Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Proposed Canadian Law Would Allow Warrantless Searches

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the rifling-through-america's-storage-unit dept.

Privacy 195

An anonymous reader writes "A bill introduced by Canada's Minister of Public Safety will allow police to (warrantlessly) force ISPs to provide access to any requested digital traffic records, reports News 1130. Police lobbied for the bill as means of 'combatting gangsters, pedophiles, or terrorists,' but apparently they find the legal principles of judicial review and probable cause, as well as a constitutional provision against 'unreasonable search or seizure', to be too much of a hassle, and would rather be able to search anyone's web or e-mail traffic at their own discretion and without any oversight. All in the name of public safety, of course."

cancel ×

195 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Children (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28380547)

Think of the children, eh?

Re:Children (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28380581)

no, apparently some people in Canada are thinking of the children a bit too much...

in the nude.

Re:Children (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28380615)

That sounds a bit terroristic.

Re:Children (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28381329)

He must be in a gang

Re:Children (1)

cbiltcliffe (186293) | more than 4 years ago | (#28381433)

Ya, hoser!
Think of the bacon, eh!

Oh, yeah...

And the beer.

Hoser.

Despicable. (4, Insightful)

giesen (820885) | more than 4 years ago | (#28380549)

'Nuff said.

Re:Despicable. (5, Informative)

Tanktalus (794810) | more than 4 years ago | (#28382353)

I've sent an email to my MP. I hope all other Canadian /.ers do likewise. Here is what I wrote. Be sure to add your name and full address to yours, and cc the Honorable Peter Van Loan (vanlop@parl.gc.ca) as well. Feel free to modify to suit your own political beliefs. (Not that you need my permission for that, just being honest and transparent.) If you don't have their email address, you might want to look that up [parl.gc.ca] .

In regards to a proposed new bill:

http://www.news1130.com/more.jsp?content=20090617_213536_8084

The point of laws regarding privacy, and court-sanctioned warrants overriding privacy, is not to make it easier for the police to solve crimes, but to weigh carefully the right to privacy on one hand and the reasonable evidence pointing to a particular suspect requiring further information on the other. The police, being human beings, can easily get emotionally attached to the pursuit of an individual, and invade what could easily turn out to be an innocent person's privacy. The whole point of a warrant being issued by a judge is for oversight to ensure that the police aren't cutting corners prior to actually invading someone's privacy.

By removing this level of oversight, I feel we are going in the wrong direction on personal liberties and freedoms, and are sliding towards a police state.

It's not that I have an issue with ISPs keeping logs, the same way corporations are supposed to keep account of their transactions in case of an audit. But it requires some oversight to keep the police from accessing just anyone's account without reasonable evidence otherwise. As long as the logs are protected by similar privacy laws that any other aspect of citizens' private lives, and only released under proper court warrants, the police continue to have the tools they need to pursue internet crimes while continuing to protect citizens' privacy, thereby protecting liberties and freedoms we all enjoy.

I hope you will incorporate proper privacy protections in this bill, requiring the police to act the same as they do with any other aspect of our private lives.

Be reasonable... (4, Insightful)

evil_aar0n (1001515) | more than 4 years ago | (#28380601)

It's for the good of the country, you know. And if you don't support this type of legislation, you must be some sort of "pedophile, terrorist or gangster."

Re:Be reasonable... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28380619)

In other words...

"Why do you hate Canada?"

Re:Be reasonable... (4, Funny)

PoliticalGamer (1548891) | more than 4 years ago | (#28380631)

Why yes, only those with something to hide have anything to fear!

MOD PARENT -1 UNINSIGHTFUL (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28382363)

Why yes, only those with something to hide have anything to fear!

You're like the fat, socially-hopeless nerds in my classes. You think no one else thought of that? You're not insightful.
Stop reusing smug catchphrases and start churning out something useful (besides chunky cum from your morbidly obese chode).

You even have a name that I find offensive. PoliticalGamer? A.K.A. insulated suburban wannabe philosopher.

Finally, I don't even have to guess. You _are_ new here.

Re:Be reasonable... (3, Funny)

elashish14 (1302231) | more than 4 years ago | (#28381025)

Of course. Also, this is how they plan to catch the perpetrators of the Conficker virus/worm/whatever. Canada will soon be a global hero!

(More sarcasm)

Re:Be reasonable... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28381607)

Which is just the argument everybody brought up against anybody opposing the new consorship law in Germany.
Especially the biggest newspaper in Europe (which mostly publishes bullshit) which politicians are afraid of.
Sad, really.

