Internet surveillance (Bill C-30)

[capricorn]

This is not a thread about Vic Toews or his misguided comments, nor his personal life. This is a thread about the substance of Bill C-30 and how matters go forward in the interests of Canadians. From what I have gleaned so far, there are parts of this Bill that are worth saving and it goes without saying that there are parts that definitely need amendment, as enunciated by the Bill's many critics. Specifically, I am totally against the release of information without a warrant, regardless of the circumstances. What is positive are those parts of the Bill that actually appear to strengthen the protection of the privacy of Canadians in their online activities.

The bill actually addresses two significant concerns associated with the warrantless disclosure issue. First, the prior lawful access bill included a very broad list of data points that could be disclosed, raising serious security concerns and the potential for misuse. The number of data points has shrunk from 11 to six. While some of the data points still constitute potentially sensitive personal information (particularly IP and email addresses), a smaller list is better than a larger one.

Second, with Internet providers and telecom companies providing subscriber data without a warrant 95 per cent of the time, there is a huge information disclosure issue with no reporting and no oversight. The RCMP alone made more than 28,000 requests for customer names and addresses in 2010. These requests go unreported as subscribers don’t know their information has been disclosed and the Internet providers and telecom companies aren’t talking either. The bill would add new reporting requirements to these disclosures, which should allow for insights into what providers and police are doing with subscriber information.

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/business/governments+pass+privacy+bill/6181712/story.html

Here's a compromise I find attractive.

But what if a new warrant specific to subscriber information could be developed? Such a warrant could feature a low threshold along with rapid authorization and lower costs. For law enforcement, it would provide the access they want, while for privacy advocates it would maintain the oversight principle.

This is a golden opportunity for the opposition parties to make a valuable contribution by coming up with suggestions for amendments. And who can deny that they need such opportunities to give credence to the value of the role they play in a majority situation. Although the Conservatives hold a majority, it is also to their advantage to come out looking good by incorporating valid amendments following honest and open debate in Committee and in the House.

And when the government hears from our Privacy Commissioner, they and the opposition should be all ears when they hear from her. She's had plenty of experience with the privacy side of internet matters and her contribution will be instrumental in these deliberations.

Now, I know it will be difficult for some not to drag Toews into the discussion. IMO, make no mistake. Toews will be ultimately dealt with by the Prime Minister, of this I am convinced.

What are your ideas to make this a law that would quell your privacy concerns while equipping the authorities with the tools to nab child predators, pornographers and other assorted criminals?

[cybercoma]

Section 487.0195 "opens the door to police approaching ISPs and asking them [...] to turn over any subscriber information - including emails or web surfing activities - without a warrant," in the words of Michael Geist.

http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6331/125/

Edited February 21, 2012 by cybercoma

[Keepitsimple]

Probably deserves its own thread but Bill C30 is supported by both the Chiefs of Police and the Police Association. This article gives a look to the legislation from the other side:

Section 17 of the bill outlines the "exceptional circumstances" under which "any police officer" can request an internet service provider (ISP) to turn over customer information without a warrant.

"We believe the new legislation will assist police with the necessary tools to investigate crimes while balancing, if not strengthening, the privacy rights for Canadians through the addition of oversight not currently in place," said Vancouver police Deputy Chief Warren Lemcke.

"We also need the privacy safeguards to ensure were accountable in the use of these tools, and we believe Bill C-30 provides just that."

Lemcke said the law would only give police access to subscriber information, and investigators would still need warrants to actually monitor internet communications.

Link: http://ca.news.yahoo.com/online-surveillance-bill-backed-police-chiefs-200608624.html

Edited February 21, 2012 by Keepitsimple

[dre]

This is not a thread about Vic Toews or his misguided comments, nor his personal life. This is a thread about the substance of Bill C-30 and how matters go forward in the interests of Canadians. From what I have gleaned so far, there are parts of this Bill that are worth saving and it goes without saying that there are parts that definitely need amendment, as enunciated by the Bill's many critics. Specifically, I am totally against the release of information without a warrant, regardless of the circumstances. What is positive are those parts of the Bill that actually appear to strengthen the protection of the privacy of Canadians in their online activities.

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/business/governments+pass+privacy+bill/6181712/story.html

Here's a compromise I find attractive.

