maXbimmer Forums

maXbimmer Forums (http://www.maxbimmer.com/forums/index.php)
-   Off-topic (http://www.maxbimmer.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=4)
-   -   Warrantless eavesdropping (done by all local forces) prompts q's over privacy (http://www.maxbimmer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=122198)

bmdbley'sBro 07-02-2009 07:26 PM

Warrantless eavesdropping (done by all local forces) prompts q's over privacy
 
god damned fkn right it does...

p.s Happy Canada Day *sad*

Quote:

Secret police wiretaps fly under the radar

Warrantless eavesdropping prompts questions over privacy



Bob McMynn knows first-hand how Canada's laws allow police to eavesdrop and use emergency wiretaps without a judge's approval.

He says Section 184.4 of the Criminal Code helped to save his son Graham's life after a group of young men abducted the then 23-year-old university student at gunpoint in April 2006, in what turned out to be a kidnapping for ransom.

"[The emergency wiretap] was paramount in solving where my son was," McMynn told CBC News. "Without that and other fantastic police work, we may never have got him back."

Vancouver police had little time to ask a judge for permission, so they used the Criminal Code provisions to eavesdrop on a group of key suspects without court approval. Eight days later, police moved in to arrest the gang and free the younger McMynn


CBC News has learned that McMynn's case is just one of at least 267 cases between 2000 and 2008 where major police forces across the country used warrantless wiretaps.

The information was obtained through freedom of information and access to information requests. Some forces — including Toronto, London and Winnipeg — released only partial information, citing secrecy provisions in the Criminal Code, and the Quebec provincial police never responded.

"There might be a lot more instances in which it is being used and that's what's troubling," says James Stribopoulos, a professor at Osgoode Hall Law School in Toronto.

"I think people would be alarmed to know, there are no checks on the exercise of that power."

'No accountability'
Typically, police apply to a judge for permission to conduct a wiretap and must notify the target once the investigation is complete. Reports are also submitted each year to Parliament on the number of judge-granted wiretaps used.

The restrictions are aimed at protecting a person's right to privacy and ensuring some oversight of police activities.

But emergency wiretaps remain highly secretive, with no requirements for police to keep records or report on their use.

Karen Bastow, a Vancouver lawyer who represented one of the accused in the 2006 McMynn abduction, says warrantless wiretaps were used appropriately in the kidnapping case, but questions other uses.

"The peril is the case where one doesn't ever know that one's been intercepted. A member of the public could have their phones intercepted and never know about it … unless it went to trial. There's no accountability," says Bastow.

Proper use of emergency wiretaps came into question when Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) eavesdropped on Mohawk protesters from the Tyendinaga First Nation in June of 2007 ahead of a planned highway blockade.

OPP knew about the protest for months in advance.

In the days leading up to the blockade of Highway 401 and CN Rail tracks through Eastern Ontario, OPP officers prepared paperwork to go before a judge. But on the last day, they opted for emergency wiretaps.

The OPP listened in on the phone conversations of Shawn Brant, his friends Mario Baptiste and Mario Baptiste Jr., as well as Brant's brother, who is a lawyer.

OPP Det.-Insp. Ian Grant wrote in his notes that he requested the emergency wiretap on the basis of Brant's "history of promoting violence, public statements of weapons confrontation and threats to police safety."

Brant denies any intention to harm anyone, adding that "[The wiretap] was flat out illegal. The OPP knew about this protest for weeks."

Stribopoulos says the use of wiretaps in the Brant case appears to go beyond the intended use of the emergency provision, since there was no evidence that anyone was threatened with physical harm.

"It has to be an urgent situation, so urgent that they don't have a few hours to go before a judge … someone's going to die … someone's going to be seriously injured."

Emergency wiretaps cut in B.C.
In B.C., where police are confronting a rise in drug and gang-related kidnappings, the provincial Supreme Court struck down the law as unconstitutional, forcing police to notify people who are targets of warrantless wiretaps.

The 2008 ruling found that secrecy and lack of oversight surrounding warrantless wiretaps violated Charter of Rights and Freedoms protections against unreasonable search and seizure.

RCMP Staff Sgt. Tom Caverly says his officers have been forced to adjust to the new rules, but finds the notification requirement just "makes sense."

"I mean all we're really doing is being accountable for our actions, and letting that individual know … 'Hey … by the way, we were intercepting your private communication.'"


Meanwhile, the federal justice department has proposed amending the Criminal Code to require annual reports to Parliament on how many times police use emergency wiretaps, but only when cases result in charges. Those targeted wouldn't be notified, nor would a judge be able to review the use of secret wiretaps even once an emergency is over.

Caverly defends the basic idea behind emergency wiretaps, saying they are useful when responding to crises like attempted murders and kidnappings.

"If you can listen to what's going on it becomes a lot easier to deal with a situation in a timely fashion and get the result you want … which is really to save someone's life."

Bob McMynn says that was true in his son's case.

