Canadian Bill C-416 to Require Wiretapping 228
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."
where (Score:5, Insightful)
Private-members' bills almost never pass (Score:3, Insightful)
This has no chance.
Re: (Score:2)
This has no chance.
Re: (Score:2)
Parent and Grandparent poster: You do grasp that this is a private member's bill from Marlene Jennings, a member of the Liberal party?
HolmwoodRe: (Score:2)
Plus, despite what /. seems to think, the Conservatives in Canada don't bring up "terrorism & child pornography" nearly as often as the US Republicans. I recall very few occurrences of terrorism talk at the House of Commons, and none about child porn (at least, since the Conservatives took power).
While Harper looks like a good friend of Bush, he isn't as radical, or c
Re: (Score:2)
Are you kidding? This [theglobeandmail.com] is the same shit in a different pile.
Re: (Score:2)
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
South Africa (Score:2)
Re:where (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The only politics I see working are those for tribes of 100 people, where the leader is actually respected, and if not, lynched for cheating.
It may be a snap to win one riding i
Re: (Score:2)
Initial vote, to get the top n parties.
Then a second vote to get the top i parties of n.
Of course that's going to cost a bit... but at least you'll get a more reflective vote of the people.
Re: (Score:2)
Who can reach 1884 first? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
What was wrong with 1884? Slavery was over, prohibition hadnt happened yet. Great scientific strides where being made.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure there were disadvantages. They were able to pull through it which kicked in a new set of problems t
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
We're entitled to everything, we give up some things to ensure safety and equality. How much we give up is also up to us, or at least it is supposed to be. To say the opposite is to invite totalitarianism, which is the proper word for what most people mean by 'communism.' A society without freedom can happen no matter what you call your government or what the idiots in office preach.
Stopping the government from doing stupid things (in the absence of a
Re: (Score:2)
Editorial comments...bleh (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Editorial comments...bleh (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The Honourable Mr. Harper, our champion. (Score:2, Insightful)
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)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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!
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re:The Liberal and Conservative parties are the sa (Score:2)
You do realize that Chretien's campaign finance bill prevents corporations from donating more than $1,000/year to political parties? (the amount is adjusted for inflation each year) That might buy 30 seconds of TV ad time in a small market. And any company that receives more than 50% of its revenue from the government ca
Re: (Score:2)
However, you will often see another side during debates and even more during committee meetings. Surprisingly many members of parliament are able to engage in dialogue and sometimes even arrive at a consensus.
Maybe it is because Canada has a minority government, and can be overturned if all opposition parties so decide, b
you know ... (Score:5, Interesting)
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)
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: (Score:2)
INDEPTH: TORONTO BOMB PLOT [www.cbc.ca]
Canada faces 'jihad generation' [csmonitor.com]
But it will certainly stop all those fat old geezers looking at their hand-drawn child
Re:you know ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Balanced (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
You mean you will actually wait until the Liebenstandarte Richard Perle SS Division is marching down the 5th Avenue to concede the point? Because there is at least one formerly-democratic country wh
Re: (Score:2)
Re:you know ... (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
That was back in 1991. I have yet to see anything that has threatened Americans freedoms more than our own government.
Don't "correct" his opinions (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Funny how it's really all human nature.
Re: (Score:2)
And the number one sign that you just might be a narcissist is....
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I sure hope you never let your kids get in a car or leave the house at all, given how man
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I care just as much as you do - in that vague, detached sort of way we care about stuff happening to other people. Aww isn't that tragic - hey look, the Simpsons are on!
However I don't pretend to be some altruistic image of perfect love and caring. I admit that I'm human, and I care a hell of a lot MORE if it happens to me or someone I love than if it happens to someone I hear about in the news. I
Re: (Score:2)
You know, suicide bombers do it for a reason. A lot of the times it's money - for their family. So follow the money, and go after the family. Make sure they don't get ANY of it. Eventually when people realize they're blowing themselves up for nothing, well, not everyone wants to be vaporised for Allah. A few, but not the majority I'm sure.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Partisanship = Problem! (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Flamebait + misleading (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know about you, but I'd choose subway bombings over nazi Germany any time.
Re: (Score:2)
I hereby name anti-productive as the unword of the day.
