Internet surveillance (Bill C-30)

capricorn · February 21, 2012

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.

The authorities already have that power. Two cases come to mind. In the Kingston quadruple murder case, when the Shafias became suspects their computer was seized. The cops looked back at their surfing history and found prior searches of bodies of water and searches for methods of murders by drowning. That was archived data. In the Russell Williams double murder case, his computer showed pictures of himself in women's clothing. Again, that was data created prior to the date of the warrant. All that evidence was brought out at trial.

And speaking of archived data, my server already stores over one year's worth of emails that remain there unless I go and manually delete them at source. As for my internet search history goes back 6 months.

So the archiving would not be a new thing. What needs to be determined is what is acceptable, reasonable and most economical.

capricorn · February 21, 2012

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

On top of which, we pay our politicians good bucks to dissect issues resulting from proposed laws before they vote on them. It's particularly evident and encouraging that quite a few Conservatives are dissatisfied with some aspects of Bill C-30.

GostHacked · February 21, 2012

Here is a hypothetical situation that you may feel is bogus but I feel would be an exceptional situation

A child is home alone. The parents are away. A pedophile breaks into the home and broadcasts the rape on the internet to his buddies. I think that would require immediate action by the police. With the IP address of the broadcast, the police can obtain the municipal address from the ISP.

Parents should be charged with neglect for leaving their child home alone, but sometimes you gotta pull at the heartstrings eh?

And on the matter of storage of information, presently I can store more songs on an ipod that i can carry in my pocket that I could ever listen to, so I don't think storage would be a problem but here again if you want some facts ask your local computer geek about storage size requirements for say one million names and addresses.

I am that geek. It's not hard to store that information. But the amount of data you would accumulate on anyone surfing the net would be insane for any single ISP to archive and maintain. The only entity that I do believe does that is Google. They archive everything you do online. They even admit that they read your email.

capricorn · February 21, 2012

Link to full text of Bill C-30 from Parliamentary website.

http://parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&DocId=5380965

GostHacked · February 21, 2012

So you agree with me that the technology and mass storage is already in use.

It's been extensively known and used for at least a decade now. In the USA, there was a man who blew the whistle on AT&T for the data syhphoning rooms they installed in a couple key locations. Backrooms added to eavesdrop on every packet that goes over the AT&T network. It does not have to be the origin or desitnation, it just has to flow through and the NSA knows about it.

At my job, we use something called a packet sniffer. It monitors all traffic (even this post) going in out and within our building. The main reason we use it is for diagnostics if a server fails, we can check the traffic to see if it was hit with something suspicious. These pieces of hardware are quite pricey too, a few thousand dollars per unit. I think it also has the ability to scan and capture encypted data. ISPs would have banks of these things to monitor traffic, no company worth their weight runs without them.

All this technology has had the back doors built into it from the beginning. Your smart phone has a back door where you can easily be spied upon, without you even knowing about it. Smartphones also have cameras and mics, so each smartphone out there can be used as a huge surveilance grid (already is being monitored and used that way). I've been warning people about this kind of stuff for some time, but only recently are people starting to take notice of it.

As for Google "reading" email, it is more the situation of a computer software searching through an email for a specific phrase or word combination, then the computer program would flag the article if there are numerous occurrences. Google wants to highlight to the person the topics the person writes about. There are not rows and rows and rows and rows of people reading emails on computer monitors.

Well, I can also tell you that these computers which run these algorythms to look for specific things make reports to real people who take this information and who knows what is done with it. Google is one of the worst entities for keeping data private.

And now governments are admitting that they use this easily obtained data to dig some dirt up on you.

On the case of Bill C-30 and say CSIS, if a warrant is obtained to read a person's email, the same computer search for word phrases would likely occur and some CSIS official actually reading an email would likely occur as a final step. Here again I don't see CSIS having rows and rows and rows and rows of agents reading emails on computer monitors.

