Answer the question. A non-US citizen's opinion of US laws is irrelevant, just as a non-Canadian's opinion regarding Canadian laws is irrelevant.
Completely wrong. Your NSA has stated it has the legal right to spy on all non-American internet traffic without any warrant. Even though your government could give a sh!t what we think, we still have a relevant opinion on whats going.
Completely wrong. Your NSA has stated it has the legal right to spy on all non-American internet traffic without any warrant. Even though your government could give a sh!t what we think, we still have a relevant opinion on whats going.
Please don't think us all so callous or cavalier about this. Many of us are just as upset about this as anyone else outside of our country. I for one do not believe the FBI or the NSA have any right to our personal information. This whole situation where the governments of the world somehow think that they have the right to spy on their own citizens has to stop. Any of us willing to give up our freedoms and liberties in exchange for security or the false sense of security don't deserve to have those freedoms are liberties. It is up to everyone of us to guard against becoming slaves to our own governments.
Completely wrong. Your NSA has stated it has the legal right to spy on all non-American internet traffic without any warrant. Even though your government could give a sh!t what we think, we still have a relevant opinion on whats going.
The NSA and our government believe they are in the right as far as spying on all nations, friendly or otherwise. I do not agree, but it must also be acknowledged that all nations spy on each other. These activities are not new. Governments are always controlled by and for the paranoid.
The US Constitution protects US citizens. That was the core of the argument. I don't for a second believe that the US has the right to dictate their laws to other nations, nor do other nations have the privilege of dictating their version of law to the US.
According to what I've read (and I'm no expert on Canadian law) the Monarchy and Federal (parliamentary democracy) government are more powerful than individual rights. Am I wrong?
Canadians elect those who govern us on a day-to-day basis. The Queen and her representatives serve to encourage elements of nationhood which are not so easily accomplished by politicians, to provide a focus on things that unite rather than divide Canadians, to celebrate our ideals, to honour our best efforts and to be the emergency back-up should the system ever break down. This separation of partisan political power from the formal executive authority seems to work well and to appeal to most Canadians, who enjoy freedoms which are the envy of many in the world.
Canadian privacy law has evolved over time into what it is today. The first instance of a formal law came when, in 1977, the Canadian government introduced data protection provisions into the Canadian Human Rights Act.[1] In 1982, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms outlined that everyone has "the right to life, liberty and security of the person" and "the right to be free from unreasonable search or seizure",[2] but did not directly mention the concept of privacy. In 1983, the federal Privacy Act regulated how federal government collects, uses and discloses personal information. Throughout the late 1990s and 2000s, privacy legislation placed restrictions on the collection, use and disclosure of information by provincial and territorial governments and by companies and institutions in the private sector.
The Privacy Act, passed in 1983[3] by the Parliament of Canada, regulates how federal government institutions collect, use and disclose personal information. It also provides individuals with a right of access to information held about them by the federal government, and a right to request correction of any erroneous information.[4]
The Act established the office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, who is an Officer of Parliament. The responsibilities of the Privacy Commissioner includes supervising the application of the Act itself.
Under the Act, the Privacy Commissioner has powers to audit federal government institutions to ensure their compliance with the act, and is obliged to investigate complaints by individuals about breaches of the act. The Act and its equivalent legislation in most provinces are the expression of internationally accepted principles known as "fair information practices." As a last resort, the Privacy Commissioner of Canada does have the "power of embarrassment", which can be used in the hopes that the party being embarrassed will rectify the problem under public scrutiny[5]
The NSA and our government believe they are in the right as far as spying on all nations, friendly or otherwise. I do not agree, but it must also be acknowledged that all nations spy on each other. These activities are not new. Governments are always controlled by and for the paranoid.
The US Constitution protects US citizens. That was the core of the argument. I don't for a second believe that the US has the right to dictate their laws to other nations, nor do other nations have the privilege of dictating their version of law to the US.
