Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 4th Sep 2011 15:48 UTC
Legal "Secret U.S. government cables show a stunning willingness by senior Canadian officials to appease American demands (more here) for a U.S.-style copyright law here. The documents describe Canadian officials as encouraging American lobbying efforts. They also cite cabinet minister Maxime Bernier raising the possibility of showing U.S. officials a draft bill before tabling it in Parliament. The cables, from the U.S. Embassy in Ottawa, even have a policy director for then industry minister Tony Clement suggesting it might help U.S. demands for a tough copyright law if Canada were placed among the worst offenders on an international piracy watch list. Days later, the U.S. placed Canada alongside China and Russia on the list." Unbelievable. Suddenly I understand why the SFPD had no qualms about acting as henchmen for Apple goons to violate someone's constitutional rights. If a government is messed up, it only makes sense this is reflected in the corporate policies of its prime corporations.
Permalink for comment 488467
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Holwerda is a clown
by Not2Sure on Sun 4th Sep 2011 23:38 UTC
Member since:

So, let's see, you are surprised that members of the elected governments of two nations with a long history of bilateral actions and who are each their greatest trading partners are alleged to have collaborated on a public policy impacting trade. Therefore, it makes sense that one or two members of a local police agency that has nothing to do with either Canada or the US federal government is alleged to have acted improperly.

I'm sure you will explain what one thing has the fuck to do with the other. Or not, whatevs.

What a troll. Up next on OSNews, the discovery that US and Mexico collaborate on national security will suddenly make it clear to Holwerda that the US is responsible for the recent erratic solar cycle. Or maybe a rant on Israel. That would be great.

Can you please tone down your propaganda to I dunno, your normal adolescent outbursts? I for one am beginning to tire of the trolling.

PS: The SFPD's actual statement: "After speaking with Apple representatives, we were given information which helped us determine what occurred. It was discovered that Apple employees called Mission Police station directly, wanting assistance in tracking down a lost item. Apple had tracked the lost item to a house located in the 500 block of Anderson Street. Because the address was in the Ingleside Police district Apple employees were referred to Officers in the Ingleside district. Four SFPD Officers accompanied Apple employees to the Anderson street home. The two Apple employees met with the resident and then went into the house to look for the lost item. The Apple employees did not find the lost item and left the house.
The Apple employees did not want to make an official report of the lost item."

With your vast understanding of US law, please let us know how these officers violated the Constitution of the US or acted improperly. Oh and include some links to wikipedia. kkthxbye!

In case you didn't realize, this is the EXACT same process that occurs when a private citizen tracks his or her stolen phone via GPS or their laptop via tracking software and calls the police to recover it when they have a location. Except then it's not a gross abuse of police power it's "cool" or something and worthy of mass attention on twitter. If Apple had actually reported it as stolen, a warrant would most likely have been obtained (or not based on the evidence) and the police would have entered the premises to do the search.

If you want to bitch or whine like little girls about something actually useful and related to Apple, you should be complaining about the fact that the two guys who stole the iPhone prototype last year, were convicted of selling stolen property and sentenced to fines while Gizmodo faced no action whatsover for knowingly paying them for stolen property and reaping immense profit from it, an issue that has actual, real Constitutional implications.

Reply Score: -3