Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Privacy Government News Politics

In Canada, No Expectation of Privacy On the Net 206

Posted by kdawson
from the if-you're-not-doing-anything-wrong dept.
The_AV8R writes "In a recent interview, Peter Van Loan, the new Canadian Public Safety minister, says ISPs should be able to provide private user information without a warrant. (The only example he gave was cases of child pornography; the interviewer pointed out that in these cases ISPs are already at liberty to divulge customer information without a warrant, but that the proposed rules would make that mandatory whenever the police ask.) He was adamant that in regard to IP addresses, names, cell phone numbers, and email addresses: '...that is not the kind of information about which Canadians have a legitimate expectation of privacy.' The minister denied — even when presented with an audio clip proving otherwise — that his predecessor had promised never to allow the police to wiretap the Internet without a warrant."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

In Canada, No Expectation of Privacy On the Net

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

    by FudRucker (866063) on Tuesday June 30, 2009 @03:29PM (#28534261)
    i dont expect anything on a computer or the internet to protect my privacy, so i take matters in to my own hands, i dont ever post my real name anywhere, i never upload a photo of myself, people need to protect their own privacy if they want their identiy off the internet/websites, --without-facebook --without-myspace even this user account on this PC is named anyuser which is an anonymous brand websites give to unidentified computers/people.
    • Re:correct (Score:5, Insightful)

      by wjousts (1529427) on Tuesday June 30, 2009 @03:33PM (#28534325)
      But your ISP probably knows who you are right? I mean you signed up with them with your real name and probably pay them every month with a check or credit card.
      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by FudRucker (866063)
        well yeah, but i dont do anything illegal so i am not attracting the attention of the authorities, it is the identity thieves and trolls that would like to cause harm to people is what i am concerned with.
        • Re:correct (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Jherek Carnelian (831679) on Tuesday June 30, 2009 @03:40PM (#28534431)

          well yeah, but i dont do anything illegal so i am not attracting the attention of the authorities

          Right. You ain't doin nuthin wrong so you don't have anything to worry about.

          Why even bother with warrants at all? The police never go after someone who has done no wrong.

          • Re:correct (Score:5, Informative)

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 30, 2009 @06:04PM (#28536121)

            Not entirely so.

            I have had a search warrant executed on me by a false tip by a former employer. Once the legal mess all settled, I found out that the employer was stealing cash drops from the safe, and purchasing cocaine with the money. The Franchise owner audited him, and in an attempt to create a smokescreen, blamed me for the theft. He called the cops, gave this total sob story, and a warrant was executed. My house was destroyed inside from them looking for something I never had in the first place.

            In this post 9/11 world, even my poor Canada is becoming a police state, and when it comes to law enforcement, even the "Innocent" need to be wary. I did nothing wrong, yet I was treated like a criminal until the truth finally surfaced. nothing will ever fix that.

        • Re:correct (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Darkness404 (1287218) on Tuesday June 30, 2009 @03:42PM (#28534449)
          Hahahahah. Right. Ever listened to a YouTube video that had an audio track under copyright? The RIAA (or canadian equivalents) would love to sue you for that. Posted a comment critical of the government? Next thing you know you wind up on a non-disclosed "watch list" and can't leave the country. Viewed porn of someone 17 by accident? The government would love to lock you away.

          The thing was, before this you had to attract the attention of the authorities, now the authorities might just wonder who IP XXX.XXX.XXX is and find something to arrest you for.
          • Re:correct (Score:5, Insightful)

            by k10quaint (1344115) on Tuesday June 30, 2009 @03:54PM (#28534637)
            a.) Listening to the video would not get you in trouble, but uploading it might.
            b.) Relying on the ISP to not divulge the connection between your name and your IP address is obfuscation, not to be confused with actual security. One should use an anonymous proxy to post things you do not want traced back to you.
            c.) You should destroy all your porn after viewing and fapping.
            d.) Relying on the authorities not having the inclination to prosecute you is also a bad idea.
            • Re:correct (Score:5, Insightful)

              by Darkness404 (1287218) on Tuesday June 30, 2009 @04:08PM (#28534797)

              a.) Listening to the video would not get you in trouble, but uploading it might.

              Says who? The only reason why the RIAA has not actively pursued these cases is because the most popular is owned by Google who can afford great lawyers and with an informed judge might create some copyright reform. Plus the damages would be too small for them to activly pursue them... Yet.

