Thursday, December 06, 2012

Video: An overview of Bill C-30, how it's broken and how it can be fixed

My first foray into the world of video blogging ... please forgive the production values.


Feel free to leave any comments below...

5 comments:

B.B. Jones said...

Hi David,

I watched your video blog. I found is very helpful.

I have a comment though... is this bill really any different than the current state of the law? In R. v. Ward, ONCA 2012, the Ontario Court of Appeal basically affirms that your standard internet customer has no reasonable expectation of privacy vis a vis the CNA information held by the ISP. This is based, in part, on PIPEDA s. 7 and Crim Code 486.014(1), the combination of which allow the police to send a "letter of request" to the ISP and receive the personal information in question.

So, if a warrant isn't required under current law, what's really changing with this bill? Perhaps the status quo is equally unacceptable, and thus the call for a new legislative regime is necessary. But I find it hard to accept this bill really changes anything from the state of the law as it currently stands.

Your thoughts?

B.B. Jones said...

Hi David,

I watched your video blog. I found is very helpful.

I have a comment though... is this bill really any different than the current state of the law? In R. v. Ward, ONCA 2012, the Ontario Court of Appeal basically affirms that your standard internet customer has no reasonable expectation of privacy vis a vis the CNA information held by the ISP. This is based, in part, on PIPEDA s. 7 and Crim Code 486.014(1), the combination of which allow the police to send a "letter of request" to the ISP and receive the personal information in question.

So, if a warrant isn't required under current law, what's really changing with this bill? Perhaps the status quo is equally unacceptable, and thus the call for a new legislative regime is necessary. But I find it hard to accept this bill really changes anything from the state of the law as it currently stands.

Your thoughts?

David Fraser said...

Thanks for your comment. And apologies for the delay in getting back to you.

With respect to the Ward case (and other similar cases), it's important to distinguish between the ability of the police to compel the information and the admissibility of the information when the police get it thanks to ISP cooperation. Both the statutory provisions you refer to mean that the police can ask, but the provider doesn't have to cooperate.

These cases are mainly about whether the evidence is admissible when the police get it without a warrant. I have a problem with them on a couple of levels, but principally because the courts say the expectation of privacy is based in large measure on the ISP's terms of use, which the customer likely didn't ever see or read.

This bill is here because the police don't want to have to rely on ISP cooperation; they want to force it in all cases. To me, that's fine, as long as they get a production order. Bill C-30 is too weak to offer any real protection against abuse.

B.B. Jones said...

Thanks for the response! I see your point now.

James S. Huggins said...

Thank you for your very informative video.

I live very far away, in Southern Texas (Houston), so the law is not directly applicable to me and I have a background as a technologist (not a lawyer) but all that said, your video was clear and useful.

Thank you again.

(Bottom line: good video - make more.)

James S. Huggins
http://www.JamesSHuggins.com


.