Please don't think us all so callous or cavalier about this. Many of us are just as upset about this as anyone else outside of our country. I for one do not believe the FBI or the NSA have any right to our personal information. This whole situation where the governments of the world somehow think that they have the right to spy on their own citizens has to stop. Any of us willing to give up our freedoms and liberties in exchange for security or the false sense of security don't deserve to have those freedoms are liberties. It is up to everyone of us to guard against becoming slaves to our own governments.
No I don't think that you are callous or cavalier. Americans are Canada's awesome southern neighbours. I am concerned how the US government is slowly eroding your constitution to suit it's own agenda. It's like a frog in a pot of water coming to a slow boil.
what this really comes down to is that the FBI doesn't like that they will have to work harder to get what they need to nail someone. just like before smart phones were around.
if he really thinks Apple etc are doing something wrong he can try to sue, bring them up on charges etc.
A judge will force Apple Inc and Google Inc to comply with a court-ordered search warrant and stop these unreasonable constraints on law enforcement. This effort to keep law enforcement completely in the dark is nothing but a public relations tactic to please their customers while they duly wait for orders from the judge that forces them to give access to the privates law enforcement seek to investigate with a judicial warrant.
the issue is that even with a warrant there is no way to unlock a passcoded phone. Apple allegedly had a way but they have killed it. or so they claim and the FBI believes this to be true. They can get into an iCloud account but if a criminal isn't using iCloud there is nothing that can be done. Same as if said criminal is encrypting their iTunes backups and doesn't give up the password or has forgotten it. Apple can't break that block.
We would all be safer if the government inspected our homes twice daily and made notes on suspicious behavior. That WOULD prevent some murders--including murders of children.
video cameras with audio, infared/night vision modes. in all homes from several angles in each room. 24/7 recordings. and lets not forget the microchips so they always know where we are.
What am I missing here? Did SCOTUS not just vote 9-0 requiring warrants for cell phones? Is it that hard for them to go to a judge get a warrant? Shouldn't the top law enforcement officer be willing to follow the law of the land?
The vote isn't what matters. Yes they might have said that you need a warrant to get into a cell phone etc. The issue is that after the FBI gets the warrant. The criminal can't be forced to punch in the passcode (at least at this point) cause case law has backed up notion that it would be forcing them to self incriminate which is a constitutional issue. And now Apple says there are no backdoors. if the owner won't put in the passcode they can't break in. so if there's no iCloud backup or access to a computer that has an iTunes backup, oh well. The FBI is not amused by this
If the gov't doesn't like the changes Apple is making then they need to legislate against it. Then they need to be prepared to defend their new laws to the Supreme Court.
Apparently the law is above the law. It's been this way for a long time but it just keeps getting more blatant.
Fear mongering to ensure government agencies can still be enabled to violate privacy they claim to respect "except in cases of national security". BS. They use "national security" as an excuse for everything and that lets them get away with everything. Has anyone noticed the "border crisis" has created a "constitution-free" zone that 60% of Americans now live in?
Rule of law isn't intended to exempt the law agencies from law. But who polices the police? I can't take a walk without being worried about cops flying through stop signs or considering me suspicious until no crime is committed. There's a problem, very serious one, in the entire law enforcement system. They've lost focus on the spirit while making the letter bend to their paranoia.
"I am a huge believer in the rule of law, but I am also a believer that no one in this country is above the law,"
“Above the law” - How about Outside The Law? How about go f*@! yourself?
This was the perfect response. Apparently the government lives in fear of the people. Thus they want to clamp down on their freedom. They must believe that anybody who isn't strictly controlled is a danger to them. That is how paranoid people think.
To paraphrase someone else on the internet: "once you open a backdoor, you have little control over who steps through it."
Backdoors will DECREASE our security, not increase it. It will INCREASE government abuse, not decrease it. And then there's the wild-eyed notion that companies should not be forced to be part of the continuing slaughter of the values enshrined in the Constitution. I fail to see why, when forensic data tools still exist for investigations that truly need it, Apple has to be forced to make their system less secure AND do the police's job for them.
