Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Privacy Your Rights Online

Canadian Lawful Access Legislation 170

Posted by michael from the right-to-pry dept.
EvilAlien writes "In Canada, existing legislation covers access to telephone records, disclosure of customer information in accordance with the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) and other means compelling the release of information. However, the laws regulating access to these networks for Canadian law enforcement and national security groups are only under development. The Department of Justice has released their Lawful Access Consultation Document to get feedback from all the stakeholders including industry, civil liberties groups, and the legal community."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Canadian Lawful Access Legislation More

Canadian Lawful Access Legislation

Comments Filter:
  • Though I like seeing Canadian issues get a lot of coverage, isn't this a double post [slashdot.org]
    • Arguably, yes. My bad, I suppose. That CNet report is garbage though, there is nothing like getting to the source and skipping past rediculous media coverage.

      I'm fairly dissapointed at the level of apathy. Americans don't seem to care, at least relatively. Canadian's don't seem to care much (are we really this apathetic?). There are a number of problems with the consultation process that nobody is noticing.

      There is no mention of safe harbour. Does this mean that an ISP forced to release data is subject to a civil suit for privacy violation?

      Why is the consultation process so short? It seems like Justice is trying to ram this through. It also smells like the laws are already drafted, and after an obligatory lip-service "consultation process", they will get tabled. And industry and civil liberties will get ignored just as they were with Bill C-15a [justice.gc.ca]. In an of itself, it is a noble cause to fight child exploitation. However, it is dangerous when laws aimed at doing so also try to turn ISPs into content watchdogs.

      Who will bear the costs? Will Canadian industry be forced to pay for a Canadian equivalent of Carnivore?

  • Let's not follow the US! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by farrellj ( 563 ) on Sunday September 08, 2002 @01:58AM (#4214829) Homepage Journal
    True North Strong and Free...that's what our national anthem says...Mr Bush & Co have gutted the US Bill of Rights, don't let our so-called "Liberal" government do the same. We can fight terrorism with the tools we have, the only reason why 9/11 happened is that we were not looking for it.

    If we turn this continent into Fortress North America, they they have won the war by making us into our worst fears...a police state with autocractic politicians. When rule of force becomes the rule of law, we might as well just elect a dictator and be done with it.

    If the US is going to be too stupid to realize what they have done, let's show then how it's done, and maybe they will realize their mistake before theey *do* elect a dictator.

    ttyl
    Farrell ...concerned about his home, and his friends in the States.
    • You seem to care a lot about privacy for someone who uses Hotmail.
      • My privacy is why I use Hotmail. I am *not* going to put my primaray or evern my secondary email addresses on a place like Slashdot! If someone really has something interesting to talk to me about, I will see it on the hotmail account, then email them from one of my more secure email addresses!

        ttyl
        Farrell
    • If they do follow the US, i may be one of the 1st emmigrants, i know for a fact that i couldn't live in the US cight now,, and if the C'dn govenment makes the same mistakes as they seem to contiually make... Reece,
    • Well at least we're still north eh? ...
    • The proposal -- if you've read it -- is only for bringing the Criminal Code up to date for the Internet for criminal suspects. This isn't to spy on Joe Average User. It's about gathering evidence on criminal suspects. You would still need to get authorization from a judge, solicitor general, etc. to execute a "search warrant" on your Internet communications.

  • Response from Canadian ISPs (Score:3, Informative)

    by Penguinista! ( 99743 ) <editor@NOSPaM.penguinista.org> on Sunday September 08, 2002 @02:27AM (#4214899) Homepage

    Can I claim "First worthwhile post"?

    I'm going to ignore comments thus far as generally just not representative of Slashdotters, most of whom can find Canada on a map.

    This story is a duplicate post on Slashdot, but parts of the story haven't really been covered yet: additional links are to be found in this story [penguinista.org], which you can follow to find out more info on the issue, including some sample response from Canadian ISPs, one of which [rainyday.ca] I represent. We're also CAIP [www.caip.ca] members and I can tell you that the only comments I've seen on the members' mailing list so far are all negative, so you can probably expect resistance on our part, as the stories linked indicate. Any Canadian Slashdotters (believe it or not, not everyone here is American - I wonder if there are any geographical /. stats?) should make their views known now during the process leading up to the draft of the law that will result following the consultation process. Unfortunately the document as far as I've read it does not describe a process for doing so as an individual, but it does Identify the three government agencies involved [justice.gc.ca], and industrious persons can probably take it from there.

    Contrary to one informationally-ignorant prior post, as Canadians we do have Rights and Freedoms [justice.gc.ca], and as in every other country (yes, including the USA) sometimes we need to speak up to exercise them and make sure that they aren't clawed back from us.

