What's wrong with you, Candadia!?!?

I'm from Canada and they think I'm slow, eh?

At this rate, Canadian liberals will threaten to move to the U.S.

The Conservatives are now blaming the NDP for starting the Vikileaks twitter account.

Lulzier and lulzier...

inkblot: At this rate, Canadian liberals will threaten to move to the U.S.

Ed Finnerty: What's wrong with you, Candadia!?!?

Know how I know you didn't RTFA?

unyon: God Is My Co-Pirate: Just emailed Vic to express my disgust.

Love some of the "Tell Vic everything" tweets.

The funniest thing was Kevin Newman's description of #tellviceverthing. While he was explaining it, behind him was a huge wall of the feed. It was hard to take him seriously when you see 'poop is coming out' type posts scrolling behind him on a national newscast in 50 point font.

what what what?

Tell me there's video of this

As far as I can tell, the Cons are playing C-30 and using it to deflect away from C-11. Coverage of C-11 has dried up since this BS rolled around.

whereisian: As far as I can tell, the Cons are playing C-30 and using it to deflect away from C-11. Coverage of C-11 has dried up since this BS rolled around.

I wouldn't doubt that at all. I just can't believe how quickly it's become what someone astutely called 'performance art'. The guy that introduced a bill to invade the privacy of all Canadians, now wants an inquiry into who's behind the twitter account posting his publicly available information.

whereisian: As far as I can tell, the Cons are playing C-30 and using it to deflect away from C-11. Coverage of C-11 has dried up since this BS rolled around.

My theory is that the ISP records keeping requirement of C-30 is there as compliment to C-11, to help the media companies while they are gathering evidence against. I'm pretty sure that it's the only reason why the C-30 was put forward.

Dorf11: whereisian: As far as I can tell, the Cons are playing C-30 and using it to deflect away from C-11. Coverage of C-11 has dried up since this BS rolled around.

I wouldn't doubt that at all. I just can't believe how quickly it's become what someone astutely called 'performance art'. The guy that introduced a bill to invade the privacy of all Canadians, now wants an inquiry into who's behind the twitter account posting his publicly available information.

It's all theatre. What's funny is that ian is bang-on here; the actual "Canadian SOPA", or C-11, is a much larger overall threat than C-30. Not that C-30 isn't, in itself, a threat. It's just that "we can occasionally peek in your window, but only if it's your rear window, and located 4-6 feet off the ground, and the time is between 23:00 and 01:00" is, while still completely asinine, slightly more benign than "we're going to storm the flea market with SWAT teams and arrest everybody there if some guy sets up a folding card table selling knock-off Nikes".

whereisian: As far as I can tell, the Cons are playing C-30 and using it to deflect away from C-11. Coverage of C-11 has dried up since this BS rolled around.

It might seem that way, but the tech press still covers it fairly well when debate rolls around. OpenMedia.ca and Michael Geist try to keep it in the news. It might not hit The Globe & Mail or the CBC Evening news, but people concerned about C-11 are still active and still writing their MPs. Mine must be tired of getting weekly emails about these two bills.

Headline of the week candidate:
Angry Baird assails NDP over @vikileaks30 Twitter page

Uhm. C-30 isn't a carte blanche bill to let the government just spy on people. The whole "without a warrant" part is only due to "exigent circumstances" where it isn't "feasible to obtain one." IE. They're already on their way to rape a child...

Did you know the criminal code of Canada already includes these provisions? 487.11 already allows an authorized officer to obtain this information without a warrant. The changes only change some wording and include 492.2 into it's scope. 492.1 and 492.2 still requires an informant to swear under oath that an offense is being committed or will be committed before any information is obtained from your service provider or any form of tracking is actually implemented.

http://parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode= 1 &DocId=5380965&File=116#29

Man, you cheat on your wife with the teenage babysitter, knock her up and then refer to opponents of your bill as supporters of child pornography and everyone looses their farking minds!

Stavr0: Headline of the week candidate:
Angry Baird assails NDP over @vikileaks30 Twitter page

What can I say, there are so many people playing Angry Bairds these days...

SultanofSchwing: Uhm. C-30 isn't a carte blanche bill to let the government just spy on people. The whole "without a warrant" part is only due to "exigent circumstances" where it isn't "feasible to obtain one." IE. They're already on their way to rape a child...

Did you know the criminal code of Canada already includes these provisions? 487.11 already allows an authorized officer to obtain this information without a warrant. The changes only change some wording and include 492.2 into it's scope. 492.1 and 492.2 still requires an informant to swear under oath that an offense is being committed or will be committed before any information is obtained from your service provider or any form of tracking is actually implemented.

http://parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode= 1 &DocId=5380965&File=116#29

Further to what Glenford posted above, since the Criminal Code already allows for warrantless surveillance in exigent circumstances, then why the new bill?

