The problem with the Vikileaks experiment — supposedly designed to make a political point against Public Safety Minister Vic Toews — is that it actually made no point at all.
The anonymous coward(s) who set up a social media account to bash Toews said they wanted to give him a taste of his own medicine.
It was supposed to be a protest against Bill C-30, the proposed Internet surveillance bill.
The morons who set up the account said if Toews wants to know about the intimidate details of Canadians’ lives through the new bill, then they would reveal some intimate details of Toews’ life.
So they took his divorce proceedings, which are available at the Winnipeg Law Courts building, and put them on a social media account.
Unfortunately for them, the political stunt actually makes no sense. Bill C-30 does not propose putting anybody’s publicly available divorce proceedings onto social media accounts. Court records, including divorce proceedings, are already available to the public. I can go and read any divorce proceeding I want.
In fact, many of them are already online on the Canadian Legal Information Institute (CanLii) website.
The Vikileaks idiots didn’t reveal anything that wasn’t already public.
What Bill C-30 proposes, among other things, is to force Internet service carriers — without a warrant — to provide law enforcement agencies with basic subscriber information, including names, addresses, IP addresses and emails of people.
It does not allow law enforcement agencies to read anyone’s emails, follow their web usage or track their whereabouts without a warrant.
It also forces Internet service providers to adhere to new data storage rules so that law enforcement agencies can have access to data — with a warrant — if required during criminal investigations.
The controversy surrounding the bill has to do primarily with the issue of forcing Internet service providers to hand over basic subscriber information without a warrant.
It has nothing to do with putting court records on social media accounts.
So while it must have been fun for the anonymous idiots who put Toews’ divorce proceedings on their social media account, it really has nothing to do with Bill C-30.
It makes no point whatsoever other than to try to smear a politician.
Pretty dumb campaign, actually.
Tom, I just shake my head at your ignorance, the content of the attack on Vic had nothing to do with it. This was a way to show him what could happen when his bill is passed.
Yes, dumb campaign. So dumb that Our wonderful philosophizer Mr Brodbeck dedicated an entire article to it! The idea behind vikileaks was to raise awareness, a huge success by absolutely any measure, and made even more successful by this article! Vikileaks should not necessarily be emulated or even condoned but the controversy shows that Mr Toews like far too many politicians -usually the worst ones!- think of everything in terms of politics. An attack against him MUST be a politically motivated attack, there is no way regular nonpartisan Canadians could possibly be upset by this bill. Pathetic response by Manitoba’s ranking MP.
In the end, as Tom so unelequently pointed out, the information releases through vikileaks is part of the public record, easily accessible to anyone who wants to put in a little effort. While the bill proposed gives police
And government agencies access to private, inaccessible information without a warrant. So, to wrap it all up, a social networker posted public information in a campaign to help keep private information private, got immense attention for the cause and propelled bill c-30 into the limelight. Again the author proves how beyond ignorant he is to claim, without irony, that this was a “dumb campaign”.
Toews had already smeared himself with his reality-denying claim that anyone who opposes C-30 is a pedophile. With that mouthful of stupidity and ignorance, he set himself up as a target. Vikileaks is the kind of thing that happens on the internet when someone in Toews’ position jumps the shark.
I personally do not care about his divorce proceedings or anything other than him never getting elected again. Delusional thinking by someone with political power is far worse than vikileaks style cheap shots.
Grant,
Really? You are actually claiming that Toews said “anyone who opposes C-30 is a pedophile.”
And we’re supposed to take you seriously?
Tom
Like some others (Adler for one), you pretty much know what Brodbeck is going to say…before he says it. I mean, talk about towing the political (party) line. Making a living espousing a particular doctrine requires this type of response (spin).
Tom?…You’re ok at it but it really does get predictable and weak…really weak
Ed
Hey Ed,
I’d love to respond to your post. But you didn’t really say anything beyond hurling personal attacks. Did you actually have a specific issue you would like to raise? I’d love to engage. You up for it?
Tom
Typical Shill Brodbeck. I’ll give you one thing, you’re consistent.
@Tom:
“But you didn’t really say anything beyond hurling personal attacks.”
