Canadian Government Seeking New Net Snooping Powers

An anonymous reader writes "A bill being considered by the Canadian federal parliament includes two clauses specifically to reduce the 'due process' imposed when the police need information from ISPs. Under the proposed bill, law enforcement officers will not require a warrant to acquire information about internet subscribers from Canadian ISPs ... Paul Ducklin has criticized the bill saying that it 'doesn't even seem to propose that the requests be based on any sort of specific identifier, such as a name or an email address ... This suggests, in the worst case, that an ISP might be compelled simply to hand over information about all subscribers. No warrant needed, and thus no proactive oversight by the judiciary.'"

Comments

Disgusting.

[Anonymous Coward]

The US and Canadian governments illustrate more and more every day how the interests of big money outweigh the duty to the public.

Re:Disgusting.

[bonch]

Slashdot on Google: "So what if they have all my personal info? We're living in the internet era. I'm not concerned that they can index my email or track my browsing habits."
Slashdot on governments: "How dare law enforcement be able to track criminals without a warrant. What happened to the public's right to privacy?"

Re:Disgusting.

[Shark]

Actually, from requests I've had (I work from a small ISP), they already have something on the books for this and it doesn't require a warrant. The RCMP officer refered to section 7(3)(c.1)(ii) of the "Pursuant to the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Document Act" (PIPEDA). Apparently it requires no warrant in cases where disclosure is required to enforce a law... That leaves an aftertaste of gigantic loophole in my mouth but I'm no lawyer.

Re:Disgusting.

[damnfuct]

In Soviet Canada, internet searches you?

Re:Disgusting.

[cab15625]

You seem to be suggesting that there is some sort of double standard. So tell me, when was the last time that you heard of Google sending their armed law enforcement agents to a private residence to arrest someone? We hold corporations and governments to different standards because they have different powers and different duties. Part of the duties of a government are to protect the rights of citizens and individuals (often from corporations). This sort of legislation betrays the trust that we are supposed to be able to have for our government.

Re:Disgusting.

[Syberz]

IANAL, but my understanding of PIPEDA is that personal information can be gathered without the individual's consent when this information is required for law enforcement. This is NOT the same as you (your company) handing that information over freely, i.e. the RCMP can snoop around and find that information on their own without having to tell the individual that they collected his info. Your company on the other hand, asked for the individual's consent before collecting and part of that consent covers the fact that this information will not be shared.

Honestly, your company should definitively consult a lawyer to clear that up if it hasn't already because if my interpretation is correct, they've opened themselves for quite a liability.

Disclaimer: I'm in Canada and work for a company that has to gather personal info as part of its operations.

Cool

[beefoot]

That's just great. What else are on the table?

Re:Cool

[dryeo]

Updated copyright laws including DMCA like provisions as written by America (Wikileaks leaked a document showing our glorious leader responding to the American ambassadors pressure to pass the law before the election as saying it would make them unelectable. This shows who they're representing).
Tougher crime laws including 3 strike type laws and building more prisons even though the crime rate has been seriously dropping.
Getting rid of most government scientists because they keep making business unfriendly reports.
And of course the usual right wing practice of cutting taxes for the rich while increasing spending. I like tax cuts but only when we can afford them.

What injustice

[Anonymous Coward]

At least State-side you have to call them a terr'ist first.

Wow

[AngryDeuce]

Canada seems to be picking up the US's bad habits lately....

Re:Wow

[aldragon]

Lately? The Canadian govt is always trying to catch up the the US govt's bad habits. Tis always been true, and is true regardless of which political party is winning on either side of the border.

Re:Wow

[rikkards]

And none of this was a surprise. The Tories were completely open about the Omnibus bill which this contains. You know we are under extreme assault by terrorists and pedophiles. And pretty much there is nothing anyone can do since they have a majority. Sure you can contact your MP and all they will do is tow the line about how it is keeping us safe, blah blah blah.

Re:Wow

[Oxford_Comma_Lover]

Same reason Canadians have been sacrificing their lives in Afghanistan and Iraq, while not a single Canadian supports those missions.

Even leaving aside the massive overgeneralization, this is simply not true. Particularly for Afghanistan. On 9/11, I remember very anti-american Canadians saying "Basically it's the same country." The war in Iraq has terrible support--of course it does, it had bad support even in the US--but Afghanistan is a different war, and I would expect it to have much higher support numbers.

