Slashdot Mirror
In Canada, No Expectation of Privacy On the Net
The_AV8R writes "In a recent interview, Peter Van Loan, the new Canadian Public Safety minister, says ISPs should be able to provide private user information without a warrant. (The only example he gave was cases of child pornography; the interviewer pointed out that in these cases ISPs are already at liberty to divulge customer information without a warrant, but that the proposed rules would make that mandatory whenever the police ask.) He was adamant that in regard to IP addresses, names, cell phone numbers, and email addresses: '...that is not the kind of information about which Canadians have a legitimate expectation of privacy.' The minister denied — even when presented with an audio clip proving otherwise — that his predecessor had promised never to allow the police to wiretap the Internet without a warrant."
i dont expect anything on a computer or the internet to protect my privacy, so i take matters in to my own hands, i dont ever post my real name anywhere, i never upload a photo of myself, people need to protect their own privacy if they want their identiy off the internet/websites, --without-facebook --without-myspace even this user account on this PC is named anyuser which is an anonymous brand websites give to unidentified computers/people.
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
This Harper government becomes more fascist every week it seems. Thank GOD they don't form a majority of seat in parliament.
If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
Anywhere, anytime, it seems.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
I wonder how long it will be before all of this bozo's personal information will be scraped from the web and posted for all and sundry? I give it about 3 days, tops.
Sometimes, real fast is almost as good as real-time.
Don't you supposed to know you are supposed to do warrantless wiretaps BEFORE government healthcare?
I wonder how many die hard right wing nuts are going to point at this and blather about socialist governments and loss of freedom while completely ignoring that it was their very own Donald Kerr that said that Americans should understand that privacy shouldn't mean keeping information away from businesses and government...
The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
True, all they're going to find is Maple Syrup porn. Which is the sweetest kind.
As a Canadian I expect that ALL of my communications are untapped without a warrant, whether or not they are in the clear, except those to public sites, like this one. I expect ALL corporations to withhold account information unless provided with a warrant.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Keep in mind that this craziness is coming from a minority government. Can you imagine what these Nazis will do to us if they were to ever get a majority? DMCA - check. Searches without warrant - check No watchdog for the RCMP - check Unaudited evoting -check Unaudited spending - check New prisons for all the new crimes - check Internet censorship - check Canada finally gets to declare war on someone - check All of this would be to keep us and our children safe. This is a government that is sure that they know what is best for us. Also this is a government who have very fragile egos and the internet is not a place for people with fragile egos. If you think I am raving then think of what Harper would have done if he had been in power with a majority after 9/11. Would have Canada gone to Iraq? Yes or no? The technological implications of all this will be an environment that tech companies flee from instead of one that encourages technology.
I guarantee you the Liberals and NDP will back this up. No political party has a monopoly on the never ending quest for power.
I'm seriously getting to the point of configuring my router to run all traffic through an anonymous proxy somewhere, but I'm concerned what kind of performance hit that would mean in day-to-day use.
If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
the courts will very likely find the Minister to be incorrect in his interpretation of the constitution, and that everything he is proposing violates Section 8 of the Charter, "Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure."
I would point out the Supreme Court has ruled that that whether information is subject to protection by Section 8 is not at the whim of the government, but whether a person has a "reasonable expectation of privacy" of information which could "reveal intimate, personal information", in that particular situation.
It is not particularly difficult to envision a situation where linking an IP address to a name would potentially reveal personal information to the state. Imagine a woman posting on a support forum for victims of sexual assault which tracks posters by IP...
Since IP addresses and so on are identifying information, and this being information people would reasonably expect their ISPs to keep private, I suspect that this entire thing is just begging for a Charter challenge and to have the courts clearly specify that a warrant is required.
CanLII has a very interesting brief on section 8 of the Charter here.
Supposedly Canada is a liberal democracy... clearly the powers that be think differently... Sieg Heil Harper and the Queen! The brand of fascism that is sweeping Canada is spooky for sure.
My parents and grand parents didn't fight off the Nazi's to have the likes of the new Canadian fascism take hold.
I'm sorry to tell the government boobs but yes we Canadians don't like them interfering with our private lives or spying on us.
Take your delusion of government power and shove it up your where the sun don't shine.
Peter Van Loan, the new Canadian Public Safety minister can suck on my big fat ___.
