×

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!

In Canada, No Expectation of Privacy On the Net

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the if-you're-not-doing-anything-wrong dept.

Privacy 206

The_AV8R writes "In a recent interview, Peter Van Loan, the new Canadian Public Safety minister, says ISPs should be able to provide private user information without a warrant. (The only example he gave was cases of child pornography; the interviewer pointed out that in these cases ISPs are already at liberty to divulge customer information without a warrant, but that the proposed rules would make that mandatory whenever the police ask.) He was adamant that in regard to IP addresses, names, cell phone numbers, and email addresses: '...that is not the kind of information about which Canadians have a legitimate expectation of privacy.' The minister denied — even when presented with an audio clip proving otherwise — that his predecessor had promised never to allow the police to wiretap the Internet without a warrant."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

206 comments

In soviet Canada (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28534185)

MAPLE SIRUP WATCHES YOU

Re:In soviet Canada (4, Funny)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 4 years ago | (#28534367)

True, all they're going to find is Maple Syrup porn. Which is the sweetest kind.

Re:In soviet Canada (1)

LoRdTAW (99712) | more than 4 years ago | (#28534779)

And the most expensive when compared to corn syrup porn, which is just as sweet but corny.

Re:In soviet Canada (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28535673)

Maple syrup porn just makes my keyboard sticky.

That sounds about right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28534205)

Thank goodness they don't know I live there.

correct (5, Insightful)

FudRucker (866063) | more than 4 years ago | (#28534261)

i dont expect anything on a computer or the internet to protect my privacy, so i take matters in to my own hands, i dont ever post my real name anywhere, i never upload a photo of myself, people need to protect their own privacy if they want their identiy off the internet/websites, --without-facebook --without-myspace even this user account on this PC is named anyuser which is an anonymous brand websites give to unidentified computers/people.

Re:correct (5, Insightful)

wjousts (1529427) | more than 4 years ago | (#28534325)

But your ISP probably knows who you are right? I mean you signed up with them with your real name and probably pay them every month with a check or credit card.

Re:correct (2, Funny)

FudRucker (866063) | more than 4 years ago | (#28534377)

well yeah, but i dont do anything illegal so i am not attracting the attention of the authorities, it is the identity thieves and trolls that would like to cause harm to people is what i am concerned with.

Re:correct (5, Insightful)

Jherek Carnelian (831679) | more than 4 years ago | (#28534431)

well yeah, but i dont do anything illegal so i am not attracting the attention of the authorities

Right. You ain't doin nuthin wrong so you don't have anything to worry about.

Why even bother with warrants at all? The police never go after someone who has done no wrong.

Re:correct (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28535137)

Why is parent modded insightful? It's clearly a joke...

Re:correct (2, Insightful)

quax (19371) | more than 4 years ago | (#28535183)

Why is parent modded insightful? It's clearly a joke...

Because it was an insightful joke.

Re:correct (1)

element-o.p. (939033) | more than 4 years ago | (#28535651)

It was clearly a joke, but it was not just a joke. It was a joke made to poke fun at GGPP who seems to think (haha!) that as long as we sheeple just keep drinking the cool-aid, the government isn't interested in us.

Re:correct (5, Insightful)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#28534449)

Hahahahah. Right. Ever listened to a YouTube video that had an audio track under copyright? The RIAA (or canadian equivalents) would love to sue you for that. Posted a comment critical of the government? Next thing you know you wind up on a non-disclosed "watch list" and can't leave the country. Viewed porn of someone 17 by accident? The government would love to lock you away.

The thing was, before this you had to attract the attention of the authorities, now the authorities might just wonder who IP XXX.XXX.XXX is and find something to arrest you for.

Re:correct (5, Insightful)

k10quaint (1344115) | more than 4 years ago | (#28534637)

a.) Listening to the video would not get you in trouble, but uploading it might.
b.) Relying on the ISP to not divulge the connection between your name and your IP address is obfuscation, not to be confused with actual security. One should use an anonymous proxy to post things you do not want traced back to you.
c.) You should destroy all your porn after viewing and fapping.
d.) Relying on the authorities not having the inclination to prosecute you is also a bad idea.

Re:correct (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28534691)

re: d.) Relying on the authorities not having the inclination to prosecute you is also a bad idea.

Spoken like a true career criminal. Kudos.

Re:correct (1)

element-o.p. (939033) | more than 4 years ago | (#28535685)

Like a true career criminal? No, just like someone who actually paid attention in history class. Unlike about 90% of /. anymore. And get off my lawn!

Re:correct (4, Insightful)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#28534797)

a.) Listening to the video would not get you in trouble, but uploading it might.

Says who? The only reason why the RIAA has not actively pursued these cases is because the most popular is owned by Google who can afford great lawyers and with an informed judge might create some copyright reform. Plus the damages would be too small for them to activly pursue them... Yet.

In July 2008, Viacom won a court ruling requiring YouTube to hand over data detailing the viewing habits of every user who has watched videos on the site. The move led to concerns that the viewing habits of individual users could be identified through a combination of their IP addresses and login names. The decision was criticized by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which called the court ruling "a set-back to privacy rights".[36] U.S. District Court Judge Louis Stanton dismissed the privacy concerns as "speculative", and ordered YouTube to hand over documents totalling around 12 terabytes of data.

If viewing these things were no big deal why would Viacom demand the logs?

b.) Relying on the ISP to not divulge the connection between your name and your IP address is obfuscation, not to be confused with actual security. One should use an anonymous proxy to post things you do not want traced back to you.