Re:Be reasonable... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28381689)

My billing is quite reasonable. I require the nominal fee of 67K/hour searching my logs for your requested information, 4 hour minimum.

Please submit your credit references and billing information to our accounting department along with your request, and we'll get back to you within 90 to 120 business days.

Re:Be reasonable... (1)

Shark (78448) | more than 4 years ago | (#28381867)

Actually, no... I'm an ISP.

Re:Be reasonable... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28382087)

Do you even know what the constitution is? the charter of rights and freedoms maybe? The Magna Carta? WTF? If you feel that way move to North Korea you idiot.

Re:Be reasonable... (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28382159)

I agree. In Calgary, if you say anything that does not support the Calgary Police Service, you must be a criminal.

Speak out about Calgary Police Service beating up and raping women who walk the street for money, or other acts by the Calgary Police which would get a normal citizen arrested, and you will find your self in the Calgary Prison system before you know what happen.

Your name will be in the newspapers, all over the news, and broadcast by the Calgary Police to ensure everyone knows you are guilty of what the Police say you are guilty of. Of course this is long before your trial.

You will not be able to find employment, because Calgary Police will show up at your place of work and tell everyone you are a criminal.

Meanwhile, the Calgary Police Service have members who attempt to pick up young girls on line, sell drugs which they took from drug dealers instead of arresting them, selling firearms which should have been destroyed, drinking and driving, and worst of all doing what ever they want too. There are even Calgary Police member who are paedophiles. Other member commit assaults with out any investigation. Because the Calgary Police who do not report to anyone.

Most of these acts have been documented on the CBC and other websites. But on the CBC news stories which make the Calgary Police look bad, disappear almost as fast as they appear.

Freenet, and a few darknets has good selection of video of the crimes committed by the Calgary Police Service.

The truth is there, just have to look for it.

Come on, people! (5, Insightful)

emudoug42 (977380) | more than 4 years ago | (#28380621)

Do people really hate the police that much? I mean, asking for them to get a WARRANT before they invade your invade your life? Do you have any idea how much of a hassle that is? We should just hand them over every little piece of information about our lives at the drop of a hat! It's the least we can do.

</heavy sarcasm>

Re:Come on, people! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28380785)

Why do you hate freedom?

</yast>

Re:Come on, people! (0, Troll)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | more than 4 years ago | (#28380929)

We should just hand them over every little piece of information about our lives at the drop of a hat! It's the least we can do.

Have you considered moving to Montana? I heard you might feel there at home.

Re:Come on, people! (2, Insightful)

dimeglio (456244) | more than 4 years ago | (#28381381)

A people that values its safety above its freedom soon loses both. (a twist from a D.D. Eisenhower's quote)

I for one (1)

Mipoti Gusundar (1028156) | more than 4 years ago | (#28380651)

I for one lewcome our new Canadian law woulds.

Why so surprised? (1)

illiter4te (1574849) | more than 4 years ago | (#28380655)

The internet is a public domain, why would law enforcement require a permit for that? And besides, almost all entities such as places of business/education and many ISPs will willingly give this information up anyways...

Re:Why so surprised? (5, Insightful)

davester666 (731373) | more than 4 years ago | (#28381033)

Ah yes, it's new, therefore existing rules don't apply.

Maybe the rules should be rewritten so that the police can open all mail without a warrant because it's passing through a public domain?

Maybe CanadaPost could be grandfathered in to 'still needs a warrant' but for the newbies, Fedex and UPS, they would be required to have a station at all their sorting locations for the police to process every single item going through their system.

Re:Why so surprised? (4, Insightful)

JobyOne (1578377) | more than 4 years ago | (#28381119)

The internet is a public domain, huh? I can't tell if you're a troll so I'll answer in all seriousness.

The internet is primarily a communication tool, right? So are private gatherings, phones, snail mail, etc. How would you feel if the man were allowed to peer into those without oversight? The police reading your email or tracking what you do online is ultimately no different from tracking what you do on the phone or in your own home. You have a reasonable expectation of privacy, and that must be respected if we want to live in a free society.

P.S. I'm an upstanding citizen and really do have nothing to hide, it's a matter of principle.

Re:Why so surprised? (2, Insightful)

dimeglio (456244) | more than 4 years ago | (#28381419)

Sure. You're 100% correct. Why can't I snoop your bank account's user name and password? All that encryption is getting in the way. Oh wait, I got it now. Thanks to the new law from the Minister of Public Safety.

Re:Why so surprised? (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28381447)

1. The Internet is not public domain. It is a Series of Tubes(R), but most pieces of these tubes (including the start point, the end point, and most importantly the ISP point) are privately owned.

