When I said "honour bound", I didn't necessarily mean it wasn't the dishonor heaped on a politician by his opponents (;-))

Huh? Mr Harper is a Conservative, so it's more like Mr. Nixon.

In a now far-past age, we had a fix for this. Politicians of the "family compact" era fought hard against "responsible government", which made ministers responsible for their departments, and honour-bound to resign from cabinet when they failed in their undertakings.

It was imposed anyway as part of Lord Durhams' reforms, much to their displeasure.

Over time, governments have become more resistant to losing votes and ministers have become very resistant to stepping down for anything other than cheesing off the PM. Just flat lying to the electorate has become popular, here, in the UK and the US.

I think we have a problem involving a lack of negative feedback. If I'm PM, I can do anything I want, and no-one can stop me. If I'm an ill-advised liberal I can do as much damage as an ill-advised conservative and equally as much as a deliberate "Dr Evil". That's probably a bad thing...

s/the that/the <bad guy> that/

I could use high-reliability backup that isn't on some single-point-of-failure company like Kim's.

Alas, law enforcement would be unable to tell me from their worst enemy. OK if it's Canada, they can serve me with a warrant and reassure themselves that I'm not the they're looking for, but I fear the Excited States might not bother staying within the rule of law.

--dave
Hmmn, I owe the blog a discussion about this...

Yes, and courts are neuter, so it's a waste of time for them to hit on anyone (;-))

This is Canada, where we engage in somewhat British-sounding understatement. The police or courts may say they are be "speaking" to someone, and the words they speak may be polite, but the import of them may be very unpleasant to the listener. Americans might translate it as "hitting on him with a clue-stick".

I don't like the party in power, but you have to admit they're not slow!

Good point, and thanks. I used your characterization about the "aim of the slimy" in a comment in the article we're discussing.

That's different from the courts screwing up, and more like a trick to get away with forum shopping, something that wouldn't happen nearly as well (badly) between states.

You think US courts won't take "judicial notice" of a Canadian suit on the very same crime, and one in which the company had to commence a Canadian action to get the information? You think we don't have treaties with the US? You think countries haven't honoured each other's decisions and court orders since the middle ages?

That claim requires the end justifies the means. Never has, never will.

Well, then we don't need to be breaking our spears over it here on /., do we?

Someone has to tell a whole mass of possibly-terrified individuals and a collection of government and police forces that a crime is being committed. Othewise the criminal walk away with their ill-gotten gains.

The US company would have to sue in Canada first to get the court order to disclose the accused's name. The US court would refuse to proceed if the same suit is already underway in Canada. "Jurisdiction shopping" gets you a pissed-off judge, and possible sanctions.

Fraud is a criminal offence, requiring the person be making a false statement to obtain money, and the false statement not to opinions like "my product is better than his".

In the US, the tradition is to sue folks. In Canada we tend to call the cops. I'm mildly surprised no-one has said they done so already.