Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Privacy Your Rights Online

Canadian Bill C-416 to Require Wiretapping 228

Posted by ScuttleMonkey
from the big-brother-to-the-north dept.
Matthew Skala writes "Bill C-416, recently introduced in the Canadian Parliament, would if passed require Internet providers to provide wiretapping facilities to law enforcement — without a warrant, and with 'confidentiality' requirements reminiscent of the secret-spying cases we've seen recently in the States. This new Act is a reprise of last Parliament's C-74, which failed when the Government's term ended. Coming back as a Liberal "private member's Bill" in a minority government, it will have little chance of success without cross-party support; but with the Conservatives in charge, all bets are off if they can find a way to claim it's about terrorism or child pornography."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Canadian Bill C-416 to Require Wiretapping

Comments Filter:
  • where (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mastershake_phd (1050150) on Monday March 26, 2007 @10:58PM (#18496785) Homepage
    If this keeps up where am I going to go when the USA is a police state? Canada? No good, Britain same over there. How about France?
    • Private members' bills almost never come up for a first vote, let alone a second or final one. They almost never pass. I can count on one hand the number of these bills that passed in the last parliamentary session, and they were mostly ceremonial.

      This has no chance.
      • Private members' bills almost never come up for a first vote, let alone a second or final one. They almost never pass. I can count on one hand the number of these bills that passed in the last parliamentary session, and they were mostly ceremonial.

        This has no chance.
        Is that the left or right hand? You never know with the Conservatives^W Alliance Party.
    • by slughead (592713)
      How about France?

      France is much worse but at least they're realistic. France is basically a police state. It grants citizens rights on a piecemeal basis. That way, their version of the Patriot Act is just taking rights away from citizens that they were 'lucky' to have been 'granted' in the first place. People bitch less when their rights are taken when you convince them that they were only on loan beforehand.

      Sad part is, I'm only lying about half of that. Can you guess which half? I think you'll be pleasant
    • Try South Africa. The right to private communication is enshired in their constitution. [info.gov.za]
  • It's like Canada, the UK, Australia, and the USA are in a race to reach full Orwellian Status before anyone else does. I don't get it either; these are all supposed to be FREE countries.
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      It's like Canada, the UK, Australia, and the USA are in a race to reach full Orwellian Status before anyone else does. I don't get it either; these are all supposed to be FREE countries.

      What was wrong with 1884? Slavery was over, prohibition hadnt happened yet. Great scientific strides where being made.
      • by JimDaGeek (983925)

        Slavery was over
        Yeah? And what do you think the quality of life was for a black person in America in 1884? Could they vote? How many could own land and really enjoy the freedoms that a white American had in 1884? Trust me, I am not some Green Party-type dude. I just don't think 1884 was the best year for all Americans if you happened to have darker skin.
        • by sumdumass (711423)
          All of them could own land. Many blacks did. The problem wasn't that they couldn't, it was that dumping them from a "welfare with forced labor state into the wild" which is what the essence of ending slavery effectively brought about, placed them in a serious disadvantage to others. They were prayed upon until they started working cheaper then everyone else. This is were the Klan started coming into play.

          Sure there were disadvantages. They were able to pull through it which kicked in a new set of problems t
  • by frazzydee (731240) * on Monday March 26, 2007 @11:03PM (#18496829)
    Please, can we stop editorial comments like this: "but with the Conservatives in charge, all bets are off if they can find a way to claim it's about terrorism or child pornography."

    Okay, I know Conserviative-bashing has been "the cool thing to do" in Canada for a while, but at least look who introduced the bill: "Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce--Lachine)." Click on her name, and you'll see she's part of the LIBERAL party. Believe it or not, the liberals have been responsible for a lot of crap too- stop blaming the Conservatives for every little thing that goes wrong up here.
    • by koreth (409849) * on Monday March 26, 2007 @11:06PM (#18496859)
      Try reading the summary again -- it does in fact say pretty clearly that the bill was introduced by a Liberal.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by ZakuSage (874456)
      Exactly. It just so happens that Harper was once a champion of freedom, privacy, and Libertarianism. While some of that luster may have worn off, he still remains generally opposed to infringing on privacy, big-government, and censorship.
      • he still remains generally opposed to infringing on privacy, big-government, and censorship.