2. ISPs are under contractual and privacy-law obligation not to release user data unless forced by a court warrant (which, in addition to requesting the information, will lay out to the police how and where that data can or can not be used). Or unless this bill is passed, of course, in which case the police will read and distribute it when where and how they feel like.

3. Tapping into ISP data will allow vastly more invasive searches of a person's traffic than an endpoint website. The endpoint website will at most tell what a person submitted to that website, and then can be circumvented by proxies. The ISP data will tell everything about a particular user account, i.e. a person's, total net activity.

4. There is a constitutional difference between an endpoint willing to give up data I send to it, and being forced to do so against its will.

That's it, I'm moving to ... (4, Funny)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 4 years ago | (#28380663)

Cana ... oh, ummm, crap, now I'm in trouble.

Re:That's it, I'm moving to ... (4, Interesting)

illiter4te (1574849) | more than 4 years ago | (#28380821)

Its so funny to see people say that kind of stuff... "Thats it! Govt is too big, lets move to Canada!" C'mon... Canada is more liberal and has bigger government than we do here. I think you mean you need to move to Mexico where the govt doesn't use its power to protect its people...

Re:That's it, I'm moving to ... (1, Troll)

BikeHelmet (1437881) | more than 4 years ago | (#28380939)

It wasn't so bad until the Conservatives got in. Harper is a Bush look-alike, except that he can't get away with quite as much because of slightly more sane laws restricting his power.

Re:That's it, I'm moving to ... (1)

NickyGotz22 (1427691) | more than 4 years ago | (#28381297)

A Canadian must have moded your pos

Re:That's it, I'm moving to ... (3, Informative)

Phrogman (80473) | more than 4 years ago | (#28381289)

Well you know, from my perspective up here being more "Liberal" is a *GOOD THING* not a bad thing. Liberal seems to be a swearword down there in the US, whereas up here its the name of one of our political parties, and has no negative connotations whatsoever, unless you are a very conservative Conservative. Again from my perspective up here (no doubt distorted by the media and cultural differences), the US seems extremely Right-Wing on average (even your Liberals would be seen as Conservatives up here in many cases), extremely violent (how many people do you know who own a gun? I know my uncle has a rifle for use on the farm, and I had one when I was a kid. I have a friend who owns one for safety and one who owned one for use as protection against bears out in the woods, but other than that I know hundreds of other Canadians who to the best of my knowledge do not own one. Every American I meet seems to take it for granted that a house would have one), extremely nationalistic (to the point of viewing non-americans as some kind of subhuman species, deserving of scorn), and extremely ignorant of anything outside of the continental US.
I am not sure how much better we Canadians are on some of those scores but I would like to think we are less extreme in every measure.

However this law *has* to fail, I can't ever see it going into effect, although as a long term /.er I haven't RTFA yet :P

Re:That's it, I'm moving to ... (1)

stonewallred (1465497) | more than 4 years ago | (#28381609)

You don't have a gun? What will you do when the government takes over and strips you of all your rights and ...wait, oh, nevermind.

Re:That's it, I'm moving to ... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28382041)

Ummm... where's this fantasy version of the US you speak of? Everything you've said doesn't even remotely describe the United States.

The US is very divided and there's a strong right-wing group but by no means in the entire US conservative. Usually people in rural areas tend to be right wing while people in urban areas tend to be liberal. Liberal is really only used as a swear word on Fox News which exists solely to be a right-wing news network.

I've never thought of Canada as violent but you sure make it sound like it is. You make it seem like everybody and their grandma has a gun in Canada with the number of people you listed with a gun. I grew up in the US and I have never known a single person who owned a gun. Gun owners are most definitely a small minority in the US. Americans would generally take for granted that a house does NOT have a gun. And most people that do own a gun claim to do so for protection.

Extremely nationalistic? Sounds to me like you've been watching too many TV stereotypes. Do you think that every American wears a cowboy hat and shouts "Yee-haw!" too? Being extremely nationalistic and ignorant of the rest of world is a stereotypical trait of rural red necks.

Funnily enough, you have shown that you are quite ignorant of even your neighbouring country. You shouldn't base your assumptions on what you see on TV. Even if the content is from the US, it's full of over blown or outdated stereotypes. You should actually try visiting a country before making a bunch of absurd assumptions. Even if those assumptions are in part based on Americans you have met you do have to remember that most Americans don't have a passport and hence don't travel abroad thus the people you do meet outside of the US aren't exactly representative of the country.

After all, if I based my assumptions on you, I'd think Canadians are quite ignorant and simple minded(for assuming that a country of 300 million people could be imbued with such over simplistic stereotypes) but I've actually been to Canada and know better.

