The problem with Crying Wolf or, in a modern Canadian context, declaring everything the Harper government does as the End of the World, is that people stop listening to you altogether. This seems to be the case with the Left-of-Centre political & media class in Canada.
Now the Tories are bringing in Bill C-51 aka the Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act. Its possible infringements into the privacy of Canadians does offer some legitimate pause for concern. Lorrie Goldstein offers a fairly balanced appraisal of the changes.
What say you?
h/t Several SDA commenters
@North of 60 who wrote..No they don’t. Ask your ISP and find out for yourself what their warrant-less disclosure policy is. Mine doesn’t, yours shouldn’t either.
Ummm,,, yes they do, The RCMP alone made over 28,000 requests for customer name and address information in 2010. These requests go unreported, subscribers don’t know their information has been disclosed and the ISPs and telecom companies aren’t talking either. There are numerous news reports to that effect on the Internet. Look and read. Will the true conservatives please stand up. Blindly supporting our supposedly Conservative government while they strip you of your rights is mind boggling to me.I don’t know how many times I have to say this, this bill hopes to legalize a practice that should have been illegal in the first place. Did you know Canada has signed ACTA in secret, and this Bill is the precursor that will enable the provisions of ACTA to be applied. Oh yeah, we never had a national discussion on that either. Wake up, act, or at least have the courage to look the firing squad in the eye.
Loki >
Well said @ 12:35am!
Creeping Sharia, is not western civilizations only concern, there is always creeping totalitarianism eating away the edges and worst within free democratic societies.
Patriots, libertarians and freedom lovers alike need to protect our societies, cultures, principles and values from all enemies’ foreign and domestic.
The bill was C-51 and then later it was changed to C-30. It’s the same bill. C-30 is it’s current form.
The internet is not some place where the law ceases to exist. There are many who believe it should be that way but they surely haven’t thought this through. Do you want absolute anonymity for criminals and terrorists? For real?
What’s in this bill is no more intrusive than current provisions that allow the police to wire tap your phone or search your mail with a judicial warrant. It respects the constitution and the rule of law and restricts state power.
To give you an idea of the MSM hysteria around this bill read this article from our favourite reporter : http://t.co/eFATVajN.
Then read the section he’s talking about:
34.(1) An inspector may, for a purpose re-lated to verifying compliance with this Act,
enter any place owned by, or under the control of,any telecommunications service provider in
which the inspector has reasonable grounds tobelieve there is any document, information,transmission
apparatus, telecommunications facility or any other thing to which this Act applies.
(2) The inspector may, for that purpose
a) examine any document, information or thing found in the place and open or cause to be opened any container or other thing;(
b) examine or test or cause to be tested anytelecommunications facility or transmissionapparatus or related equipment found in the place;(
c) use, or cause to be used, any computersystem in the place to search and examineany information contained in or available to the system;(
d) reproduce, or cause to be reproduced,any information in the form of a printout, or other intelligible output, and remove the printout, or other output, for examination or copying; or (
e) use, or cause to be used, any copying equipment or means of telecommunication at the place.
Now, if you’re a tin foil hat type you would buy Milewskie’s stupidity hole hog without actually reading the act itself.
james >
“Do you want absolute anonymity for criminals and terrorists? For real? “
Sounds exactly like the long gun registry advocates line of BS.
Stripping down rights to freedom, liberty and privacy of citizens to get to criminals is an out of control society of cowards and nanny state dependants not worth keeping.
“Criminals and terrorist” will always have the anonymity they want, they are good at it.
If we are so worried about Islamic terrorists then we should be banning all things from Islamic countries, not harbouring them to begin with. If we have domestic crimes then they should be dealt with by appropriate punishments, not light sentences and early releases from prisons then anonymity from the public.
If a society of law dealt with the criminals that broke the laws appropriately, many crimes would not occur with the frequency that they do today. We need a society that polices itself with individual responsibility and a community police force not a secretive government spook agency prying into everyday citizen’s lives.
Ella (10:38): First of all, please note that I said in my very first comment:
This was the limited substance of my previous comments, that two specific so-called “truths” that are being widely and shamelessly disseminated, both overtly and suggestively, by various media outlets, scores of commenters, and opposition MPs, namely that —
1. The new bill(s) would allow to snoop on anyone’s private communications at any time for any reason, without a warrant;
2. The new bill(s) would force ISPs to retain the browsing information for all subscribers.
— are patently false. In your subsequent comment you cut and pasted passages from the bill, verbatim, and then asked “so what are you talking about EBD???” as if it’s self-evident that the information in the bill provides evidence to the contrary. It doesn’t.
Re: computer viruses, you asked “so if I don’t know that I have a computer virus or trojan someone may accuse me of distributing it?”
The passage that raised your suspicions and prompted your question, and which you quoted verbatim immediately before your question, provides the answer to your question in clear and reassuring terms:
It should be self-evident that no one whose computer is infected by a virus unbeknownst to him/her would ever be accused of/charged with harbouring that virus on their computer for the purpose of committing mischief.
