The notorious online "snooping" bill, C-30, looks like it may be coming back for round two. Earlier this year, the government rolled out legislation to enhance police powers in the cyber age. Bill C-30 would allow police to gather telecommunications service provider (TSP) subscriber data of cell phone and Internet users without warrants. As well, the legislation would force Telecoms to create back door spy channels into their networks to aid security agencies in keeping tabs of online criminals (and potentially ordinary citizens).
But the government's point-man on the file, Public Safety Minister Vic Toews, totally blew the rollout of this controversial bill. He stepped over the line by accusing Canadians concerned about the erosion of privacy rights of being on the side of "child pornographers." Within days, the file had grown so politically toxic that the Conservatives were forced to beat an ignominious retreat.
The backlash showed that Canadians take their privacy rights seriously. But people shouldn't be complacent as efforts are underway to put C-30 back on the agenda. It's being reported that the Harper government is under pressure from the U.S. and the U.K. to pass the bill to clear the path for Canada to ratify the Council of Europe's 2001 Convention on Cybercrime. As well, the Canadian Association of Police Chiefs (CACP) has launched a campaign under the banner of fighting "cyber-bullying" to get Toews to kick start the legislation.
No one disagrees that police should have the tools they need to do their jobs. The New Democrats strongly support the ability of police to go after cyber-stalkers and criminals. But updating police tools should not be a signal to declare open season on the privacy rights of ordinary citizens. Changes to legislation will require a real balancing act.
Balance is not a word you associate with Vic Toews. In response to any questions about good public policy, Vic seems to like invoking the bogeyman. He is the wrong person to handle this file.
For example, let's look at the provisions to allow police to demand TSP subscriber data without warrants. As it stands now, if police have reason to believe that crimes are being committed, they can obtain a warrant or production order. In wanting to bypass this step of court oversight, Towes claims that getting access to subscriber data is simply like getting access to a phone book.
The privacy commissioners of Canada disagree. In fact, Ontario Privacy Commissioner Anne Cavoukian says C-30 presents "one of the most invasive threats to our privacy and freedom that I have ever encountered."
She challenges Toews' claim that allowing basic subscriber information is the digital equivalent of using a phone book: "Customer name and address information ties us to our entire digital life, unlike a stationary street address. Therefore, 'subscriber information' is far from the modern day equivalent of a publicly available 'phone book'. Rather, it is the key to a much wider, sensitive subset of information."
In an unprecedented pushback against this legislation Canada's federal and provincial privacy commissioners challenged the claim that doing away with warrants will disadvantage security and law enforcement efforts:
"...At no time have Canadian authorities provided the public with any evidence or reasoning to suggest that CSIS or any other Canadian law enforcement agencies have been frustrated in the performance of their duties as a result of shortcomings attributable to current law, tailored approach is vital. In our view, this balance has not been achieved."
The privacy commissioners go further by warning that this bill will enhance "the capacity of the state to conduct surveillance and access private information while reducing the frequency and vigour of judicial scrutiny."
If Vic Toews wants to ensure our police have the tools they need to protect Canadians in the cyber age, he will have to treat citizens with the respect they deserve.
Canadians aren't fools. Privacy matters to us. So does balance. Justifications for online snooping by the state are not going to be solved by invoking buzzwords and bogeymen. If C-30 comes back in its current form, Canadians will push back hard. The New Democrats believe that privacy rights need to be enshrined into the design of the bill. In this way, they will deliver for citizens, the police and our international allies.
Newspapers and blogs are no different, if someone using anonomiser tries to comment their comments will not be accepted because they can't verify the ip address.
This is a very real possibility with Bill C-30 because if it ever gets approval, you'll see many companies set up shop going after people for money for what they watched or downloaded off the net. It's happening in the U.S. right now, people are getting letters and served for copyright infringement and asked to pay $2000 to $5000 per infringement or these companies will take them to court. Imagine how many lowlifes will start doing this as a legal way of making $$$ from people, all because something like Bill C-30 is put into place? Don't think for a minute law officials will keep your privacy intact as well, you know it will get into the wrong hands and then average citizens will be at the mercy of these companies coming after for you for downloads or content you watched.
Think it's not going to happen? It may not but with Bill C-30, there's a good possibility of anything shady taking place against Canadian citizens.