Re:Wow

[Oxford_Comma_Lover]

Can you not bring something like a declaratory judgment action in a Canadian Court?

Re:Wow

[Tacvek]

Would the Grandpartent have standing to file such an action? After all, similar challenges to various laws in the United States have been denied for lack of standing, since the filer was unable to show that their rights had been violated or would most likely be violated in the near term future.

Re:Wow

[Shark]

The first paragraph of the charter of rights says we only have any of the listed rights long as the government thinks they're reasonable. All they have to say is that they don't think it's reasonable that we have them on the internet.

Re:Wow

[Oxford_Comma_Lover]

I'm not sure--quite aside from YMMV by judge and IANAL, I think the question would be whether you could show that the breach of police powers in some way caused you "injury in fact." I think you wouldn't have standing if you're just someone random, but you might have standing if you could show that the government violated your rights personally--so maybe if you are a subscriber to an ISP that you know shares some piece of information about you personally with the government, if you believe that sharing to be unconstitutional.

It would not be a particularly good case for standing, but it might be enough.

The problem, of course, is that governments are generally not transparent about this sort of thing. I suppose everyone could issue FOIA requests, but I don't know how thoroughly they would be responded to. (Or the Canadian equivalent.)

Re:Wow

[thirty-seven]

The first paragraph of the charter of rights says we only have any of the listed rights long as the government thinks they're reasonable.

(1) It's not about whether the rights are reasonable, it's that any restrictions of those rights need to be reasonable.

(2) It's not the government that gets to decide what limits are reasonable, it is the judiciary.

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.

Re:Wow

[Dr. Hellno]

You're right to worry about transparency. From Ars Technica:

To get that information, law enforcement won't necessarily need a warrant. Each agency can designate up to 5 percent of its total employees as authorized to request the information, and it can ban telcos from admitting that they have provided any such information.[emphasis mine]

In other words, you can make FOIA requests until you're blue in the face, but it won't get you anywhere.

Wait, what?

[Samalie]

You pulled a bill from a year ago, that has been effectively tabled by the fact that we just had an election? And where no current bill of the same authority is under consideration?

There is no bill, hence no discussion anymore, hence NO FUCKING STORY. Way to factcheck.

Re:Wait, what?

[causality]

You pulled a bill from a year ago, that has been effectively tabled by the fact that we just had an election? And where no current bill of the same authority is under consideration?

There is no bill, hence no discussion anymore, hence NO FUCKING STORY. Way to factcheck.

Yeah that is pretty lame.

Still, it is definitely a problem that anyone holding any public office would even think of doing this.

The legal definition of "treason" needs to be expanded to include "any elected official, appointed official, or employee or agent of either, who makes any effort to subvert, reduce, eliminate, or work around due process for any reason or no reason at all". For both the US and Canada. It's hard to think of more effective ways to permanently damage a nation.

Re:Wait, what?

[rikkards]

Really?
http://www.cbc.ca/m/touch/news/story/2011/08/09/pol-internet-privacy.html

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/pm-vows-to-rush-comprehensive-slate-of-crime-bills-into-law/article2046544/

These links are a tad newer than the election

Re:Wait, what?

[revnoah]

Yeah, this is useless as it is a first reading under a different government. Although the Conservative Party of Canada now has a majority government, the official opposition is now the New Democratic Party, not the Liberal Party of Canada. The Liberals tried pushing similar legislation through themselves while the NDP have been more vocal about net neutrality and privacy than their middle-of-the-road pro-business predecessors. So, we'll see how this goes on second reading. However, it should be noted that Bell Canada and Rogers, our major telcos in this oligopoly, already bend over for the government in compliance with just about any request. It's the small independents that actually attempt to protect consumer rights and privacy, although they make up a tiny segment of the industry.

Re:Wait, what?

[Anonymous Coward]

You pulled a bill from a year ago, that has been effectively tabled by the fact that we just had an election? And where no current bill of the same authority is under consideration?

There is no bill, hence no discussion anymore, hence NO FUCKING STORY. Way to factcheck.

You mad bro. How much you get from haarpers goons to post this? Just because its first reading was a year ago doesn't mean it isn't currently under consideration, or can't be revived at a moment's notice and passed very quickly once the proper representatives have been paid off.

Re:Wait, what?

