BELL SYMPATICO USERS BEWARE !
Jump to Page:
< Previous [ 1 ] [ 2 ] [ 3 ] [ 4 ] [ 5 ] [ 6 ] [ 7 ] [ 8 ] [ 9 ]
Quote:
Originally posted by BlueLobster
Unless circumstances were extremely dire (which in my opinion they're not right now in Canada at least),
I'm not in support of sweeping legislative changes as an answer to this either.
However, consider that they have to get it right just once(often under the cover of democratic systems)...we have to get it right always.
Misuse? There are other democratic safeguards(courts) to protect our interests right? This is not exactly Iran is it?
Like you said no easy answers...only wrong decisions either way.
When its extremely dire it will be too late. Thus, extremely dire
.-----------------------------------------------------------------
Recommended Services- Servicedomino.com
http://www.servicedomino.com
Quote:
Originally posted by jake3d
Misuse? There are other democratic safeguards(courts) to protect our interests right? This is not exactly Iran is it?
Put the misuse and the post-misuse democratic safeguard on a scale, which one wins flat-out on ease?
This is akin to the wiretapping debate in the US. There is already process where the authorities can obtain a warrant to monitor someone's phone/internet activity. And I read somewhere its not exactly that difficult to get a warrant.
Why not use that instead of just tapping the whole US of A (exaggeration to make a point)?
In Canada, where the risk is much lower, why would'nt the govt. get warrants in a similar fashion for suspected individuals? Rather than Bell monitoring everyone's activity and providing to the govt. as and when they demand it? (assuming that's what this leads to..I'm still not sure what the underlying change is)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Are you there?
Quote:
Originally posted by BlueLobster
Put the misuse and the post-misuse democratic safeguard on a scale, which one wins flat-out on ease?
That misuse is easy to do is not the issue is it? In that case we should just disband the courts cause often its easier to murder than prosecute the murderer. The courts make sure the murderer does not get away.
Quote:
In Canada, where the risk is much lower, why would the govt. get warrants in a similar fashion for suspected individuals? Rather than Bell monitoring everyone's activity and providing to the govt. as and when they demand it? (assuming that's what this leads to..I'm still not sure what the underlying change is)
How is the risk lower here? Would the 19 individuals success on their small ' project' mean the the risk is higher? For 19 of them to operate for such a long period must have meant that they did have approval, covert or overt, from many other individuals in their community. The 19 did not exactly stoke their own fire for all these yrs.
The risk is lower simply because the bad guys have not succeeded here yet.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Recommended Services- Servicedomino.com
http://www.servicedomino.com
Quote:
Originally posted by jake3d
Quote:
Originally posted by BlueLobster
Put the misuse and the post-misuse democratic safeguard on a scale, which one wins flat-out on ease?
That misuse is easy to do is not the issue is it? In that case we should just disband the courts cause often its easier to murder than prosecute the murderer. The courts make sure the murderer does not get away.
Conversely, we could also allow monitoring of every single activity of the population by institutions/govt. whereever there is any risk assumed (which would pretty much cover everything). Maybe everybody's banking, sports, driving etc should be monitored by the govt. And leave the courts as a safeguard in case the information is misused
Quote:
How is the risk lower here? Would the 19 individuals success on their small ' project' mean the the risk is higher? For 19 of them to operate for such a long period must have meant that they did have approval, covert or overt, from many other individuals in their community. The 19 did not exactly stoke their own fire for all these yrs.
The risk is lower simply because the bad guys have not succeeded here yet.
Well, I don't think there's much doubt that the risk to a country like Canada not spearheading the war on terror is lower than to the states, which is what I originally meant. And regardless, if there is a mechanism for monitoring activites of suspect individuals within the contraints of the existing law, why monitor everyone? I would think you'd lose focus that way, it may actually hurt surveillance. And the potential for abuse still looms as large.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Are you there?
Quote:
Originally posted by BlueLobster
Conversely, we could also allow monitoring of every single activity of the population by institutions/govt. whereever there is any risk assumed (which would pretty much cover everything). Maybe everybody's banking, sports, driving etc should be monitored by the govt. And leave the courts as a safeguard in case the information is misused
We could. If it really makes sense to do it to counter the threat. Its probably being done already. I dont think we are as 'free' as we would like to think.
