Slashdot Mirror
Bill Would Let Police Monitor Email
Duuk2k2 writes "The Canadian federal cabinet will review new legislation this fall that would give police and security agencies vast powers to begin surveillance of the Internet without court authority. The new measures would allow law-enforcement agents to intercept personal e-mails, text messages and possibly even password-secure websites used for purchasing and financial transactions."
Hello, PGP.
This space intentionally left blank.
Of course Canada needs these invasions of our freedom. After those terrorists crashed those planes into the CN Tower in Toronto, how can we possibly go back to that pre-9/11 thinking? If only the RCMP had intercepted their emails, we would have nabbed them on their commute from Pickering. Then there would have been no more terrorists, and we could get our freedom back from the nice Progressive Conservatives tirelessly toiling to protect us.
After all, it's not like military lawyers stopped intelligence agencies from intercepting Mohammed Atta and his fellow planebombers a year before they did any damage. You're thinking of that third-world failed regime to the South.
--
make install -not war
With news like these, at first we all think of encrypting our mail with PGP/GPG but... how do we know that it will make a difference?
Maybe governments know how to decode it but it's kept in secret in order to create a false sense of security
Quick, the tinfoil hat!
--
Dreamhost superb hosting.
Kunowalls!!! Random sexy wallpapers.
Hosting 20G hd, 1Tb bw! ssh $7.95
Back when the telephone tapping legislation was first created, some wise law maker decided a judge should look at the evidence and allow or deny the police the ability to monitor people.
Now what would happen if that same legislation (on phone tapping) was created today? Would the police and 'security services' be able to listen to anyone they wanted without any kind of oversight?
Where did our legal right to privacy go? And why do governments have no respect for people's right to communicate over the internet? Like it is some second class method of communication.
Don't pretend this bill will give police and related investigatory services adaquete skills to prosecute more internet related crime! IT WON'T!! The only thing this bill will do, will be to allow police officers the right to violate our privacy without due cause!
The reason they (law enforcement) aren't able to prosecute child pornographers and other cyber-criminals better and faster has nothing to due with the fact that they can't get at data/communications quickly because they have to get warrants.
They aren't trained properly and not enough resources (manpower and money) is dedicated to finding and convicting cyber-criminals!!
STOP creating laws that have great acronyms, are "for the children", etc. Create laws will allow proper funding and manpower to be given to the agencies/groups that need it and will use it properly!
Well, it would also be in conflict with the Privacy Act, the PIPEDA and so on. They would first have to declare a state of emergency to get such a law to be effective.
Oh well, what the hell...
1. Hard drive hardware encryption
2. Hard drive boot loader software encryption
3. OS software encryption
4. Container software encryption
5. File software encryption
6. Nym and Mixmaster remailing
7. Chained proxies
People have for years scoffed that these were only for terrorists, kiddie pr0n posters, and trolls. Then they said that you could just move to Canada. Well, what are you going to do when the draft dodger paradise forgets what civil rights like speech, privacy, and so on are all about?
Of course course, we should be less worried about a known dallier with socialism like Canada than the home of people who told the British crown where to stick it. I think one of our founders said something about not deserving either security or freedom if being willing to trade one for the other and something else about hanging together or hanging separately.
You know, criminals misuse guns, knives, and baseball bats. We don't stop owning or using them when and where necessary because of it. We shouldn't look askance at any and all methods of maintaining our privacy. What's next? We leave our doors unlocked and wide open because drug dealers close and lock theirs? Let's not be a bunch of yutzes.
If anything, the government is single-handedly ENCOURAGING criminals and terrorists to use advanced technologies for privacy by going on about them at length constantly and pushing therefore towards wider adoption by the civilian populace. Eventually these things will become normal and everyday and what frigging law can they pass then that will undo it without undoing the entirety of the pinnacle of Western civilization, freedom and primacy of the people over government?
If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
Seriously. Can you name one place in the entire world where the freedom of the people is significantly improving? Iraq may be the only place where that's true, and I think most of us would agree that the "freedom" the people have there is more a matter of appearances than reality. I'm not here to debate about Iraq, though, so feel free to count it as an example of improving freedom in the world if you wish.