Computers running algorythms do all the hard work. When something is flagged, they look into it more. The thing is you are still being spied upon no matter what you do. It's a sad reality these days that there really is no form of privacy anymore.

So there is no warrentless wiretapping?? Not even if this bill is introduced? Somehow I don't buy it.

dre · February 21, 2012

Parents should be charged with neglect for leaving their child home alone, but sometimes you gotta pull at the heartstrings eh?

I am that geek. It's not hard to store that information. But the amount of data you would accumulate on anyone surfing the net would be insane for any single ISP to archive and maintain. The only entity that I do believe does that is Google. They archive everything you do online. They even admit that they read your email.

I have a decade and a half in IT systems development, and while its true that we have technologies that could store that information the costs would be astronomical. Its also unlear what is even being talked about. For example...

v-here says...

ask your local computer geek about storage size requirements for say one million names and addresses.

That makes it sound like all that would get stored is the headers for each packet. Or even just the headers of the first packet sent between two given machines. Thats pretty easy, and that ammount of data would be managable.

But then he says...

On the case of Bill C-30 and say CSIS, if a warrant is obtained to read a person's email, the same computer search for word phrases would likely occur

That makes it sound more like every bit of digital information will need to be stored. To force ISP's to do this would be a huge mistake in my opinion, and its completely uneccessary. A huge and super serious problem would have to exist in order to justify this, and thats simply not the case. We are going to have insanely expensive access. And Canadians and Canadian business already have an albatros hanging around their necks when it comes to networks in Canada.

Im not sure v_here understands how the internet works, and Im pretty sure the people that wrote this bill dont.

They are quite simply barking up the wrong tree. Mandated ISP archiving of any real data is completely wrong-headed. And if theres "exceptional circumstances" then phone a judge and get an expedited warrant. This has worked for law enforcement for decades.

The other problem is this... technology will respond to invasions of privacy because it will become sought after in the market place, and the luddite government will be left playing catchup forever. People themselves, and all major cloud based services will simply start encrypting all the transmissions, and the government wont be able to read that email anyways because all the ISP will turn over is a bunch of meaningless bytes.

If the government wants that data it will have to reach up into the cloud, and beg some other corporation for it, and its highly likely the data wont even exist in Canada at that point.

NOPE. This is just a flat out bad idea. Completely wrong-headed. If theres a massive cybercrime wave, and v_heres silly hypothetical scenario was happening thousands of times, then maybe this discussion would be warranted, but there isnt. As far as I know, attacks against children are DOWN in the last 30 years since we have the internet.

Just a few wrong moves and they can pretty much ruin the internet, and it will be extremely hard to ever roll any of this stuff back once its there. They need to keep their hands to themselves, and spend their time solving real problems.

PIK · February 21, 2012

So in 2005 when the libs under paul martin came out with pretty well the same bill and there was not a peep out of anyone. This is a another example of the left who's nose is still out of joint, going berserk over anything harper does, to me it is fake rage.Just like the uproar over the pensions, the media blew that one right up, nothing but fear mongering by the left. And I hope they catch these computor guys going after toews and make a huge example out of them, a very lengthly stay in one of our new jails.

GostHacked · February 21, 2012

So in 2005 when the libs under paul martin came out with pretty well the same bill and there was not a peep out of anyone. This is a another example of the left who's nose is still out of joint, going berserk over anything harper does, to me it is fake rage.Just like the uproar over the pensions, the media blew that one right up, nothing but fear mongering by the left. And I hope they catch these computor guys going after toews and make a huge example out of them, a very lengthly stay in one of our new jails.

It does not matter if the bill came from the left or the right, these people collectively make up rules to which we live by once passed into law. Many of them had not even READ the bill that they were voting on. Huge problem right there. And who ever did that to Toews gets a medal in my view. He had a taste of his own medicine and he does not like that ... but that is not what this specific thread is about.

