I mean a month shutdown isn't much of a punishment. They'll go back online, run their staff over capacity, and neglect cleaning and maintenance all over again.
I was a customer, regularly buying several different products including lunch meats and I think I actually did get sick from the lunch meat back around when the recalls were announced.
Hardcore libertarians say the free market would fix this, but even if you do get sick it's hard to attribute to which exact product you got sickness from. And in any case this is all after the fact that you bought the thing.
9 people died from this outbreak. The settlements from those 9 deaths should bankrupt the company and put them out of business, or at least close that facility permanently. I feel sorry for the innocent people who may lose their jobs, but those are the same people that should have prevented the problem to begin with. That factory was a stinking mess, and it should have been completely obvious to everyone who worked there.
I would really like to buy a Mustang EV, but I don't want to pay the $20,000 above sticker the dealership is trying to charge at 7.99% interest. Not a mystery why these things aren't moving.
Genuinely curious as to why? Is it just the name/brand? Do you intend to own it for very long? IMO you stack the mach-e up to anything that is price or feature comparable (ICE or EV) and it's nothing but alarm bells. The common attributes among happy mach-e buyers in my experience is that they 1) hate tesla 2) just want to go fast 3) lease a new car every 3 years and most importantly 4) are susceptible to salesmen (See #3).
F150 Lightning EV is another story; it's a good platform although I have no idea why they made the acceleration curves so awful; It "drives like a truck" but I am not paying it a compliment there; the simulated engine/transmission lag is just the worst. You also basically still can't buy it so there's also that.
I don't understand this. Batteries may be better on the environment than gas, but they are impact-free. If you care about the environment, get the smallest car you can manage with. A larger battery means you are using more resources thus slowing down the number of electric cars that can get built. You are burning energy just dragging that larger batter around. Get a small car for city driving. Rent a gas car when you need the range.
If it's just a toy, then it's just better to not buy it at all. And if you don't care about the environment why care if it's electric?
I don't have the numbers on hand, but I'm certain a used Smart car is better for the planet than buying a new Tesla.
You’ve made so many bad assumptions I don’t know where to start.
What if you need seats for 5? What if you care about the environment but also want to have fun? What if it’s about the acceleration of an EV that is enticing?
If we're going to follow that reductio ad absurdum, I live in a city why not just take the bus? But walking is only a few miles, why not just walk? Don't buy a house because it's an inefficient waste of space, resources, and energy. Live in a studio apartment under 300sq ft, enough for a bed and a desk. Buying food seems unnecessary when I can have planters and some chickens out back.
I like the Mustang, electricity where I live is already generated above 90% by renewables, despite transit my quality of life is improved with a vehicle. The environment is a nice side effect.
So you don't really care about the environment, not really strongly at least, at least you are honest about it. I respect that.
> why not just take the bus?
I do take the bus, and have resisted getting a car, managing with Uber Green when necessary.
> why not just walk?
I do when I can, it's not practical for time and/or safety reasons, but it is ideal.
> Don't buy a house because it's an inefficient waste of space, resources, and energy.
This!!! God are single family dwellings the worst blight on the earth. They just shit suburban sprawl on the green earth. So much waste. Don't get my started on lawns. No reuse of infrastructure for heating or cooling. Just bad.
> Live in a studio apartment under 300sq ft, enough for a bed and a desk.
> why not just take the bus? But walking is only a few miles, why not just walk? Don't buy a house because it's an inefficient waste of space, resources, and energy. Live in a studio apartment under 300sq ft, enough for a bed and a desk. Buying food seems unnecessary when I can have planters and some chickens out back.
That sounds like a wonderful life; I wish you the best of luck in pursuing it, and must admit I feel a bit jealous.
Not to mention the dealerships don't want to sell these things, they fear the changes Ford wants to implement with structure to pricing and the whole dealership concept.
Wait are you claiming your still wake up feeling like shit even though you are objectively getting better sleep? Or just that you haven't been able to improve your sleep apnea symptoms (AHI count) despite treatment so you still wake up feeling like shit?
