Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Zimphire · Oct 7, 2003, 06:45 PM

"It feels like an unnecessary invasion of privacy," David Caro said. "It's going in the direction the United States is going in terms of freedoms being given up for security."

The United States has nothing of the like. Not even close. Where people get these delusions is beyond me.

http://www.canada.com/vancouver/stor...B-1F4FEADEA16D

Disgruntled Head of C-3PO · Oct 7, 2003, 06:51 PM

Stupid idea. It won't last.

And if you have tried to travel into the US as a non-US citizen then you would think differently.

Zimphire · Oct 7, 2003, 06:52 PM

Originally posted by Disgruntled Head of C-3PO:
Stupid idea. It won't last.

And if you have tried to travel into the US as a non-US citizen then you would think differently.

Of course, if I tried to travel in Canada as a non Canadian citizen it would be different too.

boots · Oct 7, 2003, 06:55 PM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Of course, if I tried to travel in Canada as a non Canadian citizen it would be different too.

Not necessarily. US citizens can go back and forth with little problem. We used to go to Windsor all the time, and still do occasionally. I didn't notice much difference Post-9/11.

Disgruntled Head of C-3PO · Oct 7, 2003, 06:56 PM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Of course, if I tried to travel in Canada as a non Canadian citizen it would be different too.

Right, but not as bad. My friend was not allowed onto a fight to the US because he had a pair of SISORS in his bag. Idoits.

Disgruntled Head of C-3PO · Oct 7, 2003, 06:57 PM

Originally posted by boots:
Not necessarily. US citizens can go back and forth with little problem. We used to go to Windsor all the time, and still do occasionally. I didn't notice much difference Post-9/11.

As usual he is speaking without any experience in the matter. He is just assuming or "Projecting" as it were

malvolio · Oct 7, 2003, 07:06 PM

Zimphire is apparently unable to distinguish between the policy of a limited number of private businesses and the policy of a national government.
Not that this surprises me.

quandarry · Oct 7, 2003, 07:11 PM

someone will take it to the supreme court as an infringement of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and they'll win...

as the direction the u.s. is going...canadians have so many more rights than u.s citizens that to try and weaken them is considered american...

Zimphire · Oct 7, 2003, 07:32 PM

Originally posted by malvolio:
Zimphire is apparently unable to distinguish between the policy of a limited number of private businesses and the policy of a national government.
Not that this surprises me.

ER where did I say either way? I wasn't the one comparing the two silly.

Zimphire · Oct 7, 2003, 07:33 PM

Originally posted by quandarry:
sas the direction the u.s. is going...canadians have so many more rights than u.s citizens that to try and weaken them is considered american...

I say this is nonsense. What rights are those?

No one in the US is trying to pass this. It wouldn't even be TRIED. They would know better.

This isn't "US like" in any way shape or form.

Zimphire · Oct 7, 2003, 07:34 PM

Originally posted by Disgruntled Head of C-3PO:
As usual he is speaking without any experience in the matter. He is just assuming or "Projecting" as it were

I know many Canadians that have came over with NO problems. Stop being silly.

dtriska · Oct 7, 2003, 07:40 PM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
The United States has nothing of the like. Not even close. Where people get these delusions is beyond me.

Yeah, the US would never target "troublemakers" in such a manner.

Thankfully, the US backed off a bit as far as Canada's concerned. It only took a year.

Still, you guys really need to get rid of Ashcroft: "�he says Canadian citizens who are born in suspect countries may indeed be singled out for fingerprinting and for further checks on what they do once they cross into the United States."

Zimphire · Oct 7, 2003, 07:44 PM

Originally posted by dtriska:
Yeah, the US would never target "troublemakers" in such a manner.
Thankfully, the US backed off a bit as far as Canada's concerned. It only took a year.

Um you are comparing entering a countries border, not being a member of said COUNTRY, with going into a public bar. Not the same thing. Not even close.

Still, you guys really need to get rid of Ashcroft: "�he says Canadian citizens who are born in suspect countries may indeed be singled out for fingerprinting and for further checks on what they do once they cross into the United States."

Canada isn't as strict as who they let in. People can easily get into the US that normally wouldn't be able to through Canada otherwise.

Again, big difference between non-citizen entering different country.

And

Citizen going to local bar. Being treated as if they were from a different country.

This is just not happening in the US. As far as public places go and non-international goings on.

