How to salvage C-30

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, February 21, 2012 at 10:27 AM - 0 Comments

David Fraser offers four amendments.

There are many, many problems with the warrantless access to customer data in Bill C-30, known as the lawful access bill. The main problem pointed to by the proponents of the Bill is that it takes too long to get a warrant that requires an internet service provider to hand over customer name and address information that corresponds with an IP address. If that is really the problem they are trying to address, it would be best to address it by making the warrant-seeking process more efficient and limit warrantless requests to circumstances where there is a real emergency.

Ivor Tossell explains the dangers contained in the present bill.

Threats and support for Vic Toews

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, February 21, 2012 at 8:28 AM - 0 Comments

A second video purported to be from Anonymous has been released.

The Canadian Association of Chiefs Police, on the other hand, apparently supports C-30, but it’s unclear how either side will be able to use this to bolster their respective arguments. The Harper government might appreciate the endorsement of its legislation, but it previously chose to ignore the CACP’s support for the long-gun registry. The opposition might disagree with C-30, but it still champions the CACP’s support for the long-gun registry as an important consideration.

Meanwhile, Michael Geist again offers some solutions.

Where do we draw the line?

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, February 20, 2012 at 12:20 PM - 0 Comments

Kris Kotarski makes an important observation: what Vic Toews said last Monday wasn’t without precedent.

On Nov. 15, 2011, Toews responded to a parliamentary question by saying, “I would call on the Liberals to finally stop putting the rights of child pornographers and organized crime ahead of the rights of law-abiding citizens.” So, the Liberals were siding with child pornographers.

On Feb. 2, 2012, Toews told Parliament that “Rather than making things easier for child pornographers, I call on the NDP to listen to the police, listen to the provinces, and support these balanced measures that protect law-abiding Canadians and their children.” So, the NDP were enabling child pornographers.

Just in case anyone missed that, on Feb. 3, 2012, Toews tweeted that “Lawful access will aid child porn investigations. I call on the NDP to stop making things easier for predators and support these measures.”

As I wrote last Tuesday, I don’t think anything we’ve heard over the last month or so has been beyond the rhetorical parameters of the last four years. And in that regard, having had a front row seat for such stuff, it’s been interesting to watch Mr. Toews’ sentence become such a problem for him and his government. I suspect that owes a lot to the legislation involved: online surveillance is much more tangible to the average Canadian than say justice policy or war, so the slur is more easily transferred beyond Mr. Toews’ partisan opponents. The Prime Minister can say Stephane Dion sympathizes with the Taliban, for instance, without great swaths of the public feeling insulted. But when the Public Safety Minister says anyone who has doubts about the government’s pursuit of online surveillance stands with child pornographers, a sizeable number of people are going to feel insulted.

Maybe there’s also something more tangible about the evil invoked as well. Maybe suggesting someone sides with a foreign enemy seems almost cartoonish. I suppose the Internet’s great ability to churn out reaction and draw attention also elevated Mr. Toews’ attack. But it still seems to me to be nothing more than an extension of everything else that has been said these last four years. I’m not sure, in the moment, I heard it as something above and beyond what I’d already heard. And, for that matter, I’d be interested to know whether anyone on the government side (or even the opposition side) immediately knew that a previously uncrossed line had been breached.

I’d note that no one stood after QP on the day of Mr. Toews’ remark to raise a complaint. Not until a full day later did someone stand and demand that Mr. Toews apologize (and in that case it wasn’t even the MP at whom the minister had directed his remark).

Two days after Mr. Toews’ comment, Conservative MP Shelly Glover stood and ventured that the NDP was “anti-Canada.” When Liberal MP Denis Coderre demanded she apologize, Ms. Glover declined and, in fact, declared that she stood by her comment. A quick search of Google News seems to show no reporting of this.

‘Failed his ministerial responsibilities’

By Aaron Wherry - Saturday, February 18, 2012 at 6:24 PM - 0 Comments

Paul Dewar releases a statement calling on Vic Toews to resign.

Over the past week, the Minister of Public Safety has failed his ministerial responsibilities.

First he introduced Bill C-30 which undermines Canadians’ online privacy. Then he accused Canadians who raised privacy concerns of supporting child pornography. Today we learned that he had not even reviewed the most intrusive provisions of the bill before introducing it in the House of Commons.

Canadians expect better. I call on Mr. Toews to step down as Minister of Public Safety.

The buck stops with the Prime Minister. He must hold his cabinet members to account.