Because even if there are some outliers like yourself, I can confidently claim that most people can correlate improvements in sleep apnea symptoms and sleep quality more generally with the way the feel in the morning.
One of the many problems with sleep apnea treatment, is that we're treating AHI. AHI is an imperfect proxy for all the things that really happen on account of sleep apnea. Not breathing, underbreathing, micro arousals, clustering of apneas etc. Things like UARS can go undetected nearly forever.
You can have an AHI of 1 and still get zero REM sleep because every time you start going into REM, a respiratory event knocks you out of it.
Apneas and Hypopneas have to last for 10 seconds or more to be included in the AHI count. You can literally have hundreds of respiratory events and have an AHI of zero, but you're still going to feel pretty bleedin' awful.
There is also an RDI, Respiratory Disturbance Index, which includes the AHI events but also includes arousals caused by breathing issues. It is typically much higher than AHI in un(der)treated patients. It's also imperfect, and it's harder to measure.
Then, of course, we come to the CPAP machine reported AHI, which seems to be what insurance and doctors are interested in. In short: the number is garbage. These machines are absolutely TERRIBLE at correctly identifying events. Using those numbers as the basis for any kind of decision is awful.
Maybe one day we'll get CPAP devices with EEG devices in the head strap and with unobtrusive SpO2 sensors that actually work. Maybe then we can start reporting useful numbers which can actually be used in support of treatment.
Until then, it's very much possible to keep feeling like shit even though your sleep apnea is allegedly "under control".
I don’t feel a difference, and in some ways I feel worse, such as when there is a slight leak which leads to my tank running dry. If I don’t use the machine then sometimes in the middle of the afternoon I think about just laying down on the floor wherever I am. I never feel great after using the machine though, and I’ve looked at the log data and it is working. The only reason I keep using the machine is that my spouse gets better sleep.
That's interesting, it's still not clear to me that you don't have a faulty setup (avoiding leaks is important!) but nevertheless I appreciate the clarification. Good luck, and I hope you sleep well.
Teams is probably the worst communications app I've ever been forced to use. Extremely slow, random crashes, almost impossible to organize chats in a useful way, and outages as the cherry on top. I would have thought that Microsoft would put more TLC into a core part of their enterprise offering.
Agreed. Teams on the web for my company continually has issues with random reloads. I traced it down thinking the problems has to do with an authentication server not sending CORS headers when requested, because each time the problem happened, there was a faulty request. I'd expect there is even some monitoring on it, but no, it continues to happen. The Windows application seems to get the most love anyway. I have to fumble around this, running for most stuff the Windows application in a Virtual desktop, but since the IT disallows sharing screens, have to switch to that terrible web version to share, hoping it will not crash in the middle of calls (which it would constantly do)
Also, the "new Teams" is missing functionality. It lost the auto-transcribe feature. Go figure.
Totally amateur hour work. I tried once to get my teammates to use Slack, but it's hard to adjust. Slack ain't perfect, but it just works in so many ways that Teams barely hangs on with.
I find it hard to believe CORS is the root cause. It’s more likely that the server returns an error response and _that_ response doesn’t include the CORS headers.
You are probably right. However, if I remember correctly (it's been awhile), it was one of them that didn't return a CORS header, but a 200 status, but that led to a number of requests that failed. But regardless, as an SPA, the Teams application is not resilient to it.
Are you really surprised lol. MS solutions have always been half baked at best and always sold as part of Windows licensing for most enterprises.
Oh? You have out Windows 11 Pro/Enterprise for 1000+ licenses. We will throw in O365 for a year to get the org fully hooked.
Oh, need windows Active Directory as well? We can add 200 licenses with your existing windows licenses for 1-2 years.
(2 years later) oh your org is downsizing the internal ad sys admins? Don’t worry we got you covered with Azure AD!! Just cough up $250K every quarter. That’s like 1 senior SDE!!1
Oh hey we also have Windows VDIs, Azure Cloud, and other shit. Get into our walled garden. Never leave.
Half baked at best describes almost all tech solutions out there if we are being honest. Some of the products Microsoft puts out are best in class. It's just what you get with an org that size. There's going to be a wide range of quality imho.