The big thing people need to understand is the constant erosion of rights and privacy for the average citizen all while the government is being less open about everything they do. It's amazing that we need to ask for an FOI request from the government on a certain topic, while they say they want to be as open and honest to the Canadian population. They are getting more closed up as the population is expected to have everything open and available to the government.

This is not how it is supposed to be.

dre · February 21, 2012

So in 2005 when the libs under paul martin came out with pretty well the same bill and there was not a peep out of anyone. This is a another example of the left who's nose is still out of joint, going berserk over anything harper does, to me it is fake rage.Just like the uproar over the pensions, the media blew that one right up, nothing but fear mongering by the left. And I hope they catch these computor guys going after toews and make a huge example out of them, a very lengthly stay in one of our new jails.

BULLSHIT. I have opposed every single internet regulation in history besides ones that encourage competition, and an even playing field between big and small competitors. Your whole post is a piece of garbage. This is a serious subject, dont derail the thread with partisan political crap.

dre · February 21, 2012

So there is no warrentless wiretapping?? Not even if this bill is introduced? Somehow I don't buy it.

You shouldnt buy it. ISPs and telcos responded to 28000 requests last year, and only 5% were legally authorized.

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

THIS is what we should be writing legislation to stop.

GostHacked · February 21, 2012

You shouldnt buy it. ISPs and telcos responded to 28000 requests last year, and only 5% were legally authorized.

I'd almost say that these ISPs who give up this information willy nilly have been threatened in some fashion. It's just like the mafia, and these guys want to get paid to protect you, or else they will beat you up. But if only 5% is legally obtained, then this bill does not make a lick of difference. Unless it changes the fact that illegally obtained information cannot be used against you in court. The government should not be allowed to prosecute someone for breaking the law, when the investigations and evidence gathering into the crime are also breaking their own laws. Shameful really.

olpfan1 · February 21, 2012

So in 2005 when the libs under paul martin came out with pretty well the same bill and there was not a peep out of anyone. This is a another example of the left who's nose is still out of joint, going berserk over anything harper does, to me it is fake rage.Just like the uproar over the pensions, the media blew that one right up, nothing but fear mongering by the left. And I hope they catch these computor guys going after toews and make a huge example out of them, a very lengthly stay in one of our new jails.

Anonymous can't be arrested for demanding toews resignation.. all they did was threaten to out him, there was no threats on his life or family

capricorn · February 21, 2012

It does not matter if the bill came from the left or the right, these people collectively make up rules to which we live by once passed into law. Many of them had not even READ the bill that they were voting on. Huge problem right there.

For the most part, MPs only read the section titled "Purpose" located at the beginning of a Bill and then rely on the Committees and opposition critics to do the heavy lifting. Not having prior experience with the process, a lot of newbie MPs are in a learning curve and must be in a fog on this one big time.

Sa'adoni · February 21, 2012

Anonymous can't be arrested for demanding toews resignation.. all they did was threaten to out him, there was no threats on his life or family

Demanding resignation is ok but the element of blackmail was threatening to unleash operation great white north. Which is a potential threat of assault due to websites being knocked down. Also malicious hacking of a computer system is also a crime. Knocking down GC.CA vics company more or less could be a safety threat for the government.

One can only assume operation great white North would involve malicious hacking as opposed to wikileaks activities which anonymous is not well known.

http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/E/Extortion.aspx

Actually this anonymous doesn't seem to follow the hacking anonymous groups normal methods. Information release normally isn't the means of this group as far as I've read.

346. (1) Every one commits extortion who, without reasonable justification or excuse and with intent to obtain anything, by threats, accusations, menaces or violence induces or attempts to induce any person, whether or not he is the person threatened, accused or menaced or to whom violence is shown, to do anything or cause anything to be done.

Extortion

(1.1) Every person who commits extortion is guilty of an indictable offence and liable

( b ) in any other case, to imprisonment for life.

