dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
3549
MaynardKrebs
We did it. We heaved Steve. Yipee.
Premium Member
join:2009-06-17

MaynardKrebs to elwoodblues

Premium Member

to elwoodblues

Re: Cyberbullying law - let police remotely hack into computers

Can Contempt of the Queen still land you in The Tower with a date with the headsman?

XoX
join:2003-08-19
Qc, Canada

XoX to Confuse

Member

to Confuse
said by Confuse :

Why are people afraid of laws that would assist in catching criminals? I don't think a normal citizen should be cautious of such laws unless they are engaging in illicit activities.

Consumers are already hijacking their electronics. Cell phones with tracking software installed can let you locate it in case it get stolen or lost. Giving this type of power directly to police officers will expedite the recovery of stolen goods.

No parents would mind if this law allows convicted sex offenders to be tracked and carefully monitored.

Small dosage of paranoia is healthy but realistically we have to realize that as technology advances, the laws also need to progress in order to mitigate criminal activities.

Ever herd of people getting the stick even if they not the culprit?

In a perfect world where no innocent are falsely accused or worse found guilty a warrant might not be needed but we are so far from that a warrant is the minimum needed...

btw... if you like to be observed, probed, etc without a warrant why don't you move to China or North Korea... You will feel right at home there.

sbrook
Mod
join:2001-12-14
Ottawa

sbrook to MaynardKrebs

Mod

to MaynardKrebs
That's treason, and Canada doesn't execute traitors ... and until our leaders do acts of violence to overthrow the crown, they aren't traitors!
sbrook

sbrook to XoX

Mod

to XoX
XoX said "Ever herd of people getting the stick even if they not the culprit?"

Sure have ... I know people who due to being simply investigated by the police can't get employment in their field. The worst incidence of this is amongst teachers and spouses of teachers. Sometimes just the affiliation with someone investigated puts one at higher risk.

Being the subject of a police investigation is sometimes even worse than being found guilty, served your time and released, or certainly charged and had charges formally dropped.

Teddy Boom
k kudos Received
Premium Member
join:2007-01-29
Toronto, ON

Teddy Boom to XoX

Premium Member

to XoX
said by XoX:

In a perfect world where no innocent are falsely accused or worse found guilty a warrant might not be needed

Police action is often used to intimidate activists over many issues. So.. It isn't just about misdirected criminal investigation, though that is a huge issue itself. It is about anybody who pushes the boundaries--anybody who pushes back against societal norms.

And to be clear, lots of those people are a problem (NAMBLA?), but many many more are just expressing themselves (Occupy Wall Street?).

Warrants make sense. Getting a warrant may sound like an issue to us regular people, but it is a routine part of policing. In practice I believe it is a very low bar.
jkoblovsky
join:2011-09-27
Keswick, ON

jkoblovsky to MaynardKrebs

Member

to MaynardKrebs

said by MaynardKrebs See Profile
If Harper goes ahead with pushing the Bills through, I wonder if there is any way to go to the Governor-General to get the current government removed from power?

Wondering if MP's voted for C13 and S4 as they stand now, whether that would constitute a breach of the oath of public office? That would be an interesting question. We need to get all these MPs thinking about the constitution when they draw up laws. This throwing out constitutional rights in legislation to please the base has to stop, when essentially the senate is just rubber stamping all of this.

beedle2
join:2006-06-08
East York, ON

beedle2

Member

Looks like this court decision has effectively destroyed those bills (I guess they could pass them but they wouldn't hold up to a court challenge after this decision, as the justices seemed to be directing their decision just as much to the proposed bills as the case in question itself.)

»www.michaelgeist.ca/cont ··· 7156/125
---------------
Supreme Court Delivers Huge Victory for Internet Privacy & Blows Away Gov't Plans for Reform

Friday June 13, 2014

For the past several months, many Canadians have been debating privacy reform, with the government moving forward on two bills: lawful access (C-13) and PIPEDA reform (S-4). One of the most troubling aspects of those bills has been the government's effort to expand the scope of warrantless, voluntary disclosure of personal information.

