Police chiefs spend tax dollars to lobby for warrantless online surveillance
The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police (CACP) is scrambling to find ways to justify upcoming bills that would allow warrantless surveillance of law-abiding Canadians’ online private information, says pro-Internet group OpenMedia.ca.
OpenMedia.ca today released the contents of an message that the CACP recently sent to law enforcement officials, which asks them to provide examples, even those with “confidential operational information,” of situations in which current privacy provisions have hindered investigations. The CACP is attempting to counter what they call “ill-informed criticism” from the public in regards to the proposed legislation-known as the “Lawful Access” or “online spying” bills.
Although the push for this unprecedented expansion of electronic surveillance powers began nearly 13 years ago, no examples of its need have been presented publicly so far.
Leading legal and privacy experts (see http://openmedia.ca/screening) are calling the bill an unprecedented and unjustified expansion of policing powers. The CACP itself admits that lack of justification; their email states that they could not find a “sufficient quantity” of credible examples for a version of the legislation that was tabled two years ago.
One of the only attempts at providing evidence came in 2009 from former Conservative Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan. That year, University of Ottawa professor Michael Geist filed Access to Information requests that revealed that the minister’s example — a kidnapping case in which police waited 36 hours to get the information they needed to obtain a warrant — did not involve requests to Internet service providers for any of the information that the online spying bills would guarantee.
“The online spying bills are a solution in search of a problem,” says OpenMedia.ca Executive Director Steve Anderson. “I’m sure Canadians don’t appreciate their tax dollars going toward the CACP’s lobbying efforts, especially when the result could be legislation that would create invasive, costly, and poorly thought-out online spying.”
The Public Safety Minister, Vic Toews, has vehemently defended the online spying bills, claiming that they are necessary to ensure that law enforcement has the tools it needs to combat online crime. However without credible evidence demonstrating how the current law has impeded investigations, Canadians have little reason to believe that the online spying bills are necessary to keep the law up-to-date with emerging technologies.
Beware of “Surveillance by Design:” Standing Up for Freedom and Privacy
Join Ontario’s Information & Privacy Commissioner
Dr. Ann Cavoukian
and highly respected privacy, legal, and academic experts as we discuss the implications of “lawful access” legislation in Canada
Friday, January 27, 2012 | 9:00am – 11:00am
MaRS Discovery District
MaRS Centre South tower, Suite 100
(Auditorium – Lower Level)
101 College Street, Toronto, ON
Concern is mounting regarding the impact of proposed “lawful access” legislation in Canada. Media coverage has greatly increased, with this issue becoming a hot topic of discussion by all stakeholders, from the legal community to telecom providers. The Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario has been instrumental in bringing attention to this upcoming legislation — which in our view, would represent a system of “Surveillance by Design.”
The anticipated re-introduction of a trio of federal bills (Bills C-50, C-51, C-52) will provide police with much greater ability to access and track information, via the communications technologies that we use every day, such as the Internet, smart phones, and other mobile devices, including without a warrant or oversight. Taken together, the three pieces of legislation will diminish the privacy rights of Ontarians and indeed of all Canadians.
We have an opportunity to raise awareness on this very important issue, with the goal of impacting the legislation as it is re-introduced. Please join us as we bring together highly respected thought leaders to discuss the implications of these federal bills.
In addition to Commissioner Cavoukian’s opening keynote, we are delighted to have an excellent cast of speakers:
- Alan Borovoy, General Counsel, Emeritus, Canadian Civil Liberties Association
- Professor John Villasenor, The Brookings Institution and University of California, Los Angeles
- Dr. Ron Deibert, Professor, Political Science, University of Toronto
- Nathalie Des Rosiers, General Counsel, Canadian Civil Liberties Association
- David Fraser, Lead, McInnes Cooper Privacy Practice Group
- John Ibbitson, Ottawa Bureau Chief, Globe and Mail
There is no cost to attend, but we would be grateful if you would take a moment to register for the event. Click here to RSVP for the event.
If you are unable to attend in person, we will be webcasting live and archiving the webcast online. Click here to register for the webcast.
The event is being held to celebrate International Privacy Day, marking 31 years since the first binding international convention of privacy came into force.
** End **
Canadian bills help seize digital information
Three bills on Parliament’s agenda that have upset privacy watchdogs are drawing the same reaction from local NDP critic Elizabeth Rosenau.
She says Bills C-50, C-51 and C-52 will turn Internet service providers into “agents of the state,” because they’ll have to acquire equipment that will allow interception of communications and provide details about their clients to police.
The government hasn’t made the case about why it needs the greater powers, she added.
“We don’t know where this is going,” said Rosenau who unsuccessfully sought the NDP federal nomination last election.
“Over time, it could change things to include a lot. Basically, it’s Orwellian. It’s a Big Brother thing.”
Under the bills, left over from the previous session of Parliament, Internet companies would have six months to acquire the technology that would allow them to intercept customer communications.
Under Bill C-52, police will be able to get customers’ names, addresses, telephone numbers, e-mail addresses, IP addresses and electronic serial numbers, without getting a warrant and without a crime having been committed. The actual interception of e-mails would still require a warrant.
Bill C-51 allows police to tell a company to preserve its data for a temporary period until a warrant is available and also allows, with a warrant, activation of the tracking devices, such as GPS devices that are found in cars and cellphones, while making it tougher to get a warrant to plant a tracking device on an individual.
Police, provided they have authorization from a court-ordered warrant, can activate a data recorder that will allow them real-time tracking of Internet communications.