Re: (Score:2)
"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-
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:you know ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Sentiments like these are of course the wet dream of every would-be-fascist out there. Because there is really no way to tell if someone who expressed violent thoughts about some politician or business-feudal-lord actually means it or is just venting. Not until an act of violence is commited, which is the actual crime. Any attempts at "pre-emption" inevietably lead to persecutions of all of those who express "sufficiently extreme" thoughts against the ruling elites. Following which everyone becomes "careful" (read: terrorized) about what they say and write. Following which the rulers announce that they know that the "extremists" (who hide under every bed by now) are "secretly" communicating and thinking their "violent desires". And after that comes Gestapo, Stasi, KGB etc.
You see the problem with your thinking is that you missed the fact that "fictional works" are simply recordings of thought. And once they become subject to monitoring and abuse by the authorities (who after all only want to protect us poor sods from the evil terrorists who hide in every closet) so do the thoughts in your head. As Orwell predicted with frightening foresight.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Slippery Slope fallacy (Score:2)
Classic Slippery Slope [wikipedia.org] fallacy:
You haven't provided a shred of independent justification for the claim that "requiring ISPs to provide the name of the owner of an IP address will inevitably lead to a police state a
Re: (Score:2)
That is of course a strawman assertion which you fabricated, since you cannot find this particular passage in my post. What I actually said is that attempts at "pre-emptive" crime fighting such as wholesale, warrantless monitoring of all electronic communications -- which is what this bill actually permits
You are mistaken - RTFA (Score:2)
You have clearly not read either the bill or the links regarding the bill in the submission. From the FAQ [cippic.ca] from those links:
Re: (Score:2)
Of course not! Jesus, by that definition, Alan Moore [wikipedia.org] should be "monitored" for writing V for Vendetta [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No. Works of fiction, fantasy, and straight reporting — in any medium, for any purpose — are not indicative of either "unhealthy behavior" or even an unhealthy tendency towards such behavior. Nor is the consumption / appreciation of such works. It is also worth noting that the production of such works may have an agenda that 10
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't rely on it as a primary, absolute signal that a person is trouble, but it should raise a few flags in combination with other things (especially past complaints about the person, or a relevant criminal history). It could very well be a clincher in the police's decision to label someone like that a "person of
Eh? (Score:3, Funny)
crypto (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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, Informative)
No. But history much. These regulations already exist in Britain and France.
Cite? (Score:2)
Crypto is illegal in Britain and France?
Really?
Then I'm sure you'll be able to provide cites and references, 'cuz I can't find anything as extreme as what you're claiming. The most recent complaints [zdnet.co.uk] I've found regarding the UK have been that the government is planning to allow police to compel suspects to decrypt data or divulge encryption keys.
That's (a) not "already existing" (as of today, the government's website [homeoffice.gov.uk] regarding the legislation indicates t
Re: (Score:2)
Yes really. It has been effectively outlawed from the hands of citizens in France by a set of laws culminating in the 1996 "july 26" bill which demands (in Article 17) that:
You are mistaken (Score:2)
You are mistaken:
Part 3 of RIPA has never been brought into force. [theregister.co.uk]
Evidence suggests that perhaps you should inform yourself better about these issues.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Liberal in USA vs. Liberal - Maybe OT? (Score:2)
Please, my non-American blokes, enlighten us Americans.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Canadian actually.
I am not by any means a libertarian of any stripe. However the recent activities of both the US and Canadian governments are beginning to worry me greatly. It appears that the social contract which our societies are supposed to have with those who gove
Story summary is misleading (Score:2)
They're not even trying to, at least based on the links provided in the story summary.
From here [cippic.ca], we read:
i.e., what they can do without a warrant is tell that you are the ow
A Liberal bill? (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, duh...
Re: (Score:2)
This story should be modded -1 Troll.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
How Convenient (Score:2)
It wont pass (Score:2, Informative)
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
Canadian History Lesson... (Score:2)
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]
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:Canadian History Lesson... (Score:5, Insightful)
"(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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Not a chance. (Score:2)
Could this be any more partisan? (Score:2, Insightful)
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)
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!
I would have expected better... (Score:3, Informative)
"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.
Canadian Bill C-416 - CORRECTION (Score:2, Informative)
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