Join a San Diego based referral service for you small business

[All Services Finders]

We are an online referral service looking to add more service providers to our 
directory. The directory is based in San Diego County.   If you wish to find 
out more please email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Thanks for your time

Michael Benoit

Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: [IP] OT: Canada: Sweeping new surveillance bill to criminalize investigative journalism]

[R.A. Hettinga]

At 8:46 PM +0200 9/21/05, Eugen Leitl wrote:
>Why Brin is full of it, and reverse panopticon is a fantasy.

Obviously Brin is full of it -- from my own personal experience, even, :-)
-- but one should remember that law, much less legislation, is always a
lagging indicator.

Physics causes finance, which causes philosophy, and all that.

Even Stalin couldn't make Lysenkoism science.

Cheers,
RAH

-- 
-
R. A. Hettinga 
The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation 
44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA
"... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity,
[predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to
experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'

[EMAIL PROTECTED]: [IP] OT: Canada: Sweeping new surveillance bill to criminalize investigative journalism]

[Eugen Leitl]

Why Brin is full of it, and reverse panopticon is a fantasy.

- Forwarded message from David Farber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -

From: David Farber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 13:52:35 -0400
To: Ip Ip 
Subject: [IP] OT: Canada: Sweeping new surveillance bill to criminalize 
investigative journalism
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.734)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Begin forwarded message:

From: Tim Meehan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: September 21, 2005 1:25:07 PM EDT
To: Drugwar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, NDPot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, CCC  
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Declan , [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: OT: Canada: Sweeping new surveillance bill to criminalize  
investigative journalism



http://www.canada.com/ottawa/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=0a3f8b88-8c82-40d9-ad56-917d1af35e76

Pubdate: Wednesday, September 21, 2005
Source: Ottawa Citizen (CN ON)
Contact: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Sweeping new surveillance bill to criminalize investigative journalism,
'nanny cams,' critics say

Bill makes it illegal to monitor children, document corrupt acts

Cristin Schmitz
The Ottawa Citizen

Big Brother wants expanded powers to watch over you and yours, but  
Canadians
who use their video cameras to conduct their own "surveillance" could  
risk
prison under legislative measures the Liberal government is  
considering for
this fall.

As part of a planned bill that will hand sweeping new electronic
surveillance powers to police, the federal government is also  
contemplating
the creation of one or more new offences that would turn into criminals
anyone who wilfully makes surreptitious "visual recordings" of "private
activity."

The government is also looking at criminalizing any such activity  
that is
done "maliciously" or "for gain."

Among those who could find themselves exposed to criminal jeopardy for
currently legal activities are investigative videojournalists,  
parents who
rely on hidden "nanny cams" to monitor their infants, the paparazzi and
private investigators.

The possible measures were unveiled earlier this year by government
officials during closed-door discussions with selected groups and
individuals. But the proposal has caused a stir among civil  
libertarian and
legal groups who say the government has failed to provide evidence  
that such
a broad new offence is needed, particularly in the wake of the new  
"criminal
voyeurism" offence created by Parliament in the summer.

Voyeurs are now liable to up to five years in prison if they  
surreptitiously
visually record a person who is in a state of nudity or engaged in  
sexual
activity in situations where there is a reasonable expectation of  
privacy.

Toronto media lawyer Bert Bruser, a member of the Canadian Media  
Lawyers'
Association, said his group was not consulted on the proposal for an
additional new "visual recording" offence, even though it could have a
dramatic impact on those investigative journalists who, for example,  
stake
out politicians or other public figures to see if they are engaged in
wrongdoing.

"I don't think anybody has thought about this proposal, I think it's
hideous," Mr. Bruser remarked. He rejected the government's argument  
that
because surreptitious wiretapping of private telephone conversations is
illegal without a court order, Canadians should be similarly barred from
surreptitiously capturing electronic images.

