Harper Government To Attack Privacy Rights Again

[eyeball]

Maybe he's working for them. Perhaps Mike is just not with us, he's with the enemy.

Getting it could mean losing his job and he has to be careful what he says. Someone could be listening.

[Michael Hardner]

What is the struggle exactly?

I'm actually trying to find out what people think of this new bill, and I'm mostly getting emotive arguments from you, not information.

You are not getting it. This new bill is just another attempt at implementing something like the C-30. Change some words, use someone's death as a talking point to get the message across. Pull at heart strings 'someone think of the children'.

Yes, but your response is another kind of emotive argument. I want to read a reasoned argument to make up my own mind.

So what are you not getting Mike? What is your failure to understand what is being done here?

Sorry, GH, I listed my questions above which you already said you can't answer, so I'm moving on now.

[Mighty AC]

I'm actually trying to find out what people think of this new bill, and I'm mostly getting emotive arguments from you, not information.

I have a problem with the bill, mainly for 3 reasons:

1) I despise the deceitful use of omnibus bills to hide legislation from the public. It is simply an unethical way pull the wool over our eyes and ram through an ideological wishlist. Harperites love this sleazy tactic despite Steve's condemnation of the practice when in opposition. If a government wants to crack down on cable theft or make it easier to listen in on our conversations, then make a case for the proposed legislation and debate each in parliament.

2) The bill does very little to address cyber bullying. It simply makes it a crime to share nude photos without the consent of the subject. That tiny piece of the large bill is a good idea, but why not take the time to craft a proper bill with measures to combat the many other forms of ebullying? Of course the answer is that purpose of the bill is not to actually combat cyber bullying; a socially acceptable cover was needed for their mishmash of justice legislation changes.

3) I'm not in favour of lowering the bar on what is required to listen in on electronic communications. Why should a warrant to access emails and texts be easier to obtain than one for listening in on a land line? If the current practice of providing “reasonable ground to believe that an offence has been or will be committed" is too restrictive, making it impossible for police to fight crime, then make a case for just that that piece of legislation and openly debate it in parliament.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin

Edited December 17, 2013 by Mighty AC

[Michael Hardner]

Hi MG.. the Franklin quote is out of context.

Some questions: doesn't the bill provide 'tools' for local police to address these complaints ? I thought I read that.

What are the laws already in place that cover some of these areas ?

You seem to have some facts at your disposal...

[Mighty AC]

From my reading about the bill it seems that Harper government is being deliberately deceptive when using the phrase "investigative tools". This press release refers to easier access to warrants and increased surveillance powers as 'fixing the gap in investigative tools." The Harper government is trying to claim that C-13 is not an omnibus bill. So they also label strengthening the ability to prosecute cable or digital media theft as providing the necessary "tools" to fight cyber bullying in today's high tech environment.

MacKay and the Harperites know their claims are ridiculous, but they also know that most people don't read beyond the headlines. If they can keep repeating that this bill is about combating cyber bullies they will get their unpalatable wishlist passed and the public won't wake up long enough to notice. The sad part is we could use some well crafted legislation to deal with the many forms of harassment and bullying that take place online. C-13 does very little to help.

[dre]

3. Given that this is a new problem, and that there was a huge outcry against what Rehtaeh Parsons went through, how should politicians deal with it ?

Why should politicians do anything? This was about police not doing their job, and properly investigating a rape, and the distribution of child pornography. All they really need to do is to instruct the police take take rape and bullying more seriously.

[Michael Hardner]

People expect them to do something ? Appearing to act brings attention ?

[Bonam]

People expect them to do something ?

Do they? Do people really expect new legislation to be passed every time an unfortunate event/crime occurs? I sure don't. Got any data to back up your statement that people expect them to do something?

[dre]

People expect them to do something ? Appearing to act brings attention ?

What a stupid reason to write whats probably a large omnibus buill.

This girl was raped... Thats already illegal. Then pictures of her rape were circulated... Thats already illegal.

This is equally as stupid as using terrorism as an excuse to datamine everyones mail. Its a dopey knee jerk reaction by a bunch of people that dont know the first thing about the internet.

[Michael Hardner]

Do they? Do people really expect new legislation to be passed every time an unfortunate event/crime occurs? I sure don't. Got any data to back up your statement that people expect them to do something?