But I can name many more places where real freedom is heading into the gutter than where it's on the upswing.
Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
Canada's got a couple of things working against this proposed bill. First off, we're in a minority Government right now, and I can name two political parties which are used to hold the balance on a regular basis who would have nothing to do with such a horrid bill. Also, the bill wouldn't pass the House of Commons for a long while, considering how much stalling would happen in comittee. This is probably how all these horrid bills you see will be forgotten, we're on the verge of a federal election the moment the House of Commons returns from recess, and bills die on the floor if not passed before Parliament disolves.
Also, it would never survive a Charter challenge, especially since aspects of the bill allow police to intercept and read open email without a warrant. Mail in Canada, like in the US, is probably one of the most protected forms of communication. One would argue (I can't wait until Michael Geist (http://michaelgeist.ca/) gets his hands on this), that it clearly is in direct opposition to Canada's Charter of rights and Freedoms. Section 8 of the charter clearly states that "Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure."
In short, boo to the Liberals for proposing such a piece of work, yay for the polical system of Canada working against it.
Slightly offtopic, so posting anonymously, but it's kicking around my head right now, and is on the subject of police accountablility.
Here in the UK, firearms laws are among some of the restrictive in the world. Basically, anything other than manually-operatated rifles and shotguns are banned, and the aforementioned two are heavily restricted. The police has sole discretion (short of the courts) to decide who is allowed to own a firearm and who is not. This has caused a multitude of problems.
Gun crime here in the UK is soaring. And lets just say it's not entirely caused by legally-held firearms. The police have found themselves in a conflict of interest. They are primarily a crime-fighting organisation, so they are concerned primarily with well... fighting crime. In their eyes, guns = crime. Gun owners are seen at best as a regulatory nuisance (firearms certificates involve a lot of expensive red tape for both the police and the applicant), and at worst, partially responsible for the current crime wave. Many officers who issue firearm licences think it is plain ludicrous to be dishing out firearms certificates when Yardie gangsters are gunning down rivals with Uzi submachine guns. Coupled with external political pressures to find a "quick-fix solution" to this, the result is seen in somewhat arbitary restrictions and requirements placed on firearms ownership, and often people are simple denied a firearms licence with no explaination whatsoever.
A few months ago a friend at my gunclub applied for his firearm licence (he had previously owned a shotgun for many years under a less restrictive "shotgun licence", so no problems there). He was denied on the basis that we was "no fit to be entrusted with a firearm". There was no elaboration. The decision seemed ludicrous, however...
In 1996 a lunatic by the name of Thomas Hamilton walked into a school and shot a whole load of little kiddies (an event that make the anti-gun lobby cream their pants, with resulting banning spree). My friend's name was also Thomas Hamilton - presumably an ignorant or vindictive police officer saw the name and denied the licence outright.
Fortunately, an appeal to the courts took about two minutes to rule in his favour, and he ultimately received his licence, but this sort of constant harrassment by the police has succeeded in driving legitimate shooters from the sport.
Who polices the policemen?
I remember as a child in the late 60s and a teen in the mid to late 70s that life was good: the Canadian dollar was at or above par with the U.S. dollar, people who worked had health care coverage through their employer, and Canadians had a reputation for being friendly -- at least that's what Americans seamed to say.
Then, Trudeau's brand of sweeping socialism set in. Medicare became universal for everything. Taxes soared and the government went into serious debt. The dollar fell. It was harder and harder to make ends meet -- not so much because of inflation, but rather because of the tax burden (Canadian couples can't file jointly, so traditional families with one income earner really got taxed badly -- my mother had to return to work in 1975 to help pay our family's income taxes!).
But, many thought this was a worthwhile price to pay for our nanny state.
Over the years, taxes rose, and all those government services declined in quality. Waiting lists for medical care grew and grew and grew. These days, what qualifies as a middle class lifestyle in the U.S. is but a dream of wealth for many Canadians: being able to pay a kid to mow one's lawn is a big luxery.
