Canadians #TellVicEverything In Response To Bill C-30 84
First time accepted submitter beerdragoon writes "In order to protest the government's new Internet snooping legislation, some Canadians have started a somewhat unorthodox protest. Vic Toews, the minister responsible for tabling the legislation, has had his twitter account bombarded with tweets regarding the boring, banal aspects of regular Canadians' lives. The idea is that since Toews wants to know everything about your personal life, we should oblige him and #TellVicEverything."
It gets better ... (Score:5, Insightful)
The snippet is interesting but not the big news.
He let the cat out of the bag as he is asking the speaker to investigate this protest. (which means RCMP or CSIS presumably) Does any sane populace want to put more surveillance power in the hands of a person that would abuse his office to simply satisfy his curiosity as to who is tweeting him?
Never have so few done so little to enrage so many (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Goals (Score:5, Insightful)
No one believes it's about the children. There is no mention of "the children" anywhere in the bill. Heck, it was called "Lawful Access" before being hastily renamed at the last minute.
That it's an attempt at the government to spy on us, or that there is some bigger agenda in the background, it doesn't really matter. The issue is about our privacy and that's why it's taking a lot of fire.
Re:It gets better ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Heaven forbid a politician be subject to the same loss of privacy they wish on the rest of us!
Re:It gets better ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Publicly accessible court documents being copied should not warrant a parliamentary inquiry.
Re:It gets better ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Who cares if the IP is from the house of commons? It's just highlighting his hypocrisy.
Re:It gets better ... (Score:5, Insightful)
well, you can look at it that way. the other way you can look at it is this:
the police can already access all the records in question if they have just cause, by getting a court order. obviously, getting a court order isn't a terribly onerous thing in the context of a really serious crime - terrorism, child abuse, whatever. offences of that nature are rare enough and serious enough that there's no problem getting a court order where one is warranted.
it follows that, whatever the justification publicly offered, it doesn't make any sense that a law which removes the requirement to obtain a court order is truly targeted at very serious crimes. no, it only makes sense in the context of much less serious offences. say you're looking at, oh, to take a COMPLETELY random example, file sharing. you've got hundreds of thousands of potential offences, and probably little in the way of decent investigative evidence in any of them.
now THAT'S a case where it 'makes sense' to remove the requirement for a court order, because it really is going to cost of a lot of resources to go out and get a couple hundred thousand court orders, especially if your evidence is pretty weak.
So, yeah, we can ignore the rhetoric, and instead ask the question 'in what circumstances does it really benefit the police not to have to go and get a court order to look at these records?' And the answer to that question is very different to the rhetoric you hear from the Cons surrounding the bill.