US not only "Big Brother(ed)" Country - Canada Also

Hey All,

Was watching CBCSunday (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) and saw a news piece about how the Canadian Government seems to be crumbling under the threat of internal terrorism (9/11), much like the United States are. While the US Government is trying to pass the [utl=http://www.whitehouse.gov/deptofhomeland/bill/index.html]Homeland Security Act[/url] (Under Bush's own proposal - Which is illegal under the Privacy Act of 1974), Canadian Government is looking to do the similar.

It appears that the Government is trying to pass some sort of Bill which would allow the monitoring of people entering and leaving the country. Source Not only would they monitor, but build a database of information, as well as tap communications via e-mail and cellphone. Source

Thankfully, Privacy Commissioner George Radwanski is fighting for the privacies and freedoms for the Canadian Citizens and it's visitors. One thing that both countries, US and Canada hold dear, and with pride, is our Freedom and Privacy.

US Source - 2600.com

Quote:

---

While the US Government is trying to pass the Homeland Security Act

---

afaik, The bill has already been passed. edit: Bush signed it just today.

There needs to be a balance maintained between 'security/safety' and 'privacy'. However, it seems that the balance post-9/11 is upset, swinging in favour of 'security'. It's easy for politicians to pass anything these days, simply by saying 'it's for the safety of the nation/it's to protect against terrorism'.

Here's an article on how John Ashcroft has 'succeeded' in his attempts to further eliminate privacy:

Secret U.S. court OKs electronic spying

Quote:

---

In an unexpected and near-complete victory for law enforcement, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review overturned a lower court's decision and said that Attorney General John Ashcroft's request for new powers was reasonable.

The 56-page ruling removes procedural barriers for federal agents conducting surveillance under the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). The law, enacted as part of post-Watergate reforms, permits sweeping electronic surveillance, telephone eavesdropping and surreptitious searches of residences and offices.

At a press conference Monday afternoon, Ashcroft applauded the ruling, characterizing it as a "victory for liberty, safety and the security of the American people."

---

Good to see that you've got someone in Canada who's attempting to quash proposals like this. Here's hoping that Canada doesn't follow in the US' footsteps when it comes to privacy.

If your dad died from drowning don’t stopping drinking water because water is good for you. The same applies to those bills just because 9/11 happened does not mean that there should be less freedom and privacy not only for US citizens but for the rest of world peaceful people.

People like Osama don’t use any form of electronic communication anymore. Only people peaceful people like us use it.

So, I hope that they will not drown with too much information and that in the future there will be more freedom in China than US.

I'm with you guys, I hope Canada doesn't follow suit and pass a similar bill. As if the anti-privacy issues weren't enough, we have to fill everything with pork. . .
http://www.msnbc.com/news/836859.asp
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/art...oorekerpen.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...ybill-usat.htm
http://www.freep.com/voices/letters/...1_20021121.htm

You'd think such a serious issue wouldn't be clutter with politics, but ohh no, can't be that way. . .that would make too much sense.

it makes absolutly no sense at all to distroy a way of life to protect it.

unfortunatly when folks discover this really isn't what they wanted, it'll be to late to do anything about it.

americo100 > actually everyone uses electronic communication these days. Cell phones are especially useful because they arent too easy to track yet. In all likelyhood Al Qaeda (sp?) is probably communicating in the open, because after all the best place to hide something is in plain sight.

I don't think that al quaeda (sp?) is using cell phone for their activities... they couldn't be that stupid. They already know what echeclon is and what the NSA can do...remember bin laden was trained by the cia and i'm sure they taught him what secured transmition is.
Now they question is did he kept up with the technology or is he jsut reading about this stuff right now ?

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by Syini666
americo100 > actually everyone uses electronic communication these days. Cell phones are especially useful because they arent too easy to track yet. In all likelyhood Al Qaeda (sp?) is probably communicating in the open, because after all the best place to hide something is in plain sight.

---

I really like this one!!! By standing in the open not means sending sensitive information in a easy way to understand. Steganography is a great way to hide in the open.

If you want the NSA to investigate on your communication, encrypt it. It will look suspicious. Don't encrypt your communication, nobody will be interest in it, beacause it doesn't look secret.

What I find bizare is that instead of fixing what needs to be done, the governments are destroying what we have to "rebuild" from the ground up, losing much of what we had.

Our freedoms aren't a bulding, it's not like you can take an eraser and write in what you want. (Although Bush seems to think so).

I also heard that Canada was thinking of having everyone have an Identification of sorts, either it being an ID Card with UPC Barcode, or an even more "secure" yet extreme system, bio card, which would have a bio sample from you which readers could figure. (ouch!)

