Sometime in the next few weeks, Public Safety Minister Vic Toews is expected to be appointed to the Manitoba Court of Appeal. The Toews appointment is among the worst kept secrets in Ottawa, with the move causing a domino effect that will lead to a new minister and an opportunity for a fresh start on Internet surveillance legislation, one of the government's biggest political blunders to date.
My weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) notes that Toews infamously introduced the Internet surveillance bill, often referred to as lawful access, by stating that critics of the bill could either stand with the government or with child pornographers. The comments sparked outrage from across the political spectrum as Canadians questioned the need for the legislation, the lack of privacy safeguards, and the divisive communications strategy.
Within days, the bill was dead in the water, stuck in political limbo with the government unwilling to place it on the House of Commons agenda to allow for a few hours of debate so it could be sent to committee for further study. The bill remained stuck at first reading for months, one of the few government bills to effectively die after introduction.
With an upcoming opening at Public Safety, the government has at least two options. One approach is based on the premise that the controversy over the bill was due primarily to the messenger and not the substance of the bill. If the government determines that Toews was to blame, a new minister may simply tweak the communications strategy and push the bill through the legislative process.
Alternatively, a new minister provides a convenient opportunity for an Internet surveillance restart. The change in ministers would allow the government to walk away from Bill C-30 since new ministers often seek to place their own stamp on department policies and priorities. A fresh approach could include scrapping the bill, launching a public consultation, or asking a House of Commons committee to study the issue before moving ahead with new legislation.
The different lawful access possibilities are reminiscent of the public battle over copyright reform in 2007. After then Industry Minister Jim Prentice faced a public backlash over planned legislation, the government delayed introducing the copyright bill just hours before it was to have been tabled. The bill sat on the notice paper for six months as an internal debate raged over whether to introduce it largely unchanged (but with a new communications strategy) or to scrap it and go back to the drawing board.
The government opted for the first option, introducing the bill in June 2008. The bill faced the expected criticism and died soon thereafter. With a change in minister -- Tony Clement became Industry minister after a fall election -- the government started over, beginning with a national copyright consultation in 2010.
Several years later, the government faces many of the same political and policy dynamics with an unpopular Internet bill and questions about whether it can be saved. While it may be politically tempting to stay the course with a new minister, the better approach would be to start over.
Dropping Bill C-30 would send a strong signal that the government is prepared to re-examine the issue, starting with a full public consultation on how to best balance the need for online security with the public interest of appropriate privacy safeguards.
This blog originally ran on Michael Geist's site.
Follow Michael Geist on Twitter: www.twitter.com/mgeist
Now that they have a plan for Toews can Del Mastro be far behind?
Apparently they are biding their time, waiting on a bigger crime.
We already have a process that works, if there is sufficient evidence the police can monitor your internet in the same manner as your telephone, with a warrant.
I have a question for Prof. Geist though. Is it true that there is a planned exemption for the wireless companies? I mean it wouldn't take long for the bad guys to realize they can just tether their laptop to their smartphone and do as they please and save their wired connection for "regular" browsing.
Tor (used to stand for "The Onion Router", but it's no longer considered an abbreviation, so it's just "Tor"), is an anonymity network, used to surf the web (and more) anonymously. Basically, anyone running the Tor software on their computer runs a proxy, and traffic gets passed (encrypted) from one person running Tor to another person running Tor, multiple times through many users, until it get's to the page that you requested. Hence the term "Onion" used to describe it, since it works in "layers". Each person running Tor on their computer is called a "Node".
Many of the *bad* guys you reference are already using it.
He is there ONLY to push Ideology!
Perving your PC for fun and profit.
These rights have been under attack recently & this is just another method of reducing those freedoms.
The G8/G20 was a major fiasco using an archaic by-law to restrict movement. The actions of police removing their name badges demonstrates what lengths they will go to.
I am hopeful that Cdns will voice their concerns actively with their MP's & keep up the pressure on whomever the new minister is.
Any laws with internet surveillance must be inline with unlawful search & seizure; poliec should still be required to obtain warrants. The Patriot Act in the US allows for all sort of surveillance without the "burden" of proof required by one's rights.
It's scary what this Gov't could come up with.
"I was just paying the babysitter your Honour I swear"