[Anonymous Coward]

The NDP stand on the issue will be almost irrelevant now that the Conservatives have a majority. The government can ram through whatever they want after respecting the token amount of opposition comment that they have to tolerate in parliamentary procedure. The ONLY way that the NDP or any other opposition is going to have an influence is if the general public takes an interest in the issue and loudly voices an opinion on what is being said. Even if the public does take an interest, the Conservatives can still pass the legislation as-is. All the good intentions in the world aren't going to stop that unless the Conservatives think the issue is going to affect the next election, and it seems unlikely that net neutrality and privacy are going to be deciding issues for most ordinary voters.

The same goes for another pending bill for copyright reform, which the Conservatives have also said is going to be tabled more-or-less like the previous legislation that didn't get passed. How much do you want to bet that they change it to address the broad public complaints about the previous bill? I doubt it's going to change much at all, and it will be passed regardless of whatever the NDP says. I'm not looking forward to the Canadian DMCA either.

If people are going to have any hope of influencing either of these pending bills when the September session of Parliament starts, the time to start talking about it and organizing opposition to what was presented previously is now. Then there would be some tiny chance they would start worrying about the public reaction and change the legislation before it is tabled. I think the chances they'd change it between tabling and the vote are pretty much nil, because that would be perceived as giving in to opposition demands.

stale info

[Chirs]

This was from last year.

Re:Don't like this but......

[causality]

When our country is being compared to China in copyright issues that is just bad. Too many cheap people out their stealing.

You must be trolling, or you decided that complete ignorance about a subject shouldn't stop you from taking a position concerning it.

This bill is for law enforcement officers to obtain ISP information with less due process. Copyright infringement is generally not a crime. Therefore, it generally wouldn't involve police.

Instead, the vast majority of copyright infringement cases would involve discovery/subpoenas issued during a civil suit. That implies authorization by a court for such information to be obtained.

Even if you had a point, and you don't, I'd rather see every last copyright cartel go out of business and sell its assets at auction. In the scheme of things, that would be a far lesser loss compared to liberty and privacy.

Re:This will be pushed and refuted for as long as

[causality]

This will be pushed and refuted for as long as [ ... ]

This is what bothers me. I consider it a serious flaw in all forms of government.

The advocates of this kind of fascism can just keep trying, again and again, defeat after defeat, to get this into law. They know that eventually they will find one set of legislators who will pass it. It's just a matter of persistence. Once it becomes law, it will never be repealed. No amount of protesting or lack of popularity will change that.

Where to now?

[xerxesVII]

So for those who always play the "Baw, I'm moving to Canada" card... where to now?

Re:Where to now?

[corychristison]

There is no way this will get passed... come on over! We have excellent beer!

Re:Where to now?

[rikkards]

Umm... you understand what a majority government is right? If Harper says to pass it, it will get passed. It was one of their platforms for the election.

How about...

[Deliveranc3]

No.

Information is information, violence is violence, theft is theft. Canada is fortunate to have one of the broadest freedom of speech policies in the world.

Dangerous information:
Bombs: Yea, good for preventing fascism.
Yelling fire: No one takes the Internet that seriously.
Child porn: This is an interesting one. Apparently viewing child porn has a high incidence of creating child molesters. This is based off a study conducted by the CIA and FBI to justify wire tapping, in the 80s. I'd really like to see this one revisited.

Harper should have had Jack Layton cancer

[JonySuede]

Harper should have had Jack Layton cancer !

Easy Fix

[IonOtter]

Just have the chief of police, or whomever, come before Parliament and state, for the record...

"I have a team of 100 officers, standing by to make phone calls to the ISPs of every single one of you, and will be requesting ALL information regarding YOUR accounts. Where you've been, who you've been chatting with, what sites you've been browsing. Because past behavior has given us MORE than enough reason to investigate you all."

Re:Easy Fix

[mirix]

Except the police are in bed with the ruling conservatives. That's generally how fascists operate.

Four more years

[mirix]

'You won't recognize Canada when I get through with it,' -Harper

I'm also looking to the mandatory minimum sentences and other idiocy they'll be cooking up. I really wish we had PR.