Sure, but I should have the expectation of privacy. Just like I should have the expectation of privacy when I shower with the door locked. Could someone break down the door? Sure. But I still have the reasonable expectation of privacy. Similarly, I should assume my ISP would not divulge my IP with names unless there was a warrant.

c.) You should destroy all your porn after viewing and fapping.

Sure, but what happens if they use logs to figure out of viewing it, even on a webpage?

d.) Relying on the authorities not having the inclination to prosecute you is also a bad idea.

Thats why we have search warrants in the first place. In the 1700s and 1800s when the America's governments were being established, you had a lot more privacy. Crimes could only be prosecuted with solid evidence. One of the points of that was to get rid of unpopular laws because if everyone broke them it would be too much of a hassle to prosecute them unless they were doing something really wrong. Fast forward to the 2000s and we have an unpopular copyright law that suddenly becomes enforceable when you take away the search warrants.

Re:correct (2, Informative)

gnick (1211984) | more than 4 years ago | (#28534675)

OK, I'm as paranoid as the next guy (well, typically - I guess it depends on the "next guy"). But your post smells suspiciously like tin foil.

Ever listened to a YouTube video that had an audio track under copyright? The RIAA (or canadian equivalents) would love to sue you for that.

That would not be "making available" said copyrighted content. So far, we've yet to see the RIAA chase anything like that or even show serious interest in trying.

Posted a comment critical of the government? Next thing you know you wind up on a non-disclosed "watch list" and can't leave the country.

Right. That's why Bill Maher lives under house arrest. Watch this:
The government has become a police state and Obama is a communist trying to sell our country to the Chinese!!!
Let 'em come and get me. Meh.

Viewed porn of someone 17 by accident? The government would love to lock you away.

The government would not "love to lock you away" for that. Imprisonment is expensive as is identifying and prosecuting criminals. Government enforcement of dangerous perversion focuses almost entirely on child predators or people abusing their own kids. While there are some nut-job politicians that grand stand and use the "won't somebody think of the children" in inappropriate situations to further silly causes and occasional ludicrous local enforcement of badly written statutory laws, it's hardly the focus or intent of the FBI.

I don't want to come off as a "go-go-government, let's dump our civil rights and throw open our doors to surveilance" apologist, but let's keep things in perspective here. When you blow things out of proportion like that it does not help your case - It make you look overly paranoid and ignorant.

Re:correct (4, Informative)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 4 years ago | (#28535067)

"The government would not "love to lock you away" for that. Imprisonment is expensive as is identifying and prosecuting criminals."

The US government has found that keeping about 1% of it's population imprisoned is a lucrative business. It keeps a huge number of people employed, it justifies a number of bonds and taxes, and it keeps a number of "worthless" people off the streets. Keeping people imprisoned is so lucrative that private industry has gotten into the act. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_prisons [wikipedia.org]

Re:correct (1)

NotBornYesterday (1093817) | more than 4 years ago | (#28535083)

That would not be "making available" said copyrighted content. So far, we've yet to see the RIAA chase anything like that or even show serious interest in trying.

"Yet."

[tinfoil_hat]
The RIAA et al hunt the low-hanging fruit. This proposed change could shift downloaders into the low-hanging spectrum. Who is to say they wouldn't try then? If they did try, they might not get anywhere, but they might make some people's lives hell in the meantime.
[/tinfoil_hat]

Re:correct (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28535401)

The age of consent in Canada (Ontario, at least) used to be 14, and is now 16. 17's completely legal.

Re:correct (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 4 years ago | (#28535479)

The age of consent in Canada (Ontario, at least) used to be 14, and is now 16. 17's completely legal.

Oh really?

Re:correct (2, Insightful)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | more than 4 years ago | (#28534527)

well yeah, but i dont do anything illegal so i am not attracting the attention of the authorities, it is the identity thieves and trolls that would like to cause harm to people is what i am concerned with

Wow, you are really, spectacularly missing the point.

All those measures you take to protect your privacy? As of now, they apparently mean absolutely nothing if you live in Canada. Maybe you'd like to believe it's only the "identity thieves and trolls" who have to worry about official attention, and hell, maybe you're even right. But if you have no right to privacy online, then your life is as much an open book as if you appended your full name, date of birth, and credit card numbers to every post you made.

Re:correct (5, Insightful)

moon3 (1530265) | more than 4 years ago | (#28534769)

i dont do anything illegal

This argument is extremely naive to say it gently. Just wait until you get some virus or trojan and the damned thing starts to serve some terrible content from your IP or start doing spam or DOS. Then you will have to prove to authorities that "you did nothing wrong", while they have lots of evidence on you.

Re:correct (1)

ground.zero.612 (1563557) | more than 4 years ago | (#28534787)

You don't do anything illegal; so then it's ok in your mind for me to spy on you right? Or would I have to get a job as a mounty first, then it would be ok?

I feel sympathy toward those still loyal to the King/Queen of England. I am forever indebted to my brave ancestors who had the wisdom to know the difference between liberty and slavery, and the willpower to revolt against King George.

Re:correct (4, Insightful)

blackfrancis75 (911664) | more than 4 years ago | (#28534913)

Ha ha ha. Is this sarcasm? Sure - down there in the old US of A you have nothing to worry about from overzealous counter-terrorist agents, denial of your civil rights or illegal wiretaps. All because your forefathers had the guts to stand up against a tyrant! But what about when your immediate fathers vote one into office? twice...