I'm asking... I'm supposing... it seems to me that it's obvious a large number of Canadians depend on Government for such things, but it's just intuition on my part. Not "every crime" but for a new social issue, or new type of crime such as cyberterrorism or steroids in sport then I think they turn to government, as they did in the US with congressional hearings and so on.

...

Ok - I just did about 15 mins research and found this poll:

http://manningcentre.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/02-Manning-Centre-Barometer-2011.pdf

2012 Report - Page 9 - 42% of Canadians turn to government to solve problems on crime/personal safety.

Who else would we expect them to turn to, really ?

But - I'm not moralizing on this, I'm saying that this situation leads to governments acting because it's to their advantage to do so. If they don't create legislation, maybe there's something else they can do.

[Michael Hardner]

What a stupid reason to write whats probably a large omnibus buill.

How is it stupid for people to expect the government to do something about a new kind of crime ?

This girl was raped... Thats already illegal. Then pictures of her rape were circulated... Thats already illegal.

No charges laid due to insufficient evidence. Continued harassment that likely led to the sad conclusion. People were upset with what happened here, how is that stupid ?

[Mighty AC]

Do you consider Bill C-13 to be "doing something" about this kind of crime? Personally, I find it disgusting that they would use a tragedy as cover for passing an omnibus Conservative wishlist. This would have been a great opportunity to craft meaningful legislation to deal with the many forms of electronic harassment. Instead they have chosen to use and abuse the Parsons story to further their own agenda.

Thankfully, it appears that government of Nova Scotia is taking this case more seriously and now have a plan to improve youth mental health services.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/rehtaeh-parsons-prompted-review-welcomed-by-father-1.2459456

[Michael Hardner]

Do you consider Bill C-13 to be "doing something" about this kind of crime?

Clearly, I have no idea - which is why I am asking the questions from above:

My questions:

1. How will the new Conservative bill help investigations moving forward ?

2. How is that bill different from the Nova Scotia bill ?

3. Given that this is a new problem, and that there was a huge outcry against what Rehtaeh Parsons went through, how should politicians deal with it ?

Thankfully, it appears that government of Nova Scotia is taking this case more seriously and now have a plan to improve youth mental health services.

More to the point of this - NS created a cyberbullying law. And so did the federal government, but the federal government is getting a lot more heat for their proposed law.

The response to the criticism is here...

http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/news-nouv/nr-cp/2013/doc_33002.html

My feeling is that a lot of what the federal government says on that page makes sense, but I'm still unsure of which approach is better. It makes sense that you would have to give the police the ability to seek warrants for distributed material, but this also seems like overkill and seems even more open to abuse, since we're talking about local police here not a faceless federal intelligence group.

[GostHacked]

The federal bill affects ALL Canadians. That is why the focus is on that bill and not really the NS one. If you can slap down the big one, the small provincial bills won't be much of a challange.

The Franklin quote fits. This is more security and snooping in exchange for eroded privacy. So because we are exchanging security in place of privacy. So by his notion, we do not deserve either, because we are not defending our rights and privacy against the ever encroaching police state.

You don't need the police on the streets to have a society slipping towards fascism and tyranny.

[GostHacked]

More to the point of this - NS created a cyberbullying law. And so did the federal government, but the federal government is getting a lot more heat for their proposed law.

The cyber bullying makes up less that 10% of the proposals in the bill. Dre already pointed out that those things are already illegal so the bill does nothing more than what we already have in place.

The NS bill may be strictly dealing with cyber bulliying, I am not sure.

So if the majority of the bill is NOT for cyber bulling, then you know that this notion of cyber bullying and Parson's death are being used as political points from the government to push this bill through. Which is a revamped C-30 that was shot down earlier in the year.

[Michael Hardner]

If you can slap down the big one, the small provincial bills won't be much of a challange.

Well, they're entirely different approaches - but you already said you don't know about ... both bills ? either bill ?

The Franklin quote fits. This is more security and snooping in exchange for eroded privacy. So because we are exchanging security in place of privacy. So by his notion, we do not deserve either, because we are not defending our rights and privacy against the ever encroaching police state.

Right, but if you use that quote too much it will appear as ridiculous as it is out of context.

Why am I not allowed to own an automatic weapon ? Quote Franklin...

Why am I not allowed to ....

Etc.

[GostHacked]

Well, they're entirely different approaches - but you already said you don't know about ... both bills ? either bill ?

