Tuesday, August 24, 2004

Police want you to pay for their wire taps......

Ottawa — Canada's police chiefs propose a surcharge of about 25 cents on monthly telephone and Internet bills to cover the cost of tapping into the communications of terrorists, [scapegoats for the Coalition of the Killing's resource war's in the Middle East], and other criminals, [but not war criminals?]

The suggestion is, [allegedly], intended to resolve a standoff between police forces and telecommunications companies over who should foot the expense of providing investigators with access to phone calls and e-mail messages.

Police say they cannot — and should not — be forced to pay the often hefty costs involved in carrying out court-approved wiretaps and message searches, warning that investigations will suffer if they are expected to pick up the tab.

[Why shouldn't they pay for them they are mostly fraud, rubbish and just plain noble cause corruption.]

“This is a very, very serious issue for us. It has a potential for really paralyzing operations,” said Supt. Tom Grue, a member of the law amendments committee of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police.

[If it is so serious then why the propaganda about alleged terrorists? Most alleged terrorist acts are false flag operations carried out by state and federal governments, police and military.]

And the country's largest phone company believes that telecommunications firms and law-enforcement agencies, not subscribers, should split the costs.

“We think there should be more of a partnership between the agencies and us, rather than getting the public to pay for it,” said Bell Canada spokeswoman Jacqueline Michelis.

[Just another loser playing alleged terrorist game for corporatism.]

The matter has, [allegedly], taken on new urgency as the federal government prepares legislation aimed at preventing criminals from using new digital technologies to shield their communications from police and intelligence agencies.

Authorities argue the measures are needed to keep up with sophisticated criminals involved in such activities as terrorism, money laundering, child pornography and murder.

[But not state sanctioned terror? And reverse surveillance?]

The legislative proposals, outlined two years ago, have raised the hackles of privacy advocates and civil libertarians.

Bubbling in the background is the equally thorny debate about money.

Under the federal proposals, service providers would be required, when upgrading their systems, to build in the technical capabilities needed by police and intelligence agencies, such as the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, to easily tap communications.

The controversy revolves around the ongoing costs of looking up phone numbers, hooking up to networks and relaying communications from one city to another — individual services that may cost anywhere from pocket change to thousands of dollars.

[Spying on private conversations in breach of the privacy act.]

Currently, a hodgepodge of payment practices applies, from negotiation of fees by the parties involved to refusal by some police forces to accept the bills.

Supt. Grue, a member of the Edmonton police force, said the costs should be spread as widely as possible to avoid unduly burdening a small number of parties.

[No, the cost should be nil because it's a breach of citizen privacy and illegal.]

The association of police chiefs, which represents the majority of Canadian forces, argues one way to accomplish that is adding a fee to each subscriber's monthly telephone, cellular or Internet bill.

“We're thinking, amongst ourselves, 25 cents. Whether that would cover off all the costs, we don't know. We haven't done the analysis on it,” Supt. Grue said.

“But if you impose too great of a burden or put too high of a fee, then it becomes less and less attractive, obviously.”

[We don't need idiots tapping private conversations and emails so there should be no costs to anyone. If they still want to tap private conversations and look at people's emails then they should pay for their stupidity.]

Supt. Grue compares the proposed fee to the one customers already pay to support 911 emergency service, which ranges from about 25 to 50 cents a month depending on the type of telephone plan.

Bell Canada's Ms. Michelis wants to pull the plug on the idea of a wiretap charge. 

“We don't really think the cost should be flipped over to the general public,” she said.

“I don't know how popular that's going to be, something like that. Twenty-five cents is a really significant amount to add to everybody's phone bill.”

Tom Copeland, a spokesman for the Canadian Association of Internet Providers, said tacking a fee on monthly bills “might work” but could create a burdensome administrative regime that hampers companies, especially small ones with few staff.

Supt. Grue said it's “a bit of a mystery” to him why the industry is decidedly less than enthusiastic about the idea. “All companies would have that fee on the bill, so it's not like you're giving one company a competitive advantage over another company.”

[Here we have a cop telling people what to charge for a service? He should be sacked as a public servant and not payed for his stupidity. Doesn't this brain dead idiot realise he is payed to serve the public and not the other way around?]

Federal officials have convened meetings of the various players to try to work out the issues.

Internal Justice Department notes prepared following a roundtable session in December stressed the need “not to further exacerbate the situation.”

Bell Canada says it has invested heavily in infrastructure to allow for wiretaps and is only trying to recover its costs on the day-to-day services provided to police and intelligence agencies.

“Bell has already spent millions of dollars on this initiative and it's going to continue costing us a huge amount of money going forward,” Ms. Michelis said. “We are looking to get some sort of compensation on the ongoing costs.”

[Corporations acting as government agencies. Why pay for their service?]

For the police, it's a matter of principle.  

[Police have no principal accept doing the governments dirty laundry.]

“From our perspective, it's a very slippery slope to start paying for the execution of search warrants or any kind of a court order,” said Supt. Grue.

Lucie Angers, a senior Justice Department lawyer, indicated the issues will be resolved at the political level.

“You have different interests at stake,” she said. “There's good sums of money that are involved in taking these decisions.”

Federal officials are interested in a solution that would “balance the costs,” said Simone McAndrew, a spokeswoman for the Public Safety Department.

“Any proposal that is brought forward will be considered.”

CSIS had no comment.

Mr. Copeland said if subscribers end up funding the surveillance effort through monthly fees, Canadians would “demand a great deal more explanation” about the initiative and how it affects their constitutional and privacy rights.

And should the money come from law-enforcement budgets, the public will be contributing “out the back door” through tax revenues, he noted.

“One way or another, Canadians are going to pay.”

By JIM BRONSKILL posted 24 August 04


Blunkett to extend long arm of the law
UK: Sweeping changes to police powers were proposed by the government yesterday, with officers in England and Wales to be permitted to arrest suspects for any offence, rather than only those which attract prison sentences.

Welcome to the MatrixB
US - In what civil liberties advocates call the most massive database surveillance program in US history, the Multistate Anti-Terrorism, [scapegoat and patsy], Information Exchange, or Matrix, continues to compile billions of records on law-abiding citizens and receive federal funding, despite public outcry and suspicion.

Govt tests airport security eye scanner
Technology that identifies people by scanning their eyes could be introduced into Australian airports as early as next year.

law and order days over, says Blair
Their 3D-iD system is ideal for both stationary assets, such as large physical inventories or for mobile assets like people and portable equipment.

Fingerprints now required for US visas
United States consulates in Australia have begun taking fingerprints from Australians applying for visas.

I won't be a criminal for you!
The only looming rules are for fools giving up personal details to the Devil in the first place when visiting the US.

Putting Your Finger on the Line: Biometric Identification Technology The NSW Department of Corrective Services has progressively been implementing biometric identification technology (BIT) for use on all entrants into maximum security prisons since August 1996. It currently operates in seven prisons in NSW and is scheduled for introduction at Parklea prison later this year. BIT has raised the ire of many community agencies, the legal fraternity and government authorities. Framed examines what the controversy is all about and what the implications of this technology are.

Mossad agents Killing Oz Tourists Steal their Identity to use in terror opps
The fugitive Israeli Mossad intelligence agent Zev Barkan has been dealing with Asian criminal gangs to obtain Australian and other passports stolen from Australians Killed in Asia, a New Zealand security official has said.

The U.S. system of 'justice' is a tragic joke
US: Police abuse, and sometimes kill, innocent persons at will. Cops plant evidence, they lie, they coerce confessions and they commit perjury. Many are, simply, criminals.