Here in Canada, we use common law as the basis of our legal code. So the wording really interesting, what you're actually missing is the case law behind how the law has developed and why mischief is actually a fairly serious crime on the books here. If you're actually interested, you can go over here and start looking through the vast library of it.

Anyway, for your analogy, that comes under several different laws. Mischief(interrupting the cable service on your end), theft of service(from the provider and to you), B&E(altering the state of your house), probably possessing tools to commit the BE(another law), peeking through the windows(invasion of privacy). But it does actually align with the definition in relation to data just fine, since the case law data has defined this clearly. It's also just as important in common law that the law itself clearly defines what is, and isn't. And in this case, with the previous cases of mischief of people "capturing data" in an unauthorized way, section 1.1(c) is what will most likely be applied.

RCMP compared to say? OPP and issues with let's say...oh...Caledonia? Or several other issues? Let's run away, away, run away way. Let's arrest the other non-native protesters so we don't enflame the natives? Doesn't get better when the OPP are involved or the courts either here in Ontario. How about Ipperwash? When the natives were shooting at the police, and they had it on film, and the courts refused to hear the evidence? I've have a friend who was in the military at the time and she was shot at while her helicopter was doing a flyover. They refused to allow evidence of that in too.

Or how about the CBSA, when they stopped hundreds of american natives coming into Canada with guns? The RCMP arrested them but the courts let them go and where did they end up? Ipperwash shooting at the OPP, at the RCMP, and at the CF's. Please, the RCMP has problems without a doubt, but they're not a patch on either what goes on with the natives, some of the serious issues with the courts, or even with the provincial police forces when the government jams their fingers in and tells them to "back off."

Protip: In Canada, the courtroom is owned by the judge. Not the crown, the crown can offer whatever they want. The judge however can slap them with whatever sentence they want, that however can end up before the superior court(think state level supreme), which may decrease the sentence or even increase it if they think it isn't severe enough.

Here in Canada, we use common law as the basis of our legal code. So the wording really interesting, what you're actually missing is the case law behind how the law has developed and why mischief is actually a fairly serious crime on the books here. If you're actually interested, you can go over here and start looking through the vast library of it.

Anyway, for your analogy, that comes under several different laws. Mischief(interrupting the cable service on your end), theft of service(from the provider and to you), B&E(altering the state of your house), probably possessing tools to commit the BE(another law), peeking through the windows(invasion of privacy). But it does actually align with the definition in relation to data just fine, since the case law data has defined this clearly. It's also just as important in common law that the law itself clearly defines what is, and isn't. And in this case, with the previous cases of mischief of people "capturing data" in an unauthorized way, section 1.1(c) is what will most likely be applied.

> Anyone talking on a sat phone is by definition interesting to the government - any government.

Uh, no. I live on the coast and every big (especially charter) fishing boat has sat phones. Most of it the conversations are: "Yes honey I'm still at the office looks like I'm going to be REALLY late".

However, if there is anything in which I have confidence, it is this administration's commitment to slow, methodical, blame-laden screwings of the lower- and middle-class.

In what way has the lower and middle class been screwed by the present administration? I'll agree that the previous administration was great for the rich and crappy for everyone else, but I posit it's slowly improving.

The lower and middle classes have been getting royally screwed for at least half my life, and I retired earlier this year. The screwings started with Reagan's Capital Gains cuts, which caused an orgy of hostile corporate takeovers leading to layoffs and lowered hours. I was hurt badly when my employer staved off an attempted corporate pirate raid.

No, that suppository arrives with the Clinton Administration. I reckon she's wreckin'.

I certainly hope so, it would be nice for the US to raise to the level of the rest of the industrialized world from our historically barbaric health care "system". American health care is far from #1 in any measure except cost; ours is the most expensive. It's neither logical nor rational.

As to Clinton, if she's elected and half as good as her husband the country will be in fine shape. It would be incredibly hard for her to be anywhere as bad as George Junior, the worst President in my lifetime (AFAIC we've really only had two good Presidents in my lifetime, Eisenhower and Clinton, and as I was very young I could be wrong about Eisenhower but love that interstate highway system, as well as his cautions about a military industrial complex).

I'm more worried about Illinois. Dillard was Chief of Staff under Thompson and Edgar, and Illinois did pretty good until Ryan got in, and it deteriorated worse under Blago. It hasn't gotten much better under Quinn, but unfortunately Dillard lost the primary and the stupid Republicans nominated the only one of the four candidates that would get me to vote for Quinn.

Liars always lie. I think people mistrust statistics because they don't understand statistics, or worse, understand a little, just enough to be dangerous.

I worked with data and statisticians my whole career. I'm not a statistician, but learned a lot about the discipline from working with them. One of my co-workers had written a textbook on the subject that was used in colleges. Very interesting discipline.

I wonder how easy it will be for someone unauthorized to force a cellphone off the air. And how easy it will be to get someone authorized to do it through social engineering.

I just hope that however they implement it, they make sure that emergency calls can still be made.

You useless peace of shit, quit spamming unrelated threads with hosts files, FFS!

We all believed you until you hit "A Wife." This is ./, and we already know that the virgin crowd rules these shores...

Let me make it simpler on you.

Rational choice + Social disorganization = Crime

Interestingly enough, when you break one or two of those two options, you're doing enough to break the classic situation which breeds criminal behavior. Reinforce it however, or do nothing, and it will continue to perpetuate itself.

Oh no, not at all! The beauty of startups is having motivated, talented people willing to work long hours for peanuts!

Oh you mean the beauty of startups for the *employees*... :P

At a what? Are you at a 21-year-old company or are you at a startup?

Or are you at a 21-year-old company that pretends to be a startup when they say things like "hey guys we're a startup so can you work this weekend?"

This one time this guy died in a car crash and he was driving a Volvo.

Therefore motorbikes are safer than Volvos.