backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 38 comment(s) - last by quiksilvr.. on Jun 23 at 2:42 PM
Canadian Internet subscribers may be unknowingly monitored by the government

Canadian Internet  service providers may be forced to allow government officials to intercept and monitor online communications, while also easily looking up personal information about a company's subscribers.

The Technical Assistance for Law Enforcement in the 21st Century Act, recently introduced, is designed to help the Canadian government better modernize the country's Criminal Code, supporters stated.   While privacy advocates shuddered at the news, police agencies across Canada showed support for the bill.

Agencies also will be able to monitor text, voice and video messages when investigating a suspect, the bill reads.  When a police agency today requests information from an ISP, they get a different response each time.  Some will turn over the information, others require a court-issued warrant, and there are a couple ISPs who are simply unable to monitor subscribers.

The government is considering helping smaller ISPs by reimbursing them partial costs, with any ISP with less than 100,000 subscribers exempt from the bill.

"We must ensure that law enforcement has the necessary tools to catch up to the bad guys and ultimately bring them to justice. Twenty-first century technology calls for 21st-century tools," Justice Minister Rob Nicholson said during a press conference.

Even though the government says this move must be made, many are concerned over privacy issues.  It remains unknown when police agencies and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service will be able to request a user's personal information.  It will almost certainly take a judge's warrant, but there doesn't seem to be any other oversight against possible government abuse.

"High tech criminals will be met by high tech police," Public Safety Minster Peter Van Loan said during the same press conference.

The United States, United Kingdom, Australia, Germany, New Zealand and Sweden are currently using similar legislation, though with minute changes.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
"less then 100,000 subscribers"
By Tsuwamono on 6/20/2009 11:45:49 AM , Rating: 5
Thank god I'm on one of the smaller ISPs and it has less then 100 000 subscribers.

I trust my government quite a bit compared to other governments but not enough for them to not abuse this kind of power.




RE: "less then 100,000 subscribers"
By HaZaRd2K6 on 6/20/2009 9:43:51 PM , Rating: 1
Pft. Typical Stephen Harper thinking on display here.

It's not enough to run a "re-election campaign" when there's no election in sight and push out an "economic stimulus package" that doesn't exit. No, Mr. Harper even wants himself in the houses of Canadians.

Y'know, I'm beginning to see why people refuse to vote. There really aren't any half-decent candidates anymore. It's all partisan BS.


RE: "less then 100,000 subscribers"
By just4U on 6/20/2009 11:09:12 PM , Rating: 3
Whatever, While it might be "in fashion" to blame Harper for everything lets face fact ok? Bottom line is Liberals have run this country for going on 60 <censored> years. Sure there's been a few conservative governments when the population finally says enough is enough but they don't last long and they never have real power. Either their screwed over by a liberal senate or their a minority government.

You want some real changes, vote a conservative majority "TWICE!" Why? Becasue, their going to be to damned scared to do any real changing with their first majority term.

The lines are so blurred right now because everyone wants a centrist government. Not right and marginally to the left so all the parties toot their horns and make it appear that that's the way they are.


RE: "less then 100,000 subscribers"
By Tsuwamono on 6/20/2009 11:33:43 PM , Rating: 1
+1


RE: "less then 100,000 subscribers"
By eddieroolz on 6/21/2009 12:57:37 AM , Rating: 4
Why is he downrated for saying something that's true?

Prolonged rule just feeds corruption, just look at the Communists in China.

After 60+ years of Liberals, we had 3 years of Conservatives - and every single year, the Liberals, NDP and Bloc threaten elections.

I can't believe the Liberal supporters don't see the blatant powerjacking attempt by the leftist parties led by the Liberals themselves. Every single bill, they threaten election. We Canadians don't want another election, we want the damn parties to work together. Ignatieff said that last December during the Constitutional Crisis, and look, 6 months in he broke his word. We can't trust this guy.

Don't even get me started on the NDP, they are just a bunch of power-hungry goons who will attempt anything to hijack the government and start a revolution.

Bottom line, it's okay for the Liberals to sit on the sidelines. Fresh ideas are good, and Harper should get a shot at being a stable prime minister for a few years. But I guess that's impossible with all the crazy leftist supporters screaming election every single second against the Conservatives.