Read Mike, read. I said I did not know anything about the NS bill. But this new federal bill is nothing more than a tweaked C-30 they tried to ram through earlier this year. That is the point you are missing. Maybe on purpose.

And the Franklin quote regards government and security against citizen privacy, not personal security. Personal security = liberty and freedom. Did you miss that notion too?

[Michael Hardner]

1. The cyber bullying makes up less that 10% of the proposals in the bill.

2. The NS bill may be strictly dealing with cyber bulliying, I am not sure.

3. Which is a revamped C-30 that was shot down earlier in the year.

1. Cite please ?

2. Then why even comment ?

3. There are differences, though, even if you don't want to acknowledge that.

[Michael Hardner]

That is the point you are missing.

Maybe on purpose.

Why are you not talking about the differences in the two bills ? Is it because you don't care or that you don't know what they are ?

Did you miss that notion too?

It also applies to gun control, and has been used in that context.

[GostHacked]

1. Cite please ?

2. Then why even comment ?

3. There are differences, though, even if you don't want to acknowledge that.

1 -

2 - You are trying to get me into talking about the NS bill which I have no knowledge of. However I do know some about the federal bill. So I cannot make a comparison. Sorry to disappoint you.

3 - If I don't know about the NS bill there is no comparison I can make to the federal bill. That should not be hard to understand.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2013/11/20/federal_cyberbullying_law_to_be_introduced_today.html

Despite the wide-ranging subject matter, MacKay maintained the new legislation is not an omnibus bill, but targeted and specific in nature.

“This legislation is very specific in its intent,” MacKay said. “It’s intended to help deter the type of distribution of information and images that we feel are tantamount of the harassment, the intimidation, the slander, the type of sections that already exist in the criminal code (for offline interactions).”

Laws are already in place to combat the notions McKay indicates, but they want to update the laws.

3 - The only difference that stands out is that victims have the ability to sue with the NS bill.

All this does not prevent the crime, it simply allows the authorities more access to the information in order to press charges and get a conviction. The victim is still a victim and while money helps a bit, it does not make up for what someone like Parsons experienced.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_of_Rehtaeh_Parsons

Investigation

A year following the alleged rape, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police concluded an investigation stating, "[an] investigation into an earlier sexual assault was completed, and in consultation with the Crown, there was insufficient evidence to lay charges".[3] According to the family, the police called it a "he said, she said" case and also decided the photo was not criminal in spite of Parsons being a minor.[7] Likewise, there were no arrests for the March 2013 stabbing incident.[8]

Following the suicide, the RCMP announced they were reviewing the case.[9] On April 12, the RCMP announced the case was being reopened in light of "new and credible information" that they said did not come from the Internet.[10]

The last line is important. The new info they gathered was not from the Internet, therefore these cyber bully laws are very questionable.

[GostHacked]

Why are you not talking about the differences in the two bills ? Is it because you don't care or that you don't know what they are ?

Holy F Mike. Since I admitted I know little about the NS bill, you are using this as a sticking point and asking me to compare the two. That's not fair dude.

It also applies to gun control, and has been used in that context.

Only in terms of allowing the government to provide security in exchange for your liberty by denying your ability to be secure and protect yourself at the same time introducing laws that constantly erode at privacy under the guise of providing security and protecting people from harm.

[Michael Hardner]

Laws are already in place to combat the notions McKay indicates, but they want to update the laws.

Yes, because the laws aren't written specifically for new media such as web, text, and so on.

All this does not prevent the crime, it simply allows the authorities more access to the information in order to press charges and get a conviction.

But getting a conviction is part of it. The outcry came because Ms. Parsons committed suicide after the authorities concluded that they couldn't do anything about this. Again, this speaks to the laws being inadequate to deal with this new kind of crime.

From the NS minister:

‘The technology is changing so quickly, and our ability to adapt to it is quite challenging," he said. "We’re asking the federal government to put legislation forward on the redistribution of imaging.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/police-role-in-rehtaeh-parsons-case-to-be-reviewed-1.1380992

I think we may have to wait until Nova Scotia reviews the investigation to know the answer to these questions for sure. The question being: "are the laws on the books adequate to deal with, prevent, prosecute online harassment ?"

Holy F Mike. Since I admitted I know little about the NS bill, you are using this as a sticking point and asking me to compare the two. That's not fair dude.

Well, I admit that it's not fair to ask you to compare them but I did that in response to the suggestion that I was being deliberately obtuse ("maybe on purpose ?") when I was asking why you said this: "If you can slap down the big one, the small provincial bills won't be much of a [sic]challange." without knowing about the NS bill at all.