SultanofSchwing: Uhm. C-30 isn't a carte blanche bill to let the government just spy on people. The whole "without a warrant" part is only due to "exigent circumstances" where it isn't "feasible to obtain one." IE. They're already on their way to rape a child... the cops decide they'd rather not get one

FTF how these things always end up being.

With everything the federal govt's been up to lately, it's nice to see some citizens are still able to show a sense of humour about it.

I, on the other hand, have almost maxed out the number of times I can tell my parents "these are the asshats YOU voted for!" without getting disowned.

So they basically all just friended the PM on facebook and reverse followed him on twitter?

What an odd way to protest.

SultanofSchwing: Uhm. C-30 isn't a carte blanche bill to let the government just spy on people. The whole "without a warrant" part is only due to "exigent circumstances" where it isn't "feasible to obtain one." IE. They're already on their way to rape a child...

Did you know the criminal code of Canada already includes these provisions? 487.11 already allows an authorized officer to obtain this information without a warrant. The changes only change some wording and include 492.2 into it's scope. 492.1 and 492.2 still requires an informant to swear under oath that an offense is being committed or will be committed before any information is obtained from your service provider or any form of tracking is actually implemented.

http://parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode= 1 &DocId=5380965&File=116#29

Section 24 Subsection 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms allows the crown to infringe on the rights of the individual in instances that you have noted above as well.

The proposed law would make it easier for law enforcement, not make it possible. Currently they get have to take the time to threaten an obstruction charge and there is usually a back and forth between the Crown and a laywer before the information is turned over.

Of course, if the child pornographer is on their way to a kid, the police generally speaking have a better idea of where the person is than an ISP.

Spadababababababa Spadina Bus: The Conservatives are now blaming the NDP for starting the Vikileaks twitter account.

Lulzier and lulzier...

Well the IP was tracked back to someone who was found to originate from the House of Commons and editing Wikipedia to put a pro-NDP stance on things.

change1211: Spadababababababa Spadina Bus: The Conservatives are now blaming the NDP for starting the Vikileaks twitter account.

Lulzier and lulzier...

Well the IP was tracked back to someone who was found to originate from the House of Commons and editing Wikipedia to put a pro-NDP stance on things.

Not exactly. It's one of a pool of outward-facing IP addresses through which the traffic of anyone in the building can be routed, and editing Wikipedia was found to be one of the previous activities of someone in the building who connected via that IP address. The latest I've seen is that they're still investigating who specifically was behind it, so linking the two incidents is premature at this point. It's kind of like saying someone made a post that was traced back to the Wifi access point at the local McDonalds, and since I once used the Wifi at that McDonalds, it must have been me made that post.

SultanofSchwing: The whole "without a warrant" part is only due to "exigent circumstances" where it isn't "feasible to obtain one." IE. They're already on their way to rape a child...

Did you know the criminal code of Canada already includes these provisions?

Whenever somebody defends a bill by attempting to claim that the law already exists, you know that the proposed bill is bullshiat and the person white knighting for it is full of shiat.

Protip, genius: Defending a bill by claiming that it is utterly useless because its provisions are already on the books -- if true -- merely upgrades the bill from "shouldn't be passed (because it's a shiat bill)" to "shouldn't be passed (because it's pointless grandstanding that accomplishes nothing save wasting everybody's time)".

Dr. Mojo PhD: SultanofSchwing: The whole "without a warrant" part is only due to "exigent circumstances" where it isn't "feasible to obtain one." IE. They're already on their way to rape a child...

Did you know the criminal code of Canada already includes these provisions?

Whenever somebody defends a bill by attempting to claim that the law already exists, you know that the proposed bill is bullshiat and the person white knighting for it is full of shiat.

Protip, genius: Defending a bill by claiming that it is utterly useless because its provisions are already on the books -- if true -- merely upgrades the bill from "shouldn't be passed (because it's a shiat bill)" to "shouldn't be passed (because it's pointless grandstanding that accomplishes nothing save wasting everybody's time)".

Well special farking bulletin "genius", most bills that get introduced are just amendments and rewording of specific clauses of pre-existing laws. Usually to cover something that didn't have precedence at the time it was originally written. But please continue yelling at clouds if it makes you happy.

I needed this boost. Will someone quickly tell Vic that the Arigby household has had a run of shiat luck and that I don't have a Twitter account? Also, we ran out of MiniWheats. Do you think he would recommend maple flavour or should we stick with original? I have maple syrup in the fridge, so I could put that on whichever we get.