        Privacy, yeah, he respects privacy by wishing he could tell us who we can marry. The bedroom, that's a good public place for conservatives to govern, isn't it? We already know that he's happy to tell me what substances I can put in MY body, that's mighty libertarian of him. Next thing you know they'll be messing around with people's wombs. Oh, opposed to big government (but not a big military), sure, so long as that works for big business, and when big business calls the policy, that's a good substitute f

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by radtea (464814)
        It just so happens that Harper was once a champion of freedom, privacy, and Libertarianism.

        Regardless of what Harper was once a champion of (and I'd dispute your claims that he was ever much of a supporter of freedom and privacy given his opposition to same-sex marriage and his strong anti-drug, law'n'order stance) he has shown himself in power to be an extreme pragmatist. The GST rate reduction is a perfect example of wrong-headed economic policy that Harper with good academic credentials in economics und
      • by c (8461)
        > he still remains generally opposed to infringing on privacy, big-government, and censorship.

        That may be his personal tendencies, but it's safest to believe that when election time rolls around (and it's about that time) politicians are going to champion whatever it is they think will get them elected. I believe that's still mainly environment, defence/security, health care, and whatever Quebec wants, or did I miss some other over-hyped issue in the last few months?

        c.
    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by cmdr_tofu (826352)
      I really wish you folks up in Canadia would stop blaming Conservatives and Liberals and just
      get out and vote Marijuana Party and legalize it already!

      If the fascist government wants to monitor every phone conversation that would be fine
      as long as they are high, they won't remember what you say anyways, thus preserving your
      right to privacy!
    • by LilGuy (150110)
      I still can't wrap my head around the insatiable need to call yourself a 'conservative' or 'liberal' or 'centrist' or call other people 'left-wingers' or 'right-wingers'. If you think about it for just a minute, it's absolutely ridiculous to label someone with those words after hearing them say one sentence or because of a single belief they hold.

      I think the biggest problem with politics is this need to over-generalize everything and fall in line with some mystical and unintelligible group-think. I would
  • you know ... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by boxlight (928484) on Monday March 26, 2007 @11:04PM (#18496843)
    Canadian speaking.

    but with the Conservatives in charge, all bets are off if they can find a way to claim it's about terrorism or child pornography

    It's comments like this that I find really anti-productive -- why do you assume that just because the current government is conservative that it's *not* about terrorism or national security?? Believe it or not, we conservatives are not interested in invading your private space, go live your life and have fun -- but we DO care if you die in a terrorist bombing or if your kids get raped and photographed by some perv.

    Believe me, I don't want to live in Nazi Germany, but I don't want to die in a subway bombing either. Let's stop the partisan stuff and find a balanced solution.
    • Re:you know ... (Score:4, Informative)

      by IgnoramusMaximus (692000) on Monday March 26, 2007 @11:15PM (#18496937)

      Believe me, I don't want to live in Nazi Germany, but I don't want to die in a subway bombing either. Let's stop the partisan stuff and find a balanced solution.

      While I agree that the sick-in-the-head "Sociopathic Authoritarian" syndrome is by no means confined to the Conservative Party, there is no such thing as a "balanced solution" when an ability to conduct automated mass surveilance of citizens is concerned. And let's not kid ourselves here, this is precisely the Holy Grail of both police forces and the "intelligence" communities.

      All of course in the effort to "protect" us from that hypothetical "ticking bomb" which blows few of us up every ... well .... a few decades or so. But it will certainly stop all those fat old geezers looking at their hand-drawn child-porn cartoons, otherwise they would go right out and abduct all of our children. Think of the children!!!