Bill C-13 proposes to expand warrantless disclosure of subscriber information to law enforcement by including an immunity provision from any criminal or civil liability (including class action lawsuits) for companies that preserve personal information or disclose it without a warrant. Meanwhile, Bill S-4, proposes extending the ability to disclose subscriber information without a warrant from law enforcement to private sector organizations. The bill includes a provision that allows organizations to disclose personal information without consent (and without a court order) to any organization that is investigating a contractual breach or possible violation of any law. I appeared before both committees in recent weeks (C-13, S-4), but Conservative MPs and Senators were dismissive of the concerns associated with voluntary disclosures.

This morning another voice entered the discussion and completely changed the debate. The Supreme Court of Canada issued its long-awaited R. v. Spencer decision, which examined the legality of voluntary warrantless disclosure of basic subscriber information to law enforcement. In a unanimous decision written by (Harper appointee) Justice Thomas Cromwell, the court issued a strong endorsement of Internet privacy, emphasizing the privacy importance of subscriber information, the right to anonymity, and the need for police to obtain a warrant for subscriber information except in exigent circumstances or under a reasonable law.

sbrook
Mod
join:2001-12-14
Ottawa

sbrook to LastDon

Mod

to LastDon
It occurs to me that one of the reasons for introducing warrantless searches is the time that it takes to get a warrant. Surely therefore the answer is to improve the speed of the warrant process by maybe having judges on call who can approve a warrant in urgent but not emergency situations.
MaynardKrebs
We did it. We heaved Steve. Yipee.
Premium Member
join:2009-06-17

MaynardKrebs

Premium Member

said by sbrook:

It occurs to me that one of the reasons for introducing warrantless searches is the time that it takes to get a warrant. Surely therefore the answer is to improve the speed of the warrant process by maybe having judges on call who can approve a warrant in urgent but not emergency situations.

@sbrook
Not being critical, just adding to the absurdity of these fatally flawed bits of hubris that the Cons attempt to call 'legislation'.

Your point may be ONE reason why the government was looking to get warrantless searches & a "Get Out of Jail Free" card for the telcos. But it was far from the only reason, and not very high on the list of reasons either.

IMHO, the real rationales for warrantless wiretaps and immunity for the telcos was to create dossiers on ANYONE the Harper 'government' thought was its enemy - as in political enemy - Liberal, NDP, journalists, defense attorneys, fundraisers for opposition parties, political commentators, university professors, outspoken private citizens (JF's of the world as an example), indeed anyone who might be critical of government policy or their corporate friends.

Hey, under the proposed legislation even mayors could request warrantless data. So, how about the Ford brothers getting info about Toronto Star reporters or city council opponents? Does that sound legitimate to you?

There are PLENTY of legitimate ways to conduct gumshoe surveillance of legitimate criminal targets even without warrants, and plenty of judges who would sign off on legitimate warrant requests in a timely manner. They get Hell's Angels and others this way all the time.

Your average run-of-the-mill jihadist or bad guy flavour of the week is either stupid enough to use Facebook to rail against the 'man', or will conduct their business by word of mouth. A dragnet of everyone in society will not do anything against that.

sbrook
Mod
join:2001-12-14
Ottawa

sbrook

Mod

I read somewhere that it typically takes 48 hours to get a warrant in Canada ... which is a little long in part because it must be signed sealed and delivered instead of just agreed to by the judge with the "paper copy to follow".

And since this is not twitter, (and I don't use it) you can call me sbrook ... not @sbrook if you don't mind. The day that DSLR starts using @ for names and the dreaded # "hash tag", I am outta here!

elwoodblues
Elwood Blues
Premium Member
join:2006-08-30
Somewhere in

elwoodblues to MaynardKrebs

Premium Member

to MaynardKrebs
I wouldn't be the least surprised , they already have dossiers on their current "enemies".

And his supporters I'm Canpol think I'm nuts when I call him a dictator.
jkoblovsky
join:2011-09-27
Keswick, ON

1 edit

jkoblovsky to sbrook

Member

to sbrook
I don't think we've heard the last of this yet. The security establishment is worth billions and the private sector contractors since 9/11 have been beefed up huge by government subsidies and contracts on both sides of the border. The SoC decision is a step in the right direction, however when you are talking about things like reforming the legal system for electronic surveillance, your going up against a much more powerful lobby than the entertainment industry. They have much more influence on how this all turns out.