              In July 2008, Viacom won a court ruling requiring YouTube to hand over data detailing the viewing habits of every user who has watched videos on the site. The move led to concerns that the viewing habits of individual users could be identified through a combination of their IP addresses and login names. The decision was criticized by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which called the court ruling "a set-back to privacy rights".[36] U.S. District Court Judge Louis Stanton dismissed the privacy concerns as "speculative", and ordered YouTube to hand over documents totalling around 12 terabytes of data.

              If viewing these things were no big deal why would Viacom demand the logs?

              b.) Relying on the ISP to not divulge the connection between your name and your IP address is obfuscation, not to be confused with actual security. One should use an anonymous proxy to post things you do not want traced back to you.

              Sure, but I should have the expectation of privacy. Just like I should have the expectation of privacy when I shower with the door locked. Could someone break down the door? Sure. But I still have the reasonable expectation of privacy. Similarly, I should assume my ISP would not divulge my IP with names unless there was a warrant.

              c.) You should destroy all your porn after viewing and fapping.

              Sure, but what happens if they use logs to figure out of viewing it, even on a webpage?

              d.) Relying on the authorities not having the inclination to prosecute you is also a bad idea.

              Thats why we have search warrants in the first place. In the 1700s and 1800s when the America's governments were being established, you had a lot more privacy. Crimes could only be prosecuted with solid evidence. One of the points of that was to get rid of unpopular laws because if everyone broke them it would be too much of a hassle to prosecute them unless they were doing something really wrong. Fast forward to the 2000s and we have an unpopular copyright law that suddenly becomes enforceable when you take away the search warrants.

              • by gnick (1211984)

                The only reason why the RIAA has not actively pursued these cases is because the most popular is owned by Google who can afford great lawyers and with an informed judge might create some copyright reform.

                You might not realize this, but the RIAA was chasing copyright infringers long before YouTube was owned by Google. If you're convinced that fear of Google is "the only reason" that the RIAA isn't chasing straight downloaders, you may want to check your logic.

              • by pipingguy (566974) *
                Crimes could only be prosecuted with solid evidence. One of the points of that was to get rid of unpopular laws because if everyone broke them it would be too much of a hassle to prosecute them unless they were doing something really wrong.

                Excellent point. Many laws (and accompanying severe-ish penalties) were created to discourage certain behaviours. Now that it seems that "criminals" can be more easily caught, it might be time to take another look at what is prohibited (and why) as well as the punishme
              • Similarly, I should assume my ISP would not divulge my IP with names unless there was a warrant.

                Boy, you must get awfully pissed at the phone company for publishing your telephone number with your name attached.

                Seriously, you don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy just because you--personally--expect it.

              • by Abcd1234 (188840)

                Says who?

                Uhh, says the law. Violating copyright law involves the act of *distributing* unauthorized copies, not receiving them. Which would be why cops won't arrest you for buying a bootleg DVD from a street vendor, but they will arrest the street vendor.

                Similarly, at least in Canada, downloading copyrighted material is legal, while uploading it is not.

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by gnick (1211984)

            OK, I'm as paranoid as the next guy (well, typically - I guess it depends on the "next guy"). But your post smells suspiciously like tin foil.

            Ever listened to a YouTube video that had an audio track under copyright? The RIAA (or canadian equivalents) would love to sue you for that.

            That would not be "making available" said copyrighted content. So far, we've yet to see the RIAA chase anything like that or even show serious interest in trying.

            Posted a comment critical of the government? Next thing you know you wind up on a non-disclosed "watch list" and can't leave the country.

            Right. That's why Bill Maher lives under house arrest. Watch this:
            The government has become a police state and Obama is a communist trying to sell our country to the Chinese!!!
            Let 'em come and get me. Me

            • Re:correct (Score:5, Informative)

              by Runaway1956 (1322357) on Tuesday June 30, 2009 @04:30PM (#28535067) Homepage Journal

              "The government would not "love to lock you away" for that. Imprisonment is expensive as is identifying and prosecuting criminals."

              The US government has found that keeping about 1% of it's population imprisoned is a lucrative business. It keeps a huge number of people employed, it justifies a number of bonds and taxes, and it keeps a number of "worthless" people off the streets. Keeping people imprisoned is so lucrative that private industry has gotten into the act. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_prisons [wikipedia.org]

            • That would not be "making available" said copyrighted content. So far, we've yet to see the RIAA chase anything like that or even show serious interest in trying.

              "Yet."