    • Re:you know ... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by TheGavster (774657) on Monday March 26, 2007 @11:25PM (#18496995) Homepage
      Dying in a subway bombing would suck, but how many people have really gone that way? You're probably about as likely to be smothered in your sleep by your first grade teacher (how was *I* to know she would take the snake in the drawer so hard and ruin her career?!). I would even go so far as to say that the number of innocents destroyed by the false accusations total information would bring would outnumber the victims saved. Bring on the terrorists!
      • Dying in a subway bombing would suck, but how many people have really gone that way?

        About 500 in the last three years (200 in Madrid [wikipedia.org], 200 in Mumbai [wikipedia.org], 40 in Moscow [wikipedia.org], and about 40 in London [wikipedia.org]), so it's less far-fetched than you might think. Can you come up with 500 people whose lives have been ruined by false accusations, much less the additional 3,700 injured by those attacks?

        It's a valid concern which needs to be addressed.

        That being said, the odds of dying in a subway bombing are also vastly less than the odd

    • Re:you know ... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Dunbal (464142) on Monday March 26, 2007 @11:32PM (#18497065)
      but we DO care if you die in a terrorist bombing or if your kids get raped and photographed by some perv.

            No, you care if YOU or a loved one dies in a terrorist bombing, and you care if YOUR kid gets raped and photographed by some perv. Spare me the bleeding heart. And please, if you're so concerned, then make damned sure we make those people we PROVE to have commited those crimes as miserable as possible, so that other idiots might think twice about doing something like that.

      But leave ME the fuck alone. Thank you.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by JimDaGeek (983925)
        Amen brother/sister. To bad I already posted in this topic or I would mod you up. I cannot stand the "we want to protect you" mentality. I served in the U.S.M.C. I joined because I wanted to help my country and possibly to defend the freedoms of my fellow Americans.

        That was back in 1991. I have yet to see anything that has threatened Americans freedoms more than our own government.
      • but we DO care if you die in a terrorist bombing

        No, you care if YOU or a loved one dies in a terrorist bombing

        How do you claim to know what HE cares about better than he does? Is that not FAR more presumptive than him simply claiming to care whether you die?

        Moreover, caring about the wellbeing of fellow people is so much an intrinsic part of human nature that its lack is termed a mental disorder [wikipedia.org], so I suspect that "I don't want people to care about each other" was not the message you intended to send.

        A mu

        • by LilGuy (150110)
          Funny how it's considered a part of human nature to care about others but an illness to not care about others.

          Funny how it's really all human nature.
      • No, you care if YOU or a loved one dies in a terrorist bombing, and you care if YOUR kid gets raped and photographed by some perv. Spare me the bleeding heart.

        And the number one sign that you just might be a narcissist is....

    • by geobeck (924637)

      What I want to know is, what Tory paid this Liberal to bring up this political-suicide bill so soon before an election? Or maybe Dion is trying to get her thrown out of the party so he can put a hand-picked candidate in Notre-Dame-de-Grâce-Lachine.

    • 1. Libs introduce bill that is bad for privacy.
      2. Libs lose an election and the Cons take over.
      3. A liberal reintroduces said bad bill as a private members bill.
      4. We should fear the backwards conservatives?

      One thing we've seen a lot of in american politics lately is unreasoning partisanship. If it's bad, stupid, evil, etc. it's something the "other party" would do, never yours. I really hope this sort of thinking doesn't become too prevalent in Canada. We certainly watch our Southern neighbors enough to
      • by compro01 (777531)
        4. We should fear the backwards conservatives?

        no. it just means that i will be watching this bill very closely in case it gains conservative support, which i don't feel is completely out there.

        there are few things i fear more than a bill like this gaining majority support.

        if it does get the Tories support, my MP is gonna be getting a bag or two full of mail.
      • Perhaps a better question to ask is why the mod's didn't immediately flag the original post as flamebait?

        Not only flag it as flamebait, but flag it as incredibly misleading.