Vic Toews v. C-30

By Aaron Wherry - Saturday, February 18, 2012 at 2:39 PM - 0 Comments

Also from the Public Safety Minister’s interview with The House, there seems to be some confusion as to what the Harper government’s online surveillance legislation actually entails.

In an interview airing Saturday on CBC Radio’sThe House, Toews said his understanding of the bill is that police can only request information from the ISPs where they are conducting “a specific criminal investigation.” But Section 17 of the ‘Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act’ outlines “exceptional circumstances” under which “any police officer” can ask an ISP to turn over personal client information.

“I’d certainly like to see an explanation of that,” Toews told host Evan Solomon after a week of public backlash against Bill C-30, which would require internet service providers to turn over client information without a warrant. ”This is the first time that I’m hearing this somehow extends ordinary police emergency powers [to telecommunications]. In my opinion, it doesn’t. And it shouldn’t.”

iPolitics has a longer transcript of the exchange. Here is the text of Section 17. Continue…

What we’re really talking about when we talk about lawful access

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, February 17, 2012 at 2:45 PM - 0 Comments

Terry Milewski reviews sections 33 and 34 of the government’s online surveillance legislation.

First, Section 33 tells us that, “The Minister may designate persons or classes of persons as inspectors for the purposes of the administration and enforcement of this Act.” So we’re not talking about police officers necessarily. We’re talking about anyone the minister chooses — or any class of persons. (Musicians? Left-handed hockey players? Members of the Conservative Party? Sure, that’s absurd — but the bill allows it…) Next, Section 34 spells out the sweeping powers of these “inspectors.” And, if they sound Orwellian, welcome to the world of Section 34. The inspectors may “enter any place owned by, or under the control of, any telecommunications service provider in which the inspector has reasonable grounds to believe there is any document, information, transmission apparatus, telecommunications facility or any other thing to which this Act applies.”

… The inspector, says the bill, may “examine any document, information or thing found in the place and open or cause to be opened any container or other thing.” He or she may also “use, or cause to be used, any computer system in the place to search and examine any information contained in or available to the system.” You read that right. The inspector gets to see “any” information that’s in or “available to the system.” Yours, mine, and everyone else’s emails, phone calls, web surfing, shopping, you name it.

David Fraser points to the hidden gag order contained in Section 23.

‘Dirty, sleazy Internet tricks’

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, February 17, 2012 at 1:18 PM - 0 Comments

Seven times during QP this morning—six times by John Baird, once by Ted Menzies—the government alleged the NDP was behind a “sleazy, dirty” Internet campaign. (Note: the evidence in this regard is decidedly flimsy.) Vic Toews is apparently seeking an investigation.

In an interview with Evan Solomon, host of CBC Radio’s The House, to air Saturday, Toews says he’s going to send a letter to Commons Speaker Andrew Scheer to request an investigation.

House of Intrigue

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, February 17, 2012 at 8:30 AM - 0 Comments

The Sun reports that before Vic Toews went out and said that thing he said, before the government’s legislation was widely scorned and before members of his caucus told him they couldn’t support the bill, the Prime Minister had decided that C-30 would be sent directly to a parliamentary committee for study and amendment. It apparently just took his government three days to say so.

Meanwhile, the Citizen traces Vikileaks to a House of Commons IP address.

While its impossible to say who is actually the using the address without a full-scale investigation undertaken by the House of Commons, a trace of the IP address shows it is also used by an employee of the House to post comments on a website for fans of the musician Paul Simon. When reached by phone, the employee said that while he frequents the Paul Simon website he has nothing to do with the Vikileaks30 Twitter account.

Justin Trudeau claims to prefer Garfunkel.

Vikileaks: a bad way to make a good point

By Jesse Brown - Thursday, February 16, 2012 at 5:15 PM - 0 Comments

“Vic wants to know about you. Let’s get to know about Vic”

Thus begins the Vikileaks Twitter account, a mean-spirited, vindictive, and very effective effort to humiliate and discredit Public Safety Minister Vic Toews. The account claims to draw its material from publicly available court documents from Toews’s divorce. In less than 100 tweets (so far),  its anonymous author assassinates Toews’ character in ways personal and professional. I learned more about Toews than I cared to.

I won’t pass along the dirt. I don’t have to. It’s out there for anyone to read—and a lot of people are reading. As I write, the account has been active for about 48 hours, and it already has over 7,000 followers. Even if the account is shut down, its revelations will live online forever. And it probably won’t be shut down. Publishing court records is perfectly legal. Continue…

#TellVicEverything

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, February 16, 2012 at 11:03 AM - 0 Comments

The Public Safety Minister gets his own hashtag.

