|
New crime bill will require ISPs to give out customer info without court order (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Bryce Santiago |
| Can you guys list (bullet form) the possible security risk to us, the public, and I will compile it in a list to submit to Ottawa. I will do this, if you guys make the effort. Tech language is fine...the more exact the better. |
|
|
| jester |
| If they want to play with fire, let them. I just now hope someone brings down the government and military network. Would be interesting to see, how the government likes having their data stolen. |
|
|
| goodnet |
| quote: | Originally posted by Bryce Santiago
Can you guys list (bullet form) the possible security risk to us, the public, and I will compile it in a list to submit to Ottawa. I will do this, if you guys make the effort. Tech language is fine...the more exact the better. |
There are more technically savvy people on this board, so it would be best to compile a list from someone who actually works FOR an ISP or manages corporate networks. I would get more objective, but I just don't know enough here. Based on what I've read, I interpret that this could open the doors to breach the following areas of security:
-Monitor which sites and/or IP addresses you access and when
-Intercept messages you are sending via email, instant messengers, social network sites (look at facebook - they turned off SSL encryption by default making it easier for people to intercept your browsing of the site!), etc
-See who you are talking to, what you are saying and when
-Basically, anything that goes over the pipe of your internet connection can be captured & observed by the authorities
Although these are less likely, you can't rule out these security factors either, because they will now have full access to your data transmissions:
-Get passwords to your personal accounts (email, bank, etc)
-Even IF your transmissions are encrypted (as is the case most of the time i.e. when you put in a password to your gmail/bank), it is still possible to "crack" that encryption as hackers can nowadays cheaply rent out supercomputer resources to crack keys.
If you have experienced a police officer who performs thier duties with anything LESS than 100% professionalism and ethics, I shouldn't need to spend hours explaining why this will open the doors to abuse. Only now, they will be able to cheaply and neatly monitor you online, without ever having to confront you. |
|
|
| Bryce Santiago |
| This is enough to start. Thanks goodnet. |
|
|
| Orko |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
facebook and cloud accounts are brilliant government developments to keep tabs on it's population. Why force the info out of people when you can appeal to the narcissist in them so that they give it up voluntarily? |
No outrage? No shock? No slamming the NDP...oh wait, it is the tories that are doing this. I can see why you are quiet. |
|
|
| PivotTechno |
| It's The Selective Libertarian! |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
Did i say that i supported this?
It's crazy if it goes through.
BUT
these things are ALREADY happening on all levels of government including municipal. I have experienced it first hand by watching the cops track people using fake accounts and monitoring ISPs. This is why im not "shocked".
Those who actually read what i write for the message behind already know that I have been warning about this for years.
All this bill does IMO is bring the practice a bit more out into the open.
We already live in a police state. And it is already almost too late the reverse it. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| PS: what i find interesting is that the libertarian views and scenarios that I have been suggesting for years are finally being accepted in the mainstream. People are slowly waking up to what is really going on. If there was anything good about the G20 it was that it showed people on a large scale how corrupt the state has become when it comes to their own citizens' liberties. |
|
|
| GGM |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
All this bill does IMO is bring the practice a bit more out into the open.
|
Strongly disagree. Biggest difference is that the current shady methods cops use can only get them information, but it can't be used in court. Even though it's doable right now it's much more difficult than it would be after this bill. If the bill goes through it'll be easier plus dirt dug up would be valid in court thus it'll be much more common place.
The current system is perfect imo. If you need to snoop a criminal's computer and usage by all means there should be a valid case and you go get your warrant from a judge. If you don't have a reason, no snooping. That is 100% fair and if it aint broke don't fix it.
Mark this is as the first of many dip moves by the conservatives. Going to be an interesting 4 years and I just hope by the end we manage to walk away with a country still worth living in. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
Again I am not happy but this is happening on ALL levels of government. I do not support this initiative by the conservatives at all.
Just remember though that this is a problem across the board.
We have the nanny state left, the law and order right. It was the Liberal party that passed secret laws and presided over the G20 mess.
To be honest, when it comes to matters of freedom and rights, I really wish we had a viable Libertarian party to champion this cause.
Of the three major parties though, the conservatives overall are the best choice. They are making a huge mistake with this bill though. But I am not convinced that other parties wouldnt do similar things. In fact they are already on record as doing so. |
|
|
| hardcore trancer |
| Makes you wonder why Harper is about to spend billions on new prisons in this country.:o |
|
|
| CMR |
| quote: | | Originally posted by Jayx1 It was the Liberal party that passed secret laws and presided over the G20 mess. |
Provincial parties =/= federal parties. All they share is a name.
| quote: | | But I am not convinced that other parties wouldnt do similar things. In fact they are already on record as doing so. |
Considering they voted against these bills in the past, I'd say no. |
|
|
|
|
