Options

[Canadian Politics]: New Liberal Cabinet Sworn In

134689102

Posts

  • Options
    RichyRichy Registered User regular
    Richy wrote: »
    Psykoma wrote: »
    I'd argue that electronics are both more personal and the privacy of which is more important to who you are as a person than the contents of your luggage though, and I hope that could be enough to keep them private.
    I don't see it as more personal than a suitcase full of family mementos and sexy underwear, or more important than the content of a work briefcase full of confidential contracts and personnel files.
    The other part is that it's basically like forcing you to testify against yourself which they are not allowed to do.
    I've never heard that argument wrt the content of phones before. Is that a legal precedent?

    There currently is not a legal precedent in Canada which is why this case will be particularly interesting. The issue is not so much about what's on the phone but rather the part about being compelled to enter or give your password. If your phone doesn't have a password, then they can probably go through your phone all they want. But on what grounds are they allowed to require you to input the password? Especially without a warrant.

    As I said, I would see it argued on the same grounds that they can require you to unlock a locked suitcase.

    sig.gif
  • Options
    Ed GrubermanEd Gruberman Registered User regular
    Richy wrote: »
    Richy wrote: »
    Psykoma wrote: »
    I'd argue that electronics are both more personal and the privacy of which is more important to who you are as a person than the contents of your luggage though, and I hope that could be enough to keep them private.
    I don't see it as more personal than a suitcase full of family mementos and sexy underwear, or more important than the content of a work briefcase full of confidential contracts and personnel files.
    The other part is that it's basically like forcing you to testify against yourself which they are not allowed to do.
    I've never heard that argument wrt the content of phones before. Is that a legal precedent?

    There currently is not a legal precedent in Canada which is why this case will be particularly interesting. The issue is not so much about what's on the phone but rather the part about being compelled to enter or give your password. If your phone doesn't have a password, then they can probably go through your phone all they want. But on what grounds are they allowed to require you to input the password? Especially without a warrant.

    As I said, I would see it argued on the same grounds that they can require you to unlock a locked suitcase.

    That's usually the other side of the argument. But like @Psykoma said, you might have much more personal/confidential stuff on your phone. And is your phone a computer or a suitcase? Because I don't think they can require you to give the password to your computer. So if your computer HD is encrypted, you are reasonably well protected. Of course I say all this with 0 legal background and I'm not sure how much of my knowledge on this stuff is Canadian or US.

    steam_sig.png

    SteamID: edgruberman GOG Galaxy: EdGruberman
  • Options
    PsykomaPsykoma Registered User regular
    Richy wrote: »
    Psykoma wrote: »
    I'd argue that electronics are both more personal and the privacy of which is more important to who you are as a person than the contents of your luggage though, and I hope that could be enough to keep them private.
    I don't see it as more personal than a suitcase full of family mementos and sexy underwear, or more important than the content of a work briefcase full of confidential contracts and personnel files.

    It's the difference between giving someone access to look at something personal or important (or both), and giving someone access to manipulate such information.

    I view it as a significant difference.

  • Options
    RichyRichy Registered User regular
    Psykoma wrote: »
    Richy wrote: »
    Psykoma wrote: »
    I'd argue that electronics are both more personal and the privacy of which is more important to who you are as a person than the contents of your luggage though, and I hope that could be enough to keep them private.
    I don't see it as more personal than a suitcase full of family mementos and sexy underwear, or more important than the content of a work briefcase full of confidential contracts and personnel files.

    It's the difference between giving someone access to look at something personal or important (or both), and giving someone access to manipulate such information.

    I view it as a significant difference.

    Do you see someone swiping through your phone and someone rummaging through/x-raying into your suitcase as substantially different?

    sig.gif
  • Options
    Disco11Disco11 Registered User regular
    Richy wrote: »
    Psykoma wrote: »
    Richy wrote: »
    Psykoma wrote: »
    I'd argue that electronics are both more personal and the privacy of which is more important to who you are as a person than the contents of your luggage though, and I hope that could be enough to keep them private.
    I don't see it as more personal than a suitcase full of family mementos and sexy underwear, or more important than the content of a work briefcase full of confidential contracts and personnel files.