The Commons: Vic Toews teaches us a valuable lesson

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, February 15, 2012 at 6:10 PM - 0 Comments

The Scene. Charlie Angus, the honourable member for garish colour combinations, rose this day wearing a purple shirt, silver suit and silver tie. Whatever the attitude thus conveyed, he first struck a sorrowful tone.

“Mr. Speaker,” he lamented, “what is clear is Canadians cannot trust the government with protecting their privacy rights.”

To justify this contention, Mr. Angus called his first witness. “Let us try out this quote, ‘What we’re seeing is only the tip of the iceberg. The real threat to Canadian privacy is coming from within, from our own federal government.’ Does anyone know who said that?” the New Democrat asked. “It was Ann Cavoukian, the privacy commissioner of Ontario.”

And with that much established, Mr. Angus rounded on the Public Safety Minister, his sad tone replaced with adamant indignation. “According to the minister, she is on the side of child pornographers,” he charged. “He is wrong. She is on the side of average, law-abiding Canadians who play by the rules. So why is he on the side of intrusion, snooping and treating Canadians like criminals?”

Vic Toews, perhaps tired from the last 48 hours of dancing around and away from that thing he said, seemed unwilling to engage this provocation. Continue…

Where does John Williamson stand?

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, February 15, 2012 at 4:59 PM - 0 Comments

The Conservative backbencher speaks with reporters after QP today about the government’s online surveillance legislation.

I have concerns about a way that the bill is drafted but I’m going to leave it at that … I think it’s too intrusive as it currently stands and does need to be looked at. There’s a lot of concern I think across the country.

See previously: Civil disagreement

Vic Toews denies himself

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, February 15, 2012 at 12:40 PM - 0 Comments

The Public Safety Minister has apparently moved past trying to parse himself to simply denying the official record. Consider this exchange from this morning’s news conference on the long gun registry.

Reporter: The other question I have is maybe I misunderstood you yesterday but I thought you said that you never said what you said in the House which is you can either stand with us or with the child pornographers. Did you actually say?

Vic Toews:  That’s not what I said.  On CBC, you’re with CBC aren’t you?

Reporter: As of like 30 seconds ago.

Vic Toews: They played the entire clip of what I said.  It was very clear what I said.  I’ve explained it on CBC a number of times.

Reporter: I’m talking about what you said in the House of Commons and I heard you say at the news conference yesterday that you didn’t say that.  Did I misunderstand you?

Vic Toews: You just misquoted me again.

Reporter: No I didn’t.  I read your quote.

Vic Toews: I’m not going to argue with you.  What I can say is that what the internet has done is allowed a proliferation of child pornography.  This is an evil that has to be addressed by government.  We are bringing forward a legislative framework which will in fact deal with this.  This is a legislative framework that has been adopted by many leading European countries and simply brings Canada’s approach to dealing with this crime into a legal format that is consistent with those in other European countries.

What we’re talking about when we talk about lawful access

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, February 15, 2012 at 11:15 AM - 0 Comments

The Ontario privacy commissioner dismisses both the government’s argument and its rhetoric.

“Simply put, criminals have moved beyond 20th-century technology,” Justice Minister Rob Nicholson declared at a news conference Tuesday. “We need to ensure that law enforcement has the tools necessary to fight crime in the 21st century.” To which Ann Cavoukian, Ontario’s Privacy Commissioner, replied: “Nonsense.” She called the bill “a major intrusion into our personal lives.”

… Ms. Cavoukian, the Ontario privacy commissioner, said she “was so offended” by Mr. Toews’ statement in the House. “But what it showed to me was the weakness of their case.”

Jesse Brown explains some of the implications. Matt Hartley says the government is mired in backwards thinking. Michael Geist answers your questions and proposes compromise.

Vic Toews parses himself

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, February 15, 2012 at 8:30 AM - 0 Comments

In an interview with CTV, the Public Safety Minister maintains there’s a difference between saying someone “stands with” child pornographers and saying someone is a child pornography “sympathizer.”

