Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Privacy Your Rights Online

Proposed Canadian Law Would Allow Warrantless Searches 195

Posted by timothy
from the rifling-through-america's-storage-unit dept.
An anonymous reader writes "A bill introduced by Canada's Minister of Public Safety will allow police to (warrantlessly) force ISPs to provide access to any requested digital traffic records, reports News 1130. Police lobbied for the bill as means of 'combatting gangsters, pedophiles, or terrorists,' but apparently they find the legal principles of judicial review and probable cause, as well as a constitutional provision against 'unreasonable search or seizure', to be too much of a hassle, and would rather be able to search anyone's web or e-mail traffic at their own discretion and without any oversight. All in the name of public safety, of course."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Proposed Canadian Law Would Allow Warrantless Searches

Comments Filter:
  • Children (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Think of the children, eh?

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      no, apparently some people in Canada are thinking of the children a bit too much...

      in the nude.

    • Ya, hoser!
      Think of the bacon, eh!

      Oh, yeah...

      And the beer.

      Hoser.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Yes,
      This was actually part of the reporting I heard on the radio.
      And I quote: "This is to protect children"

      nuff said.

    • Think of the children, eh?

      Damn pedo!

  • Despicable. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by giesen (820885) on Thursday June 18, 2009 @05:00PM (#28380549)
    'Nuff said.
    • Re:Despicable. (Score:5, Informative)

      by Tanktalus (794810) on Thursday June 18, 2009 @07:07PM (#28382353) Journal

      I've sent an email to my MP. I hope all other Canadian /.ers do likewise. Here is what I wrote. Be sure to add your name and full address to yours, and cc the Honorable Peter Van Loan (vanlop@parl.gc.ca) as well. Feel free to modify to suit your own political beliefs. (Not that you need my permission for that, just being honest and transparent.) If you don't have their email address, you might want to look that up [parl.gc.ca].

      In regards to a proposed new bill:

      http://www.news1130.com/more.jsp?content=20090617_213536_8084

      The point of laws regarding privacy, and court-sanctioned warrants overriding privacy, is not to make it easier for the police to solve crimes, but to weigh carefully the right to privacy on one hand and the reasonable evidence pointing to a particular suspect requiring further information on the other. The police, being human beings, can easily get emotionally attached to the pursuit of an individual, and invade what could easily turn out to be an innocent person's privacy. The whole point of a warrant being issued by a judge is for oversight to ensure that the police aren't cutting corners prior to actually invading someone's privacy.

      By removing this level of oversight, I feel we are going in the wrong direction on personal liberties and freedoms, and are sliding towards a police state.

      It's not that I have an issue with ISPs keeping logs, the same way corporations are supposed to keep account of their transactions in case of an audit. But it requires some oversight to keep the police from accessing just anyone's account without reasonable evidence otherwise. As long as the logs are protected by similar privacy laws that any other aspect of citizens' private lives, and only released under proper court warrants, the police continue to have the tools they need to pursue internet crimes while continuing to protect citizens' privacy, thereby protecting liberties and freedoms we all enjoy.

      I hope you will incorporate proper privacy protections in this bill, requiring the police to act the same as they do with any other aspect of our private lives.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by MarkRose (820682)

      You think so?

      Then please join the protest! [digitalprivacy.ca]

  • Be reasonable... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by evil_aar0n (1001515) on Thursday June 18, 2009 @05:03PM (#28380601)

    It's for the good of the country, you know. And if you don't support this type of legislation, you must be some sort of "pedophile, terrorist or gangster."

    • by PoliticalGamer (1548891) on Thursday June 18, 2009 @05:05PM (#28380631)
      Why yes, only those with something to hide have anything to fear!
    • by elashish14 (1302231) <profcalc4@gmai[ ]om ['l.c' in gap]> on Thursday June 18, 2009 @05:32PM (#28381025)

      Of course. Also, this is how they plan to catch the perpetrators of the Conficker virus/worm/whatever. Canada will soon be a global hero!

