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."

24 of 206 comments (clear)

  1. correct by FudRucker · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:correct by wjousts · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But your ISP probably knows who you are right? I mean you signed up with them with your real name and probably pay them every month with a check or credit card.

    2. Re:correct by Darkness404 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Ok, but tell me, your ISP knows who you are right? Should your ISP be giving out your IP and your confidential information? I don't think so. This is what its talking about that the government/big businesses now know who XXX.XXX.XXX is and everything about them. This isn't that Facebook knows that IP XXX.XXX.XXX corresponds to profile Joe Sixpack, but rather that anything is now open to suspicions such as the ISPs looking at your IP address to figure out you are FudRucker then giving whoever wants the information your name, address, etc.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    3. Re:correct by Jherek+Carnelian · · Score: 5, Insightful

      well yeah, but i dont do anything illegal so i am not attracting the attention of the authorities

      Right. You ain't doin nuthin wrong so you don't have anything to worry about.

      Why even bother with warrants at all? The police never go after someone who has done no wrong.

    4. Re:correct by BigJClark · · Score: 4, Informative


      Amendment
      ----------
      Contact information for Peter Van Loan:
      Constituency Office
      45 Grist Mill Road, Unit 10
      Holland Landing, Ontario
      L9N 1M7

      T 905-898-1600 or 1-877-738-3748
      F 905-898-4600
      E vanlop1@parl.gc.ca


      Obtained from:
      http://www.petervanloan.com/contact.asp


      Send him a letter, or give him a call, let him know your thoughts. Please, be polite.

      --

      Hi, I Boris. Hear fix bear, yes?
    5. Re:correct by Darkness404 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Hahahahah. Right. Ever listened to a YouTube video that had an audio track under copyright? The RIAA (or canadian equivalents) would love to sue you for that. Posted a comment critical of the government? Next thing you know you wind up on a non-disclosed "watch list" and can't leave the country. Viewed porn of someone 17 by accident? The government would love to lock you away.

      The thing was, before this you had to attract the attention of the authorities, now the authorities might just wonder who IP XXX.XXX.XXX is and find something to arrest you for.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    6. Re:correct by k10quaint · · Score: 5, Insightful

      a.) Listening to the video would not get you in trouble, but uploading it might.
      b.) Relying on the ISP to not divulge the connection between your name and your IP address is obfuscation, not to be confused with actual security. One should use an anonymous proxy to post things you do not want traced back to you.
      c.) You should destroy all your porn after viewing and fapping.
      d.) Relying on the authorities not having the inclination to prosecute you is also a bad idea.

    7. Re:correct by moon3 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      i dont do anything illegal

      This argument is extremely naive to say it gently. Just wait until you get some virus or trojan and the damned thing starts to serve some terrible content from your IP or start doing spam or DOS. Then you will have to prove to authorities that "you did nothing wrong", while they have lots of evidence on you.

    8. Re:correct by Darkness404 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      a.) Listening to the video would not get you in trouble, but uploading it might.

      Says who? The only reason why the RIAA has not actively pursued these cases is because the most popular is owned by Google who can afford great lawyers and with an informed judge might create some copyright reform. Plus the damages would be too small for them to activly pursue them... Yet.

      In July 2008, Viacom won a court ruling requiring YouTube to hand over data detailing the viewing habits of every user who has watched videos on the site. The move led to concerns that the viewing habits of individual users could be identified through a combination of their IP addresses and login names. The decision was criticized by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which called the court ruling "a set-back to privacy rights".[36] U.S. District Court Judge Louis Stanton dismissed the privacy concerns as "speculative", and ordered YouTube to hand over documents totalling around 12 terabytes of data.

      If viewing these things were no big deal why would Viacom demand the logs?

      b.) Relying on the ISP to not divulge the connection between your name and your IP address is obfuscation, not to be confused with actual security. One should use an anonymous proxy to post things you do not want traced back to you.

      Sure, but I should have the expectation of privacy. Just like I should have the expectation of privacy when I shower with the door locked. Could someone break down the door? Sure. But I still have the reasonable expectation of privacy. Similarly, I should assume my ISP would not divulge my IP with names unless there was a warrant.

      c.) You should destroy all your porn after viewing and fapping.

      Sure, but what happens if they use logs to figure out of viewing it, even on a webpage?

      d.) Relying on the authorities not having the inclination to prosecute you is also a bad idea.

      Thats why we have search warrants in the first place. In the 1700s and 1800s when the America's governments were being established, you had a lot more privacy. Crimes could only be prosecuted with solid evidence. One of the points of that was to get rid of unpopular laws because if everyone broke them it would be too much of a hassle to prosecute them unless they were doing something really wrong. Fast forward to the 2000s and we have an unpopular copyright law that suddenly becomes enforceable when you take away the search warrants.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    9. Re:correct by blackfrancis75 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Ha ha ha. Is this sarcasm? Sure - down there in the old US of A you have nothing to worry about from overzealous counter-terrorist agents, denial of your civil rights or illegal wiretaps. All because your forefathers had the guts to stand up against a tyrant! But what about when your immediate fathers vote one into office? twice...

    10. Re:correct by Runaway1956 · · Score: 4, Informative

      "The government would not "love to lock you away" for that. Imprisonment is expensive as is identifying and prosecuting criminals."

