RCMP wants warrantless access to online subscriber info......

[Derek 2.0]

.......over to you Prime Minister Trudeau:

Police need warrantless access to Internet subscriber information to keep pace with child predators and other online
criminals, says RCMP Commissioner Bob Paulson.

Simple topic, that I think will be black or white for most, so what do you think? Also, how do you think Prime Minister Trudeau will respond versus how he should respond?

---------------

I think a far simpler solution for parents concerned about online predators is to restrict their child's access to the internet.......doing so, I would assume would alleviate many of Bob Paulson's stated concerns, well avoiding another tilt with the Supreme Court of Canada..........as such, i'm opposed to Paulson's request.

I think this Liberal Government, like the previous Conservative and Liberal Governments before that, will quietly go to bat for the RCMP and this will become a new norm that we will wake-up with as law someday.....Clearly I think Trudeau won't oppose it, other than to offer assurances, of some form of oversight.

Edited November 26, 2015 by Derek 2.0

[CITIZEN_2015]

I think that the previous regime would have given access not this government besides when the Supreme Court of Canada rules against it this government unlike the previous one would respect it.

[jacee]

.......over to you Prime Minister Trudeau:

...

I think a far simpler solution for parents concerned about online predators is to restrict their child's access to the internet.......doing so, I would assume would alleviate many of Bob Paulson's stated concerns, well avoiding another tilt with the Supreme Court of Canada..........as such, i'm opposed to Paulson's request.

The children at risk of sexual abuse via Internet strategies are generally vulnerable children at risk of many things due to lack of parental oversight - may be due to parental illness, disability, substance abuse, absence, etc.

It's naive to suggest that ALL parents will supervise their kids Internet use.

But I am still opposed to blanket warrantless access for police, unless the website/communication channel in question is of an illegal nature. They have to have a reason.

I think this Liberal Government, like the previous Conservative and Liberal Governments before that, will quietly go to bat for the RCMP and this will become a new norm that we will wake-up with as law someday.....Clearly I think Trudeau won't oppose it, other than to offer assurances, of some form of oversight.

Subscribers to what?

Child abuse sites, maybe yes.

All sites? No.

Oh ya ... and how stupid does Paulson think we are?

'Respecting Charter rights' ... with warrantless access?

Now there's an oxyMORON for ya!

It's rather disturbing that Paulson ... police ... don't grasp what Charter rights are!!

.

Edited November 26, 2015 by jacee

[Smeelious]

The example he gave was: "I can enter a license plate into a computer and get the name/address/etc". I suppose then he wants the ability to type in "Smeelious" and find out my real name and address.

Would that actually violate my charter rights?

IP space is tricky though. Even without a warrant, it would be fairly easy to track internet usage. If it turns out someone was using the internet for some illegal purpose I would assume they would know who they were without needing a warrant. If then they needed to file charges, they could get a warrant, force the name from the provider and then have a concrete link. If someone was going to great lengths to hide themselves online, having access to provider lists wouldn't actually help them anyway.

Frankly I'm not actually worried about such a scenario since I don't even illegally download music, let alone anything else. But I'm not sure why having that access actually helps them at all. Conversely I'm not sure having that access is necessary or even that useful. If they have evidence that an IP is accessing illegal content, get the warrant and make an arrest like any other crime.

Edited November 26, 2015 by Smeelious

[TimG]

If they have evidence that an IP is accessing illegal content, get the warrant and make an arrest like any other crime.

Most people use a pool of IP addresses assigned to their ISP. This means having the IP address tells the RCMP nothing if they can't compel the ISP to hand over their records of who was using the IP within the time range in question. The RCMP wants to be able to demand this information from the ISP without a warrant and without any notification being sent to the subscriber in question. I have not heard any compelling reason to skip the warrant if there is probable cause so the RCMP must want to be able to go on fishing expeditions when there is no probable cause. Edited November 26, 2015 by TimG

[segnosaur]

Simple topic, that I think will be black or white for most, so what do you think?