Next thing you know, we'll have chips in our hands like Demolition Man.

The people that are visiting,coming to saty, or leaving the country, not all of them will have their privacy invaded. We can almost see the crowd of people that this Bill is going to be concentrating on more than any other people. If and Arabic man and a White, Black, Or and other race man leave the country at the same time, or come into the country, we all know that the Arabic man will draw most of the attention, and will be constantly watched on in communication. While this is going on the black, white, or any other race man can be out there planning a big terroism act. My points is that this law will not only affect and upset many people, but will make the Arabic people feel really uncomfortable. That is not what this country was made to be, People are supposed to come here and feel like they are secured and have their privacy. Instead, people will enter this country wondering, who could be listening to their conversation or reading their e-mail. -ebo

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by ebo
The people that are visiting,coming to saty, or leaving the country, not all of them will have their privacy invaded. We can almost see the crowd of people that this Bill is going to be concentrating on more than any other people. If and Arabic man and a White, Black, Or and other race man leave the country at the same time, or come into the country, we all know that the Arabic man will draw most of the attention, and will be constantly watched on in communication. While this is going on the black, white, or any other race man can be out there planning a big terroism act. My points is that this law will not only affect and upset many people, but will make the Arabic people feel really uncomfortable. That is not what this country was made to be, People are supposed to come here and feel like they are secured and have their privacy. Instead, people will enter this country wondering, who could be listening to their conversation or reading their e-mail. -ebo

---

Ebo, sadly your right. People's rights will be violated and they will be descrimitated against because of 9/11. All of these measures are being made because or government feels it's a "neccesary precaution". It's a load of bull if you ask me.

Some of the proposals which were examined as what could possibly part of the homeland security bill were enough to even make the most hardlined conservatives speak up. Source
I am very worried about were all of this is heading and I think that implanted ID's and retina scans are a definetly possibility for the future. This is something that I dont know if I want to be a part of.

Also as far as post 9/11 racism and generalizations go I have some friends from india who are afraid to get on airplanes because they experience a very difficult and uncomfortable situation because many americans mistake them for arabs and since my friends usually fly home in groups of 4 or more they are eyed very very suspicously to the point where if one of two of them gets up and begins to move towards the cockpit they can expect someone to get up in front of them and block them from reaching the front of the airplane. This is experienced by very friendly and nice guys who love America and are at least looking at US residency or citizenship. We are sliding down a slippery, slippery slope and where this will lead us makes me very worried.

From Milton Mayer, in his book, They Thought They Were Free:

"Each act, each occasion, is worse than the last, but only a little worse. You wait for the next and the next. You wait for the one great shocking occasion, thinking that others, when such a shock comes, will join with you in resisting somehow." ...

"To live in this process is absolutely not to be able to notice it - please try to believe me - unless one has a much greater degree of political awareness, acuity, than most of us had ever had occasion to develop. Each step was so small, so inconsequential, so well explained or, on occasion, 'regretted,' that, unless one were detached from the whole process from the beginning, unless one understood what the whole thing was in principle, what all these 'little measures' that no 'patriotic German' could resent must some day lead to, one no more saw it developing from day to day than a farmer in his field sees the corn growing. One day it is over his head."

One day a man wakes up to see all that he has lost, and the realization finally takes hold. "And one day, too late, your principles, if you were ever sensible of them, all rush in upon you. The burden of self deception has grown too heavy... You see what you are, what you have done, or, more accurately, what you haven't done (for that was all that was required of most of us: that we do nothing)." And so the world is forever changed. The fear of speaking out at last has become overwhelming. One only dares speak to one or two trusted friends in absolute secrecy.

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/article...nested&order=0

The events of 9-11 were an attack on people's rights, privacy and a horrific act of terrorism. Terrorism is by definition the use of force, most often violent force true but still a use of force. If the government forces us as individuals to give up our privacy, isn't that a form of terrorism? Without violence?

We are a nation that claims pride in inviting people to our country. Won't we then be slamming the doors on people? You might argue that if someone has nothing to hide, they they should not mind giving up privacy, but we are entitled to privacy. It is our right. When you take away rights and privacy, you discourage people from coming to your country. Your economy suffers, the morale of your people suffers. It is getting too extreme.

The terrorists "won" when they devistated the lives of so many on 9-11. Now they are winning again because of the way we are reacting to the events of 9-11.