RE: "less then 100,000 subscribers"
By just4U on 6/21/2009 1:44:58 AM , Rating: 2
(sigh) I was expecting a downrating.. even here on DT for that view :(

Problem with defending Harper is the liberals did a damn good job of demonizing him in the late 90s and early part of this past decade and it's sort of stuck. It's to bad to because from my point of view he's going to be remembered as one of the really good ones. I am pretty sure History will show that to since he helped unite the right under a new party and has been the longest serving Minority PM in Canada's History.

No small tasks all things considered.


RE: "less then 100,000 subscribers"
By eddieroolz on 6/22/2009 12:48:50 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, exactly - he's been good so far, being a capable PM even though he's hampered by the minority rule. Sure, he's had his share of controversies and mishaps, but it's not like the Liberals never had them - in fact, it would be foolish to think otherwise.

I would really like to see him with a majority. I put my faith on Harper, and want to see him live to his full potential.

Again, it's a shame that most of media outlets are left-leaning companies. It just serves to further fuel the public's negative perceptions about the right.


RE: "less then 100,000 subscribers"
By just4U on 6/22/2009 11:08:06 AM , Rating: 2
To be totally honest, outside of online outlet's (and even there to a degree) I've noticed that Canadian's seem to be moving ever so slowly to the right. Perhaps that's another reason why we see conservative governments. Many shy away from the NDP as they seem to be focused on special interest groups and well.. the Liberals with a new leader appear better people don't seem to enthusiastic about having them back in there.

That to me suggests we could be on the verge of a conservative majority but you never know. It's like shaking the magic 8ball because of the current times we live in.

I am a little leary talking about it online though as I typically get hammered by ( I would assume) Liberal die-hards. Here tho it's mostly just downrates as you don't get the foaming at the mouth types you see on the Canadian news forums.


RE: "less then 100,000 subscribers"
By omnicronx on 6/22/2009 12:08:07 PM , Rating: 2
Harper lost ground this election, he was in a better position before he called a snap election two years ago. Paul Martin and Stephan Dion would have been terrible leaders, and even though I usually vote liberal I could not vote for either of them. Ignatieff is a good speaker, and while he has lived in the US for many years I think he is 10 times the candidate than the two previous combined. I think Harper will really get a run for his money and I think you are kidding yourself if you think a majority is on the horizon. While I 100% agree that there has been a shift to the right, I believe that is mostly because of a lack of choice, similar to the Bush/Kerry Bush/Gore elections.

My guess is that when an election is called, that we will see another minorety, with the liberals gaining ground (with the conservatives most likely staying in power). This is really nothing new either, every large liberal tenure in recent years has resulted in a conservative break, only to have the liberals gain power for a number of years.


RE: "less then 100,000 subscribers"
By just4U on 6/22/2009 6:27:04 PM , Rating: 2
I dunno Omni, I don't think he lost ground at all. You have to remember that the last parliment was the longest running minority parliment ever. So can't really say it was a snap election. It was pretty good timing really (considering how the econemy had started to tank)

I agree about Ignatieff being way better then Dion. I sort of liked Martin but someone had to be the scapegoat and looks like he was it. I wouldn't be adverse to seeing Ignatieff as PM. He's alot like Harper really, just on the Liberal side of the fence. Very similiar views overall. While I won't be voting for him he's definitely a step in the right direction for that party.

Experts say that we can expect mainly minority governments from here on in. I don't know if that's true or not. From what I read they believe we should have been having minorities well into the mid 90s but the right was so fractured it allowed the Liberals to keep the majorities going.


RE: "less then 100,000 subscribers"
By Ratinator on 6/22/2009 11:51:35 AM , Rating: 2
Demonizing....wtf. It is funny how you butcher the ones who had to make the tough decisions to get this country back on track and dug us out of the giant hole of a debt the previous conservative government left us.


RE: "less then 100,000 subscribers"
By just4U on 6/22/2009 6:32:40 PM , Rating: 2
Ratinator what the hell are you talking about? Mulroney's PC Party didn't put us into debt at all. We have Trudeau to thank for that. The PC party had nearly balanced the budget during their second term. It was the drastic changes they made that allowed the Liberals to take credit for paying down the debt in the 90s. Do yourself a favor and do some reading it might open your eyes to the facts.


RE: "less then 100,000 subscribers"
By Ratinator on 6/22/2009 11:49:31 AM , Rating: 2
Oh come on, stop your one sided rhetoric. Even the conservatives threatened election when the Liberals had a majority government. They all do it and it is part of having a majority government.


By Ratinator on 6/22/2009 2:40:39 PM , Rating: 2
Meant to say minority, not majority


RE: "less then 100,000 subscribers"
By omnicronx on 6/22/2009 11:57:35 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
we had 3 years of Conservatives - and every single year, the Liberals, NDP and Bloc threaten elections.
Mulroney won back to back for a total of 8 years alone.. how can you make such claims if you don't even know the facts. Clark was also prime minister in the late 70's, so its around 10 years pre Harper so that would be another 3 years for a total of around 13-15 (including Clar and Kim Campbell's short stay). So in their 15 years of control of the past 60, what exactly have they done aside from raise taxes? (Yes harper made his nice political move to drop 2% GST, but to anyone with half a brain would have noticed they merely taxed different areas to make up the difference). Furthermore, that is the exact job of the opposition, have you no idea how our political system works? Harper does not have a majority, he is not in full control which was the choice of the well over half of the country.
quote:
Ignatieff said that last December during the Constitutional Crisis, and look, 6 months in he broke his word. We can't trust this guy.
Not only did he never say that, no election has been called, he has clearly stated he is essentially putting the conservatives on probation, and if they do not do what they said they would do, he would call a vote of non confidence, but he would not call an election without provocation. He has yet to do so, meaning he never broke any promise. And of course your short memory forgets the Harper called the last election a two years EARLY. So its not ok for Ignatieff to do his job and keep the opposition in check, but it is ok for the man you voted to do the very thing you are complaining about?

I thought that Stephan Dion was a moron, and I essentially threw my vote away, but everyday Harper is in Power, we as Canadians lose a piece of our identity. We are already on our way to becoming the 51st state, and if Harper had his way, we would be much closer.


By omnicronx on 6/22/2009 12:15:28 PM , Rating: 2
P.S Forgot to mention that Harper took down the liberal government twice in two years before he gained power in 2006. (2006 being the second time) Meaning he has directly caused 3 elections in 5 years from 2004-2008 (2004,2006,2008), each time costing the country millions of dollars. Of course Harper is still the good guy right?


RE: "less then 100,000 subscribers"
By omnicronx on 6/22/2009 11:37:50 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Whatever, While it might be "in fashion" to blame Harper for everything lets face fact ok? Bottom line is Liberals have run this country for going on 60 <censored> years. Sure there's been a few conservative governments when the population finally says enough is enough but they don't last long and they never have real power. Either their screwed over by a liberal senate or their a minority government.
The convervative government or variants thereof have not done any good for Canada since the turn of the 19th century(Laurier was a great Prime Minister). Canadians generally do not trust conservatives because of what they have done in the past.
Lets see-

Diefenbaker- Cancelled the Aero project which was the most advanced jetfighter to date and was years ahead of pretty much any country (go look at the similarities to American jets created afterwords) which also resulted in signed treaties that essentially made us buy all of our military tools from the US, which started the downward spiral our military. Oh ya, and he also left the economy in shambles and the Canadian people (except those living in Saskatchewan) wanted him gone by the time he left office. He left a bad taste in everyones mouth, and the convervatives did not regain power for almost 20 years (and with a minority government)

Mulroney-Everyones favorite prime minister *cough*, added the 8%GST, essentially had to leave office because of his Jet scandal and once again GAVE the liberals power for years to come.

The main reason that the liberals held power so long can be put squarely on one mans shoulders, Pierre Elliott Trudeau. He did more for Canada in his years of office than conservative governments have done for the last 100 years (Bill or rights, Act of 1982, kept Quebec in the country, brought economic prosperity, the list goes on..), and you really wonder why Canadians historically vote Liberal?

Don't get me wrong, Harper is a political genius, but when it comes down to it he is playing us all. He has yet to fulfill his agenda and is playing it smart until he can gain a majority government which the nation has yet to give to him after 6 years in power. Harper is a classic conservative, and bills like these are starting to show his true colors. He is terribly afraid of Michael Ignatieff, and is already playing his normal hate adds all of the TV and radio, even though no election is scheduled, nor has one been called.

