, laws that bypass established due process aren't. I don't care that computers allow much more efficient investi-trolling. You still get a warrant, or you don't get the data, in my world. Anything else - C-30 or not - is illegal to me and puts the government and police in an adversarial position relative to their constituents.

Re:Works two ways. (2)

PsychoSlashDot (207849) | about 2 years ago | (#41795707)

New, damnit. New. Not "to". We want new police.

Re:Works two ways. (2)

slick7 (1703596) | about 2 years ago | (#41796965)

puts the government and police in an adversarial position relative to their constituents.

It's for national security and the children. Oh, and lest I forget, if you don't, then the terrorists win.

Re:Works two ways. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41797155)

You're either with them, or the islamic leftist liberal pedophiles win.
(Captcha: Shocking. Appropriate.)

Re:Works two ways. (3, Insightful)

dryeo (100693) | about 2 years ago | (#41797485)

It's the internet bullies this week, what with that girl committing suicide and such.

Re:Works two ways. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41797965)

Oh, and of course, 'protecting our artists'.

Signed Sealed Delivered - Gov Whitelisting Galore! (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41795703)

"It sound like some people I know who "Keep getting all these virus things no matter what I do!""

Remember the Sony BMG root kit?
Remember how no Antivirus detected it? Not even Anti root kit scanners?
Remember how only one tool initially detected it?

Now consider for a moment how many other government software/firmware moles/rootkits may be lingering within millions of people's proprietary systems (hardware/software-OS).

Wikileaks published a lot of information on companies willingly selling rootkits to governments and organizations. And do I really need to bring up HBGary?

So many fools using multiple proprietary scanners on their systems, the makers of which could all be in bed with big bro, the programs and/or updates could contain rootkits, and seriously, what the fsck is up with Microsoft and Flash both having so many remote exploits being patched all of the time?

The very products you trust, imo, could be the very e-poison from which you e-drink from.

To this day I laugh inside when twits tell me their system is "clean" because they scanned it with several proprietary tools.

Face it, even on Linux the quality of the root kit scanners are piss poor. You have to boot into a separate environment (like Remnux) to evaluate the malware, but most people won't do it, they'll wipe and reinstall and rely only on signatures which can be compromised. And when they find out they have an APT which continues to reinfect their computer(s)? Would they be intelligent enough to consider a firmware (PCI/BIOS) infection which survives hard drive wipes? Do they also have infected thumb drives laying around they plug into other computers around home and/or friends/family/work?

Chkrootkit has a function to list the strings of binaries, but it's up to you to determine whether or not the content of the strings are malicious. I've tried several root kit scanners on Linux and all of them are, imo, crippled pieces of trash. The crowd will yell back at you, "But most of these require root to exploit!" No, not at all, there are hundreds of ways to exploit a Linux box, many not requiring root, but a particular program/version. I won't even bite down on the subject of ways to subvert package managers. Heck, how many Linux repositories use SSL? SSH? Torrents with established "good" check sums for thousands of packages?

And I've not mentioned Flash and Adobe Reader for Linux and the past problems with those... and the NVidia driver for Linux, had in the past, one or two severe security issues whereby a remote exploit could take over the system! (Google it. The news of one exploit was in 2006.)

Our proprietary hardware and software are both at risk, and likely subverted world wide on millions of computers by governments and select organizations. The fact it takes years until a researcher trips over a particular piece of malware which none of the antivirus companies are detecting is inexcusable.

Were I head of a commercially developed antimalware company, I'd develop a website similar to Virus Total, but instead of the users uploading single files one by one, I'd give them a FOSS program which checked every part of their hardware, embedded and manually inserted, checksum the firmware (of all media drives, graphics cards, anything with firmware) and BIOS and tear apart the results, funneling them into separate result pages, each result for each component going to its own page for comparative results, rather than building a profile on one user's system. I would offer the users the option of publishing a one page result for their unique computer, but it would be opt-in only. Yes, checksum the firmware, including the router, and demand companies publish checksums and use GPG to sign their firmware, all of this information would go to the site as described. A massive database of important, but anonymously pulled and published information.

It's just going to get worse.