Re:Four more years

[Scott64]

You can get all kinds of other absurd quotes/actions he's said/done with sources cited here: http://shitharperdid.com/

Monitor politicians actively

[failedlogic]

The bill will be dropped fairly fast if all Canadians agree to it on one condition: real time uncensored logs of all Internet use (work and private) of all federal and provincial politicians, judges and anyone invovled in law enforcement or the court system. See how long the bill lasts.

Re:It's obvious, internet is over

[Fluffeh]

They gave lip service to it during the Arab uprisings

You got to be kidding me. They put ona brave smiling face, but when the camera was off, it was much more along the lines of "Oh SHIT! People can really just toss us out of office, power and into prison or exile when enough of them get together! We need to really nip this information thing in the bud NOW!".

maybe no bill, but just in case...

[iceaxe]

As others have noted, this (anonymous) submission may be pointless. (I haven't verified that, though.)

With that said, Canadians, please look to the future and learn about your options.

There is a great article/tutorial on Surveillance Self Defense at the EFF. Although it is aimed primarily at US citizens, much of it also applies to you - and the technical tools described are equally effective in any country.

I really want Canada to be a place of enlightened freedom, so I have someplace to go when the Corporate Snakes of America becomes too onerous to stomach any longer. Get to work on that, will ya?

The real bill is worse

[genkernel]

While the bill from the article is from a year ago, and therefore the summary sucks, the basic premise of the story remains very much intact under the current Harper government. The real story is as follows and is only six months old, as opposed to a year, so its good for slashdot:

"A bill will soon be passed into law by the Canadian government, which will require that ISPs disclose customer information such as name, phone number, email address, IP address, house address, and more, and furthermore require ISPS to allow for the monitoring, interception, and isolation of internet communications in real time. This will be brought forward in an omnibus collection of other bills by the majority government."

If you think the idea of the linked bill was bad, enjoy the one that will *actually* come to pass.

Re:It's obvious, internet is over

[Oxford_Comma_Lover]

It's not done. The *unmonitored* flow of information may be approaching nonexistence, but the vast majority of information flows freely. You can tell because you're posting on slashdot without any significant fear that a guy is going to show up and take your life away with a bullet or pen.

There Is No Such Thing As 'Due Process' In Canada

[stoicio]

There is no such thing as due process in Canada. There never was. Authorities can decide on a whim what they will do to you.
There is also no recourse, no accountability, no freedom from intrusion. The 'reasonable grounds' dictate for search and seizure are based on some drones best imaginings of you at the time.

The Canadian government also collects information about the population on a regular basis ans stores it away in
CPIC and among various vestigial databases.

There are no real controls over how CPIC data are used. Any disgruntled police officer can diddle the database with impunity.
Any non-active or ex police member can still gain access to private records at any time.

Many police officers use the public databases for personal searches, outside the bounds of actual casework. They then pass this
information on to private individuals, family and friends. Some do it for money.

The Canadian databases have serious data quality problems. Any complaint is placed in public databases and may later be used as evidence or
'leverage'.

Since complaints are logged and remain in databases for years. People use the complaint process as a way to harass others.

There is no logging of WHO entered data into Canada's public databases. This means that if there is an error or illegal manipulation of the database, no employees can be fired.

There is also no logging of WHO VIEWS Canada's public databases. This means that there are no employees fired for misusing Canadian databases.

As you can see I am not a big believer in Canada's privacy and human/civil rights performance when it comes to it's citizens.

I believe applicable the term is G.I.G.O. (wikipedia)

**
The Canadian Charter of Rights contains no reference to " due process of law" it substitutes for the Phrase " fundamental justice". The court interpreted "fundamental Justice as the substantive concept" . Main Problem: vague concept.

source: http://www.unb.ca/democracy/English/Ideas/DueProcess/DueProcess.html

**

Canadian Gestapo searches

[thesquire]

I have one word to describe the proponents of warrantless searches: Neo-Nazis. Well, its really 2 words. It is noteworthy that the Chinese Nazi dictatorship praises Britain and countries like Canada that adopt such measures, since it serves to legitimize China's regular policy of oppression of free speech and civil liberties. The Nazis in Iran are solidly behind such moves, as well. Good company to keep!

Redux

[DarthVain]

This was tried a few years ago under the auspices of "Save the children from kiddy porn"...

It didn't fly then, and was defeated.

Now that the Conservatives have a majority, and are making silly decisions in an effort to "look tough on crime"...

I hope it doesn't pass, but if it ever will, now is the time.