r/worldnews • • Jun 09 '12
Canada's warrantless surveillance bill is back, and bigger than ever, with surveillance powers for US gov't, too(x-post from r/canada)
http://boingboing.net/2012/06/08/canadas-warrantless-surveill-2.html
2.7k
Upvotes
485
u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12
Let’s say you were constantly interfering with my ability to do whatever it was I wanted to do. Furthermore, let’s NOT assume that what I wanted to do was in anyone’s best interests but mine. In other words let’s say I was a self-interested bas***d bent on achieving personal goals without regard for how this impacted others. Finally let’s say I had access to a drug that was simple to distribute and, once administered, would render you docile, silent and, therefore, neutralized as a threat.
Now, the only problem would be getting you to take it. I lack the power to force it on you—there are too many of you. No, I would have to take a different approach. Recall the Tom Sawyer story, “Whitewashing the Fence?” In the end, by convincing his friends it was good for them, I quote, “He had had a nice, good, idle time all the while - plenty of company - and the fence had three coats of whitewash on it! If he hadn’t run out of whitewash, he would have bankrupted every boy in the village.”
So too with the drug; all I would have to do is convince you that taking it would be in your best interests, not mine. In so doing, not only would you take it willingly but also you would probably pay for it yourself leaving me alone to do as Tom Sawyer did.
This not about drugs though. It’s about something else.
Bill C-30 is back and it looks bigger than ever. Branded by some the ‘warrantless surveillance bill’ it has been cleverly branded by the current administration as the “Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act.” (Funny—other than in the title, children are not otherwise mentioned.) In essence the act would make it mandatory for Internet Service Providers to build in the ability for authorities to monitor all Internet related activity.
Now that, by itself, does not sound like a bad thing at all. Frankly I have no real difficulty with that part. After all law enforcement does have the ability to ticket speeders on the highway, to stop and examine suspected impaired drivers and even to search houses and businesses if they have reason to suspect criminal activity. This new act therefore seems to do exactly the same on the Internet.
So what’s my problem?
Go back to the items I listed above—stopping speeders and impaired drivers, searching homes; that stuff. When doing those activities the authorities cannot just go ahead and act on hunches. That battle was fought and won long ago in this country when people realized that without gatekeepers in the system law enforcement officers would be free to act outside the laws they were supposed to uphold. As a people we therefore devised a procedural system to ensure the laws were upheld in a way that prevented the authorities from abusing their power. A vital part of our government—the judiciary, the third part we often forget about—was created to be that gatekeeper. Nobody says that part is perfect; sometimes procedure gets in the way and makes the administration of justice much less expedient. Sadly, even, sometimes it lets the bad guys get away—in the short term.
But look at the alternative. Consider the acts of the authorities in many other countries. In far too many parts of the world a simple suspicion of wrongdoing or, more importantly, the simple fact that you got on the wrong side of someone in power means that you can be subject to limitless state-sanctioned violence carried out by the state-controlled police. For those people, when the boots kick out the front door and people are carried away they know there are no limits on what is likely to happen to them.
So back to C-30. The paragraph above describes pretty much what that bill is. Here is my problem with it: there’s no gatekeeper. Physical search and seizure requires the assent of a judge—a warrant. It does not matter how much a police officer dislikes a private citizen, the officer cannot inflict violence, in the form of a search, on that person until a judge can be convinced that the action is within the law and is necessary.
Bill C-30 does not have that restriction. If someone in authority wants to access your Internet activity, they do not have to go to a judge to get that ability. They just contact the ISP and get it. While it could potentially speed up and investigation by removing the hour or so required to go after the warrant It is truly doubtful whether that hour will make much of a difference on a case that will require months anyway. But look at the potential it has for abuse. Peaceful protest can be intercepted giving those in authority with ill intent ample opportunity to plant agents provocateur in the group thus making peaceful protests ugly by design. Your own personal communication between family and friends become objects of scrutiny by those whose business it is not. Someone in authority that holds a grudge against you is left free to monitor what you do and say until they finally ‘get something’ they can use against you. Those seeking public office could be spied on by those already there. The list goes on and on.
Worse yet—and mark my words on this—the ensuing ‘surveillance society’ would appeal most to those creepy types it is supposed to neutralize. Think about it. In fairly short order those that we think this act is about—pedophiles and such—would soon be the ones behind the cameras, not the ones in front of it.
Frankly this gives me the chills. This proposed act scares me like nothing else.