Getting a warrant is not the issue. The FBI are quite ready and continue to play by this rule of needing a warrant to search but unfortunately Apple and Google do not want to play by this rule. These companies are refusing to comply with the warrant's instructions. Obviously Apple and Google are engaged in a public relations stunt that is temporary in nature though could be damaging to innocent lives.
Are you referring to the fact that under the law you are entitled to the presumption of innocence until proven to be guilty?
A user can still honor a warrant with an encrypted phone. They just turn over the password.
Apple and Google are offering users a lock and key. They aren't violating any warrants. The FBI would never go after a safe company to open a customer's safe -- they'd go after owner of the safe (just like the hypothetical owner of the closet in the story).
Thank you for that excellent metaphor! This is exactly like the Feds complaining if Masterlock announced a new lock that no one could unlock without the key.
Please don't think us all so callous or cavalier about this. Many of us are just as upset about this as anyone else outside of our country. I for one do not believe the FBI or the NSA have any right to our personal information. This whole situation where the governments of the world somehow think that they have the right to spy on their own citizens has to stop. Any of us willing to give up our freedoms and liberties in exchange for security or the false sense of security don't deserve to have those freedoms are liberties. It is up to everyone of us to guard against becoming slaves to our own governments.
For the duration of this thread RORWessels gets my proxy. Whatever he (or she) posts earns an implicit "I would have said exactly that, if not as clearly and eloquently" from me.
This was the perfect response. Apparently the government lives in fear of the people. Thus they want to clamp down on their freedom. They must believe that anybody who isn't strictly controlled is a danger to them. That is how paranoid people think.
I think that was the original intent, right? Any government that is not in fear of its people is either actually made up of its people (unlike almost any democratic nation on earth), or is totalitarian and has (to be redundant) 'total' control. Of course control on that level is very hard to actualize and mostly best left to dystopian movies or novels, but the illusion of it remains.
I hope they are afraid, and i mean fear defined as respect (somehow i doubt it).
Comments
Answer the question. A non-US citizen's opinion of US laws is irrelevant, just as a non-Canadian's opinion regarding Canadian laws is irrelevant.
Completely wrong. Your NSA has stated it has the legal right to spy on all non-American internet traffic without any warrant. Even though your government could give a sh!t what we think, we still have a relevant opinion on whats going.
Please don't think us all so callous or cavalier about this. Many of us are just as upset about this as anyone else outside of our country. I for one do not believe the FBI or the NSA have any right to our personal information. This whole situation where the governments of the world somehow think that they have the right to spy on their own citizens has to stop. Any of us willing to give up our freedoms and liberties in exchange for security or the false sense of security don't deserve to have those freedoms are liberties. It is up to everyone of us to guard against becoming slaves to our own governments.
Completely wrong. Your NSA has stated it has the legal right to spy on all non-American internet traffic without any warrant. Even though your government could give a sh!t what we think, we still have a relevant opinion on whats going.
The NSA and our government believe they are in the right as far as spying on all nations, friendly or otherwise. I do not agree, but it must also be acknowledged that all nations spy on each other. These activities are not new. Governments are always controlled by and for the paranoid.
The US Constitution protects US citizens. That was the core of the argument. I don't for a second believe that the US has the right to dictate their laws to other nations, nor do other nations have the privilege of dictating their version of law to the US.
Just out of curiosity, do you agree with this characterization on Wikipedia?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Bill_of_Rights
According to what I've read (and I'm no expert on Canadian law) the Monarchy and Federal (parliamentary democracy) government are more powerful than individual rights. Am I wrong?
Canadians elect those who govern us on a day-to-day basis. The Queen and her representatives serve to encourage elements of nationhood which are not so easily accomplished by politicians, to provide a focus on things that unite rather than divide Canadians, to celebrate our ideals, to honour our best efforts and to be the emergency back-up should the system ever break down. This separation of partisan political power from the formal executive authority seems to work well and to appeal to most Canadians, who enjoy freedoms which are the envy of many in the world.
Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a constitutional provision that protects an individual's autonomy and personal legal rights from actions of the government in Canada. There are three types of protection within the section, namely the right to life, liberty, and security of the person. Denials of these rights are constitutional only if the denials do not breach what is referred to as fundamental justice.
Canadian privacy law has evolved over time into what it is today. The first instance of a formal law came when, in 1977, the Canadian government introduced data protection provisions into the Canadian Human Rights Act.[1] In 1982, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms outlined that everyone has "the right to life, liberty and security of the person" and "the right to be free from unreasonable search or seizure",[2] but did not directly mention the concept of privacy. In 1983, the federal Privacy Act regulated how federal government collects, uses and discloses personal information. Throughout the late 1990s and 2000s, privacy legislation placed restrictions on the collection, use and disclosure of information by provincial and territorial governments and by companies and institutions in the private sector.
Privacy Act[edit]
The Privacy Act, passed in 1983[3] by the Parliament of Canada, regulates how federal government institutions collect, use and disclose personal information. It also provides individuals with a right of access to information held about them by the federal government, and a right to request correction of any erroneous information.[4]
The Act established the office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, who is an Officer of Parliament. The responsibilities of the Privacy Commissioner includes supervising the application of the Act itself.
Under the Act, the Privacy Commissioner has powers to audit federal government institutions to ensure their compliance with the act, and is obliged to investigate complaints by individuals about breaches of the act. The Act and its equivalent legislation in most provinces are the expression of internationally accepted principles known as "fair information practices." As a last resort, the Privacy Commissioner of Canada does have the "power of embarrassment", which can be used in the hopes that the party being embarrassed will rectify the problem under public scrutiny[5]
The NSA and our government believe they are in the right as far as spying on all nations, friendly or otherwise. I do not agree, but it must also be acknowledged that all nations spy on each other. These activities are not new. Governments are always controlled by and for the paranoid.
The US Constitution protects US citizens. That was the core of the argument. I don't for a second believe that the US has the right to dictate their laws to other nations, nor do other nations have the privilege of dictating their version of law to the US.
I agree with that.
Please don't think us all so callous or cavalier about this. Many of us are just as upset about this as anyone else outside of our country. I for one do not believe the FBI or the NSA have any right to our personal information. This whole situation where the governments of the world somehow think that they have the right to spy on their own citizens has to stop. Any of us willing to give up our freedoms and liberties in exchange for security or the false sense of security don't deserve to have those freedoms are liberties. It is up to everyone of us to guard against becoming slaves to our own governments.
No I don't think that you are callous or cavalier. Americans are Canada's awesome southern neighbours. I am concerned how the US government is slowly eroding your constitution to suit it's own agenda. It's like a frog in a pot of water coming to a slow boil.
Funny, but it seems most of us don't think of this as a matter of
'putting ourselves above the law',
but of putting ourselves under the protection of the law,
in the form of the Constitution our vaunted FBI director is so eager to circumvent.
"There will come a day"...when you'll smirk and say,
"Rights? What rights? You haven't any now -
We took care of that some time ago!"
if he really thinks Apple etc are doing something wrong he can try to sue, bring them up on charges etc.
A judge will force Apple Inc and Google Inc to comply with a court-ordered search warrant and stop these unreasonable constraints on law enforcement. This effort to keep law enforcement completely in the dark is nothing but a public relations tactic to please their customers while they duly wait for orders from the judge that forces them to give access to the privates law enforcement seek to investigate with a judicial warrant.
the issue is that even with a warrant there is no way to unlock a passcoded phone. Apple allegedly had a way but they have killed it. or so they claim and the FBI believes this to be true. They can get into an iCloud account but if a criminal isn't using iCloud there is nothing that can be done. Same as if said criminal is encrypting their iTunes backups and doesn't give up the password or has forgotten it. Apple can't break that block.
