Slashdot Mirror
Canadian Police Recommend Ending Anonymity On the Internet
An anonymous reader writes "Michael Geist reports
that last week the Ontario Provincial Police, one of Canada's
largest police forces, recommended legally ending anonymity on the
Internet. Noting the need for drivers licenses to drive or marriage
licenses to get married, the police suggested that an Internet
license that would reveal all users is needed to address online
crime. The Canadian Supreme Court strongly
endorsed a right to anonymity earlier this year."
Yeah, good luck with that one, RCMP! it's like law enforcement lives inside of it's own little reality distortion bubble.
BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
They need to submit their request to the International Internet Board of Governors!
--jeffk++
ipv6 is my vpn
Helpdesk has been recommending this for years. It will end all the dumb questions, right?
1) License to speak in public
2) License to read a specific book
3) License to speak to a specific person
You know, the license we've needed for 200 years? The one that lets you anonymously send mail? Oh that doesn't exist? And people coped with this new technology? Even when it was used to deliver literal bombs? But of course we need one for the internet!
The police find it hard to investigate and want an ez-pass.
TFS said it was the Ontario Provincial Police that gave the recommendation, not the RCMP.
You also need to make Ma and Pa Clueless more or less bulletproof somehow.
The state of security for assorted online services is so dreadful now that much of the defense that a lot of users have likely comes from being essentially worthless, rather than from being difficult to crack.
In the event that anonymity is forbidden, there will be quite a rush to pick up the previously worthless accounts of hapless users to do all your more nefarious communicating through.
Next thing you know, they'll try to legally enforce the evil bit.
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
and on a side note, the US uses marriage licenses/laws (in some states) to limit who can get it. Imagine the damage this could cause with the government limited who could use the internet... like dangling fruit over our head to make sure were good little kiddies and never did anything bad on the net.
And, for that matter, Communication is a Federal responsibility under the Canadian Constitution, which has strong privacy rights that the Ontario Police and the PM hate.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Hopefully this goes nowhere, however the big problem as I see it is that the people making decisions which will profoundly shape how we use technology know very little about the workings or reality of said technology.
More importantly, they seem to want to violate the very rights they're supposed to leave alone. If they were merely ignorant of technology, we'd be in a much better situation.
Similarly, I strongly endorse the idea of supermodels having sex with me.
I think that both of have just as much right to expect the laws to change to suit our desires.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
I'm down with OPP.
You know what I mean.
They're the Blue Law Cops from the land of noughts.
And they need cartoon instructions to pee.
Eh?
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Driver's Licenses are an outrage of its own. Somehow somewhere an opinion crept up, that driving is not a right to be taken away from the bad by the Judiciary, but a mere privilege to be granted to the good by the Executive — who, consequently, can also withdraw it without bothering with the pesky judges for any reason (such as not paying child support)... You should be able to drive anonymously — until you break a driving law — just as you can walk anonymously on a publicly-maintained sidewalk and look at a publicly-powered traffic-light without a license.
Marriage gives couples certain additional privileges — above the unmarried couples having sex. The exact perks vary by locale, but they are there. Perhaps, all such perks should be abolished altogether — I'd be in favor of striking away all laws with the word "spouse" in it, although the society may still reward couples raising children together — but until they are abolished, asking for names of people applying for those privileges is Ok...
Now, licensing Internet-usage would also turn it from a right into a privilege — and that can not be allowed, however much the Statists would like to see that happen.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
The real issue has nothing to do with anonymity; it has to do with police being properly trained.
Our society is degenerating to the point where the police are no longer the noble, chivalric knights that they were once intended to be. Proper police training is quite lacking and is on a continual downward slide, and many people no longer have respect for the boys in blue.
Too many cops in Canada are racist, egotistical power-trippers with a badge and a gun.
Law Enforcement should be more concerned with setting the right example by doing the right thing.
Police are supposed to be there "to serve and protect society", although the last word is strangely omitted on the police cars.
"To serve and protect" is ambiguous; it begs the question "who are you serving and what are you protecting?"
It should be obvious, but modern police behaviour would suggest otherwise.