Bill C-50 allows the use of a telephone recorder without a warrant if the situation is urgent, something the Criminal Code already allows.
The measures bother Rosenau because of the government’s overall get-tough-on-crime approach, demonstrated in its omnibus crime bill, which has passed through the House of Commons and is now in the Senate.
“They basically have a radical agenda when it comes to crime. They’re seeing crime where we don’t see crime.”
When you increase surveillance and make Internet providers agents of the government, you don’t know where it’s going to go, she said.
She pointed out that China controls its Internet by targeting its enforcement at Internet service providers, rather than focusing on the millions of subscribers.
“There’s a lot of spying that goes on and there’s a lot of politics, too.”
Jennifer Stoddart, Privacy Commissioner of Canada, feels the same way and says so in an October letter to Public Safety Minister Vic Toews.
“Despite repeated calls, no systematic case has yet been made to justify the extent of the new investigative capabilities that would have been created by the bills.
“Canadian authorities have yet to provide the public with evidence to suggest that CSIS or Canadian police cannot perform their duties under the current regime. One-off cases and isolated incidents should not prove the rule, nor should exigent or emergency circumstances, for which there are already Criminal Code provisions.”
Stoddart said the bills would have allowed government to subject more individuals to surveillance and scrutiny. “In brief, these bills went far beyond simply maintaining investigative capacity or modernizing search powers.
“Rather, they added significant new capabilities for investigators to track, and search and seize digital information about individuals.”
She adds, there is not even a requirement for the commission of a crime to justify access to personal information – real names, home address, unlisted numbers, e-mail addresses, IP addresses and much more – without a warrant. “Only prior court authorization provides the rigorous privacy protection Canadians expect.”
Ontario’s privacy commissioner Ann Cavoukian also opposes the laws and has set up a website on the topic (http://realprivacy.ca/).
However, according to Pitt Meadows-Maple Ridge-Mission MP Randy Kamp, the legislation is an attempt to keep up with changing technologies and is needed to combat child pornography, criminal gangs and terrorists – a similar approach to that used in Sweden, the U.S. and Australia. The bills were left over from the previous session of Parliament and could see changes by the time they’re re-introduced.
“We expect this will have significant debate.”
Kamp repeated Toews’ contention that the ability to collect subscriber information is no different than looking in a phone book or matching addresses with phone numbers.
As for the claim that the legislation will allow police to intercept e-mail messages without a warrant, “that’s a fabrication that’s been floating around for awhile about this bill and it’s just not true.
“Our government is pretty committed to not allowing police to read e-mails without a warrant.”
Pitt Meadows Internet blogger Richard Pitt is generally concerned about the amount of information that can be collected today. “Everybody’s guilty of something, somewhere – there are no ifs or buts.”
What if a politician visited porn sites during high school? Police could ask for more money or resources in return for keeping that information private, he suggested.
“We can keep track of every movement of everybody, forever.”
Maple Ridge database programer/analyst Alex Pope said people shouldn’t make any assumptions about Internet privacy. “I would never consider e-mail to be secure anyway.”
E-mails can be routed to servers in different countries, possibly the U.S., where those servers could be under surveillance. Spam software can easily track key words, which could trigger monitoring.
Pope notes that any data on Canadians that’s stored in U.S. servers is now subject to the Patriot Act, which allows police to intercept messages.
He agrees, “police have to have the tools to enforce the laws.
“As soon as you get into a situation where no warrants are required, then my concerns increase.”
** End**
More NEWS
January 19.2012 Rabble: Police chiefs spend tax dollars to lobby for warrantless online surveillance
January 18. 2012 FinancialPost: Feds want more online surveillance
January 18. 2012 McCleans: Police: No ‘good examples’ of why we need Lawful Access
January 18. 2012 Huffington: Lawful Access Legislation: Police Misusing Funds Lobbying For Spying Powers, OpenMedia Says
January 16. 2012 Council of Canadians: (Un)lawful access legislation slammed in new BCCLA report, online campaign
December 13. 2011 Tyee: The Lawful Access Deception
December 6. 2011 Globe&Mail: Stop hiding behind the phone book, Mr. Toews
November 30.2011 Vancouver Sun: Online spy law ‘should scare you’
November 22. 2011 Huffington: ’Lawful Access’ Online Spying Law Could Kill Small Internet Providers In Canada, Industry Group Says
November 20. 2011 Gazette: 94 per cent of Internet subscribers purchase their service from one of the “Big Telecom” firms
October 27. 2011 CBC: Privacy watchdog reiterates lawful access concerns
October 27. 2011 Huffington: Lawful Access Legislation May Threaten Our Rights and Freedoms
October 25. 2011 Huffington: Lawful Access Legislation: 8 In 10 Oppose Internet Surveillance Without A Warrant
October 17. 2011 ITWorldCanada: Carriers anxious for lawful access regulations
June 24. 2011 Financial Post: Canadian ‘Lawful Access’ laws come at too high a price, critics argue
Resources
2011 Canadians and Privacy Survey
Bill C-52: An Act regulating telecommunications facilities to support investigations
NDP MP Charlie Angus Letter to Public Safety Miniter Vic Toews
404 Relevant Posts
Moving Towards a Surveillance Society – Proposals to Expand “Lawful Access” in Canada
Canada in Fear: Canadian Government’s war on solidarity and peace
Canada: Military Spending and The National Security Establishment
Battle for the Internet is a Battle for Human Rights
More articles... :
Share and Enjoy
Related posts: