Stop Online Spying

[To Be Quite Honest]

Originally Posted by sclitheroe

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.

hmmm... But we are people not companies. We have more rights than Nike, or telco, or any other money generating company. These companies don't get all the information that this bill is requesting.

And stop being so rude. No need to yell "WRONG". Absolutely no need for it.

[sclitheroe]

Originally Posted by To Be Quite Honest

hmmm... But we are people not companies. We have more rights than Nike, or telco, or any other money generating company. These companies don't get all the information that this bill is requesting.

And stop being so rude. No need to yell "WRONG". Absolutely no need for it.

I'm not being rude, I'm emphatically pointing out that almost all the information presented in this thread about the bill is incorrect.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by sclitheroe

This is completely false from a legal perspective, otherwise it wouldn't be criminal to intercept email between two parties.

I suspect it isn't criminal to ask your ISP if you emailed someone, just as long as they don't divulge the content, this is like asking the post office if you get a lot of parcels from Columbia, as long as they don't look in the parcels they are on good ground.

The coppers are asking for the right to tell where you browse on the internet, which is available to any technician in both your ISP and the web sites ISP plus the web site's operator and any one else that has any kind of access to their servers or the ISP's server, on top of that this informaton is in no way conected to you in person, it only applies to your computor, that anyone could use, in theory.

Nothing you do on the internet is private, at least 3 or 4 people can, if they choose look it up.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by sclitheroe

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.

Yeah, but you need a warrant to get a wiretap. You should need a warrant to get access to my private information regarding my internet activity.

[sclitheroe]

Originally Posted by Azure

Yeah, but you need a warrant to get a wiretap. You should need a warrant to get access to my private information regarding my internet activity.

It depends on how you define activity I think. In the real world, you don't have any expectation of privacy in terms of being observed using the sidewalk or entering a building. But the transaction you conduct inside the building is private, until a warrant is obtained to unseal the details of the transaction.

Same thing on the internet - its kinda a forgone conclusion that access to public facing servers can be observed.

[Canuck-Hater]

Everybody always says "Well im not doing anything wrong, I got nothing to hide" That may be true, the fact is you have a right to privacy. Im completely against it because it violates basic rights.

[sclitheroe]

Originally Posted by Canuck-Hater

Im completely against it because it violates basic rights.

But isn't that where this bill is completely important - it outlines the nature of the information, as well as the situations under which it can be obtained. The entire security/law enforcement apparatus is designed to allow incursions to personal privacy when warranted - I don't see how this differs.

Edit: I do see how it differs - this spells out that ISP's and telco's must provide the system of logging and access. But the internet is different than the real world - if the providers don't provide that access, how can enforcement gain any visibility into whats going on when they need it?

Could this power be abused? Yes, like any other protected access to the private lives of citizens, but we also have a judicial system that espouses the right to fair trial, where such abuses can be brought to light and the case dismissed or counter charges filed.

In an ideal world, we'd have the absolute right to privacy, but the problem is that the criminals don't self-disclose their activities.

[saillias]

I write all posts and text messages with the assumption that Stephen Harper is reading them.

[To Be Quite Honest]

Originally Posted by saillias

I write all posts and text messages with the assumption that Stephen Harper is reading them.

Personally. lol

Perhaps over dinner to the family!

[photon]

Originally Posted by sclitheroe

It depends on how you define activity I think. In the real world, you don't have any expectation of privacy in terms of being observed using the sidewalk or entering a building. But the transaction you conduct inside the building is private, until a warrant is obtained to unseal the details of the transaction.

Same thing on the internet - its kinda a forgone conclusion that access to public facing servers can be observed.

I don't really agree that the wire from my house through whatever ISPs to the port on the server is equal to a public sidewalk, since it's not a public infrastructure but is private (for the most part).

But I can see the analogy.

What if I encrypt my connection? The ISP can still tell what server I accessed and when even though I've made an effort to be private.

[TopChed]

Originally Posted by sclitheroe

But isn't that where this bill is completely important - it outlines the nature of the information, as well as the situations under which it can be obtained. The entire security/law enforcement apparatus is designed to allow incursions to personal privacy when warranted - I don't see how this differs.

Edit: I do see how it differs - this spells out that ISP's and telco's must provide the system of logging and access. But the internet is different than the real world - if the providers don't provide that access, how can enforcement gain any visibility into whats going on when they need it?