      (More sarcasm)

    • by Shark (78448)

      Actually, no... I'm an ISP.

    • Re:Be reasonable... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 18, 2009 @06:52PM (#28382159)

      I agree. In Calgary, if you say anything that does not support the Calgary Police Service, you must be a criminal.

      Speak out about Calgary Police Service beating up and raping women who walk the street for money, or other acts by the Calgary Police which would get a normal citizen arrested, and you will find your self in the Calgary Prison system before you know what happen.

      Your name will be in the newspapers, all over the news, and broadcast by the Calgary Police to ensure everyone knows you are guilty of what the Police say you are guilty of. Of course this is long before your trial.

      You will not be able to find employment, because Calgary Police will show up at your place of work and tell everyone you are a criminal.

      Meanwhile, the Calgary Police Service have members who attempt to pick up young girls on line, sell drugs which they took from drug dealers instead of arresting them, selling firearms which should have been destroyed, drinking and driving, and worst of all doing what ever they want too. There are even Calgary Police member who are paedophiles. Other member commit assaults with out any investigation. Because the Calgary Police who do not report to anyone.

      Most of these acts have been documented on the CBC and other websites. But on the CBC news stories which make the Calgary Police look bad, disappear almost as fast as they appear.

      Freenet, and a few darknets has good selection of video of the crimes committed by the Calgary Police Service.

      The truth is there, just have to look for it.

  • Come on, people! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by emudoug42 (977380) on Thursday June 18, 2009 @05:04PM (#28380621)
    Do people really hate the police that much? I mean, asking for them to get a WARRANT before they invade your invade your life? Do you have any idea how much of a hassle that is? We should just hand them over every little piece of information about our lives at the drop of a hat! It's the least we can do.

    </heavy sarcasm>
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by dimeglio (456244)

      A people that values its safety above its freedom soon loses both. (a twist from a D.D. Eisenhower's quote)

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Turn about is fair play...I think we should also require that emails, logfiles of all police officers, etc. be placed online for the purvue of the public. I mean, if they haven't done anything wrong, then they've got nothing to hide, right?

      Just like there should be cameras and videotapes of all police activities, etc., available to the public. I mean, after all, if they aren't doing anything wrong, they have nothing to hide, right? :-)

    • by elrous0 (869638) *
      Of course we should. They're all completely honest, good men who would never abuse or exploit their power in any way. Yes sir, they can be fully trusted.
  • by dkleinsc (563838) on Thursday June 18, 2009 @05:07PM (#28380663) Homepage

    Cana ... oh, ummm, crap, now I'm in trouble.

    • by illiter4te (1574849) on Thursday June 18, 2009 @05:17PM (#28380821)
      Its so funny to see people say that kind of stuff... "Thats it! Govt is too big, lets move to Canada!" C'mon... Canada is more liberal and has bigger government than we do here. I think you mean you need to move to Mexico where the govt doesn't use its power to protect its people...
      • by Phrogman (80473) on Thursday June 18, 2009 @05:49PM (#28381289) Homepage

        Well you know, from my perspective up here being more "Liberal" is a *GOOD THING* not a bad thing. Liberal seems to be a swearword down there in the US, whereas up here its the name of one of our political parties, and has no negative connotations whatsoever, unless you are a very conservative Conservative. Again from my perspective up here (no doubt distorted by the media and cultural differences), the US seems extremely Right-Wing on average (even your Liberals would be seen as Conservatives up here in many cases), extremely violent (how many people do you know who own a gun? I know my uncle has a rifle for use on the farm, and I had one when I was a kid. I have a friend who owns one for safety and one who owned one for use as protection against bears out in the woods, but other than that I know hundreds of other Canadians who to the best of my knowledge do not own one. Every American I meet seems to take it for granted that a house would have one), extremely nationalistic (to the point of viewing non-americans as some kind of subhuman species, deserving of scorn), and extremely ignorant of anything outside of the continental US.
        I am not sure how much better we Canadians are on some of those scores but I would like to think we are less extreme in every measure.