I respectfully disagree Tiger. I feel that such necessary steps as the homeland security bill will help us protect our selves and lets not forget one the democrats might be able to pull a filibuster (hopefully not) and 2 it may not be permanent I think the sacrificing of certain liberties could be necessary and they don't mean every single person who comes in to these countries. I think Pres. Busch is taking a step in the right direction.

zaggy i also disagree here. If anyone took our rights the terrorists of 9-11 and other times took them away and by forefitting these rights TEMPORARILY we could stop such things happen again

lastly, I think that our privacy is at stake always when we are on-line by the methods many of us know to read e-mail that is not ours. We know many things about computers and the governments privacy is at stake as numerous people break into the pentagon mainframe every year and some are not caught. I think this falls on the line on wether the gov't should lie to protect us and not reval vital information. I say yes if it will help out country or us i say my personal liberty is not what is at stake but the capture of a criminal.

I suppose this will be tempoary also

Quote:

---

Bush says you have no right to remain silent: Supremes to hear Miranda challenge
Posted on Monday, November 25 @ 10:13:08 EST

Ruling in Oxnard case could reinterpret landmark decision on rights during police questioning. White House backs a change.

By David G. Savage, Los Angeles Times

---

Now this does not sound all that bad until you consider the facts in the case which clearly show that its not about the case at all but about taking away our protection from the police. Again they want to do this so ‘terrorists” don’t escape justice. I’ve attached the whole article because its in the subscription only section.

Quote:

---

Two officers, Andrew Salinas and Maria Pena, had stopped to question a man they suspected, wrongly it turned out, of selling drugs. When they heard a squeaky bike approach in the dark, they called for the rider to stop.

Martinez dismounted and put his hands over his head. In a leather sheath on a waist band, he carried a long knife that he used to cut strawberries.

When the officer patted him down and grabbed for the knife, Martinez tried to run. Salinas tackled him and tried to handcuff him. As they struggled on the ground, the officer called out that the man had a huge knife. Pena moved closer and fired.

One bullet struck Martinez near the left eye and exited behind his right eye. A second hit his spine. Three more shots hit his legs.

When patrol supervisor Sgt. Ben Chavez arrived, a handcuffed Martinez lay bleeding on the ground. Once Martinez was loaded into an ambulance, Chavez climbed in with a tape recorder in hand.

On and off for the next 45 minutes in the ambulance and at the hospital, he repeatedly asked the gravely wounded man to admit he had grabbed the officer's gun and provoked the struggle. In agony, Martinez is heard screaming in pain and saying he is choking and dying.

"OK. You're dying. But tell me why you were fighting with the police?" Chavez asks. "Did you want to kill the police or what?" he continues. One officer had said Martinez tried to grab his gun.

In the emergency room, Chavez continued to press Martinez to tell him what happened.

"Why did you run from the police?" Chavez is heard to say over the sounds of nurses and doctors.

"Did you get his gun? ... Did you to try to shoot the police?"

Martinez in a low voice responds: "I don't know.... I don't know."

Lawyers for Martinez say he panicked when the officer tried to tackle him, but they say he did not grab the officer's gun.

In the emergency room, he is heard asking Chavez several times to leave him alone. "I don't want to say anything anymore."

"No? You don't want to say what happened?" the sergeant continues.

"It's hurting a lot. Please!" Martinez implores, his words trailing off into agonized screams. Undaunted, Chavez resumes. "Well, if you're going to die, tell me what happened."

Silence came only when pain medication took hold, and Martinez faded into unconsciousness.

"Sgt. Chavez doggedly pursued a statement by Martinez despite being asked to leave the emergency room several times," wrote Judge Richard Tallman. "A reasonable officer, questioning a suspect who had been shot five times by the police and then arrested, who had not received Miranda warnings and who was receiving medical treatment for excruciating, life-threatening injuries ... would have known that persistent interrogation of the suspect despite repeated requests to stop violated the suspect's 5th and 14th Amendment right to be free from coercive interrogation."

For Martinez, the slow-moving legal battle has proven to be a new type of agony. Now 34, he lives with his father in a one-room trailer on a farm field in Oxnard. He is in a wheelchair and wears dark glasses, covering his missing eye.


Bush administration lawyers have sided with the police in the case. The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on Dec. 4.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by EncryptoMan
I respectfully disagree Tiger. I feel that such necessary steps as the homeland security bill will help us protect our selves and lets not forget one the democrats might be able to pull a filibuster (hopefully not) and 2 it may not be permanent I think the sacrificing of certain liberties could be necessary and they don't mean every single person who comes in to these countries. I think Pres. Busch is taking a step in the right direction.

---

I disagree!!! All the steps taken after 9-11 are exaggerate. The best way to save you from trouble, mind your own business. But... we are not in a political forum. For the sake, go see Bowling for Columbine, a great criticism on American by an American :)

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by forn28

If you want the NSA to investigate on your communication, encrypt it. It will look suspicious. Don't encrypt your communication, nobody will be interest in it, beacause it doesn't look secret.

