Slashdot Mirror
Canadian Bill C-416 to Require Wiretapping
Matthew Skala writes "Bill C-416, recently introduced in the Canadian Parliament, would if passed require Internet providers to provide wiretapping facilities to law enforcement — without a warrant, and with 'confidentiality' requirements reminiscent of the secret-spying cases we've seen recently in the States. This new Act is a reprise of last Parliament's C-74, which failed when the Government's term ended. Coming back as a Liberal "private member's Bill" in a minority government, it will have little chance of success without cross-party support; but with the Conservatives in charge, all bets are off if they can find a way to claim it's about terrorism or child pornography."
It's like Canada, the UK, Australia, and the USA are in a race to reach full Orwellian Status before anyone else does. I don't get it either; these are all supposed to be FREE countries.
What was wrong with 1884? Slavery was over, prohibition hadnt happened yet. Great scientific strides where being made.
Libertarian Leaning Political Discussion Forum.
While I agree that the sick-in-the-head "Sociopathic Authoritarian" syndrome is by no means confined to the Conservative Party, there is no such thing as a "balanced solution" when an ability to conduct automated mass surveilance of citizens is concerned. And let's not kid ourselves here, this is precisely the Holy Grail of both police forces and the "intelligence" communities.
All of course in the effort to "protect" us from that hypothetical "ticking bomb" which blows few of us up every ... well .... a few decades or so. But it will certainly stop all those fat old geezers looking at their hand-drawn child-porn cartoons, otherwise they would go right out and abduct all of our children. Think of the children!!!
It wont pass for two reasons. One, the three other (very liberal) parties wont let it happen and two, it's a private members bill.
p x?Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=39&Ses=1/
You can tell it's a private members' bill because of its high number, in a majority parliament situation a double digit numbered bill (c-16 c-42 etc) will pass, PMB's rarely pass.
Here is a list of the current PMB's:
http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HouseBills/BillsPrivate.as
As you can see there are hundreds of them to be considered with this one being at the end of the line.
I highly doubt this will ever be voted on in legislative session in this session of parliament.
No. But history much. These regulations already exist in Britain and France.
How is harper a libertarian? Sucking usa tit is not libertarian.
I met with these crazy bastards. They really do want to do what they are describing in the article, and what's more, they want the ISPs to pay for it all. Here's what they want:
Access to up to 10% of the ISP's membership at any time with their own GigE (or 10GigE) port which mirrors all data flow that crosses the ISP's network. Yeah, that sounds easy.
Up to seven enforcement agencies including Interpol would have access to that 10% of the membership at any time, all at once if necessary. The ISP would be required to provide that access from remote, possibly meaning that a separate Internet transit grouping faster than the primary ones customers utilize would be required just to ship the data.
Physical access to the ISP's server rooms and network gear at any time by any of the seven agencies.
Full 24/7/365 co-operation and possibly dedicated employees for these tasks, again at the ISP's expense.
And there's more. I asked about 30 questions and in fact was by far the most vocal of the group when it came to the discussion, much to my chagrin. The big players at the table (Bell Canada, Rogers) simply said "this is ridiculous and we'll oppose it to the end," whereas I asked them pointed questions about the whole deal and gave examples of how burdensome the bill could be, especially to a relatively small player. They don't care. Adapt or die.
The cops, as usual, were rubbing their hands in glee. More budget! More cops! Less liberties! Less privacy! Lower quality of life! It's all for the good!
...Steve
Funny, reading her biography, I would have hoped for better from her:
...
"Ms. Jennings is the Liberal critic for Justice and a member of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights"
"Ms. Jennings has been Vice-Chair of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology,"
"She was a member of the Joint House of Commons-Senate Standing Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations, of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics"
She seems to have the makings of a good, upstanding netizen, who would be protecting our rights
I have sent her a note, and am still reading the bill. I would encourage all Canadians to do the same:
Parliamentary Office:
416 West Block
Ottawa ON K1A 0A6
(613) 995-2251
jennim@parl.gc.ca
Constituency Office:
6332 Sherbrooke St W
Suite 204
Montreal QC H4B 1M7
(514) 489-8703
Time to exercise your democratic muscles and express displeasure at such things, no matte which party this comes from.
And, while I am no fan of conservative politics in Canada, or anywhere else, editorial comments such as the one on this article are unnecessary. Keep comments like that to your myspace page.
We emerge from our mother's womb an unformatted diskette; our culture formats us. - Douglas Coupland
The Bill would not permit wiretapping without a warrant. It would require TSPs to build an infrastructure that facilitates greater levels of wiretapping - but only with warrants/judicial authorization (as currently required).
The Bill would also require TSPs to provide subscriber name and address info to police upon request, without a warrant. TSPs are currently permitted to hand over this (and more) information to police without warrants, but they can refuse unless presented with a warrant. The Bill would remove that discretion in the case of certain basic subscriber information.