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

segnosaur · November 27, 2015

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.

"Privacy" is not a binary concept. It is not an all-or-nothing thing.

You definitely do have certain rights with regards to privacy... while the police may watch you in a public area, they don't have the ability to watch you in your own home. (And should it be necessary to do so, the government has to make a case before a judge why its necessary.)

Just because some elements of our privacy have been lost, does not mean we should automatically surrender the remainder of our privacy rights.

As for things like cell phone pics and hackers... That actually has nothing to do with your 'rights'. Your constitutional rights only define what the government can and can't do. It says nothing about what a private citizen can do to another citizen.

ReeferMadness · November 27, 2015

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.

Wouldn't it be hard to stab anything (even a metaphor) to death with a protractor?

segnosaur · November 27, 2015

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.

Markuze was only sentenced less than 6 months ago, and his latest sentence wasn't any more severe than previous sentences (probation, with conditions that he pretty much immediately started to violate). So unless you know of some big change in just the past few months, I'd say no, attitudes haven't really changed much.

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.

Uttering death threats is a significant crime, and more than enough non-police people have considered it a significant issue. (And, it should be noted, that particular crime has been dealt with before.)

Claiming that the police "just gave it a lower priority" doesn't really help your case. In fact, it pretty much strengthens my argument... cops had a law that they could have used and chose not to, despite many people being negatively affected.

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.

Digital isn't always traceable... It depends on what type of logging facilities are in place.

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.

It is true that the ability to record police can prevent abuses. But I'm not sure how that analogy applies here.

I believe the proposed law is that the police can get your records without warrant, and without informing you. Its kind of the opposite of your analogy... you're allowing the police to act as if they had a cloak of invisibility.

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.

I'm thinking of other abuses...

- A policeman looking for information for their own personal use (e.g. "I wonder if my neighbor uses Ashley Madison? I'll demand the ISP records to find out").

- Police gather information on a wide range of people, but have their own systems hacked (i.e. its another point of vulnerability)

segnosaur · November 27, 2015

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.

So lets say they do a random check and find that there was no reasonable rationale for obtaining those records in a large number of cases...What happens then? Do they erase the memory of everyone on the police force? Blow up their servers?

Performing those checks afterwards is a case of locking the barn door after the horses have run off. Many people would prefer that such checks should be done before the data is collected, as it is now with judges and warrants.

Michael Hardner · November 27, 2015

I'm thinking of other abuses...

- A policeman looking for information for their own personal use (e.g. "I wonder if my neighbor uses Ashley Madison? I'll demand the ISP records to find out").

- Police gather information on a wide range of people, but have their own systems hacked (i.e. its another point of vulnerability)

Those are both risks, but they are acceptable to me if weighed against the benefits of having more tools to use against criminals. What do you think ?

Michael Hardner · November 27, 2015

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.

That's what I'm talking about in terms of traceability. The fact that we're talking about digital means that there will be these kind of audit trails available.

Michael Hardner · November 27, 2015

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

I think that you can have more pervasive and exploratory investigations without those steps in the process.

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?

The communication is different, it's a different medium, so the nature of privacy is different too. If you can monitor millions of HTML message for keywords then it's not the same as having you listen to a private conversation with a family member.

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.

I didn't mean to say that that was happening, but in fact I do think it is. Privacy and our culture is definitely changing, as expected, from this new technology. How else can you explain a bunch of strangers going on line to get mad at somebody on the other side of the country ?

Michael Hardner · November 27, 2015

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.

It's a pretty basic question, which is not to say it's simple. I'm a McLuhanite - so technology and culture, to me, are communication. If you ask people what culture is to them, they will likely answer in terms of technology: film, television, recorded music, and web. The fact that people don't even see these things as technology... well, that may mean that technology is culture after all.

segnosaur · November 27, 2015

I'm thinking of other abuses...
- A policeman looking for information for their own personal use (e.g. "I wonder if my neighbor uses Ashley Madison? I'll demand the ISP records to find out").

- Police gather information on a wide range of people, but have their own systems hacked (i.e. its another point of vulnerability)

Those are both risks, but they are acceptable to me if weighed against the benefits of having more tools to use against criminals. What do you think ?

Keep in mind that police actions do not just affect criminals, they can and do affect the average person too. Ideally the goal is to limit the impact to non-criminals; this is why I think warrantless searches are bad.

Secondly, remember, the tools themselves already existed... police could already get your ISP records. First, they had to convince a neutral 3rd party (i.e. a judge) that there was a reason. That doesn't seem like a particularly onerous step.

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.

That's what I'm talking about in terms of traceability. The fact that we're talking about digital means that there will be these kind of audit trails available.

Again though.... checking for police abuses of power after the fact is a case of locking the barn door after the horses have left (and been turned into hamburgers in a European supermarket.)

You also have the issue of who does the audit... if its the police, then you have the questionable activity of the police checking up on themselves. And, you're also expecting that whatever audit trails are in place are actually secure, and data doesn't mysteriously go missing.

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

I think that you can have more pervasive and exploratory investigations without those steps in the process.