        Almost everyone here has assumed the law allows warrantless wiretapping, which is not the case. All it does is (a) require ISPs to have a setup that allows for wiretaps with warrants to take place, and (b) provide (without warrant) a mapping between IP address and customer name.

        This is made quite clear in the FAQ [cippic.ca] in one of the article's

    • by FFFish (7567)
      The cops already have plenty of legal means to accomplish all the wiretapping that is necessary.

      If they are on an active case, they'll have little difficulty getting permission to tap appropriately.

      They do not need the ability to tap indiscriminantly and without supervision.
    • I'm sorry, but I don't agree. In my opinion, scare tactics are not an excuse to infringe on privacy without a warrant. Any law enforcement agency that doesn't want judicial or legislative oversight should not exist, and legislatures should not give that up.

      That oversight by an independent power is necessary to reduce the amount of abuse of power. I'm saddened that the US system of checks and balances has gone terribly awry. It's a good idea that shouldn't be bypassed though the use of scare tactics. If
    • by asninn (1071320)

      Believe me, I don't want to live in Nazi Germany, but I don't want to die in a subway bombing either.

      I don't know about you, but I'd choose subway bombings over nazi Germany any time.

    • by bug1 (96678)
      It's comments like this that I find really anti-productive

      I hereby name anti-productive as the unword of the day.
    • Another Canadian Speaking:

      "I don't want to die in a subway bombing either. Let's stop the partisan stuff and find a balanced solution."

      And the odds of either of those things happening do not warrant government being allowed to conduct the kinds of searches. I am more likely to be struck by lightning than to die in a subway terrorist attack, so frankly the government can find another less intrusive way to fight this.

      THAT is a balanced solution, not running and screaming for every authoritarian, statist, bed-
  • Eh? (Score:3, Funny)

    by piGeek31415 (1054990) on Monday March 26, 2007 @11:06PM (#18496861)
    I can see it now... giant portraits of a mustachioed man, their captions all reading "Big Brother is watching you, eh?"
  • crypto (Score:5, Insightful)

    by delirium of disorder (701392) on Monday March 26, 2007 @11:11PM (#18496897) Homepage Journal
    When are people going to start using basic encryption (or better yet onion routing and strong anonymity)? There are technical solutions that make all this surveillance useless. We must implement steganographic techniques too so that there's no way to block the crypto.
    • When are people going to start using basic encryption (or better yet onion routing and strong anonymity)?

      Then of course this dumb bitch or some other Psycho Authoritarian (at the urging of ever-power-hungry Socopathic Authoritarians who inhabit "police" and "intelligence" communities) will introduce bills outlawing encryption and steganography in possesion of those nasty, unruly peons, otherwise known as sheep-citizens. Or introduce some other brain dead scheme involving escrow keys or presumption-of-guil

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by garcia (6573)
      When are people going to start using basic encryption (or better yet onion routing and strong anonymity)? There are technical solutions that make all this surveillance useless. We must implement steganographic techniques too so that there's no way to block the crypto.

      We can't get people in the US to care enough to vote against politicians who are interested in curtailing freedoms. Hell, these people WANT to be "protected". You think that we are going to get them to start learning to use software to protec
    • by JimDaGeek (983925)
      So whose encryption do we use? Some closed source, proprietary "solution" from Microsoft that has been "approved" by the government? If governments (USA in my case) can send people to jail for sharing a freaking music file, what do you think they can do to outlaw "unauthorized" encryption?

      I personally use GnuPG. [gnupg.org] However, how hard would it be for a government to outlaw any "non-approved" encryption implementation?

      I am not trolling here. I am just trying to point out that if "we the people" come up
    • When are people going to start using basic encryption

      Never. Why? Because if they did, then the terrorists or the CP enthusiasts would use that same encryption to hide. See? You don't have to be a Canadian conservative to believe that no measure is too extreme, no freedom too precious, no authoritarian state too strict to stop the evils of terrorism and CP. EVERYBODY thinks that (except, I assume, you and me). Freenet [freenetproject.org] is failing for this reason - nobody will run a node because it might be used to prec

  • Ok, I was born-and-raised in the good old USA. However, from reading many net sites, I seem to have gotten the impression that "liberal" in the USA is _very_ different than other parts of the world. Is this true? Would a liberal government in Canada be similar to one in the USA? How about a liberal government in Sweden? Or a liberal government in ...?

