379 replies to this topic

[TheNewTeddy]

Is the 7 days up yet?

[olpfan1]

Is the 7 days up yet?

its been up..Ive posted the videos twice already not doing it a third time
go back a page or two or three you'll find it

[olpfan1]

Toews appointed a judge while sleeping with her & Harper quietly axed him as Justice Minister as a result.

to the lazy posters here you go

[TheNewTeddy]

If it's not in the MSM, I could care less. No offence.

[olpfan1]

If it's not in the MSM, I could care less. No offence.

none taken!

[Derek L]

Is the 7 days up yet?

Yup apparently they’ve suggested Toews was sexually involved with a judicial nominee in Manitoba……….In other Anonymous related news:

As first posted by Argus:

Interpol arrests suspected 'Anonymous' hackers

Police in Europe and South America have arrested 25 alleged members of the "Anonymous" hacking group, Interpol said, amid a suspected attack on its own website by the group's supporters.
The arrests include four people in Spain, 10 in Argentina, six in Chile and five in Colombia as part of a worldwide sweep carried out as part of Interpol operation "Exposure."

And this story I just read:

Anonymous Members Infected by Trojan DDOS Utility

"In the wake Anonymous member arrests this week, it is worth highlighting how Anonymous supporters have been deceived into installing Zeus botnet clients purportedly for the purpose of DoS attacks. The Zeus client does perform DoS attacks, but it doesn't stop there. It also steals the users' online banking credentials, webmail credentials, and cookies."

From a technical perspective, I don’t have a clue how this worked, or if it truly effected Anonymous members…….

[waldo]

you do know EUROPOL and the Government of Canada have a “working relationship” right?

is there a chance you might actually qualify said relationship, particularly in regards to the simple yes/no request you continue to cast aside... that you continue to refuse to respond to? Let's see what degree of avoidance you'll come up with next, hey?

(note: I've adjusted your initial assertion to extend upon your earlier emphasis on the U.S. NSA. It is quite noteworthy to see you shift gears in the last several thread pages to continually reference EUROPOL over your initial emphasis on the U.S. NSA. Perhaps that's the essence of your continued reluctance to answer a simple yes/no question... in any case, your earlier assertion has now been updated to include both NSA/Europol - feel free to include either, or both.)

simply address my summation on your initial assertion... a simple yes or no will suffice to allow us to continue to the next level. Yes or no?

Is the following correct - yes or no?

In regards domestic surveillance of Canadians, you asserted that Canadian authorities can... and regularly do... bypass Canadian oversight and domestic surveillance capabilities, preferring instead to make requests of foreign agencies (e.g., NSA/Europol), to provide monitoring and surveillance on Canadians, within Canada.

Is the preceding correct - yes or no?

[Derek L]

is there a chance you might actually qualify said relationship, particularly in regards to the simple yes/no request you continue to cast aside... that you continue to refuse to respond to? Let's see what degree of avoidance you'll come up with next, hey?

(note: I've adjusted your initial assertion to extend upon your earlier emphasis on the U.S. NSA. It is quite noteworthy to see you shift gears in the last several thread pages to continually reference EUROPOL over your initial emphasis on the U.S. NSA. Perhaps that's the essence of your continued reluctance to answer a simple yes/no question... in any case, your earlier assertion has now been updated to include both NSA/Europol - feel free to include either, or both.)

simply address my summation on your initial assertion... a simple yes or no will suffice to allow us to continue to the next level. Yes or no?

Is the following correct - yes or no?

In regards domestic surveillance of Canadians, you asserted that Canadian authorities can... and regularly do... bypass Canadian oversight and domestic surveillance capabilities, preferring instead to make requests of foreign agencies (e.g., NSA/Europol), to provide monitoring and surveillance on Canadians, within Canada.

Is the preceding correct - yes or no?

As provided in my above link, EUROPOL and the Canadian Government clearly have an intelligence “sharing” agreement………In the above PDF document, it clearly outlines both the types of intelligence that can be shared, and the stated procedure required for one party to make a request for surveillance by another.

This clearly proves my point, in addition to earlier links posted pertaining to the legal aspects of domestic surveillance and the role DND, the RCMP and the other government agencies play.

[Derek L]

As provided in my above link, EUROPOL and the Canadian Government clearly have an intelligence “sharing” agreement………In the above PDF document, it clearly outlines both the types of intelligence that can be shared, and the stated procedure required for one party to make a request for surveillance by another.

This clearly proves my point, in addition to earlier links posted pertaining to the legal aspects of domestic surveillance and the role DND, the RCMP and the other government agencies play.

To add to your point on EUROPOL vs. the NSA……….EUROPOL is clearly an international organization that utilizes it’s member nations police and intelligence arms…………Canada and the United States, both have working relationships with EUROPOL, hence the inclusions of the DND/RCMP/CSIS/NSA/FBI/DoD etc

Edited by Derek L, 04 March 2012 - 11:54 PM.

[waldo]

This clearly proves my point, in addition to earlier links posted pertaining to the legal aspects of domestic surveillance and the role DND, the RCMP and the other government agencies play.

so, is that a yes... or a no?

simply address my summation on your initial assertion... a simple yes or no will suffice to allow us to continue to the next level. Yes or no?

Is the following correct - yes or no?

In regards domestic surveillance of Canadians, you asserted that Canadian authorities can... and regularly do... bypass Canadian oversight and domestic surveillance capabilities, preferring instead to make requests of foreign agencies (e.g., NSA/Europol), to provide monitoring and surveillance on Canadians, within Canada.

Is the preceding correct - yes or no?

[Derek L]

so, is that a yes... or a no?

Clearly a yes based on the above open source evidence.


Do you care to refute the EUROPOL/Government of Canada document?

[waldo]

so, is that a yes... or a no?

simply address my summation on your initial assertion... a simple yes or no will suffice to allow us to continue to the next level. Yes or no?

Is the following correct - yes or no?

In regards domestic surveillance of Canadians, you asserted that Canadian authorities can... and regularly do... bypass Canadian oversight and domestic surveillance capabilities, preferring instead to make requests of foreign agencies (e.g., NSA/Europol), to provide monitoring and surveillance on Canadians, within Canada.

Is the preceding correct - yes or no?

Clearly a yes based on the above open source evidence.

Do you care to refute the EUROPOL/Government of Canada document?

wow! Finally... a 'YES'! I won't sully the moment and beat down on you further for dragging this out; rather, a few initial questions.

- I don't follow your just offered qualification/distinction between NSA versus Europol. As I said, you initially emphasized the NSA and only shifted to a Europol focus in relatively recent thread posts. Does your just stated "YES" apply in regards to both the U.S. NSA & Europol?

- I am puzzled by your "YES" answer and the following quoted references from your linked Europol focused document; references that, to me, speak to a contradiction in your interpretation and "YES" answer. How do the following quoted bold-highlighted phrases align with your assertion that, "Canadian authorities can... and regularly do... bypass Canadian oversight and domestic surveillance capabilities, preferring instead to make requests of foreign agencies (e.g., NSA/Europol), to provide monitoring and surveillance on Canadians, within Canada"? Notwithstanding, of course, I don't read anything in your linked document that addresses the latter part of your assertion that Europol can (and regularly does) perform surveillance on Canadians, within Canada.

=> Article 2: The Parties may co-operate under this Agreement in the exchange of strategic technical and operational information consistent with the mandates and subject to the applicable laws and legal framework governing Europol and the Canadian competent authorities as referred to in Article 4.

=> Article 4: Competent authorities: Within Canada, competent authorities are Canadian authorities responsible under Canadian law

per your assertion, per your linked document, "consistent with the mandates and subject to the applicable laws and legal framework governing Canadian authorities", just how would, "Canadian authorities responsible under Canadian law", with regularity, bypass Canadian oversight to make requests of Europol... to have Europol perform surveillance on Canadians within Canada?

[Derek L]

[quote name='waldo' date='05 March 2012 - 12:19 AM' timestamp='1330935581' post='769577']
[/quote][/size]
wow! Finally... a 'YES'! I won't sully the moment and beat down on you further for dragging this out; rather, a few initial questions.

- I don't follow your just offered qualification/distinction between NSA versus Europol. As I said, you initially emphasized the NSA and only shifted to a Europol focus in relatively recent thread posts. Does your just stated "YES" apply in regards to both the U.S. NSA & Europol?

- I am puzzled by your "YES" answer and the following quoted references from your linked Europol focused document; references that, to me, speak to a contradiction in your interpretation and "YES" answer. How do the following quoted bold-highlighted phrases align with your assertion that, "Canadian authorities can... and regularly do... bypass Canadian oversight and domestic surveillance capabilities, preferring instead to make requests of foreign agencies (e.g., NSA/Europol), to provide monitoring and surveillance on Canadians, within Canada"? Notwithstanding, of course, I don't read anything in your linked document that addresses the latter part of your assertion that Europol can (and regularly does) perform surveillance on Canadians, within Canada.


per your assertion, per your linked document, "consistent with the mandates and subject to the applicable laws and legal framework governing Canadian authorities", just how would, "Canadian authorities responsible under Canadian law", with regularity, bypass Canadian oversight to make requests of Europol... to have Europol perform surveillance on Canadians within Canada?
[/quote]

Let’s look at what I actually said:

[quote]Not at all, that would clearly be illegal. That said, the RCMP and/or CSIS can (and do) make a request to the American NSA for surveillance of Canadians……Just as the FBI/Home Land Security can expect the same favour from CSEC. After said electronic surveillance request is made, the RCMP/FBI can use said information to “steer them in the right direction” of obtaining conventional surveillance, through legal means, to obtain a warrant and/or charges brought against the intended target. [/quote]

reads a lot different from:

[quote]"Canadian authorities can... and regularly do... bypass Canadian oversight and domestic surveillance capabilities, preferring instead to make requests of foreign agencies (e.g., NSA/Europol), to provide monitoring and surveillance on Canadians, within Canada"?[/quote]

Nowhere did I suggest the frequency of said requests.

“That they bypass Canadian oversight and domestic surveillance capabilities"

Or that they prefer requests to foreign agencies....


With regards to personal data, go down to article 7, page 7, entitled oddly enough “personal Data”


As for the rest, well the thrill of this discussion has waned due to your display of intellectual dishonesty……..Clearly you’ve been proven wrong on numerous accounts, you intentionally misquote people and deflect questions asked of you.

It’s sad enough that you’re a soar loser, but a liar to boot…………..

[waldo]

due to your display of intellectual dishonesty...

It’s sad enough that you’re a soar loser, but a liar to boot.

intellectual dishonesty? Liar?

in your own words... in your own acknowledgements! Why deny what you've written?

rather than asking us to, once again, play go-fetch... within your above linked reference, simply quote the pertinent specifics of a foreign agency surveillance of a Canadian, in Canada, done at the behest of Canadian policing, sans warrant.

Why certainly:

so, is that a yes... or a no?

simply address my summation on your initial assertion... a simple yes or no will suffice to allow us to continue to the next level. Yes or no?

Is the following correct - yes or no?

In regards domestic surveillance of Canadians, you asserted that Canadian authorities can... and regularly do... bypass Canadian oversight and domestic surveillance capabilities, preferring instead to make requests of foreign agencies (e.g., NSA/Europol), to provide monitoring and surveillance on Canadians, within Canada.

Is the preceding correct - yes or no?

Clearly a yes based on the above open source evidence.

Do you care to refute the EUROPOL/Government of Canada document?

wow! Finally... a 'YES'!

[Derek L]

intellectual dishonesty? Liar?

in your own words... in your own acknowledgements! Why deny what you've written?

wow! Finally... a 'YES'!

So you don’t dispute that you “spun” my quotes through the Waldo washer?



Yes or No?

Edited by Derek L, 05 March 2012 - 10:01 AM.