The Disastrous Privacy Consequences of Canada's Anti-Terrorism Bill

An anonymous reader writes "Canada's proposed anti-terrorism legislation is currently being debated in the House of Commons, with the government already serving notice that it plans to limit debate. Michael Geist argues that decision has enormous privacy consequences, since the bill effectively creates a "total information awareness" approach that represents a radical shift away from our traditional understanding of public sector privacy protection. The bill permits information sharing across government for an incredibly wide range of purposes, most of which have nothing to do with terrorism and opens the door to further disclosure "to any person, for any purpose." The cumulative effect is to grant government near-total power to share information for purposes that extend far beyond terrorism with few safeguards or privacy protections."

Comments

Papers, Comrade

[erp_consultant]

Welcome to the modern day fascist state. Privacy is a luxury no longer afforded to everyday citizens.

Good question, not answered:

[Layzej]

The wording is sufficiently vague to permit a Canadian Security Intelligence Service investigation of anyone who challenges the Conservatives' social, economic or environmental policies, the Opposition leader said during the daily question period.

"What's to stop this bill from being used to spy on the government's political enemies?"

Prime Minister Stephen Harper dismissed the suggestion, telling the House of Commons the NDP had entered the realm of conspiracy theory.

"That's what we've come to expect from the black helicopter fleet over there." - http://www.cbc.ca/m/touch/poli...

Re:Good question, not answered:

[Jason Levine]

Government will always abuse power eventually. Suppose we elected a moral government that would never abuse their power (it's a hypothetical situation that will never be reality so might as well fill it with hypothetical politicians that will never be real), they make a law with good intentions, but one that has a loophole that could be abused. Supporters might say "this government would never abuse it because they gave their word/they are such good people/they don't believe in that sort of thing." Maybe the supporters would even be right. But governments always change.

Even if the present government was perfectly aligned to never abuse that law, the next one might be. Or the one after that. And when the government is in place that WILL abuse the law, it might not be abusing it in a way that happens to further your political views (and thus might result in you turning a blind eye to the abuse like people tend to do when it supports their causes).

So even if we assume that Harper is right and their current government would never abuse this law, what's to stop the next government from abusing it?

This is why, whenever a new law is proposed to grant government new powers, I always ask supporters how they would like it if PERSON_FROM_OPPOSING_POLITICAL_POWER was in charge and had those powers. All too often people support new government powers without oversight because it supports their causes without thinking ahead about how other politicians will abuse them.

Like all governments ...

[gstoddart]

They're quick to tell us how this is going to make us more secure, but they've utterly failed to demonstrate how existing laws are inadequate, or that these news laws would have helped at all in anything they've missed.

This is the drooling "we need to give the security people the tools to do their job", while ignoring the legal protections we're supposed to have, and failing to justify these new powers.

And, of course, the government spokesman said how this proposal was met well by the other people in the "five eyes" ... of course they're going to love it, they get a share of the fucking take.

We don't give a shit about what a foreign government thinks about our security and information sharing, because they greedily want this shit.

We give a shit about the fact that this is illegal, unnecessary, completely unjustified, and completely lacking in proper checks and balances.

This is a government operating on a "law and order" agenda who doesn't give a fuck about the law.

Re:Like all governments ...

[bobbied]

They're quick to tell us how this is going to make us more secure, but they've utterly failed to demonstrate how existing laws are inadequate.

And we stumbled onto a VERY important point. Legislators are often guilty of passing a new law because they want to be seen as "doing something" about a problem. FEW of them actually ask the question "So what laws do we have NOW that address this and do we need to modify them?" Even fewer would actually understand the answer.

This is about politics, about Public Relations and how I can burnish my image and tarnish my opponent. So if I can pass a law and claim to have addressed the issue, I have advanced MYSELF. Who cares if it's the right thing to do or if making a minor tweak to existing law or budgets would be a better, faster, cheaper fix? Oh no, it's about appearances, not effectiveness..

Re:Like all governments ...

[JackieBrown]

We just went through this in my hometown (San Antonio.)

We passed laws outlawing cell phones because it causes reckless driving. The thing is, we already have laws against reckless driving.
Do we need a law for eating food in the car while driving or putting make up on?

Re:It was always just a matter of time...

[NoNonAlphaCharsHere]

You need to re-read the PATRIOT act.

Re:It was always just a matter of time...

[gstoddart]

No, it's a feedback loop. The exact same thing is happening with copyright.

America (and all of the five eyes) want additional laws and powers. Those laws and powers are currently illegal and unpopular.

So, one of the five eyes gets talked into passing a law which goes much further. And then the rest of them all say "see, we need these powers too".

The exact same thing has been happening with copyright, and spying provisions ... they play off one another to expand the powers internationally, and then push to get the same things domestically.

Essentially most western governments now have three magic keys to the kingdom: copyright, terrorism, and child porn.

These three things are being used to march the goalposts further down the field, and the consequences for the rest of our liberties be damned.

The five-eyes are flunkies in advancing the interests of corporations, and conspiring together to give us global fascism and surveillance. The Western democracies are all actively trying to say "fuck you and your rights, this is what we do, this is who we share it with, and if you don't like it fuck off".

Essentially the governments and spy agencies of the five-eyes are larger threats to our liberties than the people they claim to be protecting us from.

And they seem to not give a damn what they do to get there.

Re:It was always just a matter of time...FTFY

[zlives]

America does want that, the fear mongering and bigotry runs rampant in just enough of America to allow this to continue.
May be one day enough America may not want it... might be too late by then.

What's the matter with Canada?

[ThatsNotPudding]

I used to think Canadians - even those out in the forsaken, endless prairies - were far more wise and progressive than us USians, but no. How long has GOP-backed and advised Harper been in power now? What happened? Was it tar sand greed? Pure apathy? The assumption they were all as 'funny' as Laughable Bublefuck Rob Ford?

Quite sad; I thought the Canadians were better than, well, just about everybody, but now no different than the rest of the Right-Wing Police State, Might Makes Right, Western world. [le sigh]

Re:Hopefully this will be Harper's death knell

[dryeo]

Promises of small government and tax breaks will get the votes. This what I hate about "Libertarians", they have little problem with this type of government as they're cutting taxes and shrinking government even though it's the oversight part that's being removed.

Re: Fuck.

[rickb928]

âMake a provocative comment and be censured from work, friends and future prospects...â

This already happens, you know. One of my family members is an elementary school teacher. Every budget proposal is CRITICAL!, every election is the future of our nation, and any politician that proposes limiting spending to available revenues is killing education and hates our children!!!

I can't talk politics with her. It's literally her pocketbook. No matter the realities, she is only interested in job.

And I understand. I work in an even more arbitrary environment. Business.