Yes they did. They tried to sneak anti-privacy/anti-piracy law through as an anti-child porn law.
No, not really. They titled the law in a way to evoke the "with us or with the child pornographers" argument, but the law itself has always clearly been about online crime/monitoring as whole.
And given the "lawful access" aspects of the bill have been well known and discussed since the previous times they were introduced, it would be pretty silly to suggest that the government tried to "sneak" any aspect of this through. The government's crime here was stupidity, not subterfuge.
The Following User Says Thank You to Resolute 14 For This Useful Post:
I thought we were talking about child pornography. Are we now talking about murdering child pornographers?
If you take Vic Teows' logic on internet privacy and apply it to gun privacy, that's what you get. Meanwhile, the Conservatives killed off the gun registry, so Vic is clearly with the murderers.
If you take Vic Teows' logic on internet privacy and apply it to gun privacy, that's what you get. Meanwhile, the Conservatives killed off the gun registry, so Vic is clearly with the murderers.
Probably a matter of public record so either online on a website or going down to the courthouse and browsing through the records.
No, no, no. The where the person was twittering from and what websites they were using? Should have made it clear which citizen (the Ottawa Newspaper) I was referring to.
No, no, no. The where the person was twittering from and what websites they were using?
Oh, they must have got whoever was running the twitter account to view an image on a webserver that they had access to.
If they can do it in such a way that only that person views the image, then they'll have the IP address of the computer that viewed it (the webserver logs will show what IP address requested the image, at what time, URL of the image, etc).
Once they have that, they can do a WHOIS on their IP address to figure out a bunch of stuff about it, who owns that IP, where it is generally geographically etc.
And Wikipedia keeps track of edits by IP address so you can search an IP and find out what pages that IP has been editing.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
Public Safety Minister Vic Toews says he is surprised to learn that a section of the government's online surveillance bill provides for "exceptional circumstances" under which "any police officer" can request customer information from a telecommunications service provider.
In an interview airing Saturday on CBC Radio's The House, Toews said his understanding of the bill is that police can only request information from the ISPs where they are conducting "a specific criminal investigation."
But Section 17 of the 'Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act' outlines "exceptional circumstances" under which "any police officer" can ask an ISP to turn over personal client information.
"I'd certainly like to see an explanation of that," Toews told host Evan Solomon after a week of public backlash against Bill C-30, which would require internet service providers to turn over client information without a warrant.
"This is the first time that I'm hearing this somehow extends ordinary police emergency powers [to telecommunications]. In my opinion, it doesn't. And it shouldn't."
Again, standard for these things. Many American Representatives and Senators had no clue what was in SOPA or PIPA either. Someone else wrote it, told them it was to combat piracy/child porn/cyber crime and asked them to support. Fortunately in all cases, the populace is more clued in than the politicians.
Doesn't say anything good about our politicians. But it does show the importance of the populace being involved in the democratic process.
Also, Great Britain is trying to enact similar spynets:
It's going to cost at least $80 million to implement the government's lawful access bill to force internet service providers to collect customer information in case police need it for an investigation, CBC News has learned.
The funding is a no-win scenario. If passed, either Ottawa props up it by charging taxpayers or ISPs will begin spiking rates as they'll get no compensation for their upgrades.
Received a reply from Vic Toews, or more likely whoever is responding on behalf of him:
Quote:
Thank you for contacting my office regarding Bill C-30, the Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act.
Canada's laws currently do not adequately protect Canadians from online exploitation and we think there is widespread agreement that this is a problem.
We want to update our laws while striking the right balance between combating crime and protecting privacy.
Let me be very clear: the police will not be able to read emails or view web activity unless they obtain a warrant issued by a judge and we have constructed safeguards to protect the privacy of Canadians, including audits by privacy commissioners.
What's needed most is an open discussion about how to better protect Canadians from online crime. We will therefore send this legislation directly to Parliamentary Committee for a full examination of the best ways to protect Canadians while respecting their privacy.
For your information, I have included some myths and facts below regarding Bill C-30 in its current state.
Sincerely,
Vic Toews
Member of Parliament for Provencher
Myth: Lawful Access legislation infringes on the privacy of Canadians.
Fact: Our Government puts a high priority on protecting the privacy of law-abiding Canadians. Current practices of accessing the actual content of communications with a legal authorization will not change.
Myth: Having access to basic subscriber information means that authorities can monitor personal communications and activities.
Fact: This has nothing to do with monitoring emails or web browsing. Basic subscriber information would be limited to a customer’s name, address, telephone number, email address, Internet Protocol (IP) address, and the name of the telecommunications service provider. It absolutely does not include the content of emails, phones calls or online activities.
Myth: This legislation does not benefit average Canadians and only gives authorities more power.
Fact: As a result of technological innovations, criminals and terrorists have found ways to hide their illegal activities. This legislation will keep Canadians safer by putting police on the same footing as those who seek to harm us.
Myth: Basic subscriber information is way beyond “phone book information”.
Fact: The basic subscriber information described in the proposed legislation is the modern day equivalent of information that is in the phone book. Individuals frequently freely share this information online and in many cases it is searchable and quite public.
Myth: Police and telecommunications service providers will now be required to maintain databases with information collected on Canadians.
Fact: This proposed legislation will not require either police or telecommunications service providers to create databases with information collected on Canadians.
Myth: “Warrantless access” to customer information will give police and government unregulated access to our personal information.
Fact: Federal legislation already allows telecommunications service providers to voluntarily release basic subscriber information to authorities without a warrant. This Bill acts as a counterbalance by adding a number of checks and balances which do not exist today, and clearly lists which basic subscriber identifiers authorities can access.
I like his not arrogant in the least use of "myth" and "fact".
__________________
"An adherent of homeopathy has no brain. They have skull water with the memory of a brain."