              [tinfoil_hat]
              The RIAA et al hunt the low-hanging fruit. This proposed change could shift downloaders into the low-hanging spectrum. Who is to say they wouldn't try then? If they did try, they might not get anywhere, but they might make some people's lives hell in the meantime.
              [/tinfoil_hat]

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          well yeah, but i dont do anything illegal so i am not attracting the attention of the authorities, it is the identity thieves and trolls that would like to cause harm to people is what i am concerned with

          Wow, you are really, spectacularly missing the point.

          All those measures you take to protect your privacy? As of now, they apparently mean absolutely nothing if you live in Canada. Maybe you'd like to believe it's only the "identity thieves and trolls" who have to worry about official attention, and hell,

        • Re:correct (Score:5, Insightful)

          by moon3 (1530265) on Tuesday June 30, 2009 @04:05PM (#28534769)
          i dont do anything illegal

          This argument is extremely naive to say it gently. Just wait until you get some virus or trojan and the damned thing starts to serve some terrible content from your IP or start doing spam or DOS. Then you will have to prove to authorities that "you did nothing wrong", while they have lots of evidence on you.
        • by tixxit (1107127)

          If you don't fight for your rights, you will lose them. The police can either get a warrant or request the information already. Once you grant them this right, you have lost it forever. For now, they claim it is only for Seriously Bad Guys, but who knows what the future could hold.

          "In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didnâ(TM)t speak up because I wasnâ(TM)t a Communist;
          And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didnâ(TM)t speak up because I wasnâ(TM)t a trade unionist;
          And then they came for the Jews, And I didnâ(TM)t speak up because I wasnâ(TM)t a Jew;
          And then... they came for me... And by that time there was no one left to speak up."
          - Martin Niemoller

        • It is extremely difficult to not break the law.

          In BC if you are driving along the highway at 80kph and the speed limit is 80kph, but if everyone else is going 90kph, you are actually breaking the law because you are driving at an unsafe speed in relation to the cars around you. If you speed up to 90kph you will now be breaking the speed limit, but are no longer breaking the unsafe speed law.

          There are quite a few of these catch 22s. Even the most law abiding people they've found are breaking laws inadver
        • Re:correct (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Alain Williams (2972) <addw@phcomp.co.uk> on Tuesday June 30, 2009 @05:16PM (#28535569) Homepage

          well yeah, but i dont do anything illegal so i am not attracting the attention of the authorities

          What if:

          • You get divorced, your ex's brother/new-beau/... is a mountie. No warrant is now needed for them to indulge in a little ''fishing trip'' to see if they can find anything to hit you with ...
          • Your business rival has a brother/... who is a mountie. Repeat as above ...
          • You piss someone off at the golf club who has a brother/...

          Do you get the idea? You don't need to do anything wrong for people to come sniffing.

          If someone looks hard enough they will probably find something that is embarassing, it doesn't need to be illegal for you to not want the world to know... would your employer like to know that you have been visiting the jobs web sites; your pastor that you visited, well, all manner of innocent things that he might not like; your spouse that you exchanged email with an old flame (quite innocently); ...

          • What if:

            • You get divorced, your ex's brother/new-beau/... is a mountie. No warrant is now needed for them to indulge in a little ''fishing trip'' to see if they can find anything to hit you with ...
            • Your business rival has a brother/... who is a mountie. Repeat as above ...
            • You piss someone off at the golf club who has a brother/...

            Don't be sexist! It could also be a sister mountie...

        • well yeah, but i dont do anything illegal so i am not attracting the attention of the authorities

          Damn dude, you walked right into that one.

    • Re:correct (Score:5, Informative)

      by Darkness404 (1287218) on Tuesday June 30, 2009 @03:36PM (#28534379)
      Ok, but tell me, your ISP knows who you are right? Should your ISP be giving out your IP and your confidential information? I don't think so. This is what its talking about that the government/big businesses now know who XXX.XXX.XXX is and everything about them. This isn't that Facebook knows that IP XXX.XXX.XXX corresponds to profile Joe Sixpack, but rather that anything is now open to suspicions such as the ISPs looking at your IP address to figure out you are FudRucker then giving whoever wants the information your name, address, etc.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by BigJClark (1226554)

      Well, you're kinda missing the point. Just because you sign your name up as 'Little Johnny McGillicuddy' doesn't mean that they don't know its YOU operating the keyboard. You have contracted services with your real name, through your provider, and they can create a hash list of your name to your various online profiles, if you have any.