Teams does seem to be on a whole new level of terrible though.
> Teams is probably the worst communications app I've ever been forced to use.
Not to pile onto MS Teams, but it's by far the most amateur hour system I ever had the displeasure of being forced to use.
I feel they even managed to botch their transition from Teams Classic. Official docs were out of sync with the app's transition, whole features were missing, some features were suddenly only made available to pro users. What a mess.
Make no mistake: the problems with MS Teams are not technical. It's product design and management. It felt like a rush job where everyone involved failed to get their stuff out, product managers felt the mess was acceptable, and the senior manager still made the call to release anyway.
MS Teams is a mess for the ages.
I apologize for venting like this but I had multiple critical meetings being postponed and rescheduled because MS Teams failed to work in creative ways. This definitely did not happen with Zoom or Google Meet or Slack.
Teams truly is terrible. The example I always give:
There is absolutely 0 feedback to show a speaker when their mic is actively transmitting. When anyone else in a call speaks, a ring around their avatar lights up to show you who is speaking. When you speak? Nada. Technically, you can open the settings menu and there is a mic level bar there... but it's not in the standard view.
As far as I've seen, Teams is the only chat app that can't get this right. Not only does it increase the rate of people trying to talk while still on mute, it gives you no way of knowing if sounds in your environment are transmitting to the meeting and disrupting everyone else.
It can be great, but I've noticed lag during screen sharing. Other colleagues have noticed it too.
Even so... it's better than slack for audio/video and my organization uses teams as primary for calls and slack for text communications(group chats, channels, dms)
I'm surprised that the general sentiment here is that Teams is terrible. I've been using it for a very long time and have had almost zero issue with it. I prefer it in most cases.
We are currently moving from Teams to Slack at my workplace and I miss the ability to view my full calendar, join meetings, schedule meetings, share common files, and call others all from one application.
Is there another application that does all that Teams does but better?
Typically, people who’ve had a good time with a product don’t write about it as much as people who’ve had a bad time. Anger motivates venting whereas being satisfied with the product doesn’t create emotions that compel people as strongly to share. For this reason, I believe samples of feedback such as this online forum are often poor indicators of the general experience, as is true with many forms of feedback. In fact, I have a generally positive impression of Teams, and I wasn’t planning to write anything until I saw your comment.
My understanding is that they bundled it in so conveniently that it’s somewhat of a default. They probably don’t have to care because the average company isn’t about to do an entire slack deployment and integration into their purely MS ecosystem
accurate, I work for a company that uses a bunch of Microsoft products. it’s apparently a good deal from a financial perspective and is popular in the public sector because of the easy integration for non-technical users. alas, you get what you pay for.
I really don’t grok all the random chats I get notified for. I was in a meeting two months ago, and there’s still a chat getting updates in my feed. So many random auto generated chat groups that linger that I have to prune and wonder “will I regret deleting this”.
I prefer the subscribed channel where I make an intentional choice, and everything else is ephemeral.
Off topic, but does anyone understand what's going on with the 'new' version which is entitled "Microsoft Teams (Work and School)", such that the app name on MacOS (in the menu bar!) is that?
I assume it's to disambiguate it from the 'classic' version, but seems like an odd name to use?
I'd +1 on how bad Teams is in general: a few weeks ago I got a popup in it saying "We've made teams even better!", and I thought "I bet you haven't".
I took that to be mobile app store spam tactics bleeding over into the desktop app stores (hardly the first, but certainly a prominent app from a major developer stooping to new lows - hmm, this is MS, maybe I should just say 'different lows').
MS's core product offering is the same as AWS being an already approved vendor to buy from, so no one has to go through approvals process for them again. Thus they are a defacto monopoly within large organizations. Who cares what the actual value add is it checks all the boxes required by law and they have a huge expense account to get the win.
My favorite (more minor) issue to harp on is the lack of rebindable keybinds. Paste without formatting is Ctrl+Shift+V, while make a phone call to the other person is Ctrl+Shift+C. After enough accidental calls (fortunately my teammate was very understanding) I had to just install Microsoft PowerToys to override the default keybind.