        However this law *has* to fail, I can't ever see it going into effect, although as a long term /.er I haven't RTFA yet :P

        • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 18, 2009 @06:44PM (#28382041)

          Ummm... where's this fantasy version of the US you speak of? Everything you've said doesn't even remotely describe the United States.

          The US is very divided and there's a strong right-wing group but by no means in the entire US conservative. Usually people in rural areas tend to be right wing while people in urban areas tend to be liberal. Liberal is really only used as a swear word on Fox News which exists solely to be a right-wing news network.

          I've never thought of Canada as violent but you sure make it sound like it is. You make it seem like everybody and their grandma has a gun in Canada with the number of people you listed with a gun. I grew up in the US and I have never known a single person who owned a gun. Gun owners are most definitely a small minority in the US. Americans would generally take for granted that a house does NOT have a gun. And most people that do own a gun claim to do so for protection.

          Extremely nationalistic? Sounds to me like you've been watching too many TV stereotypes. Do you think that every American wears a cowboy hat and shouts "Yee-haw!" too? Being extremely nationalistic and ignorant of the rest of world is a stereotypical trait of rural red necks.

          Funnily enough, you have shown that you are quite ignorant of even your neighbouring country. You shouldn't base your assumptions on what you see on TV. Even if the content is from the US, it's full of over blown or outdated stereotypes. You should actually try visiting a country before making a bunch of absurd assumptions. Even if those assumptions are in part based on Americans you have met you do have to remember that most Americans don't have a passport and hence don't travel abroad thus the people you do meet outside of the US aren't exactly representative of the country.

          After all, if I based my assumptions on you, I'd think Canadians are quite ignorant and simple minded(for assuming that a country of 300 million people could be imbued with such over simplistic stereotypes) but I've actually been to Canada and know better.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by afxgrin (208686)

        I can't agree with your statement. America seems to have much more visibility, and presence of government than Canada. Just look at the military you have - it dwarfs anything we're doing on a per capita basis. Operating a standing army of that size requires big government. The Food Stamp Program alone is a huge undertaking.

        Just a basic comparison of military expenditures [wikipedia.org]:

        United States - $ 651,163,000,000 USD
        Canada - $ 17,944,621,100 USD

        Considering the United States' population is about 10X that of Cana

      • by ceoyoyo (59147)

        Canada's per capita federal expenditures look like they're somewhat smaller than per capita expenditures of the US federal government. We are a lot more liberal though.

      • by dkleinsc (563838)

        You made the mistaken assumption that I would move to Canada because I didn't like big government, whereas my motivation for moving would be that I didn't like a government encroaching on my civil liberties.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 18, 2009 @05:09PM (#28380683)

    This is ridiculous. If this passes, I'm never voting Conservative again (leaving me with no other options!)

    Write to Van Loan:

    The Honourable Peter Van Loan
    Minister of Public Safety

    Parliament Hill Office
    Room 157
    East Block
    Ottawa, Ontario
    K1A 0A6

    T 613-996-7752
    F 613-992-8351
    E vanloan.p@parl.gc.ca

    Constituency Office
    45 Grist Mill Road, Unit 10
    Holland Landing, Ontario
    L9N 1M7 ... in the Grist Mill Plaza,
    Mount Albert Road between Old Yonge Street and 2nd Concession

    T 905-898-1600 or
                                1-877-738-3748
    F 905-898-4600
    E vanlop1@parl.gc.ca

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by gun26 (151620)
      The Conservative party consists of a large caucus holding the overwheliming majority of seats from Western Canada and a smaller rump from populous Ontario (which elects almost 1/3 of the parliamentary seats). In order to have a political future the Cons need to grow in Ontario - they can't expect much more in the West and they burned their bridges with the Quebec electorate in last December's coalition crisis. But the cabinet pickings are slim from the Ontario Con group, most of whom are cretinous hard-righ
      • by Chirs (87576)

        It is worthy of note that while they hold an overwhelming majority of *seats* in Western Canada, they do not hold an overwhelming majority of *votes*. It's basically an accident of the voting system.