Re:correct (1)

tixxit (1107127) | more than 4 years ago | (#28534901)

If you don't fight for your rights, you will lose them. The police can either get a warrant or request the information already. Once you grant them this right, you have lost it forever. For now, they claim it is only for Seriously Bad Guys, but who knows what the future could hold.

"In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didnâ(TM)t speak up because I wasnâ(TM)t a Communist;
And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didnâ(TM)t speak up because I wasnâ(TM)t a trade unionist;
And then they came for the Jews, And I didnâ(TM)t speak up because I wasnâ(TM)t a Jew;
And then... they came for me... And by that time there was no one left to speak up."
- Martin Niemoller

I bet you are break the law with out even knowing (3, Insightful)

HannethCom (585323) | more than 4 years ago | (#28535029)

It is extremely difficult to not break the law.

In BC if you are driving along the highway at 80kph and the speed limit is 80kph, but if everyone else is going 90kph, you are actually breaking the law because you are driving at an unsafe speed in relation to the cars around you. If you speed up to 90kph you will now be breaking the speed limit, but are no longer breaking the unsafe speed law.

There are quite a few of these catch 22s. Even the most law abiding people they've found are breaking laws inadvertently. Sometimes there is no way not to break a law.

Now in the right hands the powers of this proposed bill would not be a problem, but our Police time and time again have shown themselves to be less than honest and upright. Even if they were now, what's to say the people replacing them would be?

Requiring the warrent provides that extra check to try to make sure that the Police are not fishing for information, because if you look in anyone closet, you'll find things no matter how clean it is.

Re:correct (4, Insightful)

Alain Williams (2972) | more than 4 years ago | (#28535569)

well yeah, but i dont do anything illegal so i am not attracting the attention of the authorities

What if:

  • You get divorced, your ex's brother/new-beau/... is a mountie. No warrant is now needed for them to indulge in a little ''fishing trip'' to see if they can find anything to hit you with ...
  • Your business rival has a brother/... who is a mountie. Repeat as above ...
  • You piss someone off at the golf club who has a brother/...

Do you get the idea? You don't need to do anything wrong for people to come sniffing.

If someone looks hard enough they will probably find something that is embarassing, it doesn't need to be illegal for you to not want the world to know... would your employer like to know that you have been visiting the jobs web sites; your pastor that you visited, well, all manner of innocent things that he might not like; your spouse that you exchanged email with an old flame (quite innocently); ...

Re:correct (4, Informative)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#28534379)

Ok, but tell me, your ISP knows who you are right? Should your ISP be giving out your IP and your confidential information? I don't think so. This is what its talking about that the government/big businesses now know who XXX.XXX.XXX is and everything about them. This isn't that Facebook knows that IP XXX.XXX.XXX corresponds to profile Joe Sixpack, but rather that anything is now open to suspicions such as the ISPs looking at your IP address to figure out you are FudRucker then giving whoever wants the information your name, address, etc.

Re:correct (2, Interesting)

BigJClark (1226554) | more than 4 years ago | (#28534383)


Well, you're kinda missing the point. Just because you sign your name up as 'Little Johnny McGillicuddy' doesn't mean that they don't know its YOU operating the keyboard. You have contracted services with your real name, through your provider, and they can create a hash list of your name to your various online profiles, if you have any.

Its a bitch, I believe in freedom of information. I try before I buy. Yeah, I'll download a game, if its good, I buy it, if it doesn't install properly, or is buggy as heck, I uninstall it. I'm religious in this capacity. Dare I say, socialist.

I've been burned too many times in the past by sub-sub-sub-par online goods. But I'd be a fool if I said there wasn't any way for the "them" to track my internet usage, with ISP permission.

Re:correct (4, Informative)

BigJClark (1226554) | more than 4 years ago | (#28534437)


Amendment
----------
Contact information for Peter Van Loan:
Constituency Office
45 Grist Mill Road, Unit 10
Holland Landing, Ontario
L9N 1M7

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


Obtained from:
http://www.petervanloan.com/contact.asp [petervanloan.com]


Send him a letter, or give him a call, let him know your thoughts. Please, be polite.

Re:correct (2, Funny)

Hotawa Hawk-eye (976755) | more than 4 years ago | (#28534633)

Are any of those three telephone numbers his cell phone number, or are they all linked with his office telephone? Remember, cell phone numbers were one of the items about which the summary quotes him saying Canadians have no real expectation of privacy.

Once he has released his cell phone number, give him a polite call [each person should only call once, of course] and "forget" about the time difference that means he's sitting down to dinner when you call.

Re:correct (1)

bugs2squash (1132591) | more than 4 years ago | (#28535323)

We will also need his home address and email information, not just the second persona that he keeps for work purposes, don't forget contact details for every member of his family.

Re:correct (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28535349)

http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/abt/electronic-eng.aspx

for the office of public safety, which he is a minister of.

WHOIS information (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28535425)

Obtained from:

http://www.petervanloan.com/contact.asp [petervanloan.com]

Send him a letter, or give him a call, let him know your thoughts. Please, be polite.

The WHOIS information on this domain (which I purposefully won't post) gives a different address then this one. If there are any readers in the Willowdale area, you can always see if he's aware of the privacy breach he's committed himself (or has been done on his behalf by a staff member).

Re:correct (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28535643)

Posting his home address would be more useful.

