Peter MacKay either lied or is too lazy to read his own bill

MacKay in his usual "Airshow" bluster told the House of Commons that even if internet service providers were voluntarily cooperating with law enforcement by retaining and sharing YOUR personal information that a warrant would still be required.

Just like Vic Toews before him, it appears MacKay has not read and does not understand the clear wording of the proposed legislation he tabled.

Michael Geist has the details.

The Vancouver police "heart" Vic Toews

OK... this is rich.

The Vancouver police department announced Monday its support for federal cybercrime legislation that critics say would give police extensive access to information about your activities on the Internet.

Vancouver police Deputy Chief Warren Lemcke, who is also co-chair of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police Law Amendments Committee, blamed “misinformation” for a growing wave of protest against Bill C-30, which was introduced in Ottawa last week.

“We believe the new legislation will assist the police with the necessary tools to investigate crimes while balancing, if not strengthening the privacy rights for Canadians through the addition of oversight not currently in place,” Lemcke told a news conference. “It will help law enforcement investigate and apprehend those who are involved in criminal activity while using new technologies to avoid apprehension due to outdated laws and technology.”

“It will allow for timely and consistent access to basic information to assist in investigations of criminal activity and other police duties in serving the public.”

Oh, where to start?

Let's just skip over the Missing Women's Inquiry and go to something a little fresher in everyones' minds.

Fourteen Vancouver police officers and one civilian staff member have been reprimanded for circulating pornography on work computers, the force announced on Thursday morning.

You clowns have nothing of value to add to this debate. Clearly the Vancouver Police and access to computers are something of a problem. 

You want to read someone else's mail? Get off your Timmy's fattened ass and get a warrant. 

How about those Bushco warrantless wiretaps, wingnuts?!!

For tis the sport to have the enginer Hoist with his owne petar

William Shakespeare
1603
Hamlet

This post by Boris stirred a mild recollection.

Let's see, Barack Obama was sworn in as president of the United States on January 20th, 2009.

The 4th Amendment to the US Constitution was shredded by somebody else.

You broke it; You own it.

A Contrast in Individual Rights . . . .

Compare this story in Canada, and in particular British Columbia,

Court limits police wiretaps
B.C. ruling makes emergency surveillance illegal without judge's approval

Neal Hall - Vancouver Sun - Tuesday, February 26, 2008

In a ruling that has national ramifications, a B.C. Supreme Court judge has struck down a section of the Criminal Code that allowed police to intercept private conversations without a judge's authorization.

The section applied to emergency situations when a person's life is in danger.

Justice Barry Davies ruled last Friday that Section 184.4 of the code is unconstitutional because it violates the "Section 8" rights of six people accused of kidnapping.

Section 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms covers the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure.

Since the ruling was made by a justice of a superior court, it applies across Canada. But it will not take effect immediately

.
with this story in the US:

House Defeats FISA Extension
Feb 13, 2008(The Politico)

House Democrats were unable to hold together their caucus on a key intelligence vote on Wednesday, as a coalition of Republicans, Blue Dog Democrats and liberals helped defeat a measure to extend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act as the deadline approaches.

The measure, which failed 191 to 229, would have extended the bill an additional three weeks to work out differences with the Senate on the issue of granting immunity to telecom companies which aided the federal government in wiretapping.

The Democratic bill was undone by strong opposition from Republicans and 34 Democrats, including both members of the moderate Blue Dog Coalition who want to see a bill passed, and liberal members who oppose many other aspects of the wiretapping program.

Looks like our decision to move North of the 49th is looking better and better . . . .

(Cross-posted from Moving to Vancouver)

Democrat's Descent ? ? ? ?

Excellent piece by Alexander Cockburn at The Nation in today's AlterNet:

How the Democrats Blew It in Only Eight Months

By Alexander Cockburn, The Nation
Posted on August 10, 2007

Led by Democrats since the start of this year, Congress now has a "confidence" rating of 14 percent, the lowest since Gallup started asking the question in 1973 and five points lower than Republicans scored last year.