Could this power be abused? Yes, like any other protected access to the private lives of citizens, but we also have a judicial system that espouses the right to fair trial, where such abuses can be brought to light and the case dismissed or counter charges filed.

In an ideal world, we'd have the absolute right to privacy, but the problem is that the criminals don't self-disclose their activities.

So I take it you'd be in favour of our government tapping our phones without our knowledge, y'know, because criminals don't generally volunteer their private conversations.

[Barnes]

Lots of people pretty sensitive about some server logs. Wonder what they'd do if they found out about:

ECHELON
CFS Leitrim
The Five Eyes

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by TopChed

So I take it you'd be in favour of our government tapping our phones without our knowledge, y'know, because criminals don't generally volunteer their private conversations.

If a warrant is obtained, of course.

To think the judiciary branch of the legal system will suddenly not require a warrant for a tap that is equiv to a wiretap is ridiculous. The complaint about clause 16 might have some merit, but it doesn't relate to a 'wiretap like' action, but is functionally equivilant to getting the phone number that the wiretap would be on.

[To Be Quite Honest]

Originally Posted by Rathji

If a warrant is obtained, of course.

To think the judiciary branch of the legal system will suddenly not require a warrant for a tap that is equiv to a wiretap is ridiculous. The complaint about clause 16 might have some merit, but it doesn't relate to a 'wiretap like' action, but is functionally equivilant to getting the phone number that the wiretap would be on.

If a warrant is properly obtained then obviously there are laws being broken. Due process is in place and the system is being fair when a warrant is issued. This bill is trying to skip this due process, and, in effect, ignore our rights to privacy when our privacy above all is paramount. That is unfair and law by definition is to be fair and just. This is what makes Canada such a great country, and why we need to stop bureaucrats from taking our fundamental rights away.

[sclitheroe]

Originally Posted by TopChed

So I take it you'd be in favour of our government tapping our phones without our knowledge, y'know, because criminals don't generally volunteer their private conversations.

No. But I wouldn't support phone networks that were untappable by enforcement either - that's a big component of this bill - ensuring that enforcement have access as required.

[sclitheroe]

Originally Posted by To Be Quite Honest

If a warrant is properly obtained then obviously there are laws being broken. Due process is in place and the system is being fair when a warrant is issued. This bill is trying to skip this due process, and, in effect, ignore our rights to privacy when our privacy above all is paramount. That is unfair and law by definition is to be fair and just. This is what makes Canada such a great country, and why we need to stop bureaucrats from taking our fundamental rights away.

I re-read that portion of the bill again more closely, and I see what you're saying - that it does seek to grant non-warrant access to the information.

However, from my understanding of the information an ISP is required to divulge as proposed by the bill, without a warrant, is simply your name, address, email address, IP address, etc. - not your web browsing activity.

It seems pretty logical to me that this information would then be used to assist with the issuance of a warrant that would allow enforcement to get the real data, which is server access logs, a digital wiretap, etc.

[To Be Quite Honest]

Originally Posted by sclitheroe

I re-read that portion of the bill again more closely, and I see what you're saying - that it does seek to grant non-warrant access to the information.

However, from my understanding of the information an ISP is required to divulge as proposed by the bill, without a warrant, is simply your name, address, email address, IP address, etc. - not your web browsing activity.

It seems pretty logical to me that this information would then be used to assist with the issuance of a warrant that would allow enforcement to get the real data, which is server access logs, a digital wiretap, etc.

But you are just concentrating on computer internet tracking and passing it off as no big deal. What about digital phone spying? Spying is getting information without permission. (I know you know this. I'm not trying to be condescending.) This bill in not necessary.

Jennifer Stoddart - Privacy Commissioner of Canada

"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."

[Azure]

Originally Posted by sclitheroe

It depends on how you define activity I think. In the real world, you don't have any expectation of privacy in terms of being observed using the sidewalk or entering a building. But the transaction you conduct inside the building is private, until a warrant is obtained to unseal the details of the transaction.

Same thing on the internet - its kinda a forgone conclusion that access to public facing servers can be observed.

Lets face it, the government doesn't care what we post on CP, or how much time we spend on it. Nor do they care if we check scores. But potentially they could care about our private information on Facebook, or who we are emailing, and what we are saying.

Is my Facebook information private? Should it be private? Should anyone have access to it without a warrant? I don't think so.

[Resolute 14]

Facebook is a terrible example when talking about privacy and the internet. Simply put, no matter what controls you set, always assume your data is wide open there and behave accordingly.