Bill C-416 - ISP wiretapping without a warrant

[photon]

Here we go again.. it's a private member's bill so who knows if it'll go anywhere.

http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublicat...ll&Doc=C-416_1

http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/1827/125/

As Liberal leader Stephane Dion promised earlier this month, Liberal MP Marlene Jennings on Friday reintroduced lawful access legislation. The Modernization of Investigative Techniques Act (MITA) is now Bill C-416, bringing back the controversial provisions last introduced in the fall of 2005 that include the installation of new surveillance capabilities within Canada's ISPs and the ability for law enforcement to more easily obtain subscriber information.

[worth]

Surveillance without due process is never good IMO.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by worth

Surveillance without due process is never good IMO.

Absolutely. From Prof. Geist's article:

Among the most troubling aspects of Bill C-416 is a series of new powers that are not accompanied by any judicial oversight. Law enforcement authorities, including the police, CSIS agents, and even Competition Bureau authorities, will have the right to obtain ISP subscriber information simply upon request without a warrant.

If they realize the public isn't willing to accept this sort of intrusion without oversight (and we see how well that has worked with the National Security Letters in the US).

I'm all for allowing the modernization of crime-fighting techniques, but not at the expense of present liberties.

[Ford Prefect]

Resistance is futile ... you will be assimilated.

Maybe it's time to head for someplace like Belize.

[metallicat]

Doesn't this fall into the category of if you aren't doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about? I guess nobody likes people watching over their shoulders, but unless you are downloading child porn, I'd say you aren't going to be bothered by a visit from the men in blue.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by oilers_fan

Doesn't this fall into the category of if you aren't doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about? I guess nobody likes people watching over their shoulders, but unless you are downloading child porn, I'd say you aren't going to be bothered by a visit from the men in blue.

I don't like people looking over my shoulder. It's supposed to be a free country. The only law I ever break is crossing against the flashing hand, but that doesn't mean I want someone to have access to my personal information.

If they have a good reason to look into my e-mails and activities on the internet, I'm sure a judge agree with them and let it happen.

[worth]

I'm sorry but I absolutley hate that argument "if you're doing nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about".

That is not the principles our country was founded on. I have a fundamental right to be able to go about my business without someone snooping around. As Rouge said, if they have a reason to, go right ahead and do the paperwork, I have no problem with that. What I do have a problem with is a police state like mentaity.

The thing is, you also have to consider where the line is drawn. So we allow them access to ISP information and user habits. What about when they pass a bill that allows phone taps without a warrant? You have nothing to hide, so why should you be against someone listening in on your phone calls?

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by oilers_fan

Doesn't this fall into the category of if you aren't doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about?

Nope. I do a vast majority of my financial transaction online. Yes, those are encrypted, but the bottom line for me is there shouldn't be somebody there invading my privacy.

[Ford Prefect]

Originally Posted by oilers_fan

Doesn't this fall into the category of if you aren't doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about? I guess nobody likes people watching over their shoulders, but unless you are downloading child porn, I'd say you aren't going to be bothered by a visit from the men in blue.

I suspect this kind of surveilance capability would have less to do with catching criminals than having the ability to wield totalitarian control and power over society. I don't think the system is too preoccipied with controlling conventional criminals in our society, like drug dealers, rapists, thieves, etc. If they were we'd see a system were victims of crime, not to mention the poor and handicapped members of society, would have more rigths than the criminal members of society. No, I suspect this has more to do with with control and power over society rather than law enforcement. Think of the marketing implications of this alone ... "the man" could track our online conusmer behaviour and either sell or exploit this info for personal gain. They'd also be able to identify and track political oppenents and dissidents, politicial trends, credit/debt trends, etc., etc. The credit and debt info they could gather would better enable them to maximize their profits through manipulation of prime rates, inflation and such. Nope, I don't trust this at all, and trying to couch it as a law enforcement ploy is just a mug's shell game.

[metallicat]

Fair enough guys, I don't necessarily disagree with your points either. I don't like people looking over my shoulder either, but I'm sure it happens more than we know right now anyways.