Write to the minister! (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28380683)

This is ridiculous. If this passes, I'm never voting Conservative again (leaving me with no other options!)

Write to Van Loan:

The Honourable Peter Van Loan
Minister of Public Safety

Parliament Hill Office
Room 157
East Block
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0A6

T 613-996-7752
F 613-992-8351
E vanloan.p@parl.gc.ca

Constituency Office
45 Grist Mill Road, Unit 10
Holland Landing, Ontario
L9N 1M7 ... in the Grist Mill Plaza,
Mount Albert Road between Old Yonge Street and 2nd Concession

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

Theyre called The Reform Party of Canada (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28381721)

Nitwits like you didnt pay attention when the Reform Party which formed less than two decades ago because the Conservatives werent far right enough for them helped shut down the party so the Reform Party could take it as their own.

Joe Sixpack didnt notice that it was the Progressive Conservatives but just Conservatives so nothing has changed and now he is surprised.

The Reform Party was also called the Canadian Alliance and probably another name or two but it was beyond fringe until they took a name that was around for over 100 years.

Youre an idiot and shouldnt be allowed to vote.

Re:Theyre called The Reform Party of Canada (3, Funny)

CountOfJesusChristo (1523057) | more than 4 years ago | (#28381907)

The Reform Party was also called the Canadian Alliance and probably another name or two [...]

I believe the other name to which you refer is the Canadian Reform Aliance Party, or C.R.A.P.

Re:Write to the minister! (3, Interesting)

gun26 (151620) | more than 4 years ago | (#28381939)

The Conservative party consists of a large caucus holding the overwheliming majority of seats from Western Canada and a smaller rump from populous Ontario (which elects almost 1/3 of the parliamentary seats). In order to have a political future the Cons need to grow in Ontario - they can't expect much more in the West and they burned their bridges with the Quebec electorate in last December's coalition crisis. But the cabinet pickings are slim from the Ontario Con group, most of whom are cretinous hard-right retreads from the old Mike Harris provincial government in power here in the late 90s. Peter Van Loan is perhaps the dumbest of the bunch - his talent seems to consist of partisan brawling at the gutter level and not much else. Like most of the Ontario Conservative members, he represents a rural riding. Minister of Public Safety? His title should really be Minister of the Public Be Damned. I don't know what to make of Van Loan being the front man for this initiative by the Conservative government. Either his political star is rising, or the Conservatives don't really expect the initiative to pass and are hanging Van Loan out to dry since he's one of the more expendable cogs in their machine.

Re:Write to the minister! (1)

Chirs (87576) | more than 4 years ago | (#28382061)

It is worthy of note that while they hold an overwhelming majority of *seats* in Western Canada, they do not hold an overwhelming majority of *votes*. It's basically an accident of the voting system.

Who are you? (1)

arizwebfoot (1228544) | more than 4 years ago | (#28380715)

This sounds like something the McKenzie brothers would come with.

Strange Brew - indeed.

Welcome Big Brother (1)

tmbailey123 (230145) | more than 4 years ago | (#28380721)

enough said.

There goes my pedestal (5, Funny)

atomic777 (860023) | more than 4 years ago | (#28380737)

.. from which to look down my frost-bitten nose at the suckers having their rights taken away down south. Now i'm putting up with bad weather for no good reason!

Doesn't our government understand a fundamental principle of governing a country with a predominantly harsh climate like Canada: we must do everything significantly better than our neighbours to the south to prevent brain drain.

Re:There goes my pedestal (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28380811)

Not like something good *ever* came out of Canada. FFS you speak FRENCH !

Now we have to worry about illegal aliens invading us from the south AND north. Great. Just F'ing great.

Re:There goes my pedestal (1, Insightful)

atomic777 (860023) | more than 4 years ago | (#28381059)

An amazing concentration of hatred towards multiple targets the propagandists have been able to induce in you. All in two short and simple sentences, you've got hatred, mocking or xenophobia towards: immigrants, Canada, Mexico and France!

And I said brain drain, the cherry picking of highly educated or talented people. Today, no average, sane Canadian would pack up and move to US illegally as an economic migrant. An out-of-work auto worker in Michigan is a hell of a lot worse off than his counterpart across the border in Ontario. Who should be afraid of the refugee problem? And meanwhile, "patrols" are being stepped up on the Great Lakes! Pretty hilarious.

Re:There goes my pedestal (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28381387)

Hockey came from Canada. 'Nuff said. HOCKEY RULES!