Re: the hate propaganda offences, I have some questions/doubts about this provision as well, but my understanding is that these provisions are legislative/criminal code matters — Charter issues, really — that have been on the books for years, and that the proposed bills don’t create a new category of offense in these areas.
I’m not pretending to be an expert. I stand by the specific point of my previous comments, which is that the media (CTV, CBC) and various opposition MPs, and scores of commenters have been premising their opposition to the bill on two entirely false pieces of information (see above), the falsity of which can be ascertained by even a quick reading of the bill.
EBD >
“I have no idea whether it’s a ‘necessary tool’ or not — I just find it troubling when people are almost unanimously inflamed because of (the widespread dissemination as “fact” of these two falsehoods.)”
I agree with you and also have no idea about the necessary tool part, but I think there is allot more to it than simply “widespread dissemination as “fact””.
Of course there is widespread MSM/ lefty hypocritical outrage at the drop of a hat on a “Harper Bill”, but there is also some hypocritical acceptance of it carte blanche from some conservatives as well.
Anything that touches Canadian rights should be treated as an individual Holy Grail and if there are doubts and misinformation’s being spread, then it’s Harpers JOB to insure that we understand all the facts and properly debate the matter openly and as vigorously as anything that threatens a democratic society.
I was really dismayed reading defeatist comments on this thread stating arguments like “{it’s not like the government doesn’t already track and monitor peoples whereabouts and private lives}” I mean common people, two wrongs don’t make a right. Free societies do not have government spies in your life any more than governments that disarm its public.
Ironically, case in point on the freedom of movement issue — Vikileaks! (http://www.ottawacitizen.com/business/Vikileaks30%2Blinked%2BHouse%2BCommons%2Baddress/6165497/story.html)
The way they were able to find out where the leaked Vick Toews’ divorce info came from was simply by tracing it to the E-mail address and to the IP, which revealed that it came from the House of Commons and the leaker was likely an NDPer (anybody can do this kind of trace). But what it did NOT reveal was the Dipper’s identity — it still conserved his/her anonymity.
So the new Bill would allow Police to get the identity info without a warrant in such case (although not actually read private communications without a warrant), hence Police can identify and track people’s movements without a warrant. I REST MY CASE.
Whether or not that is good or bad is another question. But it’s quite instructive that a weasely Dipper politician — who opposes the Bill — was the most likely to abuse this sort of anonymity if the Bill doesn’t go forward, illustrated by his weasely attack on Vic Toews’ character.
ricardo >
I don’t agree with the invasion of anyone’s privacy or breaking the law.
I do however hope that Vic Toews takes a little more appreciation away with this personal incident on the matter of personal privacy than he already claims to have.
Nothing helps educate people more than some hands-on personal experience in a matter. I believe Vic just experienced some good hands-on.
Knight 99:
I would argue that it’s the “job” of critics to cite the relevant passages of the bill – or at least make paraphrased reference to it – to back up their arguments, and that their arguments are self-evidently invalid if they don’t. To the extent that critics’s arguments are based instead on utterly false so-called “facts” that have been spoon-fed to them by agenda-driven journalists, it’s not Stephen Harper’s fault.
The legislative summary of the bill, which is obviously of most concern to those who are online, is readily available online.
Stephen Harper, Vic Toews, and other Conservative MPs have been correcting, over and over and over again, and in crystal clear terms, the tirelessly inflammatory and completely false *soundbites* of opposition MPs in the HOC who knowingly tell utter, bald-assed lies (see my Feb. 16 6:00 PM comment in this thread for a couple of examples). If the media decides to broadcast only the shrieking falsities of pandering partisan MPs (or other sources of misinformation) and not the Conservatives’s followup responses that directly address these falsities, the resulting dearth of information isn’t the fault of the Conservatives. There’s no “Harper Channel” on TV or radio, albeit after watching CTV’s appalling elisions and misinformations I wonder if there shouldn’t be.
Having an IP address and a name doesn’t allow one to track someone’s movements any more than having a phone book does. Any use by law enforcement of a physical tracking device (like a GPS) requires a warrant, as ricardo noted above.
In short, and I’ll say it one last time: I’m all for criticism of the bill, but I think all criticism of the bill should be based entirely on the actual contents of the bill.
I think that if the cops need a warrant to read my snail-mail then they need one to read my email.
If I chose to remain anonymous while posting at SDA, (and I do, for reasons I think are reasonable and compelling) then the authorities should again need a warrant to break that anonymity.
The Internet and its promise of anonymity is what’s finally broken the lock Big Brother has on the news. That’s something very much worth protecting. We do not want to give these guys the power to shut us up again, do we?
EBD >
I’m with you, and believe this was a good thread to hash out the issue a little on a conservative site instead of the sock puppet echo chambers.