On the side, I've been saying to myself for years, IMO, "When Microsoft finally starts to show signs of weakness and loss of power over the OEMs, it will try and reinvent itself through crippled hardware and force others to beg at its door for access. They will, imo, follow the same route as Apple, tying software to hardware. I'm shocked it hasn't happened sooner." Then the reverse engineering can begin, just like the WINE project which was abandoned by Corel following Microsoft's involvement with Corel, despite the good word from some former people at Corel who said they would continue to develop WINE. It wasn't much longer until Corel Linux was **** canned, and the support for WINE dried up like a neglected grapevine.

People like to poke and laugh at people like RMS who are sane and their visions a philosophy to stand by and build upon. Sadly, it's mostly about 'image' in today's society. This is why, in part, you'll never see a true world leader elected who benefits the people and country as a whole, because it's just like high school, you only have a few choices between the approved popular cliques, the rest are shunned and ridiculed. So we have two, I would argue, controlled choices, the Republicans and Democrats, and we have two, I would maintain, jocks, Apple and Microsoft.

Bring on the 3-D printers and eventually the Star Trek like replicators, so we can put an end to the sweatshops in China and elsewhere, and to the two jocks in school.

Soon our future will be collaboration of FOSS and FOSH(ardware) and we won't sit idly by as the two jocks push their creations onto us, we will forge our own.

Oh, and you can kiss my ass Republicans and Democrats, whose power is only illuminated by controlled corporate media and further shaped by humor from The Daily Show, Colbert Report (they didn't have much to say during the last writer's strike, did they, yet people think they're so witty -- wrong! more corporate ****!) and SNL (why the fork wasn't stunk in SNL years ago is beyond me, it's like watching The Simpsons, someone left the building and forgot to turn off the light - I won't even dig into the, imo, illuminati Family Guy show).

The future is up to us, the power is in our hands, we only have to turn off the TV and stop swallowing the **** they feed us and join together to mature technology.

Of course they do. (1)

argStyopa (232550) | about 2 years ago | (#41795705)

..they'll need that because kids taking pictures in malls will figure out how to auto-upload their pics on Dropbox. Ergo, they need to have more internet powers to stop such a heinous abuse of freedom.

Re:Of course they do. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41796409)

..they'll need that because kids taking pictures in malls will figure out how to auto-upload their pics on Dropbox. Ergo, they need to have more internet powers to stop such a heinous abuse of freedom.

Don't you mean UbuntuOne

Re:Of course they do. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41796849)

I haven't double checked yet but if I remember correctly, someone was working on an Android camera, High res like a regular digital camera but with all the networking capacity of an Android phone. I think the only thing missing was the actual phone function. Now such a camera wouldn't need much in the way of memory as it would immediately upload every picture it took to the cloud or to something like Facebook. How would the Police state handle such a device and its immediate publication capacity?

Captcha word: "repress"

Re:Of course they do. (1)

davecb (6526) | about 2 years ago | (#41797225)

There's a (beta) app for that: Toronto crimestoppers. See also http://www.222tips.com/about [222tips.com]

--dave

Think of the cost... (4, Interesting)

Anne Thwacks (531696) | about 2 years ago | (#41795721)

A story not many minutes old //yro.slashdot.org/story/12/10/28/0531250/cash-strapped-states-burdened-by-expensive-data-security-breaches [slashdot.org] tells us that the majority of US states cannot afford to keep data secure, and also cannot afford the cost of keeping it insecure.

The obvious conclusion is that keeping data is very expensive and you should be trying to find ways not to keep more, not finding reasons to hold more!

privacy is a problem, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41795741)

so are stupid laws. There are many very powerful arguments for privacy being altogether dissolved, but we can't take away privacy AND continue forward with the same laws. Fact is people do a lot of illegal things that don't actually hurt anybody. If we can decriminalize those relatively innocent activities before eliminating privacy, we'll be OK.
Fact is privacy is going to go, already privacy is an illusion; nothing is truly private anyway, just obfuscated by complexity. Sooner or later, people find everything out, so instead of fighting that, let's fight malformed law.

Do not want (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41795759)

This law comes up for debate about once every year or two and, to date, Canadians keep shouting it down. Hopefully people up here continue to do so. I'm fine with the RCMP having access to this information with a warrant, but warrantless access by anyone is a bad idea.

Re:Do not want (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41796833)

The last time around, our government accuses any critics of their online surveillance bill as supporting child pornography.

Re:Do not want (1)

canadian_right (410687) | about 2 years ago | (#41804599)

the parent post is informative and true, the last time around the minister did sate that only child pornographers were against the bill.

free society? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41795837)

As the comments of the linked article suggest, there is no reason police can't get a warrant.

Of course that would entail some pillow talk...I mean probable cause arguments to a judge, I suppose. If even this tiny bit of protection is to be stripped away then all hope is truly lost for our free society.

So they want... (1)

fatphil (181876) | about 2 years ago | (#41795855)

... more webcams in shopping malls?

Am I on the wrong story?

C-30 will not rise from the dead. (3, Interesting)

arthurpaliden (939626) | about 2 years ago | (#41795865)

The police are still pissed off that the Government basically scrapped Bill C-30 after a national outcry about it. It seems that we Canadians just did not like the idea of warrantless wire taps and that the government wanted to gain access to all our internet data stored by our ISP, again with out a warrant, and without even requiring those getting the data to be law enforcement officials. .

Of course it will... (1)

billstewart (78916) | about 2 years ago | (#41800545)

How many times do police or copyright enforcers quit the first time they get thrown out by a court or spanked by public opinion? At most they shut up till the noise quiets down and then come back with a renamed bill a bit later... That's extra-true for you in Canada, because the US police and copyright mafias want laws like that pushed in the US, and it's easier to do that if they get Canada to do it first so they can point to what a fine example our neighbors to the north are providing, so they're always nagging your bureaucrats and politicians to do things their US counterparts can't quite get away with yet.

Re:Of course it will... (1)

arthurpaliden (939626) | about 2 years ago | (#41800921)

This is a bit harder in Canada since our politicians are harder to buy. Companies cannot donate to political parties or to campaigns. And we don't have anything equivalent to you super paks.

Why? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41796035)

They can get a warrant very easily. Why do they want the power to go around that? If you have followed the HUGE outcry against C-30 you would also know that there will be no paper trail behind these requests either and politicians would also be allowed to make such requests. The current Canadian federal government is corrupt and shady and Canadians have already made it abundantly clear that we do not want this bill to pass.

Re:Why? (2)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 2 years ago | (#41796973)

Warrants make fishing expeditions very difficult, and it is fishing expedition powers the cops want.

Would you trust the government...? (3, Insightful)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 2 years ago | (#41796073)

That question is pure flamebait... Put it in a Slashdot poll

have it (1)

Murdoch5 (1563847) | about 2 years ago | (#41796099)

24.212.141.134 519 568 9648

Get a warrant (1)

fox171171 (1425329) | about 2 years ago | (#41796149)

I don't mind them having better tools, as long as it doesn't usurp due process. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. That is why there are checks and balances, and they MUST be kept. If there is a good reason for needing the information, then getting a warrant should not be a problem.

Re:Get a warrant (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41796621)

There is NEVER a "good reason."

I don't care if they're pedo-hunting, there is NO legitimate reason to take information by force.

Simply not acceptable (3, Insightful)

cheros (223479) | about 2 years ago | (#41796155)

There is a very important issue at stake here: transparency.

The ability to breach your privacy is a privilege granted to law enforcement for the purpose of fighting crime, but it is a privilege. The use of that privilege has to have just cause, which is what the whole warrant system is supposed to check.

The UK already has a problem with warrantless intercept based on a combination of RIPA 2000 and the magic word "terrorist", and from what I hear it is abused with gay abandon. Don't go there..

Re:Simply not acceptable (1)

CodeBuster (516420) | about 2 years ago | (#41801833)

There's one sure fire way to get bureaucrats to shut up: threaten to cut their budget if they mention it again.

Re:Simply not acceptable (1)

dkf (304284) | about 2 years ago | (#41802053)

There's one sure fire way to get bureaucrats to shut up: threaten to cut their budget if they mention it again.

You can also suggest that they might need to relocate their department to Yellowknife or Iqaluit.

Unlimited access (4, Funny)

fox171171 (1425329) | about 2 years ago | (#41796205)

Probably won't be that big a deal... they'll likely be as disappointed with their "unlimited internet access" as I am with mine.