I would really like to be proven wrong, but your talk about never having senate control is completely unfounded, Mulroney passed almost everything on his agenda and so did Diefenbaker, while this may not be the case with Harper, all I can say is THANK GOD, if I wanted to live in the US I would move there! I would love for you to prove me wrong, but I think you would be hard pressed to find more pros than cons.


RE: "less then 100,000 subscribers"
By just4U on 6/22/2009 7:22:54 PM , Rating: 2
Sir Wilfred Laurier was a Liberal

Mulroney implemented the GST which was 7%. If the Liberals hadn't put us in massive debt that wouldn't have been neccessary. He followed thru on almost all of his key election promises save the accord... which was probably his undoing and a key reason why he didn't run again.

Trudeau brought us economic prosperity? Oh wow.. His National Energy Program sunk the west, His pay later policy put Canada into deep debt and we've been paying it down ever since.

My whole point of mostly liberal run over the past 60 years is because it's true. The little amount of time that those other PM's were in most of the countries power players were liberals and working on liberal policy. Defienbaker needed 2 majority terms to change things around He only got one (being a westerner) His first term was under a minority and didn't last long. Joe Clark? he was blip and lost confidence the very first time the PC party tried to pass a bill. Mulroney couldn't do much his first term ..except come to terms with a staggering debt. Then there's Harper .. and his story is still ongoing.


By shazbotron on 6/22/2009 10:07:10 AM , Rating: 2
"The government is considering helping smaller ISPs by reimbursing them partial costs, with any ISP with less than 100,000 subscribers exempt from the bill."

Based on my reading of this sentence and the context referring to cost, I am reading "bill" at the end as referring to charges as opposed to proposed law.

This would imply to me that small ISPs will still be required to comply, but will not have to bear the costs.

The word choice has led to a lack of clarity here, but is there any confirmation either way?


Canada, eh?
By quiksilvr on 6/20/2009 1:12:42 PM , Rating: 3
Who would have thought that the government look into people's internet files? That's totally unheard of!




RE: Canada, eh?
By Tsuwamono on 6/20/2009 4:24:14 PM , Rating: 2
It WAS in canada... looks like we are losing our privacy as well.


RE: Canada, eh?
By SpaceJumper on 6/21/2009 9:21:02 AM , Rating: 3
Canada is slowly moving toward communism. Very soon, all computers must have the anti-porn(back door) software filter installed.
I am wondering, who will be monitoring the police internet activities, they will be more likely to commit abuse and criminal activities than the criminals. One example is the Taser abuse, the police is energetically abusing the device.


RE: Canada, eh?
By Tsuwamono on 6/21/2009 11:50:21 AM , Rating: 2
"Canada is slowly moving toward communism."

We are moving more left all the time actually.


RE: Canada, eh?
By jordanclock on 6/21/2009 12:30:05 PM , Rating: 2
I don't get what you're trying to say here. Communism is as far left as you can get.


RE: Canada, eh?
By Tsuwamono on 6/21/2009 2:43:36 PM , Rating: 2
I meant to write right. my bad lol.


RE: Canada, eh?
By quiksilvr on 6/23/2009 2:42:12 PM , Rating: 2
I hate that word: Communism. Just because its not Capitalism means it HAS to be wrong, so instead of calling it Socialist lets call it COMMUNIST! Stupid Cold War.

Here's the truth: a society cannot be entirely Capitalist. Nor can it be entirely Socialist. IMO, you need both. The government needs some control over the people and the people need some control over the government. A balance. I guess you can call it, a Socapitalist or a Casocialist.


Australian law..l.
By croc on 6/20/2009 9:19:01 PM , Rating: 2
...requires a warrant for a specific IP or MSISDN before any call or data capturing is allowed. Then the data captured is encrypted (as it is captured) and uploaded to a common law enforcement server. Only the holder of the warrant can get the captures as the warrant # itself is part of the encryption algorithm. Fines for a telco or isp 'eavesdropping' on their users outside of the above procedure are quite large, and may also include loss of carrier / ISP license. Fines for the individual doing the snooping will be 10k to 100k AUD, and three to ten years prison. As of now, I think that Aussies are pretty safe from abusive government meddling.




