Harper's 5 years as PM: Mansbridge interview

[thepartyparty]

Bill C-52

http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublication ... Doc=C-52_1

First Reading November 1, 2010.

I refer to S17.(1)

What bill are you talking about?

[Connie Fournier]

Bill C-52

http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublication ... Doc=C-52_1

First Reading November 1, 2010.

I refer to S17.(1)

What bill are you talking about?

Investigative Powers for the 21st Century Act. I believe it is C-51 now.

[pirapoi]

Connie Fournier wrote:

Thank you, pirapoi. So, the Bill C-52 that thepartyparty referred to is no longer in play, is that correct? All of this renumbering is SO confusing!

This is why I wrote

So, to clarify (?)

Bill C-46 and C-47 that Michael Geist was referring to became C-51 and C-52.

I don't know if they are the same bills that have simply been reintroduced, or if they have been changed.

I do know they both have only received first reading in the HOC, so they both have a long way to go before they could become law.

[thepartyparty]

Everything in Bill C-51 looks like the police would have to get a judge to sign off on it first (warrant, preservation order, production order).


Bill C-52 contains the provision for police getting access to IP address and victim or offender information in an emergency situation.

[Connie Fournier]

I'm not a lawyer, and I don't have time to go digging in this Bill, but Michael Geist is:

[size=18]Government Introduces Bill To Require Surveillance Capabilities, ]Mandated Subscriber Disclosure [/size

http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/4069/125/
Thursday June 18, 2009

As expected, the Government has taken another shot at lawful access legislation today, introducing a legislative package called the Investigative Powers for the 21st Century (IP21C) Act that would require mandated surveillance capabilities at Canadian ISPs, force ISPs to disclose subscriber information such as name and address, and grant the police broad new powers to obtain transmission data and force ISPs to preserve data. Although I can only go on government releases (here, here), the approach appears to be very similar to the Liberal lawful access bill of 2005 that died on the order paper (my comments on that bill here) [update: Bill C-46 and C-47]. It is pretty much exactly what law enforcement has been demanding and privacy groups have been fearing. It represents a reneging of a commitment from the previous Public Safety Minister on court oversight and will embed broad new surveillance capabilities in the Canadian Internet.

The lawful access proposal is generally divided among two sets of issues - ISP requirements and new police powers.

1. ISP requirements

There are two key components here. First, ISPs will be required to install surveillance capabilities in their networks. This feels a bit like a surveillance stimulus package, with ISPs making big new investments and the government cost-sharing by compensating for changes to existing networks. The bill again exempts smaller ISPs for three years from these requirements. While that is understandable from a cost perspective, it undermines the claims that this is an effective solution to online crime since it will result in Canadians at big ISPs facing surveillance while would-be criminals seek out smaller ISPs without surveillance capabilities.

Second, the bill requires all ISPs to surrender customer name, address, IP address, and email address information upon request without court oversight. In taking this approach, Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan has reneged on the promise of his predecessor and cabinet colleague Stockwell Day, who pledged not to introduce mandated subscriber data disclosure without court oversight.

2. New Police Powers

There are several new police powers that come with the lawful access approach. First, police will be able to obtain transmission data about Internet-based messaging. The government says this does not cover the content of a private communication, but it will cover information about what a person is doing online (what sites they visit, who they communicate with, etc.). This will be subject to a judicial order that will allow for obtaining real time data (a warrant) or historical data (a production order).

Second, police can obtain a preservation order that would require ISPs to preserve (ie. not delete) data related to a particular subscriber or even a specific communication. Third, there is an expansion of the police power to obtain a tracking warrant, by allowing police to "remotely activate existing tracking devices that are found in certain types of technologies such as cell phones." Fourth, the law expands the computer virus provision in the Criminal Code and opens the door to greater international cooperation of cybercrime enforcement.

As for what is not in the lawful access package, there is nothing on data retention, a controversial issue in Europe. It is also not clear what reporting requirements the Government envisions to ensure that there is transparency in the process.

I'll have more to say in the days ahead, but it should be stated that everyone wants to ensure that police have the ability to deal with serious crime. Lawful access has been on the public agenda for years, with law enforcement has demanded new powers but not providing compelling evidence that the current system has created serious barriers to their investigations. For example, last year CIRA caved to law enforcement pressure for a backdoor to WHOIS domain name registrant information. More than a year later, law enforcement has never once used this backdoor. Given the potential for misuse (Greece, U.S. telcos), the onus should be on law enforcement to demonstrate how the current system has harmed investigations and then we should work on ensuring that there is always - including for customer name and address information - appropriate court oversight.

Those bills have been since resubmitted at C-51 and C-52

[thepartyparty]

This University of Ottawa professor appears to have an agenda of some sort. He is very selective in what he pulls from the bills and fails to give the context and restrictions in which they would operate.

[Angleland]

This University of Ottawa professor appears to have an agenda of some sort. He is very selective in what he pulls from the bills and fails to give the context and restrictions in which they would operate.

Go ahead - walk into that shower then - breath deep. The end will be quicker.

[Connie Fournier]

This University of Ottawa professor appears to have an agenda of some sort. He is very selective in what he pulls from the bills and fails to give the context and restrictions in which they would operate.

This "University of Ottawa Professor" is responsible for Canada's most influential organization specializing in internet law. The Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic is the Canadian version of the US "Electronic Frontier Foundation", and they specialize in protecting free speech and privacy on the internet.

They were also intervenors in our Divisional Court Hearing regarding the privacy of the John Does in the Warman case, and they helped us change the law to add protection to anonymous posters from SLAPP legislation.

It's kind of embarrassing that you would try to smear him for working at U of O.

[thepartyparty]

I'm confused. How is saying that he is from the University of Ottawa a smear?

The Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic is the Canadian version of the US "Electronic Frontier Foundation", and they specialize in protecting free speech and privacy on the internet.

That would be his agenda then. Like I said, he is very selective of the bit and pieces he pulls from the bill, while failing to provide the full context of the proposed legislation.

[Connie Fournier]

I'm confused. How is saying that he is from the University of Ottawa a smear?

The Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic is the Canadian version of the US "Electronic Frontier Foundation", and they specialize in protecting free speech and privacy on the internet.

That would be his agenda then. Like I said, he is very selective of the bit and pieces he pulls from the bill, while failing to provide the full context of the proposed legislation.

You know full well the you said "University of Ottawa professor" because you wanted people to think he is a Liberal. Deny it if you want, but it was glaringly obvious. There was no point in including that phrase, otherwise.

And, if protecting online privacy and freedom of speech is "an agenda", then it is one that I fully support. If Stephen Harper supported those things, we wouldn't have to be worried about the kind of crap legislation he was pushing through Parliament.

But, in any case, you'll have to excuse me if I choose to put more weight on the words of a someone who specializes in internet law, and who has devoted his career to protecting our online freedoms than I put on the words of a Harper supporter with unknown credentials who has simply scanned the document and declared that the end justifies the means.

[thepartyparty]

You can try to descredit me, but my point stands.

Geist was highly selective in what he plucked from the bills, without providing full context.

[Connie Fournier]

You can try to descredit me, but my point stands.

Geist was highly selective in what he plucked from the bills, without providing full context.

And, my point stands. Michael Geist is highly qualified to interpret new legislation and determine how it will affect us after it is enacted.

Your allegation that he is "not taking it in context" without providing any evidence just doesn't hold any weight.

[styky]

You can try to descredit me, but my point stands.

Geist was highly selective in what he plucked from the bills, without providing full context.

Isn't that the bigger problem and the point here.....when these bills are passed governments will be just as selective as to how they are interpreted. One need only look at the CHRC or how about the powers of the confiscation of property for crimes that "might" take place. There were warnings before those bills were passed but I'm sure that they were thought to being just reading in things that were selective.

[free_life2]

I don't even care if he makes the trains run on time.

Good one LOL That's where a lot of Haperites are at. The abortion killing machines and ovens might be running full blast, but hey, the GDP might be up a speck or two and look at all the cheap crap we've got from China! Life is good.

As long as they bring home the Harper back bacon, they are happy!

[free_life2]

Within six weeks of him taking office, we had a CHRC scumbag registered on our site

I will agree that government bureaucrats are amongst the most anti-conservative people you will find. I don't believe your situation would have been any different had the Liberals been in power. They set up the system and most of these people are loyal to the core to the liberal (and socialist) parties. If the process began days after Harper got into office, I would consider this evidence that this was liberals lashing out at losing the election.

I also don't believe that Harper has any particular affinity for bureaucrats.

Investigative Powers for the 21st Century Act

I believe that child porn is an issue that must be addressed. Looking at the law, it would be much the same as wiretapping a telephone and would require a judge issued warrant. For me, this is a step forward in the exploitation of children.

The Harper government could have put a stop to the persecution at any time, but they chose not to. Enough said.

As far as the Investigative Powers for the 21st Century Act goes, I'll be generous and assume you didn't read it, and not that you are deliberately misrepresenting it. The Bill REQUIRES our ISPs to install software that will track our every online movement, and it requires the release of subscriber information WITHOUT A WARRANT.

This is not about child porn, this is more police state crap.

And I will take an Lib/NDP coalition over that. Then at least we might be able to either root out the big gov't red's in the CPC or get to start with a new Reform like party. As it is we get to choose between 3 left of centre big gov't parties with a current PM who wants a police state. How do we fight it after we are living under this Act.

I agree Harper is the greater of the 3 evils when it comes to our rights and freedom.