A lot of their enterprise offerings are still pretty good. SQL Server, AD, Intune.
But Teams is really terrible. And the move to "New Teams" was handled very poorly too. I had hoped it would improve things, but it is basically the same with slightly less RAM usage.
If you mean the DB server itself, sure. But for actually managing it, they've effectively killed further development of SSMS in favor of Azure Data Studio. And while Azure Data Studio is relatively fast and snappy, it's missing a lot of SSMS functionality. Meanwhile they refuse to implement a dark mode in SSMS despite it being the most requested feature for several years running now.
Excel was and is still the gold standard for everything that "doesn't quite require a database" and can be made by a regular corporate user in 5 minutes or less.
It did crappify somewhat in recent years, but still eons and mountains ahead of anything the competition put out.
Teams is truly disgusting. It is the prime example of what happens to software if you just keep stuffing features into it instead of fixing at least some existing problems. I bet this codebase has tons of "legacy" code already.
I also wonder.. do they have a "UX" team? If so what are these people doing? The usability is abysmal.
We use Slack and Teams at my workplace and regarding chat Slack is lightyears ahead. Sadly the company wants to force more and more people off of Slack and into using Teams.
I've worked in the Teams org at Microsoft in a past life. The tl;dr is that Teams was actually not a core offering for Microsoft and barely anyone outside Microsoft even knew about it before COVID. It was just never designed for the sheer scale, reliability, and feature velocity requirements that were thrust upon it after COVID began.
It was evident from the complete disregard for scalability and amateurish dev and ops processes that Teams was not regarded as a serious project right until COVID began and the org pretty much spent all of 2020 fighting fires to keep up with the pressure. In the years that followed, the org likely quadrupled in size to keep up.
Teams was very much the sleepy rest-and-vest corner of the company that people transferred into to quiet-retire. Teams is not just a reskinning/re-clienting of SfB's backend. They are separate systems.
We all know the code and development direction in teams is lacking. This is one problem.
Microsoft scrambling around COVID times with Teams had more to do with the load / demand / capturing market share, than anything else.
SfB stopped releasing in 2018, 2021 it was lights out no matter what .. everyone was already moving to Teams.
Trying to pretend that their main communication platform is not a "core offering" when it is the definition of one of their core offerings makes no sense.
And trying to say nobody knew about it, when everyone knew about it also makes no sense.
SfB was dead by the time covid started. Where do you think these people migrated to?
Many companies with O365 used other platforms for voice and chat. Otherwise products like Webex and Zoom would've had zero market share since virtually everybody who pays taxes has an O365 (thus, Teams) subscription.
Also consider, Teams for Education as a market segment basically didn't exist before COVID.
My point is, many organization had a Teams license but never really pay attention to it until COVID. Which was another problem for Microsoft because although op costs for Teams went up like a hockey stick, they weren't monetizing that growth until a bit later.
That’s understandable, but why then they seem to operate under the same premises still?
We are in the post COVID years now and more and more organizations are using it today.
Is it accurate to say they have no incentive to improve, given their dominance in the enterprise space and the complicity of some finance/IT departments into forcing it on their employees given the cost savings and the convenience?
Sounds about right, the RCMP has a long history of First Nations neglect. This seems like it would be a straightforward case to prove his innocence. Also a good reminder of why it's important to never speak with police without a lawyer.
Except we don't have the same rights to a lawyer as in the US. We have a right to speak to a lawyer, but that could be over the phone and they are not present during questioning:
> We have a right to speak to a lawyer, but that could be over the phone and they are not present during questioning
You can refuse to answer most questions during questioning, but even if you yell “lawyer!!!” A million times and spill the beans after the millionth repeat question, you’re screwed.
Then there’s the constitution “protections” about illegally gained evidence where the judge can say “yeah, it was unconstitutional but I’ll allow it anyway”
I don’t know why Canada gets so many weird AF legal claims on HN and Reddit (in particular that we supposedly don’t have the right to self defence), but we do, in fact, have the right to remain silent and to not be compelled to testify against oneself.
