Canadian ISPs Could Take On Big Brother Role

QGambit writes: "C|Net is reporting that the Canadian Government is considering a proposal that would force ISPs to keep logs of web browsing for up to 6 months, allow police to get search warrants allowing them to find 'hidden electronic and digital devices' and ban the possession of computer viruses. Canada and the U.S. have both endorsed this proposal, contained in a cybercrime treaty of the Council of Europe. Both countries are non-voting members of the Council. George Radwanski, Canada's privacy commissioner has not yet commented on the proposal."

Comments

This is probably illegal

[Retief65]

Such an initiative would likely be subject to a challenge under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, so much so that it would likely not be introduced in the first place. Endorsing a foreign initiative is not the same as legislating a domestic one, and I think Canadians believe that sufficient personal freedom has been traded for security. Besides, like this would stop evildoers who know how to surf untraceably.

Re:why?!

[KillerCow]

So, here's the question. Why do they need to keep logs of web page accesses?

From the article:
"Canadian officials say such laws are necessary to fight terrorism and combat even run-of-the-mill crimes. They also claim that by enacting these proposals, Canada will be following its obligations under the Council of Europe's cybercrime treaty, which the country is in the process of considering."

As a side note:
"[would] authorize police to order Internet providers to retain logs of all Web browsing for up to six months. . . . In most circumstances, a court order would be required for government agents to conduct Internet monitoring."

Link to proposal

[Anonymous Coward]

link to proposal

Just Won't Happen

[Inexile2002]

This seems to happen around once or twice a year in Canada. Some beaurocrat or treaty negotiator gets excited, puts something up for review and once the government figures out that it would violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (this clearly would) or just generally piss people off, it gets dropped.

Look at the knee jerk terrorism laws that were suggested after 9/11. Once the MPs looked at them seriously, cooler heads prevailed nothing happened. Same shit all over again.

As for the Charter of Rights,this law would easily be shot down in court on a number of counts including:

1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

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.

7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

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

24. (1) Anyone whose rights or freedoms, as guaranteed by this Charter, have been infringed or denied may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy as the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances.
(2) Where, in proceedings under subsection (1), a court concludes that evidence was obtained in a manner that infringed or denied any rights or freedoms guaranteed by this Charter, the evidence shall be excluded if it is established that, having regard to all the circumstances, the admission of it in the proceedings would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

Any law that infringes on this even a little will get thrown out by the courts the first time the police come hunting for a search warrant. The fact that the ISPs are not stupid means they will not be willing to shell out the cash for an infrastructute of a law that would collapse on the first court challenge.

Just won't happen.

Exaggeration alert

[ozonator]

Having looked at the document on the Department of Justice's web site, it seems to me that the C|Net report exaggerates more than a little bit.

The document isn't itself a proposal, it's a "Consultation Document," and has as its purpose to guide the modernization of Canada's Criminal Code, with respect to "lawful access" to electronic information. There are laws that are explicit about what the authorities have to do to be allowed to search my home and seize documents, for example; this document is directed towards coming up with similar laws for dealing with electronic property, which currently isn't so explicitly covered in the Criminal Code. The document lists many of the issues involved, and raises the questions that result, such as how long should an ISP be expected to preserve data when ordered to do so (i.e., not by default), and such as how the Criminal Code should cover interception of e-mail.

The only thing really proposed is this: "that all service providers (wireless, wireline and Internet) be required to ensure that their systems have the technical capability to provide lawful access to law enforcement and national security agencies." That's it; the rest of the document deals with how this should be implemented.

There. That should keep CSIS (Canada's version of the CIA) from putting me at the top of their "must eavesdrop" list. At least for a while. :)

Re:Ban possession of viruses?

[Anonymous Coward]

no, the plural of virus is virii, retard

Re:My thoughts:

[Dexx]

I've studied computer security in Canada and that involved discussing with the police what's involved with their investigations into IT crimes. In most of the cases, they can't really do much due to lack of resources and manpower. Logs would really help them out a lot in terms of tracking things down and trying to build cases. Our class was told that if we're working for a coproration and we're attacked, they can't really do much for us - the best thing we can do is use our logs to track down the attacker's ISP and deal with them directly.

I also now work for a Canadian ISP, so I've got a general idea as to how likely this is and how soon it'll be implemented...