    Please, my non-American blokes, enlighten us Americans. :-)
    • by saforrest (184929)
      Would a liberal government in Canada be similar to one in the USA?

      Well, the main issue is that we have a political party in Canada called 'the Liberal Party', which is what was referred to in TFA. As that is their name, that is almost exclusively what is meant by the word "Liberal" in Canadian politics; when we must talk about a "liberal" political position independent of the party, we typically say "small-L liberal" (as opposed to "big-L Liberal", connected with the party).

      So you need to make clear whethe
    • by canuck57 (662392)

      Ok, I was born-and-raised in the good old USA. However, from reading many net sites, I seem to have gotten the impression that "liberal" in the USA is _very_ different than other parts of the world. Is this true? Would a liberal government in Canada be similar to one in the USA? How about a liberal government in Sweden? Or a liberal government in ...?

      A liberal in the US would be considered a right wing conservative in Canada. Republicans would be called Libertarians. The US has nothing as far left as G

      • by MochaMan (30021)

        A liberal in the US would be considered a right wing conservative in Canada

        Agreed.

        Republicans would be called Libertarians.

        Ummm... no. A party that believes in meddling in personal freedoms (gay marriage, the war on drugs), massive spending on foreign wars, and dictating morals to its citizens is Libertarian by Canadian standards? Sorry you're way off base. The Republicans are definitely far more insane than any "conservative" party in Canada, but they're certainly not Libertarian by anyone's standards.

        It is also why the average US citizen lives better.

        How do you quantify this? I grew up in Canada, worked in California for two years, spend another year working in

  • WTF?? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Dunbal (464142) on Monday March 26, 2007 @11:28PM (#18497019)
    The government is not allowed to read my mail without a warrant.

          The government is not allowed to listen in on my phone without a warrant.

          Why the hell should they be allowed to read my internet packets without a warrant?
    • Re:WTF?? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by IgnoramusMaximus (692000) on Monday March 26, 2007 @11:39PM (#18497135)

      Why the hell should they be allowed to read my internet packets without a warrant?

      Because the Internet is today the one truly democratic medium of choice of the citizenry. The Authoritarians' inability to read you mail comes from the fact that in the day where letters were the democratic medium of the citizenry, those citizens were willing to fight and die in the battle with the Psychopathic Authoritarians who have always desired to monitor and spy on everyone. This battle has to be re-fought each time the progress of technology changes our modes of communication just as each new generation of these Sociopaths will try again and again to enslave us.

    • >>> Why the hell should they be allowed to read my internet packets without a warrant?

      They're not even trying to, at least based on the links provided in the story summary.

      From here [cippic.ca], we read:

      It would require telecom service providers to offer much greater surveillance capacity to law enforcement agencies, and would allow police to obtain subscriber name and address information from service providers upon request, without a warrant.

      i.e., what they can do without a warrant is tell that you are the ow

  • A Liberal bill? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by flyingfsck (986395) on Monday March 26, 2007 @11:32PM (#18497063)
    This is a Liberal bill and the author wishes to peg it on the Conservatives?

    Well, duh...
    • by dsanfte (443781)
      No shit, the submitter is a Liberal (or troll) painting the Conservatives with their own bill's brush! What a joke.

      This story should be modded -1 Troll.
    • by wytcld (179112)
      No, it's a bill from a Liberal that the author is afraid the Conservatives may find their own twisted reasons to fancy. If the Conservatives don't fall to that, it's clear the author would be more than pleased with them for it.