I'm totally against it.

First of all, you have the "slippery slope" argument... although the RCMP claims it is for "child predators" and the like, but there is no guarantee that the RCMP won't cast its nets wider in the future.

Secondly, I trust the government (and the RCMP) about as far as I can throw it. Data breaches are not unheard of, and there have been cases of data being misused.

http://www.databreaches.net/b-c-privacy-breach-lawsuit-against-rcmp-may-expand/

Lastly, and more importantly, I'd actually question the NEED for such laws, given the fact that the police seem to be unwilling to enforce the laws they currently have. Take for example the case of Dennis Markuze/David Mabus.... harassed people on the internet (even issuing death threats) for years, yet the police did nothing, regardless of the number of times it was reported to them. It took a huge online effort by people working world wide to finally get them to act.

So why should we trust the police with new powers when they don't seem to be using the powers that they do have?

[Michael Hardner]

So why should we trust the police with new powers when they don't seem to be using the powers that they do have?

I don't think your example weighs into this. If the crime was serious enough, they would have paid it attention.

I think abuses can and will happen, but the abuses themselves will be easier to manage in the new digital world. If the police think it will help them, then I say let's do it.

[segnosaur]

Re: Dennis Markuze as an example of police ineffectiveness...

So why should we trust the police with new powers when they don't seem to be using the powers that they do have?

I don't think your example weighs into this. If the crime was serious enough, they would have paid it attention.

I'm sorry, but "serious enough"? We're talking death threats. We're talking about a level of action that could best be described as stalking. We're talking about harassment going back decades against multiple people. We're talking about someone who actually showed up at meetings that the targets of his harassment were at.

And you honestly don't think that was "serious enough" to act on?

I think abuses can and will happen, but the abuses themselves will be easier to manage in the new digital world.

Not really sure why you think abuses are "easier to manage in a digital world".

Having information transmitted and stored digitally leads to all sorts of problems... law enforcement and criminals can much more easily go on "fishing expaditions", information can be replicated much more easily, breaches can be done even when not in geographic proximity, spoofing becomes much easier. All of those make abuses harder to manage, not easier.

[Michael Hardner]

I'm sorry, but "serious enough"? We're talking death threats. We're talking about a level of action that could best be described as stalking. We're talking about harassment going back decades against multiple people. We're talking about someone who actually showed up at meetings that the targets of his harassment were at.

Yes, I don't think those were serious enough for police to pursue it at the time. I think attitudes have changed, though.

And you honestly don't think that was "serious enough" to act on?

I phrased my point differently. I'll try again: if the crime was more serious, then the police would have paid more attention.

I didn't mean to imply that threats are not serious crimes, just that the police prioritize these things. And again, I'm not saying that those priorities are right or wrong.

Not really sure why you think abuses are "easier to manage in a digital world".

For the same reason that we're pursuing these powers for police in the first place: digital is traceable. In the old days, you couldn't easily prove police abuse but with everybody carrying a connected video recorder today the truth is at the ready.

Having information transmitted and stored digitally leads to all sorts of problems... law enforcement and criminals can much more easily go on "fishing expaditions", information can be replicated much more easily, breaches can be done even when not in geographic proximity, spoofing becomes much easier. All of those make abuses harder to manage, not easier.

I think that part of it is true - it's easier to go on fishing expeditions for sure. How have police done that in the past ? They look for evidence that way, then find something... and then what ? Do they start surveilling the person more closely ? That's the abuse that I can see happening.

[Guest]

I don't think your example weighs into this. If the crime was serious enough, they would have paid it attention.

I think abuses can and will happen, but the abuses themselves will be easier to manage in the new digital world. If the police think it will help them, then I say let's do it.

Yeah, me too.

[cybercoma]

Child predators is so 1990s. They should have gone with the terrorism narrative, then you'd have the so-called libertarians here tripping over themselves to support it.

[notca]

I am all for it.

It is well known that the internet is used widely for terrorist recruitment and for other incitement to hate by other groups as well (Neo-Nazis, KKK, etc.

I don't think it would be a deterrent for child predators though, they are very slick and sneaky. You can restrict your child's access only to a degree. They can always gain internet access through a friend's computer or with their smart phones.

What are you who oppose the idea putting on the internet that you don't want monitored?

Keeping the RCMP from warrantless access would more likely help their policing efforts for they already monitor sites. A lot of arrest have been made by tracing criminals through the internet.

I find it ironic that so many people are concerned about their 'human right to privacy'. There is no such thing as privacy any more; we all ought to know that. There are security cameras everywhere, everyone is snapping pictures with their phones, hackers are able to get just about any information they want. There is no such thing as a 100% 'secure' site. Our credit card and social security numbers could be floating around all over cyberspace and there is nothing we can do about it.

And still we balk at any kind of legislation that will help to weed out terrorist activities.

I doubt if the Liberals will go for it. They are an anti-police. anti-military, anything goes group that is afraid to be tough on anybody in case they lose votes. With only the dwindling number of voters who still respect law and order and national security voting for their opposition, they will reign supreme forever.

Edited November 26, 2015 by notca

[bush_cheney2004]

Why wouldn't the arrogance of Justin Trudeau and Ralph Goodale be acceptable compared to the arrogance of Stephen Harper's "regime" ?

[Smallc]

Shut down the internet. It's the only solution.

[Derek 2.0]

The children at risk of sexual abuse via Internet strategies are generally vulnerable children at risk of many things due to lack of parental oversight - may be due to parental illness, disability, substance abuse, absence, etc.

It's naive to suggest that ALL parents will supervise their kids Internet use.

No argument here, I've no doubt there are "bad parents", but I would assume that in many examples, its more of a lack of knowledge/ignorance on the parents part, in that many born of previous generations might not fully understand the harm that could come to children with the internet age.

But I am still opposed to blanket warrantless access for police, unless the website/communication channel in question is of an illegal nature. They have to have a reason.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean.......do you favor warrantless searches on illegal websites? If so, who decides if it is illegal?

[Derek 2.0]

I'm totally against it.

First of all, you have the "slippery slope" argument... although the RCMP claims it is for "child predators" and the like, but there is no guarantee that the RCMP won't cast its nets wider in the future.

Exactly, hence I don't see a viable reason to take a judge out of the process.

Secondly, I trust the government (and the RCMP) about as far as I can throw it. Data breaches are not unheard of, and there have been cases of data being misused.

I fully agree.

[Derek 2.0]

I think abuses can and will happen, but the abuses themselves will be easier to manage in the new digital world. If the police think it will help them, then I say let's do it.

Ok, but at what point do we draw the line between helping the police and protecting society's right to privacy?

For example, if the police said warrantless searches of our homes would help them prevent crimes, nah or yah?

[Michael Hardner]

Ok, but at what point do we draw the line between helping the police and protecting society's right to privacy?

You can't draw a line at a point, it's between two points. You do the geometry.

Not to stab your metaphor to death with my protractor, I don't know if we can state a maxim here or go case by case.

For example, if the police said warrantless searches of our homes would help them prevent crimes, nah or yah?

We're already past that for physical spaces. That's old law. The reason why the digital age questions are coming up is that digital is a new medium and the legalities, definition of public space and so on are still being worked out.

[Derek 2.0]

You can't draw a line at a point, it's between two points. You do the geometry.

Not to stab your metaphor to death with my protractor, I don't know if we can state a maxim here or go case by case.

If you're not sure if an edict from upon the mountain top can be defined (and followed) wouldn't that leave us to the status quo.......case by case, through the courts applying for a warrant from a judge?

We're already past that for physical spaces. That's old law. The reason why the digital age questions are coming up is that digital is a new medium and the legalities, definition of public space and so on are still being worked out.

The telephone is more than a century old, it would seem the arguments against warrantless wiretaps has been fought and won (for privacy).......if the State can't compel the phone companies to allow warrantless wiretaps, why is it different with ones internet provider?

[Michael Hardner]

If you're not sure if an edict from upon the mountain top can be defined (and followed) wouldn't that leave us to the status quo.......case by case, through the courts applying for a warrant from a judge?

By 'case by case' I mean, perhaps, circumstance by circumstance. For example IP addresses being available to police to tie content to a physical computer at a location for the purposes of tracing terrorists.... that's a 'case' as I intended it.

The telephone is more than a century old, it would seem the arguments against warrantless wiretaps has been fought and won (for privacy).......if the State can't compel the phone companies to allow warrantless wiretaps, why is it different with ones internet provider?

Because phones are different from the internet. If the internet wasn't invented, but software that turned voice to text had, then the argument around phone tapping could possibly be re-opened as the context would now be different.

It's not that much of a stretch: even changing cultural values cause court decisions to change.

[Derek 2.0]

By 'case by case' I mean, perhaps, circumstance by circumstance. For example IP addresses being available to police to tie content to a physical computer at a location for the purposes of tracing terrorists.... that's a 'case' as I intended it.

Ok, but why does a judge need to be taken out of the process?

Because phones are different from the internet. If the internet wasn't invented, but software that turned voice to text had, then the argument around phone tapping could possibly be re-opened as the context would now be different.

How is it different though? Why is one afford a level of privacy with voice communications versus emails or webpostings on social media............are not much of these communications relaid through the same means as a phone call?

It's not that much of a stretch: even changing cultural values cause court decisions to change.

Sure, but I don't see this as a push by societies cultural values changing, more so as a push by an organ of the State.........I think most of society would be opposed to this.......if this tiny poll is a like reflection of society, the vast majority would be opposed.

[Argus]

The level of hysteria over child abuse always makes for a good club for the police to wield. I admit I've not seen any statistics, but I'm going to go ahead and suggest that about 99.99% of child abuse occurs without any internet component to the crime.

[eyeball]

Because phones are different from the internet. If the internet wasn't invented, but software that turned voice to text had, then the argument around phone tapping could possibly be re-opened as the context would now be different.

It's not that much of a stretch: even changing cultural values cause court decisions to change.

It's what people do with their phones and internet connection that matters, which is communicate, often privately with expectation and assurances of privacy, to one another.

It's a huge stretch to see why the technology people use to do the same thing people have been doing for generations should change the courts decisions. It's one thing to say technology changes culture but you seem to be suggesting that technology is culture. That's not just some mere change, it's an outright subsumption of the latter's paradigm by the former. It transforms everything, radically. Now that you've made the leap I can't understand why you're not calling for an end to warrantless phone-tapping as well.

Resistance is inevitable...look at the poll results at the top of the page if you don't believe me.

[Keepitsimple]

I'm OK as long as there is an official audit trail of all uses of warrantless access. Periodically, there should be a random check of a small percentage of them to ensure that there was some sort of probable cause - some reasonable rationale for taking action.

[jacee]

No argument here, I've no doubt there are "bad parents", but I would assume that in many examples, its more of a lack of knowledge/ignorance on the parents part, in that many born of previous generations might not fully understand the harm that could come to children with the internet age.

The most vulnerable and most likely victims are kids 'in care'.

Did you know that we don't even track when they die or go missing?

They just 'ran away'.

No tracking, no accountability.

Kids are worth money.

The white kids are sent to Asia, I've heard.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean.......do you favor warrantless searches on illegal websites? If so, who decides if it is illegal?

Child porn is illegal.

Communication for the purpose ... is illegal.

I'd like clarification from the RCMP of just what kind of perps they are after.

Maybe the 3 here on the board can tell us. :-)

Edited November 26, 2015 by jacee