---

For months now I have been sending encrypted email to my other email accounts or sending encrypted chat threw IRC servers. Just says, "Just because a message is encrypted does not mean that it is shady communication."

or whatever else I think to say at the time. I figure just keep em on their toes. I dont do it anymore it was probably just a waste of time but I would also just send a list of keywords to myself via email, figuring a red light was flashing somewhere or sending a log file to someone.

Anyways kindof dumb i guess but the things you do to entertain yourself

I agree not all encrypted communication looks shady.

I agree not all encrypted communication looks shady.

I also think that the steps after 9-11 aern't exagerated at all. If we live in fear of course we will be miserable but VIVGILANCE is something different. These rights were GIVEN to you and do not be so selfish if it will help a greater good forefit your rights for a short time. The miranda thing though should be denied. Maranda is a God given right. Privacy is a LIBERTY and a privelage. Some parts of the homeland security bill i agree with and some i don't. Althought I beleive a slight breech of privacy is possible and probable if this happens the borders of the US need to be more heavily patrolled and all. Illegal aliens need to be found

I agree not all encrypted communication looks shady.

I also think that the steps after 9-11 aern't exagerated at all. If we live in fear of course we will be miserable but VIVGILANCE is something different. These rights were GIVEN to you and do not be so selfish if it will help a greater good forefit your rights for a short time. The miranda thing though should be denied. Maranda is a God given right. Privacy is a LIBERTY and a privelage. Some parts of the homeland security bill i agree with and some i don't. Althought I beleive a slight breech of privacy is possible and probable if this happens the borders of the US need to be more heavily patrolled and all. Illegal aliens need to be found and punished or sent back. 1 thing bush is doing wrong is being buddy-buddy with the big oil presidents. If the white house takes away some of our liberties then they must do everything they can in other areas of security.

All these people in the towers were minding their business at work. Trouble will find us if we don't stop it. We can't stick our heads in the sand like an ostrich and hope it will go away. Terrotists hate us they WON'T STOP.

I realize my post is redundant this was unintentional. I accidentally hit the post button without knowing it so my message got posted one then in its completeness the second time.

fyi EncryptoMan on the bar with the purple buttons on it, between search and print is edit. you can change what you've posted for a period of time, i think its 10 hours.

Maranda is a god given right?!? In what religion?

But your right about this case being put down its just too ludicrios and has received too much attention but they'll be another. I just posted this to show everyone the direction this regiem is headed.

*********************
In a 1990 ruling, Rehnquist commented that the right against self-incrimination in the 5th Amendment was a "trial right." Police cannot violate this right when they force someone to talk, since "a constitutional violation occurs only at trial," the chief justice said. The National Assn. of Police Organizations, the California attorney general's office and the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation in Sacramento all have urged the court to use the Martinez case to make clear that the Constitution does not limit forceful police questioning.
**********************
i also agree that its about time all these seperate departments were joined together to form one unit. I dont however believe that these "inconviences" you mentioned will just go away. Now thats its law of the land will just have to watch and see.

Maranda deals with many points of the constitution when dealing with the police. I am a Roman Catholic and i'm not sure of my churches stand on maranda, but since I disagree with the Church on many occasions (they call me a "cafeteria Catholic") I'm don't really care what they say.

On a sidenote, but not totally unrelated....

Quote:

---

WASHINGTON -- The government agreed to tell the American Civil Liberties Union by Jan. 15 which documents it would release about increased surveillance in the United States under a law passed in response to the terrorist attacks.

In response to a suit brought by the ACLU and other groups, the Justice Department also said it would supply a list of documents that it would keep confidential, citing national security concerns. The ACLU could challenge the decision to withhold any documents.

The agreement was reached Tuesday before U.S. District Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle, who is hearing the case growing out of an Aug. 21 request filed under the Freedom of Information Act.

The civil liberties group wants to know how the government is carrying out the USA Patriot Act, passed in response to Sept. 11. The new law gives the government new powers to obtain personal information about U.S. citizens in an attempt to stop future terrorist attacks.

......

The ACLU asked the Justice Department for the number of times it has asked libraries or bookstores for lists of purchases or for the identities of those who have bought certain books; how many times law enforcement officials have entered people's homes without letting them know until later; how many times they have approved phone traces of people not accused of any crimes; and how many times they have investigated Americans for writing letters to newspapers, attending rallies or other First Amendment-protected activities.

---

Chalk one up for the ACLU, entire article here.

im afraid that the aclu lost anyway, under the homeland security act this information is no longer covered under the freedom of information act. so after bush signed it into law this week they can with hold any information they want. looks like the courts were just keeping them busy while they did their dirty work