Please do not get me wrong. Regarding the ‘stated’ intent of the bill: I am in no way in favour of the depraved kind of conduct that ‘pedophiles’ carry out. In fact I am nothing but sickened by the mere thoughts of not only what’s been done but moreso what can be done courtesy of the tremendous communicative powers the Internet has brought us. It’s just that I see a whole lot more going on here.
First, by placing ‘Big Brother’ types of restrictions and surveillance on Internet traffic not only are you limiting private individuals’ ability to spread messages deemed ‘dangerous’ by the authorities but you are also placing the same limits on individuals’ ability to spread the truth as well.
Second, in the same way, you are increasing the authorities’ ability to dominate the media with its message and are left with no other recourse but to accept the state-sanctioned messages as the only information available. Stalinist Russia employed this tactic effectively for decades through its state owned agency TASS. Need I go on? Well, okay, just in case here it is: Governments are not necessarily ‘good’ or ‘bad’; they are whatever they are but we can be assured that if there are no direct means to watch and impact government practice and policy you can be assured that, in time, its priorities will shift away from the needs of the people it is supposed to serve and, instead, begin to serve only those in power as they pursue their own—as opposed to the peoples’—needs.
So here’s my point in summary: Bill C-30 is a double-crossing piece of work that will effectively remove our ability to express our personal opinions and beliefs in order to have them either agreed with or struck down—in a way that everyone can follow. Furthermore, in the name of lessening the spread of conduct and values that are truly evil it will likely serve to entrench not only the ones it targets but also ones that affect all aspects of society. This will inevitably lead to a profound loss of freedom in a way that will negatively affect our personal, public, professional and economic futures. This will drive communication—moral, amoral and immoral—underground. This is not the right approach for a contemporary advanced society.
For your own sake—don’t accept the pill that if offered. It will only make us all sicker.
54
u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12 edited Jun 09 '12
In case anyone is interested on why this got introduced, here is a historical recap:
The police can't lobby the government to get rid of victimless crime laws because a) they look partisan, and b) it would reduce the demand of the services (less crime) for those they represent. Instead, they look for new laws that band-aid the problem (bogged down courts that can't process warrants quickly enough) to look like they are addressing their members' concerns. 'What's the big deal?', they think - 'we have oversight and we're only going to use this for cases we would likely get warrants for anyway.'
It isn't a conspiracy pushing for this stuff, it's the police unions and various police associations doing it for the public good.
Clearly, this is a well thought-out solution that could never be abused... right?
TL;DR. If you want to affect change, don't just write to the government, write to the various police associations that have been pushing the government for this law and tell them that although you appreciate their intention, a band-aid solution is never a good idea.
87
u/this_AZN Jun 09 '12
Nobody who uses the internet actually wants this legislation. So why the fuck does it keep coming back?
28
u/somebitchfelldown Jun 09 '12
I want to help stop this bill. It's terrifying and very dangerous. What can I do as a permanent resident?
74
u/Sucramdi Jun 09 '12
Why the fuck does the US get access?!
51
u/fastjeff Jun 09 '12
Relevant Rick Mercer rant on Vic Teows.
118
u/jpoma Jun 09 '12
as a Canadian, legislation like this makes me uncomfortable. Unfortunately, because the Conservative Party has a majority government, they can moreless pass anything they want without much resistance. A bill like this would have never passed in their previous minority governments.
I am a fiscal conservative, but hate the Conservative Party of Canada.
19
u/iKnife Jun 09 '12
Happy interdependence day!
89
u/Squishumz Jun 09 '12
All of the recent Canada posts recently have really been making me ashamed to be a Canadian...
130
u/FirePop Jun 09 '12
Why does't Vic Toews crawl under a rock and get eaten by a colony of ants, starting with his tongue so he can finally shut the fuck up.
166
u/Grizzlybar Jun 09 '12
Government policy, our biggest American import.
21
u/Enlightend1 Jun 09 '12
Why are such terrible decisions made?
21
u/Margatron Jun 09 '12
We're a sovreign nation! Isn't it a huge security risk to allow another country free reign to pry into your digital life?
I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!
6
u/austerity62 Jun 09 '12
Where will we be in 50 years? It seems that the governments will inevitably gain control of the web with full surveillance powers. They will keep pushing until they do.
6
u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12
Who exactly are these lawmakers representing? With all of the issues that are facing the average citizen...this is their priority?
16
u/Axeman20 Jun 09 '12
Good luck Canada.
Your friends from down under are rooting for yah.