“I’m all for criticism of the bill, but I think all criticism of the bill should be based entirely on the actual contents of the bill.” – EBD
Good summary.
Any issue of privacy verses government intrusions “for our own protections” is indeed a foundational bipartisan argument in our society worthy of vigorous debate at the highest levels.
The opposition to this Bill has voiced their opinion in their usual tactless and deceitful way, and Vic Toews has been on a media campaign to defend it, although I would say rather badly.
That said, any further police powers over Canada’s citizens are a non starter with me. If this Bill grants the government or police an ounce of additional power once the dust settles after the promised proper debates I’ll be against it. They have more than enough powers to get the job done today IMO and can start unwinding the shackles of previous Liberal governance to reduce crime instead.
They can start with less welfare dependence, stricter punishments for convicted felons, less parole considerations, no anonymity for sexual predators once released, castle laws, concealed carry permits, powers of citizen arrest and lethal self defence et al.
EBD,
If Vikileaks were of interest to Police (I’m not saying it should be) then Police without a warrant could get the logon info of the Dipper who used that particular House of Commons computer to attack Toews. That would tell you who was where at a specific time using that computer
Hmm…I wonder how that works with mobile devices and the positioning info received by satellites…
The whole issue of this bills credibility lay’s in the title:
“Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act”
If the government was serious about protecting children, there wouldn’t be so many convicted sexual predators walking our streets freely and with anonymity.
If they made a bill making conviction of paedophilia a mandatory life sentence and chemical castration I’d understand, because that would without a doubt protect children and not interfere in our rights.
Why are we not simply castrating and holding the ones we catch indefinitely? The biggest reason that my BS detectors have gone off.
JAMES,EBD,KNIGHT99,
I AGREE WITH you all and you ,to me are all correct,but I still disagree with this bill I am not mad at towes or Harper for introducing this bill as I trust they genuinely meant well ,but they made a mistake so they should let it die and move on ,I also think our police are doing a good job dealing with these sickos butt I am for I supporting a convicted sex offender Internet list including pictures and locations of the convicted perverts.
My fear about lawful access is not the way it will be used against pedophiles or terrorists, but the way it could be turned against innocent, ordinary Canadians gradually and incrementally.
Police should not be able to conduct surveillance online with fewer safeguards than those required when they do it in person or over the phone. If they need a warrant to stake out your home or business or eavesdrop on your telephone calls, they should also need one to intercept your emails or ask your Internet service provider to keep a record of your surfing habits. — Lorne Gunter: Want to read my email, Vic Toews? Get a warrant
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/02/17/lorne-gunter-want-to-read-my-email-get-a-warrant/
The real issue is internet anonymity, so far Phantom is the only one who gets it.
The Internet and its promise of anonymity is what’s finally broken the lock Big Brother has on the news. That’s something very much worth protecting. We do not want to give these guys the power to shut us up again, do we?
Nobody in the government likes internet anonymity, this is an attempt on their part to stop it.
EBD
You, yourself, are presenting media opinions (which in some cases are untrue) and then you are talking about my “comments” [without presenting them fully] saying they are untrue.
If it is not a propaganda what is it?
Yes, it is stated that possessing computer viruses has to be for purpose of committing mischief, but do you know exact meaning of “mischief”? The example you are ridiculing is an extreme one, but not improbable.
You are saying that quoting the bill verbatim is not an explanation, in my view it is.
I resent your unstated accusation that I got the interpretation of present bills from Canadian (liberal)media. Although I do read newspapers and sometimes watch TV I’d read about ACTA much earlier then the recent discussion in Canadian media.
******
Bill c-51 has to be read together with bill c-30 and looking at both bills I am getting very bad feeling. Both of them should also be connected with the new google internet rules, which will make it easier to preserve electronic communications. As I understand it, google is putting everything one does in one virtual place, therefore new google law will act in tandem with the new Canadian laws – with ACTA.
I am, of course, not an expert. However I do believe that in future parts of new law (ex. 342 (1), 342 (2) ) may be used much more broadly then it has been their original intention.
I think that in all that Phantom put it best:
The Internet and its promise of anonymity is what’s finally broken the lock Big Brother has on the news. That’s something very much worth protecting. We do not want to give these guys the power to shut us up again, do we
Ella, I neither said, suggested, nor thought that you got your interpretation of the bills from the media. Your points in this thread – that “some of the provisions of the bill may have unintended consequences”, and concern about ACTA, etc.,- were all informed and valid opinions, and at no point did you base any or your objections/doubts about the bill on false information, such as that the government would be allowed to read your emails without a warrant. When I pointed out in my comment addressed to you that two utterly false “facts” were being widely disseminated by the media and by various blog commenters, it was in the specific context of pointing out, after you asked what the hay I was talking about, that this was the only point of my previous comments, none of which were addressed to you.
It wasn’t my intention to offend or insult you. If you are offended, I apologize.
You’re still wrong about the virus thing, though…
/:>)>