We would all be safer if the government inspected our homes twice daily and made notes on suspicious behavior. That WOULD prevent some murders--including murders of children.
video cameras with audio, infared/night vision modes. in all homes from several angles in each room. 24/7 recordings. and lets not forget the microchips so they always know where we are.
What am I missing here? Did SCOTUS not just vote 9-0 requiring warrants for cell phones? Is it that hard for them to go to a judge get a warrant? Shouldn't the top law enforcement officer be willing to follow the law of the land?
The vote isn't what matters. Yes they might have said that you need a warrant to get into a cell phone etc. The issue is that after the FBI gets the warrant. The criminal can't be forced to punch in the passcode (at least at this point) cause case law has backed up notion that it would be forcing them to self incriminate which is a constitutional issue. And now Apple says there are no backdoors. if the owner won't put in the passcode they can't break in. so if there's no iCloud backup or access to a computer that has an iTunes backup, oh well. The FBI is not amused by this
to the Supreme Court.
Fear mongering to ensure government agencies can still be enabled to violate privacy they claim to respect "except in cases of national security". BS. They use "national security" as an excuse for everything and that lets them get away with everything. Has anyone noticed the "border crisis" has created a "constitution-free" zone that 60% of Americans now live in?
Rule of law isn't intended to exempt the law agencies from law. But who polices the police? I can't take a walk without being worried about cops flying through stop signs or considering me suspicious until no crime is committed. There's a problem, very serious one, in the entire law enforcement system. They've lost focus on the spirit while making the letter bend to their paranoia.
"I am a huge believer in the rule of law, but I am also a believer that no one in this country is above the law,"
“Above the law” - How about Outside The Law? How about go f*@! yourself?
This was the perfect response. Apparently the government lives in fear of the people. Thus they want to clamp down on their freedom. They must believe that anybody who isn't strictly controlled is a danger to them. That is how paranoid people think.
Backdoors will DECREASE our security, not increase it. It will INCREASE government abuse, not decrease it. And then there's the wild-eyed notion that companies should not be forced to be part of the continuing slaughter of the values enshrined in the Constitution. I fail to see why, when forensic data tools still exist for investigations that truly need it, Apple has to be forced to make their system less secure AND do the police's job for them.
Are you referring to the fact that under the law you are entitled to the presumption of innocence until proven to be guilty?
Wait, what?
A user can still honor a warrant with an encrypted phone. They just turn over the password.
Apple and Google are offering users a lock and key. They aren't violating any warrants. The FBI would never go after a safe company to open a customer's safe -- they'd go after owner of the safe (just like the hypothetical owner of the closet in the story).
Thank you for that excellent metaphor! This is exactly like the Feds complaining if Masterlock announced a new lock that no one could unlock without the key.
Please don't think us all so callous or cavalier about this. Many of us are just as upset about this as anyone else outside of our country. I for one do not believe the FBI or the NSA have any right to our personal information. This whole situation where the governments of the world somehow think that they have the right to spy on their own citizens has to stop. Any of us willing to give up our freedoms and liberties in exchange for security or the false sense of security don't deserve to have those freedoms are liberties. It is up to everyone of us to guard against becoming slaves to our own governments.
For the duration of this thread RORWessels gets my proxy. Whatever he (or she) posts earns an implicit "I would have said exactly that, if not as clearly and eloquently" from me.
This was the perfect response. Apparently the government lives in fear of the people. Thus they want to clamp down on their freedom. They must believe that anybody who isn't strictly controlled is a danger to them. That is how paranoid people think.
I think that was the original intent, right? Any government that is not in fear of its people is either actually made up of its people (unlike almost any democratic nation on earth), or is totalitarian and has (to be redundant) 'total' control. Of course control on that level is very hard to actualize and mostly best left to dystopian movies or novels, but the illusion of it remains.
I hope they are afraid, and i mean fear defined as respect (somehow i doubt it).