        • by Gorshkov (932507)
          Basically, the same as the situation in Ontario - except the *liberals* have the overwhelming majority of *seats*, but not an overwhelming majority of *votes*. It works both ways.
  • by ejdmoo (193585)

    Obligatory Simpsons Reference:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qh2sWSVRrmo [youtube.com]

  • This sounds like something the McKenzie brothers would come with.

    Strange Brew - indeed.
  • by atomic777 (860023) on Thursday June 18, 2009 @05:11PM (#28380737)
    .. from which to look down my frost-bitten nose at the suckers having their rights taken away down south. Now i'm putting up with bad weather for no good reason!

    Doesn't our government understand a fundamental principle of governing a country with a predominantly harsh climate like Canada: we must do everything significantly better than our neighbours to the south to prevent brain drain.
    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Not like something good *ever* came out of Canada. FFS you speak FRENCH !

      Now we have to worry about illegal aliens invading us from the south AND north. Great. Just F'ing great.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Hockey came from Canada. 'Nuff said. HOCKEY RULES!
      • Some people up here speak Quebecois, which is a dialect of French. Many of us do not however, I barely speak a word of it. No intelligent Canadian would want to move to the US though, so you don't need to worry much. You couldn't pay me to live down there to be honest.

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by Gorshkov (932507)
        Saying that what is spoken in Quebec is french is just as silly as saying that what is spoken in Newfoundland is english.
      • by coppro (1143801)
        Our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which will see this and any similar laws shot to hell.
      • by elrous0 (869638) *
        They only speak French in Quebec. All the areas inhabited by human beings speak English.
      • Yeah, but Canadians would be be slightly less illegal, right?

  • by Klistvud (1574615) on Thursday June 18, 2009 @05:12PM (#28380743)

    And it is showing us that civil liberties won't end with a bang, they will end with a pathetic, humiliating trifle. Apparently, we will forfeit our liberties not in order to fight terrorism, AIDS, exploitation, or poverty, but to "protect" some copyrighted content or to prevent some teenager from downloading porn. A really sad way to go, Democracy!

  • by Chris Burke (6130) on Thursday June 18, 2009 @05:14PM (#28380775) Homepage

    "Police lobbied for the bill as means of 'combatting gangsters, pedophiles, or terrorists,'"

    I like that phrasing, it's like they aren't really sure. "Why do we need these powers? To combat gangsters, pedophiles... or terrorists, yeah terrorists too. Or maybe identity thieves? Whatever makes you turn your brain off and do what we want. That's why we need them."

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 18, 2009 @05:17PM (#28380819)
  • by Chirs (87576) on Thursday June 18, 2009 @05:20PM (#28380855)

    As is usual, the summary is inflammatory. As described at http://www.privacylawyer.ca/blog/labels/lawful%20access.html/ [privacylawyer.ca] a warrant would still be required for eavesdropping, but "basic subscriber information" (name, address, telephone number and Internet Protocol (IP) address, e-mail address, service provider identification and certain cell phone identifiers) would be available without a warrant.

    I'll be writing to my MP in any case.

    • by Abcd1234 (188840)

      Figures.

      'course, if the law really is unconstitutional, someone will challenge it and the courts will nullify it. *shrug* Annoying, certainly, but hardly a disaster, particularly since our "activist judges" have demonstrated they're very much interested in enforcing the Charter (hence why gay marriage is legal here).

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      So if a cop wanted information on his ex there would be no trace as to how he got it... Yup no harm done here.... Maybe we should remove the audit trails on government databases as well, just to be safe.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by J Story (30227)

      [A} warrant would still be required for eavesdropping, but "basic subscriber information" (name, address, telephone number and Internet Protocol (IP) address, e-mail address, service provider identification and certain cell phone identifiers) would be available without a warrant.