Re:correct (1)

CrystalX (1299317) | more than 4 years ago | (#28534727)

I would bet that even though you (and I) don't have much expectation of privacy on the internet, that an awful lot of other internet users do, in fact, have such an expectation. My parents (and most of the other people whose computers I've fixed over the years) certainly do.

Re:correct (1)

carambola5 (456983) | more than 4 years ago | (#28535289)

i dont ever post my real name anywhere,

A lesson on humor: You should have signed your post with a name. Even if it's not your real name.

"expect" (2, Insightful)

Sloppy (14984) | more than 4 years ago | (#28535667)

i dont expect anything on a computer or the internet to protect my privacy

You are using the English definition of "expectation" (i.e. something that one believes/predicts will happen) rather than seeing it as technical legal jargon.

In technical legal jargon, an "expectation of privacy" basically means a desire for privacy, to such an extent that some (though not all) governments go to the trouble of creating an unnatural right that broadcasts of information, which passes through countless intermediate systems (literally countless, since most users simply have no idea what all is involved), where no efforts are made by the users to keep the information private (not even a 30-year-old 56-bit cipher), will be treated as though it were private. You labeled the information with the recipient's name, so everyone who reads your "private" information knows who to forward it too, and we all know that gentlemen do not read one another's mail.

Many misunderstandings and flamewars have been caused by the stupid lawyers who coined the term "expectation of privacy" in such a way that created that vast chasm between their jargon and plain speech.

Anyway, yes, nobody really believes that information that is recklessly spread without regard for who might see it, will remain private. But that's now what anti-crytography privacy advocates are talking about. They're saying that we have created a social convention where we have all agreed to pretend that recklessly transmitted information is private, and in the .0000000000001% of the instances of pseudo-privacy "violations" where someone finds out that it was violated, then the convention will be enforced.

The message to spies is this: don't get caught. As long as you don't get caught, nobody has a problem with what you're doing, and everyone knows that you're doing it. We've agreed to look the other way, because acknowledging the ridiculousness of our policies would be too embarrassing. But if you get caught, that's even more embarrassing because it just points out how stupid we've been. We get trapped into gritting our teeth and saying things like "I didn't know anyone could read my email," while everyone else points and laughs at us, seemingly ignorant that their own reputation for having common sense might be sacrificed next. ("When they came for the reckless fools, I didn't say anything...")

The Canadian government has decided to take the position that this convention is so unrealistic and counter to every single person's experiences with networks, and that the awkward situations described in the previous paragraph are so awkward, that they're no longer on board with the convention anymore. It was a fantastic convention while it lasted, maybe too fantastic.

But that's Canada. Back in the US..

i dont expect anything on a computer or the internet to protect my privacy

Well, you should. How can we violate your privacy, if you don't help? Please, start expecting the unexpected. It's for your own good. It's Your Rights Online -- the right to be reckless with your own safety without facing the consequences. We're all here to stick up for your rights.

Re:"expect" (1)

Sloppy (14984) | more than 4 years ago | (#28535779)

> But that's now what anti-crytography privacy advocates are talking about.

s/now/not/

Re:correct (5, Informative)

Beardo the Bearded (321478) | more than 4 years ago | (#28535713)

Bill C-61 (separate from this proposed legislation) would make it illegal to use a proxy or any other means of obfusctation on the internet.

Your ISP will have a log of everything you've ever done, everything you've ever looked at, every post, and it will all be tied into your real life name and address forever.

Everything. And this law would force them to hand it to any police officer for any reason. Did you make a video of them tazing a Polish man? Well, if you don't want your browsing history on the first page of the Globe and Mail, you're going to destroy the only copy.

At home, I have a reasonable expectation of privacy. I don't expect that at work.

Conservative government (5, Informative)

oldspewey (1303305) | more than 4 years ago | (#28534287)

This Harper government becomes more fascist every week it seems. Thank GOD they don't form a majority of seat in parliament.

Any Government (1)

Alethes (533985) | more than 4 years ago | (#28534509)

I guarantee you the Liberals and NDP will back this up. No political party has a monopoly on the never ending quest for power.

Re:Any Government (3, Informative)

saforrest (184929) | more than 4 years ago | (#28534719)

I guarantee you the Liberals and NDP will back this up. No political party has a monopoly on the never ending quest for power.

Don't be so sure [thestar.com] .

Re:Any Government (1)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 4 years ago | (#28534803)

You mean the same Liberals that successfully swing in any direction to get votes, as long as it gets them votes in order to gain power, then break those same promises, while flipping off the Canadian public with a big old FU?

Yeah. I don't trust the Liberals as far as I can throw them. Especially with good ol' Bob Rae with them now. What a way to screw over Ontario...oh wait that was when he was with the socialist NDP.

Re:Any Government (1)

Beardo the Bearded (321478) | more than 4 years ago | (#28534741)

Not if we tell them it's an election-worthy issue. If all of us go to our local constituency offices during the break and tell them "this has to be defeated at any cost", then they'll go back to Ottawa in October with the message that this has to go.

Or, explain it this way:
C60 / 61 + this proposal + ACTA = 18-35 demographic.

Re:Any Government (1)

Sinbios (852437) | more than 4 years ago | (#28535039)

I'm pretty sure the opposition achieves their quest for power by NOT going along with the governing party.

Re:Conservative government (1)

Garbad Ropedink (1542973) | more than 4 years ago | (#28534997)

You'd be wrong on that point my good man. The Liberals under Paul Martin wanted to pass a similar bill doing the exact same things. The only reason it wasn't passed was because we had an election. The Liberals are just as keen on eroding our rights as the Conservatives are.