      The meta-point is that Liberal or Conservative, Democratic or Republican, Labor or Tory, the question of which party will claim the mantel of true liberty is wide open in the Anglo world. In the US, a large portion (by no means all) of the Republican Party has embraced government intr
    • by fyoder (857358)

      This is a Liberal bill and the author wishes to peg it on the Conservatives?

      Well, after the kafuffle, the Liberals were supposed to have eschewed evil. So this bill being introduced by a Liberal sets up a kind of cognitive dissonace.

      I live in Canada, so I can't threaten to move there. Some of the Northern European countries seem nice, but so cold, even for a Canadian.

  • That sounds very convenient and practical. What could possibly be the downside to handing government such awesome power?
  • It wont pass (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    It wont pass for two reasons. One, the three other (very liberal) parties wont let it happen and two, it's a private members bill.

    You can tell it's a private members' bill because of its high number, in a majority parliament situation a double digit numbered bill (c-16 c-42 etc) will pass, PMB's rarely pass.

    Here is a list of the current PMB's:
    http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HouseBills/BillsPrivate.asp x?Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=39&Ses=1/ [parl.gc.ca]
    As you can see there are hundreds of them to be considered with this o
  • For those Americans who think Canada is just the benign happy friendly country to the north, look at what happened during Canada's October Crisis (in which only about 6 people were killed in terrorist attacks).

    Pierre Trudeau invoked the War Measures Act, sent in military troops to occupy Canadian territory, rounded up and detained hundreds of people without pressing charges, banned a political party, and the RCMP carried out hundreds of illegal searches and wiretaps.

    http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/in [thecanadia...opedia.com]
    • by compro01 (777531)
      yes, that is not one of my particular favorite parts of our history, but you have to look at things that happened afterwards.

      for starters, said war measures act no longer exists and was replaced by a more limited version, as your linked article mentions.

      also, said powers were temporary, in the real sense, unlike certain other US laws i could mention.
    • by Jerry Rivers (881171) on Tuesday March 27, 2007 @04:13AM (#18498623)
      I was going to moderate another post in this thread, but after reading your post I must object to some of the language you have used to make your point.

      "(in which only about 6 people were killed in terrorist attacks)."

      ONLY 6 people? Would invoking the War Measures Act have been more acceptable to you if there had been a hundred or a thousand killed by terrorists?

      "sent in military troops to occupy Canadian territory"

      You make it sound as the Canadian Forces are a foreign entity in their own land.

      "the RCMP carried out hundreds of illegal searches and wiretaps."

      Technically the searches and wiretaps were NOT illegal, because essentially martial law was in effect.

      "allowing U.S. draftees to escape to Canada during the Vietnam war"

      They did no such thing as allow them to "escape." They weren't prisoners.

      "There was full-on military style domestic counter-insurgency operations being conducted on a huge scale in Canada in most people's lifetime."

      It was NOT Iraq. There was no street-to-street fighting, no sieges of holy shrines, no massive numbers of casualties. True there were tanks in the neighbourhoods and soldiers on street corners, but they were relatively few and far between compared to the image your statement invokes (I know because I was there). This was not a massive military presence, and it was limited to Québec. The military was nowhere to be seen in the rest of Canada. You make it sound as if the entire country was "occupied" as you put it. It was not a "huge scale".

      "Far crazier stuff has gone down in Canada's recent past!"

      The October Crises was 36 years ago. MANY things have changed since then, and much of that change was because of the invocation of that draconian law, which was one of the only counter-insurgency tools available at the time. Smashing a fly with a sledgehammer? Certainly, but it worked. There have been no real terrorist threats since. Thankfully.

      You could have simply been informative in your post, but instead you chose to editorialize, while seemingly ignoring the context of the time. This does a disservice to people, who are perfectly capable of deciding for themselves, after studying the links you provided, if the government of the time (not just Pierre Trudeau) acted improperly or excessively. You and I may agree that the War Measures Act was an outdated and overreaching Act, but if we choose to say that there were alternatives to invoking it, it should be our responsibility to show what those alternative were, and that they were would have been effective in ending the crisis of murder, kidnapping and terrorism.
      • by RexRhino (769423)

        ONLY 6 people? Would invoking the War Measures Act have been more acceptable to you if there had been a hundred or a thousand killed by terrorists?