Yes you can. The question is, do we as a society WANT to have such pervasive investigations into (possibly) innocent individuals.

After all, we could also have more pervasive and exploratory investigations if we allowed police to search our homes without warrants, or pick up and hold people indefinitely without cause, or listen in to all our phone conversations without a warrant. As a society we've decided that that is giving police too much power. The same should be true with what we think is (relatively) private communication on the internet.

It should be the job of the police to convince people that the power to invade privacy is required.

jacee · November 27, 2015

Yes I agree.

I am still not clear on how police want to use this warrantless power.

Would they be tracking traffic to particular types of sites?

Are they talking about particular types of crimes?

It doesn't seem so.

Just blanket warrantless identification of users everywhere, all the time?

Seems unwarranted.

? pun intended

.

Michael Hardner · November 27, 2015

Ideally the goal is to limit the impact to non-criminals;

The impact to non-criminals may be something like:

Keyword searches on HTML messages, or voice-to-text messages done by software where 'hits' are sent to a database for cross-referencing against known persons of interest.

That, to me, is zero impact. To some it may have an impact, and to others a significant impact.

I suspect most Canadians would feel different about such things than they would about being spied on by a camera in their house, and that's what will decide if these measures go forward or not.

That doesn't seem like a particularly onerous step.

It sounds like something that could add hours to a time-sensitive investigation in certain cases. Maybe that's not onerous, maybe it is.

Yes you can. The question is, do we as a society WANT to have such pervasive investigations into (possibly) innocent individuals.

Yes, that is the question. I'm ok with it. You're not. The matter will be decided collaboratively as such.

Keepitsimple · November 27, 2015

So lets say they do a random check and find that there was no reasonable rationale for obtaining those records in a large number of cases...What happens then? Do they erase the memory of everyone on the police force? Blow up their servers?

Performing those checks afterwards is a case of locking the barn door after the horses have run off. Many people would prefer that such checks should be done before the data is collected, as it is now with judges and warrants.

The point is they CAN take some action - including formalizing "escalating" penalties within the force (if they don't already plan to have that) or amending the actual legislation. If you can't measure abuse, you can't manage it. But not allowing anything because you assume the worst case is not the wisest course of action. Checks and balances.

jacee · November 27, 2015

The impact to non-criminals may be something like:

Keyword searches on HTML messages, or voice-to-text messages done by software where 'hits' are sent to a database for cross-referencing against known persons of interest.

That, to me, is zero impact. To some it may have an impact, and to others a significant impact.

I don't think they want to use it just to track 'known persons of interest'. Warrantless means they can go fishing.

And you can bet they'll be going on fishing expeditions for Indigenous and other activists who protest pipelines, etc.

I don't trust them.

I suspect most Canadians would feel different about such things than they would about being spied on by a camera in their house, and that's what will decide if these measures go forward or not.

It sounds like something that could add hours to a time-sensitive investigation in certain cases. Maybe that's not onerous, maybe it is.

You are naively assuming they will only use these invasive powers in particular criminal cases. That's easy to get a warrant for, and I don't think that's the issue here.

They want to go fishing without a license for whatever they can catch.

.

notca · November 27, 2015

As for things like cell phone pics and hackers... That actually has nothing to do with your 'rights'. Your constitutional rights only define what the government can and can't do. It says nothing about what a private citizen can do to another citizen.

I am not an expert on what our Constitutional rights define. But private citizens are doing a lot of things to other private citizens that if not defined, certainly should be.

And the government does things to private citizens that they should not be able to do. They curb free speech for one thing and for another thing they allow inequality where there should be none under the Constitution.

I'm sorry, but I think people are paranoid about their 'rights'. Living within the law is the best way to guarantee that our 'rights' won't be violated. The RCMP can monitor my internet activities until they fall asleep from boredom and they wont find anything posted anywhere that would trigger the need for a warrant. If they do find something that is a potential threat to our security, they should have the power to do whatever it takes to investigate it thoroughly.

Big Guy · November 27, 2015

BTW. There is no responsibility for an internet provider to keep the client list a secret. There is no responsibility of the owners of this board to keep the identities of the posters a secret.

Tomorrow - They could post all of the log in information that they have on each poster.

Years ago, I was a participant on a local "anonymous" bulletin board. Had a problem with a particular poster. Had a friend who had a friend who worked for the provider. I ended up easily locating the billing address and name of the person who owned the account.

When you pi$$ off people you can run but you cannot hide.

eyeball · November 27, 2015

It's a pretty basic question, which is not to say it's simple. I'm a McLuhanite - so technology and culture, to me, are communication. If you ask people what culture is to them, they will likely answer in terms of technology: film, television, recorded music, and web. The fact that people don't even see these things as technology... well, that may mean that technology is culture after all.

Ok so the medium, surveillance technology, creates an environment - a "public space" for a "public" which in this case is a security agency. The content is us. McLuhan said the media was more important than content but clearly content has a lot more effect on society than he previously thought. Because the loud overarching message I seem to be hearing these days is that society is terrified of "content" and what it might be doing, or thinking or talking about or plotting and conspiring to do.