It's assholes like Peter Van Loan that give government a bad name and make the entire notion of government an idea whose time has past into the dust bin of history.
I guess I'll be having a knock on the door in the middle of the night tonight and be taken away because I expressed the view that governments are simply groups of power grubbing nobs who don't have anything better to do with their time than attempt to control the minutia of people's lives. Come through my door without permission and I have a surprise waiting government brown shirts.
The SearchEngine podcast has a nice summary of the issue and interview with the Minister in charge.
You can listen to it Here
So if the police do not need a warrant to get your personal information from an ISP in Canada; how does the ISP verify that the information being given out is going to the authorities? So if someone called and said âoeHi, Iâ(TM)m inspector Dudley from Maple Syrup County I need you to give me all the information on the resident at 1213 Pancakes Lane, the person is a suspected molester.â How the hell is the ISP going to know that this is a real cop and not some POS trying to steal information.
Very shortly you're going to be disallowed to post pictures of yourself on Facebook and Myspace if you're under 18, and parents wont be permitted to upload pictures of their kids for family members to see. And all internet chat will be monitored, starting with minors - to ensure they arent being taken advantage of. Then adult-to-adult aswell, because you never know if 1 out of several million people might mention being turned on by a 17 year old. Is there ANY country left that supports net neutrality, privacy, civil rights and their own justice system anymore?
You know, Using the "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!" argument to justify violating my privacy is a little old these days. Especially with Child Pornography, distributed by pedophile rings that "Think of the children" much more than you do, minister.
"No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson
You joke. But I've heard about some Rule 34...
"Be prepared, son. That's my motto. Be prepared." --Joe Hallenbeck
Anything we can see you doing in your car, we can pull you over for
He so kindly said.
You have no expectation of privacy in your car in NY state
He said after that (his emphasis).
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
As an atheist Canadian, I've very concerned with recent Canadian privacy policies. It seems we're drifting further from our ideals of freedom towards the strict, big-brother-like system that Britain is implementing. I'll be paying strict attention to this, and if this is passed as law, well, unified-theory-of-the-universe help us all!
And the most expensive when compared to corn syrup porn, which is just as sweet but corny.
I guess this guy can scratch Canada off of his list, eh?
In times of universal deceit, telling the truth gets you modded -1 Troll
here is some information from Canadian providers -- none of them specifically state what information they will or will not provide when requested or what is specifically logged. Most pages include contact information for a privacy rep. I suggest you contact that person(s) and see what information you can opt out of having tracked.
I have excluded TELUS because they are wh0r3ish and don't listen anyway.
From http://www.shaw.ca/en-ca/AboutShaw/PrivacyPolicy/Index
3.3 How does Shaw obtain your consent? Consent is required for the collection of Personal Information and the subsequent use or disclosure of the Personal Information. Consent can be either expressed or implied. The form of consent sought by Shaw may vary, depending upon the circumstances and the type of Personal Information. In determining the form of consent to use, Shaw takes into account the sensitivity of the information and the reasonable expectations of the Customer, Employee or Web Site User. Shaw generally seeks express consent when the Personal Information is likely to be considered sensitive. Implied consent is typically appropriate when the Personal Information is less sensitive. In exceptional circumstances, as permitted by law, Shaw may collect, use or disclose Personal Information without a Customer, Employee or Web Site Userâ(TM)s knowledge or consent.
In general, the use of products and services by a Customer, or a Web Site User, or the acceptance of employment or benefits by an Employee, will constitute implied consent required by Shaw to collect, use and/or disclose Personal Information for the purposes identified in this Privacy Policy.
Consent may be withdrawn by Customers and Web Site Users at any time, subject to legal or contractual restrictions and upon providing Shaw reasonable notice. If you wish to withdraw your consent to certain collection, use or disclosure of Personal Information, please contact Shaw at privacy@shaw.ca.
and of course Rogers http://your.rogers.com/privacy1.asp
"i lost my dignity on a slippery wiener"
Van Loan is one of the neo-cons currently blighting the Canadian political stage. They've been wandering around like lost sheep ever since Obama was elected in the US, and this kind of wholesale destruction of personal privacy is just their version of pigging out on comfort food when things go wrong.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
The purpose of the new legislation is to clearly define what information is and is not covered by the need for a warrant. Done right, this is a Good Thing.