Speaking with the CBC yesterday, Mr. Toews similarly complained when it was suggested he had said opponents of the government’s legislation supported child pornographers. Continue…

Lawful Access: a creepy Valentine from Vic Toews

By Jesse Brown - Tuesday, February 14, 2012 at 12:33 PM - 0 Comments

(Sean Kilpatrick/CP)

Vic Toews wants to make one thing clear: He does not want to read my email. His office reached out to me after I wrote this post, which detailed the inability of our police to find one good example of why they need new Lawful Access laws, to be tabled today.  Toews’ flack was eager to set me straight: “No legislation proposed by our Conservative Government will allow police to unlawfully read emails without a warrant.” Thanks, got it. Of course, I never said that it would.

Continue…

Vic Toews is watching

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, February 14, 2012 at 12:15 PM - 0 Comments

The government has tabled its online surveillance legislation, now dubbed the “Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act.”

Holding up his BlackBerry, NDP digital critic Charlie Angus said the bill would undermine the privacy of average Canadians. ”Now, every single Canadian citizen is walking around with an electronic prisoner’s bracelet,” Angus said after the tabling of the bill. ”I say to Vic Toews, ‘Stop hiding behind the boogey man. Stop using the boogey man to attack the basic rights of Canadian citizens.’ Is Vic Toews saying that Stockwell Day supports child pornography? Is Vic Toews saying that every privacy commissioner in this country who has raised concerns about this government’s attempt to erase the basic obligation to get a judicial warrant, is he saying that they’re for child pornography?”

As public safety minister, Mr. Day rejected the notion of giving police the power to obtain online information without a warrant. The privacy commissioner has said the Harper government has not provided sufficient justification for such power. And police forces have so far been unable to explain why they need the power. More from our Jesse Brown here, here, here and here.

Civil disagreement

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, February 13, 2012 at 4:44 PM - 0 Comments

From QP this afternoon, Public Safety Minister Vic Toews responds to concerns raised by Liberal MP Francis Scarpaleggia about the government’s pursuit of so-called lawful access legislation.

“He can either stand with us or with the child pornographers.”

Police: No ‘good examples’ of why we need Lawful Access

By Jesse Brown - Wednesday, January 18, 2012 at 10:28 AM - 0 Comments

www.stopspying.ca

For the past 12 years, Canada’s cops have been pushing for new laws that would allow them to skip the pesky formality of having to get a warrant before spying on us on the Internet. (For some background on these Lawful Access laws, check out these posts.)

Critics of Lawful Access, such as our federal Privacy Commissioner and every provincial Privacy Commissioner, argue that police have yet to provide sufficient evidence that court oversight has actually slowed them down or stopped them from fighting crime.  And now, Canadian police themselves are saying the same thing.

The online rights group OpenMedia.ca has obtained and released a message it says was recently sent by the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police (CACP) to law enforcement colleagues urgently requesting that they provide “actual examples” of cases where the need to get warrants before accessing private information from Internet Service Providers “hindered an investigation or threatened public safety.” The message goes on to admit that though a similar request had been made two years ago, it failed to produce “a sufficient quantity of good examples.”

Continue…

‘Canadians have not been given sufficient justification’

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, October 28, 2011 at 10:03 AM - 0 Comments

The privacy commissioner questions the Harper government’s push for “lawful access” legislation.

Despite repeated calls, no systematic case has yet been made to justify the extent of the new investigative capabilities that would have been created by the bills. Canadian authorities have yet to provide the public with evidence to suggest that CSIS or Canadian police cannot perform their duties under the current regime.   One-off cases and isolated incidents should not prove the rule, nor should exigent or emergency circumstances, for which there are already Criminal Code provisions. 

As well, if the concern of law enforcement agencies is that it is difficult to obtain warrants or judicial authorization in a timely way, these administrative challenges should be addressed by administrative solutions rather than by weakening long-standing legal principles that uphold  Canadians’ fundamental freedoms. 

Slacktivism defeats Lawful Access

By Jesse Brown - Wednesday, September 21, 2011 at 8:02 PM - 19 Comments

There were no rallies against the Conservatives’ “Lawful Access” legislation. No marches, riots, demonstrations or happenings. Canadians who opposed the overreaching and wrongheaded online surveillance measures fought them (where else?) online.

Over 70,000 Canadians clicked to sign a “Stop Online Spying” petition posted by OpenMedia. Yesterday, the Harper government’s omnibus crime bill was introduced—a bundle of bills that had been assumed to include the new warrantless tracking measures. But Lawful Access was nowhere to be found.

OpenMedia quickly issued a press release claiming victory, and rightfully so. Despite a concerning lack of interest in the issue on the part of the mainstream media, OpenMedia successfully educated and activated tens of thousands of Canadians. Was their petition the reason the legislation was omitted? I suppose a letter sent last March signed by the provincial privacy commissioners, which cautioned the government about the invasive nature of the proposed laws may also have had an impact.