"Be damned with the rules … the saving of a life is far more important," says McMynn. "If I live my life according to the laws, who cares if somebody listens in on my conversations?"


full article (graphs, charts & stats)
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/...-wiretaps.html
so 1st instance ( kidnapping) ok makes sense, but everything after *no-no*

but this isn't just rcmp or csis on terror suspects (read it) its Local City cops that have this power!!
you know who else had Secret police?

bmdbley'sBro 07-09-2009 05:19 PM

...no1....

every1's a ok with warrentless phone taping on the local (city town cop) level..

chromius 07-10-2009 09:50 AM

Just a couple of points...
-To put things in perspective, 267 people in 8 years is hardly a big deal. and is obviously not common practice.
-that's 0.00089% of the population, there's no conspiracy here.
-If you're not breaking the law, your phone isn't tapped. period.
-if you're worried about it, chances are, your doing something you shouldn't be
-If the cops want to put someone in jail and build a case against someone, they won't use these powers, simply because if they need to use the evidence in court, using these emergency powers without cause will mean the case would get thrown out.
-These things are required for situations like hostage takings, kidnapings, standoffs etc.
-Google is doing more information gathering than these guys.

I don't understand what you're worried about, or envisioning? Do you think the cops are sitting in their offices and thinking to themselves, hey lets listen in to Ms Jones talk to her friend down the street. They might be talking about the movie they just saw.:rolleyes:

I assure you, the cops will only go through the trouble to set this stuff up if it's absolutely necessary. It's a lot of trouble, and it's expensive.

TNation 07-10-2009 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chromius (Post 1323379)
Just a couple of points...
-To put things in perspective, 267 people in 8 years is hardly a big deal. and is obviously not common practice.
-that's 0.00089% of the population, there's no conspiracy here.
-If you're not breaking the law, your phone isn't tapped. period.
-if you're worried about it, chances are, your doing something you shouldn't be
-If the cops want to put someone in jail and build a case against someone, they won't use these powers, simply because if they need to use the evidence in court, using these emergency powers without cause will mean the case would get thrown out.
-These things are required for situations like hostage takings, kidnapings, standoffs etc.
-Google is doing more information gathering than these guys.

I don't understand what you're worried about, or envisioning? Do you think the cops are sitting in their offices and thinking to themselves, hey lets listen in to Ms Jones talk to her friend down the street. They might be talking about the movie they just saw.:rolleyes:

I assure you, the cops will only go through the trouble to set this stuff up if it's absolutely necessary. It's a lot of trouble, and it's expensive.

qft. amen.

Fel 07-10-2009 12:15 PM

The only people who should be worried are the people that have something to worry about. I could care less what the police are up to, I don't have anything to fear from them.

dannyb 07-10-2009 01:11 PM

dont see why you would talk about your illegal activities on the phone, and doubt they will tap your phone if you didnt do anything

Arash 07-10-2009 04:39 PM

wow I can't believe none of the replies here even objects to this.. I love it when I see ppl bend over & take it up the ass!

AMG_POWER 07-10-2009 05:05 PM

big deal.

Fel 07-10-2009 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arash (Post 1323529)
wow I can't believe none of the replies here even objects to this.. I love it when I see ppl bend over & take it up the ass!

But that's just it... I'm not bending over or taking anything up the ass. I'm going on living life the way I always have been, and nothing is any different to me since I don't have anyone eavesdropping on my non-existent criminal activities.

chromius 07-10-2009 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fel (Post 1323557)
but that's just it... I'm not bending over or taking anything up the ass. I'm going on living life the way i always have been, and nothing is any different to me since i don't have anyone eavesdropping on my non-existent criminal activities.

+1.

niko_gt 07-11-2009 10:09 AM

im sure all phone calls are logged and kept on file anyways for a certain period of time... i hate technology

bmdbley'sBro 07-11-2009 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chromius (Post 1323379)
Just a couple of points...
-To put things in perspective, 267 people in 8 years is hardly a big deal. and is obviously not common practice.

267 people is all they have informed us of (qc didn't even reply)! and this all started Before sept 11th,
so they can't even use the 'this post 9-11 world we now live in' catch line
that seems to absolve anyone of much responsibility when it come to rights.

from article:
Quote:

"There might be a lot more instances in which it is being used and that's what's troubling," says James Stribopoulos, a professor at Osgoode Hall Law School in Toronto.

"I think people would be alarmed to know, there are no checks on the exercise of that power."

'No accountability'




Quote:

Originally Posted by chromius (Post 1323379)
-that's 0.00089% of the population, there's no conspiracy here.

nowhere did i ever type the words Conspiracy...
yet somehow from ur position reading my thread you arrived at 'conspiracy theory'..

perhaps u should fire off a letter to the Reporter that broke this story & their editors stating ur points on
how idiotic they are for writting this story.








Quote:

Originally Posted by chromius (Post 1323379)

-If you're not breaking the law, your phone isn't tapped. period.

-if you're worried about it, chances are, your doing something you shouldn't be

well thank you again for your 'matter of fact' 'assurances' and then implying that any1 that advocates Open practices of gov & respects privacy for the individual and their rights MUST be upto something Illegal.

