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."

Comments

ROFL

[kuzb]

Yeah, good luck with that one, RCMP! it's like law enforcement lives inside of it's own little reality distortion bubble.

Re:ROFL

[Anonymous Coward]

This was the Ontario provincial police and not the RCMP.

I doubt this will go anywhere. This appears to be a statement made by someone with no grasp of the technical issues being blown way out of proportion.

Re: ROFL

[Anonymous Coward]

People who post anonymously are cowards.

Re:ROFL

[Anonymous Coward]

RCMP != OPP

Re:ROFL

[The Ickle Jones]

We need to give up all of our rights in order to make the jobs of cops easier. How about we let the government install surveillance equipment in everyone's homes and allow them to break into anyone's house for any reason? After all, freedom is less important than safety.

Now we're thinking Small!

Re:ROFL

[khasim]

Fascism begins when the efficiency of the Government becomes more important than the Rights of the People.

There are a lot of people out there who would like the world to be a bit more orderly. Even if there is a bit less freedom. As long as they're still at the top.

Think of all the dictatorships and such that would love to be able to lock down the Internet like that. With the support of those Canadian politicians and police.

Re:ROFL

[TWX]

Sounds to me like it's a statement by someone that doesn't understand the broader implications in how collected data over time can be abused either. The American FBI proved that with its extensive files on people of-note that it wanted to find something, anything that could be used against them, even if that leverage was based on something that was not illegal in the then-present, was not illegal in the past, or was illegal in the past but not illegal in the then-present.

We as a society have changed what is and is not acceptable. Judging past actions and attitudes through a current lens will always yield a negative view, and thus the practice needs to be discouraged when it's not appropriate.

Re:ROFL

[MightyMartian]

Well, the one thing we can always be certain of, and that is law enforcement is woefully, one might even say willfully, ignorant of technical issues.

Re:ROFL

[Znork]

It's utterly disgusting when they try to frame this as an issue to resolve 'cyberbullying'. Blatantly disregarding all those who avoid 'real world bullying' by being able to anonymously publish thoughts and opinions on the internet.

It is not a good thing that, for many, it's more convenient to be anonymous or pseudonymous if you're part of a sexual, political or religious minority, but it is a reality. Forcing all those individuals to shut up or risk facing real life consequences up to and including physical abuse does much more harm than learning to ignore the bluster of random anonymous internet bullies.

Re:ROFL

[mark-t]

As far as Ontario is concerned, I'm not sure they'll notice any difference.... since they tend to believe that Ontario is practically all of Canada over there anyways, or at least the only part of it that actually matters.

Re:ROFL

[Jane Q. Public]

Sounds to me like it's a statement by someone that doesn't understand...

Historically, police have ALWAYS said this. "We have to restrict people's freedoms or criminals will get away." It has been the endless chant of law enforcement, and when legislators somehow get the idea it is correct, invariably freedoms are restricted or infringed.

But of course it's nonsense. Look where that kind of attitude has brought us: not just more total people but more people per capita in prison than any other country in the civilized world (and even including places many of use would not count as civilized).

History shows very clearly that freer societies do better in every measurable way: health, longevity, economy, etc. etc. Police states have invariably led to the downfall of the culture.

Licenses That Are Missing

[Anonymous Coward]

1) License to speak in public
2) License to read a specific book
3) License to speak to a specific person

Let Me Just Get My Mail License

[Anonymous Coward]

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!

Re:Submit the request!

[afidel]

Within a country it's easy to accomplish, all you do is require all ISPs offering service within the country to require it, and if you tie the license to an x.500 cert and use 802.1x at all end user access points then you can effectively require that users within that country are not anonymous. The downfall of the plan is that it's the Internet, a connection of networks ruled only by the protocols that are used to establish communications, so if you expect to be able to track an IP in Moscow to an individual, good luck with that unless you work for the FSB.

In other words

[bravecanadian]

The police find it hard to investigate and want an ez-pass.

Reading comprehension check

[Calavar]

TFS said it was the Ontario Provincial Police that gave the recommendation, not the RCMP.

Tsk tsk.

[blueshift_1]

I feel like the drivers and marriage licenses are not that relevant here. A drivers license is mainly used to show that are at least reasonably competant drivers (though we all know that doesn't mean that much) and a marriage license is more of a way to formalize the legal agreement so that you can file taxes and whatnot as married. The internet is a tool of communication and you can definitely use a pay phone, send a letter, or even buy cellphone without a license of any sort. Just have the cash and pay for the service. Just looking for the easy button on determining who did what on the internet.

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.

Luckily most of Canada ignores Ontario

[WillAffleckUW]

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.

Strongly endorse

[gurps_npc]

So, the cops - an organization that's job is in large part to identify criminals - endorse finding out people's names.

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.

Re:ROFL or OPP

[WillAffleckUW]

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?

The REAL issue here..

[MagickalMyst]

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.

I recommend....

[Lumpy]

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.

Cross province check points

[future assassin]

You enter a website that is hosted in Alberta and you get a popup asking

Papers Please, Comrade Eh!

Buried the lede: SENATOR agrees

[Maow]

The Ontario Provincial Police was part of the law enforcement panel and was asked by Senator Tom McInnis, a Conservative Senator from Nova Scotia, about what other laws are needed to address cyberbullying.

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.

Naylor’s comment was approved by Senator McInnis, who stated that he “absolutely agreed” with the recommendation.

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.

If the shoe fits...

[dskoll]

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!

Re:Meh

[BradMajors]

No. VPN hides the contents of your messages. VPN does not hid your identity nor hides the fact that you are using VPN.

Re:Religion

[Prune]

Regarding your signature, I've got (old) news for you: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence because Popperian epistemology won, and evidence's only utility is for falsification and cannot be used to argue for an increased probability a theory is correct. The issue was argued into the 90s by people like Elby, but the outcome was clear at least a decade earlier. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki...