Investigating and Preventing Criminal Electronic Communications Act

[photon]

Looks like this is coming back again, with the goverment requiring ISPs to provide private user information without any kind of court oversight, and requiring ISPs to track everything (as opposed to how it is now which is voluntary, which is bad enough).

This despite the conservatives saying they wouldn't do this in 2007. They decided that requiring a warrant to get personal info would "negatively impact the ability to carry out investigations and would introduce an additional burden on the criminal justice system."

Well duh, the whole idea of privacy and such is to negatively impact the ability to carry out investigations, to PRESERVE PRIVACY.

If the only thing one wants to do is make investigations as expedient as possible, do away with any notion of privacy. Let the police search your house and car and tap your phones and hack and watch your webcams whenever they want, warrants take up too much time donchaknow.

And of course we'll pay for it (either through increased rates, or taxes).

http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6316/125/

[kirant]

It hasn't come out yet...I'll probably wait until the official bill comes out to make any judgements on it (a lot of this seems to be based on the last one, which may or may not be completely reflective). I've never been a fan of non-court supervised bills which give this level of intrusion...so I'm hoping Geist is wrong in his speculation. Don't mind the rest as much, but unsupervised detail grabbing to that level just bugs me.

[MarchHare]

Unfortunately, this won't die in committee because of an election being called like it did that last few times now that The Harper Government has a majority.

[NuclearPizzaMan]

Privacy and due process are 20th century relics that have no place in our 21st century police state.

[northcrunk]

It was on the order paper for the house today but I'm not sure if it was introduced. From first looks I don't like it at all and am not surprised the conservatives (in name only) broke their promises about this. Conservatives are supposed to be for privacy, not about invading it.

[SebC]

Can I have an unregistered internet connection if I take out a Personal (file) Acquisition License?

[corporatejay]

This is the kind of #### people should be worried about, not the shutting town of illegal torrent sites.

[HotHotHeat]

#IPCECA

This act won't pass quietly. If there's one thing we've learned, people will protect their ability to get free shat off the internet.

[Resolute 14]

Vic Toews going full ###### in Commons doesn't leave me very confident in this bill either.

[freedogger]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Vic Toews going full ###### in Commons doesn't leave me very confident in this bill either.

Apparently we side with child pornographers if we don't love this bill.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Vic Toews going full ###### in Commons doesn't leave me very confident in this bill either.

Same here. What a moron.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by freedogger

Apparently we side with child pornographers if we don't love this bill.

In the US they actually called it the "Protecting Children from Internet Pornographers Act", but...

Representative Zoe Lofgren, (D-Calif.), one of the most vocal opponents of the bill, presented an amendment to rename the bill the "Keep Every American's Digital Data for Submission to the Federal Government Without a Warrant Act."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protect...rs_Act_of_2011

[Jimmy Stang]

As the recent bust of child pornographers in Ontario proves, the existing system works just fine. Obtain warrant, gather evidence, and then press charges. There is a special place in hell for child pornographers, but we don't need to presume every citizen to be guilty of it to successfully investigate and prosecute.

The child pornography tie-in to this bill is a disgraceful gimmick to provide a smokescreen for this bill to pass. To suggest that those who do not want warrant-less access without judicial oversight to their communications = a supporter of child pornographers is a false dichotomy of the most disgusting variety. Canadians of all political leanings should be ashamed of what the government is doing here. The bill itself, and the tactics used to sell it.

[Yasa]

There should be a team of camera men following Harper around to make sure he doesn't beat children. If he doesn't agree with this, then it's clear he supports child abuse.

[HPLovecraft]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...9/?from=sec434

This really needs to be made a bigger deal of.

Contact your MP here:

http://www.parl.gc.ca/Default.aspx?Language=E

[Methanolic]

As long as I can have my cigarettes, booze and can read about lottery winners......

[VladtheImpaler]

Emailed my concerns to my MP (one Stevie Harper).

[kirant]

Hate the words Vic Toews threw in there (especially that absolute statement), but something caught my eye relative to the original article:

The bill will require Internet service providers to store and to make available to the government and police forces information on the Internet activity of their customers.

Police will require a warrant to obtain that information. But the bill would also permit them to obtain IP addresses (which identifies someone on the Internet), email addresses, mobile phone numbers and other information without any warrant.

By warrant, do they mean search (and therefore, if my understanding of the law is correct, judge controlled) warrant? That seems to contradict the article linked by photon. I guess when they publish the bill online, I can check...but does anybody have a better understanding of than I do (and can clear up the confusion)?

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by kirant

Hate the words Vic Toews threw in there (especially that absolute statement), but something caught my eye relative to the original article:

By warrant, do they mean search (and therefore, if my understanding of the law is correct, judge controlled) warrant? That seems to contradict the article linked by photon. I guess when they publish the bill online, I can check...but does anybody have a better understanding of than I do (and can clear up the confusion)?

To track your movements and watch what you're doing online, they'll require a warrant. To obtain your IP, and all other personal information, they wouldn't. They could basically build an internet registry, with the personal information of every user in Canada, if they so wished. At least, this is my understanding of it.

Here is a video on it:

And are are the three bills:

http://parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/...4740653&file=4
http://parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/...4745885&file=4
http://parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/...4753163&file=4

[kirant]

Originally Posted by HPLovecraft

To track your movements and watch what you're doing online, they'll require a warrant. To obtain your IP, and all other personal information, they wouldn't. They could basically build an internet registry, with the personal information of every user in Canada, if they so wished. At least, this is my understanding of it.

Here is a video on it:

And are are the three bills:

http://parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/...4740653&file=4
http://parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/...4745885&file=4
http://parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/...4753163&file=4

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).