This bill is about expanding those powers in a somewhat limited format (comparably) to any crime at all. So that ISP’s will provide information carte blanche without raising flags (Why are all our political bloggers involved in Child Porn?)

What irritated me quite a bit is that the proposed bill, although wide ranging, is being sold almost exclusively by the Conservatives as being necessary to “bring into line with 
the 21st century” the manner in which ISP’s must comply with police investigation into that most heinous crime, specifically. 

What irritates me the most is that no one rebutting said argument on the CBC or from what I see on major media websites has mentioned that there is a recent federal law on 
the books & in force that can and I believe was intended to be interpreted to compel complete ISP cooperation, even without judiciary instruction or active police 
investigation, any incident that can prospectively be said to indicate the use of the ISP service to communicate or commit said crime in any format on that system. 

Presumably if it is police that provide such indication to an ISP then an investigation is underway, but the law seems to me clearly muddied to allow broad interpretation. It 
requires all of those things the Conservatives claim the bill tabled is for (retention of evidence at ISP level etc), but the law is limited to that type of offense.

Only thing I can guess at is that being so specific, it curtails abuse due to the risk involved and is of limited use (as it should be). Although there is no requirement to alert the 
target subject after an investigation or any notification to target subject disclosing the release of information to police/govt. at any time, if it were ever shown to be used to 
acquire info illegally or inappropriately it would be tantamount to accusing the target subject of the worst possible crime, and with a record of having done so in the hands of 
a private entity (the ISP). Result, worst possible optics, the kind that bring down govs and lose majorities. Thus the need to expand the power to any crime, specifically, 
mundane crimes that public figures are frequently investigated for/about.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/PDF/I-20.7.pdf
End Excerpt–

According to this law, Minister Toew’s and police already have the power to compel anything at all of an ISP in relation to an investigation, even before an investigation is opened, and without any warrant at any time unless charges are laid, then all information collected prior to or during an investigation is under warrant retroactively.

The public declarations of the rationale behind the current bill are completely and utterly false and it can be demonstrated. Anything can trigger this law and an ISP must comply.

An ISP that fought to protect privacy would be publicly labelled as complicit with child porn activity and probably lose every customer they ever had. Add to that the steep financial incentives (fines) to cooperate and none could resist, to top it off individuals that can be determined to have failed to comply can see jail time.

Why does no one care about this obvious contradiction, I see it nowhere, that email was to an opposition MP who I hope responds.

Wrong but easy is one way of looking at it, but one could look at it from another angle and say it’s taking a mediocre politician’s inflated words, and sticking them up his ass with his own ‘hot button’ buzzwords.

But yeah, I had the same thought as you did while reading the synopsis and scrolled down, bumped into your comment.

All Toews had to do was keep his mouth closed, but he couldn’t help calling every freedom-loving Canadian supporters of child pornography along the way. He probably wishes everyone would just shut up and get into his newly constructed jails, already.

It really should be a law that the law goes into effect for a year, but only on politicians.  That way they can see first hand issues resulting from their stupidity, and experience the joy of having to sleep in the bed they made.  I think the browsing history of this gentleman will shed amazing light onto what makes him tick, and hopefully embarrass him right out of office.

The ones screaming the loudest, are often the ones trying to keep anyone from looking at them.

http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6322/125/

Keep the gun registry, you are either with us or with the Muderers. (for those not following Canadian politics there is a gun registry they are currently attempting to dismantle.)

Hey this is fun – also wrong. Is it possible that issues are more complicated that you are with us or against us. Someone should tell the Conservatives (current party in power).

(see three posts up, or this sounds silly. Off to learn how to reply)

See, that was easy. Wrong, but easy.

Could somebody please put me in touch with Ramsey Clark? For I have the feeling I’ll be in need of his services soon enough…

http://www.victoews.com/default.asp?ID=8 

Tell him what you think.  

I would never have known I was a terrorist child pron supporter if  these officials had not told me.

From:
http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2508#comic

It’s interesting. The backlash from that statement seems to be strong enough that not only would I not be surprised that Toews has to formally retract it, but it could conceivably derail the whole bill.Then again, that could be a combination of my own viewpoint’s echo chamber and wishful thinking on my part.But the condemnation has come fast and fierce and from all political stripes, and has definitely galvanized the opposition. Very bad move on Vic’s part whatever the outcome.