As the Minister pointed out, the police already have access to lots of information about you without the need for a warrant. This includes things like your phone number and address. Because this information is considered to be publicly available, the police can do reverse phone number lookups without a warrant. This does not allow them to tape your conversations, however.
The proposed law is identical in nature, allowing the police to find your name from the IP address. AND NOTHING ELSE. They cannot read your mail, they cannot look at your search patterns, they cannot sniff your traffic. Those require a warrant.
The situation seems perfectly analogous to the phone system, with the exception that we don't normally make big lists of IP addresses.
You don't own your phone number, the phone company does. They are free to sell it to anyone they want - including the people you don't want them to, like telemarketers. So if Bell owns your phone number and is free to do what they want with it, how is it that someone connecting using Bell Internet expects them not to do the same with the IP they gave you? They own it too.
And that's what the courts have decided, that the IP address you happen to be using is a routing code internal to the company that provides access, you have no control over it, and they can change it or give it away at any time. That being the case, they see no difference between IP's and telephone numbers, and applied the same expectation of privacy to both.
Maury
It is extremely difficult to not break the law.
In BC if you are driving along the highway at 80kph and the speed limit is 80kph, but if everyone else is going 90kph, you are actually breaking the law because you are driving at an unsafe speed in relation to the cars around you. If you speed up to 90kph you will now be breaking the speed limit, but are no longer breaking the unsafe speed law.
There are quite a few of these catch 22s. Even the most law abiding people they've found are breaking laws inadvertently. Sometimes there is no way not to break a law.
Now in the right hands the powers of this proposed bill would not be a problem, but our Police time and time again have shown themselves to be less than honest and upright. Even if they were now, what's to say the people replacing them would be?
Requiring the warrent provides that extra check to try to make sure that the Police are not fishing for information, because if you look in anyone closet, you'll find things no matter how clean it is.
Microsoft, Apple, Google, Amazon what's the difference? All steal money from devs and control with walled gardens.
The state has an interest in monitoring you. Regardless of law (because they write it, for now at least), taking this matter into your own hands is the only way to ensure your privacy. It is like trusting a used-car salesman for an accurate appraisal for a car you'd like to buy from him.
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1287569&cid=28534437
Getting someone's name, address, cell phone number, and email addresses is not the Internet equivalent of wiretapping. The Internet equivalent of wiretapping would be getting the content of your emails and other data that you send and receive.
I'm not a fan of this bill to give these powers to police over ISPs, but it isn't as bad as too many of it critiques make it out to be. It isn't allowing police to warrantlessly get the contents of your email or other data that you send and receive - they can already get that information with a warrent and this bill does not seek to change that requirement.
Atheism is a religion to the same extent that not collecting stamps is a hobby.
IP addresses, and the like, are entirely analogous to pen register data (which include what phones called what numbers, when, and for how long, but not the actual content of the phone calls).
The (in my mind inappropriately applied) argument for this is that you're already providing this information to a 3rd party (the phone company), for their use in connecting your call, so you don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy for it.
So (in the U.S. at least)... nothing to see here, move along.
For these politicians that keep rolling out the âoeIf your not a criminal, you have nothing to worry about.â. I think the first test of this âoeLAWâ should be that we find out what Peter Van Loan's IP address is and all the other MP's and submit it to the ISP's. Then when we get the information back, make it VERY VERY public on a website. It would be nice to know if Peter Van Loan likes lots of PORN and that it comprises 90% of his internet traffic.... Then when they find out what he has been doing on the net and that the Police /Public obtained all this information about Peter Van Loan and decided to share it with the public. Lets see if he has âoesomething to hide....â
Lastly, without a warrant, not only stating that they need the information, but who is to gather it/obtain it, I find the chance of impersonating a police office (offence in Canada) too tempting to get at that information. Just give a call to your local ISP state your such and such from the Police Service and get the ISP to send the information to a newly created hotmail or gmail address. Or just some police office curious after obtaining the girl he has been âoefollowingâ to see their IP activity....
GOVERNMENT ALONE CANNOT BE TRUSTED WITH THIS POWER. THIS CAN BE ABUSED.
For things in plain view. As in things they can see through your windows. For instance, if they see a pound of weed on your passenger seat then it's fair game.
They can't search the inside of your car or make you open the trunk. That is, unless they suspect you of a crime and are going to arrest you or if you let them (which you don't have to). But in that case they won't ask and they'll just search the car while you're handcuffed in the back of the cruiser.