Police have had the ability to watch child pornographers for years online, that's nothing new. In fact, the police actively infiltrate many websites, closed dark net groups and bulletin board activities when it comes to child pornographic material and pictures. The guise of having Bill C-30 for their use in helping catch pornographers certainly isn't true, they've done without it for years with success.
The bigger issue about Bill C-30 isn't about child pornography as it is about copyright & IP infringement. The government wants the ability to get names from an ISP without a warrant now for file sharing and downloading. This is where Canada and other countries are heading in terms of enforcement. They're bowing to pressure from the U.S. to crack down on music, movie and software sharing and now the government wants to put measures into place to ensure all infringers can be caught without a warrant or even a warning.
If you're reading this, do yourself a favour and go to the Openmedia.ca website and read up on what Bill C-30 means to the average Canadian. It's pretty scary to know the government wants to know where you go on the internet and what you download or watch.
Bill C-30 isn't about catching criminals, it's about spying on everyone who surfs the net in Canada.
The main argument against maintaining our privacy is that it is too slow and cumbersome for the police. Let's speed up the process if this is true. More judges -- available always to issue warrants. At least we will then have someone to hold accountable. Otherwise insider trading information and other financial goodies will be available to every law enforcement officer. So will all other aspects of our private lives.
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
Let's spy on Vic Toews and his kids babysitter.
The attack on the populace begins.
sorry doesnt fly im against this for ever...
Lets face it, our cyber laws, were written how long ago? And how much has the tech developed since then?
As far as I'm concerned, if the police need a warrant to look up my phone records, they need a warrant for my internet records.
BTW, I've singed every petition about Bill C-30.
harper minions will lauch the first assault. Anyone speaking out against harperites, let alone those of us that label them lower than dog poop, will have their names added to this revived East Germany practise.
It WILL, happen! State survealance will grow under the Dog.
http://harpercrusade.blogspot.ca/ read this and it will give you a sence of what is happening. I verified the footnotes, at the library, and it seems to be the truth.
...Here was a chance for the NDP to stake out ground that distinguished them from all other parties. Mulcair (who unfortunately does support “free trade”) could have used these deals (FIPA, CETA (the EU deal) and the Trans Pacific Partnership) to lambast their potential destructive impact on the country and argue against more such agreements. None of them have anything to do with trade – they are all about corporate rights, just like NAFTA and the WTO. **
As for the Total Information Awareness security/surveillance network built and operational, literally and legally (via the slew of fascist police state laws dropped on Americans, and by extension, the world, by George W. Bush and Obama, That can't be ignored by Stephen Harper, who understands that where the don leads, the lesser crime families must follow - or else. And that's why Stephen Harper is our prime minister. He can go there.
We can't attack bill C-30 in isolation, incidentally. The world is a global village. It's integrated, if not harmonious. - Arby
"The New Democrats believe that privacy rights need to be enshrined into the design of the bill. In this way, they will deliver for citizens, the police and our international allies."
Uh huh. Yesterday, The NDP was against free trade deals, which are nothing more than packages of rights for corporations that require the state, in it's ability to respond to voters/citizens needs and wants, be weakened and it's repressive police appendages be strengthened in order to deal ('profitably' for private sector security companies) with the 'anticipated' (appropriate [http://bit.ly/bR1mV0]) negative response of citizens to the continued squeezing (exploiting) of them by the state's private sector partners, our employers. Today, It's for them. Ergo...
"Is The NDP Becoming Liberal Lite?" by Murray Dobbin:
** But instead of listening carefully to this embedded message about who Canadians really are, Thomas Mulcair and the NDP decided instead to listen to the polls showing the Liberals (read Justin “He doesn’t really want the job” Trudeau) gaining ground at their expense. The result? A complete about-face on so-called “free trade” deals. Instead of highlighting three incredibly destructive investment agreements currently in the news they panicked – ending their commitment to get out of NAFTA, calling on the WTO to re-launch global trade talks and urging Harper to sign deals with India, Brazil and South Africa...
I agree with what you say but why should everyone have to go to these lengths? The internet is one of the last bastions of freedom right now and, even then, every government agency, big corporation and thief is chipping away at it. People shouldn't feel 100% safe or protected online but they should feel as though they can do normal things without the fear of someone exposing their web history.
I have to say though that it was pretty funny watching the cons try to figure out how they were going to get Anonymous to go to Ottawa to explain their actions to a committee.