Bill C-231

I build mostly data warehouses and front end applications usually with SQL server and Visual Studio. But also work with SAP, Oracle, Maestro whatever. Have done some cutting edge development but mostly manage the systems I built now. Soon they will become legacy apps. We plan to install HANA within 2 years or less or I will begin setting up SAP FIROR (did I spell that right??)

All my stuff is custom and is more fun to build. I use to manage and MRP system at the last place that was pretty boring. I just need 10 more years and I am done this crap. Application, Databases and and any type of software development is very boring and no longer fun.

No I'm not going to say how, who, why I know if there may or may not be copies. But if you work at a software development company then you should know there is always a copy someplace.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

I work for a major software company. I'll wager you don't go a day in your life without encountering something that's been managed by our software. I work with complex databases every day.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

I work for a major software company. I'll wager you don't go a day in your life without encountering something that's been managed by our software. I work with complex databases every day.

A request against CFRO (the registry itself) will return data, but that data will not necessarily be stored in any log or retained in any local database.

Competently designed systems don't store redundant data, particularly where the data is sensitive. Logs will typically only tell you that a transaction was passed, with a key identifier for the transaction; they won't give you the data that was transmitted. And there is no reason to store data in a local database when you make an inquiry -- all you achieve by making a local copy is to give yourself a data integrity problem.

Even if you are storing that data somewhere, all you get by rebuilding your database is the records involved in those queries.



What local database, specifically? How do you know local police forces kept databases of CFRO queries? Why would they build such a thing? What benefit would it provide to justify the cost? They would never inquire against that database, for data integrity reasons. They'd only want to go to CFRO. So why keep it?

There's no operational need for such a database. Yet you insist that it exists. This is tinfoil hat stuff.



Legault is doing her job, as Information Commissioner. It is her job to see that FOI requests are filled, as the law requires. She caught the RCMP breaking the law, and then the government retroactively changed the law to make their law-breaking legal. That's grounds to be "upset."



That data includes no personal identifying information. It is just a list of guns. You can't use it to create a registry, because it doesn't identify who owns the guns.

---

OOOO WOW oh wise one..... I'm not going to get into a bragging contest and am sure like me you have designed databases, done coding, done system analysis and requirements and disaster recovery work like I have so no point in arguing....but your speculation and statements do seem to lack something.... so are you actually surprised a public request for information contained no confidential data? unlike the one they had on the National Post a few years ago they only used 2 digits of the postal code too which is an improvement .....BUT I wonder how many could make confidential requests? Yeah... I'm sure they all deleted the data and records and all files like these have been destroyed too..... but if they have why is Legault screaming, it seemed more like she was trying to delay the destruction of the data one last question and I am done with this thread....Now why is she yelling about preserving the data that is left if it is so useless?

Actually Welsh some RCMP Detachments have downloaded the data into local DB's in the past.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by terrym

How many have been fired?

---

Come on Terry a few minutes on google and you'll find lots...one was in the paper just a few day ago.

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/met...440/story.html

Even recent results from the Commission into RCMP wrong doings in High River;

https://www.crcc-ccetp.gc.ca/en/news...-river-alberta

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mosquito

I'm not going to get into a bragging contest....

---

Well, then you shouldn't have started one by suggesting I have "no concept of computer environments, databases and logs." If you want to make appeals to authority, you better make sure you have some.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mosquito

so are you actually surprised a public request for information contained no confidential data?

---

Uh, no. My point is that you will never get confidential data through FOI.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mosquito

BUT I wonder how many could make confidential requests?

---

Nobody can. That's the law. The Privacy Act prohibits disclosing that information, period.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mosquito

Now why is she yelling about preserving the data that is left if it is so useless?

---

Because FOI requests have been made for that data. She is the Information Commissioner. It is her duty under the Information Act to make sure those FOI requests are honoured.

This is the law of the land: if I request government records, then the government must give them to me, except for personal information and for national security reasons, etc. And the reason the government must give the information to me is that I pay taxes, and the information belongs to me, as a taxpayer.

Here is what happened: before C-19 passed, someone made FOI requests for registry data. The RCMP, knowing C-19 was going to pass, decided to stall the requests, and may even have destroyed data so they would not have to disclose it. This was illegal, and the Information Commissioner brought charges against the RCMP. So the government decided to pass a speedy law to retroactively give the RCMP permission to break the Access to Information Act with respect to LGR data.

The FOI requests still apply with respect to the Quebec portion of the data. By getting a court order to protect those records until a decision is made (legally) as to whether the FOI request needs to be fulfilled, Legault is simply doing the job she is mandated to do under the Access to Information Act.

I know you want to see her as an evil anti with an agenda to save the gun registry data, but that's not what's actually happening. Her obligations and duties exist regardless of whether you want that information destroyed. We live in a society of laws, or at least, we ought to.