There are circumstances where you can be interviewed without a lawyer present, but you cannot be compelled to answer those questions, and you can still consult a lawyer for all interview questions.
I'm not sure if you're claiming that what I wrote is "weird", but nothing I said was incorrect and the link I provided provides extensive information on case law here. Suffice it to say, most people have a very hard time refusing to answer while being grilled for hours, and the article cites numerous such examples.
> and you can still consult a lawyer for all interview questions.
This is simply not as straightforward as you're implying. Per the article, R v Sinclair established that in most cases, a detainee may be permitted to consult a lawyer only once.
R v Sinclair (2010 SCC 35) is a leading case from the Supreme Court of Canada on a detainee's right to counsel under section 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Specifically, the case addresses two issues regarding the police's implementation duty under the right to counsel: 1) does a detainee have the right to have a lawyer present during police questioning, and 2) does a detainee have the right to make multiple phone calls to their lawyer. A majority of the Court answered the first question in the negative, and answered the second question in the negative, subject to a change of circumstances.
You seem to be in agreement. Perhaps you responded to the wrong person? That's the same case law the parent cited (albeit indirectly - see their link up thread).
You can reply to someone and agree with them, even provide additional bolstering evidence — like a direct quote. It turns out not everything on the internet is a fight you have to win.
I didn't "just echo back the same case law". They only provided an (incomplete) citation, and no link.
I provided the full link to Wikipedia, the summary of what R v Sinclair actually established (from which readers can immediately see that Canadian right to a lawyer during questioning differs sharply from the US right), and then the Wikipedia link which discusses the history and background of the case, the ruling, and further links to the text of the decision on CanLII, etc.
That's genuinely useful missing information, which many HN readers will not bother to search for, but if you provide the links some of them may actually click through, then we collectively get a less-misinformed discussion. If instead of suggesting I intended to respond to the wrong person, you had directly asked me why I thought it useful to post this, I'd have told you that it was so other posters would inform their discussion better; it's very tiring constantly seeing discussions where posters assume any legal question is asked about US law and only US law, or worse still, simply assume that US legal principles or rule of law apply all over the world (such as anything on Canadian law, or all the discussions on privacy law).
And one extra thing: you might be assuming that merely saying "R v Sinclair" is unambiguous without including the "(2010 SCC 35)" part of the citation, but when I personally google "R v Sinclair", most hits are relevant, but #7 hit is "People v. Sinclair, 131 A.D.3d 492" and #10 hit is "Sinclair v. Sinclair :: 1969 :: Kansas Supreme Court Decisions". As we've commented ongoing in HN, google search relevance is degrading these days, so don't assume incomplete citations lead users to the right article.
Posting a link (or archive reference) is a substantial contribution to a discussion, esp. when many of the posters haven't read the topic they're discussing.
Sure, but without context is difficult for the reader to understand if you are posting (a) because it contradicts, or (b) supports the argument being made. Both of those would be interesting to me, and it wasn't clear, so I asked.
I mean, you just wrote 4+ paragraphs on the topic(!) so writing "Here's the relevant bit for anyone interested..." is not a big ask.
I've been here for well over a decade and online for three decades - I was confused by the comment (and following the topic closely) so I asked. Take my feedback or don't. I don't care. But understand that it's slightly ambiguous and confusing for the reader. There are lots of trolls here and lots of genuinely well intentioned people (you included) but it's not always obvious which is which.
There was context, it was the post that I replied to with supporting detail. I intentionally responded specifically to that, and my post was the citation (the actual full citation with URL, not a partial name of the case).
I'm not "upset", I'm merely ongoing perplexed that you believe that HN posts in general will necessarily disagree with the post they respond to. (This ain't Twitter, it's a fairly civilized fact-based discussion board). You can trivially infer whether I agree/disagree/partially agree simply by seeing my post interacts with the parent, GP and ancestor posts it's responding to).
> It wasn't clear to me ... [whether my post]... (a) contradicts, or (b) supports the argument being made.
?!? You had already actually said about my post "You seem to be in agreement. Perhaps you responded to the wrong person?".
