[Rathji]

Originally Posted by To Be Quite Honest

Clause 16 of the "Investigating and preventing Criminal Electronic Communications Act (Bill C-52)

http://www.priv.gc.ca/media/nr-c/2011/let_110309_e.cfm

"We are concerned that clause 16 of Bill C-52 would give authorities access to a wide scope of personal information without a warrant; for example, unlisted numbers, email account data and IP addresses. The Government itself took the view that this information was sensitive enough to make trafficking in such 'identity information' a Criminal Code offence. Many Canadians consider this information sensitive and worthy of protection, which does not fit with the proposed self-authorized access model."

So clause 16 says:

16. (1) Every telecommunications service provider must provide a person designated under subsection (3), on his or her written request, with any information in the service provider’s possession or control respecting the name, address, telephone number and electronic mail address of any subscriber to any of the service provider’s telecommunications services and the Internet protocol address, mobile identification number, electronic serial number, local service provider identifier, international mobile equipment identity number, international mobile subscriber identity number and subscrib- er identity module card number that are associated with the subscriber’s service and equipment.

and that means that people indicates in Clause 3, specifically

national security and law enforcement agencies to exercise their authority to intercept communications and to require telecommunications service providers to provide subscriber and other information, without unreasonably impairing the privacy of individuals

can collect information about a persons contact information (underlined stuff above). It does not imply or mention anywhere that these people would have access to your data transmissions routed through your ISP according to this clause.

To do so without "unreasonably impairing the privacy" of someone is the kicker. What does that mean? I am not a lawyer, but to me a reasonable expectation of privacy (ie that which a reasonable person would agree with) would not include unwarranted access to data. It would also mean, as I understand the legal system, that a judge would need to agree with this - ie provide a warrant.

I would invite any lawyer here to correct me on this, because I am going from my very limited crim class info, so I might be totally out to lunch.