I'm not sure quick warrants will be the solution here. This Spenser fellow wasn't going anywhere. 48 hours wouldn't have made a difference in this case, or situation. It would be different if lives were at stake, but we have laws for that and warrants are not needed in those situations now in current law to begin with. Be careful what you ask for, you might actually get it, with the security establishments hands all over a quick warrant reform. It should not be about time in this situation it should be about ensuring proper due diligence and evidence that a crime has been committed. The security lobby is countering with the "time" argument. Those looking at this should be more concerned on what evidence is needed to obtain those warrants.

I think many are expecting going forward a very low threshold to obtain warrants based on accusations with the process sped up to a matter of minutes, which essentially is warrantless access as we know it now, but with a warrant. It's going to take decades to work through the lawyering of all of this with the security establishment at the helm. "Orwellian" laws were put on hold for maybe a few months with this SoC decision. The only way for a swift victory here would be through public opinion, and that is unlikely to happen for a number of reasons, not withstanding private industry influence on public opinion and advocacy at present.

relaxguy
@130.113.125.x

relaxguy to LastDon

Anon

to LastDon
We all need to keep a perspective here. There will be some minor trade off that is require for the greater good. If you have nothing to hide then you should not be afraid of this law.

This is akin to wanting public service but also not wanting to pay taxes to support it. You guys want to reduce criminal activities and yet you are not willing to give the law the necessary tools to do it.

Why are certain people here so afraid of being audited? If you have such fear then perhaps you should stop engaging in illegal behaviours.

Just my two cents.

elwoodblues
Elwood Blues
Premium Member
join:2006-08-30
Somewhere in

elwoodblues

Premium Member

said by relaxguy :

We all need to keep a perspective here. There will be some minor trade off that is require for the greater good. If you have nothing to hide then you should not be afraid of this law.

This is akin to wanting public service but also not wanting to pay taxes to support it. You guys want to reduce criminal activities and yet you are not willing to give the law the necessary tools to do it.

Why are certain people here so afraid of being audited? If you have such fear then perhaps you should stop engaging in illegal behaviours.

Just my two cents.

People like you deserve to be put out on an ice flow. It's not a matter of "having something to hide" it's a matter of what I do on the net is nobody's business but my own. Certainly not "The Harper Government" that is spending my tax dollars to spy on it's perceived enemies (read anyone that's not part of their core).

We already have laws for child porn and whatnot, this is like the "distracted driving" law in Ontario, we don't need it, it's called careless driving.

sbrook
Mod
join:2001-12-14
Ottawa

sbrook to jkoblovsky

Mod

to jkoblovsky
What I think I was trying to say is that IF the problem was time, then the lawmakers could have solved that problem in other ways. I'm not saying it was what they were REALLY trying to achieve.

Certainly recent world events have driven the world closer to a sense of paranoia ... where the establishment has taken a stance of "You must be guilty of something, we just need the info to figure out what ... just give us time" Of course at one time, that just meant that you paid a little more attention to your neighbours to see if they were the Killer Robots from Venus!

Today, though, we have the technology to do a whole lot more than pay a little more attention. Technology has given us the tools at an affordable cost. Just 30 years ago, a terabyte of storage was a roomfull of diskdrives with a power consumption to require a dedicated power plant! Today we have terabyte drives in most computers consuming maybe 15 watts and costing maybe $70 each.

The one way to get economies out of the doldrums is to go to war ... Well, paranoia has created an artificial war which has sent security and technology industries on quite the ride and ensures that nobody trusts anyone else any more.
sbrook

1 recommendation

sbrook to relaxguy

Mod

to relaxguy
Relaxguy, the point is that there really is NO need for all the auditing in the first place.

Your approach is a derivative of the old western mantra "Hang 'em all, that way we'll get the ones who are guilty" ... Just remember they're gonna hang you too.

This level of distrust is how we've ended up with dictators committing heinous crimes against humanity.
jkoblovsky
join:2011-09-27
Keswick, ON

1 edit

jkoblovsky to sbrook

Member

to sbrook
I couldn't agree more. sbrook +1

Regarding warrants, the time part is something we really need to keep an eye on. Not sure if that's even a problem. It may take them a few extra days here to compile evidence for a warrant, but from my understanding growing up in a law enforcement family myself (my step father was the staff Sargent in our local area here for decades), it's pretty easy and fast to obtain warrants with a good handle on the evidence. At least that was the case 10 years ago (usually the same day as the warrant was requested, maybe a few hours at the least). I would suspect it's a lot faster now due to the technological advancements. The only thing that would speed up the warrant process right now, I would assume would be evidence gathering. The less evidence needed, the quicker the warrant. That's something we need to keep our eyes on, especially when the security establishment is complaining about the time it would take to compile evidence after this ruling to obtain warrants.