I'd like you to try a little thought experiment. Let's suppose I made an FOI request when Paul Martin was PM, asking for information concerning the cost to implement and maintain the long gun registry. Lets suppose the Canadian Firearms Centre responded to that request by shredding documents and then telling me they couldn't find the records. Let's suppose they got caught, and Martin responded by rushing through a quick law making it legal for them to have done what they did just this one time. And then the Information Commissioner starts getting upset at Martin and the Canadian Firearms Centre.

You'd call the Information Commissioner a hero.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greatwhite

Actually Welsh some RCMP Detachments have downloaded the data into local DB's in the past.

---

How do you know this?

Come on now you must know IT guy's? Aint going to say anymore then that. But come on now don't be so naive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

Well, then you shouldn't have started one by suggesting I have "no concept of computer environments, databases and logs." If you want to make appeals to authority, you better make sure you have some.

Uh, no. My point is that you will never get confidential data through FOI.



Nobody can. That's the law. The Privacy Act prohibits disclosing that information, period.



Because FOI requests have been made for that data. She is the Information Commissioner. It is her duty under the Information Act to make sure those FOI requests are honoured.

This is the law of the land: if I request government records, then the government must give them to me, except for personal information and for national security reasons, etc. And the reason the government must give the information to me is that I pay taxes, and the information belongs to me, as a taxpayer.

Here is what happened: before C-19 passed, someone made FOI requests for registry data. The RCMP, knowing C-19 was going to pass, decided to stall the requests, and may even have destroyed data so they would not have to disclose it. This was illegal, and the Information Commissioner brought charges against the RCMP. So the government decided to pass a speedy law to retroactively give the RCMP permission to break the Access to Information Act with respect to LGR data.

The FOI requests still apply with respect to the Quebec portion of the data. By getting a court order to protect those records until a decision is made (legally) as to whether the FOI request needs to be fulfilled, Legault is simply doing the job she is mandated to do under the Access to Information Act.

I know you want to see her as an evil anti with an agenda to save the gun registry data, but that's not what's actually happening. Her obligations and duties exist regardless of whether you want that information destroyed. We live in a society of laws, or at least, we ought to.

I'd like you to try a little thought experiment. Let's suppose I made an FOI request when Paul Martin was PM, asking for information concerning the cost to implement and maintain the long gun registry. Lets suppose the Canadian Firearms Centre responded to that request by shredding documents and then telling me they couldn't find the records. Let's suppose they got caught, and Martin responded by rushing through a quick law making it legal for them to have done what they did just this one time. And then the Information Commissioner starts getting upset at Martin and the Canadian Firearms Centre.

You'd call the Information Commissioner a hero.



How do you know this?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wahoo

Introduced by Senate Liberal Celine Hervieux-Payette, (or is that Liberal Senator?) today.

I oppose the Conservative philosophy and the gun lobby’s belief that better access to firearms ensures better security. It's just the opposite. However, I respect the hunters and sports shooters. This bill promotes the activities of hunting and sport shooting while strengthening the security of Canadians.

Through my bill, titled “Strenghtening Canadians’ Security and Promoting Hunting and recreational Shooting Act”, I intend to accomplish the following:

• overhaul the current firearms program by prohibiting all firearms in Canada except hunting firearms;
• redefine the three classes of firearms by making all firearms illegal except hunting firearms and by localizing the prohibition of restricted firearms (circumscribed firearms);
• limit the definition of hunting firearms to the arms that really used for the purposes of hunting;
• replace restricted firearms class with a circumscribed firearms class and the arms of this class will be only usable at or in shooting clubs;
• replace the registration certificate with an inscription certificate;
• reinforce the role of the RCMP and the Commissioner of Firearms under a statutory provision.
• limit the transport of circumscribed firearms to transporters, thus controlling the movement of firearms in Canada; and
• undo all the provisions of Bill C-42, except for the prohibition on obtaining a licence to possess and acquire firearms following a domestic violence conviction.

In 2005, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled unanimously in R. v. Wiles that in Canada to acquire or possess a firearm is a "privilege" and not a right.


http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublicati...3166&File=41#4

http://www.parl.gc.ca/legisinfo/Bill...billId=8043165

---

"In 2005, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled unanimously in R. v. Wiles that in Canada to acquire or possess a firearm is a "privilege" and not a right."

This is our biggest problem. Far worst then Senators that are not elected, we have Justices that are not elected.
A majority Liberal government hijacked our private property rights by licencing the right to own firearms. This has virtually turn every firearm into a piece of Crown property. Meanwhile our Supreme Court stacked with Liberal leaning Justices has supported their right to do so.

You don't stop hunting because you grow old. You grow old because you stop hunting.
-Gun Nut