    -brt
    • From our Charter:

      33. (1) Parliament or the legislature of a province may expressly declare in an Act of Parliament or of the legislature, as the case may be, that the Act or a provision thereof shall operate notwithstanding a provision included in section 2 or sections 7 to 15 of this Charter.
      Operation of exception (2) An Act or a provision of an Act in respect of which a declaration made under this section is in effect shall have such operation as it would have but for the provision of this Charter referred to in the declaration.
      Five year limitation (3) A declaration made under subsection (1) shall cease to have effect five years after it comes into force or on such earlier date as may be specified in the declaration.
      Re-enactment (4) Parliament or the legislature of a province may re-enact a declaration made under subsection (1).
      Five year limitation (5) Subsection (3) applies in respect of a re-enactment made under subsection (4).

      The end result... we don't have inalienable rights. Trudeau fucked us on that one.
    • My apologies for the dupe, I didn't see a previous post on the Lawful Access Consultation. I am also taking part in the process, representing another Canadian ISP which is a CCTA member.

      The paper doesn't provide much detail on making your views known as a private citizen. It is geared towards industry associations such as CAIP and the CCTA, civil liberties groups, etc. Notice the emphasis on "group". God forbid the average citizen should be listened to...

      At any rate, the news release [justice.gc.ca] on this matter includes the email address the DoJ wants submissions sent to:

      Those wishing to respond may send their submissions to
      la-al@justice.gc.ca [mailto] before November 15, 2002.
  • sad, pathetic and ignorant...the lot of you. And to think that I thought that /. represented a more educated to outlook, guess I'll have to change my start page to something more intelligent.....maybe http://pbskids.org/teletubbies/

  • Seems very similar to what EU is cooking (Score:3, Interesting)

    by jukal ( 523582 ) on Sunday September 08, 2002 @03:49AM (#4215008) Journal
    Here is [statewatch.org] a leaked draft of a similar framework (proposal) on data retention in Europe, and here is Statewatch analysis [statewatch.org] of it - I believe the analysis is good reference for Canada/US as well. It seems these things are happening all over the world at same time, so maybe the kick-off to start working on these was made in some multi-national meeting (interpol [interpol.int], maybe). Anyway, it is rather alarming.
    • Actually, if you read the Lawful Access Consultation paper, you will notice that much of the drive for this is to be able to not only ratify, but comply with the Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime. Canada is a signitary already, but our existing laws do not allow us to actually comply. The DoJ's Lawful Access legislation for service providers will change that.

  • Be Serious Now (Score:3, Interesting)

    by SerialEx13 ( 605554 ) on Sunday September 08, 2002 @06:22AM (#4215195)
    After reading this, it's no wonder a lot of the world hates the States. It's those of you who have no respect for other cultures/nations/etc. that are causing it. Not saying that the states is the only country that does this though. I've known Canadians too who have done this (although the states is a lot bigger, therefore being heard more); it sicken's me how ignorent people are. I do not believe /. was created with the intent of having flame wars like "my country's better than yours". I'd be surprised if this reply does not get any "childish" responses.
  • The rule is: if you didn't participate in the process, you don't get to complain.

    The deadline for feedback [justice.gc.ca] is November 15, 2002.

  • I'm willing to bet that at least 60% of Canadians are happy with such legislation. Very few people care about there privacy.

    Hell the government can look at our bank account whenever the hell he wants to. I sent letters to the mayor, letters to some political parties and no response whatsoever. What's amazing is that everyone I talked to didn't seem to care about the fact that the government can look into there bank account without permission.
    • "I'm willing to bet that at least 60% of Canadians are happy with such legislation. Very few people care about there privacy."

      That's not what I've come across. I work for a Canadian ISP and we are required to jump through some pretty big hoops in authenticating users before we change passwords, etc. Some people (about 1 in 15 or so*) complain about the process that we have to go through, usually after we've failed to properly authenticate them. Another small group (about 3 in 15*) complain about it, then agree with it when it's pointed out that anybody with their username could call up and pretend to be them, so this prevents anybody else from changing their password and getting their email. The rest either don't care or are happy with the procedure.

      * all stats are guessed at based on experience, not somesort of scientific method.
    • Who you need to talk to is the Privacy Commission [privcom.gc.ca], not puny little MLAs. Our Privacy Commissioner is very much an advocate for the people. I've had a change to attend a course on privacy which he spoke at. That would be the appropriate venue for your concerns.
  • ... for the benefit of stupid yankees who are ignorant of what's outside of their borders.

    Canada (as we know it now) was founded in 1867. It was a business decision made by britshit business interests, as they realized they were not competent enough to compete against yankee businessmen.

    (The typical britshit way of doing business is to force people to buy their products; cas in point, horsepiss brewer molson, came to canada only to find french peasants drinking their own applejack cider (grapes would not grow satisfactorly, and in any case, the french mostly came from Normandy where everyone makes applejack cider anyways). So, rather than corner the cider market, molson displayed his true britshit incompetence by whining that people wouln't buy his piss to the governor who promply outlawed applejack cider making, thus forcing the peasants to buy his horsepiss, the only thing he knew how to make).

    Over the years, canada slightly evolved, but nevertheless remains mired as a britshit colony. But the main canadian problems remain the same thoughout the ages:

    • Keep the americans out.
    • Keep the french in.
    All while hoping that, somehow, the indians would simply vanish.

    The french were the first to introduce european civilization to north-america. Well before the Mayflower, a small colony was thriving along the banks of the St-Lawrence, in good harmony with the indians who gave the french the technology to survive the long winters. As the french are not as constipated towards private property as the britshit are, they certainly did not mind sharing the country with the indians, which being a totally different civilization, had very few competing interests.

    As there was plenty of interaction between the french and the indians, it is not surprising that it was french explorers who "discoved" (ha ha ha. Like if the indians didn't discover it first) most of the inside of the continent, as only them had the technology and knowledge to survive off the land, quite unlike most britshit (Baniel Boon was quite atypical in that respect) who never mingle with natives.

    When the britshit colonized Egypt, for example, they built themselves clubs surrounded by high walls so the would not see the natives. When France was in Egypt, they built schools to educate the natives for free.

    The french were also the only colonizers who did not exterminate the indians when they found out they could not enslave them. As they were not competing with the french for ressources (different civilizations), they were best left to themselves. Better yet, when the britshit expansion in New England pushed the Iroquois out, the french gladly accepted them in New-France and gave them territory, even though they used to be ennemies.

    This changed with the coming of the britshit, who promptly rounded the indians into reserves, and going about with their ultra-constitpated notions of private property, much to the dismay of the indians chiefs.

    The britshit also introduced biological warfare [nativeweb.org] when lord amherst gave smallpox-infected blankets to indians. Truly the works of an unenligthened civilization whose only goal is rape, pillage and plunder!

    At first, when a handful of britshit found themselves at the head of a colony peopled with 60,000 french peasants, they quickly realized that their usual governing tricks (especially when it came to repression of the scatholics - as the totality of the french were [officially] scatholics). So, in order not to be kicked back at sea by the french and their indians allies, they compromised and allowed scatholicism to keep running rampant.

    This, of course, was the typical britshit incompetence at work, as this tolerance towards scatholics precipitated the american revolution... So, to keep a small worthless colony, the britshit risked and lost the prize jewel...

    Over time, the britshit merchants discovered one fantastic thing about scatholicism: for a devout scatholic, making a profit (be it through commerce, hard work or mere stock manipulation) is a one-way ticket to hell. So, they reasoned, if the french population was kept scatholic (and therefore ignorant), they would not face any competition while they set shop...

    So, those merchant princes, the Frobishers, McTavish, Redpath, Allan, etc. (the incompetent family compact) accumulated extraordinary wealth, by plundering natural ressources with the cheap labour provided by the ignorant (because scatholic) french.

    In order to perpetuate that status, when the britshit north america act (the constitution of canada) was elaborated in 1867 by the incompetent family compact, they made sure to enshrine in the constitution that education would be solely controlled by the scatholic church, for the french (and by the protestants for the britshit, of course). This is the reason of the economic backwardness of the french in canada, backwardness that is only starting to subside, as the french threw out the scatholic church en masse starting some 8-10 years after television was introduced in 1952.

    Canada went through the usual colonial troubles. In 1836-37, a rebellion tore apart the country, as mostly french people rebelled against the britshit (but the rebellion included a non negligeable amount of englishmen). The britshit army fought back with unparalleled savagery (until perhaps the nazis) and thousands of farms were burned to the ground. Resentment for this still survives to this day; and in fact, when the parliamant voted some 10 years later to indemnify the innocent victims of the destruction, a mob of brishit lowlifes (mostly businessmen and merchants) ransacked the parliament and burned it down to the ground, as that kind of people will not tolerate democracy.

    In 1867, the canadian population was half french, half britshit (the britshit certainly didn't count the indians). However, in typical britshit fashion, only the landowners were granted the right of vote; and as the french were systematically poorer, they were therefore underepresented. But this not preclude the existence of prominent french politicians, such as Wilfrid Laurier, who was the first french prime minister. However, do not let the frenchness fool you; the britshit would not let anyone become prime minister unless he displayed the utmost allegiance to the britshit interests... This held true of other french prime ministers: Louis St-Laurent, Pierre-Elliott Trudeau (this one declared martial law in 1970 and put his political opponents in jail), Brian Mulroney (well, he's irish, but in Québec, the irish very much became french) and Jean Chrétin.

  • Can someone please point out to me where freedoms are actually being lost here? There seems to be a large amount of whining about nothing. This document appears to be looking at, basically, extending legal means of search into new technologies. You still need a court order to go searching for records or taking personal information, this proposal is just looking at methods of effectively doing this. There seems to be a lot of effort made to keep these changes legitimate and even keep them in line with similar procedures for what are currently used for telephone networks...

Slashdot Top Deals

Never ask two questions in a business letter. The reply will discuss the one you are least interested, and say nothing about the other.

Close