It’s also true that Internet service providers were less than thrilled about the prospect of building and maintaining the technical apparatus to constantly spy on their own customers. We may never know for certain what made Justice Minister Rob Nicholson think twice, but I’d hazard a guess that playing a major role in the decision was the prospect of facing down a growing horde of angry netizens, demanding answers to questions few aging legislators are equipped to answer. For example:

• How can you assure us the tracking data will be safely stored when governments routinely lose and leak personal data?
• Will the police access the data through a web portal? If so, what happens when it gets hacked?
• Will the police be allowed to build software “bots” that crawl through our data looking for suspicious online activity?

Better to simply wipe the digitally illiterate laws from the bundled bill than stand accountable for such poorly conceived policy. Lawful Access may very well return unbundled as its own separate bill. If so, those emboldened by their effectiveness so far in fighting it will surely pounce on the wounded legislation. But I wouldn’t be surprised if the whole thing just quietly goes away.

Think about it: 70,000 Canadians signed an online petition against Lawful Access, and we don’t yet have Lawful Access. Around 100,000 Canadians joined a Facebook group against a backwards Copyright reform bill, and we don’t yet have backwards Copyright reform. Almost half a million Canadians signed a petition against wholesale usage-based billing, and we don’t have that either.

The ethereal nature of these protests may be the key to their success. Their message to legislators is simple: thousands of Canadians are against what you’re doing. Right now they are angry in their homes, at their computers. Proceed and they may be angry at your door, or at the polls.

Considering its effectiveness, maybe it’s time to think of a more respectful term for online political engagement than “Slacktivism”.

Omnibus toughness

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, September 20, 2011 at 12:27 PM - 5 Comments

The government has announced details of its omnibus crime bill: The Safe Streets and Communities Act, which will bundle together nine separate bills.

A quick scan of the backgrounder shows no mention of “lawful access,” nor any mention of the two anti-terrorism provisions the Prime Minister has vowed to reinstate.

Fight promotion

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, September 15, 2011 at 5:12 PM - 4 Comments

The NDP is touting its readiness to fight the government’s “lawful access” legislation.

“What we have been hearing from experts and citizen is that this new law gives the government and police way too much power to snoop into our lives,” said New Democrat Privacy and Digital Affairs Critic Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay). “Canadians are right to feel that the Conservatives are not protecting their privacy and that we need to curb this bill.”

Over the summer Angus has been putting in place a team of MPs to work with civil society groups, stakeholders and citizens to fight against lawful access legislation both in and out of parliament.

“Spearheading” the fight at the justice committee will be Charmaine Borg, one of the NDP’s undergrads.

Worried about terrorism? Not us.

By Philippe Gohier - Friday, September 9, 2011 at 8:00 AM - 12 Comments

Steve Payne/The New York Times/Redux

Even though memories of 9/11 remain vivid for Canadians, the threat of terrorism is hardly at the top of our minds. An Innovative Research poll done for Maclean’s shows that 27.1 per cent of Canadians consider 9/11 to have been the most important international development of the last decade, ranking it just slightly higher than the credit crisis of 2008 (26.2 per cent) and well above other developments like climate change and the rise of the middle class in China and India. Which isn’t to say 9/11 has had a lasting impact on our national psyche. Asked to name the one issue that concerns them most, just 3.4 per cent of respondents identified the threat of terrorism. Indeed, Canadians are much more likely to be worried about the state of our health care system (19 per cent) and the potential for another recession (18.2 per cent) than they are of a repeat of 9/11.

That may be partly explained by the seemingly widespread perception among Canadians that terrorist attacks aren’t likely to affect them personally. If terrorist threats are to happen at all, Canadians believe they’ll target people other than themselves. Nearly eight in 10 Canadians say they’re either not very concerned or not concerned at all that someone they know could fall victim to a terrorist attack. A comparably meagre 3.9 per cent say they are very concerned about the possibility. The online poll had 1,066 respondents and a margin of error equivalent to plus or minus three per cent.

But Canadians have come to some firm conclusions about the fallout from 9/11. As a nation, we’ve grown particularly skeptical about the benefits of the two wars that followed the attacks. Canadians are twice as likely to say the war in Afghanistan made the world a more dangerous place as they are to say it made the world safer. The divide is even more stark when it comes to Iraq: Canadians are more than four times more likely to say the war in Iraq made the world more dangerous rather than safer.

Continue…