🚀 go-pugleaf

Yes! it explicitly states "The new bill, introduced Thursday by Public 
Safety Minister Peter Van Loan, would require communications on electronic 
devices and networks to be intercept able by police and would allow police 
to obtain personal information about internet users without a warrant". So 
what part of the proposed bill do YOU NOT UNDERSTAND.
"Nobody" <not@home.anymore> wrote in message 
news:Xns9C32B30B1AEF1204153245131@209.197.15.171...
> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 16:07:53 -0500, some guy <1@2.3> wrote:
>>
>>>Nobody wrote:
>>>> Troy wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> this is pretty crazy
>>
>> http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2009/06/18/tech-internet-police-
>> bill-intercept-electronic-communications.html
>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Not really unless you are doing something you shouldn't.
>>>>
>>>
>>>So you are in favor of the police going on fishing expeditions?
>>>Never done anything legal, but un-popular? Or anything
>>>embarrassing?
>>>
>>>
>>>E-mail and other methods of communication should be handled the
>>>same as the rules for a phone tap... prove to a judge that you
>>>have "reasonable grounds" for a search warrant.
>>
>>
>> Heaven forbid, can't do that think of the children. So basically,
>> according to the new law we're all guilty until proven innocent,
>> and we can all thank Harper and his party for the new
>> infringement.
>>
>
> Do you actually understand what this legislation does?  The same
> thing was brought in years ago for telephones.  Did you shit yourself
> then?  The police STILL need a warrant to 'tap' your internet.