    It's the difference between giving someone access to look at something personal or important (or both), and giving someone access to manipulate such information.

    I view it as a significant difference.

    Do you see someone swiping through your phone and someone rummaging through/x-raying into your suitcase as substantially different?

    Yes. I don't keep personal correspondence, access to my bank account, all my social media posts and private messages in my suitcase.

    PSN: Canadian_llama
  • Options
    Phoenix-DPhoenix-D Registered User regular
    The phone can potentially access files not physically present (eg your Gmail account isn't stored on the phone) so that's a significant difference

  • Options
    RichyRichy Registered User regular
    Well I would guess they shouldn't have the right to read your personal messages or banking information. Any more than they would be allowed to read paper documents they find in a suitcase. They can look through them for something suspicious, but not actually start reading them. I think.

    sig.gif
  • Options
    hippofanthippofant ティンク Registered User regular
    Pro-tip: work at a hospital, download a lot of confidential patient information onto an encrypted laptop - as you're allowed - and try to cross the border.

    (Or something like that.)

    Wham-bam - privacy laws smack right into border security laws.

  • Options
    MortiousMortious The Nightmare Begins Move to New ZealandRegistered User regular
    Richy wrote: »
    Psykoma wrote: »
    I'd argue that electronics are both more personal and the privacy of which is more important to who you are as a person than the contents of your luggage though, and I hope that could be enough to keep them private.
    I don't see it as more personal than a suitcase full of family mementos and sexy underwear, or more important than the content of a work briefcase full of confidential contracts and personnel files.
    The other part is that it's basically like forcing you to testify against yourself which they are not allowed to do.
    I've never heard that argument wrt the content of phones before. Is that a legal precedent?

    I would think the difference (at least for border security) is that you can smuggle drugs/fruit flies/explosives through with a suitcase.

    Move to New Zealand
    It’s not a very important country most of the time
    http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
  • Options
    FoomyFoomy Registered User regular
    From what i've seen from watching a lot of Border Security on tv, is that they are mostly looking to read emails/texts, just to double check the story you give them.

    I doubt they would open any files at all, it wouldn't be worth the effort.

    Steam Profile: FoomyFooms
  • Options
    El SkidEl Skid The frozen white northRegistered User regular
    edited March 2015
    Foomy wrote: »
    From what i've seen from watching a lot of Border Security on tv, is that they are mostly looking to read emails/texts, just to double check the story you give them.

    I doubt they would open any files at all, it wouldn't be worth the effort.

    Is there something specific about Border Security on tv that makes it especially true to real life re: privacy laws?

    Otherwise, I could open a sentence with "From what I've seen from watching a lot of CSI:Miami on tv, crime labs...." and be equally relevant :P

    (I've never watched the show, so maybe there's some sort of assurance of validity there? It's an honest question)

    El Skid on
  • Options
    DeciusDecius I'm old! I'm fat! I'M BLUE!Registered User regular
    It's a reality TV series about border security agencies around the world.

    camo_sig2.png
    I never finish anyth
  • Options
    FoomyFoomy Registered User regular
    Decius wrote: »
    It's a reality TV series about border security agencies around the world.

    Didn't know there were other country versions, I just watch the one about Canada.

    Just about every episode you get someone trying to enter the country on a tourist visa, they check the phone, texts about when they are going to start some job are found.

    Steam Profile: FoomyFooms
  • Options
    Ed GrubermanEd Gruberman Registered User regular
    I'm likely missing some details for this since I have only read headlines but I also don't understand why he was arrested instead of being denied entry. I guess if he is a Canadian citizen returning to Canada then that is probably the reason.

    steam_sig.png

    SteamID: edgruberman GOG Galaxy: EdGruberman
  • Options
    notdroidnotdroid Registered User regular
    edited March 2015
    Disco11 wrote: »
    Richy wrote: »
    Psykoma wrote: »
    Richy wrote: »
    Psykoma wrote: »
    I'd argue that electronics are both more personal and the privacy of which is more important to who you are as a person than the contents of your luggage though, and I hope that could be enough to keep them private.
    I don't see it as more personal than a suitcase full of family mementos and sexy underwear, or more important than the content of a work briefcase full of confidential contracts and personnel files.

