Bill C-13 Anti-Cyberbullying Or Warrantless State Spying?

[Big Guy]

The proposed federal “Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act” was exposed as allowing warrantless wiretapping and consequently rejected by Canadians. Now, with Bill C-13, the government appears to be trying to allow warrentless searches when an officer feels that there are “Reasonable grounds for suspicion”.

Opponents declare this is setting the bar too low.

Proponents argue that these new conditions for searches are needed to counter cyberbullying.

A summary of this bill can be found at;

http://www.parl.gc.ca/About/Parliament/LegislativeSummaries/bills_ls.asp?Language=E&ls=C13&Mode=1&Parl=41&Ses=2&source=library_prb

Do we need the changes that this bill will create?

Is cyberbullying really that great a problem that privacy has to be compromised?

Are there alternative ways to decrease incidents of cyberbullying?

The Department of Justice defence of the bill can be found at;

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

Some opposition to the bill can be found at;

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cyberbullying-bill-surveillance-powers-alarm-ontario-privacy-watchdog-1.2649523

Edited May 22, 2014 by Big Guy

[On Guard for Thee]

Of course nobody wants this cyberbullying thing to go on. However this bill seems akin to a Vic Toews thing and we don't want thqat either. I haven't read it but I hear if you kept the first 6 pages and threw out the rest you might have something. Others may have read it and know more than I.

[Moonlight Graham]

The bill is a joke. It's just an excuse to throw in pieces of legislation that curb our civil liberties. They've tried passing the same BS before under a different bill. The mother of Amanda Todd, "the teen who took her own life after being bullied online" (from the OP article), doesn't even support the bill and sees it as an attempt to reduce privacy in "the name of security". 'Nuff said.

Edited May 23, 2014 by Moonlight Graham

[cybercoma]

But if you don't support this bill you stand with pedophiles and Amanda Todd's killers.

[On Guard for Thee]

The bill is a joke. It's just an excuse to throw in pieces of legislation that curb our civil liberties. They've tried passing the same BS before under a different bill. The mother of Amanda Todd, "the teen who took her own life after being bullied online" (from the OP article), doesn't even support the bill and sees it as an attempt to reduce privacy in "the name of security". 'Nuff said.

I guess I'm a little old fashioned, but maybe kids, (and others) should stop staring stupidly into what are called smart phones, and go play in th e park. They might actually get smart that way.

[On Guard for Thee]

But if you don't support this bill you stand with pedophiles and Amanda Todd's killers.

Yes and once again I hasten to remind all to be careful if you happen to be doing anythin "naughty" in Manitoba. Vic might have you thrown in jail and the keys thrown away.

[Moonlight Graham]

I guess I'm a little old fashioned, but maybe kids, (and others) should stop staring stupidly into what are called smart phones, and go play in th e park. They might actually get smart that way.

Well, I'm not going to disagree with the sentiment itself, but it's really beside the point. We're also not just talking smartphones, but all internet use.

[GostHacked]

The bill is a joke. It's just an excuse to throw in pieces of legislation that curb our civil liberties. They've tried passing the same BS before under a different bill. The mother of Amanda Todd, "the teen who took her own life after being bullied online" (from the OP article), doesn't even support the bill and sees it as an attempt to reduce privacy in "the name of security". 'Nuff said.

When the mother of the victim calls out the proposed bill, you know something is not right. I hope that people remember what Toews tried to ram through. The government is running the gambit to see what sticks. They'll get lucky eventually.

When does one come to the realization that their level of personal freedom is lower than the level of security that counters said freedom.

[Topaz]

What do you guys think of this idea.....let the IP's do the monitoring and if they see something that is bullying, then let them give one warning to the bully and if they don't stop, then its off to Boot Camp where they learn not to be a bully or a terrorist, because bullying is a form a terrorist......creating terror against someone. Some young people today are out of control and in need a mental program.

[Moonlight Graham]

When does one come to the realization that their level of personal freedom is lower than the level of security that counters said freedom.

Warrantless spying and seizure of personal information is not just an attack on our freedom, it's an attack on our security as well. From the Charter of Right & Freedoms:

8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.

The Harper gov is trying to take away our constitutionally guaranteed security under the guise of protecting our security.

[Moonlight Graham]

What do you guys think of this idea.....let the IP's do the monitoring and if they see something that is bullying, then let them give one warning to the bully and if they don't stop, then its off to Boot Camp where they learn not to be a bully or a terrorist, because bullying is a form a terrorist......creating terror against someone. Some young people today are out of control and in need a mental program.

Absolutely not. IP's shouldn't be monitoring us in that way. The only thing IP's should be able to monitor is how much data we use, because they need to know that in order to bill us. They don't need to know what websites we're visiting or whom we're talking to. If I'm using Canadian or US websites I should be able to talk to anyone I want or do anything I want on the internet with complete anonymity & privacy unless I'm breaking the law. From the Charter of Rights (and it's similar in the US Bill of Rights) :

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

• (a) freedom of conscience and religion;

• (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

• (c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and

• (d) freedom of association.

8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.

If you're being bullied online, then the victim should contact the authorities. Then if the authorities need private information in their investigation, they should have to secure a warrant. This is how it works with every other area of the law. The gov doesn't have the right to monitor when I talk to other people in my living room or what books & magazines etc. I read without warrant, so why should it be different regarding the internet?

Edited May 26, 2014 by Moonlight Graham

[GostHacked]

MG you raise a lot of the same concerns I have with much of this. And I believe you are right when you say that our security is also being eroded with our privacy under the guise of security. If this attempt fails, you will see another incident or tragedy the government will use to promote another bill. They've done it before, they will do it again.

Bullying is stupid and wrong. But in other cases we have a sweeping bill that would only really address a very minute problem. The response is disproportionate to the amount of that specified crime.

[Michael Hardner]

Is MG talking about the ISP monitoring your online transactions or the government ? Because they're different things.

[GostHacked]

Is MG talking about the ISP monitoring your online transactions or the government ? Because they're different things.

MG is talking about the type of traffic an ISP would track. Typically it should only track the data usage and not the data itself (which can easily happen with the right equipment which is widely available). The ISP should not be tracking the sites you visit or be monitoring what you are downloading. It should simply calculate how much data you used.

The ISP has the tools in place to do this when the government comes calling to get information. And by laws, they may have to keep that data on hand for a certain amount of time.

[eyeball]

The gov doesn't have the right to monitor when I talk to other people in my living room or what books & magazines etc. I read without warrant, so why should it different regarding the internet?

To secure the right to monitor our living rooms and what we do there the government has to build itself a slippery slope. By getting us used to the idea that everything we say or do online is an open book we'll be hard pressed to come up with a good argument for why anywhere we happen to be should be treated any differently.

Why should there be any difference between monitoring what you say and do on the internet and monitoring you at home? If you've got nothing to hide then the state has nothing to fear....

...at which point I guess it'll dream up something new to freak itself out with.

[GostHacked]

...at which point I guess it'll dream up something new to freak itself out with.

We can run down the list that they have tried so far. I'll list the prominent ones I can easily think of.

1 - terrorism

2 - child predators

3 - cyberbullying

I am sure I am missing a few items here, but what do you predict they will throw at us next? What will the next tragedy be like, and how will be used to push another agenda through?

[eyeball]

You forgot a perennial old favourite, commies.

As for new threats it probably won't be long until aliens, zombies and vampires make the list. There is a vast deep well of delusion they haven't even begun to tap.

[Moonlight Graham]

New update from CBC.ca:

Cyberbullying bill won't be split in 2, Peter MacKay says

May 26 - The Conservatives will not heed the advice of a growing list of independent experts and opposition critics who are urging the federal government to split its cyberbullying bill in two, by hiving-off into a separate piece of legislation the more controversial provisions of the bill.

Justice Minister Peter MacKay made it clear on Monday the government will move to pass Bill C-13 as one bill, not two.

MacKay defended the bill by repeating the government's assertion that surveillance-related provisions included in the bill are needed to update the Criminal Code. "It would be an empty vessel, it would be a shell of a bill if we don't modernize those provisions of the Criminal Code that allow law enforcement to do their important work," he said.

MacKay conceded that Bill C-13 would do more than simply create a new offence in the Criminal Code. "It pertains, yes, to more than just this new provision of the Criminal Code. It pertains to acts of terrorism, it pertains to acts of fraud, all of which … can occur online."

NDP justice critic Françoise Boivin said while the bill contains useful provisions to combat cyberbullying, it also includes measures that pose a threat to privacy. "Parliamentarians will have failed in their mission to fight cyberbullying if C-13 faces a successful court challenge over privacy concerns," Boivin said.

MacKay said it was "contradictory" for the New Democrats to suggest that the government pass the cyberbullying provisions without giving the police the powers to enforce them.

[eyeball]

Harper, MacKay and the whole bloody CPC are the real cyber bullies here.

Surely there must be someway we can add politicians to the top of the list of things that freak out our society. I mean if there's anything that should do it this is it.

[On Guard for Thee]

I can see another round of "the unfair elections act" with a Vic Toews flavor in the offing.