I realize that means nothing when you're dealing with a cop on a power trip that's willing to lie on a final report. It is good to know though when dealing with most cops, especially the one's who can get very demanding and try to intimidate you.
Being Canadian *duck* I feel a need to respond to this. It absolutely sucks.
The thing is, I am usually fine with 'privacy invasions'. X-rays at the airport.. no problem, I don't carry a gun. Cameras on the street, no problem there either since I don't plan on mugging anyone.
Yet I hate the sounds of this. Why? Because there is WAY too much gray area because technology is new and the laws are still maturing. Furthermore, there are too many corporate hands in the pot. Either I am mugging someone or I am not. Either I am selling drugs on the street or I am not. However, if street cameras were run by ISPs I might have to be concerned with a company deciding that jay walking is infringing on their profits and having a police officer hunt me down and hand me a $300K fine every time I do so.
I hope everyone can follow this reasoning because I'm not sure if I can or not.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
You are using the English definition of "expectation" (i.e. something that one believes/predicts will happen) rather than seeing it as technical legal jargon.
In technical legal jargon, an "expectation of privacy" basically means a desire for privacy, to such an extent that some (though not all) governments go to the trouble of creating an unnatural right that broadcasts of information, which passes through countless intermediate systems (literally countless, since most users simply have no idea what all is involved), where no efforts are made by the users to keep the information private (not even a 30-year-old 56-bit cipher), will be treated as though it were private. You labeled the information with the recipient's name, so everyone who reads your "private" information knows who to forward it too, and we all know that gentlemen do not read one another's mail.
Many misunderstandings and flamewars have been caused by the stupid lawyers who coined the term "expectation of privacy" in such a way that created that vast chasm between their jargon and plain speech.
Anyway, yes, nobody really believes that information that is recklessly spread without regard for who might see it, will remain private. But that's now what anti-crytography privacy advocates are talking about. They're saying that we have created a social convention where we have all agreed to pretend that recklessly transmitted information is private, and in the .0000000000001% of the instances of pseudo-privacy "violations" where someone finds out that it was violated, then the convention will be enforced.
The message to spies is this: don't get caught. As long as you don't get caught, nobody has a problem with what you're doing, and everyone knows that you're doing it. We've agreed to look the other way, because acknowledging the ridiculousness of our policies would be too embarrassing. But if you get caught, that's even more embarrassing because it just points out how stupid we've been. We get trapped into gritting our teeth and saying things like "I didn't know anyone could read my email," while everyone else points and laughs at us, seemingly ignorant that their own reputation for having common sense might be sacrificed next. ("When they came for the reckless fools, I didn't say anything...")
The Canadian government has decided to take the position that this convention is so unrealistic and counter to every single person's experiences with networks, and that the awkward situations described in the previous paragraph are so awkward, that they're no longer on board with the convention anymore. It was a fantastic convention while it lasted, maybe too fantastic.
But that's Canada. Back in the US..
Well, you should. How can we violate your privacy, if you don't help? Please, start expecting the unexpected. It's for your own good. It's Your Rights Online -- the right to be reckless with your own safety without facing the consequences. We're all here to stick up for your rights.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
...except for those in public office and the people who paid to put them there.
It seems to me that child pornography is a really bad justification for warrantless searches. I mean if the police find child porn on the net, why not get a warrant? It is pretty easy to prove that you found child porn, just print it out and show it to the judge. If it is illegal, the judge will not hesitate to issue the warrant, I am sure. There are magistrates out there that just sit and wait for the police/fbi/etc. to send them a high priority warrant request to that they can approve/reject it within minutes.
I mean the whole idea that our civil rights somehow makes it easy for child pornographers is not really true. The police have plenty of tools and power to fight that particular type of crime.
Of course it will be easier and cheaper for the police if they did not have to get a warrant, but that is the case for all civil rights. It would be much easier for the police if we were a dictatorship with absolute police rights, but we as a society have decided to trade certain police efficiencies for personal rights.
In Soviet Canada, moose watches you.
In BC if you are driving along the highway at 80kph and the speed limit is 80kph, but if everyone else is going 90kph, you are actually breaking the law because you are driving at an unsafe speed in relation to the cars around you.
