Canadian Police Want New Internet Surveillance Tools 64
danomac writes "Police agencies in Canada want to have better tools to do online surveillance. Bill C-30 was to include new legislation (specifically Section 34) that would give police access to information without a warrant. This can contain your name, your IP address, and your mobile phone number. This, of course, creates all sorts of issues with privacy online. The police themselves say they have concerns with Section 34. Apparently, the way it is worded, it is not just police that can request the information, but any government agent. Would you trust the government with this kind of power?"
Fight this now! (Score:5, Insightful)
As somebody who grew up in Germany, I have seen ample historic precedent where this kind of snooping leads. Either fight it now or explain to your children in a decade or two why you did not prevent a surveillance state, where there is no free speech and no tolerated dissent.
free society? (Score:2, Insightful)
As the comments of the linked article suggest, there is no reason police can't get a warrant.
Of course that would entail some pillow talk...I mean probable cause arguments to a judge, I suppose. If even this tiny bit of protection is to be stripped away then all hope is truly lost for our free society.
Why? (Score:2, Insightful)
They can get a warrant very easily. Why do they want the power to go around that? If you have followed the HUGE outcry against C-30 you would also know that there will be no paper trail behind these requests either and politicians would also be allowed to make such requests. The current Canadian federal government is corrupt and shady and Canadians have already made it abundantly clear that we do not want this bill to pass.
Would you trust the government...? (Score:3, Insightful)
That question is pure flamebait... Put it in a Slashdot poll
Simply not acceptable (Score:4, Insightful)
There is a very important issue at stake here: transparency.
The ability to breach your privacy is a privilege granted to law enforcement for the purpose of fighting crime, but it is a privilege. The use of that privilege has to have just cause, which is what the whole warrant system is supposed to check.
The UK already has a problem with warrantless intercept based on a combination of RIPA 2000 and the magic word "terrorist", and from what I hear it is abused with gay abandon. Don't go there..
Re:Fight this now! (Score:3, Insightful)
Slashdot supports pseudonymity. That does not break anonymity. Your argument is wrong.
ACs are just people that it is rarely worthwhile to listen to as they do not participate in the reputation system.
Re:Works two ways. (Score:4, Insightful)
It's the internet bullies this week, what with that girl committing suicide and such.
Re:Fight this now! (Score:4, Insightful)
Indeed. The headline should have read: "Police Everywhere Want New Internet Surveillance Tools"