    It's the difference between giving someone access to look at something personal or important (or both), and giving someone access to manipulate such information.

    I view it as a significant difference.

    Do you see someone swiping through your phone and someone rummaging through/x-raying into your suitcase as substantially different?

    Yes. I don't keep personal correspondence, access to my bank account, all my social media posts and private messages in my suitcase.

    Yeah, in mind mind that is the real issue.

    Forcing someone provide to his phone/computer password is closer to asking someone to log you into their e-mail account, bank account, Facebook account, etc., rather than unlocking a suitcase.

    If they asked you to show them something specific on your phone (with you manipulating it at all times), that could be a thing, but "give me your phone and your password and stand there while I look through stuff" is more worrying. È

    Let's face it, no matter how employee selection can be, there's always going to be a moron or two slipping the cracks. The damage that person could do with full access to your cellphone is much greater than by having access to your physical possessions.

    EDIT: Corrected spelling mistakes. Because me Tarzan you Jane grammar bad!

    notdroid on
  • Options
    Gnome-InterruptusGnome-Interruptus Registered User regular
    notdroid wrote: »
    Disco11 wrote: »
    Richy wrote: »
    Psykoma wrote: »
    Richy wrote: »
    Psykoma wrote: »
    I'd argue that electronics are both more personal and the privacy of which is more important to who you are as a person than the contents of your luggage though, and I hope that could be enough to keep them private.
    I don't see it as more personal than a suitcase full of family mementos and sexy underwear, or more important than the content of a work briefcase full of confidential contracts and personnel files.

    It's the difference between giving someone access to look at something personal or important (or both), and giving someone access to manipulate such information.

    I view it as a significant difference.

    Do you see someone swiping through your phone and someone rummaging through/x-raying into your suitcase as substantially different?

    Yes. I don't keep personal correspondence, access to my bank account, all my social media posts and private messages in my suitcase.

    Yeah, in mind mind that is the real issue.

    Forcing someone provide to his phone/computer password is close to asking someone to log you into their e-mail account, bank account, Facebook account, etc., rather than unlocking a suitcase.

    If they asked you to show them something specific on your phone (with you manipulating it at all times), that could be a thing, but "give me your phone and your password and stand there while I look through stuff is more worrying.

    Let's face it, no matter how employee selection can be, there's always going to be a moron or two slipping the cracks. The damage that person could do with full access to your cellphone is much greater than by having access to your physical possessions.

    I mean, there is already an issue with California state troopers collecting and swapping nude photos from confiscated phones. No fucking way I'm giving someone else access to my phone without a warrant.

    steam_sig.png
    MWO: Adamski
  • Options
    BlarghyBlarghy Registered User regular
    Richy wrote: »
    Do you see someone swiping through your phone and someone rummaging through/x-raying into your suitcase as substantially different?

    Yeah, I think it is fundamentally different The Customs Act gives CBSA the right to inspect goods entering the country, and if they want to pry open a phone to look at its innards or otherwise physically pear into it, then fine. If they want to turn it on, to inspect its functionality, then ok. But charging someone when they refuse to give up a password to anything on the phone is going too far, especially when that password could provide access to things not physically present on the goods present. If there is reasonable grounds for suspicion, confiscate the phone, or deny entry, but arresting them for not giving up the password steps over the line. Same thing goes if they rummage through a wallet, find a debit card, and then demand the PIN to "do a proper inspection".

  • Options
    RichyRichy Registered User regular
    Brucex06%20RGB_22.jpg

    sig.gif
  • Options
    DiorinixDiorinix Registered User regular
    El Skid wrote: »
    Did a conservative premier just say "Well, what do you expect to happen when we don't pay enough taxes?" :o

    I'm guessing there is some other meaning or he meant to use other words or something, but I just can't see what else he could possibly have been saying...

