"The government is trying to ram through an anti-Internet set of electronic surveillance laws that will invade your privacy and cost you money. The plan is to force every phone and Internet provider to surrender our personal information to "authorities" without a warrant."
Once again openmedia.ca are fighting for our rights as law abiding citizens and are asking for our help. Click the link and let Harper know that online spying is not welcome in our country.
I am really confused because that website is a lot of fluff with nothing apparent to back it up, like perhaps the bill they are opposing. I do appreciate them summing it up in 3 "terrifying" and unfounded points though...
__________________
"Wake up, Luigi! The only time plumbers sleep on the job is when we're working by the hour."
I am really confused because that website is a lot of fluff with nothing apparent to back it up, like perhaps the bill they are opposing. I do appreciate them summing it up in 3 "terrifying" and unfounded points though...
Here is an official quote from the privacy Commissioner.
“Read together, the provisions of [these bills] would substantially diminish the privacy rights of Canadians. They do so by enhancing the capacity of the state to conduct surveillance and access private information while reducing the frequency and vigour of judicial scrutiny. In essence, they make it easier for the state to subject more individuals to surveillance and scrutiny.” — Jennifer Stoddart, Privacy Commissioner of Canada
And you are right. It is odd that we havn't heard about them.
Ok, so I found the bills I am assuming they are referring to:
C52 ( text here ), which requires telecommunications companies to have the ability to intercept messages and to require them turn over specified intercepted information to authorized law enforcement agencies.
Now that I have read the bill, I will comment on their 3 main points on the website.
Warrantless: A range of "authorities" will have the ability to invade the private lives of law-abiding Canadians and our families using wired Internet and mobile devices, without a warrant or any justification.
How does the text of the bill even coming close to implying that it can be done without a warrant? Also, how is it any different than allowing a wiretap if a warrant is obtained?
Invasive and Dangerous: The laws leave our personal and financial information less secure and more susceptible to cybercrime.
Again, how is it any different than allowing a wiretap if a warrant is obtained?
Costly: Internet services providers may be forced to install millions of dollars worth of spying technology and the cost will be passed down to YOU.
This is a valid point, we might have to pay a tiny fraction of our bill each month in an increase to allow our ISP's to meet these requirement. The same as we would need to pay a little bit extra on our city taxes if they opened 10 new bus routes next year in Calgary. It might suck but is it worth getting bent out of shape for? Maybe. Depends on the cost - I dont know, and I doubt the people who made this petition do either.
__________________
"Wake up, Luigi! The only time plumbers sleep on the job is when we're working by the hour."
Meh. I'm actually somewhat in favour of heavier internet regulation overall. The internet, like other public utilities, has long since passed the point of being an essential service in modern western society. A healthy internet that is conducive to secure commerce and information flow is a huge boon to a country, for it's civilians, businesses, and government.
Anyways, as Rathji has pointed out, this bill is really about establishing baseline capabilities for obtaining the information requested by law and government officials - they've always been able to subpoena the data they want, this just ensures the people handling the data have the ability to turn it over if asked. It specifically states that the providers/carriers do not have to have or develop the ability to decrypt data that they themselves encrypted - so if your endpoints are secure, you've got nothing to worry about because nothing changes.
The bill, which has been defended by Public Safety Minister Vic Toews, was proposed as a way to investigate and prevent criminal electronic communications. But privacy watchdogs say the bill would give police carte blanche to view private information.
"It's warrantless, evasive and costly," said Pinto. "The bill would have huge implications on your freedoms. We want people to use the internet to the fullest extent possible without having to worry about authorities obtaining the information without a warrant."
Pinto said she hopes Canadians become more aware about the bill and pressure the government to listen and get rid of the proposed bill.
"We hope to forward the idea of openness and engage Canadians in order to make sure the Internet stays open," she said.
"The government is trying to ram through an anti-Internet set of electronic surveillance laws that will invade your privacy and cost you money. The plan is to force every phone and Internet provider to surrender our personal information to "authorities" without a warrant."
Once again openmedia.ca are fighting for our rights as law abiding citizens and are asking for our help. Click the link and let Harper know that online spying is not welcome in our country.
Useless website. I just see a lot of fear-mongering. Looks like a typical Facebook campaign. Short on details, high on fear-mongering.
The site would be MUCH more credible if it identified by name/bill number the piece(s) of legislation it references AND it wouldn't hurt to, you know, add a few facts to the website.
The bill, which has been defended by Public Safety Minister Vic Toews, was proposed as a way to investigate and prevent criminal electronic communications. But privacy watchdogs say the bill would give police carte blanche to view private information.
"It's warrantless, evasive and costly," said Pinto. "The bill would have huge implications on your freedoms. We want people to use the internet to the fullest extent possible without having to worry about authorities obtaining the information without a warrant."
Pinto said she hopes Canadians become more aware about the bill and pressure the government to listen and get rid of the proposed bill.
"We hope to forward the idea of openness and engage Canadians in order to make sure the Internet stays open," she said.
Have you read the Bill?
Where in the Bill does it imply that the police wouldn't need a warrant?
__________________
"Wake up, Luigi! The only time plumbers sleep on the job is when we're working by the hour."
Useless website. I just see a lot of fear-mongering. Looks like a typical Facebook campaign. Short on details, high on fear-mongering.
The site would be MUCH more credible if it identified by name/bill number the piece(s) of legislation it references AND it wouldn't hurt to, you know, add a few facts to the website.
Great, why tell me? Tell them if you are so inclined. I see them just trying to get the attention of the people who have become to apathetic. There is a lot of information on the bill now BECAUSE of the Open Media group.
These people are part of the "stop UBB" group that stopped UBB through online petition and email campaigns. They work.
"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."
"It is also noteworthy that at no time have Canadian authorities provided the public with any evidence or reasoning to suggest that CSIS or any other Canadian law enforcement agencies have been frustrated in the performance of their duties as a result of shortcomings attributable to current law, TSPs or the manner in which they operate."
Last edited by To Be Quite Honest; 09-16-2011 at 03:53 PM.
"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:
Quote:
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
Quote:
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.
__________________
"Wake up, Luigi! The only time plumbers sleep on the job is when we're working by the hour."
Couple of points, I believe which are connected, your information on the internet isn't private, in fact it is the whole point of this bill that they are asking a third party, your ISP, to provide them with their data on you, which means you have already given up your assumption of privacy which means they don't need a warrent to look at it.
This bill would not require a warrent for the cops to get info from your isp.
Personally I don't like the bill.
The Following User Says Thank You to afc wimbledon For This Useful Post:
It was in a subscription email from the group, but that was deleted.
They worked with many people to get it done. It wasn't their "divine intervention" alone, but you need the signatures to show your voice and the group collected more than enough themselves to get it thrown out.
in fact it is the whole point of this bill that they are asking a third party, your ISP, to provide them with their data on you
WRONG. The bill is to mandate that they have the capability - this is, in effect, no different than impositions they put on any number of industries to maintain records and be CAPABLE of reporting on activities when required. This is no different than telco's that are mandated by law to be capable of providing a voice wiretap, or banks being required by law to keep financial records, or big ag chemical companies being required to track shipments of precursor chemicals, pharma to track drug sales, etc.
Stop Online Spying