No expectations of privacy (4, Insightful)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 4 years ago | (#28534299)

Anywhere, anytime, it seems.

Re:No expectations of privacy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28534583)

I, for one, can't wait for the brain scanners. After all, why should you expect to have any privacy for your brainwaves when they are read in *public* places like the airport or post office?

Uh oh! He's in for it now! (3, Insightful)

woboyle (1044168) | more than 4 years ago | (#28534345)

I wonder how long it will be before all of this bozo's personal information will be scraped from the web and posted for all and sundry? I give it about 3 days, tops.

Re:Uh oh! He's in for it now! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28534597)

I wonder how long it will be before all of this bozo's personal information will be scraped from the web and posted for all and sundry? I give it about 3 days, tops.

Can't wait for that to happen.

Dumb Canadians (3, Interesting)

db32 (862117) | more than 4 years ago | (#28534353)

Don't you supposed to know you are supposed to do warrantless wiretaps BEFORE government healthcare?

I wonder how many die hard right wing nuts are going to point at this and blather about socialist governments and loss of freedom while completely ignoring that it was their very own Donald Kerr that said that Americans should understand that privacy shouldn't mean keeping information away from businesses and government...

Re:Dumb Canadians (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#28534535)

You do realize that there are more than republicans that don't support this and that republican != right wing and that there are a lot of republicans/libertarians who vote republican who oppose him and a lot of the Bush administration's views on privacy. I am a libertarian and I opposed Bush on a lot of issues and oppose Obama and a lot of issues.

Re:Dumb Canadians (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28534871)

You can "be a Libertarian" and have "opposed Bush" all you like, but if you voted for him then he's your fault.

Re:Dumb Canadians (1)

db32 (862117) | more than 4 years ago | (#28534893)

Uhm...I think you should go check what "a lot of" really means. The majority of Republicans over the last 8 years were far right leaning nuts that supported Bush up until the end when it was politically damaging to be seen to be in agreement with him. The number of Republicans/Libertarians with any kind of power that did not support most of the nonsense of the last 8 years are FAR from "a lot", they aren't even really a significant minority. The majority of people who were in opposition were Democrats, but even then the majority of them supported the very same garbage and just wanted to quibble about stupid details.

My biggest point here is that right now these "small government, fiscally responsible" Republicans are making a hell of a lot of damned noise about loss of freedom and socialism and apparently have completely and totally forgotten everything they had been up to for the last 8 years.

"I am a " is one of the biggest dangers to our freedom because it only encourages laziness and groupthink on issues you don't research or understand. I am an opinionated bastard that pretty much dislikes everything the Bush and Obama administrations have been up to, but I think their motivations are way different. Power hungry "decider" vs bad ideas with good intentions are pretty different.

As a Canadian... (4, Insightful)

camperdave (969942) | more than 4 years ago | (#28534439)

As a Canadian I expect that ALL of my communications are untapped without a warrant, whether or not they are in the clear, except those to public sites, like this one. I expect ALL corporations to withhold account information unless provided with a warrant.

Re:As a Canadian... (1)

Anubis IV (1279820) | more than 4 years ago | (#28534761)

What you expect and what you actually get can be two very different things. I can expect that this key I am holding in my hand will unlock my car door, but if it's the key to my house, then my expectation is invalid. I don't mean to be rude in saying this, but see how far your expectations get you if the government comes knocking with evidence they obtained without using a warrant.

Re:As a Canadian... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28535079)

Here in the US, when government says "no expectation of privacy" or "no reasonable expectation of privacy" what they really mean is "it's inconvenient for the government to deal with this", rather than "nobody expects privacy". As an example, take Scalia raging over a class collecting together publicly available information on him (which they did not release). Clearly, he expected that information not to be collected, but apparently continues to stand by his various assertions that his expectation is unreasonable.

Apparently such behavior is not confined to America.

As a Canadian you should also know... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28535375)

...that Van Loan is a fscking nazi and because you can't seem to organize well enough to vote the fsckers out of office, you're just as equally and badly screwed by the New World Police State as are the Brits, Aussies, and Amerikans.

Minority (5, Interesting)

EmperorOfCanada (1332175) | more than 4 years ago | (#28534497)

Keep in mind that this craziness is coming from a minority government. Can you imagine what these Nazis will do to us if they were to ever get a majority? DMCA - check. Searches without warrant - check No watchdog for the RCMP - check Unaudited evoting -check Unaudited spending - check New prisons for all the new crimes - check Internet censorship - check Canada finally gets to declare war on someone - check All of this would be to keep us and our children safe. This is a government that is sure that they know what is best for us. Also this is a government who have very fragile egos and the internet is not a place for people with fragile egos. If you think I am raving then think of what Harper would have done if he had been in power with a majority after 9/11. Would have Canada gone to Iraq? Yes or no? The technological implications of all this will be an environment that tech companies flee from instead of one that encourages technology.

Re:Minority (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28534601)

I imagine it's the same crap the Liberals would do, or the NDP.

All the parties in Canada are the same no matter where they sit in the House

Re:Minority (4, Insightful)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 4 years ago | (#28534925)

Oh look, uniformed voter in the ranks.

Let me enlighten you on the voting process and how it works:
1)Take traction issue one. Apply to minority parliament. Wait for bill to die, or be defeated by opposition.
2) Await for opposition to pull something to cause parliament to collapse.
3) Get general election call.

