Harper Government To Attack Privacy Rights Again

[Michael Hardner]

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.

Well... it seems like a legal puzzle to me. If the law changes, then how can companies be sued for complying with a new law ? It seems like a provision to just stop nuisance lawsuits, as I can't see how a judge would expect your service provider to not comply.

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.

Right... unless required by law. This is required by law.

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.

Well... sure. I think this is just the result of the law changing to allow them to demand your personal data. So we're just talking about the part of the law that protects the companies from being sued for being sued ... for some reason.

Anyway, this is nothing to do with not having to obtain a warrant, nor can you reasonably say that " this one takes a different approach to getting at the data without a warrant". According to the minister, the authorities will need a warrant.

[dre]

Well... it seems like a legal puzzle to me. If the law changes, then how can companies be sued for complying with a new law ? It seems like a provision to just stop nuisance lawsuits, as I can't see how a judge would expect your service provider to not comply.

Right... unless required by law. This is required by law.

Well... sure. I think this is just the result of the law changing to allow them to demand your personal data. So we're just talking about the part of the law that protects the companies from being sued for being sued ... for some reason.

Anyway, this is nothing to do with not having to obtain a warrant, nor can you reasonably say that " this one takes a different approach to getting at the data without a warrant". According to the minister, the authorities will need a warrant.

You arent listening. The law allows providers to "voluntarily" information to police in the absense of a warrant. There wont be any "law" forcing them to do so as is required by the section of the Bell agreement i showed you. But they will be able to do it anyways.

Heres a quote from a legal analysis...

That said, one thing the new bill does is allow ISPs to voluntarily give customer information to police without civil or criminal liability, Slane points out.

"That’s the one that’s most sticky for me," she says, because it was this kind of legislation that led to widespread surveillance in the U.S.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-cyberbullying-law-has-larger-agenda-expands-police-powers-1.2434797http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-cyberbullying-law-has-larger-agenda-expands-police-powers-1.2434797

What they are blantantly trying to do is create a way to circumvent judicial oversight. Its just a different way of accomplishing what they failed to do in C30, while maintaining the illusion of oversight.

So absolutely yes... This bill will result in the disclosure of personal information to the police in the absense of a court order.

Anyway, this is nothing to do with not having to obtain a warrant, nor can you reasonably say that " this one takes a different approach to getting at the data without a warrant"

It has EVERYTHING to do with that, and that statement is objectively and verifiably accurate. Setting up a scenario where police can just make a phonecall and ask for the data, and providers are allowed to turn it over is most certainly a different approach to getting the data... without a warrant.

Edited December 18, 2013 by dre

[Michael Hardner]

You arent listening. The law allows providers to "voluntarily" information to police in the absense of a warrant. There wont be any "law" forcing them to do so as is required by the section of the Bell agreement i showed you. But they will be able to do it anyways.

Aha. Ok, I see now. Thanks.

To put it in the 1970s framework, it would be like Bell telling the police to wiretap you.

This bill will result in the disclosure of personal information to the police in the absense of a court order.

Agreed.

It has EVERYTHING to do with that, and that statement is objectively and verifiably accurate.

Ok, it's clear to me now.

[dre]

Aha. Ok, I see now. Thanks.

To put it in the 1970s framework, it would be like Bell telling the police to wiretap you.

Agreed.

Ok, it's clear to me now.

So that part of the bill is definately a problem.... As for the rest of it?

We dont even have the information to validate it.

Posting child pornography, or stalking someone online is already against the law. Once there was a report, the police should have been able to obtain a warrant to get any information they needed from the ISP. They have not really explained why this bill is necessary to deal with these types of crimes, or why the existing tools at their disposal didnt work, and they dishonestly hid a clause in the bill that could result in massive ammounts of private personal data being turned over without judicial oversight, all while lying through their teeth that the bill doesnt weaken judicial oversight.

This just seems to be the way they operate over there now. Package up a whole pile of stuff that youve always wanted into a big omnibus bill that MP's vote on without even reading, tie it to some emotional theme, name it the "CUTE LITTLE BABY PROTECTION ACT", and then call the people that oppose the provisions in the bill pedophiles.

Anybody that trusts this system and these people to produce any good legislation at all is an idiot. They deserve to have this bill jammed up their ass where it came from.

If they want new powers then they should explain to us in plain english why the ones they already have arent enough. If they want to exploit the sad death of that young girl then they should explain how this bill would have prevented it.

And stop making gigantic bills that the people voting on them dont/cant even read. Logically break things down into bills that are a couple of pages, and debate the provisions one by one, and explain each one clearly.

Edited December 18, 2013 by dre