This is a golden opportunity for the opposition parties to make a valuable contribution by coming up with suggestions for amendments. And who can deny that they need such opportunities to give credence to the value of the role they play in a majority situation. Although the Conservatives hold a majority, it is also to their advantage to come out looking good by incorporating valid amendments following honest and open debate in Committee and in the House.

And when the government hears from our Privacy Commissioner, they and the opposition should be all ears when they hear from her. She's had plenty of experience with the privacy side of internet matters and her contribution will be instrumental in these deliberations.

Now, I know it will be difficult for some not to drag Toews into the discussion. IMO, make no mistake. Toews will be ultimately dealt with by the Prime Minister, of this I am convinced.

What are your ideas to make this a law that would quell your privacy concerns while equipping the authorities with the tools to nab child predators, pornographers and other assorted criminals?

Thats a terrible idea. This entire bill needs to not only be scrapped it needs to be replace by a bill that is the exact literal opposite. Its not too hard for the government to get at this information its too EASY. What we should be doing, is ensuring that people that use the internet feel free, and safe, and that their transmissions are legaly treated as their own private property. Why should your ISP even be ALLOWED to do anything besides route your information to the next device down the line?

Theres simply no need for this bill or anything in it. Police should be able to get a court order, that forces an ISP to put a listener on your port and record information only while the warrant is valid. They should not be able to retroactively apply a search warrant.

Do you fully comprehend the fact that the government is trying to throw out judicial principles that are hundreds of years old, using an emotional but relatively minor problem as an excuse to drastically change the way the internet works, and the ammount of privacy that its users have?

What is the justification for ANY of this garbage?

[dre]

Probably deserves its own thread but Bill C30 is supported by both the Chiefs of Police and the Police Association. This article gives a look to the legislation from the other side:

Link: http://ca.news.yahoo.com/online-surveillance-bill-backed-police-chiefs-200608624.html

OF COURSE law enforcement wants to reduce freedom and privacy!!! Its a real hassle for them needing a court order to search our homes, go through our mail, record our phone calls, bug our homes, or read our emails.

In other breaking news, the fox has announced his public support for weaker fencing around the chicken coup!!!!

This is the slipperiest slope EVER. The ammount of electronic information about us thats floating around in cyberspace is exponentially increasing, and the problem we face is that we dont have ENOUGH privacy, not that we have too much. The problem isnt that the government and law enforcement isnt powerfull enough, its that its TOO powerful.

We need to draw a line in the sand.

Edited February 21, 2012 by dre

[capricorn]

Thanks for your views dre. I was somewhat aware of where you stood on this and you make your case.

What we should be doing, is ensuring that people that use the internet feel free, and safe, and that their transmissions are legaly treated as their own private property.

In essence, you're saying turn back the clock. I think we're way past being able to do that. So to me the question becomes where do we go from here?

Do you fully comprehend the fact that the government is trying to throw out judicial principles that are hundreds of years old,

I've already said I'm against any action without warrants. The intent of the Bill will surely become clearer through committee and house proceedings, which will include submissions at hearings by experts, the authorities and ordinary Canadians. The fact the bill was referred to committee before second reading tells me the Conservatives are leaving a lot of time for discussion and debate.

[Shakeyhands]

I haven't read enough about the bill to provide any insight here yet.

Having said that, I was very surprised at two of the comments;

by Capricorn "Although the Conservatives hold a majority, it is also to their advantage to come out looking good by incorporating valid amendments following honest and open debate in Committee and in the House."

and by Keepitsimple "Bill C30 is supported by both the Chiefs of Police and the Police Association."

I'll go and read the substance of the bill now, but I find both of these comments pretty funny, you know why.

[dre]

Thanks for your views dre. I was somewhat aware of where you stood on this and you make your case.

In essence, you're saying turn back the clock. I think we're way past being able to do that. So to me the question becomes where do we go from here?

I've already said I'm against any action without warrants. The intent of the Bill will surely become clearer through committee and house proceedings, which will include submissions at hearings by experts, the authorities and ordinary Canadians. The fact the bill was referred to committee before second reading tells me the Conservatives are leaving a lot of time for discussion and debate.

I've already said I'm against any action without warrants.

Right we agree on that, but the real question is should warrants be applied retroactively. The government can already have your ISP start monitoring your connection if it can get a court order. THe requirement to archive though would give them a brand new and extremely dangerous power. The ability to get their hands on information that you sent or recieve BEFORE a judge had authorized such a warrant.

In essence, you're saying turn back the clock. I think we're way past being able to do that. So to me the question becomes where do we go from here?

Well we definately will eventually have to turn the clock back eventually because we simply cannot AFFORD to pay for a big brother state. But for now, I would be happy to simply draw a line in the sand, and stand up for our rights to make sure things dont get even worse.

But even worse is the idea that we would give government a bunch of new rights to infringe apon our rights, without any kind of good reason at all being given, and whats terrifying is that people would be stupid enough to fall for an attempt to justify the archiving of billions of terrabytes of data belong to millions and millions of people based on some fearmongering about pedophiles.

What is the problem we are trying to fix here? A problem so severe it requires the costly archiving of petabytes of data belonging to hundreds of millions of people?

[Sa'adoni]

This is not a thread about Vic Toews or his misguided comments, nor his personal life. This is a thread about the substance of Bill C-30 and how matters go forward in the interests of Canadians. From what I have gleaned so far, there are parts of this Bill that are worth saving and it goes without saying that there are parts that definitely need amendment, as enunciated by the Bill's many critics. Specifically, I am totally against the release of information without a warrant, regardless of the circumstances. What is positive are those parts of the Bill that actually appear to strengthen the protection of the privacy of Canadians in their online activities.

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/business/governments+pass+privacy+bill/6181712/story.html

Here's a compromise I find attractive.

This is a golden opportunity for the opposition parties to make a valuable contribution by coming up with suggestions for amendments. And who can deny that they need such opportunities to give credence to the value of the role they play in a majority situation. Although the Conservatives hold a majority, it is also to their advantage to come out looking good by incorporating valid amendments following honest and open debate in Committee and in the House.

And when the government hears from our Privacy Commissioner, they and the opposition should be all ears when they hear from her. She's had plenty of experience with the privacy side of internet matters and her contribution will be instrumental in these deliberations.

Now, I know it will be difficult for some not to drag Toews into the discussion. IMO, make no mistake. Toews will be ultimately dealt with by the Prime Minister, of this I am convinced.

What are your ideas to make this a law that would quell your privacy concerns while equipping the authorities with the tools to nab child predators, pornographers and other assorted criminals?

You are forgetting an important point. Legislators don't follow the law they make law.

[capricorn]

Right we agree on that, but the real question is should warrants be applied retroactively. The government can already have your ISP start monitoring your connection if it can get a court order. THe requirement to archive though would give them a brand new and extremely dangerous power. The ability to get their hands on information that you sent or recieve BEFORE a judge had authorized such a warrant.

I don't get it. If a warrant is granted due to the detection and proof of criminal activity, prior internet activity of suspects would be as incriminating as the activity which caused the issuance of said warrant. How would that work against individuals outside the scope of the warrant?

What is the problem we are trying to fix here? A problem so severe it requires the costly archiving of petabytes of data belonging to hundreds of millions of people?

I expect the opposition to ask and the government to answer.

[dre]

I don't get it. If a warrant is granted due to the detection and proof of criminal activity, prior internet activity of suspects would be as incriminating as the activity which caused the issuance of said warrant. How would that work against individuals outside the scope of the warrant?

I expect the opposition to ask and the government to answer.

I don't get it. If a warrant is granted due to the detection and proof of criminal activity, prior internet activity of suspects would be as incriminating as the activity which caused the issuance of said warrant. How would that work against individuals outside the scope of the warrant?

Because search warrants currently are "forward looking" instruments. They can only start violating your right to privacy AFTER they get a court order. This is a huge legal question because there is so much more electronic information out there than ever before, and its the worlds most slippery slope. This is a radical departure. It would basically allow them to go on a retroactive fishing expedition.

If ISP's have to record x months of activity then why not telelphone companies? Why not post offices? You can make all the same arguments for the archiving of that data as well. And they will be able to make all the same arguments for the REST of the data out there as well. If the government starts winning these arguments it leads pretty quickly to full on monitored state complete with cameras and listening devices, and absolutely no privacy at all.

I expect the opposition to ask and the government to answer.

Youre writing a thread on here defending parts of this bill, yet you cant even name the problem that the bill is trying to solve in the first place? Isnt that backwards? Shouldnt we have that discussion BEFORE we draft bills that radically alter the rules around one of our most important means of communication and commerce?

Do you have ANY compelling reason to support ANY part of this legislation what-so-ever? Can you think of any reason why its needed?

Dont you think we oughtta employ a healthy dose of suspicion and critical thinking when the government is considering stripping us of our rights?

Edited February 21, 2012 by dre

[cybercoma]

Probably deserves its own thread but Bill C30 is supported by both the Chiefs of Police and the Police Association. This article gives a look to the legislation from the other side:

Link: http://ca.news.yahoo.com/online-surveillance-bill-backed-police-chiefs-200608624.html

Lemcke is wrong.

[dre]

But I want to go back to your origional post Cap, because I missed an important piece. My own fault for being pre-occupied with denouncing this fetid monstrosity, and not reading your post carefully.

Heres a snippet from your post...

What is positive are those parts of the Bill that actually appear to strengthen the protection of the privacy of Canadians in their online activities.

So I read your article, and was really disturbed to see how right you were about one part.

Second, with Internet providers and telecom companies providing subscriber data without a warrant 95 per cent of the time, there is a huge information disclosure issue with no reporting and no oversight. The RCMP alone made more than 28,000 requests for customer names and addresses in 2010. These requests go unreported as subscribers don’t know their information has been disclosed and the Internet providers and telecom companies aren’t talking either. The bill would add new reporting requirements to these disclosures, which should allow for insights into what providers and police are doing with subscriber information.

Mind boggling. Absolutely sickening.

So my demand that you name a "problem" that requires fixing was answered before I even made it. This is absolutely a huge problem, and I apologize for ignoring the part of your post that talks about fixing existing privacy concerns.

These ISP's need to fined a thousand dollars for each of the 28000 times per year they have violated our privacy and shared our proprietary personal information with a party that had no legal authorization to request it. Then the law enforcement personel involved in this abuse need to be frog-marched into courts, and punished.

This provides a very clear justification for the kind of law that I called for before. ISP's need to be served notice that if they share our information with any party besides the owner of the machine named in the DestinationIP header in the outgoing data packet they are commiting a crime.

So maybe we can salvage this bill after all!

1. Take out the clause forcing ISP's to archive our private data, and replace it with one forbidding them from archiving our private data. This is just common sense after all because we contract with these companies to transmit data NOT to store it.

2. Add severe penalties for ISP's that share you data with ANYONE besides your intended recipient, unless that person has an order signed by a judge.

3. Remove everything else in the bill besides 1 and 2.

Youre right cap! This whole time there WAS a path to reasonable compromise here

[bjre]

This is not a thread about Vic Toews or his misguided comments, nor his personal life. This is a thread about the substance of Bill C-30 and how matters go forward in the interests of Canadians. .....

Most new legislation are against most Canadian's interest.

They cares only about the interest of legal industry. i.e. cops and courts and jails.

How to educate children are the duty of parents and schools.

There are plenty of dangerous situation in the real world.

Laws can not remove all bad content in the world.

The result of the new legislation is only take more tax payer's money and make more bully cops and make more innocents "criminals".

How many percent of murder's have been caught? Cops should do that first before they start to bully people.

BTW, I believe the violent scenes in movies and TVs everywhere are more dangerous than just a naked picture like Cupid which has been existing for hundreds of years and who have think it has any harm to children. Only when connect it to bad behavior will do harm, those connection are usually created by the legal industry.

Edited February 21, 2012 by bjre

[olpfan1]

ROFL, yeah no shiat the Police support this bill... are we supposed to think Oh my if the police support it we've got to have it!

[olpfan1]

As for exceptional request it says "If the Officer believes", that Officer could say he believes something that he does not just to justify getting all of that information..I DO NOT trust the police with these powers nor do I trust CSIS or anyone else

This bill better get scrapped

Edited February 21, 2012 by olpfan1

[olpfan1]

The Exceptional Circumstances does not excuse the police officer of anything. As Section 17(3) states the police officer must follow the normal requirement of obtaining the proper documentation within 24 hours.

and again police lie..haven't you watched the 5th season of The Wire? making up fake serial killers just to get on a wire tap

[olpfan1]

Exceptional circumstances

17. (1) Any police officer may, orally or in writing, request a telecommunications service provider to provide the officer with the information referred to in subsection 16(1) in the following circumstances:

(a) the officer believes on reasonable grounds that the urgency of the situation is such that the request cannot, with reasonable diligence, be made under that subsection;

So we're judging "exceptional circumstances" on the police officer or csis etc discretion? what is urgent to make their case might not be urgent at all..who is to say what is urgent and what is not urgent

show me the guidelines on what is constituted as urgent

( the officer believes on reasonable grounds that the information requested is immediately necessary to prevent an unlawful act that would cause serious harm to any person or to property; and © the information directly concerns either the person who would perform the act that is likely to cause the harm or is the victim, or intended victim, of the harm.