Start running ads:
4) Take legislation from step 1.
5) Note ads, and apply these to the opposition and how they failed to uphold Canadian values.
6) Note polls, and apply ads as need be to key riding's. Hope it's not another minority win/loss.

7) Success/Fail
8) Repeat at step 1 in 1-2 years if we're back at step 6.
9) Use voter apathy and pissed offness about repeated minority governments and $300m elections

All political parties want power. No party can get power without creating traction, the only way to create traction is by creating issues in many cases. Welcome to Canadian politics. I am Canadian, I do study politics, and yes I've got a pretty good idea of when we're going to have our next election. Either this fall, or this upcoming spring.

It should be noted that the Liberal party isn't any different then the Conservatives on Law and Order. They only differ slightly on social policy. If you think differently you haven't studied either parties platforms(and in the case of the Liberals) how little they've put up.

Re:Minority (3, Funny)

NotBornYesterday (1093817) | more than 4 years ago | (#28535189)

Canadian voters wear uniforms? I never knew.

Re:Minority (1)

camperdave (969942) | more than 4 years ago | (#28535433)

Oh Yes! We're all required to wear uniforms on Election Day. It's inspiring to see the masses, dressed in grey flannel, lined up in neat, punctual rows, each silently waiting to put an X in the proper circle. Why, it's almost machine like perfection. It makes the heart swell with national pride. No wonder The Leader gets elected time and time again.

Re:Minority (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28535553)

When the former Conservative Minister for Public Safety, Stockwell Day, got caught with a draft for a similar bill he claimed the Liberal party had left it lying around. While the claim looks a lot less believable now, it is quite possible that the Liberals were working on a similar bill.

I'm not defending Van Loan, or Day, or Harper; I think they're lying bastards. The problem is that they're lying bastards, just like the guys they replaced.

anonymous proxy (2, Insightful)

oldspewey (1303305) | more than 4 years ago | (#28534511)

I'm seriously getting to the point of configuring my router to run all traffic through an anonymous proxy somewhere, but I'm concerned what kind of performance hit that would mean in day-to-day use.

Fortunately.... (5, Informative)

exasperation (1378979) | more than 4 years ago | (#28534561)

the courts will very likely find the Minister to be incorrect in his interpretation of the constitution, and that everything he is proposing violates Section 8 of the Charter, "Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure."

I would point out the Supreme Court has ruled that that whether information is subject to protection by Section 8 is not at the whim of the government, but whether a person has a "reasonable expectation of privacy" of information which could "reveal intimate, personal information", in that particular situation.

It is not particularly difficult to envision a situation where linking an IP address to a name would potentially reveal personal information to the state. Imagine a woman posting on a support forum for victims of sexual assault which tracks posters by IP...

Since IP addresses and so on are identifying information, and this being information people would reasonably expect their ISPs to keep private, I suspect that this entire thing is just begging for a Charter challenge and to have the courts clearly specify that a warrant is required.

CanLII has a very interesting brief on section 8 of the Charter [canlii.org] here.

Firs7 Post (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28534565)

Bloodfarts. freeBSD

Obviously no expectation of democracy either eh! (4, Insightful)

itsybitsy (149808) | more than 4 years ago | (#28534587)

Supposedly Canada is a liberal democracy... clearly the powers that be think differently... Sieg Heil Harper and the Queen! The brand of fascism that is sweeping Canada is spooky for sure.

My parents and grand parents didn't fight off the Nazi's to have the likes of the new Canadian fascism take hold.

I'm sorry to tell the government boobs but yes we Canadians don't like them interfering with our private lives or spying on us.

Take your delusion of government power and shove it up your where the sun don't shine.

Peter Van Loan, the new Canadian Public Safety minister can suck on my big fat ___.

It's assholes like Peter Van Loan that give government a bad name and make the entire notion of government an idea whose time has past into the dust bin of history.

I guess I'll be having a knock on the door in the middle of the night tonight and be taken away because I expressed the view that governments are simply groups of power grubbing nobs who don't have anything better to do with their time than attempt to control the minutia of people's lives. Come through my door without permission and I have a surprise waiting government brown shirts.

Re:Obviously no expectation of democracy either eh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28535751)

Not really, we are a Constitutional Monarchy.

WTF Canada (1)

OrangeMonkey11 (1553753) | more than 4 years ago | (#28534629)

So if the police do not need a warrant to get your personal information from an ISP in Canada; how does the ISP verify that the information being given out is going to the authorities? So if someone called and said âoeHi, Iâ(TM)m inspector Dudley from Maple Syrup County I need you to give me all the information on the resident at 1213 Pancakes Lane, the person is a suspected molester.â How the hell is the ISP going to know that this is a real cop and not some POS trying to steal information.

Re:WTF Canada (1)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 4 years ago | (#28534951)

In Canada you technically need a Privacy Act Warrant to get personal information like this from private communication channels. This minister is "ok" at the understanding of the privacy bit, but not very good at the "Law" bit. Law in Canada can be very convoluted at times.

But its for the childern! (2, Interesting)

SteelRealm (1363385) | more than 4 years ago | (#28534665)

Very shortly you're going to be disallowed to post pictures of yourself on Facebook and Myspace if you're under 18, and parents wont be permitted to upload pictures of their kids for family members to see. And all internet chat will be monitored, starting with minors - to ensure they arent being taken advantage of. Then adult-to-adult aswell, because you never know if 1 out of several million people might mention being turned on by a 17 year old. Is there ANY country left that supports net neutrality, privacy, civil rights and their own justice system anymore?