The voters put the Democrats in to end the war, and it's escalating. The Democrats voted the money for the surge and the money for the next $459.6 billion military budget. Their latest achievement was to provide enough votes in support of Bush to legalize warrantless wiretapping for "foreign suspects whose communications pass through the United States." Enough Democrats joined Republicans to make this a 227-183 victory for Bush. The Democrats control the House. Speaker Nancy Pelosi could have stopped the bill in its tracks if she'd wanted to. But she didn't. The Democrats' game is to go along with the White House agenda while stirring up dust storms to blind the base to their failure to bring the troops home or restore constitutional government.

One of my favourite sections is the reference made to my man Russ Feingold:

The one Democrat acting on principle in the Gonzales affair has been Senator Russ Feingold. He at least tried to dig into the visit of chief White House counsel Gonzales, as he then was, to the bedside of Attorney General John Ashcroft, to get him to sign off on the illegal wiretaps. And how did the Democrat-controlled Congress deal with Feingold's efforts to nail Gonzales for his efforts to undermine the Constitution and for his prevarications under oath? It promptly legalized the eavesdropping.


Those heady, euphoric days immediately after last November's election are becoming a memory, eh, Democrats? Perhaps it's time the Democratic leaders stopped monkeying around and get on with the policies the people elected them to do . . . .

(Cross-posted from Moving to Vancouver)

They're hiding something BIG. Very BIG

Glenn Greenwald's dissection of the form of language used by Alberto Gonzales during questioning in the US Senate is starting to shed a light on the existence of "other intelligence activities" which have been hidden from view during the various congressional investigations into Bush's warrantless wiretapping program.

Ever since George Bush came right out in December, 2005 and admitted spying on Americans without the warrants required by law, the administration has been playing the same rhetorical game. From the beginning, when asked questions about the scope of their spying activities (are you eavesdropping on domestic calls, too? opening mail with no warrants? entering homes with no warrants?), they have carefully confined their denials to "the specific program which the President confirmed" -- i.e., the specific "Terrorist Surveillance Program the NYT revealed. They have always made clear that there are "other intelligence programs" that we do not know about and which are excluded from all of their public assurances.

And further:

It has been clear for a long time that there are "other intelligence activities" beyond the "Terrorist Surveillance Program" which are clearly illegal. And any doubt about that was dispelled entirely when James Comey testified, since his whole point was that whatever it was that they were doing prior to March of 2004 to spy on Americans was so illegal that he, John Ashcroft and FBI Director Robert Mueller all threatened to quit if it continued.

It would stand to reason that when the New York Times discovered and then reported the NSA warrantless wiretap program, that journal only got a part of the whole story. The result was that the Bush administration, feigning outrage at the disclosure, was prepared to throw a bone to the hungry pack, secure in the knowledge that the worst of the administration's unconstitutional activities had escaped scrutiny.

Securing information and preventing any public disclosure of those "other intelligence activities" became a paramount consideration. The reason for hiding the information could have little to do with current national security requirements. Remember, Comey, Ashcroft and Mueller were going to quit if it continued. That they stayed on indicates that, whatever the Bush administration was doing, it stopped in March of 2004. The only reason then, to hide it is to prevent a sea of outrage over administration activities which were undoubtedly grossly illegal.

The need to tightly secure the information might also explain other recent events.

Bush refusing to allow aides to testify before Congress, claiming Executive Privilege, then refusing to allow Congress to have a US attorney bring contempt of congress charges against those called to testify. Once before Congress witness either testify honestly or risk being charged with perjury. The Bush administration cannot afford to have questions on those "other intelligence activities" asked at all.

The refusal by the Bush administration to allow access to a member of the Homeland Security Committee to classified portions of information relating to the operation of government after a terrorist attack. There is likely a reference, amongst all those classified documents, to programs and plans which either exist or could be executed quickly.

Finally, there is Bush making renewed, constant and steady references to al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden in recent speeches. Certainly there is a fear that information regarding any illegal program will eventually leak, and Bush needs to have al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden well planted in peoples' minds as a means to defend any illegal activities.

What is starting to come clear, in any case, is that Bush's assault on the US Constitution is probably far more extensive than just the warrentless wiretap program.

He didn't just ignore it; he left it in shreds.