I guess the way to reassert that the medium is the message will be when the content actively tries to make itself invisible, through encryption, or any other technological means that cloaks it. Content has and will continue to have an increasing effect on society.

McLuhan was wrong. Content has always been an inseparable part of the message.

Edited November 27, 2015 by eyeball

segnosaur · November 27, 2015

So lets say they do a random check and find that there was no reasonable rationale for obtaining those records in a large number of cases...What happens then? Do they erase the memory of everyone on the police force? Blow up their servers?
Performing those checks afterwards is a case of locking the barn door after the horses have run off.

The point is they CAN take some action - including formalizing "escalating" penalties within the force (if they don't already plan to have that) or amending the actual legislation. If you can't measure abuse, you can't manage it. But not allowing anything because you assume the worst case is not the wisest course of action. Checks and balances.

Yes but the action is taken after the damage is done.

And lets say there are 100 cases and they check 10 and half of the checks were found to be abusive. What about the remaining 90 cases? Do you now have to check all of them? Or are you assuming just checking the small amount will be enough to prevent police abuse?

segnosaur · November 27, 2015

Ideally the goal is to limit the impact to non-criminals;

The impact to non-criminals may be something like:

Keyword searches on HTML messages, or voice-to-text messages done by software where 'hits' are sent to a database for cross-referencing against known persons of interest.

That, to me, is zero impact. To some it may have an impact, and to others a significant impact.

But that is not the only impact. As I suggested before, such a broad law may allow police to (for example) obtain information for personal use. That's far outside the impact of "keyword searches are finding stuff".

Plus, such keyword searches are likely to turn up at least a few false positives, meaning innocent people will be targeted by police (perhaps even arrested) because a keyword search turned up something innocuous.

And who decides what keywords to search for? And who is a "person of interest"?

It sounds like something that could add hours to a time-sensitive investigation in certain cases. Maybe that's not onerous, maybe it is.

But I suspect that much of that 'analysis' will be done after the fact, so being "time sensitive" probably won't be an issue.

Michael Hardner · November 27, 2015

I don't think they want to use it just to track 'known persons of interest'. Warrantless means they can go fishing.

Ok but fishing for what ? Terrorism suspects ? I don't know if that's the same as fishing for other offenders, such as drug users.

And you can bet they'll be going on fishing expeditions for Indigenous and other activists who protest pipelines, etc.

I agree.

Because the loud overarching message I seem to be hearing these days is that society is terrified of "content" and what it might be doing, or thinking or talking about or plotting and conspiring to do.

I think it's not so much about content but about a redefinition of public and private, both in terms of people and space.

If you think it's only about government looking at us, then you're wrong.

Look at how the police are now under surveillance. Look at how every single thing every political candidate has ever done is now available for us to review. It works both ways.

I guess the way to reassert that the medium is the message will be when the content actively tries to make itself invisible, through encryption, or any other technological means that cloaks it. Content has and will continue to have an increasing effect on society.

I think that something like that will happen, but also we're going to have to relax quite a bit or we will go crazy.

But that is not the only impact. As I suggested before, such a broad law may allow police to (for example) obtain information for personal use. That's far outside the impact of "keyword searches are finding stuff".

That is a possibility but people will not be changing their minds about surveillance policies over the possibility of having their personal data misused IMO.

ReeferMadness · November 27, 2015

The impact to non-criminals may be something like:

Who are these non-criminals? I understand they theoretically exist (like unicorns) but do they really? Between youthful mistakes, human error, human propensity to cheat when nobody is looking, dumb-ass prohibitions and overly broad laws, is there really anyone out there who has truly not committed at least one criminal act in his/her life?

Argus · November 27, 2015

Years ago, I was a participant on a local "anonymous" bulletin board. Had a problem with a particular poster. Had a friend who had a friend who worked for the provider. I ended up easily locating the billing address and name of the person who owned the account.

When you pi$$ off people you can run but you cannot hide.

Years ago some guy on this site had a problem with me and threatened to find out where I lived so he could deal with me in person. He was banned immediately.

Michael Hardner · November 27, 2015

Who are these non-criminals?

I set up two groups - the targets of the surveillance and those who are surveilled incidentally. You can label them as you like.

ReeferMadness · November 27, 2015

I set up two groups - the targets of the surveillance and those who are surveilled incidentally. You can label them as you like.

I don't believe there are two mutually exclusive groups. When laws are created, politicians always cite the worst case examples to justify them. Inevitably, a whole bunch of more nebulous cases (which are probably more the rule) get dragged into the "justice system". Law and order types (and the NRA) like to believe that you can neatly divide the world into "law abiding folks" and "criminals". The real world isn't like that.

I think the police already have too many "tools". I don't trust them to not abuse them.

Big Guy · November 27, 2015

Years ago some guy on this site had a problem with me and threatened to find out where I lived so he could deal with me in person. He was banned immediately.

Did he find you? You do understand that there is no such thing as complete anonymity on these boards.

Edited November 27, 2015 by Big Guy