|
Posted by michael (24% noise) View
An anonymous reader writes “The Globe and Mail is running an interesting story over who should carry the cost of wiretapping (registration may be required): ‘Canada’s police chiefs propose a surcharge of about 25 cents on monthly telephone and Internet bills to cover the cost of tapping into the communications of terrorists and other criminals.’”
|
|
nothing new - by gandalphthegreen (Score: 3, Insightful) Thread
You’re going to pay for this anyway. Maybe not upfront; in fact, maybe it’s part of the government’s budget. But guess who provides that?
|
|
Not a chance - by Sneftel (Score: 5, Insightful) Thread
Police say they cannot - and should not - be forced to pay the often hefty costs involved in carrying out court-approved wiretaps and message searches, warning that investigations will suffer if they are expected to pick up the tab.
BS. Law enforcement is publically funded. If it’s not funded enough, fine; we the voters will think about giving you more money. But making an end run around the process just because law enforcement in the new millenium is sooo expensive, thereby giving them a cash flow that actually encouragesthem to wiretap frivolously, is not an appropriate solution.
|
|
And? - by Trailwalker (Score: 3, Funny) Thread
Will he next ask for a tax for doughnuts?
|
|
You’re going to pay somewhere - by Anonymous Coward (Score: 4, Insightful) Thread
On your phone bill or through your taxes elsewhere.
|
|
Re:You’re going to pay somewhere - by Pretzalzz (Score: 3, Insightful) Thread
The difference of course is that normal taxes are progressive, the richer you are, the more you pay. Whereas with this both rich and poor will be paying the same surcharge so the poor will be hit harder as a percentage of their income.
|
[