So you, me and user @itsnotafight all figured my post was in support of naasking. And itsnotafight told you "[can...] even provide additional bolstering evidence — like a direct quote." Then you tried to disagree that my post provided additional bolstering evidence, although it did (for the reasons I've explained above).
You can instantly tell I'm a bona-fide commentator and not a troll from looking at my post history (just like I could tell from yours). In my fact my post history shows I often post explanatory/clarifying/supporting/disagreeing links.
My feedback to your feedback is you could have simply said "I'm confused by this post, can't tell if it's agreeing or disagreeing with the post it's responding to." That would have made it clearer, that it was only your confusion, the rest of us weren't confused by my intent. There was no wider confusion and you weren't speaking on behalf of anyone else.
> writing "Here's the relevant bit for anyone interested..." is not a big ask.
It totally is a big ask when requiring me to post a good-faith preamble of my bona fides, and moreover a context that notes that this is the umpteenth discussion where posters assumed US constitutional/legal principles apply in Canada (or elsewhere), or at minimum threw around undefined phrases and assumed they were universal.
If we ever need to post a good-faith preamble plus a context to even a fairly self-evident short post, this discussion board has already been irredeemably overrun by trolls, and the good-faith posters will all simply leave.
> here are lots of trolls here and lots of genuinely well intentioned people...
I'm not going to armor-proof my posts purely to minimize some tiny Type-II error probability of users who misunderstand the context on my post and wrongly flag it. (I see tons of other posts daily on HN where I personally can't discern whether a response or a discussion is in good-faith, I usually refrain from judging and flagging if I can't determine that; most of those go way beyond being arguably slightly ambiguous and confusing for the reader).
I don't think it's constructive for us to prolong discussing this anymore. Other people are disagreeing that you had any reason to be confused about my intent. At absolute minimum I expect you would have posted "I'm confused by this post, can't tell if it's agreeing or disagreeing with the post it's responding to." Or, don't take my word for it, show this to ten people you know and trust and see how many of them say my comment was not a troll.
Look at all this energy that's been wasted when could have more productively been spent on Canadian vs US vs non-US principles on the right to silence. Oh well.
It’s weird because you chose wording that isn’t entirely correct, and also chose to ignore that whether a lawyer is present or not, you cannot be compelled to testify against yourself, which is what a lawyer is going to tell you during your phone call.
No, we don't. This is a misconception. There's no equivalent to the pleading the fifth. The supreme Court has been pretty clear about that.
>In the United States, the Fifth Amendment permits a witness to refuse to answer any question that may incriminate them (a.k.a. “taking the fifth” or “pleading the fifth”). This is not how the law works in Canada. In Canada, a witness can be forced to answer incriminating questions.
Not sure why you didn't include the remainder of that section:
> As part of the bargain, however, the Crown cannot use that evidence to incriminate the witness in another proceeding.
It seems important since it still prevents one from self-incrimination in the context of the courts. Maybe there are other legal ramifications caused by this distinction but it sounds functionally equivalent.
>The Supreme Court discussed the relationship between the section 7 pre-trial right to silence and the confessions rule in Singh.90 That case involved a detained murder suspect who was interrogated by individuals he knew were police. In the course of the interrogation, Singh asserted his right to remain silent 18 times before ultimately responding to police questions with some self-incriminating statements. The defence objected to the admissibility of Singh’s statements on the basis that they were obtained in violation of his section 7 right to silence, but a slim majority of the Supreme Court rejected this argument. The majority held that, where a detainee is interrogated by known police, the section 7 right to silence is subsumed into the voluntariness inquiry.91 Since the trial judge had considered all the circumstances and determined that the statements were made voluntarily, the question whether the accused’s free will was overborne had already been answered and the section 7 right to silence could provide no further protection.92
There's a huge cottage industry of YouTube rage farmers who spread that kind of misinformation for clicks. It's particularly popular in the prairies right now.
That's funny because no, they are wrong. We can be compelled to answer questions that incriminate ourselves and our right to speak to a lawyer isn't as strong as it is in the US. You can be interrogated even after asking for a lawyer.
