Community > Politics, Current News & Events

Topic: So You Complain About Privacy Rights
mnhiker Joined Wed 02/14/07 Posts: 3771	Fri 03/07/08 02:35 PM Edited by mnhiker on Fri 03/07/08 02:37 PM
Some people have complained about wire taps without a search warrant thinking their right to privacy has been infringed upon. Here's the other side of the coin and see if you wouldn't consider the rules should be loosened a bit in the interest of public safety... Kid porn cops need warrant Newmarket judge tosses out chat room evidence against man By SAM PAZZANO, COURTS BUREAU The Toronto Sun Police must get a warrant to secretly record conversations on private Internet chat rooms, even if they are chatting with suspected kiddie-porn peddlers, a Newmarket judge has ruled. In what may be a precedent-setting judgment -- and one that could hamper police in the fight against child pornography -- Justice William Gorewich threw out evidence against a Markham man because it was illegally obtained. With the evidence ruled out, the Newmarket Crown withdrew charges in January. The decision is being appealed. The judge stated the accused's Charter rights were violated by Toronto Police Det. Paul Krawcyzk, who recorded the conversation without a warrant. His boss, Det. Sgt. Kim Scanlan of the Child Exploitation Section of Sex Crimes Unit in Toronto, said the "disappointing" decision will have a "direct impact on our ability to keep kids safe. 'DEAD END' "We've gone to Internet service providers with the IP address and the providers give us an address and name, similar to a MTO search for a driver's licence or a 411 phone inquiry," Scanlan said. "It's important we have access to that information. Otherwise it's a dead end for investigators." Defence lawyer Richard Posner, who successfully argued his client's rights were violated, said the law is "Big Brother for the state at its whim and discretion to seize private business information and it's completely unnecessary." On June 24, 2006, Krawczyk was working undercover and posing as a trader on an Internet Rely Chat, where he knew the exchange of child porn images and movies occurred. He found a man known as "Step Tosh" and engaged him in a private conversation which was recorded. Based on this information, York Regional Police executed a search of the man's home on Stonebridge Dr. and found 14 graphic images of child pornography. "The fact this officer had conducted such investigations in the same manner hundreds or thousands of times before doesn't justify his actions," Gorewich wrote. "I find the evidence that the officer stated the need for the information to be acquired quickly to save children from the abuse of child pornography is somewhat far-fetched, given the widespread nature of this illegal activity. CHAT ROOM "There was nothing to prevent this officer from obtaining a warrant (for) the private chat room ... " The judge ruled that people on private chat rooms have the same expectation of privacy as people in private phone calls and police routinely get warrants. "It's a straightforward and simple procedure to get a warrant and the officers know it's like fishing in a barrel, going after people transacting child porn," Posner said yesterday. Blame Canada, from the South Park movie: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EonjqFPKVU

northrn_yanke Joined Sun 01/13/08 Posts: 851	Fri 03/07/08 02:42 PM
Does anyone else think that there will eventually be a different set of laws pertaining to the internet? Perhaps an INTERPOL thing? Just curious. I think this thread can explore an issue that will surely come up but is not in the news that much yet. I think that is inevitable since the internet knows no borders and if there were different laws/rules depending on which country you were in the criminals would use that to their advantage...criminals are very good at exposing loopholes..

IndianaJoans Joined Sat 03/01/08 Posts: 115	Fri 03/07/08 02:52 PM
Does anyone else think that there will eventually be a different set of laws pertaining to the internet? Perhaps an INTERPOL thing? Just curious. I think this thread can explore an issue that will surely come up but is not in the news that much yet. I think that is inevitable since the internet knows no borders and if there were different laws/rules depending on which country you were in the criminals would use that to their advantage...criminals are very good at exposing loopholes.. And we think political problems are bad now? Coming up with international laws pertaining to internet crimes that we can all agree on will be like trying to walk through a cow barn without stepping in a butt pie.