Commonly repeated myth, not actually true. Now, if you were doing 40kph when everyone around you is doing 90kph, this would be true, but 80kph while the average motorist is doing 90kph breaks no laws at all whatsoever. A 10kph difference does not constitute "an unsafe speed".
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
People have been cited for driving 100 km/hr on the 401.
Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
Now, let's assume that it's not an CR/LF problem but that instead for some unknown reason the ftp transfers get aborted and thus the file size mismatches. Okay, first of all, if you want to guarantee that a file that departed from one system is the very same file after its arrival on another system it is not wise to use the file size for verification, as the two files could have the same length but different contents. Therefore typically md5sum is used. Or better yet, use both MD5 and SHA-1 hashes so nobody could probably ever produce meaningful collisions for both of them at the same time. Now, what programs should be used for the transmission itself? Well, that depends on your requirements: Is confidentiality important or is it really just about integrity and availability? Is speed or link saturation a topic? Like, if your current pipe is like 80% full, you probably cannot afford to encrypt your data. Otherwise, of course you should except for like if an IPS/IDS maintainer wants to be able to scan the contents. Let's take a look at both possibilities: * First: Confidentiality not an issue but bandwidth/speed/IDS is Basically suitable is every tcp data transfer application that does by itself not meddle with the data itself. So this kind of excludes ftp as it can substitute CR/LF (Unix) line brakes with CR (Windows) ASCII text line brakes while transferring data from UNIX to windows and vice versa. But then again, you can use FTP just fine if used in binary mode. However, even the Swiss army knife of network transmissions can be easily used for the purpose of reliably transmitting files from A to B: netcat. nc or nc.exe is available for both Windows and Unix and is often used in the forensics world in manual combination with md5 and/or sha-1 hashes to transmit forensic evidence from e.g. a suspect drive to the examiners workstation. Here the chain of evidence would be maintained by recording a hash of the data on the suspect drive, recording a hash of the data on the examiners workstation after arrival and recording the date, time and contents of the transmission. Note that it might be vital to have a log of what has been transferred when so that it can be proven that you sent some data the other party claims to never having received it. So, recapping, e.g. netcat, ftp, SMB/CIFS shares, HTTP and any other TCP based file transfer utility could be used. HTTP and FTP could even be easily scanned for viruses/malware during transit. UDP based file transfer utilities could be used as well as long as the implementation does take care of the integrity. As most likely a short script would be used in order to generate logs containing MD5 and SHA-1 hashes on both sides, the time and date of the transfer and the filename, this script could as well easily handle data retransfers in the case of packet loss. * Second an better: confidentiality with some bandwidth and CPU constraints Sorry, this posting by now bores me. So, the recap: Use SSH (SCP), cryptcat (used among others in forensics for the chain of evidence when confidentiality is an issue), HTTPS, SMIME or any other encrypted transfer tool, really. Hell, you could even generate an encrypted PGP file or whatever with a script and pipe it through whatever data transfer application you want. (Like ftp in binary mode ;) )
So, overall, what are needed here are two small scripts that do something like this:
On the sending side:
10 compute SHA-1 / MD5 hash of a file to be transferred (and optionally compress it) 20 send file 30 receive a SHA-1 / MD5 hash of the transferred file from the receiver 40 compare the hashed 50 complete transaction including logging the date, time, filename and hash, if hashed match 60 else goto 20
On the receiving side: 10 receive file 20 generate SHA-1 / MD5 hash of the received file 30 send SHA-1 / MD5 hash back to
Formerly a "Constitutional Monarchy"... That is the pathetic history that some want to hang on to for no valid reasons.
Currently it's supposed to be a Parliamentary Democracy ruled by the Mob Majority with a Bunch of Words aka a Constitution that is supposed to protect the people within it's borders from the draconian control and whims of the members of the Cult of Government and the nasty majority itself.
However, of late it's headed to a fascist state due to the insane notion that everyone must obey every frigging law they make no matter what. It just isn't going to happen as we are all freely born human beings in this universe and have free choice including the free choice to disobey our fellow human beings who are so deluded as to think that they have some right to dictate to us how to behave and what to do and what not to do in our lives.
Eh? "I.T.G. in the H.O.U.S.E."
Never heard it before. Sorry I'm not in your sub CULT. What does that mean?
If your in your car on a public road why would you have an expectation of privacy?
That is a valid question. And admittedly, when you are driving you are (generally) in public.