      The US government has found that keeping about 1% of it's population imprisoned is a lucrative business. It keeps a huge number of people employed, it justifies a number of bonds and taxes, and it keeps a number of "worthless" people off the streets. Keeping people imprisoned is so lucrative that private industry has gotten into the act. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_prisons

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    11. Re:correct by Alain+Williams · · Score: 4, Insightful

      well yeah, but i dont do anything illegal so i am not attracting the attention of the authorities

      What if:

      • You get divorced, your ex's brother/new-beau/... is a mountie. No warrant is now needed for them to indulge in a little ''fishing trip'' to see if they can find anything to hit you with ...
      • Your business rival has a brother/... who is a mountie. Repeat as above ...
      • You piss someone off at the golf club who has a brother/...

      Do you get the idea? You don't need to do anything wrong for people to come sniffing.

      If someone looks hard enough they will probably find something that is embarassing, it doesn't need to be illegal for you to not want the world to know... would your employer like to know that you have been visiting the jobs web sites; your pastor that you visited, well, all manner of innocent things that he might not like; your spouse that you exchanged email with an old flame (quite innocently); ...

    12. Re:correct by Beardo+the+Bearded · · Score: 5, Informative

      Bill C-61 (separate from this proposed legislation) would make it illegal to use a proxy or any other means of obfusctation on the internet.

      Your ISP will have a log of everything you've ever done, everything you've ever looked at, every post, and it will all be tied into your real life name and address forever.

      Everything. And this law would force them to hand it to any police officer for any reason. Did you make a video of them tazing a Polish man? Well, if you don't want your browsing history on the first page of the Globe and Mail, you're going to destroy the only copy.

      At home, I have a reasonable expectation of privacy. I don't expect that at work.

      --

      ---
      ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
    13. Re:correct by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Not entirely so.

      I have had a search warrant executed on me by a false tip by a former employer. Once the legal mess all settled, I found out that the employer was stealing cash drops from the safe, and purchasing cocaine with the money. The Franchise owner audited him, and in an attempt to create a smokescreen, blamed me for the theft. He called the cops, gave this total sob story, and a warrant was executed. My house was destroyed inside from them looking for something I never had in the first place.

      In this post 9/11 world, even my poor Canada is becoming a police state, and when it comes to law enforcement, even the "Innocent" need to be wary. I did nothing wrong, yet I was treated like a criminal until the truth finally surfaced. nothing will ever fix that.

    14. Re:correct by Mistlefoot · · Score: 4, Funny

      His website Privacy Policy:

      Basically. If you visit his website you have the expectation of privacy. But only if you don't use the internet to do it, it seems.

      *****

      Commitment to Protecting Your Privacy

      Your privacy is important to your Member of Parliament. Any information you provide is protected under the provisions of the Federal Privacy Act.

      The Office of Peter Van Loan, MP will respect your privacy by protecting any personal information provided to the MP or his staff. Great care is taken to keep both confidential and secure all personal information.

      'Personal Information' is any information which may be used to identify an individual. It may include information such as a name, address, telephone number and/or other contact information.

      This website employs software programs to monitor website traffic and to identify unauthorized attempts to upload or change information, or otherwise cause damage. This software receives and records the Internet Protocol (IP) address of each computer that has contacted this website, the date and time of the visit, and the pages visited.

      Personal information is used to communicate with you, or to facilitate your interaction with Peter Van Loan, MP or his staff. Great care is taken in the way personal information is stored and secure

  2. Conservative government by oldspewey · · Score: 5, Informative

    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?
  3. No expectations of privacy by nurb432 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Anywhere, anytime, it seems.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  4. Re:In soviet Canada by interkin3tic · · Score: 4, Funny

    True, all they're going to find is Maple Syrup porn. Which is the sweetest kind.

  5. As a Canadian... by camperdave · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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!
  6. Minority by EmperorOfCanada · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Minority by Mashiki · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Oh look, uniformed voter in the ranks.

      Let me enlighten you on the voting process and how it works:
      1)Take traction issue one. Apply to minority parliament. Wait for bill to die, or be defeated by opposition.
      2) Await for opposition to pull something to cause parliament to collapse.
      3) Get general election call.

      Start running ads:
      4) Take legislation from step 1.
      5) Note ads, and apply these to the opposition and how they failed to uphold Canadian values.
      6) Note polls, and apply ads as need be to key riding's. Hope it's not another minority win/loss.

      7) Success/Fail
      8) Repeat at step 1 in 1-2 years if we're back at step 6.
      9) Use voter apathy and pissed offness about repeated minority governments and $300m elections

      All political parties want power. No party can get power without creating traction, the only way to create traction is by creating issues in many cases. Welcome to Canadian politics. I am Canadian, I do study politics, and yes I've got a pretty good idea of when we're going to have our next election. Either this fall, or this upcoming spring.

      It should be noted that the Liberal party isn't any different then the Conservatives on Law and Order. They only differ slightly on social policy. If you think differently you haven't studied either parties platforms(and in the case of the Liberals) how little they've put up.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
  7. Fortunately.... by exasperation · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  8. Obviously no expectation of democracy either eh! by itsybitsy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  9. Reality injection by Maury+Markowitz · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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