They can keep interrogating you after you ask for a lawyer even if your lawyer isn't present. It amounts to the exact same considering how vulnerable a person is during interrogation. Your link agrees with me. How is this not "not as strong as the US", which is what I said in my comment?
>There is no constitutional right to have a lawyer present throughout a police interview (Sinclair, supra at paragraphs 34-38). Rather, in most cases an initial warning, coupled with a reasonable opportunity to consult counsel when the detainee invokes the right to counsel, satisfies section 10(b) (Sinclair, supra at paragraph 2).
Edit: This is what I mean
>Unlike the U.S. Constitution’s right to counsel under the fifth amendment, neither section 10(b) of the Charter nor the right to counsel allowed by Supreme Court cases allows for your lawyer to be present with you during an interrogation. That means that after you’ve spoken to your lawyer it could be hours or days before you speak to them again and the police will take every opportunity they can to get a statement from you that seals your conviction.
What? How does that prove me wrong? You can still be forced to be a witness and answer questions even if they do incriminate yourself.
>In Canada a person has the right not to have any incriminating evidence that the person was compelled to give in one proceeding used against him or her in another proceeding except in a prosecution for perjury or for the giving of contradictory evidence. Thus, in Canada, a witness cannot refuse to answer a question on the grounds of self-incrimination, but receives full evidentiary immunity in return.
https://www.mpllp.com/no-right-to-remain-silent
It also sounds like the RCMP will never take the case to trial (based on the article, they may know that this is actually triangulation fraud) and as such, he'll never have a chance to either defend himself or expunge his record.
If charges are withdrawn or dismissed, as long as you don't have any convictions on record and there isn't a public safety concern you can request the destruction of non-conviction information from your record.
It's silly that you need to request it, but there is a process to expunge your record.
(4) However, if the Attorney General or counsel does not give notice under subsection (3) on or before the first anniversary of the day on which the stay of proceedings was entered, the proceedings are deemed never to have been commenced.
By the way, quick aside, if you go to the police yourself (someone wronged you), you should also go with a lawyer. It'll be taken more seriously, be harder to dismiss, and be both council and support while you go through the steps.
Unfortunately, Canada does not have the same legal protections (both in written law [i.e., the Bill of Rights] and in jurisprudence) as in the United States.
> What rights in the US would have helped here the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms doesn't already do. Section 9 and 10 seem to cover this well
A fair question. First, as I was not making a top level comment, but responding to another comment, I was not specifically addressing this case, but instead making a broader statement about the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (and the attendant judicial interpretations of same) versus the US Bill of Rights (and likewise legal interpretations). (Side note, a sibling comment thread makes the same argument).
In particular, Canadian courts have pretty consistently allowed more exceptions to the charters compared to US courts and Bill of Rights. Additionally, the charter makes much weaker protections in several specific circumstances, for example in section 24(2), whereby evidence collected illegally may still be used in criminal proceedings (see R v Grant 1990). But section 1 is the real kicker.
As a specific example, you referenced Section 9 of CRF. In R v Ladouceur [1], the Canadian Supreme Court found that although random traffic stops (fishing expeditions) violated Section 9 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, they were permitted under Section 1 of the Charter.
Section 1 contains the prefatory text:
"The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms 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*" (emphasis mine)
The fact that such weasel words / escape hatch would be enshrined into something that is purported to be as fundamental as the Bill of Rights essentially nullifies the entire thing, in my opinion. Indeed, section 1 is often quoted in Canadian jurisprudence as justification for all sorts of -- again, in my opinion -- government overreach.
He doesn't have a criminal record though. He has an arrest record.
Granted the way the article explained it is pretty poor. I'm not totally clear what it was trying to say in that regard.
As an aside, Canada has a robust pardon system[0] that the US doesn't have. At least aside from the truly bizarre (at least to me) system of presidential pardons.
A pardon wipes your record of the specific crime completely FWIW.
So much of this bot store ships from Amazon... It's mind boggling to imagine how much waste this physical spam introduces, from manufacturing, to shipping to the Amazon warehouse, to warehousing. All for low-quality dupes that aren't even represented by a real business.