I'd rather them take the extra few days to get at the right people, then to see a whole bunch being falsely accused and sent to prison for crimes they didn't commit. Without the proper evidence, it becomes a witch hunt which further erodes public trust in our law enforcement.
LastDon
join:2002-08-13

LastDon to sbrook

Member

to sbrook
said by sbrook:

It occurs to me that one of the reasons for introducing warrantless searches is the time that it takes to get a warrant. Surely therefore the answer is to improve the speed of the warrant process by maybe having judges on call who can approve a warrant in urgent but not emergency situations.

Everyone deserves some sort of privacy.. if mayors etc are given the power to install virus , malware to access a computer then reality is everyone would be a criminal in their eyes.

we vote these people to do their job, help control a country etc but not give up our right as human beings, and privacy.

I am sure they could thing of a way to get a warrant without waiting such a long time . I think in a true emergency situation they could get a warranty in less the time frame they have suggested but of course won't disclose that information as it would go against their will to back his bill .

They make it sound like it is the end of the world, but reality is, IF they know a person is a criminal .. they keep on eye on them, follow etc etc, until a warranty is received. simple. IF the person runs, well then arrest them.
LastDon

LastDon to relaxguy

Member

to relaxguy
said by relaxguy :

We all need to keep a perspective here. There will be some minor trade off that is require for the greater good. If you have nothing to hide then you should not be afraid of this law.

This is akin to wanting public service but also not wanting to pay taxes to support it. You guys want to reduce criminal activities and yet you are not willing to give the law the necessary tools to do it.

Why are certain people here so afraid of being audited? If you have such fear then perhaps you should stop engaging in illegal behaviours.

Just my two cents.

Easy there RelaxGuy..

There is nothing Good about the bill.
It is not about " If you have nothing to hide than there is no issue"
We as human require privacy, peace and safe mind.
Having Police, Mayors etc etc put trojan virus on your computer, or malware to expose you to hacks, and breach your privacy is not the way.

The law HAS the necessary tools currently to fight crime. with this BILL they would decide who is a criminal and WHO is to be hacked.

THere has always been cases of Rogue cops, people in power.. what if they deem YOU to be a criminal and make sure YOU are made to look like one? WHat do you do then? I mean how many innocent people were convicted of crimes with lack of evidence ? How many cops lost their jobs because of criminal activity? etc.

At the end of the day. We deserve of privacy . we vote these people in power.

jkoblovsky : exactly.. having evidence to obtain a warrant should be how it is.. now hack first, get evidence... I think some Police officers have made sound worse than it is. They make it sound like their job is tougher because of the Supreme court ruling .

It is bs.. I know some officers that don't agree at all with some of the crap that is being said. Exaggeration

sbrook
Mod
join:2001-12-14
Ottawa

sbrook to LastDon

Mod

to LastDon
LastDon, as it is now, if it's a life threatening scenario, they don't need a warrant. jkoblovsky suggested it was same day processing to get a warrant with the evidence ... today it seems it's more like 48 hours ... but of course that depends on when you start counting. Time doesn't have to be an issue.
LastDon
join:2002-08-13

LastDon

Member

»www.phonearena.com/news/ ··· _id57152

Article doesn't state how the BBM's where gained just says something about tools

sbrook
Mod
join:2001-12-14
Ottawa

sbrook

Mod

Nor does it say if they were warrantless incursions.

relaxguy
@130.113.125.x

relaxguy to sbrook

Anon

to sbrook
said by sbrook:

Relaxguy, the point is that there really is NO need for all the auditing in the first place.

Your approach is a derivative of the old western mantra "Hang 'em all, that way we'll get the ones who are guilty" ... Just remember they're gonna hang you too.

This level of distrust is how we've ended up with dictators committing heinous crimes against humanity.

Surveying is different than conviction. The government will not convict you any crimes you did not commit.

This law is only giving law enforcement broader range of utilities so that they can protect us. Why do you care if they are tracking your car location if you did not do anything illegal?

