Canadian Conservatives commit to Internet surveillance.
michaelgeist.ca
michaelgeist.ca
Wow. The key phrase "without court oversight" is indicative of, at every conceivable level, a massive, gaping hole for trucks of corruption to be driven through. Ridiculous abuses.
The second prong requires Internet providers to dramatically re-work their networks to allow for real-time surveillance. The bill sets out detailed capability requirements that will eventually apply to all Canadian Internet providers. These include the power to intercept communications, to isolate the communications to a particular individual, and to engage in multiple simultaneous interceptions. Moreover, the bill establishes a comprehensive regulatory structure for Internet providers that would mandate their assistance with testing their surveillance capabilities and disclosing the names of all employees who may be involved in interceptions (and who may then be subject to RCMP background checks).
Double wow. It seems unnecessarily close to turning each Canadian ISP into another branch of the Canadian government's surveillance agencies. These politicians want to force providers into restructuring their networks and systems so that they can be used as a tool for the Government's every covert whim... AND subject the employees of these providers to background checks so that they can be trusted with this unnecessary, malevolent work shoved in their laps?
Insane.
Only if you consider Bell Canada to be a branch of CSIS. None of the requirements being proposed for ISPs go beyond what is already required for telephone networks -- and unlike phone conversations, it's easy to encrypt your internet communications.
I think that's also a fine rhetorical question - in the sense of a question of who's answer is fairly obvious and which points to a large reality. ("Honest question" is fine way to say "this is not a rhetorical question". That's just to help clarity, rhetorical questions are fine tools of expression...)
Even in the unlikely event that the RCMP is filtering some civilian employees, the overall reality is that far more information flows across the Internet to far more people than one could assure accountability around.
So it is completely idiotic to up a surveillance network which looks so deeply into each person's communication that it would require serious accountability among the watchers. Since that accountability won't be there. Look airport security personnel, then imagine them going through your emails for bad stuff.
It is worth remembers that the abusiveness of a society of surveillance often doesn't come so much from a single dictator but rather from a vast array of unaccountable Apparatchiks abusing their petty but unchecked power.
Employees who have access to the wire-tap systems? I'm sure they do.
Considering the bill's clear intention is to prevent Internet communication from being private, how long do you imagine encrypted communication would remain legal?
"X is OK because no would be dumb/provocative/bold enough to do Y".
But that arguments doesn't take into account that make X standard means that Y is no longer the stretch it would otherwise be.
And in practical terms, the state indeed would have a hard time if they had to stop each individual using SSL for various logins. But it would be simple matter to either prohibit SSL for various things or to demand the right/ability to snoop on every SSL connection (in fact, it sound like this is more or less what's being planned now - but of course, "no one would be so dumb as to do it" so we have nothing to worry about).
Canadians need to make sure that the internet is an election issue, and not just ridiculous stuff like this, we also have to worry about C32 (the copyright bill), internet billing, etc.
There are several concerns with the Conservatives lawful access plans. First, it bears noting that these bills have never received extensive debate on the floor of the House of Commons and never been the subject of committee hearings. Police officers may support the legislation, but there has never been an opportunity to question them on the need for such legislation or on their ability to use lawful access powers if the bills become law. Federal and provincial privacy commissioners have expressed deep concerns about these bills, yet they have never had the opportunity to air those concerns before committee. Internet service providers, who face millions in additional costs - presumably passed along to consumers - have never appeared before committee. By making a commitment to passing lawful access within 100 days, the Conservatives are undertaking to pass legislation with enormous implications for the Internet that has never received parliamentary scrutiny and will receive limited attention.
That's why they want a majority of seats in the House of Commons: it gives them a de facto dictatorship for four years.
Every government seems to want to intercept communications against the people's wishes. What do they understand that I don't?
There's also the more dramatic explanation about how this all boils down to a power struggle between the haves and the have-nots, but I prefer the making-cops-happier explanation. There are plenty of good cops in every country, but law enforcement has a lot of solidarity built into its ranks, so police-related groups can sway many votes. Harper would do anything for a few thousand extra votes.
...just sayin' ;)
Uhm, terrorism?
I'm not saying it's a good excuse, but it seems to have been the primary driver of, well, pretty much everything for the past decade.
> ... against the people's wishes.
Not so much, no. You'll be surprised/scared to learn how widespread the "if you haven't done anything wrong, you've got nothing to hide" line of thinking is outside our circles.
All of the Internet surveillance and censorship policies proposed and implemented around the world attempt to bypass judges. USA (Patriot Act), Australia (mandatory filtering), and now Canada. The usual excuse, of course, is that things on the the Internet move too quickly to wait for due process to take its course.
Say goodbye to those conviences as well. ISP's will need waivers for customers running unsecured networks, not to mention potential liability when your supplying wireless devices to your customers.
Like gun control the only people this will punish is law abiding citizens.
I guess at this point, try and oust the Conservatives and hope for the best.