    It had less to do with taxes and more to do with spending if i recall the transcript correctly. At the same time, Prentice's comments are aimed directly at civilians and not the corporations reaping the benefits of cheap corporate tax and subsidies because of course not.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    Mmmmm....toasty.
  • Options
    PolaritiePolaritie Sleepy Registered User regular
    hippofant wrote: »
    Pro-tip: work at a hospital, download a lot of confidential patient information onto an encrypted laptop - as you're allowed - and try to cross the border.

    (Or something like that.)

    Wham-bam - privacy laws smack right into border security laws.

    Clever. Don't think thats come up in the similar US cases either.

    Steam: Polaritie
    3DS: 0473-8507-2652
    Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
    PSN: AbEntropy
  • Options
    hippofanthippofant ティンク Registered User regular
    Polaritie wrote: »
    hippofant wrote: »
    Pro-tip: work at a hospital, download a lot of confidential patient information onto an encrypted laptop - as you're allowed - and try to cross the border.

    (Or something like that.)

    Wham-bam - privacy laws smack right into border security laws.

    Clever. Don't think thats come up in the similar US cases either.

    Now that I think about it, my specific example might be illegal, if health information privacy laws state no cross-border movement, but you know. General idea.

  • Options
    Ed GrubermanEd Gruberman Registered User regular
    hippofant wrote: »
    Polaritie wrote: »
    hippofant wrote: »
    Pro-tip: work at a hospital, download a lot of confidential patient information onto an encrypted laptop - as you're allowed - and try to cross the border.

    (Or something like that.)

    Wham-bam - privacy laws smack right into border security laws.

    Clever. Don't think thats come up in the similar US cases either.

    Now that I think about it, my specific example might be illegal, if health information privacy laws state no cross-border movement, but you know. General idea.

    Another case that would happen all the time is confidential corporate files on your laptop. That has been me although they have never asked me to turn on my laptop.

    steam_sig.png

    SteamID: edgruberman GOG Galaxy: EdGruberman
  • Options
    DaimarDaimar A Million Feet Tall of Awesome Registered User regular
    hippofant wrote: »
    Polaritie wrote: »
    hippofant wrote: »
    Pro-tip: work at a hospital, download a lot of confidential patient information onto an encrypted laptop - as you're allowed - and try to cross the border.

    (Or something like that.)

    Wham-bam - privacy laws smack right into border security laws.

    Clever. Don't think thats come up in the similar US cases either.

    Now that I think about it, my specific example might be illegal, if health information privacy laws state no cross-border movement, but you know. General idea.

    Another case that would happen all the time is confidential corporate files on your laptop. That has been me although they have never asked me to turn on my laptop.

    There's no law protecting corporate files though, that's just company policy to not disclose for fear that you'd be giving up competitive advantage or trade secrets, which corporations say pretty much every piece of information falls under.

    steam_sig.png
  • Options
    PolaritiePolaritie Sleepy Registered User regular
    Daimar wrote: »
    hippofant wrote: »
    Polaritie wrote: »
    hippofant wrote: »
    Pro-tip: work at a hospital, download a lot of confidential patient information onto an encrypted laptop - as you're allowed - and try to cross the border.

    (Or something like that.)

    Wham-bam - privacy laws smack right into border security laws.

    Clever. Don't think thats come up in the similar US cases either.

    Now that I think about it, my specific example might be illegal, if health information privacy laws state no cross-border movement, but you know. General idea.

    Another case that would happen all the time is confidential corporate files on your laptop. That has been me although they have never asked me to turn on my laptop.

    There's no law protecting corporate files though, that's just company policy to not disclose for fear that you'd be giving up competitive advantage or trade secrets, which corporations say pretty much every piece of information falls under.

    Yeah. The key thing with patient data is that the law explicit forbids handing it over - in theory this means that they cannot legally compel you to log in to the device, since they cannot compel you to commit a crime. (Since there's no law requiring you to hand it over, the apparent resolution to the conflict is that they're forced to let you go - I don't think they'd be allowed to confiscate it either). If my memory of HIPAA is correct, there's no allowance to demonstrate to a judge either (and besides, that would be ridiculously impractical to require doctors to show up before a judge before crossing the border). There are of course other categories of information with similar legal protections.