Perhaps the first thing to do is to fix the writing on the wall, so to speak.
Political correctness is really just herd psychology pushed by insecure people who desperately seek social conformity.
In order to get information on specific request, police now needs to submit requests, fill paperwork, get approvals. Too much red tape! Police also wants easy access to all the data.
When police does get data using "black channels", they need to waste time to find (or make up) some sort of flaws or errors so that to present that flaw as a reason why data was identified and collected to begin with. It is just damn too complicated. More importantly, even police officers need to go through dozens of all kind of certifications, because only certified specialists can handle the evidence.
For example, police officers have to go through period "trainings" to use radar and alcohol tester. Using computer will also need to be certified, because a good attorney can defend in court that the data was not handled by certified specialist.
Internet ID, fortified with fingerprinting, face and eye retina scan will surely make CRMP work easier and would reduce administrative burden, eh?
I recommend the following listening/reading: The Dictator's Practical Internet Guide to Power Retention.
- David A. Wheeler (see my Secure Programming HOWTO)
When I was in highschool I spent a summer as a student trainee for the OPP. They knew pretty much nothing about computers and the internet - my main task that summer was helping the Staff Sargent install pirate software on his home computer and his computer in the detachment. This was before it was really feasible to DL pirate software online (whole detachment was on a dial up connection - we were about 2 hours north of Toronto) so he would drive to Toronto's China Town and buy CD-Roms full of pirate apps then bring them back and get me to install them for him. Ever since, I've given no fucks about pirating as much of whatever I want. I figure, if it's good enough for the OPP, it's good enough for me.
- In Soviet Korea, only old people loose all their bases to Natalie Portman's petrified hot grits overlords.
Good work Canadian police. You're now in favor policies advocated by every police state on the planet.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Why aren't these clearly genius level Law Enforcement Professionals making the far more reasonable request that the government require anyone intending to commit a crime in the near and/or far future to apply-for and obtain a licence to commit crime?
Criminals can anonymously (you cant make it too easy) submit something akin to a flight plan prior to committing a crime (otherwise how else will police be able to pursue victim-less crimes) and after a crime occurs police can call all the licensed criminals in the vicinity of crime to ask if they were the perpetrator.
It would make their job vastly easier, and it would only cost us our privacy. Why work hard when you can strip us of our rights to work easy?
That the home addresses and phone numbers of all Canadian police be published.
They would only be against that if they have something to hide.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
You enter a website that is hosted in Alberta and you get a popup asking
Papers Please, Comrade Eh!
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
"You know, Mrs. Buckman, you need a license to buy a dog, or drive a car. Hell, you need a license to catch a fish! But they'll let any butt-reaming asshole be a father."
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Shocked I tell you! The police want the ability to identify anyone, anywhere, should they turn their attention to them? I can't believe it! Are you sure this article didn't come from The Onion?
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
Look at other parts of life, where do we require that someone cannot be anonymous (warning I am a Brit, things may differ where you are)
If you publish something, eg a newspaper, a handbill, a poster (on a wall), these should all have the name of the publisher on them. This seems reasonable, you are saying things that many people will hear/read. If it is libelous then the person being defamed should be able to seek correction or sue you.
If you sell something: the name of the seller should be known, so that if it is not as advertised the purchaser can seek redress.
If you read a newspaper, handbill, wall poster then it is reasonable that you do so anonymously.
If you buy your lunch or a new shirt, you do not need to say who you are. (Large purchases, maybe)
If you talk to a friend in the street or on the train then you do not need to tell those around you or fellow passengers who you are.
So: does this mean the loss of a/c on slashdot ? If you are libeled by an a/c what redress should you have (if any) ? These are the sorts of questions that should be debated. But the loss of privacy in everything - 'No', the loss of privacy in some situations 'Yes'.
Note that you not liking something that someone says is not the same thing as being libelous - if you really smell, get a bath don't sue me for saying so!
I know someone who is rabidly anti-privacy and calls anyone who disagrees with him 'deluded wingnuts' and other less savory terms.
He thinks the government should have full access to you all the time to "stop crime".
