Bill Would Let Police Monitor Email 439
Duuk2k2 writes "The Canadian federal cabinet will review new legislation this fall that would give police and security agencies vast powers to begin surveillance of the Internet without court authority. The new measures would allow law-enforcement agents to intercept personal e-mails, text messages and possibly even password-secure websites used for purchasing and financial transactions."
Insert sarcasm tags: (Score:5, Funny)
Offtopic? (Score:2, Insightful)
It's not offtopic at all. It seems to me that the possibility of abuse is precisely the topic here.
Re:Insert sarcasm tags: (Score:2, Insightful)
Canadians are lucky that their goverment has such a deep understanding of technologies like encryption otherwise this would just be a pointless intrusion into the privacy of citizens and non-citizens alike.
Re:Insert sarcasm tags: (Score:5, Funny)
Bill? (Score:3, Funny)
Officers need to be accountable (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Officers need to be accountable (Score:2, Insightful)
They would only be happy if they could jail everybody "for our protection", of course.
Re:Officers need to be accountable (Score:2)
Otherwise, I completely agree with your post.
Judges are biased (Score:5, Insightful)
With something like this the police could just keep it all hush-hush and then make shit up at a later date to justif it. Since there's no record to compare it to see if it's the truth. Far too easy for someone to say "Well we had all this evidence so we started monitoring him and look! We were right" when the actuality was they had no evidence at all.
Re:Judges are biased (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Officers need to be accountable (Score:2)
Re:Officers need to be accountable (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not implying that the court IS corrupt, but that it's by no means a foolproof method of removing abuse - only recently, here in the UK, have we had a bunch of cases overturned because the judge presiding over them wasn't unbiased (he had a tendancy to believe that people had done it, were coming up with pathetic excuses and so took to laughing their arguments off or cutting them off mid sentence) Now, what's to say that it won't go before a judge who really hates peadophiles and so hands a warrant over to any officer who happens to include 'possible peadophile' in the reasons for their request?
Never trust that anyone in authority will always do the right thing, that goes for the judicary too.
Re:Officers need to be accountable (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Judges understand the rules and are thus less likely to grant requests without justification.
2. They can't claim "I didn't know 'screwing my wife' isn't a valid reason for a wiretap". (See #1)
3. They add an extra person to the process. I.e. Detective wants wiretap. -> Gets his supervisor -> Supervisor goes to Judge.
The Judge dosn't have to be any more unbiased or less curropt. He just dosn't have the same personal motivs.
I.e. Your wife sleaping around dosn't afect him so you need to justify the tap.
Note that I use wiretap throghout this post. That's because eavsdroping on email is EXACTLY the same as a wiretap.
Re:Officers need to be accountable (Score:2)
As to the possibility of individual corruption or bias in a justice, that's another matter entirely (as some of the child posts went on to say).
Re:Officers need to be accountable (Score:3, Interesting)
I would say that everyone needs to be accountable, police and judiciary included... Personal responsiblity is a good idea - and even the neo-cons in the US thought so - up until they realized that it applied to them, too...
As has been said many, many times in the ongoing arguments over firearms rights in the US: "If guns
Re:Officers need to be accountable (Score:3, Interesting)
The gun crime rate, far from soaring is actually falling.
Gun crime is 0.5% of all crime... 9% of all homicides recorded. A total of 88 deaths per *year* (source: home office statistics 2003/04).
In other words you chances of being killed by a gun are 1.44 in a million.
Go an ask our US friends how many deaths due to gun crime there are in a *week* let alone a year, then talk about 'soaring'.
Re:Officers need to be accountable (Score:4, Interesting)
So it may catch "dumb" criminals, but it won't catch anyone who knows how to avoid it.
And what's to stop me, as someone who runs my own mail server (that accepts SSL connections)? Or to stop someone who offshores their email accounts to another country and uses an encrypted email client (ala hushmail)? Nothing - encryption renders all surveillance useless, and more and more software is encrypting data now (and you can be sure there will be FAR, FAR more if this legislation passes).
So I think this is dangerous, and extremely foolish. As some radio hosts mentioned today, what's the difference between this and someone slitting-open all of your mail, or monitoring all of your phone calls? And guess who will PAY for all of this extra public monitoring. You guessed it, the public that's BEING monitored!
I have a feeling that all of this may be political ass-covering however - if they put forward this proposal and it's shot-down, if something "does" happen, no politicians will lose their jobs for "not checking email" because "the public veto'ed it". Aren't politicians great...
N.
Not a chance. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not a chance. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not a chance. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Not a chance. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Not a chance. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Not a chance. (Score:2)
Easy... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Easy... (Score:5, Interesting)
Hello, RIP [wikipedia.org]
Simply demand passphrases - under penalty of law - from anybody whose packetstream, when decoded, contains the string "BEGIN PGP KEY BLOCK".
And RIP, privacy.
Re:Easy... (Score:2)
Which makes it too easy for them. Compress it with gz then rename the file porn.bmp. Base64 encode and send. How can they prove that you used encryption?
Re:Easy... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Easy... (Score:2)
Re:Easy... (Score:2, Insightful)
that is, the problem being that the government is giving power to the police to breach privacy. whether they do it before or after encryption doesn't matter.
Re:Easy... (Score:5, Interesting)
You miss my point -- once upon a time, there was no RIP in the UK, either.
This law is useless without a Canadian equivalent to the RIP. Therefore, the Canadian government will be forced to implement an RIP-equivalent law within a year or two of implementing the "all your connections are subject to permanent sniffing" law.
The reason you implement these laws piecewise is so that Citizen Canuck can look at the law and say "That won't affect me, because I'll just use encryption", (or so Ernest Englishman can say "It's a fair cop, but they 'ave to get a court order to gather the evidence they'll use before demanding my password under RIP").
And because, under a parliamentary system such as that used in the UK (and Canada), by the time the second half of the law is drafted, it's already too late.
Re:Easy... (Score:2)
Re:Easy... (Score:2)
Re:Easy... (Score:3, Insightful)
That'll work (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:That'll work (Score:2)
Re:That'll work (Score:2, Funny)
Re:That'll work (Score:3, Insightful)
You'd be better off arguing not along the lines that "if it isn't perfect, it shouldn't be done" -- which would suggest that you shouldn't bother investigating homicides, because SOME killers are smart and lucky enough to get away -- but about the net eff
Re:That'll work (Score:2)
From the standpoint of society being better off, we probably would be better off not "investigating" homicides. We should just jail people that we know 100% did it (i.e. caught on camera, or some other real proof.)
Also, getting someone in jail to testify against someone for a more lienient sentance should be outlawed. It leads
Aw, Canada (Score:5, Interesting)
After all, it's not like military lawyers stopped intelligence agencies from intercepting Mohammed Atta and his fellow planebombers [cnn.com] a year before they did any damage. You're thinking of that third-world failed regime to the South.
Re:Aw, Canada (Score:2, Informative)
You mean the budding police state [washingtonpost.com] to the south?
Re:ok, but... (Score:5, Informative)
You have a source for this? I realize that it became a meme that terrorists came from Canada, and it is true that Rassam came from Canada on an attempt to bomb LAX, however it was my impression, and this was reiterated many times, that not one of the 9-11 terrorists came through Canada. Not that it matters anyways, as ferry or not they're still going through US Customs, and thus it's still up to the US to maintain its security (just as it does, or rather didn't do, when all of the others flew right in and should have raised every red flag).
Re:ok, but... (Score:3, Informative)
Your impression is correct. Hearing this myth repeated ad nauseum by Fox pundits is one thing, but when a politician spouts it as well, that's another. When Newt Gingrich used this "fact" earlier this year, our Ambassador to the U.S. called him out pretty quickly, and forced an apology. Here [www.cbc.ca] is one article on the story.
Re:ok, but... (Score:3, Interesting)
While I'll happily concede if you can name a credible source, I did search and found that this is an urban myth that the slackjawed right-wingers use to imagine that the rest of the world is to blame, rather than themselves. There is, according to what I can find (in actual credible news) zero proof that any of the 9/11 terrorists ever touched foot in Canada. Instead they were busy spending their time takin
Frustrating (Score:3)
Then again, it seems like all the important issues come up during election season...
<rant>
This is just like the Guilded Age of 19th century America, where politicians used the silver vs. gold debate to hide the real issues of economy, etc.... </rant>
Re:Frustrating (Score:3, Insightful)
It's the police. The police always want maximum powers, because their twisted brains see criminals everywhere. For those sick fucks, all what matters in their poor existence is the ferreting out of criminals, real or imagined (when there is an absence of crime, such as in Canada).
Whenever you interact with a cop, the pig is on the lookout for whatever reason to haul you in. Hen
Re:Frustrating (Score:3, Funny)
Try not to stereotype. Just because there are a few bad apples doesn't mean that the other 2% are rotten.
If this passes... (Score:2)
Fun for the whole family.
Well, the result of this would be... (Score:5, Informative)
Take THAT, Mr. Pig-man. It's GOATSE time!
Three Letters (Score:2)
Pretty Good Privacy. [pgpi.org] Get it and use it.
Is really PGP the solution? (Score:3, Interesting)
With news like these, at first we all think of encrypting our mail with PGP/GPG but... how do we know that it will make a difference?
Maybe governments know how to decode it but it's kept in secret in order to create a false sense of security
Quick, the tinfoil hat!
--
Dreamhost [dreamhost.com] superb hosting.
Kunowalls!!! [kunowalls.host.sk] Random sexy wallpapers.
Re:Is really PGP the solution? (Score:5, Funny)
Na, na na na... na na... na na
Can't touch this!
Na, na na na... na na... na na
Can't TOUCH this!
Looking online! It's a cop! Reading my email cuz he just can't stop from STICKING! His nose in, where it don't belong so he GOES in
But HELLO! What the hell is this? The cop's found a picture, something's amiss and blammo! Thanks to Goatse, "Oh my EYES!" he yells and the piglet can't see!
Na, na na na... Na na... na na
Can't touch this!
Na, na na na... Na na... Na na
Can't touch this!
Re:Is really PGP the solution? (Score:2)
However, if there's somebody who a government suspects might be a person of interest, and that somebody starts using encryption after such p
When did we loose our sanity? (Score:5, Interesting)
Now what would happen if that same legislation (on phone tapping) was created today? Would the police and 'security services' be able to listen to anyone they wanted without any kind of oversight?
Where did our legal right to privacy go? And why do governments have no respect for people's right to communicate over the internet? Like it is some second class method of communication.
Re:When did we loose our sanity? (Score:2)
Technically, we never really had one, it's not in the canadian constitution
Re:When did we loose our sanity? (Score:4, Interesting)
Governments have no respect for people's right to communicate over the internet because they have no respect for people's right to communicate at all.
The only reason the wiretap laws for more traditional forms of communication have judicial protections built-in is that they were formulated and passed during a period of time when the members of the government generally cared about people's rights, at least a little.
Today governments don't give a crap about anybody's rights, because the people who are running them today don't care about anything but power and control. And they can get away with it, too, because they control all the guns of any consequence (the pathetic peashooters the civilians are allowed to have are no match for the real guns controlled by the military).
Governments across the world are figuring out that civilians have no real power anymore. It won't be long now until the world's transition to the kind of dystopia depicted in so many science fiction books is complete.
It appears the Soviet Union died because it was a bit ahead of its time, not because governments want to avoid becoming like it.
Re:When did we loose our sanity? (Score:3, Funny)
Misread that... (Score:5, Funny)
Even I thought that was too incredible to believe.
Re:Misread that... (Score:2)
Private communications are critical to a democracy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Private communications are critical to a democr (Score:2)
Functional Spec, Eh (Score:3, Funny)
So, anyway, the telescreen received and transmitted simultaneously. Any sound that Bob or Doug made, above the level of a very low blowing of wind across the mouth of an open beer bottle, would be picked up by it; moreover, so long as they remained within the field of vision which the map of Canada commanded, they could be seen as well as heard. There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment. How often, or on what system, the CRTC plugged in on any individual channel was guesswork. It was conceivable that they watched the CBC all the time. But at any rate they could plug in your wire whenever they wanted to. You had to live--did live, from habit that became instinct--in the assumption that every beer you drank was overheard, and, except in darkness, every attempt to take off was, like, looked at real close-like, eh?"
- Some guy named George, Eh? He, like, wrote the functional spec for it. And he horked our beer.
Encryption? (Score:2)
POLITICIANS: Say what you mean!! (Score:2, Interesting)
The reason they (law enforcement) aren't able to prosecute child pornographers and other cyber-criminals better and faster has nothing to due with the fact that they can't get at data/communications quickly because they have to get warrants.
The
here is the trouble with this approach (Score:2)
Suppose another terrorist, knowing that an email is likely to be intercepted, decides to write false information using "stolen" identity?
Let this be known: Terrorists are not stupid. Heck, they even managed to smuggle or manufacture weapons under our noses in Iraq! Remember that we have more than 100,000 eyes over there. This month's loss of 14 marines in just one blast was a real shoc
Re:here is the trouble with this approach (Score:2)
Suppose a terrorist simply types phony emails simply to lead authorities into "dead ends" thus wasting time and resources?
Suppose another terrorist, knowing that an email is likely to be intercepted, decides to write false information using "stolen" identity?
Then he's potentially tipping his hand as a person of interest. A large part of the problem is identifying who's possibly interesting enough to investigate further; doing stupid stunts like that would set off some flags.
Let this be known: Terrorists a
Re:here is the trouble with this approach (Score:2)
This is a surprise? (Score:4, Informative)
No hearing, no trial, no independent psychiatric evaluation, no appeal, nada.
I wonder how much one has to criticize the government(s) before the Provincial Psychiatrist serves your bank with an order to turn over your money.
Re:This is a surprise? (Score:2)
When Bush got elected, and then again when he got RE-elected, I seriously considered moving to Canada to get away from the nuttiness of my government. I postponed the move because of my job, which was going well.
I now have no desire whatsoever to move out of the U.S.A. As crazy as we are down here, we don't have that whole "nanny state" thing going on. OUR government takes a "let 'em fend for themselves" point of view.
I used to think it was a little cold, but now... I
Re:This is a surprise? (Score:2)
But yeah, I've always loved my country. I'm STILL worried Bush is going to ruin it, but so far it looks like his efforts are having a limited effect. Maybe once he leaves in 2008 things will go back to normal around here.
As much as I dislike my current government's staff, I do like the U.S. (particularly New York). The nice thing about New York in particular is, you can
Re:This is a surprise? (Score:5, Interesting)
I remember as a child in the late 60s and a teen in the mid to late 70s that life was good: the Canadian dollar was at or above par with the U.S. dollar, people who worked had health care coverage through their employer, and Canadians had a reputation for being friendly -- at least that's what Americans seamed to say.
Then, Trudeau's brand of sweeping socialism set in. Medicare became universal for everything. Taxes soared and the government went into serious debt. The dollar fell. It was harder and harder to make ends meet -- not so much because of inflation, but rather because of the tax burden (Canadian couples can't file jointly, so traditional families with one income earner really got taxed badly -- my mother had to return to work in 1975 to help pay our family's income taxes!).
But, many thought this was a worthwhile price to pay for our nanny state.
Over the years, taxes rose, and all those government services declined in quality. Waiting lists for medical care grew and grew and grew. These days, what qualifies as a middle class lifestyle in the U.S. is but a dream of wealth for many Canadians: being able to pay a kid to mow one's lawn is a big luxery.
Last time I was in Canada, people were downright mean, espescially when they found out I had worked in the U.S. for several years -- how dare I not pay my share of taxes "at home" (Er, because I wasn't using any of the services, and had paid far more than the share I consumed when I had lived there?). My daughter was berated by her teacher in school for bringing in her previous year's (U.S.) public elementary school yearbook for show and tell: how dare she "show off the rich school yearbook" from a school that no other child present could ever hope to attend.
It appeared that those "nice to Americans" people had degenerated to the level of rats, scrambling to survive, amid a society in decay -- a dog eat dog world, envyious of anyone who might live better by working harder, never seeing the socialist system as the root of their malaise.
Particularly after Canada decided not to join the U.S. in it's "Adventure of the Willing", many Canadians I met appeared to have been emboldened beyond an indifferance toward the U.S. (always masking thinly some degree of envy) to downright hatred -- some to the point of praising known terrorists for their attacks against the U.S.
It is very true that "you can't go home again."
Re:This is a surprise? (Score:4, Insightful)
Well at least in the eyes of Americans who are completely stuck on themselves and their country.
"best place on earth" is a totally subjective statement. I think you should probably qualify with "I think the U.S. remains the best place on earth". That would a be a true statement apparently. Without the "I think" part a few billion people would probably be willing to argue your point and would have a valid case. Different people value different things, apparently you value America as it today, many others would not.
Since 9/11, DMCA and the disappearance of the certainty of due process in the U.S. many people are simply refusing to even visit the U.S. for conferences and the like. If its so great why would that be?
I might have agreed with you before 2000 that the U.S. was one of the best places in the world. The Constitution our founders created was a remarkable document that laid a foundation for a remarkable and unique nation. They hoped it would last, they did everything they could to protect it, but they thoroughly expected it to be torn asunder by despots. The one thing they couldn't prevent was complete indifference on the part of the American people to the precious nature of that document.
Now it is in tatters and the U.S. is heading towards the same gutters where all the world's police states live, not very remarkable at all anymore. In the U.S. you can now be arrested and detained indefinitely without charge, without access to a lawyer or family, without trial. You can be tortured or killed while detained and no one will ever know unless a brave whistleblower steps forward. The government is detaining people in complete secrecy, people are being disappeared just like they were in Pinochet's Chile. Worse people are being snatched by the U.S. around the globe, in violation of international law and being whisked away for indefinite torture and interrogation by Rendition. You can be spied upon, the government can monitor your reading habits at the library or bookstore, they can do sneak and peak searches where they basically the break in to your home, and rummage through your belonging without you ever knowing. The government has fabricated "terrorism" cases against innocent people, in particular in Detroit two Arab men were convicted of terrorism charges based on a home video of their trip to Disneyland and the word of a conman who testified against them in return for reduced charges from the government. The conmen admitted he'd lied in a jailhouse confession which is the only reason these two innocent men aren't in jail today and we know the extent of the governments sham trials. Sham trials are another characteristic of a police state.
It seems the executive in the U.S. has in fact taken unto itself every dictatorial power you would need for a police state. They are using some restraint in applying them, especially focusing their malevolence on Muslims, so the U.S. doesn't look or feel like a police state, especially if you aren't Muslim, but if the executive branch felt like it nothing is really stopping them. If there is another 9/11 class incident to justify it I am confident the U.S. could descend in to martial law in a heart beat. The executive has drawn up all the plans for it.
About the only thing left that is not a dictatorship is we still have elections and could throw the people in power out, assuming the elections aren't rigged. But, police states have elections too, they just rig them so they aren't really elections, they are just a con to make people think they still have some power. After major irregularities in 2000, 2002 and 2004 it is quite open to debate if we do in fact still have free, democratic elections.
"And, most of all, no one goes around robbing you blind (tax-wise) to pay for those undelivered guarantees"
Damn
Re:This is a surprise? (Score:3, Insightful)
Well all I can say to that is you seem to be describing yourself more than your country or countrymen. You have been really slinging some bullshit about the U.S. I don't think most Americans would even buy, and trashing Canada to an extent I don't think most of your countrymen would even recognizing you are talking about Canada.
"As for the taxes, Google "Canadian Revenue Agency" and compare."
Dude the IRS i
Re:This is a surprise? (Score:3, Insightful)
You might want to read up on Gonzales v. Raich [wikipedia.org]. As best I recall on June 6, 2005 the Supreme court once again dramatically expanded the power of the Federal government over states and individuals and completely mangled the Commerce clause in the Constitution, to give the Federal government the power to override states which have legalized medical marijuana or in fact any controlled substance laws the Feds don't approve of.
... So, Bob the Serial Killer emails his gal... (Score:2)
"... Oh, yah, Jenny, remember last night? Between the hours of 12 and 4AM? When we were drinking under that overpass, eh? And, we got a little frisky because you know, we were MILES away from downtown and nobody could see us, eh? Yah, that was great, eh. Yah, we were nowhere near that apartment building they're yelling about, I think somebody's trying to put one over on those nice police detectives, I hope they don't get embarassed by that evil serial killer, eh?"
(At police H.Q.)
"Oh, Capta
They hate us for our freedom (Score:5, Insightful)
- scsg
It's been said (Score:2)
The countdown begins... (Score:2)
Re:The countdown begins... (Score:2)
One aspect I wouldn't mind seeing in legislation that expand information-gathering powers would be extremely steep penalties for either the deliberate abuse of such, or significant negligence that endangers the privacy of it. The more we're forced to trust authorities, the harsher the penalties should be for violating that trust.
Which Bill? (Score:2)
I assume we're talking about Gates, right?
As I've said before... (Score:2, Interesting)
2. Hard drive boot loader software encryption
3. OS software encryption
4. Container software encryption
5. File software encryption
6. Nym and Mixmaster remailing
7. Chained proxies
People have for years scoffed that these were only for terrorists, kiddie pr0n posters, and trolls. Then they said that you could just move to Canada. Well, what are you going to do when the draft dodger paradise forgets what civil rights like speech, privacy, and so on are all about?
Of cour
The whole world's heading towards police statehood (Score:2, Interesting)
Seriously. Can you name one place in the entire world where the freedom of the people is significantly improving? Iraq may be the only place where that's true, and I think most of us would agree that the "freedom" the people have there is more a matter of appearances than reality. I'm not here to debate about Iraq, though, so feel free to count it as an example of improving freedom in the world if you wish.
But I can name many more place
Charter Challenge + Shoot Down (Score:2, Interesting)
Yes a court order is necessary (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Yes a court order is necessary (Score:4, Insightful)
So who's right? Don't trust the media. Go right to the source. So who where do we find the text of the bill?
Affect more than just Canadians? (Score:2)
What if I send an e-mail, and some of the packets are routed through a Canadian server? Does that give them authority to monitor MY email?
I hope we will come up with a memorandum to cabinet that can protect human security in the sense that we will put law enforcement people on the same level playing field as criminals and terrorists in the matter of using technology and accessing that technology
So that law enforcement can become criminals and terrorists themselves?
It's time... (Score:3, Funny)
To use codes and cyphers.
"Could you pick up some steaks on the way home? I was thinking about cooking steak and veges with gravy." becomes "Cows in the paddock, soylent green grocer tap-dances on water."
Then you GPG encrypt it at anything above 4096 bit. :)
Fun for the whole police department.
Who? (Score:2)
Who is Bill?
Blame the fucking Yanks (Score:2)
Just what type of 'way of life' are they trying to protect anyway? Seems to me that on the one hand, they say the 'terrorists' hate our 'freedom'. Then on the other hand, they destroy destroy our freedom and implement a regime that's fast approaching the most model they're claiming to protect us from.
Of course the statement that terrorists hate our 'way of life'
Re:Blame Islam (Score:3, Insightful)
As for putti
My big question.. (Score:2)
Stuff like this will be unopposed because the people who can stop it can't respond.
They already do this. (Score:5, Interesting)
I once sent and email to Australia when the net was young and in it I used some words that could be interpreted in isolation as suspicious. Then I put a note in the email to the effect I knew it was going to be read by the NSA and I made a comment that if they were worried about what I was "really up to" they should check out www.blah.com.
Within 12 hours the server picked up hits from the NSA. Then they were dumb enough to be using windows machines. For anyone wanting to penetrate their security - its pretty trivia. A simple honeypot is a good start.
There seems to be just no limit to the depths of depravity that paranoia will drive these people. Then they think they are being righteous. Meanwhile as they go off chasing ghosts they are perfectly willing to ignore huge white collar crimes in the way of frauds that are being perpetrated via stock market and other swindles on an almost daily basis. Enron is just one example.
The frog is dead (Score:3, Interesting)
A frog, some people swear, is incapable of noticing subtle rises in the temperature of the water it occupies. These same folk say that if you put a frog in a pot of cold water, and slowly let the water come to a boil, the frog will happily do froggy things in the water until it boils to death.
The frog is now dead. The US and its clients have boiled away all the water in the pot.
Go back to your reality TV shows, citizens, nothing to fear unless you are doing something criminal or unpatriotic or that which undermines the President's authority in wartime (which by defining the war's purpose as eliminating a common noun, will be eternal)...
You aren't a criminal, are you? Or anti-party-in-power, which will be equivalent?
Are you sure?
They'll be watching.
Forever.
Old voicemail message: (Score:4, Funny)
The message didn't last too long, though, because a couple of people took it too seriously.
Bill would let police monitor email (Score:4, Funny)
Bill already lets anyone monitor our email.
(Thank you! I'll be here all week!)
Re:Response? (Score:2, Informative)
The software lumber? Naw... that's all being outsourced to India anyways.
I think you mean softwood lumber. And that's not the only issue; what about Canadian beef? US Farmers are still fiercly rallying about how unsafe beef is in Canada. Let me tell you something. One mad cow was found in all of Canada, and the investigation showed that it got mad
Re:"BLAIM CANADA! BLAIM CANADA!" (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Naw -- but Ya (Score:2)
Certainly this isn't it about terrorism... Canada does not appear to be an important target
First, Canada is a target as the terrorist attacks. As NY and London were with the intent of terrorizing the affluent democratic western cultures, it is about accessibility and finding some crazy mindless fools to commit suicide for Jahad. Canada certainly is accessible.
So the questions we Canadians should ask is the target to be a Vancouver bridge, the Calgary PetroCanada towers or perhaps Toronto City Hall or
Re:Naw -- but Ya (Score:2)
The terrorists are not stupid; they know very well that if they do the slightest thing in Canada, the crackdown will make them lose a very valuable base of operation against the USA...
Re:Has anyone read Digital Fortress? (Score:3, Informative)
"Who will guard the guards?"
That line may have appeared in Dan Brown's book, but he didn't write it. He quoted the famous phrase ("quis custodiet ipsos custodes") from Juvenal's sixth satire [thelatinlibrary.com].
Think of it like Echalon (Score:2)
Your trust in what your government and constitution say are sadly mistaken. Carnivore and Echalon are already operational. You have no privacy on an untrusted network without encryption.