TO PREVENT AN UNLAWFUL ACT? Now the police are the mind police? you see nothing wrong with that? what are reasonable grounds? is it outlined? or am I just supposed to take the crooked cops word for it?

[dre]

I was fortunate to find an actual copy of Bill C-30, I cannot get a link to it but was able to provide some Sections from the Bill below. The media and others appear concerned about Sections 16, 17 and 34. I deal with Acts on a regular basis and I have always found it is necessary to include the definitions and purpose in any interpretations therefore I have copied those as well.

I welcome you to read my summary that follows below.

Excuse the "emotion" and the "copyright symbol" for "b" and "c". Actually they were humorous and made reading a dry Act a little enjoyable so I left them in

SHORT TITLE

Short title

1. This Act may be cited as the Investigating and Preventing Criminal Electronic Communications Act.

INTERPRETATION

Definitions

2. (1) The following definitions apply in this Act.

“authorized”, in relation to a person, means having authority, under the Criminal Code or the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act, to intercept communications.

“communication” means a communication effected by a means of telecommunication and includes any related telecommunications data or other ancillary information.

“intercept”

“intercept” includes listen to, record or acquire a communication or acquire the substance, meaning or purport of the communication.

“Minister”

“Minister” means the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.

“person” includes a partnership, an unincorporated organization, a government, a government agency and any other person or entity that acts in the name of or for the benefit of another.

“prescribed” means prescribed by the regulations.

“telecommunications data” means data relating to the telecommunications functions of dialling, routing, addressing or signalling that identifies or purports to identify the origin, type, direction, date, time, duration, size, destination or termination of a telecommunication generated or received by means of a telecommunications facility or the type of telecommunications service used. It also means any transmission data that may be obtained under subsection 492.2(1) of the Criminal Code.

“telecommunications facility” means any facility, apparatus or other thing that is used for telecommunications or for any operation directly connected with telecommunications.

“telecommunications service” means a service, or a feature of a service, that is provided by means of telecommunications facilities, whether the provider owns, leases or has any other interest in or right respecting the telecommunications facilities and any related equipment used to provide the service.

“telecommunications service provider” means a person that, independently or as part of a group or association, provides telecommunications services.

“transmission apparatus” means any apparatus of a prescribed class whose principal functions are one or more of the following:

(a) the switching or routing of communications;

( the input, capture, storage, organization, modification, retrieval, output or other processing of communications;

© the control of the speed, code, protocol, content, format, switching or routing or similar aspects of communications; or

(d) any other function that is similar to one described in paragraphs (a) to ©.

Preservation of existing powers

(2) Nothing in this Act derogates from any power in the Criminal Code, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act or Part V.1 of the National Defence Act to intercept communications or to request that telecommunications service providers assist in such interceptions.

PURPOSE

3. The purpose of this Act is to ensure that telecommunications service providers have the capability to enable national security and law enforcement agencies to exercise their authority to intercept communications and to require telecommunications service providers to provide subscriber and other information, without unreasonably impairing the privacy of individ-uals, the provision of telecommunications services to Canadians or the competitiveness of the Canadian telecommunications industry.

Obligations Concerning Subscriber Information

Provision of subscriber information

16. (1) On written request by a person designated under subsection (3) that includes prescribed identifying information, every telecommunications service provider must provide the person with identifying information in the service provider’s possession or control respecting the name, address, telephone number and electronic mail address of any subscriber to any of the service provider’s telecommunications services and the Internet protocol address and local service provider identifier that are associated with the subscriber’s service and equipment.

Purpose of the request

(2) A designated person must ensure that he or she makes a request under subsection (1) only in performing, as the case may be, a duty or function

(a) of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service under the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act;

( of a police service, including any related to the enforcement of any laws of Canada, of a province or of a foreign jurisdiction; or

© of the Commissioner of Competition under the Competition Act.

Designated persons

(3) The Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, the Commissioner of Competition and the chief or head of a police service constituted under the laws of a province may designate for the purposes of this section any employee of his or her agency, or a class of such employees, whose duties are related to protecting national security or to law enforcement.