Bad comparison.

dtriska · Oct 7, 2003, 07:52 PM

Originally posted by Zimphire:

Um you are comparing entering a countries border, not being a member of said COUNTRY, with going into a public bar. Not the same thing. Not even close.

Canada isn't as strict as who they let in. People can easily get into the US that normally wouldn't be able to through Canada otherwise.

Again, big difference between non-citizen entering different country.

And

Citizen going to local bar. Being treated as if they were from a different country.

This is just not happening in the US. As far as public places go and non-international goings on.

Bad comparison. [/B]

It's not my comparison; it's the comparison made by the guy you quoted. You really think he was talking about US bars?

dtriska · Oct 7, 2003, 08:09 PM

Oh, and Zimphire, you said, "The United States has nothing of the like." You didn't say such a system would never be used in American bars. So, you actually brought national governments into this.

English is a tricky language, eh?

talisker · Oct 7, 2003, 08:10 PM

I think the link I clicked on was wrong - it lead to an article about photographic ID being used in some bars and clubs to detect troublemakers. But Zimphire's raging on about Sept 11 and Ashcroft and terrorism and non-US / US citizens. I don't understand.

The term "troublemakers" in this article refers to people who make trouble in bars - ie. drunken arseholes. I don't see what's at all sinister about this development.

Actually, this is interesting. Here's Zimphire, who as far as I can make out is quite right wing, raising something he sees as maybe being interpreted by those people with a more left wing agenda as some sort of infringement of civil liberties. Confusing.

dtriska · Oct 7, 2003, 08:37 PM

I thought it was the wrong article at first as well, talisker. But, Zimphire sees a correlation between this system for bars in B.C. and his country's entry-exit system that tags any non-US citizen as a troublemaker. After all, that's what the title of the thread alludes to, right, Zimphire?

macvillage.net · Oct 7, 2003, 08:42 PM

Several states have scanners now for Licenses that Bars can use (states with digital licenses).

Advantage is that it's much quicker to detect frauds, than looking in the dark at an ID. It takes a second to swipe. A few seconds to do by eye. Reduces the manpower needed.

Still a pilot program.

Read about this 2 years ago... the idea is nothing new.

Previously a few states had ones that could check old licenses for several security features. Problem was it was pretty slow, and only checked a few things.

Good system, becuase it's quick and easy. They really want to use it for buying cigs and alcohol... that way it's actually reasonable to card everyone. It takes .5 seconds to verify the ID.

Disgruntled Head of C-3PO · Oct 7, 2003, 08:42 PM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
I know many Canadians that have came over with NO problems. Stop being silly.

Here I thought you could get by one thread without calling someone "Silly".

And they call me gay

shmerek · Oct 7, 2003, 08:58 PM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
I know many Canadians that have came over with NO problems. Stop being silly.

Are these like all the old ladies you knew who couldn't control their bowel movements due to anal sex?

zigzag · Oct 7, 2003, 09:02 PM

Originally posted by boots:
Not necessarily. US citizens can go back and forth with little problem. We used to go to Windsor all the time, and still do occasionally. I didn't notice much difference Post-9/11.

I hear the girls at Jason's are now doing full body cavity searches.

macvillage.net · Oct 7, 2003, 09:29 PM

Originally posted by shmerek:
Are these like all the old ladies you knew who couldn't control their bowel movements due to anal sex?

ROTFLOL

clarkgoble · Oct 7, 2003, 09:41 PM

as the direction the u.s. is going...canadians have so many more rights than u.s citizens

Umm.. Right. Yeah you have way more freedom of the press up there. Judges never make illegal to even report on information found independent of the courts. There are never searches without judicial oversight. There are no limits on what you are allowed saying and you can't be arrested for saying controversial things...

Yup.

Perhaps you need to read a bit more news than just listening to the CBC at night.

shmerek · Oct 7, 2003, 09:52 PM

Originally posted by clarkgoble:
as the direction the u.s. is going...canadians have so many more rights than u.s citizens

Umm.. Right. Yeah you have way more freedom of the press up there. Judges never make illegal to even report on information found independent of the courts. There are never searches without judicial oversight. There are no limits on what you are allowed saying and you can't be arrested for saying controversial things...

Yup.

Perhaps you need to read a bit more news than just listening to the CBC at night.