"The problem with legislation like that is when it uses terms like  
'private
activity' it creates a meaningless sort of phrase and nobody knows  
what it
means," Mr. Bruser observed. "Everybody wants to protect people's  
privacy
these days, but I think that's far too broad and would very seriously  
hamper
all sorts of journalism that is in the public interest, and that goes  
on all
the time."

Justice Department lawyer Normand Wong emphasized if the government  
moves
ahead with a new visual recording offence, it will endeavour to craft  
"an
offence that isn't overly broad, but protects those principles that
Canadians want to protect, and that's personal privacy, without  
interfering
with legitimate practices like investigative journalism."

But Bill Joynt, president of the Council of Private Investigators of
Ontario, who also chairs a national umbrella group, complained the
government has failed to consult with his membership.

"I haven't even heard of this. We haven't been consulted and we would  
like
to be," he said. "If there is not an exemption for private  
investigators,
this would put us all out of business. Any surveillance we do is  
documented
with video, and that includes insurance claims, Workers Safety and  
Insurance
Board claims, both directly for the WSIB and employers, plus domestic
investigations, and intelligence-gathering for corporate or criminal  
defence
investigations."

Mr. Joynt said private detectives already steer clear of surveillance in
residences and other private places.

"What we would be concerned about is the definition of 'private  
activity,' "
he stressed. "We are

Re: Wired on "Secrecy Power Sinks Patent Case"

[Tyler Durden]

So if the state hasn't classified my data (and I kinda doubt they will), 
then it should be up for grabs by anyone suckin' down the dole?


-TD



From: Justin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Wired on "Secrecy Power Sinks Patent Case"
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 18:54:23 +

On 2005-09-20T12:14:13-0400, Tyler Durden wrote:
> Very interesting CPunks reading, for a variety of reasons.
>
> 
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,68894,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_1


I'm sick of this "mosaic theory" being used to justify preventing access
to unclassified information.

--
"War is the father of all and king of all, and some he shows as gods,
others as men; some he makes slaves, others free."  -Heraclitus DK-53

[EMAIL PROTECTED]: [Politech] In China, U.S. tech companies face free speech choices [fs]]

[Eugen Leitl]

- Forwarded message from Declan McCullagh  -

From: Declan McCullagh 
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 17:01:57 -0700
To: politech@politechbot.com
Subject: [Politech] In China,
U.S. tech companies face free speech choices [fs]
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (Macintosh/20050716)



http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/09/18/MNGDUEPNLA1.DTL

Chinese Internet vs. free speech
Hard choices for U.S. tech giants

Carrie Kirby, Chronicle Staff Writer
Sunday, September 18, 2005

U.S. tech giants are helping the Chinese express themselves online -- as 
long as they don't write about democracy, Tibet, sex, Tiananmen Square, 
Falun Gong, government corruption or any other taboo subject.

Microsoft bans "democracy" and "Dalai Lama" from the Chinese version of 
its blog site. Yahoo recently turned over information that helped the 
Chinese government track down and imprison a journalist for the crime of 
forwarding an e-mail. Google omits banned publications from its Chinese 
news service.

Critics say that cooperating with governments to suppress free speech 
violates human rights, international law and corporate ethics. But what 
the experts can't agree on is what the companies should do about it. The 
Internet -- even with limitations -- is generally considered a powerful 
democratizing force. If international companies withdrew from the 
Chinese Internet market, the result might mean even fewer chances for 
free communications there.

[...remainder snipped...]
___
Politech mailing list
Archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
Moderated by Declan McCullagh (http://www.mccullagh.org/)

- End forwarded message -
-- 
Eugen* Leitl http://leitl.org";>leitl
__
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820http://www.leitl.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Important Notification

[support]

 
 
Dear Minder Member,  
Your e-mail account was used to send a huge amount of unsolicited spam messages during the recent week. If you could please take 5-10 minutes out of your online experience and confirm the attached document so you will not run into any future problems with the online service. 
If you choose to ignore our request, you leave us no choice but to cancel your membership. 
Virtually yours,
The Minder Support Team  
 
+++ Attachment: No Virus found 
+++ Minder Antivirus - www.minder.net