Canadian internet - lawful access / Protecting Children from Internet Predators bill

A proposed bill to:

-Require internet service providers to give subscriber data to police and national security agencies without a warrant, including names, unlisted phone numbers and IP addresses.
-Force internet providers and other makers of technology to provide a "back door" to make communications accessible to police.
-Allow police to get warrants to obtain information transmitted over the internet and data related to its transmission, including locations of individuals and transactions.
-Allow courts to compel other parties to preserve electronic evidence.

The third one is a bit odd given that the first one grants them the right to do what they want without a warrant. All of them are variations on the themes we've already discussed on these boards .

Of course they're doing that same ol' spin Online surveillance critics siding with child porn: Toews. *sigh*

Unfortunately the moment we still have a conservative majority and no real opposition so like so many other things Harper may find this rather easy to slip through

The Vikileaks30 Twitter account made sure it's on everyone's radar now. Without a hint of irony, Toews wants a probe to find out the source of the account. It turns out, the tweets were coming from inside the house [size=8]of Commons[/size].

I'm normally not a fan of this kind of dirty politics. We're supposed to be better than that. But honestly, after Towes publicly stated that people who are against this big brother bill support pedophiles and child pornography, I say f*ck him. He deserves this and more.

Now it's the "Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act".

It would be nice if politicians could do something without creating a false dichotomy, maybe just try it out now and then.

krev82 wrote:

A proposed bill to:
Quote:

-Require internet service providers to give subscriber data to police and national security agencies without a warrant, including names, unlisted phone numbers and IP addresses.
-Force internet providers and other makers of technology to provide a "back door" to make communications accessible to police.
-Allow police to get warrants to obtain information transmitted over the internet and data related to its transmission, including locations of individuals and transactions.
-Allow courts to compel other parties to preserve electronic evidence.

The third one is a bit odd given that the first one grants them the right to do what they want without a warrant. All of them are variations on the themes we've already discussed on these boards .

Of course they're doing that same ol' spin Online surveillance critics siding with child porn: Toews. *sigh*

Unfortunately the moment we still have a conservative majority and no real opposition so like so many other things Harper may find this rather easy to slip through

The first and the third are not the same. The first (according to what you have written above) allows them to grab information about the subscriber (name, userID, etc I imagine). The third point would require a warrant in order to get access to the information that the subscriber looked at/transmitted, including addresses.

From the (109 page pdf) bill itself the stated purpose is;

3. The purpose of this Act is to ensure that telecommunications service providers have the capability to enable national security and law enforcement agencies to exercise their authority to intercept communications and to require telecommunications service providers to provide subscriber and other information, without unreasonably impairing the privacy of individuals, the provision of telecommunications services to Canadians or the competitiveness of the Canadian telecommunications industry.

What lovely vague terminology, "unreasonably impairing" rather quickly becomes 'when it comes to protecting children the ends justify the means'.

Meanwhile police can ALREADY get information and enact the law when there are proper grounds - More than 200 charges laid in massive Ontario child-pornography bust. They managed to do it just fine without this bill in place, so why the demand for a broader more empowered watch-dog? Oh right, because this has little or nothing to do with children (or piracy or...etc).

Gravey wrote:

The Vikileaks30 Twitter account made sure it's on everyone's radar now. Without a hint of irony, Toews wants a probe to find out the source of the account. It turns out, the tweets were coming from inside the house [size=8]of Commons[/size].

Toews needs to refocus and get the puck in the net.

wordsmythe wrote:
Gravey wrote:

The Vikileaks30 Twitter account made sure it's on everyone's radar now. Without a hint of irony, Toews wants a probe to find out the source of the account. It turns out, the tweets were coming from inside the house [size=8]of Commons[/size].

Toews needs to refocus and get the puck in the net.

I can't tell if that's riffing on Canada to make a metaphor for Vic Toews, or if you're literally talking about Jonathan Toews.

As an interesting aside, Vic Toews sort of looks like Joel Quenneville. When they're angry they both look like movie villains.