Feel free to back up all this stuff with links. In some court cases the media is banned but it isn't a military tribunal or anything like that. As for free speech you can say whatever you want as long as it isn't in-sighting hatred. No more "God hates fags" protests on the steps of parliament too bad huh?

The CBC is definitely not a governmental mouth piece a la CNN

Nicko · Oct 7, 2003, 09:56 PM

Originally posted by clarkgoble:
as the direction the u.s. is going...canadians have so many more rights than u.s citizens

Umm.. Right. Yeah you have way more freedom of the press up there. Judges never make illegal to even report on information found independent of the courts. There are never searches without judicial oversight. There are no limits on what you are allowed saying and you can't be arrested for saying controversial things...

Yup.

Perhaps you need to read a bit more news than just listening to the CBC at night.

Where are you getting all this from??

shmerek · Oct 7, 2003, 10:04 PM

Originally posted by Nicko:
Where are you getting all this from??

That is what I want to know.

Nicko · Oct 7, 2003, 10:05 PM

Originally posted by shmerek:
That is what I want to know.

MB he got mixed up and really meant Cambodia?

Nicko · Oct 7, 2003, 10:10 PM

An example of how oppressed we are:

Canada Court Eases Medical Marijuana Rule
Tue Oct 7, 7:56 PM ET

By TOM COHEN, Associated Press Writer

TORONTO - An appeals court expanded the ability of patients to obtain medical marijuana but affirmed that possession by non-patients remains a crime.

The decision Tuesday resolved a dilemma faced by the federal government: how to follow a court order to enable patients to get marijuana for treatment while also keeping the possession of pot by others illegal.

With a looming court-imposed deadline to create a supply system for patients, the government in 2001 started registering qualified patients and authorizing them or other designated people to grow pot for medicinal use. Several hundred people have registered with the federal government to use marijuana for medical purposes.
-------

slow moe · Oct 7, 2003, 10:41 PM

Originally posted by Nicko:
An example of how oppressed we are:

Canada Court Eases Medical Marijuana Rule
Tue Oct 7, 7:56 PM ET

By TOM COHEN, Associated Press Writer

TORONTO - An appeals court expanded the ability of patients to obtain medical marijuana but affirmed that possession by non-patients remains a crime.

The decision Tuesday resolved a dilemma faced by the federal government: how to follow a court order to enable patients to get marijuana for treatment while also keeping the possession of pot by others illegal.

With a looming court-imposed deadline to create a supply system for patients, the government in 2001 started registering qualified patients and authorizing them or other designated people to grow pot for medicinal use. Several hundred people have registered with the federal government to use marijuana for medical purposes.
-------

Chaos.

quandarry · Oct 8, 2003, 02:23 AM

Originally posted by clarkgoble:
as the direction the u.s. is going...canadians have so many more rights than u.s citizens

Umm.. Right. Yeah you have way more freedom of the press up there. Judges never make illegal to even report on information found independent of the courts. There are never searches without judicial oversight. There are no limits on what you are allowed saying and you can't be arrested for saying controversial things...

Yup.

Perhaps you need to read a bit more news than just listening to the CBC at night.

i should have stipulated privacy rights as this is what the article was pertaining to...
the government or anyone else tries to infringe on these rights and all kinds of hell breaks lose...there are even governmental agencies to protect us from the prying eyes of the government and strict laws to protect those rights...

as for freedom of the press...it is balanced so as not to infringe on these privacy rights...therefore a judge may ban news reports on a rape case to protect the victim or the publics need to know all the gruesome details of child molestation case...

is that so wrong...

as for these bars...best of luck to them...it's potential customers (money) they will scare away...

this just in...

just heard that the courts have made possession of marijuana illegal again in ontario...more **** to hit the fan until it's decriminalized by the federal government... because the prime minister wants to toke on a spliff....

boots · Oct 8, 2003, 07:46 AM

Originally posted by zigzag:
I hear the girls at Jason's are now doing full body cavity searches.

Yeah, but customers request and pay extra for that.

I see they moved Cheeta's out of the down-town area.

zigzag · Oct 8, 2003, 11:34 AM

Originally posted by boots:
Yeah, but customers request and pay extra for that.

I see they moved Cheeta's out of the down-town area.

I haven't been in about 10 years (honest!). The last time we went, an out-of-town client insisted, and it seemed to have gotten a lot more seedy. Maybe it was just a bad night.