You mean personal attacks like the ones you used in this very column? For example, ‘Idiots’, ‘morons’, ‘cowards’… You’re whole argument is based on the fact that since the Vikileaks campaign didn’t use exactly the same procedures as outlined in Bill C30 that it was entirely pointless. I believe it was meant to be more of a symbolic action over concern of an erosion of privacy that this bill might represent to some people. Whether this was accomplished, I’m not sure.
I will agree with you in the sense that I would not personally mount this kind of campaign. However, if the goal was to put pressure on law makers to review the legislation, I would call the campaign a success based on the number of media outlets reporting it and the increased number of Canadians who were made aware of details in the bill as a result of it.
Unfortunately Tom, the whole campaign showed exactly what can happen when cops will have access to personal info without having justifiable reasons. Vic’s divorce documents are public records, so it’s not like anyone had to do anything at all to get them either.
There’s nothing to stop the cops from saying ‘I’m investigating Brodbeck because we got an anonymous report he was up to no good’, and with this Bill that’s besically enough for them to find out exactly where’s you’ve been doing ‘research’ on. Are you sure every website you’ve visited has been 100% OK? Ever clicked on a bogus link in an email and gone to a bad page by accident? What about legitimate research for a story on the underbelly of society?
Fact is without a warrant they can then use whatever they find however they want… much like Vikileaks did – but they didn’t need a warrant either now did they?
Jon,
You said:
“I will agree with you in the sense that I would not personally mount this kind of campaign. However, if the goal was to put pressure on law makers to review the legislation, I would call the campaign a success based on the number of media outlets reporting it and the increased number of Canadians who were made aware of details in the bill as a result of it.
So are you saying that if someone digs up any politician’s divorce records and puts them on a social media account in order to protest a piece of legislation the elected official is sponsoring, it’s OK to do so as long as it brings public attention to the bill in question?
I believe even Liberal MP Justin Trudeau — certainly no fan of Toews — publicly denounced the vikileaks campaign.
The information that would be collected and be easy access would be a prime and easy target for hackers. Hackers would use the information to target ISP customers and ultimately get at far more personal information.
This ineffective and unnecessary bill is not worth a shred of privacy, no matter how minimal the data may be (according to you).
The actions of that twitter account did its job. It brought some serious attention, media attention in particular, that would otherwise would have ignored the entire issue of this bill. Success.
one word, Tom… warrants = accountability.
1st – let me say that I have no details that may embarrass me out on the internet world. Maybe you critics do, so you should have been smart enough not to put yourself in this situation.
2nd – I feel that if this act will save one child from being used and abused by these creeps, let’s pass it quickly.
3rd – I believe (and that’s only my theory) that this campaign began somewhere in the NDP caucus, so it shows what sort of integrity they have. Talk about agenda!
4th – I am not a cop, nor do I have any close friends that are, but it seems that our (ME) society today has no respect for anything, including themselves, when they keep coming down on law enforcement. The funny thing is, that when they need some help, guess who they call …….?
Vic actually said:
Vic Toews, federal Minister of Public Safety, has had himself a little bit of a week. It began last Monday, when he fielded a question from Liberal MP Francis Scarpaleggia. Mr. Toews infamously defended the government’s so-called Lawful Access bill, which would increase the amount of information about customers that telecommunications companies are forced to keep and ease the restrictions against them making said information available to law enforcement, by declaring that, “[Mr. Scarpaleggia] can either stand with us or with the child pornographers.”
Not pedophiles but he was did refer to opposers of the bill as prornographers….not as bad but not good either.
… tom misses the point, by a hundred miles!
… the point was to protest the introduction of warrantless access to private information.
… democratic societies have been seeking to protect a private realm from state intrusion since, oh, the magna carta.
… of course “It has nothing to do with putting court records on social media accounts.”
… no one made this claim.
… it has to do with how much access the state should have to your private life, and with what permissions?
… pretty dump column, actually.
mm
Madeline,
So next week if someone wants to protest Mayor Sam Katz’s tax increase for 2012, it would make sense to you to pull out his divorce records and put them on a social media account? The divorce records would have nothing to do with the tax increase, just like Toews’ divorce records have nothing to do with Bill C-30.
Tom
Don’t get your Sam Katz reference Tom? How does Vic allowing cops to invade your privacy without a warrant have ANYTHING to do with taxes? Seems a stretch to somehow equate the two.
