Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Support Canadian snark!
Syndicate
Blog Archive
-
▼
2010
(806)
-
▼
May
(156)
- Hiatus! And thanks for all the fish.
- OK, that's just weird.
- Being right about everything all of the time.
- You keep using that word "transparency" ...
- What a convenient interpretation.
- Jason? Jason who?
- Document the douchebagitude.
- Syrup? Yes Please!
- None dare call it "corruption."
- All the douchebaggery that's fit to ignore.
- The unfuckable Jason Kenney: Liar!
- Thank ya, thank ya very much.
- Dear Bob Rae:
- That $200 million security bill? Down the memory ...
- None dare call it hypocrisy.
- Ah, so that's what unfettered influence looks like.
- Republicans discover the Intertoobz ... what could...
- Oh, so that's what that word means.
- You can't put a price tag on ego.
- And I'd check the watermark on the paper if I were...
- Molecules!
- A hundred million here, a hundred million there ...
- And here's where we juxtapose ...
- Mongoliad!
- Goddamned, motherfucking, cocksucking booming school.
- It's not like he WANTED to be a two-faced, hypocri...
- And this is why we mock them.
- The resemblance is downright eerie, isn't it?
- In which Jack Layton and the NDP are invited to bu...
- Being right about absolutely everything, absolutel...
- So, how's that "Drill, baby, drill!" working out f...
- Oh, the piteous whining. Hypothetically speaking.
- And here's where we juxtapose ...
- "Grandfathering" bigotry and discrimination: Sure...
- Victory is mi-- hang on.
- It's official -- Texas just got stupider.
- ... and that's where I stopped reading.
- Always ahead of my time, gosh darn it.
- Not so fast, Pierre.
- Dear libertarians: Please put a sock in it.
- Blog!
- Attention Earthlings
- Rod, meet bus.
- Ah, irony, where is thy towel snap to the nads?
- Conservative Party of Spam
- Train wreck!
- Quote of the day.
- So, how's that "Drill, baby, drill!" working out f...
- And here's where we juxtapose ...
- PIMP UR BLOG! (Or someone else's if you must.)
- No, no, too wordy, let me tighten that up.
- And there you have it.
- And here's where we juxtapose ...
- Faggots redux!
- Meow!
- Beer! Popcorn! Lawyers!
- Nice life you have there, Raimey ...
- Geek humour.
- Faggots!
- Simple answers to simple questions.
- The spectacular hypocrisy of Sara Landriault.
- Dear stupid, useless Canadian media.
- You keep using that phrase "freedom of speech" ...
- Sara would appreciate it if you fucked off.
- When truly stupid people blog.
- Butt sex, as it were.
- As God is my witness, ...
- Sex, Stephen Harper style.
- Here, let me tighten that up for you.
- Dishonest or retarded? You make the call!
- Sure, let's talk about ugly.
- Morals!
- Let me tighten that up for you.
- "You think you're pretty smart, don't you?"
- And while we're on the subject of SSM ...
- David Frum: Douchebag.
- Ezra Levant: Jew.
- When truly stupid people blog.
- Still a bit unclear on that whole "tag" concept.
- And here's where we juxtapose ...
- Helena? Helena who?
- Misogyny!
- Analogy!
- Left hand, meet right hand.
- ... and this is why we mock them.
- Same-sex marriage and the "slippery slope."
- Fetuspalooza!
- Satire!
- The very definition of a "no-brainer."
- Reality and that gosh-darned liberal bias.
- And from the "Department of Spectacularly Bad Timi...
- Oh, for fuck's sake ...
- This doesn't even come as a surprise any more.
- HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
- And here's where we juxtapose ...
- Ah, the unintentional hilarity -- Part Duh.
- Ah, the unintentional hilarity.
- Batting 0-for-infinity, intellectually.
- What A Leader Looks Like
- Two douchebags for the price of one.
-
▼
May
(156)
3 comments:
this is like a bank robber suing Goodyear because of a flat tire on the getaway car leading to a long prison term.
Take the lawyers side. They ALWAYS win!
I dunno. It was lawyers that took the case to court in the first place. Is there a higher standard in Canada for presenting such things?
On the face of it, the specific situation sounds ridiculous, but if you strip off the emotional parts, it sounds like a question of privacy act stuff. Somewhere in the vague outlines of the article, the husband was able to access the wife's information, not by his own investigation, but by the company's release of information to him, addressed to him.
IE: are the regulations around private information falling through a loophole/gap when it comes to married people (at the same address?).
Not being a legal expert, if Rogers satisfies the court they met present regulatory conditions, then she's on her own (and has a few other issues by the intimated sounds of it)
If they met present regulations, but this *is* a loophole/gap, nevermind the Weird Extreme this has been taken to, it seems improved privacy regulation would be required.
How that sort of argument squares with the snooping the government wants to allow under things like the copyright laws being proposed through internet companies like Rogers, I dunno.
Post a Comment