Limit on number of designated persons

(4) The number of persons designated under subsection (3) in respect of a particular agency may not exceed the greater of five and the number that is equal to five per cent of the total number of employees of that agency.

Delegation

(5) The Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service may delegate his or her power to designate persons under subsection (3) to, respectively, a member of a prescribed class of senior officers of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police or a member of a prescribed class of senior officials of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.

Exceptional circumstances

17. (1) Any police officer may, orally or in writing, request a telecommunications service provider to provide the officer with the information referred to in subsection 16(1) in the following circumstances:

(a) the officer believes on reasonable grounds that the urgency of the situation is such that the request cannot, with reasonable diligence, be made under that subsection;

( the officer believes on reasonable grounds that the information requested is immediately necessary to prevent an unlawful act that would cause serious harm to any person or to property; and

© the information directly concerns either the person who would perform the act that is likely to cause the harm or is the victim, or intended victim, of the harm.

The police officer must inform the telecommunications service provider of his or her name, rank, badge number and the agency in which he or she is employed and state that the request is being made in exceptional circumstances and under the authority of this subsection.

Obligation of telecommunications service provider

(2) The telecommunications service provider must provide the information to the police officer as if the request were made by a designated person under subsection 16(1).

Communication

(3) The police officer must, within 24 hours after making a request under subsection (1), communicate to a designated person employed in the same agency as the officer all of the information relating to the request that would be necessary if it had been made under subsection 16(1) and inform that person of the circumstances referred to in paragraphs (1)(a) to ©.

Notice

(4) On receiving the information, the designated person must in writing inform the telecommunications service provider that the request was made in exceptional circumstances under the authority of subsection (1).

ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT

Designation

33. (1) The Minister may designate persons or classes of persons as inspectors for the purposes of the administration and enforcement of this Act.

Certificate of designation

(2) An inspector is to receive a certificate attesting to their designation and must, on request, present the certificate to any person appearing to be in charge of any place that the inspector enters under subsection 34(1).

Authority to enter

34. (1) An inspector may, for a purpose related to verifying compliance with this Act, enter any place owned by, or under the control of, any telecommunications service provider in which the inspector has reasonable grounds to believe there is any document, information, transmission apparatus, telecommunications facility or any other thing to which this Act applies.

Powers on entry

(2) The inspector may, for that purpose,

(a) examine any document, information or thing found in the place and open or cause to be opened any container or other thing;

( examine or test or cause to be tested any telecommunications facility or transmission apparatus or related equipment found in the place;

© use, or cause to be used, any computer system in the place to search and examine any information contained in or available to the system;

(d) reproduce, or cause to be reproduced, any information in the form of a printout, or other intelligible output, and remove the printout, or other output, for examination or copying; or

(e) use, or cause to be used, any copying equipment or means of telecommunication at the place.

In summary it is my conclusion the media and others simply want to create a hysteria and paranoia because after all that sells papers and creates more listeners and viewers. The views of the political parties are obvious, anyone can easily predict what parties will support the Bill and what parties will oppose the Bill.

I have not looked at the existing telecommunications surveillance Act but I suspect the existing Act and Bill C-30 are very similar. Every government both Federal and Provincial review their respective Acts every 5 to 10 years in order to bring them up to date

As for the Sections of concerns, these are my opinions

Under Section 2 this authorizes persons with authority under the Criminal Code or the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. Although there is a mention of a person with authority under the Competitions Act contained specifically within one Section of this Act having specific authority.

Sections 16 and 17 deal with EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES and it goes on to indicate what are EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES. It is obvious to me that Routine Investigations are not Exceptional Circumstances. Perhaps there needs to be some Sections that deals with Routine Investigations where a Warrant is required.

Sections 33 and 34 deal with the ADMINISTRATION and ENFORCEMENT of this Act, the Investigating and Preventing Criminal Electronic Communications Act not any information dealing with the Criminal Code or the Security Act. The Administrators of this Investigating and Preventing Criminal Electronic Communications Act have NO authority as spelled out in the Definitions to view anything dealing with the Criminal Code or under the Security Act. An Administrator under this Investigating and Preventing Criminal Electronic Communications Act is called an Inspector to make certain the information is being collected properly much like a Meat Inspector make certain the meat products are being handled properly.

I see nothing wrong with this Bill, other than some fine tuning here and there and perhaps some clarifications and further explanations of some other things

I see a whole lot wrong with it.