Thats just awesome! Is their an Ignore option on here? :D












Quote:

Originally Posted by chromius (Post 1323379)
-These things are required for situations like hostage takings, kidnapings, standoffs etc.

also don't forget for police actions against Political activists they weren't ever recording
and the conversations they were having with their lawyers :rolleyes:

That 1's really bad (for a democracy) but been done to death 'fbi 60's anti vietnam protesters' to current.
spawned things like Echolon in the 70's (u.s gloabal survailance of all cell)
really don't want to have to dump history (on the matter) here, but done to death.

And they really love to put a few Undercover cops in the protests these days Soley to throw rocks & START Violence against fellow cops..

This of course ends any political protest Quickly as the police can now tear gas & Arrest any1 they want!







Quote:

Originally Posted by chromius (Post 1323379)
I don't understand what you're worried about, or envisioning? Do you think the cops are sitting in their offices and thinking to themselves, hey lets listen in to Ms Jones talk to her friend down the street. They might be talking about the movie they just saw.:rolleyes:

I assure you, the cops will only go through the trouble to set this stuff up if it's absolutely necessary. It's a lot of trouble, and it's expensive.

well theres the above with 'interception of lawyer client comunications'
also the fact that theres No over sight or Accountability too

at least one federal cop agrees with me
Quote:

RCMP Staff Sgt. Tom Caverly says his officers have been forced to adjust to the new rules, but finds the notification requirement just "makes sense."

"I mean all we're really doing is being accountable for our actions, and letting that individual know … 'Hey … by the way
, we were intercepting your private communication.'"






p.s you from another thread on 'Privacy & rights'
Quote:

Originally Posted by chromius (Post 1296609)

I am the first one to defend peoples rights and freedoms, and for legitimate erosions of our freedom, I will be the first to stand up to try and 'right' the wrongs. Hell I've had meetings with my MP and MPP over issues that I felt strongly about.

what you conveyed in this thread (imo) is that: i luv tinfoil. cops are never ever wrong.
they're super human god like creatures that never error or feel human emotions.
humans obey all rules (like speed limits) religously and never bend or violate them.
even though theres 0 accountability its ok, read above & stfu.
if your arrested u must be guilty. if u question u must be upto something.

:D no i know, this just isn't an 'illlegitimate erosion' to you.

chromius 07-11-2009 10:41 PM

LOL, dude, you're right, my life is forever scarred and freedoms are completely gone because some criminals had their phones tapped. how ever will democracy recover from this travesty.

With all these cops that are out to get normal law abiding citizens, it's amazing any actual criminals go to jail.

Seriously man, use your head. Cops need tools to fight crime. If you seriously think this is taking away your freedom, then you need to give your head a shake. How many people were convicted of a crime based solely on the evidence from a warrantless wiretap?

The warrentless wiretaps are there for a reason, and they're not there to build a case against someone, they're there in extreme circumstances that require immediate action to get up to the minute information on an escalating situation. They still have to follow rule of law while doing all this, and that even includes not recording lawyer/client converstations. Even though you like to try and twist the truth, the story stated that he was talking to his brother who happened to be a lawyer, but it wasn't HIS lawyer.

It's back to the simple fact, if you're not doing anything wrong, then you've got nothing to worry about. I've got a clear conscience, so I'm not worried. If the cops want to go through the trouble and expense to listen to me making plans with my GF, then they can go right ahead. Luckily I can rest easy at night knowing they won't.

bmdbley'sBro 07-12-2009 04:39 PM

yeah so once again we have totally opposite opinions (imagine that).

if you re-read my very 1st post, starting of thread, I wasn't against its emergecy use for the kidanpping.
but against protesters for months or general crime 'suspects' possibly their friends, famillies,
(who knows? its all secret with no oversight) no.

to me this goes against the 'no guilt by association' & 'protection against unreasonable search and seizure' parts of the charter. I know u r for it, having the opinion that 'if you've got nothing to hide who cares'

but could you at least perhaps concede one molecule that..
it needs to at least have some accountability & judicial oversight
I can't think of any reason why they can't keep records & submit them (province by province)
to some auditor or reviewer or record keeper even. saying who, why & for how long.
shouldn't be to hard right? considering its oh so expensive & done oh so rarely
why so secretive with the no record keeping and what not - any1?

chromius 07-12-2009 05:52 PM

There would be no interception of friends or family or general crime suspects. The section of the law in question has provisions that state only the person that would be doing the illegal act (that would cause bodily harm to another), or the victim, can be intercepted using the emergency provision. Everyone else has to be either informed, or would require a warrant.

The use for the mohawk protesters I believe was a perfect use of this provision, considering they have a history of violence when they blockade roads etc. If the judge wasn't coming through with the warrant quickly enough, and they had good intel that there could be violence, I think it was used appropriately.

Also, there are records kept on all the intereceptions. Just because the CBC doesn't think there is, I guarantee you there is.

I agree Judicial oversight is always a good thing, and if it's possible, then of course I'm all for it. That's something to write to the attorney general about. If he asked for reports on these taps, then he'd get them.

Out of the ten's of thousands of wiretaps done a year in Canada, the 33 or so done under this provision really don't say to me it's being abused though. And I would be willing to bet there were no convictions based on these warrantless wiretaps.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:16 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.10
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Maxbimmer Copyright 2001 - 2018