      Its a bitch, I believe in freedom of information. I try before I buy. Yeah, I'll download a game, if its good, I buy it, if it doesn't install properly, or is buggy a
      • Re:correct (Score:5, Informative)

        by BigJClark (1226554) on Tuesday June 30, 2009 @03:41PM (#28534437)

        Amendment
        ----------
        Contact information for Peter Van Loan:
        Constituency Office
        45 Grist Mill Road, Unit 10
        Holland Landing, Ontario
        L9N 1M7

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


        Obtained from:
        http://www.petervanloan.com/contact.asp [petervanloan.com]


        Send him a letter, or give him a call, let him know your thoughts. Please, be polite.
        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          Are any of those three telephone numbers his cell phone number, or are they all linked with his office telephone? Remember, cell phone numbers were one of the items about which the summary quotes him saying Canadians have no real expectation of privacy.

          Once he has released his cell phone number, give him a polite call [each person should only call once, of course] and "forget" about the time difference that means he's sitting down to dinner when you call.

        • We will also need his home address and email information, not just the second persona that he keeps for work purposes, don't forget contact details for every member of his family.
        • by jez9999 (618189)

          Send him a letter, or give him a call, let him know your thoughts. Please, be polite.

          When was the last time that worked? In any English-speaking country?

        • Re:correct (Score:5, Funny)

          by Mistlefoot (636417) on Tuesday June 30, 2009 @08:23PM (#28537339)
          His website Privacy Policy:

          Basically. If you visit his website you have the expectation of privacy. But only if you don't use the internet to do it, it seems.

          *****

          Commitment to Protecting Your Privacy

          Your privacy is important to your Member of Parliament. Any information you provide is protected under the provisions of the Federal Privacy Act.

          The Office of Peter Van Loan, MP will respect your privacy by protecting any personal information provided to the MP or his staff. Great care is taken to keep both confidential and secure all personal information.

          'Personal Information' is any information which may be used to identify an individual. It may include information such as a name, address, telephone number and/or other contact information.

          This website employs software programs to monitor website traffic and to identify unauthorized attempts to upload or change information, or otherwise cause damage. This software receives and records the Internet Protocol (IP) address of each computer that has contacted this website, the date and time of the visit, and the pages visited.

          Personal information is used to communicate with you, or to facilitate your interaction with Peter Van Loan, MP or his staff. Great care is taken in the way personal information is stored and secure
    • i dont ever post my real name anywhere,

      A lesson on humor: You should have signed your post with a name. Even if it's not your real name.

    • "expect" (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Sloppy (14984)

      i dont expect anything on a computer or the internet to protect my privacy

      You are using the English definition of "expectation" (i.e. something that one believes/predicts will happen) rather than seeing it as technical legal jargon.

      In technical legal jargon, an "expectation of privacy" basically means a desire for privacy, to such an extent that some (though not all) governments go to the trouble of creating an unnatural right that broadcasts of information, which passes through countless intermediate syste

      • by Sloppy (14984)

        > But that's now what anti-crytography privacy advocates are talking about.

        s/now/not/

    • Re:correct (Score:5, Informative)

      by Beardo the Bearded (321478) on Tuesday June 30, 2009 @05:28PM (#28535713)

      Bill C-61 (separate from this proposed legislation) would make it illegal to use a proxy or any other means of obfusctation on the internet.

      Your ISP will have a log of everything you've ever done, everything you've ever looked at, every post, and it will all be tied into your real life name and address forever.

      Everything. And this law would force them to hand it to any police officer for any reason. Did you make a video of them tazing a Polish man? Well, if you don't want your browsing history on the first page of the Globe and Mail, you're going to destroy the only copy.

      At home, I have a reasonable expectation of privacy. I don't expect that at work.

    • i dont expect anything on a computer or the internet to protect my privacy, so i take matters in to my own hands, i dont ever post my real name anywhere, i never upload a photo of myself, people need to protect their own privacy if they want their identiy off the internet/websites, --without-facebook --without-myspace even this user account on this PC is named anyuser which is an anonymous brand websites give to unidentified computers/people.

      Never, ever, have I wished so hard for a -1 Gibberish mod. I thi

  • by oldspewey (1303305) on Tuesday June 30, 2009 @03:31PM (#28534287)
    This Harper government becomes more fascist every week it seems. Thank GOD they don't form a majority of seat in parliament.
    • I guarantee you the Liberals and NDP will back this up. No political party has a monopoly on the never ending quest for power.

      • Re:Any Government (Score:4, Informative)

        by saforrest (184929) on Tuesday June 30, 2009 @04:00PM (#28534719) Homepage Journal

        I guarantee you the Liberals and NDP will back this up. No political party has a monopoly on the never ending quest for power.

        Don't be so sure [thestar.com].