    I don't know if your own copies of your own medical records would be protected under the law this way. They might be, but it's probably a weaker case (I think the expectation of privacy of ones own medical records should win on its own, but... IANAL. There are definitely things that nobody has any business knowing without your explicit consent.)

    I'm mainly talking from the perspective of US law here (If mentioning HIPAA didn't give it away), so this may not be entirely applicable (and besides, I'm not a lawyer in either jurisdiction).

    Steam: Polaritie
    3DS: 0473-8507-2652
    Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
    PSN: AbEntropy
  • Options
    WiseManTobesWiseManTobes Registered User regular
    Wonder how many brains would just explode if you downloaded those files via Cloud and used a VPN to do it. Then the files have already crossed that border once unchecked.

    Steam! Battlenet:Wisemantobes#1508
  • Options
    RichyRichy Registered User regular
    Major CRTC overhaul of quota rules

    At first glance it seems good. Current quotas force broadcasters to air unwatched content to fill numbers, and in an era where getting foreign networks and online broadcasts is trivially easy this constraint was hurtemore than it was helping.

    sig.gif
  • Options
    KhavallKhavall British ColumbiaRegistered User regular
    So...

    There's a Plebiscite in Vancouver currently going on. It's about expanding Transit services, building a new bridge to replace a really old and busted one, expanding the skytrain, adding more bike lanes, adding some b-line bus routes, increasing cars and adding a train on the commuter train, and some other general improvements. The improvements would be payed for with a 0.5% sales tax.

    While a sales tax is crappy and regressive, the bill is still pretty fantastic, and much needed. The commuter train is super busy, the skytrain is super busy, the busses have some wonky routes and timings. People have reasonable complaints about TransLink, and a lot of it is a lack of enough services for the population and sprawl.

    The "no" side is expected to win massively.

    As far as I can tell, it's going to be voted no because people are unhappy with Translink and so are against giving them money to fix the issues.

    Also something about TransLink's CEO being overpaid. Apparently they're supposed to attract good managerial talent that can summon busses from nothing, and then not pay them anything to keep them around. Or something. It's confusing and depressing reading the no-side reasons.

  • Options
    JeanJean Heartbroken papa bear Gatineau, QuébecRegistered User regular
    I just did the most canadian thing I ever done in my entire life.

    I wrote an email to my local NDP MP (Françoise Boivin) to urge her to vote against C-51

    I warned her I would not vote for the NPD if they vote for that bill! That will show 'em!

    "You won't destroy us, You won't destroy our democracy. We are a small but proud nation. No one can bomb us to silence. No one can scare us from being Norway. This evening and tonight, we'll take care of each other. That's what we do best when attacked'' - Jens Stoltenberg
  • Options
    EtiowsaEtiowsa Registered User regular
    Are there even any NDP MPs who've said they were voting for it? I'm pretty sure they've taken a strong 'no, this is stupid' stance on that bill.

  • Options
    hippofanthippofant ティンク Registered User regular
    Etiowsa wrote: »
    Are there even any NDP MPs who've said they were voting for it? I'm pretty sure they've taken a strong 'no, this is stupid' stance on that bill.

    NDP MPs are generally so good. I don't even understand it.

  • Options
    CorehealerCorehealer The Apothecary The softer edge of the universe.Registered User regular
    I suppose it's still good to engage with your representative in government, even though the likelihood in this case of them voting for something you don't like is basically zero given the NDP stance on C-51's stupidity.

    488W936.png
  • Options
    RichyRichy Registered User regular
    Jean wrote: »
    I just did the most canadian thing I ever done in my entire life.

    I wrote an email to my local NDP MP (Françoise Boivin) to urge her to vote against C-51

    I warned her I would not vote for the NPD if they vote for that bill! That will show 'em!

    And what's the point? Save for the rare free vote, they all vote the party line, which is whatever Mulclair tells them to vote. And the vote makes no difference since Harper has a majority and can pass whatever he wants. 308 MPs, and exactly one has all the power, and he's not listening to anyone except the voices in his head.

    sig.gif
  • Options
    SwashbucklerXXSwashbucklerXX Swashbucklin' Canuck Registered User regular
    edited March 2015
    Yeah, the parliamentary system is cool and all, but that's a big issue. I feel like Canadians would really take to US-style checks 'n' balances. We already kind of do that like how Ontario tends to vote for Liberal provincial governments when the Conservatives are in power federally and vice versa.