Last time I was in Canada, people were downright mean, espescially when they found out I had worked in the U.S. for several years -- how dare I not pay my share of taxes "at home" (Er, because I wasn't using any of the services, and had paid far more than the share I consumed when I had lived there?). My daughter was berated by her teacher in school for bringing in her previous year's (U.S.) public elementary school yearbook for show and tell: how dare she "show off the rich school yearbook" from a school that no other child present could ever hope to attend.
It appeared that those "nice to Americans" people had degenerated to the level of rats, scrambling to survive, amid a society in decay -- a dog eat dog world, envyious of anyone who might live better by working harder, never seeing the socialist system as the root of their malaise.
Particularly after Canada decided not to join the U.S. in it's "Adventure of the Willing", many Canadians I met appeared to have been emboldened beyond an indifferance toward the U.S. (always masking thinly some degree of envy) to downright hatred -- some to the point of praising known terrorists for their attacks against the U.S.
It is very true that "you can't go home again."
You could've hired me.
Given that I have had police threaten me because I took photos of a hit and run that they were trying to cover up at the mayor's direction, I fear these kinds of laws. This one doesn't affect me because I am in the U.S., but I suspect that the police in Canada are similar to ours.
The Americans use the NSA to monitor mon american communications because under their laws, foreigners have no rights. The Canadians use CISIS to monitor american communications for the same reasons. Then they trade data.
I once sent and email to Australia when the net was young and in it I used some words that could be interpreted in isolation as suspicious. Then I put a note in the email to the effect I knew it was going to be read by the NSA and I made a comment that if they were worried about what I was "really up to" they should check out www.blah.com.
Within 12 hours the server picked up hits from the NSA. Then they were dumb enough to be using windows machines. For anyone wanting to penetrate their security - its pretty trivia. A simple honeypot is a good start.
There seems to be just no limit to the depths of depravity that paranoia will drive these people. Then they think they are being righteous. Meanwhile as they go off chasing ghosts they are perfectly willing to ignore huge white collar crimes in the way of frauds that are being perpetrated via stock market and other swindles on an almost daily basis. Enron is just one example.
So many times I've used the metaphor...
A frog, some people swear, is incapable of noticing subtle rises in the temperature of the water it occupies. These same folk say that if you put a frog in a pot of cold water, and slowly let the water come to a boil, the frog will happily do froggy things in the water until it boils to death.
The frog is now dead. The US and its clients have boiled away all the water in the pot.
Go back to your reality TV shows, citizens, nothing to fear unless you are doing something criminal or unpatriotic or that which undermines the President's authority in wartime (which by defining the war's purpose as eliminating a common noun, will be eternal)...
You aren't a criminal, are you? Or anti-party-in-power, which will be equivalent?
Are you sure?
They'll be watching.
Forever.
6 of the 9-11 terrorists came through canada, on the catferry from NS to bar harbor to get to boston.
While I'll happily concede if you can name a credible source, I did search and found that this is an urban myth that the slackjawed right-wingers use to imagine that the rest of the world is to blame, rather than themselves. There is, according to what I can find (in actual credible news) zero proof that any of the 9/11 terrorists ever touched foot in Canada. Instead they were busy spending their time taking advantage of all the US had to offer.
Idiot.
... aimed at micro loan places that lent money to women to start businesses. Against Islam.
Jihadis in Bangladesh YESTERDAY set off 100 bombs
Jihadis behead Thai Monks; and blow up Beijing commuters (nasty jihadi separatists in both countries).
But go ahead, blame the country that puts women in command of Space Shuttles, not the country that won't let em drive and puts them in tents.
Don't do a thing, and let the next atrocity end up with something like internments.
PS Canada has Shariah Law for Family Court. That's an obscenity.
I would say that everyone needs to be accountable, police and judiciary included... Personal responsiblity is a good idea - and even the neo-cons in the US thought so - up until they realized that it applied to them, too...