Lindyy Joined Tue 01/01/08 Posts: 2699	Sat 03/08/08 11:58 AM
"The fact this officer had conducted such investigations in the same manner hundreds or thousands of times before doesn't justify his actions," Gorewich wrote. "I find the evidence that the officer stated the need for the information to be acquired quickly to save children from the abuse of child pornography is somewhat far-fetched, given the widespread nature of this illegal activity. Lindyy says: I think this judge needs investigated himself. Read his statement and the words "far-fetched." So, the judge thinks the need to save children from abuse of child pronography is far-fetched? No wonder pornography is widespread! And, the people on this site supporting the child pornographer, are you all here on earth or in the ozone layer? The fact remains that the judge stated in his ruling, admitting his knowledge of: "'The fact this officer had conducted such investigations in the same manner hundreds or thousands of times before....." Gorewich wrote'" has openly admitted, he is knowledgeable of how previous investigations have taken place. BUT, NOW he is copping a "let's follow the rules" attitude? Something very smelly somewhere. Lindyy

Lindyy Joined Tue 01/01/08 Posts: 2699	Sat 03/08/08 12:06 PM
i'll say it again, it is not at all hard to get a warrant. the judge was only upholding the law and precidents. for that, you start with your character assasination bit. is everyone who doesn't agree with you liberal scum? Toasted: WHAT is your problem?? No one was doing any character assasination until your post. I agree with northrn yanke - all the pedophiles and child pornographers are in all their glory with people who take the stand that you are taking. I am totally appalled that anyone would side with the judge on an issue so heinous as child pornograpy. ESPECIALLY since the manner of investigation has been done hundreds, perhaps thousands of times, but NOW, all of a sudden, it comes to a screeching halt?! THERE IS SOMETHING VERY WRONG SOMEWHERE. Lindyy

rtaylor74 Joined Sun 01/20/08 Posts: 1188	Sat 03/08/08 12:15 PM
This is how it starts, slowly and carefully. Individual rights won't be taken away by conflict. They'll be given away by people who see only one side of the argument, and that side is typically motivated by fear, or by propping up a degenerate part of society. I don't think anyone who is in favor of individual liberties is a child pornographer, or a supporter of child pornography. And anyone's attempt to use that argument, or the 'liberal' label is to be ignored by anyone with an iq over 50. Not debated with - IGNORED. Now, I'll make a deal with you. SINCE wiretapping is apparenly only EVER going to be used to chase kiddie porno heads and terrorists, i'll give you my right to privacy one one condition. I propose a law that allows the government to shut down or restrict religious freedom. I mean, come on! It's only to stop those 'bad' religions like Islam and whatever else we feel like demonizing. Because if you do that, then there's no way that Bill or Act would ever be used to curtail YOUR freedom, right? Be careful what you wish for, because I have strong feeling one day we'll all get it.

symbelmyne Joined Mon 01/14/08 Posts: 5356	Sat 03/08/08 12:26 PM
This is how it starts, slowly and carefully. Individual rights won't be taken away by conflict. They'll be given away by people who see only one side of the argument, and that side is typically motivated by fear, or by propping up a degenerate part of society. I don't think anyone who is in favor of individual liberties is a child pornographer, or a supporter of child pornography. And anyone's attempt to use that argument, or the 'liberal' label is to be ignored by anyone with an iq over 50. Not debated with - IGNORED. Now, I'll make a deal with you. SINCE wiretapping is apparenly only EVER going to be used to chase kiddie porno heads and terrorists, i'll give you my right to privacy one one condition. I propose a law that allows the government to shut down or restrict religious freedom. I mean, come on! It's only to stop those 'bad' religions like Islam and whatever else we feel like demonizing. Because if you do that, then there's no way that Bill or Act would ever be used to curtail YOUR freedom, right? Be careful what you wish for, because I have strong feeling one day we'll all get it. well said, sir...My hat's off to you.

symbelmyne Joined Mon 01/14/08 Posts: 5356	Sat 03/08/08 12:30 PM
Lindyy says: I think this judge needs investigated himself. Read his statement and the words "far-fetched." So, the judge thinks the need to save children from abuse of child pronography is far-fetched? No wonder pornography is widespread! Lindyy Child pornography is wide spread because there is such a huge market for it....considering that men world wide spend thousands of dollars just for the chance to fornicate with 9 year old virgins (male, female doesnt matter to them) ...like the "war on drugs" as long as there is a market, the product will find its way to the consumer.