Lost in thought over the children again (1)

Sneakernets (1026296) | more than 4 years ago | (#28534669)

You know, Using the "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!" argument to justify violating my privacy is a little old these days. Especially with Child Pornography, distributed by pedophile rings that "Think of the children" much more than you do, minister.

Limited application (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28534683)

i don't think it should be an issue for the police to provide a name or address to the phone company and expect to get a phone number or IP back, or if they have a number or IP, to get an name and address back. Provided they properly authenticate as officers, I think in the general process or performing their duties they should be able to get basic information about you.

Now, going further, to get you calling history, trace or record a call, get a log of your internet transactions, get you bank records, or anything other than "identification information" should require a court order.

If police have evidence, or something that would link them to a suspect who might have evidence, then finding out who that person is is their JOB, and no court should be required. However, digging into DETAILS about that person, their habits, their associations, and other non-publically available information, that's not an inquiry, that's an investigation, and i DO expect that is private information.

Asling a phone company "who made this call on this date and time to this number" is part of an active investigation. "who else has he called" is digging into privacy matters.

In New York, No Expectation Of Privacy In Your Car (1, Troll)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 4 years ago | (#28534749)

... I was told by the kind deputy who pulled me over for talking on my cell phone.

Anything we can see you doing in your car, we can pull you over for

He so kindly said.

You have no expectation of privacy in your car in NY state

He said after that (his emphasis).

Re:In New York, No Expectation Of Privacy In Your (1)

unfasten (1335957) | more than 4 years ago | (#28535367)

For things in plain view. As in things they can see through your windows. For instance, if they see a pound of weed on your passenger seat then it's fair game.

They can't search the inside of your car or make you open the trunk. That is, unless they suspect you of a crime and are going to arrest you or if you let them (which you don't have to). But in that case they won't ask and they'll just search the car while you're handcuffed in the back of the cruiser.

I realize that means nothing when you're dealing with a cop on a power trip that's willing to lie on a final report. It is good to know though when dealing with most cops, especially the one's who can get very demanding and try to intimidate you.

This is a serious question... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28535437)

If your in your car on a public road why would you have an expectation of privacy? I mean you really shouldn't have an expectation of privacy if you are visible in a public place, no matter what jurisdiction you are in. Now an expectation of anonymity [reference.com] is arguable, but not one of privacy. There is a difference. Privacy is others not knowing what you are doing regardless of if they know you or not, anonymity is others knowing what you are doing but not knowing who you are.

Canadians and the Brits (1)

abshack (1389985) | more than 4 years ago | (#28534777)

As an atheist Canadian, I've very concerned with recent Canadian privacy policies. It seems we're drifting further from our ideals of freedom towards the strict, big-brother-like system that Britain is implementing. I'll be paying strict attention to this, and if this is passed as law, well, unified-theory-of-the-universe help us all!

FWIW (3, Informative)

KingPin27 (1290730) | more than 4 years ago | (#28534847)

here is some information from Canadian providers -- none of them specifically state what information they will or will not provide when requested or what is specifically logged. Most pages include contact information for a privacy rep. I suggest you contact that person(s) and see what information you can opt out of having tracked.

I have excluded TELUS because they are wh0r3ish and don't listen anyway.

From http://www.shaw.ca/en-ca/AboutShaw/PrivacyPolicy/Index [www.shaw.ca]
3.3 How does Shaw obtain your consent? Consent is required for the collection of Personal Information and the subsequent use or disclosure of the Personal Information. Consent can be either expressed or implied. The form of consent sought by Shaw may vary, depending upon the circumstances and the type of Personal Information. In determining the form of consent to use, Shaw takes into account the sensitivity of the information and the reasonable expectations of the Customer, Employee or Web Site User. Shaw generally seeks express consent when the Personal Information is likely to be considered sensitive. Implied consent is typically appropriate when the Personal Information is less sensitive. In exceptional circumstances, as permitted by law, Shaw may collect, use or disclose Personal Information without a Customer, Employee or Web Site Userâ(TM)s knowledge or consent.

In general, the use of products and services by a Customer, or a Web Site User, or the acceptance of employment or benefits by an Employee, will constitute implied consent required by Shaw to collect, use and/or disclose Personal Information for the purposes identified in this Privacy Policy.

Consent may be withdrawn by Customers and Web Site Users at any time, subject to legal or contractual restrictions and upon providing Shaw reasonable notice. If you wish to withdraw your consent to certain collection, use or disclosure of Personal Information, please contact Shaw at privacy@shaw.ca.

and of course Rogers http://your.rogers.com/privacy1.asp [rogers.com]

No surprise here (2, Insightful)

hyades1 (1149581) | more than 4 years ago | (#28534955)

Van Loan is one of the neo-cons currently blighting the Canadian political stage. They've been wandering around like lost sheep ever since Obama was elected in the US, and this kind of wholesale destruction of personal privacy is just their version of pigging out on comfort food when things go wrong.

Reality injection (4, Interesting)

Maury Markowitz (452832) | more than 4 years ago | (#28534993)

The purpose of the new legislation is to clearly define what information is and is not covered by the need for a warrant. Done right, this is a Good Thing.

As the Minister pointed out, the police already have access to lots of information about you without the need for a warrant. This includes things like your phone number and address. Because this information is considered to be publicly available, the police can do reverse phone number lookups without a warrant. This does not allow them to tape your conversations, however.

The proposed law is identical in nature, allowing the police to find your name from the IP address. AND NOTHING ELSE. They cannot read your mail, they cannot look at your search patterns, they cannot sniff your traffic. Those require a warrant.

