Auf YouTube findest du die angesagtesten Videos und Tracks. Außerdem kannst du eigene Inhalte hochladen und mit Freunden oder gleich der ganzen Welt teilen.
Write your MP ASAP. This bill is unacceptable, unconstitutional, and unCanadian.
So you started with “there’s no reason to appease the US,” and have now landed on, “they say they’re trying to appease the US by giving them things they want, but they don’t really mean it”?
And that ignores all of the other things in this bill that are about immigration, and asylum seekers, and being able to sieze peoples’ mail, and forcing online providers to give up user data, all of which reach way beyond organized crime.
And that ignores all of the other things in this bill that are about immigration, and asylum seekers, and being able to sieze peoples’ mail, and forcing online providers to give up user data, all of which reach way beyond organized crime.
You’d need to point out specifics in the bill that you have concerns about, because combing through it, I didn’t see anything that would make me think that regular folks would be mass deported out of the country.
Regarding mail… border authorities had the power to open any and all mail weighing over 30 grams, for at least the last 30+ years.
But there was a loophole for mail under 30g, which was closed in 2017 through Bill C-37:
If they suspected drugs were being sent, authorities needed permission from either the sender or receiver in order to open it. This created a massive loophole for drug trafficking, because fentanyl was often sent in small baggies weighing under 30 g.
What was happening is that if permission was not given, then the mail was sent back to the sender. No drugs are seized, and they would do it again.
But criminals banked on the fact that some drug containing envelops would slip through, and they were right.
Bill C37 (again, from 2017) simply closed that loophole.
Bill C2 gives police the ability to search mail when authorized in order to carry out a criminal investigation.
What new concerns come up that have you worried about mail?
forcing online providers to give up user data
This one is funny. Online providers are already willingly selling our data, and they were always obligated to share our private data to law enforcement.
This is why everyone in the privacy space tells you to change your DNS, use a VPN/TOR, etc.
The new bill gives more powers for police investigating digital crime involving children, and it’s already been given full public support by the Canadian Centre for Child Protection.
But let’s not sweat things right now. This was the first reading, and all points of the bill can (and will) be debated. Expect tweaks, repeals, and amendments.
I’m not even going to ask what your definition of that is.
border authorities had the power to open any and all mail weighing over 30 grams, for at least the last 30+ years.
And now that weight limit has been removed. It used to say, the Corporation may open any mail, other than a letter." Now it says, “the Corporation may open any mail.”
It repeals the portion of the Canada Post Corporation Act that says, “Notwithstanding any other Act or law, but subject to this Act and the regulations and to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act, the Customs Act and the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act, nothing in the course of post is liable to demand, seizure, detention or retention,” and replaces it with, “Nothing in the course of post is subject to demand, seizure, detention or retention, except in accordance with an Act of Parliament,” which is a massive expansion of the circumstances in which it can be done.
It also rewords the section on liability to ensure that there’s…no liability, for anyone, in cases where mail is seized.
Bill C2 gives police the ability to search mail when authorized in order to carry out a criminal investigation.
The bottom line is that these should be considered law enforcement activities, but there’s no warrant required. Just an “Act of Parliament.” There’s no probable cause defined here. Maybe you’re fine with that. I’m not.
But let’s not sweat things right now. This was the first reading, and all points of the bill can (and will) be debated. Expect tweaks, repeals, and amendments.
I agree with you to an extent on this one. But things are more likely to be tweaked if people make some noise.
Even the original YT video under discussion here said that this bill contains some entirely unobjectionable things. But it also contains things that I agree need another look, and in fact are downright Trumpian in some respects.
That is not an answer to my question. If you want to have a conversation about something learn not to be so combative and try communicating your thoughts when asked about them.
Okay, if you need it spelled out for you, I didn’t say organized crime never involves abuse of the immigration system, postal service, or online service providers. I said the bill reaches well beyond that goal (if indeed that is the goal, which is questionable to say the least).
From what I read yesterday, it gives law enforcement more options when dealing with organized crime at borders.
So you started with “there’s no reason to appease the US,” and have now landed on, “they say they’re trying to appease the US by giving them things they want, but they don’t really mean it”?
And that ignores all of the other things in this bill that are about immigration, and asylum seekers, and being able to sieze peoples’ mail, and forcing online providers to give up user data, all of which reach way beyond organized crime.
You’d need to point out specifics in the bill that you have concerns about, because combing through it, I didn’t see anything that would make me think that regular folks would be mass deported out of the country.
Regarding mail… border authorities had the power to open any and all mail weighing over 30 grams, for at least the last 30+ years.
But there was a loophole for mail under 30g, which was closed in 2017 through Bill C-37:
If they suspected drugs were being sent, authorities needed permission from either the sender or receiver in order to open it. This created a massive loophole for drug trafficking, because fentanyl was often sent in small baggies weighing under 30 g.
What was happening is that if permission was not given, then the mail was sent back to the sender. No drugs are seized, and they would do it again.
But criminals banked on the fact that some drug containing envelops would slip through, and they were right.
Bill C37 (again, from 2017) simply closed that loophole.
Bill C2 gives police the ability to search mail when authorized in order to carry out a criminal investigation.
What new concerns come up that have you worried about mail?
This one is funny. Online providers are already willingly selling our data, and they were always obligated to share our private data to law enforcement.
This is why everyone in the privacy space tells you to change your DNS, use a VPN/TOR, etc.
The new bill gives more powers for police investigating digital crime involving children, and it’s already been given full public support by the Canadian Centre for Child Protection.
But let’s not sweat things right now. This was the first reading, and all points of the bill can (and will) be debated. Expect tweaks, repeals, and amendments.
I’m not even going to ask what your definition of that is.
And now that weight limit has been removed. It used to say, the Corporation may open any mail, other than a letter." Now it says, “the Corporation may open any mail.”
It repeals the portion of the Canada Post Corporation Act that says, “Notwithstanding any other Act or law, but subject to this Act and the regulations and to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act, the Customs Act and the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act, nothing in the course of post is liable to demand, seizure, detention or retention,” and replaces it with, “Nothing in the course of post is subject to demand, seizure, detention or retention, except in accordance with an Act of Parliament,” which is a massive expansion of the circumstances in which it can be done.
It also rewords the section on liability to ensure that there’s…no liability, for anyone, in cases where mail is seized.
The bottom line is that these should be considered law enforcement activities, but there’s no warrant required. Just an “Act of Parliament.” There’s no probable cause defined here. Maybe you’re fine with that. I’m not.
I agree with you to an extent on this one. But things are more likely to be tweaked if people make some noise.
Even the original YT video under discussion here said that this bill contains some entirely unobjectionable things. But it also contains things that I agree need another look, and in fact are downright Trumpian in some respects.
Is your assertion that organized crime does not involve abuse of the Immigration system, Postal service, or online service providers?
C’mon, don’t insult us both by pretending you can’t read.
That is not an answer to my question. If you want to have a conversation about something learn not to be so combative and try communicating your thoughts when asked about them.
Okay, if you need it spelled out for you, I didn’t say organized crime never involves abuse of the immigration system, postal service, or online service providers. I said the bill reaches well beyond that goal (if indeed that is the goal, which is questionable to say the least).
Go construct your straw men some place else.
How does it reach “well beyond that goal”?
Do you believe current legislation is good enough in regards to combating abuse of our systems?
What would you amend in the bill to deal with what you perceive as a problematic?