Even With a Warrant, NO! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41796517)

Even Canadian agencies want this? No! This is getting to be ridiculous.

Even with a warrant, there are things that no national government can have.

Getting a warrant doesnt make this okay. It is NEVER okay to take this information.

first to post crappy joke (1)

cellocgw (617879) | about 2 years ago | (#41796637)

Well, it is Section 34, which is to say, basically Rule34.

Sorry. (not really)

Re: Section 34, Rule 34 (1)

billstewart (78916) | about 2 years ago | (#41800559)

Definitely, somebody had to say it first, glad it was you and not me. But yes, you'll start seeing Rule 34 sites for IP addresses with webcams and mobile phones that can have the cameras turned on, based on Section 34 data collection.

No. (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41796841)

No. Privacy is a right (even the UN thinks so) and I will say no as many times as I have to. I believe Bill C-30 is more than a threat to privacy though, it is a threat to Canada's democracy. Strong crypto must be allowed for a digital democracy.

http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6324/125/#comments

Re:No. (1)

gh0st1nth3mach1n3 (554152) | about 2 years ago | (#41798057)

Most services already have an option (if not a default) to use encrypted communication. If privacy is further restricted, advocates will encourage hard drive (or at least personal folder) encryption to be used by default.

The next logical step would be to make use of cryptography illegal, but then it reaches the point where the majority of the population is breaking the law routinely. When the law has turned the majority of the population into criminals, it becomes unenforceable and completely toothless.

It's an escalation in the balance of power between the legislature and its electorate. While democracy prevails, the electorate will always win.

Re:No. (1)

DarwinSurvivor (1752106) | about 2 years ago | (#41799769)

The problem with cryptography (at least HTTPS) is that you can still tell which website they visited, when, and for how long. This alone can be used to create a fairly good picture of a person's habits, tendencies and personal preferences. Also keep in mind that with HTTPS you cannot server multiple websites from the same IP (and the IP is not encrypted for obvious reasons), so there is no mistaking which website (or subdomain of that website for that matter) the user is visiting.

Re:No. (1)

CodeBuster (516420) | about 2 years ago | (#41801849)

You could always combine the use of HTTPS with TOR, to further obscure the source. It won't provide absolute protection, but it will substantially up the ante on tracking the communications back to the source. If a militant and closed government like Iran cannot shut down TOR, how much less can an open and democratic one like Canada? It should also be noted by those everywhere who love privacy and wish to see it preserved that running TOR exit nodes is a public service and strikes a blow against oppressive governments and overreaching bureaucrats everywhere. The more nodes there are in more countries the more secure the network becomes so if you want to help and are able to do so, please consider running a TOR exit node.

Re:No. (1)

DarwinSurvivor (1752106) | about 2 years ago | (#41836077)

Oh of course. I was just pointing out how HTTPS alone only obscures part of your online activities. The same can be said about using TOR without HTTPS.

Re:No. (1)

dkf (304284) | about 2 years ago | (#41802067)

Also keep in mind that with HTTPS you cannot server multiple websites from the same IP (and the IP is not encrypted for obvious reasons), so there is no mistaking which website (or subdomain of that website for that matter) the user is visiting.

You're wrong there. Multidomain certificates just cost more and are a little more complicated to create. (They also have to either list the domains that they are for or the super-domain, depending on exactly which type of certificate they are.)

Re:No. (1)

lingon (559576) | about 2 years ago | (#41801579)

The next logical step would be to make use of cryptography illegal, but then it reaches the point where the majority of the population is breaking the law routinely. When the law has turned the majority of the population into criminals, it becomes unenforceable and completely toothless.

I don't think they will try to make encryption illegal, they would simply make not disclosing the key to the authorities illegal. That's how it is in the UK right now, for example. Which, of course, also makes both forgetting your key and storing random data illegal ...

Re:No. (1)

CodeBuster (516420) | about 2 years ago | (#41801897)

they would simply make not disclosing the key to the authorities illegal

Two words: Plausible Deniability [truecrypt.org] .

The main caveat here is that any hardware which has been outside of your custody even once must never be trusted again, but that's a small price to pay compared with the alternatives. The government can still get to you if they want you bad enough, but it's much more likely that small fish will escape the net and get lost in the noise. As long as the story remains plausible, nobody's going to ask too many questions of the average citizen.