      It will be interesting how this all plays out. First, given that this is a minority government, at least one of the opposition parties must support the bill. Not likely if there is a chance they can score political points by voting against. Second, if the bill is eventually made law it will inevitably face a constitutional challenge. Given current privacy concerns it is by no means a slam dunk that the law will survive unscathed.

      Most likely, however, is that the government will fall shortly after parliament

    • What else do you need? IP xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx connected to my PC, spill it, who is that bastard?

  • It's not like... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Sibko (1036168) on Thursday June 18, 2009 @05:20PM (#28380863)

    Gray says the public doesn't need to worry about invasion of privacy because getting information from an ISP is only one small step in an investigation. She also says it's not like police knock down doors as soon as they have a name connected to an Internet address.

    What??? That is EXACTLY what happens when the police don't need warrants.

    This bill makes it possible for it to happen, with no safeguards whatsoever. A well intentioned, but poorly thought-out piece of legislation that gives the police far too much power.

    • by http (589131)
      Poorly thought out legislation is not much different from badly intended legislation. Call van Loan, and your MP. This bill can die, if your MPs are well informed.
  • by d474 (695126) on Thursday June 18, 2009 @05:21PM (#28380877)

    ...what next?
     
    After the government watches every single aspect of what we do with our electronic communications, what next?
     
    Will they actually catch all the pedo's & terrorists? Will all those crimes disappear? Or will those crimes continue to occur?
     
    Of course they'll continue to occur, so will they move on to thought control with nanotechnologies? Seriously. Will the argument still convince everyone to allow for thought monitoring because, "How else will we catch all the pedo's and terrorists! Think of the children!"

    So then they watch all our thoughts, will the crimes then go away? Probably not, people will figure out ways to block those nano-bots somehow. Then what?
     
    Then they will want to control our thoughts - because, because that way we can control everyone and stop crime and protect the children! But will crime stop? Yes. But then, the crime stopped because freedom stopped.
     
    Crime and freedom go hand-in-hand. Can't have one without the other.

    • > After the government watches every single aspect of what we do with our electronic communications, what next?

      Oh, that's easy, and I'm surprised at you: why, they'll lock us all in our own jail cells, "for our own good." Now, that might not be the _next_ step, but that's the ultimate goal.

  • Easy (Score:3, Interesting)

    by BigJClark (1226554) on Thursday June 18, 2009 @05:22PM (#28380893)

    Easy, you crazy kids. Sometimes in Canada, we'll propose some totally nuts bill to ensure it gets struck down, and it serves as a precendence to prevent weaker, yet more wily intrusions in our security and privacy.

    That being said, please do, write your politicians, let them know their thoughts.
    • Re:Easy (Score:5, Insightful)

      by twidarkling (1537077) on Thursday June 18, 2009 @05:40PM (#28381167)

      This isn't even the first time the bill's been proposed. As another provided a link to a Michael Geist post, this almost exact bill has been proposed by the Liberals previously. The fact that both the Liberals AND Conservatives have proposed it lends credence to your point.

      Further more, even if it WAS a legitimate push, it's only been introduced. The amount of stuff that's introduced and just dies in committee is rather staggering. If this makes it past first vote, I'd be stunned.

      Still writing my rep to let them know my thoughts, though.

      • by KillerBob (217953)

        It's also worth mentionning that we're expecting a confidence vote this Friday. It's possible, though unlikely, that the Conservatives won't even be in power after tomorrow, in which case this bill would simply die.

      • by Xelios (822510)
        Isn't it great how the same bad bill can be reintroduced over and over again until they finally find a group of politicians that will pass it?
      • by MarkRose (820682)
        Well lets tell them both it's unwanted! Join the protest: http://www.digitalprivacy.ca/ [digitalprivacy.ca]
    • Re:Easy (Score:4, Insightful)

      by BabyDuckHat (1503839) on Thursday June 18, 2009 @05:59PM (#28381425)
      Actually, you may not be far off. It's a common tactic to propose a bill that actually asks for far more than you want. That gives the opposition the chance to gut it or to come together for a sunshine-time compromise, while still allowing what you really wanted to get passed.

