Where did you get this from? They will not be keeping a record of everything thing you've ever done. First off, the police would request access to information from a particular person (likely through a criminal investigation). They could then start monitoring that person's traffic. They can then get a "preservation order" (this is all in the link had you bothered to read it through) to keep 90 days of information/data. Note that this all starts after they make a request, not before.

There's no way ISP's would have the data storage capabilities to keep a record of and backup/store all the traffic to/from their subscribers. And there's no way any amount of staff could keep track of what every Canadian is doing online. It's not like some office or government division will suddenly realize you're downloading kinky porn and that fact will get recorded and stored somewhere.

While I agree the bill in its current form gives the government/police too much power, that doesn't mean the final bill will pass as it's described in the article linked above. To me, if they changed it so that a court issued warrant was needed before the police could access the data, that would be good enough for me. That prevents the police from abusing their powers by requesting access to data without probable cause. And the court order and everything gained from it should also be available to the person who's being monitored (although they could delay notification - no point in monitoring someone if you tell them you're monitoring them).


Seriously? That's what you come up with? I mean, we all know the paradigm of the fashion industry can be applied to software, movies, music and the technology sector.


There's so much not being said about this bill, and it's all on the link provided if people read through it instead of concentrating on the headline "Conservatives Commiteed to Internet Surveillance".

- The Liberals supported this as well. So why are people saying this is something only the Conservatives are trying to pass?
- The bill hasn't been passed and there's no guarantee it will get passed even though they are talking about getting it through within the first 100 days of Parliament.
- It hasn't had much scrutiny since it likely wouldn't have been passed before. Now that the Cons have a majority and will try to push this through, we can expect to see a lot of debate. Only a fool would think this will get passed without any opposition whatsoever.
- The big ISP's will have to spend huge $$$ to upgrade their equipment. Do you think they're going to sit back and let this bill pass without putting up a fight?
- If it does pass, ISP's have 3 years to get up to date with technology/equipment to enable the features they're asking for. So it's not like 1 day after they pass the bill the monitoring starts. A lot can happen in 3 years.
- ISP's have 6 months to provide to the government a list of their current surviellance capabilities. WHAT? Their current capabilities? That's right, since a lot of the equipment ISP's currently use can already do some of the things the government wants. You should ask yourself this: Why does an ISP already have equipment to do forms of surveillance? And what are they currently doing with the ability since the government/police have no ability to access it? Are they already monitoring you? If they are, then what's worse - having employees at a private company looking at what you're doing or the government/police looking (after they get a warrant)? As it sits now, you know nothing about the ISP's capabilities - you will know what they can do if this bill passes.

I have no issue with this bill, more so if it means pissing off more people who didn't vote for the Conservatives, the better. I want to see their faces when the Billion $$ JSF contract is signed. Going to be a great 4-8 years. :D

Well, y'all voted them in.

"Buzz Killington" :fullofwin:

The government/police do have access to it. The ISP's just need to "voluntarily" give out the records. The only reason I don't like this, is because it gives our gov't and law enforcement just more power to what we can and can't do. Like you stated, they can just turn the whole fucking thing OFF if they really felt like it. Thats an upsetting thing to me, considering I troll the interwebs:fullofwin:

I am 100% against this. If I have 1 guy who trolls what I do on the computer, I considering that better then the gov't just getting data off of me. The biggest upset IS: the police will not need to notify you if their watching you, gathering data from your computer, and they don't need a warrant from the courts to do all this.

EXACTLY.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/charter/page-1.html

From the Canadian Charter of Rights:

In my opinion being spied on with out just cause being demonstrated to some impartial third party violates our freedom, particularly of "other media of communication".

furthermore:

Meaning by our own charter we are mandated to have our own personal security until or unless we infringe on the law and are protected from search and seizure, but this is EXACTLY what the government is doing by sifting through our data if their bill passes.

So if you want to sign over your fundimental rights then you can voluntarily give up access to your computer and IP to the government. But me? If I wanted that shit I'd move to the states.

Are you retarded? The lion's share of discoveries and inventions that improve our quality of life - technology, medicine, information etc are done at the corporate level. If it wasnt for the ability to make money on it, you wouldnt have Blu-Ray discs, Advil, or an iPod...

Mark

He wasn't saying they're wrong.

But it is true that the inability to take another's work and improve on it DOES stifle innovation.

That doesn't mean we should do away with patients. It's just reality.

And also the lions share of innovation in the last 30 years has happened at the corp. level. Through most of human history that has not at all been the case.

That's in the current proposal, but hasn't been passed yet. I'm quite sure the bill will get revised before passing with the need for a court order to be a likely addition.
Posted via RS Mobile

How does it stifle innovation? It makes people lazy since they rely on others work instead of coming up with something on their own. And if you have a way to improve on another's product, then you can in fact patent it - so it's not like you're prevented from extending others work.

And what about a company that spends millions of dollars on R&D to develop something new? Shouldn't they have a right to keep that information to themselves, since they developed it? What gives someone else the right to think they should have access to that R&D so they can try to improve on their work?

If companies weren't allowed to patent/protect their ideas, then why should they invest money developing them in the first place if a competitor can come along and use their ideas?

Without protection there's no innovation.

More like the past 100 years. Not many "discoveries" have been made the last century by indivuduals that weren't part of some lab or group that invested heavily in their work.

Universities aren't companies. You grossly underestimate the amount of inovation that comes from people working in academic settings purely for their academic achievement. Yes they get funding for research and yes this directs research somewhat (particularly in drug trials) but a lot of it is also done for free for grad Masters and PhD studies. I worked as an RA for several years at SFU and have seen a lot of people work their friggen asses off for pennies or free to make their insights reality.

Have you watched the news in the last two days? Some grade 11 kid figured out a way to treat cystic fibrosis while he was working on his science project.

I don't think you understand how "discoveries" happen. Most of them don't come magically by paying a lot of people to think really hard. While progress on previous discoveries can happen this way, genuine breakthroughs tend to be independent.

Regardless this is not the subject at hand.

The subject at hand is that the government is violating our Charter Rights which are protected by the Constitution Act of 1982. Now. How the hell do you reconcile that dragonay?

^ How is the government violating our rights? The bill hasn't passed yet. If it passes without court orders to conduct surveillance, then I'll agree our rights are being violated. So much talk about what "might" happen.

With 8 years of university I'm well aware of how things work in the academic world. And I own two patents, so I also know how the patent system works and what's required to actually patent something. If you want, go ahead and start another thread to discuss this issue.

This is kind of funny now.. I was talking to a old guy at the engineering company I work at. He referred this to the US back in the 1950's.
The US CIA was "monitoring" the Soviet Unions activity and found that there was a MASSIVE amount of data being passed around just outside of Moscow. Turns out that 3 small towns were sending massive amounts of data back and forth between the 3. The CIA invested for over a year until they figured out what had happened. The Russians were smart enough to figure out that the US was monitoring them, so to throw them off they set up a network with 3 computers in 3 small towns. Their plan was to just send random encrypted data from 1 computer to another, to the other, 24/7, 365.

It took the US CIA 1 year of encrypting and manpower to figure out that what they were heavily tracking was random data being sent around in a circle. =]

If this bill gets passed, I say we do this to fuck over the gov't. Assholes...:devil:

The Conservative government has committed to inacting this bill in the first 100 days.

So your rights, my rights, our rights WILL be violated. How can you be okay with that?