Wednesday, February 15, 2012

To Catch A Predator

It is astonishing how a piece of legislation designed to make it easier for law enforcement to capture and prosecute those who produce and traffic child pornography, in matter of hours, can have the media going bananas with broadcasters comparing the bill to George Orwell's 1984 (thanks for that Lisa LaFlamme). We can all agree that producing or possessing child pornography is a despicable crime, one we would all like to see wiped out. We know that the people who commit this crime in the greatest volume are incredibly cryptic and difficult to catch.

The perverts we see on the show "To Catch a Predator" are more of the casual/curious pedophiles, the big fish generally aren't that easy to catch. If this legislation is a bad idea, then does anyone else have any better ideas on how we can increase the rate at which we capture them? Certainly having officers cruise the Internet posing as sexually curious minors is a great deterrent and should continue. We want the creeps to know that if they go online to try and find a victim there is a reasonable chance it could be a cop. I'd like to hear from those officers who specialize in capturing child predators and pornography traffickers why this legislation is good or not.

I don't need left wing journalists alleging that Stephen Harper's thought police are going to hunt down scores of innocent civilians under cover of darkness. Honestly 99% of Canadians will never be affected in any significant way by this legislation. I'm a Libertarian with no objection given the objective. But hey, maybe I'm just an idiot for trusting the police.


  1. Sorry but I must disagree and I am by no means left wing and neither am I of the "hug-a-thug" crowd. I have seen too many abuses by cops and authorities to accept that it will not happen here. The sudden decision by the RCMP to suddenly declare some previous legal firearms illegal in order to confiscate them without compensation should say something. Furthermore under the Liberal C-68 where cops do not require a warrant nor probable cause to harass legal gun owners who had committed no crime, much abuse again has occurred. Yes, I am sure this bill was produced with the best of intentions, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

    1. Theres a news story about a cop screwing up every week .Having been convicted twice of something i didn't do i know some police officers will bend the rules for their purposes.I usually suport the conservatives but this makes me uneasy . Did Toews think we'd all be so giddy about the f'n registry nobody would see possible faults in this . One more thing , Thenews media soesn't control my mind .

  2. The history of most (if not ALL) Government efforts is a history of 'mission creep'. And I DON'T trust the police all that much. They are not 'impartial' or even particularly bright in many cases. In principle I have no problems with tactics being employed against child predators but the Government needs to explain itself a LOT better than Toews is managing to do. He's almost cretinous.
    And since the Government is trotting out the child pornography angle, then the legislation should then be restricted to address ONLY that area of the Internet. Nothing else. But it ISN'T.

  3. I don't like it either but I'd grudgingly accept it if I thought it would do some good. I haven't see any evidence from other jurisdictions that such intrusiveness gets results nor have I seen any evidence that the police think its a good idea.

    I also don't get why the gun registry and the long form census are unreasonable intrusions into private lives while internet monitoring isn't. Should we trust the State to do good? Isn't this kind of a weird proposition coming from a Conservative government?

  4. I am against this bill as it is an intrusion into peoples lives, and don't believe it is to catch child predators, first thought of by the liberals.

    So how would you feel about it if the libs had got re elected in 2006 and enacted this legislation, and how would you feel if a lib minister had said you were on the side of child pornographers if you disagreed with it?

    Either way you slice it it is more government intrusion into people lives which is not the way of real conservatives. After the police inaction in Caledonia and tazering in BC I don't trust the police either.

  5. I have yet to see a better idea that would help catch pedophiles. And, they need catching and prosecuting.

  6. The issue with this legislation, which the cons are overlooking is this: nobody in this country trusts the police, courts, bureaucrats in any government department, the law societies or their MP at the federal level, let alone the provincial or municipal levels with the rights of their employers - the private sector taxpayers, with anything these puffed up, primadonnas come up with and publicly state "trust us" with.

    Vic Toewe's "...if yer agin us, yur for THEM" is as much proof that this legislation needs a major re-write! Period. This legislation becomes law and this conservative voter will back any one party that will rescind it and re-write it properly. I will take out a con membership with the CPC just to get into the next CPC riding association confab for my MP and rip them a new one over it!!

    1. Kinda makes you want to start your own separate country, doesn't it?

    2. Yeah! Because anyone with any trepidation about controls on our controllers, is right out in far right and left field if they support this legislation. The RCMP are on record stating ISP's roll over on any requests on law and order issues now, before this legislation was drafted. So, who's watching the watchers when it becomes law?