Again, because you seemed to have missed the obvious point of Vikileaks Tom…
Vikileaks invaded Vic’s privacy without a warrant to show what happens when we allow people to invade a person’s private life without a warrant. Personally I don’t think Vic’s, or anyone else’s divorce settlements should be public record, but now Vic has something else to champion.
Guy said it best above… warrants = accountability… and that’s all most people want.
Gerald,
I think you just answered your own question. You are correct, Katz’s divorce records have nothing to do with taxation policies. So it would be dumb to put his divorce records on a social media account to protest tax policies.
It’s also dumb to put Toews divorce records on a social media account to protest a bill that has nothing whatsoever to do with access to, or the dissemination of, court documents. Those records are already public and many of them are already online through CanLii. You don’t require a warrant or a court order of any kind to access them. One has nothing to do with the other.
As I said in my original post, the main controversy surrounding the bill is law enforcement access to subscriber Internet information. There are valid concerns there. But none of it has anything to do with disseminating public court records.
Which is why vikileaks was a dumb campaign that made no sense whatsoever.
This is possibly the worst blog Tom has ever written. Our ancestors fought and died for the right to freedom of speech in Canda. Vic Toews wants to take away that right, and Brodbeck supports this? Hey Tom, your next article should be about how “dumb” the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is, and how we should just do away with it.
There is no connection between what is already public and what is not. That is the point of this article.
If people put information up on any publicly accessed website for whatever reason it was their choice to do so. Vic Toews did not. Whether someone wants to go and read publicly accessed information about another person, or throw it around it is up to them.
The point of this article was and still is, if Vikileaks wanted to really protest bill C-30, they would have used the real flaws of the bill to prove to the public that it was reasonable to protest the bill. Instead Vikileaks used this venue as a way for a personal attack.
If anyone at your work did the same thing to you about your personal information, say put it on your bulletin board for all your managers and co-employees to read, because it’s public? Does it make it proper? Does it show any ethics, moral integrity, or responsibility? Or is it a malicious attempt to make the person the information is about look bad to his employers, co-workers etc? Even if there is or isn’t something in the documents that may or may not be flattering, this is not the venue for this kind of information.
As far as that goes one of my collogues found an article about an underage girl and how Target sent her flyers for maternity clothing. Apparently Target had her search information it retained unbeknownst to her and her parents, sent her a flyer for maternity items. Father sees the flyer, goes to Target reams out the manager, goes home talks to daughter, calls Target and apologizes, daughter is due in about 6 months.
All this information was based on her searching preferences. You can bet your bottom dollar Google does the exact same thing. Ergo their policy changes. They use these preferences to mold the advertisements and search preferences you see each time you use Google. Some say these are cookies. Others who are a little more forward thinking, understand this is just Google’s way of glossing over what their future plans for your information they already collect, store and market. Ever wonder what kind of money Google makes with advertisers because they KNOW you, your preferences and where in the world you live? Even if it’s just the center of Canada?
You couldn’t be farther from the truth Tom. Vic Toews is the ultimate hypocrite as are you. You speak about democracy as if these politicians promote and protect it when that is the very thing they are trying to abolish with these POLICE STATE LAWS.
What the vikileaks campaign showed us was the POLITICIANS who supposedly represent us on Parliament hill are the most corrupt, disloyal hypocrites who stand against everything our fore fathers fought and died for. “Your either with us or the Child molesters”
Give me a break Tom how naive are you as a journalist when you couldn’t write on a post it note without your editors approval. Yet you spout this hate at a group that is trying to show the general public who Vic Toews really is like as a man, husband, boyfriend and last but no least father. It’s okay we know you are a slave to corporate media… Just don’t expect us to swallow your lies anymore.
Wow journalistic integrity…..
You speak about the anonymous group being “Cowards” and being a waste of time. What about the lies you promote. Where is your journalistic integrity to report the truth. Where are your articles about the millions of Iraqi civilians that have been killed in this fake war on terror, or the millions of people living in a Fenced jail in Palistine.
Where is your story of Tim Geithner being arrested last week for $135 billion dollars in fraud. Wheres that story. Tom?
Your the coward, the only difference is you have the Quebcor and there billions of political purchasing power to promote your lies.