Re: French (1)

Phrogman (80473) | more than 4 years ago | (#28381455)

Some people up here speak Quebecois, which is a dialect of French. Many of us do not however, I barely speak a word of it. No intelligent Canadian would want to move to the US though, so you don't need to worry much. You couldn't pay me to live down there to be honest.

Re:There goes my pedestal (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28380835)

the cons want brain drain.....

This is a sad trend (5, Insightful)

Klistvud (1574615) | more than 4 years ago | (#28380743)

And it is showing us that civil liberties won't end with a bang, they will end with a pathetic, humiliating trifle. Apparently, we will forfeit our liberties not in order to fight terrorism, AIDS, exploitation, or poverty, but to "protect" some copyrighted content or to prevent some teenager from downloading porn. A really sad way to go, Democracy!

Re:This is a sad trend (4, Insightful)

T Murphy (1054674) | more than 4 years ago | (#28381401)

Luckily we have the Iranians to demonstrate for us how a democracy should work.

I like that phrasing. (5, Insightful)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 4 years ago | (#28380775)

"Police lobbied for the bill as means of 'combatting gangsters, pedophiles, or terrorists,'"

I like that phrasing, it's like they aren't really sure. "Why do we need these powers? To combat gangsters, pedophiles... or terrorists, yeah terrorists too. Or maybe identity thieves? Whatever makes you turn your brain off and do what we want. That's why we need them."

Re:I like that phrasing. (4, Funny)

Duradin (1261418) | more than 4 years ago | (#28380843)

It would have been even better if they pitched the idea under the pretense of going green by reducing the amount of paper used.

"You want us to get a warrant? Do you know what the carbon footprint of a warrant is? Why do you hate the Earth?"

Re:I like that phrasing. (1)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 4 years ago | (#28381373)

Damn! And I wondered why the Mounties lobbied so hard for that law requiring warrants to be printed on baby arctic seal hide!

Re:I like that phrasing. (1)

EddyGL (15300) | more than 4 years ago | (#28381677)

Those warrants look so pretty with those genuine Saskatchewan seal skin bindings..

Re:I like that phrasing. (1)

selven (1556643) | more than 4 years ago | (#28381693)

Terra-rism?

Re:I like that phrasing. (2, Insightful)

T Murphy (1054674) | more than 4 years ago | (#28380933)

Down with the pedophiles! They take away our rights!

Re:I like that phrasing. (4, Insightful)

Rycross (836649) | more than 4 years ago | (#28381081)

Its gotten to the point where I'm inherently distrustful of anyone that claims to want to protect me from terrorists, or want to protect children. It's like code-words for "I want to introduce some legislation that violates your rights, and have to make this palatable."

Re:I like that phrasing. (4, Funny)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 4 years ago | (#28381429)

Its gotten to the point where I'm inherently distrustful of anyone that claims to want to protect me from terrorists, or want to protect children.

So true, so true.

On the other hand, I inherently believe anyone who claims to want to harm children.

George Bush / Orwell Strikes again ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28380781)

Of course I have nothing to hide, therefore you have no reason to be spying on private citizens. You are after all my public servants, from the Prime Minister on down the chain, you are supposed to be representing my interests, not attacking my Rights, and Freedoms. Start representing my interests, and eradicate the Police State mentality out of my Parliament, and Police Forces.

Re:George Bush / Orwell Strikes again ... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28382345)

George Bush? I don't see Obama too quick to repeal these laws.

If anything he's got his dick firmly in the ass of every American. You bitches are getting fucked.

But it's ok. Keep on the party line blinders.

Fox News? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28380795)

Fox News? Is that you? The Fair and Balanced summary threw me there for a minute...

Dudley Do-Right is now Savoir-Faire (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28380847)

Cause everybody knows Savoir-Faire is everywhere!!!

a bit more complicated then that.... (4, Informative)

Chirs (87576) | more than 4 years ago | (#28380855)

As is usual, the summary is inflammatory. As described at http://www.privacylawyer.ca/blog/labels/lawful%20access.html/ [privacylawyer.ca] a warrant would still be required for eavesdropping, but "basic subscriber information" (name, address, telephone number and Internet Protocol (IP) address, e-mail address, service provider identification and certain cell phone identifiers) would be available without a warrant.

I'll be writing to my MP in any case.

Re:a bit more complicated then that.... (1)

Abcd1234 (188840) | more than 4 years ago | (#28380917)

Figures.

'course, if the law really is unconstitutional, someone will challenge it and the courts will nullify it. *shrug* Annoying, certainly, but hardly a disaster, particularly since our "activist judges" have demonstrated they're very much interested in enforcing the Charter (hence why gay marriage is legal here).

Re:a bit more complicated then that.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28381247)

Gay marriage (between men) = more available women.
Gay marriage (between women) = potentially more lesbian porn videos.

It's not rocket surgery. In both cases, it's a win.

Re:a bit more complicated then that.... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28381493)

So if a cop wanted information on his ex there would be no trace as to how he got it... Yup no harm done here.... Maybe we should remove the audit trails on government databases as well, just to be safe.

Step 1 (1)

phorm (591458) | more than 4 years ago | (#28382053)

Of course, step 2 will expand on this. Not only that, but I'd imagine that it's not entirely unlikely that we may end up with "Criminal Copyright Infringement" being at some point investigated by the police on behalf of the media companies. So then not only can they get the info of the aforementioned criminals, but all those dirty commie filesharers as well...

It's not like... (4, Insightful)

Sibko (1036168) | more than 4 years ago | (#28380863)

Gray says the public doesn't need to worry about invasion of privacy because getting information from an ISP is only one small step in an investigation. She also says it's not like police knock down doors as soon as they have a name connected to an Internet address.

What??? That is EXACTLY what happens when the police don't need warrants.

This bill makes it possible for it to happen, with no safeguards whatsoever. A well intentioned, but poorly thought-out piece of legislation that gives the police far too much power.

Re:It's not like... (1)

http (589131) | more than 4 years ago | (#28381291)

Poorly thought out legislation is not much different from badly intended legislation. Call van Loan, and your MP. This bill can die, if your MPs are well informed.

Re:It's not like... (1)

BlueKitties (1541613) | more than 4 years ago | (#28381957)

Unfortunately, this is a world that likes to set logic aside and play by letter of law; not thinking out your wording is often more destructive than ill-intended but well thought out wording (at least one doesn't come with surprises twenty years down the line!)

My only question is... (2, Insightful)

d474 (695126) | more than 4 years ago | (#28380877)

...what next?
 
After the government watches every single aspect of what we do with our electronic communications, what next?
 
Will they actually catch all the pedo's & terrorists? Will all those crimes disappear? Or will those crimes continue to occur?
 
Of course they'll continue to occur, so will they move on to thought control with nanotechnologies? Seriously. Will the argument still convince everyone to allow for thought monitoring because, "How else will we catch all the pedo's and terrorists! Think of the children!"

So then they watch all our thoughts, will the crimes then go away? Probably not, people will figure out ways to block those nano-bots somehow. Then what?
 
Then they will want to control our thoughts - because, because that way we can control everyone and stop crime and protect the children! But will crime stop? Yes. But then, the crime stopped because freedom stopped.
 
Crime and freedom go hand-in-hand. Can't have one without the other.

Easy (2, Interesting)

BigJClark (1226554) | more than 4 years ago | (#28380893)


Easy, you crazy kids. Sometimes in Canada, we'll propose some totally nuts bill to ensure it gets struck down, and it serves as a precendence to prevent weaker, yet more wily intrusions in our security and privacy.

That being said, please do, write your politicians, let them know their thoughts.

Re:Easy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28381151)

It's one thing when the proposal is made by some extreme-wing party outcast who essentially made his platform by catering to a specific cause, and is viewed by the rest as more of a single-purpose pressure activist than a day-to-day politician.

It's another thing when the proposal comes from the Minister of Public Safety, appointed by the party in power. Cabinet officers tend to propose stuff they seriously expect to get done, so my Occam's razor shifts towards "evil" rather than "stupid" in this case.

Re:Easy (4, Insightful)

twidarkling (1537077) | more than 4 years ago | (#28381167)

This isn't even the first time the bill's been proposed. As another provided a link to a Michael Geist post, this almost exact bill has been proposed by the Liberals previously. The fact that both the Liberals AND Conservatives have proposed it lends credence to your point.

Further more, even if it WAS a legitimate push, it's only been introduced. The amount of stuff that's introduced and just dies in committee is rather staggering. If this makes it past first vote, I'd be stunned.

Still writing my rep to let them know my thoughts, though.

Re:Easy (1)

KillerBob (217953) | more than 4 years ago | (#28381421)

It's also worth mentionning that we're expecting a confidence vote this Friday. It's possible, though unlikely, that the Conservatives won't even be in power after tomorrow, in which case this bill would simply die.

Re:Easy (1)

phorm (591458) | more than 4 years ago | (#28382111)

No, that's already been shot down. Harper and Ingatieff have been bunked down in "discussions" and it's basically been agreed that there won't be any confidence vote or new election. The Cons made some concessions, among which include the opportunity for a confidence vote later this year (Sept I believe), but there's nothing coming anytime soon.

Re:Easy (1)

davegravy (1019182) | more than 4 years ago | (#28381185)

+1 WishItWereTrue

Re:Easy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28381213)

That being said, please do, write your politicians, let them know their thoughts.

And use, extra, commas, too. Just, in, case.

And instead of letting them know their thoughts, let them know yours instead.

Re:Easy (3, Insightful)

BabyDuckHat (1503839) | more than 4 years ago | (#28381425)

Actually, you may not be far off. It's a common tactic to propose a bill that actually asks for far more than you want. That gives the opposition the chance to gut it or to come together for a sunshine-time compromise, while still allowing what you really wanted to get passed.

EvilPerson1: How can I make it legal to beat people with boards?
EvilPerson1: "I propose we give law-enforcement the authority to pull off peoples ears with with pilers and beat them with boards with nails in them."
EvilPerson2: "Objection! That's just barbaric!"
EvilPerson1: "Fine, let's compromise: They can't do the pliers thing, but they can still hit them with boards."
EvilPerson2: "Getting there, but I'm still not comfortable with the nails."
EvilPerson1: "You wimp. Fine, no nails." Sucker.
EvilPerson2: "That's better."

Re:Easy (1)

TheMeuge (645043) | more than 4 years ago | (#28381753)

Someone mod parent Insightful, please.

Oh, Canada! (1)

SockPuppet_9_5 (645235) | more than 4 years ago | (#28380963)

God keep our land glorious and free!
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.

[Lyrics are now contradictory]

gangsters, pedophiles, or terrorists (1)

gringofrijolero (1489395) | more than 4 years ago | (#28380993)

Oh my!

Ahhh, the power of irrational fear.

Applies to proxies? (1)

davegravy (1019182) | more than 4 years ago | (#28381073)

I'm wondering if there's a business opportunity here...

I'm not an IT wizard or lawyer, but supposing one formed a partnership with major ISPs to run high-bandwidth proxy servers just beyond the perimeter of their network backbone. The proxy-server owners wouldn't be "ISP"s by definition, so they wouldn't be subject to data retention or any sort of disclosure laws. Then, ISP customers can have encrypted communications to the proxy, which then travel outwards to the rest of the web in whatever manner.

The police would only have legal access to the communications that the isp sees which is entirely encrypted.

Or have they considered this loophole?

What specifically should constitute unreasonable? (1)

LordZardoz (155141) | more than 4 years ago | (#28381095)

In practical terms, what constitutes and unreasonable search where privacy is concerned? No, this is not a troll question. Just hear me out.

I think that the primary concern for most people where access to personal information is concerned is generally within the following areas.

1) Protection from 'planted evidence' when targeted by a law enforcement investigation
2) Protection from Identity Theft
3) Not having their private information used in a way that will harm their personal life.
4) Not having their private information used in a way that will harm their job.

If those things can be respected and guaranteed, how would a warrent less search of your e-mail by law enforcement be unreasonable? If those who accessed that information were held liable in the event that accessing that information caused harm, I do not really see the problem.

I do not care if the police know that I have a mistress and that I am planning on looking for a new job. But I do not want my wife or my boss or my friends to know these things.

END COMMUNICATION

Re:What specifically should constitute unreasonabl (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28381265)

And what makes you believe the police wouldn't just handle the information in whatever way they please once they get it? Read the source again, no warrant = NO JUDICIAL OVERSIGHT.

The police may have a legitimate case to need the data (and most of the time they do), but the whole concept of judicial review is it's NOT FOR THEM TO DECIDE. We have independent courts and judges who are getting paid to be a neutral party and balance the rights of the community (represented by the police) vs. the rights of the individual. The police are NOT neutral - they have a vested interest in prosecuting a case, just like a defendant has a vested interest in the prosecution to fail. Sometimes the police are right, sometimes the defendant, that's why a neutral and independent court needs to decide matters. Since in this case the police want to dig into a suspects private data, a court must decide whether the request is legitimate or not. The police's own word is NOT good enough.

And if your wife (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28381377)

was a policewoman?

Re:What specifically should constitute unreasonabl (1)

selven (1556643) | more than 4 years ago | (#28381755)

And the police/government are so reliable that they never [slashdot.org] lose your data [slashdot.org] or let it be stolen [slashdot.org] and put all over the internet.

Check out the US FISA law (1)

Todd Palin (1402501) | more than 4 years ago | (#28381109)

My first reaction was YIKES, what are the Canadians doing. Then I realized that their law is very similar to the US Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Basically under FISA the US Government can request and get any information they want if they think it might cross any international border. No one is keeping tabs on what information the US collects because it is a "secret", so basically they can collect whatever they want with no warrant.

Re:Check out the US FISA law (1)

tsotha (720379) | more than 4 years ago | (#28381821)

Sure. Governments do all sorts of despicable things in secrecy. But see, if the US government wants to actually charge you with a crime it still have to use methods that will pass muster in court. If they use an illegal method to get information that information will be excluded from trial, as will anything they find as a result of that information.

Re:Check out the US FISA law (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28382027)

Actually, I'm pretty sure the exclusionary rule was struck down a while ago. I think Scalia wrote the opinion, but I can't remember the name of the case.

Sing it! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28381205)

Blame Canada!

Quoting Science Fiction Author S. M. Stirling (1)

sehlat (180760) | more than 4 years ago | (#28381221)

From an email of several years ago.

"The police should have the power to search anyone's hard drive over the network without a warrant and erase anything they deem suspicious. Anybody who objects to this is a thief or thief wannabe."

Sounds like Canada's on its way to granting his wish.

Data Mining for "Evidence" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28381415)

Makes it easier to use pervasive, automated, data mining (e.g. SMS text messages containing key words, &c.) results as "evidence" against people. Warrants? Probable Cause? Due Process? These technicalities are not necessary in a modern techno-fascist police state.

(Where do I "opt-out"?)

Canadian Fascism Strong and Not Free (2, Insightful)

itsybitsy (149808) | more than 4 years ago | (#28381595)

Yikes, these people think they rule the world or part of it anyway. I hereby revoke their right to do this. If they implement this they become the State Based Terrorists that they themselves fear!

Encryption (1)

tsotha (720379) | more than 4 years ago | (#28381881)

I have to believe 'gangsters, pedophiles, or terrorists' will be using encryption to carry out their nefarious plans. The real target here is people downloading music and movies.

What I see as the real problem (2, Interesting)

cdrguru (88047) | more than 4 years ago | (#28381897)

The real problem with getting a warrent in many cases is that while there may be strong indications that something is going on, there is nothing that a judge would consider probable cause.

This can even extend to siuations where it is clear to someone technically inclined that someone is involved in probably illicit digital traffic but it is not at all clear to someone less technical. This comes up with botnets and compromized computers - you see a computer hammering away at sending spam or a brute-force attack. It is clear from simply looking at traffic statistics that something is going on. Is this cause for someone to take action? Usually not, because there is no "real world" evidence of this other than some ephemeral digital indication, which isn't good enough.

Requiring physical, real-world "probable cause" in order to examine digital information would seem to be a sure guarantee that there is no digital crime. Since it can't be identified, it therefore doesn't exist. And I am sure there are plenty of judges that cannot conceive of anything beyond physical, real world probable cause and will not grant a warrant based on anything digital at all.

I do find this interesting that this comes up on the same day as an article about Sweden's court rejecting IP identification. Clearly nobody knows what is going on and the courts in different places are utterly lost.

Re:What I see as the real problem (2, Insightful)

Chirs (87576) | more than 4 years ago | (#28382173)

The solution to judges not being up to speed on technical issues is not to drop privacy protections--it's to educate the judges.

If the police suspect wrongdoing but don't have enough evidence to get a warrant, the proper course of action is to alert the ISP that there is suspicious traffic coming from an IP address owned by them.

The ISP should then look into it, and if they determine that there is illicit activity (a compromised zombie machine, for instance), the correct solution is for them to contact the subscriber and let them know. If the subscriber doesn't do anything about it, the ISP can disconnect them for violating the terms of service. There is no need for the police to know who the subscriber is.

Scary but a known known (1)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 4 years ago | (#28382557)

A story http://74.125.153.132/search?q=cache:enWVsPf5lZAJ:www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html%3Fid%3D1285658+http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html%3Fid%3D1285658&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&client=safari [74.125.153.132] about this was submitted to slashdot in Feb 2009, it was rejected.
Did not see any interest in the story and thought it was 'over' for Canada back then. Looks like the Canadian Taliban have won. Your broadband devices will be smashed and hanging from lamp posts and trees.
Become a citizen journalist and talk to your politicians in public.
Film them and get it up on youtube. Always fun to see them try to explain their policies without a teleprompter and a set of tame journalists.
Pastor Martin Niemoller's poem is getting filled up again people.

When the Canada's Minister of Public Safety came for the pedophiles,
I remained silent;
I was not a pedophile.
Then they rendered the terrorists,
I remained silent;
I was not a terrorist.
Then they came for the gangsters,
I did not protest;
I was not a gangster.
Then they came for the p2p users,
I did not speak out;
I was not into file sharing programs.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out for me.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>