
Canadian Conservatives commit to Internet surveillance. - mrcharles
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/5733/125/
======
joshes
_The first prong mandates the disclosure of Internet provider customer
information without court oversight. Under current privacy laws, providers may
voluntarily disclose customer information but are not required to do so. The
new system would require the disclosure of customer name, address, phone
number, email address, Internet protocol address, and a series of device
identification numbers._

Wow. The key phrase "without court oversight" is indicative of, at every
conceivable level, a massive, gaping hole for trucks of corruption to be
driven through. Ridiculous abuses.

 _The second prong requires Internet providers to dramatically re-work their
networks to allow for real-time surveillance. The bill sets out detailed
capability requirements that will eventually apply to all Canadian Internet
providers. These include the power to intercept communications, to isolate the
communications to a particular individual, and to engage in multiple
simultaneous interceptions. Moreover, the bill establishes a comprehensive
regulatory structure for Internet providers that would mandate their
assistance with testing their surveillance capabilities and disclosing the
names of all employees who may be involved in interceptions (and who may then
be subject to RCMP background checks)._

Double wow. It seems unnecessarily close to turning each Canadian ISP into
another branch of the Canadian government's surveillance agencies. These
politicians want to _force_ providers into restructuring their networks and
systems so that they can be used as a tool for the Government's every covert
whim... AND subject the employees of these providers to background checks so
that they can be trusted with this unnecessary, malevolent work shoved in
their laps?

Insane.

~~~
cperciva
_It seems unnecessarily close to turning each Canadian ISP into another branch
of the Canadian government's surveillance agencies._

Only if you consider Bell Canada to be a branch of CSIS. None of the
requirements being proposed for ISPs go beyond what is already required for
telephone networks -- and unlike phone conversations, it's easy to encrypt
your internet communications.

~~~
joshes
Honest question: does the RCMP require background checks for employees of
civilian telephony providers?

~~~
cperciva
Employees of phone companies generally? No, of course not.

Employees who have access to the wire-tap systems? I'm sure they do.

~~~
joe_the_user
Can you back that up with anything other than your personal certainty.

~~~
cperciva
I have reasons to believe this, but none I can present here.

------
mrcharles
Canadians really need to be aware of what this election could mean for the
internet. OpenMedia.ca is running a campaign of "Vote for Internet" which is
interesting, but I don't think they are approaching it in a way that will have
any real weight.

Canadians need to make sure that the internet is an election issue, and not
just ridiculous stuff like this, we also have to worry about C32 (the
copyright bill), internet billing, etc.

~~~
pasbesoin
This part summarizes one thing I particularly noted. From Geist's description,
the Conservatives appear to be trying to force this through with little or no
debate -- and, presumably, if they can pull it off an equal lack of press:

 _There are several concerns with the Conservatives lawful access plans.
First, it bears noting that these bills have never received extensive debate
on the floor of the House of Commons and never been the subject of committee
hearings. Police officers may support the legislation, but there has never
been an opportunity to question them on the need for such legislation or on
their ability to use lawful access powers if the bills become law. Federal and
provincial privacy commissioners have expressed deep concerns about these
bills, yet they have never had the opportunity to air those concerns before
committee. Internet service providers, who face millions in additional costs -
presumably passed along to consumers - have never appeared before committee.
By making a commitment to passing lawful access within 100 days, the
Conservatives are undertaking to pass legislation with enormous implications
for the Internet that has never received parliamentary scrutiny and will
receive limited attention._

~~~
RyanMcGreal
> the Conservatives appear to be trying to force this through with little or
> no debate

That's why they want a majority of seats in the House of Commons: it gives
them a de facto dictatorship for four years.

~~~
caf
From what I hear, the domination of the Bloc Quebecois in Quebec makes that a
pretty hard target to reach.

------
tlb
What would go wrong in society if the internet and phone system were totally
un-tappable by government and people could easily communicate in complete
secrecy?

Every government seems to want to intercept communications against the
people's wishes. What do they understand that I don't?

~~~
kijinbear
Proposals like this can win votes from law-enforcement circles. After all,
warrantless disclosures and always-ready surveillance equipment would allow
cops to gain information about a person with just one phone call. They hate
having to follow procedure, especially if that procedure involves waiting for
a judge to issue an order.

There's also the more dramatic explanation about how this all boils down to a
power struggle between the haves and the have-nots, but I prefer the making-
cops-happier explanation. There are plenty of good cops in every country, but
law enforcement has a lot of solidarity built into its ranks, so police-
related groups can sway many votes. Harper would do anything for a few
thousand extra votes.

~~~
adestefan
It's also an issue of costs. If the government can hold up device/protocol X
and say your equipment must interact with X, then it makes legal surveillance
cheaper.

------
jrockway
I don't really understand why so many politicians are writing laws that make
invasions of privacy possible "without a warrant". Why don't they just require
a warrant? Then there are checks and balances, and everyone's happy.

~~~
kijinbear
Warrants are issued by judges. There are few things that a politician hates
more than having to answer to a judge.

All of the Internet surveillance and censorship policies proposed and
implemented around the world attempt to bypass judges. USA (Patriot Act),
Australia (mandatory filtering), and now Canada. The usual excuse, of course,
is that things on the the Internet move too quickly to wait for due process to
take its course.

~~~
jrockway
Aren't judges politicians?

~~~
__hudson__
In Canada judges aren't elected so technically I wouldn't call them
politicians.

------
jhack
Get out there and vote, people. The Conservatives have been far too dangerous
with a minority, a majority would be even worse.

------
Cyndre
And one aspect that no one is touching on is unsecured wireless hotspots. What
is the implications of this for Safeway, or any other company that runs a
customer friendly wifi access network?

Say goodbye to those conviences as well. ISP's will need waivers for customers
running unsecured networks, not to mention potential liability when your
supplying wireless devices to your customers.

Like gun control the only people this will punish is law abiding citizens.

------
gruseom
I don't have time to work on this, but am willing to do my bit as a citizen.
What, besides emailing candidates, would help?

~~~
mrcharles
I wish I knew. The liberals aren't a whole lot better at this point, having
had their fingers in a similar pie some years back.

I guess at this point, try and oust the Conservatives and hope for the best.