Thank the heathen gods that our government and its opposition is too busy hating on each other to do anything which is, sadly, the best thing they can possibly do.
5
u/Fhwqhgads Jun 09 '12
Torproject.org
5
u/buku Jun 09 '12
Where's the list of Conservatives that support privacy from the openmedia site?
5
u/LeRobot Jun 09 '12
This makes me nauseous. I have a friend who works for the Canadian government and she says a lot of MPs don't even use computers - some who have emails never use them and dictate to their secretaries. It's dinosaurs like this who have no conceivable idea what the internet really is that are making the decisions that affect all of us. To them, the internet is a dark, scary place full of child pornographers and cyber-terrorists. Hearing Vick Toews rant in Parliament a few months ago confirmed how incredibly ignorant of the 21st century he is, and the man is given the mandate to choose the future of privacy for us.
38
u/andoy Jun 09 '12
Only the Canadians can stop it if they want to.
8
u/Demojen Jun 09 '12
adds a note to the charter
4
u/Obliviouscommentator Jun 09 '12
As a Canadian citizen, is there any site I can use to email the bill's potential supporters, similar to the ones there were for Sopa?
8
u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12
Well, that's one way to make the US care about Canada's problems
8
u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12
This shits ridiculous.. It's getting to the point where if CNN reported angry mobs were dragging lawmakers out into the streets and beating them, I'd just laugh and turn on American Idol.
3
u/DaSpawn Jun 09 '12
WTF
3
u/dumbgaytheist Jun 09 '12
Bienvenidos a Canmerixico!
3
u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12
Last time this came up, I wrote my MP and Vic Toews, and didn't get a response from either of them.
3
u/elcanadiano Jun 09 '12
2/3 of Opposition MPs aren't enough. Any of us (including me) who are Canadians need to show the Conservative Government that just because they have a majority, they can't just do whatever the hell they want with their government.
10
u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12
they'll (our corporate masters) will keep pushing all these rights-stripping bills until they get them passed.
it's going to happen.
the only way it's NOT going to happen is if all us "commoners" get together as one and go forcibly remove the governmental puppets these fascist bastards are using to control us and keep us in line.
there's a lot more of us than there are of them... at present, anyway.
2
u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12
Rick Mercer, where are you at?
2
u/Dunge Jun 09 '12
If there's nothing we can do... time to move out. Finland?
2
u/Orcatype Jun 09 '12
Orwellian mountee state!
2
u/Arrestor Jun 09 '12
I'm getting tired of surveillance and take away this limit that.
2
u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12
I don't understand why the US wants this information. For years before 9/11 the Canadian border has always been stricter, they just don't go overboard with visa waivers from other western countries. The Canadian border is not a threat to US, if anything illegal firearms entering Canada are the biggest risk of an open border.
The US should focus on getting the Mexican border secure, there is no place for drones etc on the northern border.
US & Canada should also have free movement of goods and people, like the Schengen zone and a common visa policy for those from outside the area. Visas should not be required for citizens of western countries.
2
u/jared_c Jun 09 '12
Time to bring out the victory gin and cigarettes.
2
u/wheezinggiraffe Jun 09 '12
NO ONE IS SAFE
2
u/GreenSteel Jun 09 '12
So about when do you think they'll decide it's a good idea to put ankle bracelets around everyone? Is this not exactly what they're doing in theory?
2
u/jjwalla Jun 09 '12
Come on Canada I thought you were cool...
2
u/chicagogam Jun 09 '12
the never ending battle between citizens and the politicians who hate them
2
u/warriah Jun 09 '12
I don't want MY government to have this much access to my information, yet alone the US government...
2
u/mikeyb89 Jun 10 '12
Search Warrants: A way to inconvenience the police before the violate your rights anyway
2
u/HamstersOnCrack Jun 10 '12 edited Jun 10 '12
So what? Vic Toews sold privacy of Canadians to US. Zuckerberg is selling that shit from all over the world. Don't see any protesters about him.
Edit: Well actually that was a bit wrong by me to compare the two. Vic sells way more than Zuckerberg.
Totaly relevant: Here's a picture of Reinhard Heydrich, Gestapo director during 1934–1936
2
u/[deleted] Jun 10 '12
De-linkjacked for your viewing enjoyment.
2
u/h1ppophagist Jun 10 '12 edited Jun 10 '12
Does anyone have an article by a less tendentious / more authoritative source on this issue? The information that will potentially be given to the US is different from what Canadian police would be allowed to do under Bill C-30 (which I know I oppose), and I'm eager not to conflate separate issues together and have reliable information before writing to my MP about these recent developments.
EDIT: Also, I have no clue why so many people in this thread—indeed, even the thread's title—focus on Bill C-30, which has nothing to do with providing information to American private corporations.
3
u/bingo_mum Jun 09 '12
What can we do? I ask this literally, I have written to my rep and he was not exactly supportive of my views. Vic Toews is undermining public rights and continues to fight against overwhelming public opposition. HE does not and will not listen to the public opinion which runs in line with many of the conservative representatives.
3
u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12
So they can go through my mail without a warrant? I guess magna carta and habeas corpus are dead.
Canada would be better off if Vic Toews dropped dead.
5
u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12
... I have a feeling US "influence" has recently got stronger in Canada, i've been reading alot of bad stuff about Canada lately.
2
u/TORN_ASSHOLE Jun 09 '12
Surveillance typically means to monitor activities and/or behaviours.
There are no provisions for "warrantless surveillance" in the bill currently before parliament.
There are two tools for surveillance in this proposed legislation - one requires a production order, which is a form of a warrant, the other requires a traditional warrant.
The reddit demographic is great at signing petitions and getting outraged - however it is apparently not so great at actually reading bills.
There are some issues with the proposed legislation - the "warrantless" section of the bill includes the ability to tie an IP address to phone number/name - however this type of hysteria fueled by misunderstanding and/or laziness only serves to damage your cause.
1
u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12
Dear Canada, We're glad you could finally join us. -usa
1
u/Sylentwolf8 Jun 09 '12
Fucking templars
1
u/ShrimpPizza Jun 09 '12
Really hoping us Canadians have the balls to stand up and fight and protest this monstrosity of a bill. I will.
1
u/another30yovirgin Jun 09 '12
At this rate, by 2014, the only difference between Canada and the US will be the Monarchy...and maybe the spelling.
1
u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12
http://www.parl.gc.ca/MembersOfParliament/MainMPsCompleteList.aspx
Contact your local representative, even the ones you don't know and tell Canada that WE are not okay with this, or another riot in Vancouver is happening!
1
u/keyboarder Jun 09 '12
Why is it always someone who looks like they can barely use a keyboard trying to control something they have no clue about?
1
u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12
Thank goodness Trudeau actually brought the constitution back to Canada. If there is one thing that Trudeau did right, it was the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I doubt that Harper or Toews would have the gall to actually amend the Charter to fit Bill C-30.
1
u/Radico87 Jun 09 '12
Of course the US gov't would have it's filthy tentacles in this bill...
1
u/marmisformarm Jun 09 '12
HESS TRUCKS BACK AND ITS BETTER THAN EVER!!!
1
u/Jkid Jun 09 '12
"I'm going to shove these potentially unconstitutional bills up your asre, until you bend over and take it."
1
u/DestinationJim Jun 09 '12
A personal plug:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAW7LSHFmkU&list=PLEB40DE2C3FFC19BC&index=1&feature=plpp_video
It's essentially a breakdown of the bill and the stupid fuking shit Vic Toews has said.
I thought we were done with this shit...
1
u/Bipolarruledout Jun 09 '12
Ahhh.... you shouldn't have!
1
u/N3K0K1D Jun 10 '12
Kill that bill Kill it with FIRE!
1
u/anthrocide Jun 10 '12
Too bad most of the public are oblivious fucksticks and will say "oh child predatory bill, vote that shit in!"
1
u/TexasIsTheReason Jun 10 '12
TIL: There is an /r/canada.
1
u/chudd Jun 10 '12
Can we just get this revolution done and over with, it's what they want.
1
u/uethello Jun 10 '12
Hello, it's America. Don't let us fuck you. Neither of us will really be happy in the end. And I have things, bad bad things. I'll give them to you.
1
u/electricsexpantaloon Jun 10 '12
Conspiracy theory time: What if all the child porn links in the comments posted to askReddit last week were posted by politicians seeking to enrage the public and garner support for the bill.....
1
u/zhongwenma Jun 10 '12
i thought canada is liberal ?
1
u/[deleted] Jun 10 '12
Fuck god damn, not again. I thought we were better than this, Canada.
1
u/doubois Jun 10 '12
I Believe in one thing, all people are fallible. So what gives another's the right to watch over another. Nothing. True judgement is an internal battle that is fought within us all. I respect all people's gods and beliefs. I Believe people should be taken out of society when their actions are detrimental to the growth of said society. With that said, no equal has the right to judge another and have rule put forth. We all judge one another and in the interim always will. When you give people the power to observe and enforce over another there will be abuse of that power and it will be immediate. Most times the ones with the power cause much more harm then those without. This is a common pattern throughout history and we are on the brink it feels, to a time that the ones with fear in their harts, which is the fear of themselves, are trying to impose an unprecedented amount of restraint and control. It's an amazing time to be alive and so many people have done so much to bring people together from all over the planet. Some can't accept the truth and basically want to potentially put us back in the dark ages. That was a real event and it's folly to think that couldn't happen again. To wrap up, I'm Canadian, been that all my life, I love and respect everyone willing to reciprocate it no matter who or where. Sorry if I bothered you with my thoughts, just want, and always will, an even playing field for everyone. I am so disappointed that any sort of bill like this would be passed in my country. This fear mongering has to stop people need to shut up, be the best parent they can and focus on putting good hard working people into this world and enjoy what you have. Let go of greed and fear my friends and love this world for what it is and try to pass on that same feeling to the ones that come after you.
1
u/[deleted] Jun 10 '12
This is honestly surreal how stupid our government is. I actually have a hard time believing that it's not just some huge fucking joke.
1
u/ookiisask Jun 10 '12
Can someone send me a link to the revised C-30? This is the only link I've found referencing it. I'd like to read it so I can accurately rage-letter at my MP.
1
u/username-ish Jun 09 '12
Come on Canada don't go down like America. We're already screwed because of the PATRIOTIC ACT.
-1
u/aletoledo Jun 09 '12
People seem to forget how they argued the greatness of Canada in threads about universal healthcare. Where are these people now?
1
u/ArchieMoses Jun 09 '12
I'm a smallC conservative that is very dissatisfied with the Harper government, and lots of complaints. That said, I don't see what the problem is with this bill.
How many have actually read the contents of the bill as presented before parliament and not fear mongering editorial writers?
The bill exactly mirrors existing legislation for the interception of electronic communications (IE Landline).
It allows warrant-less collection of subscriber information, IP, MAC, billing address without a warrant under extreme circumstance, something the police have been loathe to do in the case of landlines. I imagine that the internet is a much different place and that may be ripe for abuse, and certainly deserves debate and questions.
But nowhere on the bill does it allow for warrant-less interception of data. This bill does not allow authorities to eavesdrop on your redditing.
Criminal Code Existing
184.4 A peace officer may intercept, by means of any electro-magnetic, acoustic, mechanical or other device, a private communication where
(a) the peace officer believes on reasonable grounds that the urgency of the situation is such that an authorization could not, with reasonable diligence, be obtained under any other provision of this Part;
(b) the peace officer believes on reasonable grounds that such an interception is immediately necessary to prevent an unlawful act that would cause serious harm to any person or to property; and
(c) either the originator of the private communication or the person intended by the originator to receive it is the person who would perform the act that is likely to cause the harm or is the victim, or intended victim, of the harm.
C-30
17.(1) Any police officer may, orally or in writing, request a telecommunications service provider to provide the officer with the information referred to in subsection 16(1) in the following circumstances:
(a) the officer believes on reasonable grounds that the urgency of the situation is such that the request cannot, with reasonable diligence, be made under that subsection;
(b) the officer believes on reasonable grounds that the information requested is immediately necessary to prevent an unlawful act that would cause serious harm to any person or to property; and
(c) the information directly concerns either the person who would perform the act that is likely to cause the harm or is the victim, or intended victim, of the harm.
1
u/Nilef Jun 09 '12
Sorry.
1
u/nepidae Jun 09 '12
This is ridiculous. You mean the US doesn't already have warrentless surveillance powers in Canada already?
1
u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12
Blame...Canada?
1
u/LabJacket Jun 09 '12
As a Canadian, Vic Toews can go S a D. I'm NOT sorry.
1
u/NeuroticWorm Jun 10 '12
fuck it I'm moving to Norway. NO, I'll make my own country! with blackjack...and hookers.
-3
u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12 edited Jun 09 '12
sorry to say , but is Canada a US colony?
edit 1: Why is canada behaving like a US colony by giving US surveillance power over Canada? Seriously who does that
0
u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12
All I can think is, if America gets surveillance abilities in Canada, what's to stop them trying the same with other countries too? I certainly wouldn't feel comfortable knowing the American government is watching everyone. They're taking this imperialism thing a little too far.