        • by Mashiki (184564)

          You mean the same Liberals that successfully swing in any direction to get votes, as long as it gets them votes in order to gain power, then break those same promises, while flipping off the Canadian public with a big old FU?

          Yeah. I don't trust the Liberals as far as I can throw them. Especially with good ol' Bob Rae with them now. What a way to screw over Ontario...oh wait that was when he was with the socialist NDP.

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by saforrest (184929)
            You mean the same Liberals that successfully swing in any direction to get votes, as long as it gets them votes in order to gain power, then break those same promises, while flipping off the Canadian public with a big old FU?

            I'm not stupid enough to argue that cynicism towards politicians is unjustified... I would be disproven pretty fast:

            • Stephen Harper has flipflopped on any number of things to retain power, like his Quebec policy, taxing income trusts, Senate appointments, etc.
            • The Liberals have d
      • Not if we tell them it's an election-worthy issue. If all of us go to our local constituency offices during the break and tell them "this has to be defeated at any cost", then they'll go back to Ottawa in October with the message that this has to go.

        Or, explain it this way:
        C60 / 61 + this proposal + ACTA = 18-35 demographic.

      • by Sinbios (852437)

        I'm pretty sure the opposition achieves their quest for power by NOT going along with the governing party.

    • by MarkRose (820682)
      The scary thing is that having a Liberal or NDP government would be just as bad. We need a government that's for individual freedom first and foremost.
    • This Harper government becomes more fascist every week it seems. Thank GOD they don't form a majority of seat in parliament.

      On the other hand he can do almost as he pleases, since the opposition does not what to make a challenge that will lead to an early election.

  • by nurb432 (527695) on Tuesday June 30, 2009 @03:32PM (#28534299) Homepage Journal

    Anywhere, anytime, it seems.

  • by woboyle (1044168) on Tuesday June 30, 2009 @03:34PM (#28534345)
    I wonder how long it will be before all of this bozo's personal information will be scraped from the web and posted for all and sundry? I give it about 3 days, tops.
  • Dumb Canadians (Score:3, Interesting)

    by db32 (862117) on Tuesday June 30, 2009 @03:35PM (#28534353) Journal
    Don't you supposed to know you are supposed to do warrantless wiretaps BEFORE government healthcare?

    I wonder how many die hard right wing nuts are going to point at this and blather about socialist governments and loss of freedom while completely ignoring that it was their very own Donald Kerr that said that Americans should understand that privacy shouldn't mean keeping information away from businesses and government...
    • You do realize that there are more than republicans that don't support this and that republican != right wing and that there are a lot of republicans/libertarians who vote republican who oppose him and a lot of the Bush administration's views on privacy. I am a libertarian and I opposed Bush on a lot of issues and oppose Obama and a lot of issues.
      • by db32 (862117)
        Uhm...I think you should go check what "a lot of" really means. The majority of Republicans over the last 8 years were far right leaning nuts that supported Bush up until the end when it was politically damaging to be seen to be in agreement with him. The number of Republicans/Libertarians with any kind of power that did not support most of the nonsense of the last 8 years are FAR from "a lot", they aren't even really a significant minority. The majority of people who were in opposition were Democrats, b
  • As a Canadian... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by camperdave (969942) on Tuesday June 30, 2009 @03:41PM (#28534439) Journal
    As a Canadian I expect that ALL of my communications are untapped without a warrant, whether or not they are in the clear, except those to public sites, like this one. I expect ALL corporations to withhold account information unless provided with a warrant.
  • Minority (Score:5, Interesting)

    by EmperorOfCanada (1332175) on Tuesday June 30, 2009 @03:45PM (#28534497)
    Keep in mind that this craziness is coming from a minority government. Can you imagine what these Nazis will do to us if they were to ever get a majority? DMCA - check. Searches without warrant - check No watchdog for the RCMP - check Unaudited evoting -check Unaudited spending - check New prisons for all the new crimes - check Internet censorship - check Canada finally gets to declare war on someone - check All of this would be to keep us and our children safe. This is a government that is sure that they know what is best for us. Also this is a government who have very fragile egos and the internet is not a place for people with fragile egos. If you think I am raving then think of what Harper would have done if he had been in power with a majority after 9/11. Would have Canada gone to Iraq? Yes or no? The technological implications of all this will be an environment that tech companies flee from instead of one that encourages technology.
    • Re:Minority (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Mashiki (184564) <mashiki@NOspAM.gmail.com> on Tuesday June 30, 2009 @04:16PM (#28534925) Homepage

      Oh look, uniformed voter in the ranks.