The assertion that C-13 is just like C-30 hasn't been proven to me. I still want to know where you got the "10%" number you quoted above. If you think all bills are bad then why ? Maybe the NS bill is a good one ?

I definitely don't mean to offend but simply saying we can slap down the provincial bills without knowing what is in them is just a strange concept to me. I already posted to you that I was moving on because we weren't exchanging any information in our discussion; I was coaxed into thinking there was some reason behind the idea that we should slap down the NS bill too but I think I'm back on square one here.

[dre]

How is it stupid for people to expect the government to do something about a new kind of crime ?

No charges laid due to insufficient evidence. Continued harassment that likely led to the sad conclusion. People were upset with what happened here, how is that stupid ?

Charges WERE eventually laid, and raping a girl at a drunken party isnt a new kind of crime. And its already illegal to post such content on the internet.

This bill is C30 light, and just like C30 dishonestly used pedophilia as the excuse to expand police powers, this one dishonestly uses the sad death of a young girl.

The main difference between this one and C30 is that instead of directly removing judicial oversight, this one takes a different approach to getting at the data without a warrant. It takes the right away from customers to sue their providers for privacy violations, which means that the providers can now "voluntarily" give you data to the government. No warrant required... and thats exactly what will end up happening.

The other big problem with the bill is that the photo posting provision is not restricted to minors. If a naked women or man runs down the street and you send a picture of it to your friend or post it online you can get 5 years in prison.

I cant find anything at all in the bill that would have prevented any teen bullying deaths I know about.

[Michael Hardner]

Charges WERE eventually laid, and raping a girl at a drunken party isnt a new kind of crime. And its already illegal to post such content on the internet.

Charges were not laid, though ... like I said I guess we will have to see why.

The main difference between this one and C30 is that instead of directly removing judicial oversight, this one takes a different approach to getting at the data without a warrant. It takes the right away from customers to sue their providers for privacy violations, which means that the providers can now "voluntarily" give you data to the government. No warrant required... and thats exactly what will end up happening.

It does require a warrant if the police demand the information. And why do providers ever need to tell you that they're giving your data to the police ?

Seems like a weird assessment.

Again, I guess we would have to know what 'sue for privacy violations' means... how could you sue for that in any case ?

The other big problem with the bill is that the photo posting provision is not restricted to minors. If a naked women or man runs down the street and you send a picture of it to your friend or post it online you can get 5 years in prison.

Maybe. That is what we usually call an 'edge case'.

I cant find anything at all in the bill that would have prevented any teen bullying deaths I know about.

That means you can explain to me why the crown didn't lay charges in NS ?

[dre]

It does require a warrant if the police demand the information. And why do providers ever need to tell you that they're giving your data to the police ?

Because you are protected from such breeches of privacy both by the law, and by the contracts you sign with providers. Thats why congress had to write a law giving retroactive immunity to telecoms that shared data after 911. Those contracts are enforcable and what those companies were doing was illegal.

Most of these privacy policies pledge to not share your personal information without a warrant. Every single one of these companies has such a policy and they promise to keep your data private. A company that didnt would have a hard time getting any customers.

Any time you do business with any of these companies, or with anyone acting as our agent, you are protected by the rights and safeguards contained in the Bell Privacy Policy.

Every year, we ensure that each of our employees reviews and signs a code of business conduct that requires, among other things, the safeguarding and proper use of customer information. Our representatives undergo extensive privacy training to ensure they are aware of and respect your rights at all times. We also place strict controls on the protection and use of personal information within our systems and websites.

Heres the policy...

http://support.bell.ca/_web/guides/Common/Legal/bcfip(en).pdf

Section 2.3 states... (Im paraphrasing because I couldnt cut and paste out of that pdf)

1. Unless required by law, the Bell Companies shall not use or disclose personal information without obtaining the consent of the customer.

Put quite simply its against the law for them to give your personal information to police in the absense of a court order or some other law that forces them to. This new law would legalize that breach of contract, and strip you of any means to enforce a contact.

And what does getting information without a warrant have to do with this case? Nothing... Like I said, this is just C30 Light, and it has nothing to do with NS case at all besides they thing thats a good way to get support through emotional appeal. Kinda like naming a bill the "Patriot Act".

Edited December 18, 2013 by dre