The exception circumstances clauses are entirely bogus. These requests are going to take a bit of time... techs at the ISP will need go in, pull the data, and export it into some kind of deliverable. This process is going to take a few hours especially if the ISPs are bogged down with lots of requests for information and we now know they are. So theres absolutely no reason to waive the search warrant. Police could submit a request for the information they want, and then talk to a judge while that information is being collected prior to it actually being turned over.

Theres huge problems with this as well...

An Administrator under this Investigating and Preventing Criminal Electronic Communications Act is called an Inspector to make certain the information is being collected properly

ISP's are not in the business of collecting information. They are in the business of trasmitting information. They shouldnt be storing ANYTHING besides what they need to facilitate billing etc, and they shouldnt be archiving ANY data for ANY length of time. Im not sure people understand the cost of archiving all of the digital data sent and recieved by 30 million people but this places an expensive and totally unreasonable burden on ISP's, and will make it even harder for competition to emerge which is something Canada badly needs. We have some of the worst telecomm service on the entire planet, and most expensive.

Further more all you did was look over the text and claim you didnt see anything wrong with it, but thats putting the cart way before the horse. We still havent established any real need for this legislation, and the huge costs that could be associated with it. Thats what needs to happen first.

This sounds to me like the Conservatives version of the long gun registry. It seemed so simple at the time to say "oh this is no big deal, we just need to collect and store a little bit of information when guns are sold!!!". A few hundred million dollars later people stopped saying that. And while I cant comment without seeing EXACTLY what "make certain the information is being collected properly" means if what they are talking about is collecting the digital information sent by 30 million people for a number of months then this will make the gun registry look like dinner out at Macdonalds.

Beyond this specific legislation this entire approach is absolutely wrong-headed, and completely unnecessary.

[olpfan1]

rofl you are comparing storing songs on an ipod to ISPs saving personal information

and you ask us to ask the police if they'd like these new powers

Did the CPC hire you and tell you to post pro thoughts on this?

that is what it looks like

[CPCFTW]

ROFL, yeah no shiat the Police support this bill... are we supposed to think Oh my if the police support it we've got to have it!

Only if it's the gun registry. Flip flop flip flop.

[CPCFTW]

and again police lie..haven't you watched the 5th season of The Wire? making up fake serial killers just to get on a wire tap

Wow.. Did I really just read that?

[Keepitsimple]

ROFL, yeah no shiat the Police support this bill... are we supposed to think Oh my if the police support it we've got to have it!

To some degree, my post on the Police Support was tongue in cheek....because supporters of the Long Gun Registry were quick to trot out the same Police Support for their own cause.....and that was an issue of privacy as well. But the essence of the Bill is twofold - and it should be debated and refined in committee:

1) Take away some of the Police power that exists today. Under "emergency" situations, police can demand and get information from your ISP without a warrant. This was in place long before the Conservatives were elected. They are trying to fix that with this bill. They are defining the situations that police can use these powers so that they can't engage in fishing expeditions.....and they must report every occurance. They are trying to fix a problem that exists today with regards to our privacy rights.......and since very few people even knew about this special power, it doesn't seem to have been abused.

2) To support the ability to solve criminal internet crime, the Bill empowers law enforcement to get subscriber information in order to get a warrant. You can't get a warrant if you don't know who the perpetrator is. It's a delicate balance but a warrant still has to be justified.

The goals are reasonable....lets see what committee can do.

[bjre]

1) Take away some of the Police power that exists today. Under "emergency" situations, police can demand and get information from your ISP without a warrant. This was in place long before the Conservatives were elected. They are trying to fix that with this bill. They are defining the situations that police can use these powers so that they can't engage in fishing expeditions.....and they must report every occurance. They are trying to fix a problem that exists today with regards to our privacy rights.......and since very few people even knew about this special power, it doesn't seem to have been abused.

Again, it shows clearly that western "democracy" is a lie,

"since very few people even knew about this special power",

but when and how does it "in place long before"?

why "few people knew" things can be a law and people need to pay tax for it?

How many other such kind of "secret" laws are there to rob your tax dollars and bully you from time to time?

See? What kind of freedom western nations have.

So, study human right situation in your own country before blame others.

"democracy", "freedom", "human rights", all are lies in western developed countries.

Edited February 21, 2012 by bjre

[GostHacked]

My main issue with this bill, probably like so many, is that the people voting on this have not even read the bill, they don't even know what it is about.