      Let me enlighten you on the voting process and how it works:
      1)Take traction issue one. Apply to minority parliament. Wait for bill to die, or be defeated by opposition.
      2) Await for opposition to pull something to cause parliament to collapse.
      3) Get general election call.

      Start running ads:
      4) Take legislation from step 1.
      5) Note ads, and apply these to the opposition and how they failed to uphold Canadian values.
      6) Note polls, and apply ads as need be to key riding's. Hope it's not another minority win/loss.

      7) Success/Fail
      8) Repeat at step 1 in 1-2 years if we're back at step 6.
      9) Use voter apathy and pissed offness about repeated minority governments and $300m elections

      All political parties want power. No party can get power without creating traction, the only way to create traction is by creating issues in many cases. Welcome to Canadian politics. I am Canadian, I do study politics, and yes I've got a pretty good idea of when we're going to have our next election. Either this fall, or this upcoming spring.

      It should be noted that the Liberal party isn't any different then the Conservatives on Law and Order. They only differ slightly on social policy. If you think differently you haven't studied either parties platforms(and in the case of the Liberals) how little they've put up.

      • Re:Minority (Score:4, Funny)

        by NotBornYesterday (1093817) * on Tuesday June 30, 2009 @04:42PM (#28535189) Journal
        Canadian voters wear uniforms? I never knew.
        • Oh Yes! We're all required to wear uniforms on Election Day. It's inspiring to see the masses, dressed in grey flannel, lined up in neat, punctual rows, each silently waiting to put an X in the proper circle. Why, it's almost machine like perfection. It makes the heart swell with national pride. No wonder The Leader gets elected time and time again.
      • by bidule (173941)

        It is happening right now. I received a week ago a "think of the children!" pamphlet from those right-wing nuts.

        I so wish the Conservative hadn't assploded when Mulroney took off. I'd rather have double-dipping crooks than self-righteous nutjobs, at least those need to get paid to shaft us.

    • by pipingguy (566974) *
      Keep in mind that this craziness is coming from a minority government. Can you imagine what these Nazis will do to us if they were to ever get a majority?

      Yes, you are absolutely correct. The current Canadian government are all Nazis and they are out to get you and everyone that thinks like you.

      Sheesh.
  • anonymous proxy (Score:3, Insightful)

    by oldspewey (1303305) on Tuesday June 30, 2009 @03:46PM (#28534511)
    I'm seriously getting to the point of configuring my router to run all traffic through an anonymous proxy somewhere, but I'm concerned what kind of performance hit that would mean in day-to-day use.
  • Fortunately.... (Score:5, Informative)

    by exasperation (1378979) on Tuesday June 30, 2009 @03:50PM (#28534561)

    the courts will very likely find the Minister to be incorrect in his interpretation of the constitution, and that everything he is proposing violates Section 8 of the Charter, "Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure."

    I would point out the Supreme Court has ruled that that whether information is subject to protection by Section 8 is not at the whim of the government, but whether a person has a "reasonable expectation of privacy" of information which could "reveal intimate, personal information", in that particular situation.

    It is not particularly difficult to envision a situation where linking an IP address to a name would potentially reveal personal information to the state. Imagine a woman posting on a support forum for victims of sexual assault which tracks posters by IP...

    Since IP addresses and so on are identifying information, and this being information people would reasonably expect their ISPs to keep private, I suspect that this entire thing is just begging for a Charter challenge and to have the courts clearly specify that a warrant is required.

    CanLII has a very interesting brief on section 8 of the Charter [canlii.org] here.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by forsey (1136633)

      The only problem is, it doesn't matter what's in the constitution, they can just use section 33 (the Notwithstanding clause) to override it. The only down side for them is that they have to renew it every once in a while.

      http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/PRBpubs/bp194-e.htm [parl.gc.ca]

      It's not so much a constitution in practice. It is more like a set of recommendations.

      • by Abcd1234 (188840)

        It's not so much a constitution in practice. It is more like a set of recommendations.

        Oh BS. The notwithstanding clause has been used a mere handful of times, primarily in Quebec vis a vis their language laws, and the sunset clause ensures that any such uses of the clause will come up for scrutiny come the next election (there's a reason 5 years was selected as the sunset timeline). This is evidenced by the fact that, as far as I'm aware, no law currently on the books anywhere in Canada invokes the notwit

  • by itsybitsy (149808) * on Tuesday June 30, 2009 @03:51PM (#28534587)

    Supposedly Canada is a liberal democracy... clearly the powers that be think differently... Sieg Heil Harper and the Queen! The brand of fascism that is sweeping Canada is spooky for sure.