Random checkpoints is a good case that has similar properties of this surveillance law. If you didn't drink and drive, you should have no problem passing these checkpoints and go on your merry way. You will surely appreciate it however, when these checkpoints are removing drunk drivers off the road who can potentially harm you or your family.
jkoblovsky
join:2011-09-27
Keswick, ON

2 edits

jkoblovsky to sbrook

Member

to sbrook
said by sbrook:

LastDon, as it is now, if it's a life threatening scenario, they don't need a warrant. jkoblovsky suggested it was same day processing to get a warrant with the evidence ... today it seems it's more like 48 hours ... but of course that depends on when you start counting. Time doesn't have to be an issue.

Just to clarify, the time to achieve a warrant would be the same as it was a decade ago if not faster now. It's the evidence gathering part to obtain warrants that takes time. Once you have the evidence needed for a warrant, warrants even 10 years ago you could get within the same business day, if not within a few hours. I would suspect that's now been sped up with digital access to the courts.

What the 48 hours implies to get a warrant, is the time needed to do a proper investigation to obtain evidence to go before a judge to get a warrant. I doubt it would even take that long to be honest especially in this Spencer case. Once the evidence is gathered, then essentially warrants can be issued pretty much right away now from my understanding. It took anywhere from 2 to 48 hours before this warrantless access stuff to get the warrants from investigation, to evidence to judge 10 years ago from what I've been told. That hasn't changed with this SoC decision. Of course it's going to take more time to do the investigative work before getting warrants compared to warrantless access.

It's not an issue of overabundance on the courts, rather an issue of making sure the correct evidence is collected to convince a judge that a warrant is needed. What I'm trying to say here is you can't speed up the system without sacrificing the rights of the accused. It boils down to proper investigative and evidence collecting on behalf of law enforcement, and if we inhibit that to speed up the warrant system, they will be essentially asking for warrants with very little evidence, more of a mere accusation to get the warrant issued by the judge, which is essentially what warrantless access would have done. That's not how our system of justice works. We don't base our justice system on witch hunts, however that most likely will be the next fight going forward.
jkoblovsky

3 edits

jkoblovsky to relaxguy

Member

to relaxguy
said by relaxguy :

Surveying is different than conviction. The government will not convict you any crimes you did not commit.

This law is only giving law enforcement broader range of utilities so that they can protect us. Why do you care if they are tracking your car location if you did not do anything illegal?

Random checkpoints is a good case that has similar properties of this surveillance law. If you didn't drink and drive, you should have no problem passing these checkpoints and go on your merry way. You will surely appreciate it however, when these checkpoints are removing drunk drivers off the road who can potentially harm you or your family.

I understand completely what you are saying. Think of it this way. If your neighbor got into a car cash and blamed you for it yet your car never left the driveway and there are no marks on your car to suggest you hit your neighbor, does that give the police the right to seize your car, and search your home without any substantive evidence?

With respect to drunk driving, if you get pulled over by a cop, he suspects you of drinking and driving. You blow into their device, and your blood alcohol level is 0, is it right to take your license or keys away because his "spidey" senses tells him you've been drinking and charge you?

Of course not, there has to be a level of evidence needed here for police to take action. With respect to this SoC decision, police were watching the P2P networks for child porn, which I don't have any problems with. What this decision stated, is they probably had enough for a warrant in this case to gather more evidence of a crime, which they didn't get. They went and searched anyway without court approval.

There's something called unreasonable search and seizure in our charter rights. The Supreme Court stated that even the name and address is considered a search, and that police need to bring forth evidence they have collected at these "checkpoints" to obtain a warrant to further the investigation. That's all it is. The same system applies to police "spot checks" for drinking and driving, and it's always applied to that. You need to have oversight of law enforcement, they do make mistakes.

Throughout history we've had people burned at the steak for false accusations of witch craft and blasphemy. Our charter rights are set by our fore fathers to ensure that we don't repeat the mistakes of the past. So if it takes a few hours to a few days to ensure proper evidence is collected and that innocent people aren't burned at the steak and convicted by an accusation with no to little evidence, then I think we should all welcome that.
beedle2
join:2006-06-08
East York, ON

beedle2 to relaxguy

Member

to relaxguy
said by relaxguy :

said by sbrook:

Relaxguy, the point is that there really is NO need for all the auditing in the first place.

Your approach is a derivative of the old western mantra "Hang 'em all, that way we'll get the ones who are guilty" ... Just remember they're gonna hang you too.

