Investigating and Preventing Criminal Electronic Communications Act

[HPLovecraft]

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.

[TheyCallMeBruce]

If this law passes, I won't be referring to CalgaryPuck as CP no more. Unless I want to attract some attention.

[photon]

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.

That's hilarious, I just received a reply email from Kevin Sorenson who copy/pasted most of Toews' comments.

"Mr. Speaker, outrageous claims that private communications will be intercepted without a warrant is a complete fabrication."

I tried to point out to Sorenson that they don't seem to understand how technology works. I can easily intercept unencrypted private communication on my subnet with the ISP, but since I don't know who's IP address belongs to whom they are anonymous. But since I can correlate an IP to an address now without a warranty, I can intercept communications in realtime, view web browsing habits, etc, for anyone on my subnet.

Does that equate to warrantless wiretapping? The effort required to target an individual might be too high (rent a place near the person, order Internet, hope you get on the same subnet).

[photon]

Originally Posted by HPLovecraft

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.

Exactly. Making laws that apply to everyone and promising to only use them for a specific situation is at best stupid, at worst dangerous.

That's exactly what they said the the copyright legislation too. "Oh we won't use this to prosecute individuals".

[photon]

http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6320/125/
http://www.theprovince.com/news/Tori...676/story.html

[kirant]

Originally Posted by photon

But since I can correlate an IP to an address now without a warranty, I can intercept communications in realtime, view web browsing habits, etc, for anyone on my subnet.

I'm not sure if I missed something, but can anybody access it? I thought it was a privately held piece of data unless police inquiry comes into play.

Either way, this is a concern I have with the bill...the connection of IP to a real person without warrant is dangerous. If anybody can do it by simply asking their provider, it's out and out stupid to allow such freeflow of personal information.

[photon]

Originally Posted by kirant

I'm not sure if I missed something, but can anybody access it? I thought it was a privately held piece of data unless police inquiry comes into play.

Either way, this is a concern I have with the bill...the connection of IP to a real person without warrant is dangerous. If anybody can do it by simply asking their provider, it's out and out stupid to allow such freeflow of personal information.

Sorry by "I" I meant the royal law enforcement I.

[MarchHare]

[photon]

But IP address to address is the same as a phone book having your phone # and address!

(ignoring the fact you can have your number NOT in the phone book if you prefer)

[kirant]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Though it sounds worse, wouldn't it be more along the lines of "Police can get your name, #, and address without a warrant"? Almost feels like it's smushing different parts of the bill together.

Or is this in reference to PCIP?

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by kirant

Though it sounds worse, wouldn't it be more along the lines of "Police can get your name, #, and address without a warrant"? Almost feels like it's smushing different parts of the bill together.

Or is this in reference to PCIP?

It's a little bit more complicated than that.

In addition to a name, address, phone number and email address, companies would also be required to hand over the Internet protocol address and a series of device identification numbers, allowing police to build a detailed profile on a person using their digital footprint and to facilitate the tracking of a person’s movement through the location of their cellphone.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/02...very-canadian/

[kirant]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

It's a little bit more complicated than that.

Still not sure saying "Breaking into your house" is considered the proper analogy though. It's an extremely pedantic though...so...I'll just drop it.

[SebC]

If you want an unregistered gun, the Conservatives will protect your privacy.

If you want an unregistered internet connection, the Conservatives will assume you support child pornography.

[Tinordi]

Conservative logic:

Long form census is an invasion of privacy

Providing legal means for police to monitor, catalogue and record the communications of any civilian's internet use is not an invasion of privacy

What a joke this government is. They're careening off the rails.

[Tinordi]

Has Vic Toews sponsored any meaningful legislation that has actually made sense during his LONG tenure as minister? The guy is a complete maroon yet gets handed the most central ministries of federal jurisdiction. Intellectually bankrupt government and cabinet the likes of which this country has NEVER seen.

[opendoor]

I can't say I'm surprised. It was blatantly obvious based on their past actions that they were going to introduce legislation very much like this. Evidently not enough people felt strongly about this issue to have it affect their vote.

[kirant]

Originally Posted by opendoor

I can't say I'm surprised. It was blatantly obvious based on their past actions that they were going to introduce legislation very much like this. Evidently not enough people felt strongly about this issue to have it affect their vote.

It's a problem in Canadian politics that we vote for the worst of three devils...a long standing issue.

Between Harper, Ignatieff, and Layton...Harper makes the most sense. The problem is we all know he's a jerk as well. Handing him a majority is bad as him with free reigns asks for the social conservative side of him to come out...but landing minorities is so hard to intentionally get. When the other two options were that bad, this is what we get.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by opendoor

I can't say I'm surprised. It was blatantly obvious based on their past actions that they were going to introduce legislation very much like this. Evidently not enough people felt strongly about this issue to have it affect their vote.

Or the other issues together all had more combined weight than this one.

Make no mistake, this bill is horrible, but only on piece of the whole pathetic puzzle that is Canadian politics.

[OzSome]

Big Brother is watching you!!

So it looks like our privacy doesn't mean crap anymore. I am hoping they are using this Child Pornography stuff as an excuse to create this bill. I am all for doing it to protect the kids but if the government will be watching all our online activities then this sucks.

[La Flames Fan]

You know...reading this bill...

I'm getting real tired, real fast of being presumed guilty until proven innocent and the idea to give police/RCMP ultimate power.

I feel like the citizens in this world, no less Canada, are regularily under attack by governments, or at least our rights. I'm getting sick of it.

We're all up in arms when Facebook changes privacy settings, but when a government does it, it's okay and good for the security of the country...blah blah blah.

Give me a break...what's it really about?

SOPA, PIPA, ACTA, C-30...The web is under attack.