Really, as I tried to indicate with the emphasis in that post, my problem was with the gun-toting, badge-wearing egomaniac who is supposed to be responsible for "defending" the public. When they go around with such arrogance as that, it can be hard to believe that they are truly keeping our own interests at heart. His statement about privacy was in response to my asking him about the cell phone law that he pulled me over for; I previously resided in Minnesota where you could not be pulled over only for talking on the phone while driving (which was exactly what he stated he was doing when he pulled me over).
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Don't worry, this government is becoming more unpopular every day. They don't stand a chance of surviving the next election.
It was on the news about 10 years ago. Two friends, one of whom had been ticketed the day before in a blitz for driving 115. They had traffic backed up for *miles*
Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
"Dis guy dats I know" does not usually constitute as proof.
Canada, and its governing pols, are about to join the ranks of fascistic, totalitarian and appalling stupid governments in formerly democratic countries which have all opted for unwarranted spying on their citizens communications over the internet, especially through spying on emails. What is more appalling is the strong likelihood that Canada's courts will approve the measures, employing sophistic [misleading and false] arguments and justifications for the gutting of our constitutional protections against governmental misbehaviour directed against privacy and communication rights. Our courts have, in the past, been only too willing to ignore our constitutional rights in favour of police-state powers on the pretext of countering terrorism, of pushing a feminist agenda, or on the pretext of "protecting" children. Certainly in regard to terrorism, it would not be too much to ask that spying on private communications should require the usual safeguards based on the obtaining or warrants from a court charged with the responsibility to ensure that some reasonable grounds exist for such spying. The problem with giving the police and spy agencies "carte blanche" or the power to act arbitrarily and without reasonable grounds, is that, in the past, the police, as have other agencies of the state, have often not only failed to act with responsibility towards the protection of privacy rights, but, instead, have acted with utter disregard for same. As has been argued by civil rights guardians, such as the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, editorial writers, academics, and others, there are very adequate laws in effect in Canada which, if properly applied, give police and the state the means to counter terrorism and criminality without generalized spying on everyone. In fact, recent experience in dealing with examples of terrorist plotting has demonstrated the truth of such arguments. One possible reason why this proposal will likely be enacted is the horde of lazy, ignorant and stupid politicians that infest our Parliament. It is well known, at least amongst those who make it their business to know, that complicated legislation containing potentially far-reaching and harmful provisions, is frequently passed by the politicians without being read in some cases, and in most cases, without being understood, and, in some cases with flagrant disregard for the harm that such legislation can lead to. Since your writer is just an ordinary citizen, such comments as made in the preceding paragraph can be stated with little fear of reprisal. Consequently, I have not minced words. Please add your concerns to mine and attempt to stop the fools. Protests seem to have succeeded in Australia, where a similar proposal was defeated in the past several years.
Give them data. So much so that they'll learn absolutely nothing from what they find. Set up a tool that feeds random traffic information through your line at a constant pace. Combine that with encryption if you like, just to make it even more frustrating.
I'm not sure I understand what's with the current fad amongst governments to act like big brother and disallow privacy on the internet. Maybe Orwell was right... if that's the case there is no country I can disappear to that I'll ever really appreciate the luxury of my own privacy!
He's the Government pit-bull, and will defend anything his political masters wish, even if they are currently illegal. After all, he can just pass a law, can't he?
--dave
davecb@spamcop.net
Getting someone's name, address, cell phone number, and email addresses is not the Internet equivalent of wiretapping. The Internet equivalent of wiretapping would be getting the content of your emails and other data that you send and receive.
I'm not a fan of this bill to give these powers to police over ISPs, but it isn't as bad as too many of it critiques make it out to be. It isn't allowing police to warrantlessly get the contents of your email or other data that you send and receive - they can already get that information with a warrent and this bill does not seek to change that requirement.
Connect the dots... If the powers that be want information about [the owner of] an IP address, then they must already know something about the traffic to or from said IP address, no? They are already armed with data about childporn traffic (their excuse that they're using) and as well with data about wares and media traffic (the excuse they are conveniently not talking about very much are they?) as well as who-knows-what-else traffic, and they want to conveniently (i.e. without all that due process nuisance) correlate these traffic patterns to individuals for further investigation and possible prosecution (legal or other). Why is it that so many /.ers don't seem to get this?
Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind. - Dr. Seuss