    My parents and grand parents didn't fight off the Nazi's to have the likes of the new Canadian fascism take hold.

    I'm sorry to tell the government boobs but yes we Canadians don't like them interfering with our private lives or spying on us.

    Take your delusion of government power and shove it up your where the sun don't shine.

    Peter Van Loan, the new Canadian Public Safety minister can suck on my big fat ___.

    It's assholes like Peter Van Loan that give government a bad name and make the entire notion of government an idea whose time has past into the dust bin of history.

    I guess I'll be having a knock on the door in the middle of the night tonight and be taken away because I expressed the view that governments are simply groups of power grubbing nobs who don't have anything better to do with their time than attempt to control the minutia of people's lives. Come through my door without permission and I have a surprise waiting government brown shirts.

  • The SearchEngine podcast [tvo.org] has a nice summary of the issue and interview with the Minister in charge.

    You can listen to it Here [tvo.org]
  • Very shortly you're going to be disallowed to post pictures of yourself on Facebook and Myspace if you're under 18, and parents wont be permitted to upload pictures of their kids for family members to see. And all internet chat will be monitored, starting with minors - to ensure they arent being taken advantage of. Then adult-to-adult aswell, because you never know if 1 out of several million people might mention being turned on by a 17 year old. Is there ANY country left that supports net neutrality, pr
  • ... I was told by the kind deputy who pulled me over for talking on my cell phone.

    Anything we can see you doing in your car, we can pull you over for

    He so kindly said.

    You have no expectation of privacy in your car in NY state

    He said after that (his emphasis).

    • by unfasten (1335957)

      For things in plain view. As in things they can see through your windows. For instance, if they see a pound of weed on your passenger seat then it's fair game.

      They can't search the inside of your car or make you open the trunk. That is, unless they suspect you of a crime and are going to arrest you or if you let them (which you don't have to). But in that case they won't ask and they'll just search the car while you're handcuffed in the back of the cruiser.

      I realize that means nothing when you're dealing

  • FWIW (Score:3, Informative)

    by KingPin27 (1290730) on Tuesday June 30, 2009 @04:11PM (#28534847)

    here is some information from Canadian providers -- none of them specifically state what information they will or will not provide when requested or what is specifically logged. Most pages include contact information for a privacy rep. I suggest you contact that person(s) and see what information you can opt out of having tracked.

    I have excluded TELUS because they are wh0r3ish and don't listen anyway.

    From http://www.shaw.ca/en-ca/AboutShaw/PrivacyPolicy/Index [www.shaw.ca]
    3.3 How does Shaw obtain your consent? Consent is required for the collection of Personal Information and the subsequent use or disclosure of the Personal Information. Consent can be either expressed or implied. The form of consent sought by Shaw may vary, depending upon the circumstances and the type of Personal Information. In determining the form of consent to use, Shaw takes into account the sensitivity of the information and the reasonable expectations of the Customer, Employee or Web Site User. Shaw generally seeks express consent when the Personal Information is likely to be considered sensitive. Implied consent is typically appropriate when the Personal Information is less sensitive. In exceptional circumstances, as permitted by law, Shaw may collect, use or disclose Personal Information without a Customer, Employee or Web Site Userâ(TM)s knowledge or consent.

    In general, the use of products and services by a Customer, or a Web Site User, or the acceptance of employment or benefits by an Employee, will constitute implied consent required by Shaw to collect, use and/or disclose Personal Information for the purposes identified in this Privacy Policy.

    Consent may be withdrawn by Customers and Web Site Users at any time, subject to legal or contractual restrictions and upon providing Shaw reasonable notice. If you wish to withdraw your consent to certain collection, use or disclosure of Personal Information, please contact Shaw at privacy@shaw.ca.

    and of course Rogers http://your.rogers.com/privacy1.asp [rogers.com]

    • by Gerafix (1028986)
      Yeah, right. The only form of consent that can vary in regards to Shaw is how much the Police Thug pays them for the information.
  • No surprise here (Score:3, Insightful)

    by hyades1 (1149581) <hyades1@hotmail.com> on Tuesday June 30, 2009 @04:19PM (#28534955)

    Van Loan is one of the neo-cons currently blighting the Canadian political stage. They've been wandering around like lost sheep ever since Obama was elected in the US, and this kind of wholesale destruction of personal privacy is just their version of pigging out on comfort food when things go wrong.

  • Reality injection (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Maury Markowitz (452832) on Tuesday June 30, 2009 @04:23PM (#28534993) Homepage

    The purpose of the new legislation is to clearly define what information is and is not covered by the need for a warrant. Done right, this is a Good Thing.