The situation seems perfectly analogous to the phone system, with the exception that we don't normally make big lists of IP addresses.

You don't own your phone number, the phone company does. They are free to sell it to anyone they want - including the people you don't want them to, like telemarketers. So if Bell owns your phone number and is free to do what they want with it, how is it that someone connecting using Bell Internet expects them not to do the same with the IP they gave you? They own it too.

And that's what the courts have decided, that the IP address you happen to be using is a routing code internal to the company that provides access, you have no control over it, and they can change it or give it away at any time. That being the case, they see no difference between IP's and telephone numbers, and applied the same expectation of privacy to both.

Maury

Re:Reality injection (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28535717)

Speaking of Bell owning phone numbers - Check out the CRTC's website to find out who the bought out recently. I'm sure you'd be plenty surprised.

Why expect privacy? (1)

jeffliott (1558799) | more than 4 years ago | (#28535065)

The state has an interest in monitoring you. Regardless of law (because they write it, for now at least), taking this matter into your own hands is the only way to ensure your privacy. It is like trusting a used-car salesman for an accurate appraisal for a car you'd like to buy from him.

Misleading title (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28535069)

As described in this interview, the law merely intends to associate an online ip address with a real name. This is what one would expect for relations in an open public space. You (as a real person) should not be afraid to acknowledge your own public postings on the internet or why did you do it in the first place? The confidentiality of e-mail message contents or browsing history remains under the protection of a warrant. Whats the big deal?

This is a fake "gotcha" - it isn't like wiretappin (3, Informative)

thirty-seven (568076) | more than 4 years ago | (#28535235)

He was adamant that in regard to IP addresses, names, cell phone numbers, and email addresses: '...that is not the kind of information about which Canadians have a legitimate expectation of privacy.' The minister denied - even when presented with an audio clip proving otherwise - that his predecessor had promised never to allow the police to wiretap the Internet without a warrant."

Getting someone's name, address, cell phone number, and email addresses is not the Internet equivalent of wiretapping. The Internet equivalent of wiretapping would be getting the content of your emails and other data that you send and receive.

I'm not a fan of this bill to give these powers to police over ISPs, but it isn't as bad as too many of it critiques make it out to be. It isn't allowing police to warrantlessly get the contents of your email or other data that you send and receive - they can already get that information with a warrent and this bill does not seek to change that requirement.

Pen registers (1)

hacksoncode (239847) | more than 4 years ago | (#28535331)

Yes, this is the (increasingly fascist) U.S. I'm talking about, but telephone "pen registers" have never required a warrant for the police to acquire (though at some point I think they started needing to get a judge's order, which is a much weaker thing since the judge is essentially required to give if if they ask nicely).

IP addresses, and the like, are entirely analogous to pen register data (which include what phones called what numbers, when, and for how long, but not the actual content of the phone calls).

The (in my mind inappropriately applied) argument for this is that you're already providing this information to a 3rd party (the phone company), for their use in connecting your call, so you don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy for it.

So (in the U.S. at least)... nothing to see here, move along.

Done nothing wrong, there's nothing to worry about (1)

shadowen1977 (903138) | more than 4 years ago | (#28535345)

For these politicians that keep rolling out the âoeIf your not a criminal, you have nothing to worry about.â. I think the first test of this âoeLAWâ should be that we find out what Peter Van Loan's IP address is and all the other MP's and submit it to the ISP's. Then when we get the information back, make it VERY VERY public on a website. It would be nice to know if Peter Van Loan likes lots of PORN and that it comprises 90% of his internet traffic.... Then when they find out what he has been doing on the net and that the Police /Public obtained all this information about Peter Van Loan and decided to share it with the public. Lets see if he has âoesomething to hide....â Lastly, without a warrant, not only stating that they need the information, but who is to gather it/obtain it, I find the chance of impersonating a police office (offence in Canada) too tempting to get at that information. Just give a call to your local ISP state your such and such from the Police Service and get the ISP to send the information to a newly created hotmail or gmail address. Or just some police office curious after obtaining the girl he has been âoefollowingâ to see their IP activity.... GOVERNMENT ALONE CANNOT BE TRUSTED WITH THIS POWER. THIS CAN BE ABUSED.

SUCKY (1)

fluffernutter (1411889) | more than 4 years ago | (#28535481)

Being Canadian *duck* I feel a need to respond to this. It absolutely sucks.

The thing is, I am usually fine with 'privacy invasions'. X-rays at the airport.. no problem, I don't carry a gun. Cameras on the street, no problem there either since I don't plan on mugging anyone.

Yet I hate the sounds of this. Why? Because there is WAY too much gray area because technology is new and the laws are still maturing. Furthermore, there are too many corporate hands in the pot. Either I am mugging someone or I am not. Either I am selling drugs on the street or I am not. However, if street cameras were run by ISPs I might have to be concerned with a company deciding that jay walking is infringing on their profits and having a police officer hunt me down and hand me a $300K fine every time I do so.

I hope everyone can follow this reasoning because I'm not sure if I can or not.

Why mess with a good thing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28535679)

Having a judge look over a request for a warrant is a good thing. A judge is highly educated and versed in the legal system. They have to be.

If you're a police officer, and you can get a warrant to force an ISP to hand over information about a person, then you know you have a compelling amount of information for a third party to agree that more investigation is required.

This is a useful and necessary for the checks and balances of law and law enforcement.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...