RE: Australian law..l.
By Tsuwamono on 6/20/2009 11:24:02 PM , Rating: 2
too bad thats not in Canada. I'd be happy to see what the regulations are on this law in particular.


RE: Australian law..l.
By Alexvrb on 6/21/2009 1:00:35 AM , Rating: 2
There are many situations in which they can search your person, vehicle, or even home without your permission and without a warrant. "Reasonable grounds" and all that. So I wouldn't be as worried about the intarweb business. Besides, there's no way for you to actually know they've looked at something until after the fact. In other words, they could produce a warrant after they find something, but before doing anything about it.


RE: Australian law..l.
By just4U on 6/21/2009 1:48:43 AM , Rating: 2
Yep, We are not like the States after all (atleast not in that regard) Police have a little more power here. Sad thing is so do the criminals! :(


RE: Australian law..l.
By tastyratz on 6/21/2009 7:48:48 AM , Rating: 2
That sounds like a fair and excellent way to do it.

As far as this bill I definitely support helping out small isp's without the means to intercept as well, but I think that should be to setup the capabilities, and each eavesdrop of any isp should be a nominal charge. Without paying for their service they are asking the public sector for free labor. I think in today's digital world digital monitoring is a neccesity, but it should be tightly controlled by law so privacy is not invaded for any but the most guilty of supects.

A warrant should be required for any type of search seizure or wiretap of any form of communications. Can you australians send a photocopy of that bill out to canada/usa/etc. so it can be stapled to the local leaderships forehead?


It is OK
By Andre Gaudreault on 6/21/2009 5:10:22 PM , Rating: 1
I do not see a big problem with this. If you use the net in a civilized manner there will be no problems. The fellow who is talking about communism, give your head a shake.




RE: It is OK
By OblivionMage on 6/21/2009 7:23:40 PM , Rating: 2
Don't be a trusting fool.


RE: It is OK
By Uncle on 6/21/2009 9:01:56 PM , Rating: 2
Whats with the elected, they make up these crazy laws while their in office. Don't they realize that the laws can be used against them once there out of office, or do they have a personal NDA with the government when they leave. If the government keeps this up all the crooks, refugees and all the other outcasts from other countrys might not be so willing to come here, hmm now that I think of it, maybe they should toughen up the laws.


RE: It is OK
By HotFoot on 6/22/2009 4:15:35 PM , Rating: 2
Hey, I've got nothing to hide. If people are bored enough to follow me around in all my activities... well they've got to be pretty darn bored.

HOWEVER

Limits on government power is something family and countrymen have died to protect for me. I'll be damned if that sacrifice is going to be disrespected.


Smart users will always win
By myhipsi on 6/22/2009 10:21:44 AM , Rating: 3
As much as I don't like the idea of this new law, it doesn't really change anything for me personally. I don't trust government or ISPs as far as I can throw them, never have, never will. If you take the necessary precautions, these government/corporate snoops are sh*t out of luck anyway. Use tor/provoxy for basic web surfing, forum postings, etc. If you use a premium news provider, use SSL on port 443. If you use an FTP service, use S-FTP or SSH in combination. And if you really want to take it a step further, download truecrypt and encrypt all your harddrives including the boot drive.

These are just a few precautionary measures you can take to ensure your privacy online and at home. It isn't about being paranoid and it certainly doesn't necessarily mean that you are up to no good. For example, I encrypt all my harddrives and place a backup of everything in a fireproof safe, hid away and bolted to the floor. I do this because if one day I come home to find my house has been broken into and my PC is gone, no big deal, I have everything backed up, and all my personal information, including family photos can be retrieved, and while the theif may have a new computer to play with (or sell), the harddrives are as good as empty. Gives me peace of mind.

Unfortunately, it seems that in the future, the internet as we have known it is going to die. After all, it's not the people who are in control of the their government anymore, it's the corporations, law enforcement, lobbiests, special interest groups, etc. Inevitably, in a democracy the silent majority always lose. So it seems, things are only going to get worse for your personal privacy, unless you take privacy into your own hands and make sure you're always a step ahead of the game.




I'm OK with this
By Beenthere on 6/21/09, Rating: -1
"People Don't Respect Confidentiality in This Industry" -- Sony Computer Entertainment of America President and CEO Jack Tretton











botimage
Copyright 2010 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki