He was never "my guy"--just preferable to the sad sack that is now working at U of T. However, I wish that EhMacers were more vocal when this sort of abrogation of freedom was being promulgated by the the Martin or Chretien governments.
I brought it up here on ehMac when Martin was PM and his Justice Ministry laid the groundwork for what Harper eventually introduced. And many other ehMaccians, both right and left, condemned the idea of warrantless searches.
But I'm glad to see the Harper government appears to be backing away from this, although they still haven't committed to any changes and Toews is still defending it. I suspect it will be back again. Governments really want this.
I was listening to some commentary on the proposed bill today and what many don't understand is, this is not just about your computer access and IP address. It's aimed towards mobile phones and smartphones. One of the bits of info police would be able to demand without a warrant is device identification numbers from the phones. They can sit at a protest, for example, and use a piece of equipment that collects these IDs by mimicking a cell tower. Then they can take those IDs to the mobile carriers and receive name, address, and other subscriber data and match those IDs to particular phones. With scanners they can then gather a wealth of data on every person they've ID'ed from the protest and compile large dossiers on all these people, all without one bit of judicial oversight. That's not just a police fishing trip, that's wholesale drift net seafood harvesting.
According to Toews, if you have a problem with any of that, you're siding with child pornographers.
We all should let our MPs know we object to provisions of the bill, but sadly not enough of us bother to protest. I wrote my MP protesting the contents of bill C-30 yesterday and got this reply today:
Quote:
Thank you for your correspondence regarding Bill C-30, Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act.
While technology has advanced significantly over the past four decades, the legal frameworks and investigative processes available to law enforcement have not kept pace with this evolution. I agree that although necessary in respect to the aforementioned, Bill C-30 in its current form is too broad in its scope.
This Bill will be going directly to committee before having its second reading in the House of Commons so that we may have an open discussion about how better to protect Canadians from online crime. All proposed provisions will balance investigative needs and privacy protection.
Bill C-30 does not permit or compel telecommunications service providers to maintain databases with information collected on Canadians. The Bill will allow the preservation of historical data for specific individuals for a short time, where authorities believe such data will assist in investigation.
If authorities are unable to produce a warrant within 21 days (for domestic investigations), the service provider is required to destroy the preserved computer data. A warrant is required to access the contents of any preserved data.
The RCMP, CSIS and other authorized agencies will maintain lists of service provider employees who may access lawful interceptions. These agencies will be able to request that individuals on this list undergo security assessments.
The basic subscriber information provision does not give law enforcement the lawful authority to monitor websites for the purpose of creating profiles of individuals or to track individuals
Requests for information from a telecommunications service provider about the website surfing activity or the real-time whereabouts of an individual would need to be made under productions orders, warrants or wiretap authorizations contained in the Criminal Code.
As a Member of the Standing Committee on Public Safety, I will work to ensure that the importance of privacy for law-abiding Canadians is preserved, while balancing the need to update law enforcement tools and weed out internet predators.
Sincerely,
Brent Rathgeber J.D., Q.C.
Member of Parliament
Edmonton – St. Albert
We all should let our MPs know we object to provisions of the bill, but sadly not enough of us bother to protest. I wrote my MP protesting the contents of bill C-30 yesterday and got this reply today:
Good on you, SINC.
It seems, assuming that your MP is reflecting government policy, the Cons really will be backing off on this.
I agree that law enforcement may need new tools given so much communication takes place online. It's not the same as just tapping a phone wire anymore. But I simply don't see any need for this to be done without the proper oversight a warrant provides.
If warrants take too long for police to get, then simply put in some measure that make it easier, -- have a team of regional judges who are on call 24 hours -- have the ability to teleconference with them so that submissions can be made by any law enforcement members outside of the major centres. If the cops are truly engaging in serious investigations of potential criminals, then they should have no problem explaining that within the proper constraints of our legal system.
It's interesting to note that when these "lawful access" provisions were first proposed under the Liberals, it was defended as necessary under the threat of terrorism in the shadow of 9/11. Now, that won't sell it anymore so they need to make the same proposals under the threat of internet predators and child porn. This leads me to believe that this was never about either of these bogeymen, but simply about expanding the surveillance power of the state.
I haven't read it, but I understand the new bill doesn't mention internet predators or children anywhere except in the brand new title of the act. And Toews mouthing off on the subject show that this was the initial strategy used to hopefully slap down opposition to it. I'm glad most Canadians saw through this smokescreen.
__________________
Be wary be very wary of Ostentatious Grandiose Lambaster
Warning All VISITORS If you see links to ads in the above post, blame the cheesy ad-linking software used by the owners of this website. I do not endorse these links. Don't click on them.
It seems, assuming that your MP is reflecting government policy, the Cons really will be backing off on this.
I agree that law enforcement may need new tools given so much communication takes place online. It's not the same as just tapping a phone wire anymore. But I simply don't see any need for this to be done without the proper oversight a warrant provides.
If warrants take too long for police to get, then simply put in some measure that make it easier, -- have a team of regional judges who are on call 24 hours -- have the ability to teleconference with them so that submissions can be made by any law enforcement members outside of the major centres. If the cops are truly engaging in serious investigations of potential criminals, then they should have no problem explaining that within the proper constraints of our legal system.
It's interesting to note that when these "lawful access" provisions were first proposed under the Liberals, it was defended as necessary under the threat of terrorism in the shadow of 9/11. Now, that won't sell it anymore so they need to make the same proposals under the threat of internet predators and child porn. This leads me to believe that this was never about either of these bogeymen, but simply about expanding the surveillance power of the state.
I haven't read it, but I understand the new bill doesn't mention internet predators or children anywhere except in the brand new title of the act. And Toews mouthing off on the subject show that this was the initial strategy used to hopefully slap down opposition to it. I'm glad most Canadians saw through this smokescreen.
I have heard in the media recently, (since Toews introduced the bill in question) the judge on call 24/7 idea already exists and warrant are communicated verbally when required. I think it was on CBC Radio Noon broadcast and the person providing the information was a lawyer with some expertise in the field.
I did a little searching and found the interview on Maritime Noon Maritime Noon BroadcastWhen you go to the page click on the (Listen Hyperlink to listen to the show) Please note that the Item regarding Privacy Law starts at about a minute and thirty seconds with context for the interview. The Interview with Lawyer Dave Fraser starts at about 3 minute and 45 seconds. The comments regarding "judges being available presently," can found around 7 min. 25 sec. mark.
It is an interesting listen for information on the entire issue of protecting citizens and our rights under the law. Please consider giving it a listen, sorry I can't just give you the interview with the Lawyer but if anyone knows how and can add that bit to the conversation please do.
__________________
Be wary be very wary of Ostentatious Grandiose Lambaster
Warning All VISITORS If you see links to ads in the above post, blame the cheesy ad-linking software used by the owners of this website. I do not endorse these links. Don't click on them.
Judges Available 24/7 for Warrants Now, per Interest Interview With Lawyer
*I did a little searching and found the interview on Maritime Noon Maritime Noon Broadcast When you go to the page click on the (Listen Hyperlink to listen to the show) Please note that the Item regarding Privacy Law, starts at about a minute and thirty seconds with context for the interview. The Interview with Lawyer Dave Fraser starts at about 3 minute and 45 seconds. The comments regarding "judges being available presently, 24/7" can found around 7 min. 25 sec. mark.
It is an interesting listen for information on the entire issue of protecting citizens and our rights under the law. Please consider giving it a listen, sorry I can't provide just the interview with the Lawyer but if anyone knows how and can add that bit to the conversation please go for it.
* I did add this as edit to my previous post but thought this might catch more attention as a separate post
__________________
Be wary be very wary of Ostentatious Grandiose Lambaster
Warning All VISITORS If you see links to ads in the above post, blame the cheesy ad-linking software used by the owners of this website. I do not endorse these links. Don't click on them.
Judges Available 24/7 for Warrants Now, per Interest Interview With Lawyer
Linear Mode