      EvilPerson1: How can I make it legal to beat people with boards?
      EvilPerson1: "I propose we give law-enforcement the authority to pull off peoples ears with with pilers and beat them with boards with nails in them."
      EvilPerson2: "Objection! That's just barbaric!"
      EvilPerson1: "Fine, let's compromise: They can't do the pliers thing, but they can still hit them with boards."
      EvilPerson2: "Getting there, but I'm still not comfortable with the nails."
      EvilPerson1: "You wimp. Fine, no nails." Sucker.
      EvilPerson2: "That's better."
  • In practical terms, what constitutes and unreasonable search where privacy is concerned? No, this is not a troll question. Just hear me out.

    I think that the primary concern for most people where access to personal information is concerned is generally within the following areas.

    1) Protection from 'planted evidence' when targeted by a law enforcement investigation
    2) Protection from Identity Theft
    3) Not having their private information used in a way that will harm their personal life.
    4) Not having their

    • by selven (1556643)
      And the police/government are so reliable that they never [slashdot.org] lose your data [slashdot.org] or let it be stolen [slashdot.org] and put all over the internet.
    • My main concern is that I trust the cops about as much as the criminals, so I don't want them having more than the minimum required power to investigate crimes.
  • by itsybitsy (149808) * on Thursday June 18, 2009 @06:11PM (#28381595)

    Yikes, these people think they rule the world or part of it anyway. I hereby revoke their right to do this. If they implement this they become the State Based Terrorists that they themselves fear!

    • Relax, this is nothing more than proposed legislation by a weak, minority government, which knows full well it will never pass unchanged if it passes at all before the end of the current session. This does strengthen the Tory image as the party of Law and Order though, and with an election coming in the fall this is their way of showing the voters they mean business. It probably won't help them win a majority.

  • I have to believe 'gangsters, pedophiles, or terrorists' will be using encryption to carry out their nefarious plans. The real target here is people downloading music and movies.
  • by cdrguru (88047) on Thursday June 18, 2009 @06:34PM (#28381897) Homepage

    The real problem with getting a warrent in many cases is that while there may be strong indications that something is going on, there is nothing that a judge would consider probable cause.

    This can even extend to siuations where it is clear to someone technically inclined that someone is involved in probably illicit digital traffic but it is not at all clear to someone less technical. This comes up with botnets and compromized computers - you see a computer hammering away at sending spam or a brute-force attack. It is clear from simply looking at traffic statistics that something is going on. Is this cause for someone to take action? Usually not, because there is no "real world" evidence of this other than some ephemeral digital indication, which isn't good enough.

    Requiring physical, real-world "probable cause" in order to examine digital information would seem to be a sure guarantee that there is no digital crime. Since it can't be identified, it therefore doesn't exist. And I am sure there are plenty of judges that cannot conceive of anything beyond physical, real world probable cause and will not grant a warrant based on anything digital at all.

    I do find this interesting that this comes up on the same day as an article about Sweden's court rejecting IP identification. Clearly nobody knows what is going on and the courts in different places are utterly lost.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Chirs (87576)

      The solution to judges not being up to speed on technical issues is not to drop privacy protections--it's to educate the judges.

      If the police suspect wrongdoing but don't have enough evidence to get a warrant, the proper course of action is to alert the ISP that there is suspicious traffic coming from an IP address owned by them.

      The ISP should then look into it, and if they determine that there is illicit activity (a compromised zombie machine, for instance), the correct solution is for them to contact the

  • A story http://74.125.153.132/search?q=cache:enWVsPf5lZAJ:www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html%3Fid%3D1285658+http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html%3Fid%3D1285658&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&client=safari [74.125.153.132] about this was submitted to slashdot in Feb 2009, it was rejected.
    Did not see any interest in the story and thought it was 'over' for Canada back then. Looks like the Canadian Taliban have won. Your broadband devices will be smashed and hanging from lamp posts and trees.
    Become a citizen jo
  • This is all political ammunition for the next election, but the chances of this actually getting anywhere before the parliament goes into recess is pretty slim. See Canada's government shuts down on Friday for the summer. The Liberal party has been repeatedly trying to dig at the minority, and topple the government. More than likely Canada will have a fall election, so any issue that is a traction issue is a good issue. This happened the last time when the Liberals were in power as well.

