Update: So, here is the PR release. Obviously we’ll still have to wait for the draft Bill to flesh out some of the things mentioned here.
In a nutshell:
no warrant required for subscriber information and the ISP is required to provide “timely access” to anyone’s personal information (name, address, telephone number and Internet Protocol (IP) address, e-mail address, service provider identification and certain cell phone identifiers) by a select (but undefined) group of people only,
warrant required for surveillance,
Provider > 100,000 must have a “intercept capability in certain new equipment and software” and the providers have their choice of technology,
Provider < 100,000 have three years,
banks, private networks, and charities are excluded,
Assuming this is how the draft shakes out, I'm not nearly as against this one compared to the travesty the Liberals tried to foist on us in 2005. A couple of questions though that better be addressed by the Bill. 1) Define "technological solution" because that's vague. i.e a port on a switch to plug in a wireshark server?, actually have wireshark set up and running? set up a big pipe to forward every packet to the gov’t? 2) Does this require the service providers to maintain retroactive information or is it from point of presentation of the warrant?
One thing cracks me up though, Criminals and terrorists are aware of interception “safe havens” and exploit them to continue their criminal activities undetected. Yeah, criminals know where the supposed safe havens are but they don’t know about the encrypted alternatives HTTPS, IMAPS and POPS, gnupg, or steganography.
Original post below the fold.
Cheers,
lance
Continue reading →