        6 people is not a lot of people compared to the Madrid or London rail bombings, 9/11, the Munich Olypic attacks, and other brutal terrorist attacks around the world. Regardless of how justified the response was in those other attacks, those governments never did anything as extreme as openly suspending civil liberties and moving in the military domesticly to subdue a terrorist group. The response was clearly not in line with how most governments handle terrorism (even the Bush government who is highly crit

  • We are going to have federal elections within the next six to eight weeks. So this bill will die, and will not be ressucitated before a fair number of months.
  • "...but with the Conservatives in charge, all bets are off if they can find a way to claim it's about terrorism or child pornography."

    Could this be any more of a partisan statement? Please, pass on the information about the bill, pass on who is introducing it, and the history of past attempts at this type of legislation. But please, kindly credit me with enough intelligence to be able to come up with my own opinion on the government in power. Keep the blatantly partisan editorializing out, thank-you ki

  • As an ISP owner... (Score:5, Informative)

    by Shaman (1148) <shaman@@@kos...net> on Tuesday March 27, 2007 @07:27AM (#18499427) Homepage
    I met with these crazy bastards. They really do want to do what they are describing in the article, and what's more, they want the ISPs to pay for it all. Here's what they want:

    Access to up to 10% of the ISP's membership at any time with their own GigE (or 10GigE) port which mirrors all data flow that crosses the ISP's network. Yeah, that sounds easy.

    Up to seven enforcement agencies including Interpol would have access to that 10% of the membership at any time, all at once if necessary. The ISP would be required to provide that access from remote, possibly meaning that a separate Internet transit grouping faster than the primary ones customers utilize would be required just to ship the data.

    Physical access to the ISP's server rooms and network gear at any time by any of the seven agencies.

    Full 24/7/365 co-operation and possibly dedicated employees for these tasks, again at the ISP's expense.

    And there's more. I asked about 30 questions and in fact was by far the most vocal of the group when it came to the discussion, much to my chagrin. The big players at the table (Bell Canada, Rogers) simply said "this is ridiculous and we'll oppose it to the end," whereas I asked them pointed questions about the whole deal and gave examples of how burdensome the bill could be, especially to a relatively small player. They don't care. Adapt or die.

    The cops, as usual, were rubbing their hands in glee. More budget! More cops! Less liberties! Less privacy! Lower quality of life! It's all for the good!
  • Funny, reading her biography, I would have hoped for better from her:

    "Ms. Jennings is the Liberal critic for Justice and a member of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights"

    "Ms. Jennings has been Vice-Chair of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology,"

    "She was a member of the Joint House of Commons-Senate Standing Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations, of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics"

    She seems to have the makings of a good, upstanding netizen, who would be protecting our rights ...

    I have sent her a note, and am still reading the bill. I would encourage all Canadians to do the same:

    Parliamentary Office:
    416 West Block
    Ottawa ON K1A 0A6
    (613) 995-2251
    jennim@parl.gc.ca

    Constituency Office:
    6332 Sherbrooke St W
    Suite 204
    Montreal QC H4B 1M7
    (514) 489-8703

    Time to exercise your democratic muscles and express displeasure at such things, no matte which party this comes from.

    And, while I am no fan of conservative politics in Canada, or anywhere else, editorial comments such as the one on this article are unnecessary. Keep comments like that to your myspace page.
  • The Bill would not permit wiretapping without a warrant. It would require TSPs to build an infrastructure that facilitates greater levels of wiretapping - but only with warrants/judicial authorization (as currently required).

    The Bill would also require TSPs to provide subscriber name and address info to police upon request, without a warrant. TSPs are currently permitted to hand over this (and more) information to police without warrants, but they can refuse unless presented with a warrant. The Bill woul

Happiness is a positive cash flow.

Working...