    SwashbucklerXX on
    Want to find me on a gaming service? I'm SwashbucklerXX everywhere.
  • Options
    mrondeaumrondeau Montréal, CanadaRegistered User regular
    No.
    Seriously, if you don't want the New Harper Government of Canada's policies and laws, don't replace current system by the dysfunctional US system, vote for another party.
    We are getting what Ontario voted for.

    Not to mention that there's a check and balance system in Canada. It's called the "Supreme Court".

  • Options
    RichyRichy Registered User regular
    Yeah, the parliamentary system is cool and all, but that's a big issue. I feel like Canadians would really take to US-style checks 'n' balances. We already kind of do that like how Ontario tends to vote for Liberal provincial governments when the Conservatives are in power federally and vice versa.

    Except the US system is fucked ten times over. They have endless gridlock and extreme partisanship. That is not the kind of checks and balances we need here.

    I believe the best reform would be to make the Senate a Chamber of experts (economic, social, scientific, medical, international, etc.) instead of political-reward appointments for strip-club bouncers and tv-show hosts (or worse, an elected senate). Then, give those experts the power to review and veto bills from the Commons. This way even a majority won't become an automatic "do whatever you want" mandate, the sober second thought will be back. Then, to prevent deadlocks, give the Commons the power to overrule a Senate veto with, for example, both a majority of MPs and a majority of Parties in the Commons. This way overruling the Senate is possible but requires an overwhelming majority to be on board.

    sig.gif
  • Options
    PolaritiePolaritie Sleepy Registered User regular
    By "expert" you mean someone who parrots the party line? Because I doubt you'll get anything else. Look at all the "experts" trotted out by the GOP.

    Steam: Polaritie
    3DS: 0473-8507-2652
    Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
    PSN: AbEntropy
  • Options
    RichyRichy Registered User regular
    edited March 2015
    Polaritie wrote: »
    By "expert" you mean someone who parrots the party line? Because I doubt you'll get anything else. Look at all the "experts" trotted out by the GOP.

    No, I mean people actually qualified and recognized in their fields. The way to get that type of senate is to take the nomination process out of the hands of one man and make it a more distributed system. For instance, say a Senate applicant could be required to hold the terminal degree in his field (that's the standard requirement to be a university prof, and would guarantee competence) and be approved by both the PM and the Premier of the province he is to represent (guaranteeing at least some degree of non-partisanship). If you want even more non-partisanship, get them required to be approved by the PM and Premier and the leaders of the Federal and Provincial opposition parties.

    Richy on
    sig.gif
  • Options
    Disco11Disco11 Registered User regular
    Richy wrote: »
    Polaritie wrote: »
    By "expert" you mean someone who parrots the party line? Because I doubt you'll get anything else. Look at all the "experts" trotted out by the GOP.

    No, I mean people actually qualified and recognized in their fields. The way to get that type of senate is to take the nomination process out of the hands of one man and make it a more distributed system. For instance, say a Senate applicant could be required to hold the terminal degree in his field (that's the standard requirement to be a university prof, and would guarantee competence) and be approved by both the PM and the Premier of the province he is to represent (guaranteeing at least some degree of non-partisanship). If you want even more non-partisanship, get them required to be approved by the PM and Premier and the leaders of the Federal and Provincial opposition parties.

    so kind of like how they approve higher court judges?

    PSN: Canadian_llama
  • Options
    CanadianWolverineCanadianWolverine Registered User regular
    As long as we are bringing up ideals, is it alright if I mention my interest in our MLAs and MPs being elected by a STV for proportional representation ridings? I think more than a few problems would be solved with our MLAs and MPs better representing us than FPTP bullshit that currently saddled us with the Con majority of seats in parliament.

    steam_sig.png
  • Options
    CaedwyrCaedwyr Registered User regular
    I'd prefer Instant Runoff Voting over STV, which entrenches the party system even further if it is similar to the system proposed in BC a number of years ago.

Sign In or Register to comment.