tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6273930.post5427886372244450957..comments2024-03-08T07:29:54.585-04:00Comments on Canadian Privacy Law Blog: Some suggestions to fix the lawful access billprivacylawyerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03943567746055311435noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6273930.post-14088328541167009902012-03-01T10:09:00.539-04:002012-03-01T10:09:00.539-04:00EXPECT MORE GOVERNMENT/POLICE CORRUPTION WITH NO-W...EXPECT MORE GOVERNMENT/POLICE CORRUPTION WITH NO-WARRANT SEARCHES<br /><br />Canada, Britain & U.S. Government want to Spy On Its Citizens’/ Electronic Communications?<br />The Canadian (Commons recent Bill C-30) would—give any Canadian police officer without a warrant—the power to request Internet service providers turn over customer information (see section 17 of C-30) cause the same loss of electronic privacy and civil liberties that British Government recently proposed—to spy on Brits’ electronic communications. Is it coincidence the British and Canadian proposals appear to mirror legislation U.S. Government said it wanted passed in 2011 to spy on U.S. Citizens?<br /><br />Overlooked by mainstream media is that Britain and Canada signed with the U.S Government an array of (Asset Forfeiture Sharing Agreements) to share with Canadian and British Police/Governments assets seized from Brits, Canadians and Americans that resulted from e.g., evidence or information gleaned from electronic surveillance of Citizens’ communications, e.g., emails, faxes, Internet actively, phone records. <br /><br />U.S. Government wants the power (without a warrant) to introduce as evidence in criminal prosecutions and government civil trials, any phone call record, email or Internet activity. Police can take out of context any innocent—hastily written email, fax or phone call record to allege a crime or violation was committed to cause a person’s arrest, fines and or civil asset forfeiture of their property. There are more than 350 laws/violations that can subject property to Government forfeiture, which requires only a civil preponderance of evidence.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6273930.post-65229247770179019582012-02-24T12:37:13.883-04:002012-02-24T12:37:13.883-04:00The whole thing seems redundant given the mechanis...The whole thing seems redundant given the mechanisms already available, and that this is at best a "low hanging fruit" measure - i.e. it may capture data on those miscreants too stupid to use anonymisation technology.<br /><br />Talking of which it also raises issues that I think need thought from a technical perpective - e.g. what about "tor" (onion routing for privacy - important if your are in China for instance) - suppose your exit node is in Canada - now there is an increased risk of linkability, in the worst case if the data is in the wrong hands your life may be endangered. Also as a host of an exit router all the traffic passing through may now be more linkable to you (rather than the originator) so your personal risk is increased - I think these type of issues need more careful thought and technical consideration.Paul Lewisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6273930.post-82213267719802395742012-02-23T19:11:51.721-04:002012-02-23T19:11:51.721-04:00I agree with Anonymous, section 34 specifically st...I agree with Anonymous, section 34 specifically states that an "inspector" - i.e. anyone appointed by the Minister - can be empowered to enforce the Act. Outrageous. I don't think this bill can be fixed either. It must be repealed.TKnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6273930.post-2080891367105217172012-02-22T17:46:27.290-04:002012-02-22T17:46:27.290-04:001. Restricting the discussion to emails, texts, br...1. Restricting the discussion to emails, texts, browsing history, and search parameters is shortsighted since virtually (no pun intended) all communications are now digitized and traverse cyberspace. So the warrantless access will be to everything including personal phone calls from your home and cell phone, the applications and payments you submit online, your medical and prescription details, and everything else that's entrusted to the web. <br /><br />It also includes individual politicians' and police officers' conversations, including those with constituents and confidential informants. I imagine that the Canadian Chiefs of Police and individual cops and politicians might be surprised to realize this law will make their communications as accessible as the rest of us, and that they, their families, and their colleagues will then also be in jeopardy along with the rest of us. That makes the retained communications an even more attractive target for the "bad guys" to go after -- and that puts the cops' very lives in danger. Do you suppose Minister Toews has considered that unintended consequence?!?<br /><br />2. ISPs, Google, and most other major Canadian and US players already cooperate with law enforcement and routinely provide whatever is asked of them, often without any warrant. While they post privacy policies about how they will treat consumer information, their policies about cooperating with law enforcement are difficult (often impossible) to find. Divulging everything from IP addresses and subscriber information to preserving and providing the data **requested** by law enforcement is permitted under Canadian privacy laws, which do not require reporting or oversight. According to Canadian lawyer Michael Geist, "The RCMP alone made more than 28,000 requests for customer names and addresses in 2010. These requests go unreported as subscribers don’t know their information has been disclosed and the Internet providers and telecom companies aren’t talking either."Sharonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6273930.post-73891374325165849882012-02-22T13:37:23.507-04:002012-02-22T13:37:23.507-04:00afaik, warrants have been introduced since in old ...afaik, warrants have been introduced since in old times there was abuse with warrantless actions.<br />repeating/reintroducing the same old stupid mistake is just alzheimer-ish.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6273930.post-65150346248354786072012-02-22T12:14:00.717-04:002012-02-22T12:14:00.717-04:00I agree with that, though this post has just focus...I agree with that, though this post has just focused on the warrantless access to customer data. The intercept capability is another issue entirely!privacylawyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03943567746055311435noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6273930.post-14781795247485027672012-02-22T11:29:45.767-04:002012-02-22T11:29:45.767-04:00All the legal firewalls in the world will not prev...All the legal firewalls in the world will not prevent a dedicated skilled hacker from accessing streams of personal information being stored on the proposed spy network.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6273930.post-3499408833375096582012-02-21T12:31:24.569-04:002012-02-21T12:31:24.569-04:00I agree with Laurel L. Russwurm. I have yet to see...I agree with Laurel L. Russwurm. I have yet to see a credible reason why any part of this legislation is required, beyond the police finding it to be too much of a hassle to get a warrant (which itself is not a valid reason... warrants aren't supposed to be easy to obtain).saltorionoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6273930.post-9461784680188431382012-02-21T12:12:18.885-04:002012-02-21T12:12:18.885-04:00Is Bill C-30 fixable?
The real problem is that t...Is Bill C-30 fixable? <br /><br />The real problem is that there has been absolutely no credible justification for needing any legislation of this kind.Laurel L. Russwurmhttp://laurelrusswurm.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6273930.post-22935882417108695562012-02-21T09:19:40.937-04:002012-02-21T09:19:40.937-04:001. Schedule 2 excludes restaurants, hotels, and ot...1. Schedule 2 excludes restaurants, hotels, and other business who provide internet access but whose primary business is not a formal ISP-for-money (as defined in the analogous US law). What is not excluded is corporate IT departments, who are TSP's under this Bill. That is unacceptable and will cause companies to move out of Canada.<br /><br />2. Minister can appoint any person or class of persons S.34 to enforce the Act. These persons have the right to take copies of any file/document present in the TSP facility. This is also unacceptable and must be struck. With #1, it compromises corporate NDA relationships with their customers especially because there is no obligation of secrecy by these unknown classes of persons on what will be done with the information.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com