Lindyy Joined Tue 01/01/08 Posts: 2699	Sat 03/08/08 01:20 PM
Symbelmyne: True, but it is being given a big boost by judges like this one. Lindyy

toastedoranges Joined Thu 01/03/08 Posts: 11042	Sat 03/08/08 01:33 PM
Toasted: WHAT is your problem?? No one was doing any character assasination until your post. I agree with northrn yanke - all the pedophiles and child pornographers are in all their glory with people who take the stand that you are taking. I am totally appalled that anyone would side with the judge on an issue so heinous as child pornograpy. ESPECIALLY since the manner of investigation has been done hundreds, perhaps thousands of times, but NOW, all of a sudden, it comes to a screeching halt?! THERE IS SOMETHING VERY WRONG SOMEWHERE. Lindyy he was attacking the judge for upholding the law

cutelildevilsmom Joined Sat 04/07/07 Posts: 8862	Sat 03/08/08 01:57 PM
Symbelmyne: True, but it is being given a big boost by judges like this one. Lindyy Lindy your not seeing the big picture.Even a pornographer has rights..and in this country you are innocent till proven guilty. I have a 2 kids and 4 grandkids and to even suggest because I disagree with the OP,I support pedophiles is ludicrous and insulting to say the least..the police knew they didnt follow protocol and the judge called them on it.I'm sure he didnt want to but judges are there to uphold the letter of the law not cover up shoddy police work.

leahmarie Joined Fri 12/28/07 Posts: 1482	Sat 03/08/08 02:44 PM
This is another instance where a judge doesn't get it and interprets the law in favor of the criminal. In this sad sorry instance that criminal happens to be prying on kids. This judge is a Left-wing Liberal living in a bubble and nothing gets through to him, not even the safety of our children.

Lindyy Joined Tue 01/01/08 Posts: 2699	Sat 03/08/08 03:59 PM
Lindyy says: Very plain and simple, I STAND FIRM on my prior posts. Nothing will change my mind. I think all those supporting the judge needs to re-read the original post and my prior posts. Lindyy

Lindyy Joined Tue 01/01/08 Posts: 2699	Sat 03/08/08 04:02 PM
he was attacking the judge for upholding the law Toasted: Judges SHOULD be scrutinized on such compelling issues as child pornography. AND, there is no rule saying a judge and/or his/her decision cannot be attacked. AND, I can guarantee everyone in this thread, the judge is feeling no pain or remorse. SHAME ON HIM! Lindyy

Lindyy Joined Tue 01/01/08 Posts: 2699	Sat 03/08/08 04:04 PM
This is how it starts, slowly and carefully. Individual rights won't be taken away by conflict. They'll be given away by people who see only one side of the argument, and that side is typically motivated by fear, or by propping up a degenerate part of society. I don't think anyone who is in favor of individual liberties is a child pornographer, or a supporter of child pornography. And anyone's attempt to use that argument, or the 'liberal' label is to be ignored by anyone with an iq over 50. Not debated with - IGNORED. Now, I'll make a deal with you. SINCE wiretapping is apparenly only EVER going to be used to chase kiddie porno heads and terrorists, i'll give you my right to privacy one one condition. I propose a law that allows the government to shut down or restrict religious freedom. I mean, come on! It's only to stop those 'bad' religions like Islam and whatever else we feel like demonizing. Because if you do that, then there's no way that Bill or Act would ever be used to curtail YOUR freedom, right? Be careful what you wish for, because I have strong feeling one day we'll all get it. Does that mean we can IGNORE you for your biased opinion and your remarks about religion? I do believe you want to do away with the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. Hmmmmmmmmmm Lindyy

toastedoranges Joined Thu 01/03/08 Posts: 11042	Sat 03/08/08 04:05 PM
Toasted: Judges SHOULD be scrutinized on such compelling issues as child pornography. AND, there is no rule saying a judge and/or his/her decision cannot be attacked. AND, I can guarantee everyone in this thread, the judge is feeling no pain or remorse. SHAME ON HIM! Lindyy how can you guarantee that? the cops didn't follow the rules. like every time they don't do exactly as they should, cases get thrown out. judges have ethics and morals ya know, but those things shouldn't interfere with precidents

Lordling Joined Mon 12/31/07 Posts: 536	Sat 03/08/08 04:18 PM
This is how it starts, slowly and carefully. Individual rights won't be taken away by conflict. They'll be given away by people who see only one side of the argument, and that side is typically motivated by fear, or by propping up a degenerate part of society. I don't think anyone who is in favor of individual liberties is a child pornographer, or a supporter of child pornography. And anyone's attempt to use that argument, or the 'liberal' label is to be ignored by anyone with an iq over 50. Not debated with - IGNORED. Now, I'll make a deal with you. SINCE wiretapping is apparenly only EVER going to be used to chase kiddie porno heads and terrorists, i'll give you my right to privacy one one condition. I propose a law that allows the government to shut down or restrict religious freedom. I mean, come on! It's only to stop those 'bad' religions like Islam and whatever else we feel like demonizing. Because if you do that, then there's no way that Bill or Act would ever be used to curtail YOUR freedom, right? Be careful what you wish for, because I have strong feeling one day we'll all get it. Does that mean we can IGNORE you for your biased opinion and your remarks about religion? I do believe you want to do away with the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. Hmmmmmmmmmm Lindyy I don't recall that the right to be over-pious, close-minded & irrational is specifically guaranteed by any of the first 10 amendments to the Constitution (nor by any of the rest). You are, however, free to ignore anything you wish.

Drivinmenutz Joined Wed 11/14/07 Posts: 4290	Sat 03/08/08 04:32 PM
This is how it starts, slowly and carefully. Individual rights won't be taken away by conflict. They'll be given away by people who see only one side of the argument, and that side is typically motivated by fear, or by propping up a degenerate part of society. I don't think anyone who is in favor of individual liberties is a child pornographer, or a supporter of child pornography. And anyone's attempt to use that argument, or the 'liberal' label is to be ignored by anyone with an iq over 50. Not debated with - IGNORED. Now, I'll make a deal with you. SINCE wiretapping is apparenly only EVER going to be used to chase kiddie porno heads and terrorists, i'll give you my right to privacy one one condition. I propose a law that allows the government to shut down or restrict religious freedom. I mean, come on! It's only to stop those 'bad' religions like Islam and whatever else we feel like demonizing. Because if you do that, then there's no way that Bill or Act would ever be used to curtail YOUR freedom, right? Be careful what you wish for, because I have strong feeling one day we'll all get it. that makes sense

northrn_yanke Joined Sun 01/13/08 Posts: 851	Sun 03/09/08 11:04 AM
This is how it starts, slowly and carefully. Individual rights won't be taken away by conflict. They'll be given away by people who see only one side of the argument, and that side is typically motivated by fear, or by propping up a degenerate part of society. what rights are you talking about when your chatting on the internet... I don't think anyone who is in favor of individual liberties is a child pornographer, or a supporter of child pornography. And anyone's attempt to use that argument, or the 'liberal' label is to be ignored by anyone with an iq over 50. Not debated with - IGNORED. I'm sure the pedophiles are not ignoring the loopholes that people are arguing against closing....and if you don't realize that what you and others do when siding with an idiotic judge like this is endangering other children then we are not the ones who need to be ignored... Now, I'll make a deal with you. SINCE wiretapping is apparenly only EVER going to be used to chase kiddie porno heads and terrorists, i'll give you my right to privacy one one condition. this is not wire tapping.... I propose a law that allows the government to shut down or restrict religious freedom. I mean, come on! It's only to stop those 'bad' religions like Islam and whatever else we feel like demonizing. Because if you do that, then there's no way that Bill or Act would ever be used to curtail YOUR freedom, right? religions are not illegal.....kiddie porn and pedophilia is Be careful what you wish for, because I have strong feeling one day we'll all get it. I think the kids who are victims would love to be able to wish but are unable to so it is our obligation to look out for them and hopefully one day they'll be protected like they have every right to expect...