    As the Minister pointed out, the police already have access to lots of information about you without the need for a warrant. This includes things like your phone number and address. Because this information is considered to be publicly available, the police can do reverse phone number lookups without a warrant. This does not allow them to tape your conversations, however.

    The proposed law is identical in nature, allowing the police to find your name from the IP address. AND NOTHING ELSE. They cannot read your mail, they cannot look at your search patterns, they cannot sniff your traffic. Those require a warrant.

    The situation seems perfectly analogous to the phone system, with the exception that we don't normally make big lists of IP addresses.

    You don't own your phone number, the phone company does. They are free to sell it to anyone they want - including the people you don't want them to, like telemarketers. So if Bell owns your phone number and is free to do what they want with it, how is it that someone connecting using Bell Internet expects them not to do the same with the IP they gave you? They own it too.

    And that's what the courts have decided, that the IP address you happen to be using is a routing code internal to the company that provides access, you have no control over it, and they can change it or give it away at any time. That being the case, they see no difference between IP's and telephone numbers, and applied the same expectation of privacy to both.

    Maury

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by frith01 (1118539)

      So what happens when the ISP shares your dynamic IP address with the pedo around the block who has the same ISP ?
      Would you like your information tied to his web searches ?

      Better yet, I could be running an open wireless point, or a TOR end-point, which could contain god knows what traffic on it ?

      how about during the time you have your computer off, I happen to spoof your ip address and you would never know about it.

    • That's quite a rosy picture you painted. All full of good intentions, of which Hell is full of.
      Here's a little exchange between the politician and the interviewer that lays waste to your innocence:

      Interviewer: Don't you think when people leave a comment on a internet message board and they don't use they're real name that they expect that to be private, that they don't expect that to be traced back to them by police without court order oversight?

      Politico: I'm not clear on the point that you're making [yeah,

  • by thirty-seven (568076) on Tuesday June 30, 2009 @04:46PM (#28535235)

    He was adamant that in regard to IP addresses, names, cell phone numbers, and email addresses: '...that is not the kind of information about which Canadians have a legitimate expectation of privacy.' The minister denied - even when presented with an audio clip proving otherwise - that his predecessor had promised never to allow the police to wiretap the Internet without a warrant."

    Getting someone's name, address, cell phone number, and email addresses is not the Internet equivalent of wiretapping. The Internet equivalent of wiretapping would be getting the content of your emails and other data that you send and receive.

    I'm not a fan of this bill to give these powers to police over ISPs, but it isn't as bad as too many of it critiques make it out to be. It isn't allowing police to warrantlessly get the contents of your email or other data that you send and receive - they can already get that information with a warrent and this bill does not seek to change that requirement.

  • Yes, this is the (increasingly fascist) U.S. I'm talking about, but telephone "pen registers" have never required a warrant for the police to acquire (though at some point I think they started needing to get a judge's order, which is a much weaker thing since the judge is essentially required to give if if they ask nicely).

    IP addresses, and the like, are entirely analogous to pen register data (which include what phones called what numbers, when, and for how long, but not the actual content of the phone c

  • It seems to me that child pornography is a really bad justification for warrantless searches. I mean if the police find child porn on the net, why not get a warrant? It is pretty easy to prove that you found child porn, just print it out and show it to the judge. If it is illegal, the judge will not hesitate to issue the warrant, I am sure. There are magistrates out there that just sit and wait for the police/fbi/etc. to send them a high priority warrant request to that they can approve/reject it within min

  • I do also suspect that the CR/LF conversion might be the source of your troubles. Thus, it's not a bug, it's a feature of the ftp protocol. I guess you could simply use binary mode for the ftp transfer.

    Now, let's assume that it's not an CR/LF problem but that instead for some unknown reason the ftp transfers get aborted and thus the file size mismatches. Okay, first of all, if you want to guarantee that a file that departed from one system is the very same file after its arrival on another system it is n

  • 1984 (Score:2, Interesting)

    by g34rs (1583313)
    I'm not sure I understand what's with the current fad amongst governments to act like big brother and disallow privacy on the internet. Maybe Orwell was right... if that's the case there is no country I can disappear to that I'll ever really appreciate the luxury of my own privacy!
  • He's the Government pit-bull, and will defend anything his political masters wish, even if they are currently illegal. After all, he can just pass a law, can't he?

    --dave

"No job too big; no fee too big!" -- Dr. Peter Venkman, "Ghost-busters"

Working...