Subsequent offences

(1.2) In determining, for the purpose of paragraph (1.1)(a), whether a convicted person has committed a second or subsequent offence, if the person was earlier convicted of any of the following offences, that offence is to be considered as an earlier offence:

(a) an offence under this section;

( an offence under subsection 85(1) or (2) or section 244 or 244.2; or

However, an earlier offence shall not be taken into account if 10 years have elapsed between the day on which the person was convicted of the earlier offence and the day on which the person was convicted of the offence for which sentence is being imposed, not taking into account any time in custody.

Sequence of convictions only

(1.3) For the purposes of subsection (1.2), the only question to be considered is the sequence of convictions and no consideration shall be given to the sequence of commission of offences or whether any offence occurred before or after any conviction.

Saving

(2) A threat to institute civil proceedings is not a threat for the purposes of this section.

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 346; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 46; 1995, c. 39, s. 150; 2008, c. 6, s. 33; 2009, c. 22, s. 15.

Previous Version

It starts to break the law at about 1:20 - 1:35

Edited February 21, 2012 by Sa'adoni

dre · February 21, 2012

I'd almost say that these ISPs who give up this information willy nilly have been threatened in some fashion. It's just like the mafia, and these guys want to get paid to protect you, or else they will beat you up. But if only 5% is legally obtained, then this bill does not make a lick of difference. Unless it changes the fact that illegally obtained information cannot be used against you in court. The government should not be allowed to prosecute someone for breaking the law, when the investigations and evidence gathering into the crime are also breaking their own laws. Shameful really.

Well the beauty of it is the government doesnt really have to threaten them, they just have to unofficially promise immunity, and promise the customer will never find out, and theres no real risk in it for the ISP.

ISP's should pay a heft fine for each of those 28000 violations. Lets write a bill to do that.

Canadians pretty much deserve this anyways. You get the rights in life that youre willing to stand up for and we arent willing to stand up for anything. Even if this bill is stopped, there will be more like it.... and its just a matter of time. The political class in this country (be them liberals or conservatives) find it completely unacceptable that we should be able to associate as free individuals without them being able to keep an eye on us.

olpfan1 · February 21, 2012

Fine, I still say so what, Vic Toews and the conservatives are threatening the internet, people have died for much less

so I am perfectly okay with what anonymous will do.. whatever it is I highly doubt it will harm him physically although I am sure

most Canadians would love to punch the smirk off his face. I know I'd love that

PIK · February 21, 2012

Fine, I still say so what, Vic Toews and the conservatives are threatening the internet, people have died for much less

so I am perfectly okay with what anonymous will do.. whatever it is I highly doubt it will harm him physically although I am sure

most Canadians would love to punch the smirk off his face. I know I'd love that

What a joke, the left have become complete idiots, and most canadians do not agree with people like you. The media plays you like fools that you are. I laugh.

GostHacked · February 21, 2012

What a joke, the left have become complete idiots, and most canadians do not agree with people like you. The media plays you like fools that you are. I laugh.

I laugh because the media is playing you for the fool in making you think there is a left and a right.

punked · February 21, 2012

What a joke, the left have become complete idiots, and most canadians do not agree with people like you. The media plays you like fools that you are. I laugh.

Would you same most Canadians means 50% of Canadians plus 1? Last time I checked that is NOT the support the Conservatives have.

GostHacked · February 21, 2012

Fine, I still say so what, Vic Toews and the conservatives are threatening the internet, people have died for much less

so I am perfectly okay with what anonymous will do.. whatever it is I highly doubt it will harm him physically although I am sure

most Canadians would love to punch the smirk off his face. I know I'd love that

I've been under the impression that Anon is an operation by some country's intelligence services. Kind of like how I suspect Wikileaks is kind of run by the same people. How else would that amount of information be posted online and only a few low level heads are rolling. It stinks.

I don't trust Anon.