Quote:
I would think you'd lose focus that way, it may actually hurt surveillance. .
I guess thats why they are using Bell as a filter. There are as much of chances of bell misusing the info as a security guard misusing a surveillnce camera(which is in most public places). It can/may/probably happens...yet we have learnt to live with those cameras.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Recommended Services- Servicedomino.com
http://www.servicedomino.com
Posts: 1754
Location: Ottawa (Now in Bangalore)
Posted on: 07-07-06 18:27:58
Location: Ottawa (Now in Bangalore)
Posted on: 07-07-06 18:27:58
Quote:
How do you feel about being stopped at the airport due to the color of your skin? It happens...but to tell you the truth...if my wife and kids were travelling in the plane...I would not mind. Its a sign of the times we live in.
Generally I do not like to get into debates like this..but couldnt help resisting such a temptation..
and this goes to answer Big Vee's query also..
Ever heard of that old english adage.."A few rotten apples spoil the whole bunch".. Moreover, when the not-so-rotten apples do nothing to disown and report the activities of the rotten apples to authorities, it is but natural that
"Every Mohammed is a terrorist" ...
I would presonally like to arrest authorities from the previous liberal government.
A couple of years back we had folks, of a certian FRIENDLY and PEACE-LOVING religion,
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/khadr" target="_blank">http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/khadr</a>
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4456924" target="_blank">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4456924</a>
sitting in a VERY FRIENDLY and PEACEFUL country, and openly professing their allegience to Osama Bin-Laden ! And what happens ?
Our Liberal Wa****s issue passports to them, they arrive at Pearson Intl Airport and ...everyone lives happily ever after ! What a bunch of losers...and w****rs. Oh, and before I forget, I do share the same skin color with those Ba*****s.
Do I get angry when they stop me at the airport ? Of 'cos I do... However, I would rather live for the next day then take a chance of being blown to pieces by someone who has a skin color similar to mine !
As jake said..
"Its indeed the times we live in"..and thankfully I have nothing in common with those ppl and their PEACEFUL religion
.. So I have nothing to fear, except maybe incompetent security folks at the Airport !-----------------------------------------------------------------
"Aur Vaise Bhi, Sharafat ki jab kapde utarti hai, sabse zyaada mazaa shareefon ko hi aati hai"....(From The Dirty Picture)
Warning !! SCAM ALERT !!
http://www.canadiandesi.ca/read.php?TID=4169 & http://www.canadiandesi.ca/read.php?TID=1379
This is a Useful Health related Tip
http://www.canadiandesi.ca/read.php?TID=3865
Please visit
http://www.cmje.org/religious-texts/quran/verses/009-qmt.php for some interesting Information ! (Especially 009.005 )
Posts: 456
Location: Canada-Glorious and Free
Posted on: 07-07-06 22:25:30
Location: Canada-Glorious and Free
Posted on: 07-07-06 22:25:30
Quote:
Originally posted by jake3d
I'm not in support of sweeping legislative changes as an answer to this either.
However, consider that they have to get it right just once(often under the cover of democratic systems)...we have to get it right always.
Misuse? There are other democratic safeguards(courts) to protect our interests right? This is not exactly Iran is it?
Like you said no easy answers...only wrong decisions either way.
When its extremely dire it will be too late. Thus, extremely dire
That is the issue here. The safeguards you are hoping for are the one's being reduced or eliminated. It does not have to become as dramatic as another Iran to be bad. Just, say North Korea.
Do not be so sure that the courts can protect you. And like the Privacy commissioner said, the reasons given are SUPERFICIALLY ATTRACTIVE JUSTIFICATIONS.
I do not condone the terrorism or terrorists. But the security agencies are trying to cut corners to apprehend them. They have enough powers and resources to do the job and do it right. They do not need my basic democratic rights to do what they need to do
BV
Advertise Contact Us Privacy Policy and Terms of Usage FAQ Canadian Desi © 2001 Marg eSolutions Site designed, developed and maintained by Marg eSolutions Inc. |