Privacy Commissioner of Canada on Lawful Access: Deep Concerns

[ssbtech]

Privacy Commissioner of Canada on Lawful Access: Deep Concerns

The Privacy Commissioner of Canada Jennifer Stoddart has written a public letter to Public Safety Minister Vic Toews to express her deep concerns with forthcoming lawful access legislation. Stoddart's letter notes:

[...]

Rest of article and response from Public Safety Minister here: http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6093/125/

[hugh]

So ssbtech, what is this saying?

[ssbtech]

Originally Posted by hugh

So ssbtech, what is this saying?

It says that the Privacy Commissioner of Canada has called out the Public safety Minister on the lawful access legislation, and the Public Safety Minister has essentially told the Privacy Commisioner to stuff it.

I feel that this is one small but significant step in what will ultimately be a massive erosion of privacy rights in this country. If one feels that digital communications should not be protected the same way the postal service for example is, then I suppose this comes as welcome news.

People used to joke about the cable company being able to watch you through your TV or cable box, but if ISPs become collectors of private communications for law enforcement agencies it may not be so funny after all.

[hugh]

Minister Vic Toews says

"Our approach strikes an appropriate balance between the investigative powers used to protect public safety and the necessity to safeguard the privacy of Canadians," Toews said in a statement Thursday in response to Stoddart's letter.

"As technology evolves, many criminal activities — such as the distribution of child pornography — become much easier. We are proposing measures to bring our laws into the 21st Century and provide police with the tools they need to do their job."

I don't want to get into a political argument but didn't people elect the Harper Government to be tough on crime?

Philosophically, It seems that since 9/11 most Canadians are comfortable with the loss of personal freedoms and the rule of law if it offers greater personal protection.

Many Canadians would say that Police should have access to your surfing habits (just like your phone records) if you committed a crime.

Personally, I'm a old school conservative that believes in personal privacy and smaller government which keeps its nose out of our business but that is not what voters want.

Canadians want more prisons, more cops and more policing and more ways for police to do their policing. How do you argue against, wanting better tools to stop child pornographers and terrorists operating on the web?

[ssbtech]

Originally Posted by hugh

I don't want to get into a political argument but didn't people elect the Harper Government to be tough on crime?

I watch ministers like Vic Toews on CPAC saying "Were're doing x because we campaigned on a tough on crime ajenda, and Canadians elected us to do just that", but I don't recall them putting things like "we're going to spy on your internet activities" in their campaign brochures.

So yes, I think people did elect the Conservative government to be tough on crime, but I don't think people truly understood exactly how it would be delivered.

I bet if you asked 20 people what it means to be "tough on crime", they'll all have a similar response along the lines of "I want murderers, child abusers, and nasty people locked up longer". I bet none of the 20 will respond by saying "I want all my emails I send to family and friends to be stored in case I am planning a terrorist atttack".

Originally Posted by hugh

Philosophically, It seems that since 9/11 most Canadians are comfortable with the loss of personal freedoms and the rule of law if it offers greater personal protection.

The loss of personal freedoms has been an incremental one with various "security measures" introduced slowly over the course of several years. Everytime something new comes in there's a quiet grumbling and then people get back to work. If you took all the security measures introduced over the last 10 years, added to them what's to come over the next 10 years and introduced them all together at the same time I think Canadians might have a different opinion.

Did you know that Louisiana has moved to make it illegal to use cash for the payment of used goods? This is to ensure a paper trail is kept in the event that the used item is stolen. Just how far can laws like this go?

Originally Posted by hugh

Many Canadians would say that Police should have access to your surfing habits (just like your phone records) if you committed a crime.

I would agree but remember that we already have a system that allows for the police to monitor surfing habits should they have reasonable grounds on which to base their request for access. It's easy for the average citizen to get caught in up the "In the name of national security" mantra and forget the fundamentals of our justice system.

Originally Posted by hugh

How do you argue against, wanting better tools to stop child pornographers and terrorists operating on the web?

I agree that it is difficult to argue against that, but keep in mind you can't have your cake and eat it too. If Canadians truly wanted to live under the level of suspicion that comes with that sort of monitoring and enforcement, there are still a handful of communist countries around that I'm sure they'd like to move to.

My response to "If you have nothing to hide, what do you have against being searched" has always been "If I have nothing to hide, what do you have to gain from searching me?"

Frankly I don't think measures like this keep us any safer.

[hugh]

FWIW, I agree with the Privacy Commissioner and most of what you say. The problem, as I see it, is that most Canadians don't.

I'm totally right of center and believe in the rule of law. I was horrified when the Liberals implemented legislation after 9/11 that severely curtailed human rights in this country and was horrified when the Conservative government recently took away the Postal Workers freedom to associate. (I took liberal and conservative examples to avoid a pro liberal or pro pc argument so please lets not get into a political debate)

In both cases, Canadians decided that "societies safety and convenience" were more important than personal liberties.

[hugh]

I bet if you asked 20 people what it means to be "tough on crime", they'll all have a similar response along the lines of "I want murderers, child abusers, and nasty people locked up longer". I bet none of the 20 will respond by saying "I want all my emails I send to family and friends to be stored in case I am planning a terrorist atttack".

But what if i told them that, "police can only stop murderers, rapists, child pornographers and terrorists" from using the internet to carry out their crimes if they have access to their internet records and the ability to examine their email?

[Jake]

I am equally conflicted by this as I witness incompetence, indifference and greed on a daily basis. That worries me. I have also seen lots of homophobic, race and gender bigots in places of power. How do you hand the power that this collected knowledge inherently holds, over to those in power, without corruption? Oversight?

In an idealized world that is nice. The reality is something entirely different.

[ssbtech]

Originally Posted by hugh

In both cases, Canadians decided that "societies safety and convenience" were more important than personal liberties.

That's the problem with so called "in the heat of the moment" thinking. On the surface it looks like Canadians support the government's moves, but dig a little deeper and present both sides of the argument and I think many Canadians will have a "Hmm, perhaps that's not the best idea" moment.

Look at the Air Canada strike for example - If you were a traveller caught up in that you're probably not thinking nice things about their right to strike. But if you were on the other side you'd likely be pretty thankful for your right to strike.

My point isn't to be political here, but rather to demonstrate that when you can catch people in a moment of weakness it's much easier to sell them a bill of goods, whether they need it or not.

After 9.11 it has become really easy to condition people to accept infringements on personal rights and freedoms in the name of their own safety.

Are bills like this really about crime prevention and reduction or are they about keeping tabs on people like you and I?

If terrorists want to communicate via email, they're probably encrypting their messages. If people want to swap illicit photographs on the internet, they too are probably encrypting the photos and sharing them via private networks.

Criminals aren't put off by laws like this, they're simply forced to get better at their trade.