As has been said many, many times in the ongoing arguments over firearms rights in the US: "If guns are outlawed, then only outlaws will have guns."
As I understand it, though, the UK does not have a clause in their Constitution requiring Citizens to bear arms against Tyranny in defense of Liberty. Not sure whose job that is in the UK...?
It is far easier these days to get and use a firearm illegally than it is to get and use one legally (in the US). The result? As you describe - a proliferation of gun crimes and criminals with guns, while citizens go begging for defense of their own rights.
There are some notable exceptions to this situation - e.g. counties where residents are *required* to own a firearm (very low crime rates in those areas), but overall the current fascist regime has continues to pursue Hitler's ideal - an disarmed (and largely mis-informed) population. How else is a fascist dictator to get by, after all?
"My idea of gun control is to hit what I shoot at."
"The Internet is made of cats."
I would hardly call gun crime 'soaring'... stop reading the Daily Mail!!
The gun crime rate, far from soaring is actually falling.
Gun crime is 0.5% of all crime... 9% of all homicides recorded. A total of 88 deaths per *year* (source: home office statistics 2003/04).
In other words you chances of being killed by a gun are 1.44 in a million.
Go an ask our US friends how many deaths due to gun crime there are in a *week* let alone a year, then talk about 'soaring'.
And the reality of this is that it won't help security ONE BIT. I mean, all a criminal/terrorist/whatever has to do is encrypt their message and any surveillance is absolutely, 100% useless. Politicians are absolute FOOLS to believe otherwise.
So it may catch "dumb" criminals, but it won't catch anyone who knows how to avoid it.
And what's to stop me, as someone who runs my own mail server (that accepts SSL connections)? Or to stop someone who offshores their email accounts to another country and uses an encrypted email client (ala hushmail)? Nothing - encryption renders all surveillance useless, and more and more software is encrypting data now (and you can be sure there will be FAR, FAR more if this legislation passes).
So I think this is dangerous, and extremely foolish. As some radio hosts mentioned today, what's the difference between this and someone slitting-open all of your mail, or monitoring all of your phone calls? And guess who will PAY for all of this extra public monitoring. You guessed it, the public that's BEING monitored!
I have a feeling that all of this may be political ass-covering however - if they put forward this proposal and it's shot-down, if something "does" happen, no politicians will lose their jobs for "not checking email" because "the public veto'ed it". Aren't politicians great...
N.
"Nothing strengthens authority so much as silence." - Charles de Gaulle
You just sound bitter. As a Canadian, I'm very happy you're in the US. Perhaps we really don't want you back. But this is why different countries exist. I happen to love universal medicare, and I think the Trudeau era changes were great. The problems with the dollar after, and many of the things some (short sighted) people wish to ascribe to his government and policy, were in fact the results of the things going on in the 70s, alot of it related to oil. Most of the other world economies went through exactly the same thing, and I'm pretty sure they weren't taking advice from Mister Trudeau.
I may mention that our country has no deficit. I may also mention that we have alot of great social programs, many of which have prevented this country from becoming a barren landscape of cultureless strip malls. These involve the arts and local culture. I may also point out that our unemployment insurance program at last count was in a SURPLUS of BILLIONS. Possibly we could argue that its because people payed too much into it, or it could be that, well maybe the economy really isn't so bad over here.
The recent trend towards private medicare is really just a push on the part of the doctors for more of a cash grab, and shame on them. With the exception of places like Quebec and Ontraio, where first a Sovernist government created policies hostile towards universal heath care, and second basically a right wing government like the Republicans did more or less the same thing, most of the other provinces are quite happy with it.
As for your whining about hostility towards Americans on the part of Canadians, you might see that alot of that hostility (if it does exist) is directed at the current government. People here spoke quite favourably abuot Bill Clinton and his governmnt over all. There was a feeling that with the help of the US a new era of world peace and cooperation had started. And then...well..we all know recent history. If you read ANY media sources which are from outside the US, you'll find that this attitude and hostility is actually pretty universal world wide. You should think about that. THINK. I know its alot to ask from some people these days.