Quote:
Originally Posted by kirant
So if my reading comprehension is correct on the House Publications and the initial article then...:
- Voluntary disclosure of personal information becomes mandatory if the police ask for personal information about you, without court order.
- Require all internet service providers create tracking systems for police purposes that can track all the below.
- With court order, they can track your movements in real time (or read archives of it) and get detailed logs of your accessed sites of what you visited, when you visited, and how long you visited within 90 days of collection (at which point, the data may be disposed of).
As with the Child Porn investigation act currently being looked at in the US, I find that this law isn't exactly all that specific to what situations it may be used in. If it was more pointed to the fact that it is supposedly being used as an anti-Child Porn law as Toews seems to try to claim, it makes more sense...the chance of abuse though in the ambiguity of the usage means it could be misused (as Geist points out in his article).
|
I don't think it would be being
misused though, because I think that's exactly what they have in mind using it for. It's purposefully ambiguous. That's what really sticks in my craw.