I have no problem, IF it's from gov't servers! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41797421)

I truly resent the idea that businesses have to be unpaid informers to the government. And it's not like a business can just dump the data in the government's lap. No. They have to ensure that it's quality data, usually in a format dictated by the government. It is yet another file cabinet or server that has to be secured. And if the government leaks the data, guess who the government will blame: the business! And if a business loses the data, they'll be accused of "destroying evidence". Did I mention the business is not getting paid to do this? Nothing but a headache for what might never be useful in the investigation of a crime!

Canadian police abuse their powers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41797769)

There are numerous police officers who abuse their power and don't get caught.

Sometimes, officers are stupid enough to harass someone with power, and for that they are punished.

Here's an example of a police officer who repeatedly abused his power and avoided numerous complaints:

http://www.northernlife.ca/news/policeandCourt/2011/06/17-police-officers-misconduct-sudbury.aspx

He was eventually fired for comitting criminal offences. Hardly the "equality before and under the law" that is guarenteed by the charter.

I predict that the number of abuses that occur will go up proportionately with the types of abuses that are possible. Giving a group of unaccountable power-tripping undereducated police officers new powers when they clearly can't play nice with the ones they have is a bad idea.

What we need now is a Bill that holds government officials MORE accountable than citizens. You should get a HARSHER sentence when you mess up in a position of power than if you were just an average citizen.

Polite Request From AC (Anonymous Canadian) (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41797809)

Cops, please fuck off.

Ah good ol'Jim (1)

Mashiki (184564) | about 2 years ago | (#41798039)

BC's biggest incompetent ass, usually about the time he starts squawking over something it's because something really bad has happened and he's trying to deflect attention to something else. Apparently Jim would like to remove R&PG(reasonable and probable grounds), as well. Well for those that don't know most police chiefs in Canada were once cops turned politicians. If you want to know how things actually work here, you look at staff sgts and below, sometimes inspectors. It gets messy though, because police boards like to "install" police chiefs in some places. Said chiefs are politicians to their toenails.

And the best part is... (1)

rusty0101 (565565) | about 2 years ago | (#41799205)

...the internet is based on open protocols. They can look up the specs, read the descriptions of the protocols, write test software, and write software all day long to support their needs. I think we should encourage all police state advocates to write their own software. Unless they have more important things to do, like stop burglars, capture pickpockets, etc. It's Canada after all, not exactly a major site for the burgeoning drug war the US is hemorrhaging money into.

It's happening around the world sadly. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41800037)

US & Canada entered into a new joint cybsersecurity plan around the time this was announced. The same happened with Australia. We have new legislation going through for data retention in Australia and the same horrible warrant-less access issues. Check out #dataretention and #natsecinquiry on Twitter and you'll see a lot of the debate here in Australia. You used to have to be a convicted criminal to get a tracking collar attached. Now all citizens are treated like criminals first. It's a complete breach of Article 14 of the UNDHR. The implications of these new authoritarian 'big brother' approaches are very scary indeed. They claim it's too hard to get warrants, but in Australia we spend 14x as much on federal law enforcement as justice (courts, etc.). Seems the "Total Information Awareness" doctrine keeps growing stronger than ever. Recommend reading https://www.privacyinternational.org/reports/privacy-as-a-political-right . Nations that have been through abuse of powers like these made the privacy principle for VERY good reasons. What sort of example are developed nations setting for even more authoritarian dictatorships around the world? It's very short-sighted indeed. I also wonder how much of our data will eventually get fed straight to NSA's Utah Data Center under the UKUSA Agreement also (Canada is a party to this).

Poison the well (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41800863)

Let's add a new tool to the mix: Well Poisoner
A program which can be run on any platform which randomly fires off web searches and randomly crawls the web.

Yes, it will cost you some of your bandwidth and data.

If enough people do this then it will be a lot harder, seriously a lot harder for anyone to easily map what you are doing

Another idea: A program which passes fake coordinates when queries by mobile phone applications. Picks a random location within 50km or where you actually are. Yes, this won't deceive the phone companies who can use the phone cell towers, but it will help dissuade online tracking of your movements.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>