      This legislation states that any agent or agency of government can have access to stored data at your ISP, data mine it and come back the next day with a warrant to search or seize and "it's all legal". The power to abuse this legislation is just astronomical. You do financial transactions online, buy the wrong "PC" item, write something the government HRC's feel is cause for hurt feelings and you're for the high jump!

      This kind of thinking brought on the French Revolution, the American Revolution and we fought six years to end this kind of crap 60-odd years ago! These CINO's are out of their minds if they think that their base will support this legislation.

    3. The government are not our controllers, rather our elected officials.
      If proper oversight is provided then bring it on. I have nothing to fear from the government, they fear me the voter.
      Bunch of Chicken Littles.
      Lisa LaFlamme, that says it all.

  7. correct me if I'm wrong here but this bill is only requiring ISPs and telecommunications providers to supply the police contact information for a given phone number or ip without a warrant correct? That is not exactly something I'm overly concerned about personally. The police have more information about you driving down the street with their license plate scanners than this stuff.

    The puzzling thing to me is why would this information be useful to a police officer? Surely the police while investigation crimes like these can track by ip address, gather up evidence and then ask a judge for a warrant for the contact information for the perp. Same idea for cell phone numbers. I guess the answer to this question could be that police can't get a warrant for someone's identity just based on their ip address? If that's the case then why not make the bill correct that? I doubt anyone would have a problem with that.

  8. A better idea? Maybe restrict it to pedophilia cases. If that is the overweaning need then make it only for that. It would make it harder for the Libs to repeal it or they would look like pedo-enablers and it would ease the legitimate concerns of regular Internet users.

  9. The police already have powers to seek a warrant to identify a person from their IP. This bill removes the judge from the equation and extends the opportunity to snoop to pretty well any government employee. So why care? Because this is another erosion of privacy rights AND an erosion of due process. I am not convinced that this power will only be used to track perverts. This will be extended to all of us in time. So we freedom lovers need to hold the line. If the cops need to find me they can go see a judge and convince him they need a warrant. If they cannot crack that they must be stupid, lazy or just plain nosy. We don't need cops who are any of those things.

    1. Apparently you need a name/address etc to get a warrant so what the police do now is ask the isps for contact info. It says specifically in the bill warrants are required for the "snooping" business. The warrantless part is the providing of contact info which is done already. I'm not shocked that the MSM is misleading people about the contents of this bill at all btw.

  10. This is one of those "damned if you do - damned if you don't" situations. I really, really *wish* I could trust the police, but I can't...not anymore (see Alain's gun references, for just one reason). Yeah, it would make it easier...TOO much easier. They already have all the tools they need, and nothing in this bill would allow them to catch anyone whom they would otherwise overlook.

    Remember way back when the police *weren't* the enemy? When people trusted and respected them, and tried to help them whenever possible? When we weren't afraid of them? When they would actually try to solve crimes, rather than trying to pin them on the first person they came into contact with who could not provide an alibi? When they would disarm the drunken guy brandishing the knife, rather than shooting him dead in front of his wife and children? I do. I miss those days...:(

  11. Think FIDO: f**k it, drive on.

    Who would trust the cops, or any government agency, when they enlist the criminals fire bombing your house to prosecute you defending yourself from them?

    C'est mon job, eh. Va'ten, scab!

  12. I'm truly torn on this one. I trust the government to protect my privacy about as much as I trust Facebook to protect my privacy, and thats a big fat zero. I think putting my name on a tax return is too intrusive. However, if this would truly nab more child pornographers I would support it.
    Of course, I also believe that burning a few of them alive would also cut down on this disgusting traffic. And for those who say it would only drive them underground...I wasn't aware they were acting above ground.

  13. Given that the police have been so successful recently; this is good news. The scope of the arrests and the information that they are able to collect; tells me that they have made significant progress finding and prosecuting these creeps.

    There must be a way to enhance police capabilities without going overboard and giving unprecedented access or set ourselves up for hacking and misuse of private information. I would like to know more about the other governments that are mentioned as models. But we have to have reasonable boundaries going forward. Anyone can come into power who will interpret how this information can be used through their own lens. The bar has to be high.

    We simply have to do everything that we can to recover these children and remove children at risk. It's a horrible, horrible thing to be targetted by one of these monsters over the internet. God help the children who end up in their clutches.

    I will not have much sympathy for political gamesmanship on this issue.


    Anyone who places his faith in the Police to protect our privacy,should remember that police forces have too many like this fine fellow in their ranks.

    Corporal Benjamin Monty Robinson killed an innocent man at Vancouver airport with a tazer,lied on the witness stand about it,then later killed a motorcyclist while driving impaired.

    The case has been whitewashed by the RCMP and Crown to where he stands accused only of obstruction.

    And some people would trust these guys with their lives?!

    1. Pretty sure he isn't going to be in charge of this operation. Personally I am not particularly worried about police.
      Catch the creeps, my civil liberties will be protected.
      Looks like fertile ground for Liberals to play politicals. Seems right up their alley, concern for the perps not the victims.

  15. Yes, there are valid reasons to be concerned about police conduct in some cases. It underscores the point about unrestricted access to information.

    1. Which is why the bill includes very specific restrictions on said access. The police require a warrant to get anything beyond your contact information and ip address.

  16. This is one of those Bill where a healthy debate in the House of Commons will serve us well to ensure the final product accomplishes what is intended without unduly intruding on law abiding citizens. With advances in technology, those perverts have the upper hand over law enforcement and we must provide a level playing field for the authorities to catch and prosecute those lowlifes.

    1. Well said Louise.Child predators are circumventing laws of this country due to routing through other nations ISP's.Im not blind to this fact.

      So far in bill C-30 , cops do need a warrant.Arguements against C-30 need to be spelled out with quotes of sections directly from the bill , not rhetoric from left wing kooks on the net.

      I got news for everyone on the internet, would you rather have a complete stranger have access to your info? Seriously from the moment your born you have a number assigned to you.

      Your work history and contribution to society is recorded.This was before the net as well.

      Bills you pay and your taxes all recorded.

      Yet wanting to do some good to stop child pornography and predators is somehow a violation of rights? Ok what kind of backward thinking is that?

      Child predators gave up their rights the moment they abused a child.

  17. Here is what im talking about-

    184.4 A peace officer may intercept, by means of any electro-magnetic, acoustic, mechanical or other device, a private communication if the peace officer has reasonable grounds to believe that

    (a) the urgency of the situation is such that an authorization could not, with reasonable diligence, be obtained under any other provision of this Part;

    (b) the interception is immediately necessary to prevent an offence that would cause serious harm to any person or to property; and

    (c) either the originator of the private communication or the person intended by the originator to receive it is the person who would commit the offence that is likely to cause the harm or is the victim, or intended victim, of the harm.

    Now this little section can be abused since the human condition is not perfect.This would need clarification.


    1. Here's 184.4 as it stands now. It was enacted in 1993:

      184.4 A peace officer may intercept, by means of any electro-magnetic, acoustic, mechanical or other device, a private communication where

      (a) the peace officer believes on reasonable grounds that the urgency of the situation is such that an authorization could not, with reasonable diligence, be obtained under any other provision of this Part;

      (b) the peace officer believes on reasonable grounds that such an interception is immediately necessary to prevent an unlawful act that would cause serious harm to any person or to property; and

      (c) either the originator of the private communication or the person intended by the originator to receive it is the person who would perform the act that is likely to cause the harm or is the victim, or intended victim, of the harm.

      I'm no lawyer but it looks like they replaced
      "where" with "if the peace officer has reasonable grounds to believe that".

      Not sure what the legal ramifications of that wording change would be. Any lawyers in the crowd?

  18. "I got news for everyone on the internet, would you rather have a complete stranger have access to your info?"

    We let neighbors firebomb at will and you better not defend yourself. Criminals have rights, too. As for "strangers" having access to my personal, private banking info, FINTRAC and the CRA already do. You know any FINTRAC or CRA employees personally? They are all strangers to me.

  19. The government is not supposed to have the power to go on fishing expeditions. The bill gives ministerial discretion on these activities -- which is a recipe for political interference in the legal process.

    It's a very bad idea. If the government knows which user it needs to look at there is no reason why they cannot get a warrant.

    The real idea here is to get beyond the oversight, or control, that getting warrants would represent. It's a reach for more powers -- worded in a way to give any future government more power than in should have.

    Of course, to do such a thing requires making us afraid of something... so we'll gladly give up our rights for protection.

    Then again, with the current majority, it really doesn't matter what any of us think, does it?