    So what will hap

  • See? Nobody here has any sense of VISION!

    Don't protest this? PROMOTE IT!

    Then apply to be a police officer.

    You'll get in, don't worry. Its very easy!

    You now have carte-blanche to "examine" the ISP records of every single pubic official, without any oversight or them having any legal recourse. I also imagine that once the ISP's figure out what you're up to, you'll have their most eager and FULL cooperation.

    They'll probably even give you a secure VPN tunnel to Wikileaks.

    As for what happens to the law after

  • How is it that that the gangsters, pedos and turrists who apparently lurk in every corner and shadow, just waiting for a momentary lapse in which they will terrorize, rape and beat you, were thwarted from taking over the world before we threw away the rule of law to "get them"?
  • can they introduce a bill to do something football fans dont want, or similar ? they cant. because they fear that there will be rioting, heads will roll, heads will be whacked. same goes with minorities, etc etc.

    you cant do such things, even in the name of public safety, or anything else.

    buuuuut, you can introduce all kinds of shitty legislation to curb internet. you can. because, all they will be doing is protest, send emails and whatnot. all will peacefully shout and yell, politely, send a few mails and g

  • A recent Supreme Court of Canada decision found that the police can collect and examine your garbage without a warrant, even if it is in sealed, opaque bags, in a trashcan, within your property line. Decision: http://csc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2009/2009scc17/2009scc17.html [umontreal.ca].
  • The actual text of the bill is at C-47 [parl.gc.ca].

    Like all bills, there are some interesting bits to it. For example, requests of service providers can be made by (for the purposes of carrying out the duties of) the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, or the Commissioner of Competition under the Competition Act (Section 16.2). Federal police body, intelligence body ... I can see why they might have a desire to get subscriber information, b

  • My letter to my MP (Score:3, Insightful)

    by davecb (6526) * <davec-b@rogers.com> on Friday June 19, 2009 @10:06AM (#28389371) Homepage Journal

    The Conservatives, of course, are now pushing their spin on the need for internet service providers like Rogers to record and disclose personal identifying information without a warrant.

    As a former postmaster for <a canadian university>, I had a legal duty to protect this sort of information unless the University received a court order, or, in the specific and limited case of a student, if they were brought before an academic tribunal to answer for an action.

    In the entire time I was there, over five year in all, only one academic investigation took place, and no legal ones, despite this being the era in which some blatantly unsuitable material was broadcast via the "alt.sex.pictures" newsgroup.

    I would not enjoy knowing that the University or an ISP was going to hand my name, address and billing information to a police officer without a warrant, especially as the web is now a much more civilized place.

    Nor would I like to have them reading through logs of who I spoke to or what I read.

    The librarians of the Canada had the best thought-out set of rules: only a strictly limited amount of information was kept about who had borrowed a particular book, it was available only with a warrant, and it was destroyed as soon as the book was returned undamaged.

    That is the kind of behavior we aimed for at the university, and is the least I expect out of an ISP. Neither they nor the state has any compelling interest in my activities unless they can go before a judge and make a real case that a crime may have occurred.

    --dave

  • I don't think this bill has anything to do with its stated purposes.

    I smell RIAA, and various other copyright lobbyists.

    This is a "SAVE THE CHILDREN" attempt to get around Canadian privacy laws to get at, and identify people for civil legal purposes. Not criminal.

    Gangsters, Pedos, and Terrorists oh my! My ass. Lions, Tigers, and Bears! Oh No!

    I cannot believe how thinly veiled this attempt is to do an end run around our privacy rights simply so some industries can start suing Canadian media downloaders.

    Right

We want to create puppets that pull their own strings. - Ann Marion

Working...