Yet he posts videos on YouTube with his face blurred out and his voice altered so he doesn't get fired from jobs.
It's okay for HIM to have privacy, but he doesn't believe anyone else should have it.
Just think of all the death threats and so on we wouldn't have to deal with without anonymity. And of course all the other sorts of attacks. The problem is, 'no anonymity' depends on the government being completely trustworthy. Which of course it isn't, even in Canada. If this plan were enacted, its main use would no doubt be to suppress criticism of the police.
This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
That's when Scott Naylor of the OPP gave the response outlined in TFS.
Of course, the Ontario Provincial Police have little influence nation-wide.
A Conservative senator, on the other hand, does.
Of course, the Supreme Court of Canada sides with anonymity on-line. But Senators and MPs have the ability to (attempt to) pass legislation that would attempt this lunatic idea.
I wonder how the OPP would react if they were required by law to stream video of all their officers' activities in real-time. Suddenly they'd like a little privacy and anonymity, thank you very much!
This looks like the OPP wanting to make their jobs easier. Guess what? Policing is not supposed to be an easy job and certainly not by short-cutting individual rights. Such short-cutting is a form of corruption -- doing something for their own benefit (better collar record).
The cops need to get out of Timmy's and do some real police work tracking down perps. Not asking their jobs be made easier at everyone else's expense.
Film at 11, after it goes through the Propaganda Minister's office for review.
In the USA the same argument is made regarding showing identification to vote. Why not, you have to have an ID to drive, get on an airplane, etc., etc?
The correct reasoning is that I don't need photo ID to vote, so I don't need ID to fly or to drive. (I can understand when you need to demonstrate competency if public may be put at risk.)
This is why you should not disregard the tinfoil hat slippery-slopers.
Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
Driving a car is not like posting on the internet.
Posting on the Internet is like talking to people in a large room.
When I pointed my browser at that story about net anonymity, michaelgeist.ca tried to set about 20 cookies in my browser. Kinda ironic, huh Ren? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
This is a clear cut case for seperation and balance of power and why its a good thing police are unable to make laws, and should not be left to govern policy.
Fascinating. Let's end something that doesn't exist in the first place.
You don't need a library card to go to a library and read. Additionally, you can go to a bookstore (I think some still exist) and buy any book you'd like without revealing your identity.
Who else is shocked? Anyone? Bueller?
No. VPN hides the contents of your messages. VPN does not hid your identity nor hides the fact that you are using VPN.
If you read the court case mentioned, the supreme court ruled that a search warrant was required before police could access the defendant's computer, which they did not do.
Anonymity was tangential to the case at best.
More to the point, it was made by somebody who didn't realize that the supreme court's already ruled that we've got a right to anonymity.
Well, Ontario has always been behind the times. They still think it's the 80s there.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
"Ontario Provincial Police" = Third Reich 2.0?
guess we can call them Canuckistanis now, eh, because they are among the Internet deniers. I have a better idea. we remove Canada, Egypt, Iran, Pakinstan, et al from the Internet. let them send messages in a bottle.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
"I'm not good at my job, it's too hard! Make it easier for me!"
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
Seriously, I wish these police services would just stop whining and get on with their jobs. Frankly this is just another excuse to be lazy, they have plenty of powers under the law to demand warrants to uncover who people are. It is insulting for police to take this attitude that they don't have enough powers or are somehow impeded in performing their duties. I have a simple message:
Get back to work.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
The OPP doesn't listen to the Ontario government. It listens to it's leaders, like Julian Fantino, now a minister in the Federal government that very much disagrees with the Courts about people having rights.
davecb@spamcop.net
.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
They still think it's the 80s there.
It is still the 80s everywhere. We are still living the Reagan/Thatcher nightmare. God help us all.
Not in Seattle. Or Vancouver BC.
(for now)
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
If ever you can be legally punished not because you did something that hurt or even endangered someone, but simply because you didn't ask permission first, liberty has one foot already in the grave.
If someone with a license to do X does X and hurts or endangers somebody anyway despite their license, they get rightly punished for it anyway.