Sa'adoni · February 22, 2012

I've been under the impression that Anon is an operation by some country's intelligence services. Kind of like how I suspect Wikileaks is kind of run by the same people. How else would that amount of information be posted online and only a few low level heads are rolling. It stinks.

I don't trust Anon.

Anon is [LEGION] there are likely some trust worthy members and some not so trust worthy. As well as others, anyone and everyone is Anonymous. It is an entity not a singularity.

Effectively Anon is the Internet "Underground" and the old and the new. It is basically everyone who wants to be and is.

It is everywhere. The government would be hard pressed to remove Anonymous, as it is the Resistance and it is the Anti Disestablishment.

It is a movement not a person.

Any internet "securing" threatens the global underground online who have acted with utmost impunity for reasons that are clear. They have been supported by the government itself, as part of the larger desire for a techno (technology) culture, skills and capacity in the cyber war and development.

It is not unlike the Russian Mafias and Hells Angels being from the Military, and controllers of the organized crime syndicates.

There is however a hyerarchy involved, and it is clear that structure is LEGION (or atleast is said to be)

Legion is a very large Underground hacking collective. It is one of the largest. It is as far as I'm aware HQ'd in the US and run by the US Gov as part of its cyber corps.

not sure if this is related.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legion_of_Doom_(hacking)

http://www.google.ca/#hl=en&safe=off&sclient=psy-ab&q=legion+of+hackers&pbx=1&oq=legion+of+hackers&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=3&gs_upl=3918l5570l1l6803l17l14l0l0l0l0l427l2375l0.2.1.4.1l8l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=bb87acda14707407&biw=1280&bih=656

If you add it all up things are pretty transparent.

Edited February 22, 2012 by Sa'adoni

cybercoma · February 29, 2012

OpenMedia.ca posted an interesting article today writing, "The online spying plan (C-30) would build a giant unsecure registry of private data that will be “the mother lode for stalkers, pedophiles, spammers, identity thieves, child pornographers, blackmailers, extortionists, and yes – terrorists […] Imagine what very bad people are capable of, given far richer data and the rather obvious inclination to break the law at will.”"

Their quote is from this article: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120222/01562717837/how-new-internet-spying-laws-will-actually-enable-stalkers-spammers-phishers-yes-pedophiles-terrorists.shtml

Topaz · February 29, 2012

Heres's an idea .... lets get the RMCP to use ALL the power that VIC wants to have and use it to find out who did the robocalling. IF it doesn't work, then it wouldn't work for future crimes Vic wants to catch and so it wouldn't go forward. Thoughts?

cybercoma · February 29, 2012

Heres's an idea .... lets get the RMCP to use ALL the power that VIC wants to have and use it to find out who did the robocalling. IF it doesn't work, then it wouldn't work for future crimes Vic wants to catch and so it wouldn't go forward. Thoughts?

While the legislation certainly gives unwarranted power (double-entendre for those keeping count) to local police, what's even more damning about the legislation is the fact that ISPs will have to keep unsecured records. At least when the government collects data or StatsCanada, there's various levels of security. There's certain information that as a researcher you need to get government security clearance and swear an oath never to divulge any personally identifiable information for as long as you live or you can be prosecuted criminally. This legislation, however, has no such safety mechanism and even more concerning is that criminals who want this data will be able to get their hands on it easily. You certainly don't need security clearance to work at an ISP.

waldo · February 12, 2013

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.

oh my! Are Harper Conservatives now... standing with the child pornographers?

Conservatives kill controversial 'child pornographers' Internet surveillance bill

Toews, who introduced the legislation, did not attend Monday's news conference where Justice Minister Rob Nicholson said Bill C-30 is dead.
We will not be proceeding with Bill C-30 and any attempts we will have to modernize the Criminal Code will not contain the measures in C-30 - including the warrantless mandatory disclosure of basic subscriber information, or the requirement for telecommunications service providers to build intercept capabilities within their systems, Nicholson said.

Any modernization of the Criminal Code... will not contain those.