then A/UX on a Mac II,
then A/UX on a Mac II,
Think you mean Twitter doesn't want you as a customer unless you're willing to drink the kool-aid and engage in ideological groupthink.
Generally warrants are obtained against suspects not potential witnesses. It's the scope of the warrant that's disturbing. They even say that one of these people could be the killer, so they're basically treating everyone as a potential suspect merely for having their phone turned on in the vicinity of the crime.
In Canadian law this is completely legal FYI. Hell if you're walking down the street and there was a murder 2 blocks over, and the only information is "the suspect is a black male and accomplice was white male" and you fall into either of those categories, the police can detain you to ensure you're not one of the people who fit the profile of the individuals they're looking for. There's a lot to cover in this but that's the bare minimum that should make sense.
There have been multiple cases of warrants being used against witnesses in case law in Canada as well, especially against uncooperative witnesses in crimes, several cases that I can remember witnesses were also found to be accomplices. What a lot of people don't understand and this is usually due to watching a lot of American TV(which is just plain bad on law, and really terrible on US laws too) is that the rights afforded to you under the Charter are weighted against S.1 which allows the suspending of rights if enacted via the courts or laws. Your average Canadian has less rights then their American neighbors do and it all comes back to S.1.
Keep in mind that in Canada up until a few years ago, Exigent Circumstances were legal on the books and so on. The whole idea behind it was to allow warrentless entry/searches/tapping of communications/etc before a warrant was authorized, or allow entry into a building, and so on. And allowed police to do actions without a warrant, then go back and get a warrant to cover their actions. The various laws that used it, had been on the books since before there was a Canada, and the courts ruled that exigent circumstances were overly broad in a modern society and struck the entire thing out of law.
Article is garbage and completely misses S.1 of the Charter, something you're also missing. S.1 states "guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society." To boil it down, government or courts can make laws that override these rights, or put in place case law judgements if there is a "greater good" for the rest of society. It's one of the big things that makes a lot of charter lawyers here in Canada believe that the Charter probably won't make it to 2030.
So with that, you can not refuse to talk at a RIDE checkpoint because S.1 supersedes other rights guaranteed under the charter and the SCC has already ruled that the "RIDE Program" that although being an unlawful search, there is a reasonable exception under S.1 "for the safety of all Canadians, to reduce the number of drivers under the influence" as long as it's premise holds true. That means you have no reasonable right to refuse to answer, even though it's technically an illegal search. On top of that since it is a search, and you are driving a motor vehicle you must also show license and vehicle registration if demanded. What you can do however is answer to the bare minimum that's requested of you, nothing more. There's a whole pile more to this but I'm too damned tired to write it out.
Also, the wikipedia article on R. v. Hebert misses several key things, I recommend reading the actual case law on http://canlii.org/
The problem is that there is no clear-cut definition or dividing line
Yeah, but we're very far on the 'not' side of the line, even if the line is fuzzy.
Back in the day phone lines were so much, you didn't get to have your own phone line. You had a "party line". What's that? That's where everyone in your area as the same phone line. One line, multiple houses. It would ring a different number of times to tell you who the call was for, and if you wanted to call out and someone else was using the line you had to wait. Also this meant everyone could listen in on your calls, of course. However, that was the only way phone was affordable for most people. That's not to mention the cost of long distance, which in the old days was anything off your local exchange.
And for all the bitching about Internet service, it does keep getting better, by a lot. When I first got connected to the 'net 14.4kbps was all I could get. Faster modems were out at the time, but that's all my ISP supported. As time has gone on, I've got a steady and fairly regular set of speed increases until now I have a 300mbit connection. About 21,000 times speed increase in around 21 years. Not too bad, overall. Price is in the same ballpark too. Currently I pay $100/month for that connection. Back in the day it was $20/month for Internet and about $25/month for a second phone line, I can't remember precisely. So about $70/month in today's dollars. For that price I'd have to step down to 150mbit Internet, if we wanted to keep all things far. Still 10,000x faster. Not really that bad for a couple decades, particularly compared to a lot of other, more mature technologies. My electric service sure isn't 10,000x as good as it was in the 90s.
So ya, fiber and gig or 10gig Internet hasn't come to everywhere yet. So what? It is getting rolled out, perhaps not as fast as we geeks would like, but it is still happening, and tech improvements are increasing bandwidth on copper formats as well. What we have now works well for most people, and the improvements we've seen are not insignificant.
You can get fiber, if you are actually willing to pay. You just aren't willing to pay for it.
What I mean is they'll sell you a fiber connection, as fast as you'd like, but you'll have to pay the full costs. You pay what it takes to have the line run and installed, and then you pay the full rate for an unmetered dedicated connection and they'll do it. Real enterprise class service with a nice SLA and all that. Thing is, that is going to run 5 figured (maybe 6) on the install and 4 figures or more for the monthly. That's what it really costs, that's what actually running dedicated fiber costs and what dedicated bandwidth costs.
What you want is CHEAP fiber. You want them to roll out a PON network on their dollar, and then sell you can your neighbours access to share that bandwidth for a low price. That's fine to want, but demanding it as if they owe you is unreasonable. Particularly since for something like that to be economically feasible everyone needs to be willing to pay, not just you. If it is a shared network, with the costs not being paid upfront, then a bunch of people need to pay, and need to do so for a fair bit of time.
If you look in to it, you'll find more than a few people that have no fucks to give about fast Internet. any modern service is "fast enough" for them. You can't convince them to spend on higher speed connections. My parents are like that. They have 12mbit cable. They can buy at least 100mbit where they live, maybe more (I haven't checked lately). They just won't. They are happy with what they have. They've used faster Internet, when they visit me they get to use mine which is 300mbit, but they don't care. To them what they have is good enough and they would rather spend the money on other things.
So if you are really willing to pay, and I mean pay the actual installation, operation, and bandwidth costs for dedicated fiber line, you can have that. However if you aren't willing to, and I can't blame you if you aren't, you can't then demand that they should give you stuff for cheap.
We are pretty good these days about keeping track of shit. Probably not as good as we should be, but still pretty good. However we have LOTS of old infrastructure. The documentation can be bad or non-existent. There's not an easy way to deal with, unfortunately, since it isn't like we can just open up an access panel and have a look at what's there. It'll continue to be a problem for a long time, perhaps forever.
"Right now I feel that I've got my feet on the ground as far as my head is concerned." -- Baseball pitcher Bo Belinsky