If somebody with a license to do X does X and nobody gets hurt or endangered in any way, they don't get in trouble for anything, as they shouldn't.
If somebody without a license to do X does X and hurts or endangers somebody, they get rightly punished for it too.
But if somebody without a license to do X does X and nobody gets hurt or endangered in any way, they get punished, not for causing any harm or danger, but for having the gall not to ask permission before safely and harmlessly doing something.
The only difference mandatory licensure ever makes is punishing people who wouldn't have been punished otherwise because they weren't doing anything harmful or dangerous. Mandatory licensure, of anything, only ever harms innocents, by punishing them for harmless behavior that they simply didn't ask permission for first.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
Honestly I don't think it would be as bad as one might think. Most people, including criminals, are not homicidal to begin with, so police officers and their families would be relatively bodily safe, and given the effort needed to case a home to verify no one is home in order to break in and vandalize or burglarize, it's unlikely that a police officer's home would be targeted for vandalism or theft either, over and above statistical average.
If anything, if criminals are paying attention to where police officers live, the neighbors of cops might find less problems, as there's a possibility for a quicker response by calling a neighbor (ie, the cop) and more effort into an investigation relative to the importance of the crime, to appease the neighbor. Or it could come to nothing.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
To the Ontario Provincial Police,
You are hereby cordially invited to either: 1 - fuck off, 2 - bugger off, or 3 - piss off; whichever is the most commonly used expression in Canada.
This space unintentionally left blank.
Require a clue about how technology works from any official that makes statements about the Internet. Fire those that di it without. That will curb the deeply disturbing trend we see and finally end bullshit spouted by police and other officials.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
When everyone has their own IP address they will no longer be anonymous. No more NATting etc. and you will be able to tell exactly who is who?
There are three kinds of falsehood: the first is a 'fib,' the second is a downright lie, and the third is statistics.
I can certainly understand the desire to do away with anonymity, particularly in light of crime, but also harassment, threats and doxxing that are plaguing some communities. But as usual, there's two sides to these kind of things. Not every government is equally benevolent, and dissidents and whistleblowers also need anonymity to be able to leak the information necessary to address the abuses by the powerful.
So you're against requiring a driver's license before you can drive a car?
Sometimes the license isn't just about permission, but about showing you have mastered the skills necessary to do the thing without endangering anyone.
I'm in favor of people learning how to drive before they do so, and of testing programs that certify that you do in fact know how to drive safely, and I'm fine with such certifications being used as defensive evidence if someone thought you were driving dangerously and charged you with such. You can show them that you've passed this test that shows you are able to do things like whatever you did safely. Not that that should make it an open-and-shut case, but it's good evidence. "It's ok, I know what I'm doing." Absence of such certification could likewise count against someone: change it from a mere one-time error of judgement to recklessly engaging in activities you have no competence in. But again, the absence of certification wouldn't make it open-and-shut, it's just a piece of evidence, and other factors can outweigh it.
What I'm against is punishing someone who was, despite such certification, operating a vehicle in a safe manner anyway. That is what makes it a license and not just a certification: you're not allowed to (meaning you will be punished if you) do something, even if you do it safely, without someone's prior permission. Note well that requiring licensing doesn't actually preemptively stop people from driving without a license, it just punishes people who do; and it punishes them whether or not they were actually driving unsafely. The ones who were driving unsafely would have been rightly punished anyway even if they did have a license. So the mandate of licensure does nothing but punish those who were driving safely without permission.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
....if police forces across the globe would not be known for constantly abusing their powers and sniffing around in people's lives without having any reason to do so. A driver's license is a certification stating that the holder received sufficient training (ehem, yes, in an ideal world) to operate heavy machinery in public. That is for the same reason why we want licensed electricians, licensed architects, and licenses car mechanics. I never understood the need for a marriage license. I could see a point if that was the certificate that the other person is either unmarried or legally married to one or more other persons (yes, bigamy is widely frowned upon, but it is commonplace). When I got the marriage license I even had to get my blood tested for who know what, but not HIV or other diseases that would make the other think twice.