This level of distrust is how we've ended up with dictators committing heinous crimes against humanity.

Surveying is different than conviction. The government will not convict you any crimes you did not commit.

This law is only giving law enforcement broader range of utilities so that they can protect us. Why do you care if they are tracking your car location if you did not do anything illegal?

Random checkpoints is a good case that has similar properties of this surveillance law. If you didn't drink and drive, you should have no problem passing these checkpoints and go on your merry way. You will surely appreciate it however, when these checkpoints are removing drunk drivers off the road who can potentially harm you or your family.

Nonsense.

If I browse porn sites, or frequent a forum of a particular political bent, that is of no ones else's business. It's not a crime to visit those sites, but it could still cause a person harm to have the information exposed to family, friends, employer, etc.

There have been many cases where even information gathered "for cause" has been abused by those in authority, so how much more so will it be abused if all information is open to gathering and examination with no judicial oversight?

What about cases where there is some crime committed and you just happen to have driven by there? The police now don't need to suspect you, they simply go gathering GSP information and without anything but a fishing expedition you are now on the suspect ... and of course, when all our data is available for examination, the police can cherry pick just the data that makes you look guilty (will ordinary people be allowed to just ask for and receive data without a court order? If not then that puts us all at a sever disadvantage since the police are under no such restraint.)

If the concept of "the authorities can ignore our rights in order to protect us' is really in play, then if we are all in prison, under close guard, wouldn't that make us 'perfectly safe'?

Random checkpoints is not even close to the same thing. It's a one time instance, in a public location, where you may be stopped and asked a few simple questions, but your information is not recorded to be used against you at a later date.

Not only would the government actually convict you of a crime that you did not commit, they have done so and will continue to do so ... and not just though incompetence, but with criminal malice as well.

Conservatives - cowards who will throw everyone under the bus just so they can have a false sense of security.

MaynardKrebs
We did it. We heaved Steve. Yipee.
Premium Member
join:2009-06-17

MaynardKrebs to relaxguy

Premium Member

to relaxguy
said by relaxguy :

We all need to keep a perspective here. There will be some minor trade off that is require for the greater good. If you have nothing to hide then you should not be afraid of this law.

This is akin to wanting public service but also not wanting to pay taxes to support it. You guys want to reduce criminal activities and yet you are not willing to give the law the necessary tools to do it.

Why are certain people here so afraid of being audited? If you have such fear then perhaps you should stop engaging in illegal behaviours.

Just my two cents.

Maybe you have not heard of a small document called the 'Magna Carta'. Magna Carta was the first document imposed upon a King of England by a group of his subjects, in an attempt to limit his powers by law and protect their rights. Just as applicable to our situation today with Herr Harpler as it was in 1215 A.D. to King John.

Yes, your 'two cents' devalued by inflation is worthless.
MaynardKrebs

MaynardKrebs to relaxguy

Premium Member

to relaxguy
said by relaxguy :

The government will not convict you any crimes you did not commit.

Ha, ha. Whoa, that's a good one!!!
Got any more jokes to tell?

Happens all the time.

sbrook
Mod
join:2001-12-14
Ottawa

sbrook

Mod

The worst part is you don't even have to be convicted if the investigation of you is kept on file. Your prospective employer does a criminality check with "Has relaxguy ever been arrested or charged or convicted for any crimes?" "Yes" "Job application denied" ... no questions about the circumstances. It's in his rights. "relaxguy was arrested ... that means the police had sufficient evidence to investigate him, that means he's suspicious"

The implications are just ridiculously broadsweeping.

Even today, it's dreadful ... a teacher is accused by a student of sexual activity to get back at him for that extra piece of homework. It doesn't MATTER even with today's laws that there wasn't enough evidence found to charge, let alone convict, he will be released as a teacher and will have totally lost his career.

This happens NOW.

Warrantless search is not harmless.
jkoblovsky
join:2011-09-27
Keswick, ON

1 edit

jkoblovsky

Member

Another good example is people being treated for depression being denied entry to the US:

»www.cbc.ca/news/canada/t ··· .2666289

Sbrook is very much right. Abuse is already happening. It's also very, very hard to correct the record on a false accusation, let alone being denied the right to travel to another country because you "might" be a security risk, because you were down in the dumps 5 to 7 years ago and sought help. It's already got out of hand.