how-to block ads
|
Its a Secret
Whatever
Premium
join:2008-02-23
U B Funny
 ·Shaw
|  ISPs must help police snoop on internet under new bill
»www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2009···?ref=rss
Internet service providers would have to make it possible for police and intelligence officers to intercept online communications and get personal information about subscribers, under bills tabled Thursday.
"We must ensure that law enforcement has the necessary tools to catch up to the bad guys and ultimately bring them to justice. Twenty-first century technology calls for 21st-century tools," said Justice Minister Rob Nicholson as he announced the new bills with Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan at a news conference in Ottawa.
The bills are intended to modernize the Criminal Code and help law enforcement officials chase those suspected of using the internet and other new technologies to communicate and commit crimes, as well as maximize the ability to conduct international investigations, Nicholson said.
Targets 'safe havens'
One bill, announced by Van Loan, would require telecommunications and internet service providers to:
* Install and maintain "intercept-capable" equipment on their networks.
* Provide police with "timely access" to personal information about subscribers, including names, address and internet addresses, without the need for a warrant.
Van Loan said the bill won't provide new interception powers to police, but simply update the legal framework designed "in the era of the rotary telephone."
He noted that police can already get the authority to intercept communications, but the network is often incapable of allowing such interception.
"Criminals, child pornographers, organized crime members and terrorists are aware of these interception safe havens. They identify them and gravitate towards them to exploit them and continue their criminal activities undetected, out of the reach of the investigative powers of law enforcement."
More at link
--
"In the future, that which is not mandatory will be illegal"
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everybody agrees that it is old enough to know better" - Anonymous | |
Anon users
@anonymouse.org | Capable to intercept the network is a very reasonable... but without a warrant is way to... Anyway they might be able to search your PC if you are using the latest 'O' browser  | |
Its a Secret
Whatever
Premium
join:2008-02-23
U B Funny
·Shaw
| reply to Its a Secret
Well of course, we have the key words: "Criminals, child pornographers, organized crime members and terrorists...". My, how original.
I mean, if your a Green Peace activist, labour activist, humans rights etc, can that be construed as a 'terrorist', or 'criminal' if you speak out against the government? Of course it does. You could broadly define under categories to achieve what you want.
I just don't trust the powers that be these days. Does that make me subversive? 
--
"In the future, that which is not mandatory will be illegal"
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everybody agrees that it is old enough to know better" - Anonymous | |
siljaline
mind that delimiter
Premium
join:2002-10-12
Montreal, QC
 ·Bell Sympatico
1 edit |  reply to Its a Secret
You should see the comments this topic is getting on the CBC site, not all too good 
»www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2009···ons.html | |
Kilroy
Premium,MVM
join:2002-11-21
Ann Arbor, MI
·WOW Internet and C..
1 edit | reply to Its a Secret
For heaven's sake let's keep the kids safe and stop terrorists. What a crock. I'm all for letting them have access, WITH A WARRANT. I thought Bush was out of office. I'm not doing anything wrong, but the 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was put there for a reason. They didn't trust the government then and we shouldn't trust them now. If this is just in Canada fight it, but things that happen over there tend to flow over the border. | |
Link Logger
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-29
Calgary, AB
·Shaw
| reply to Its a Secret
Interesting lets, break it down.
quote:
Internet service providers would have to make it possible for police and intelligence officers to intercept online communications and get personal information about subscribers, under bills tabled Thursday.
"We must ensure that law enforcement has the necessary tools to catch up to the bad guys and ultimately bring them to justice. Twenty-first century technology calls for 21st-century tools," said Justice Minister Rob Nicholson as he announced the new bills with Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan at a news conference in Ottawa.
The bills are intended to modernize the Criminal Code and help law enforcement officials chase those suspected of using the internet and other new technologies to communicate and commit crimes, as well as maximize the ability to conduct international investigations, Nicholson said.
Targets 'safe havens'
One bill, announced by Van Loan, would require telecommunications and internet service providers to:
Install and maintain "intercept-capable" equipment on their networks.
Provide police with "timely access" to personal information about subscribers, including names, address and internet addresses, without the need for a warrant.
Was good with all of this till I saw 'without the need for a warrant', nope that isn't a good idea.
quote:
Van Loan said the bill won't provide new interception powers to police, but simply update the legal framework designed "in the era of the rotary telephone."
So the telco's would just turn over my account information without a warrant??? Now perhaps 'finding' someone's information given a phone number isn't that difficult with all the reverse lookup sites, but really asking the telco should involve a warrant and timely response on their side.
quote:
He noted that police can already get the authority to intercept communications, but the network is often incapable of allowing such interception.
"Criminals, child pornographers, organized crime members and terrorists are aware of these interception safe havens. They identify them and gravitate towards them to exploit them and continue their criminal activities undetected, out of the reach of the investigative powers of law enforcement."
Agreed, just like I maintain my list of 'hacker friendly countries'
quote:
Van Loan added that internet service providers are currently not required to provide subscriber information to police and the Canadian Security Intelligence Agency (CSIS), and may be unwilling to provide such data without a police warrant, slowing down the investigation of crimes such as child sexual exploitation or online theft.
So what is wrong with a Warrant, oh ya I have to rouse some high and mighty judge, remind him that he is a public servant and the issue at hand is for the benefit of the public, give him the goods and hope that he issues the warrant, next I have to figure out who is on call if anyone at company X to apply the warrant as while their product might be available 7x24 they aren't. Then once we get there we find out they have no ability to get the information or worse the specific information (ie the single user), so now what listen into the whole thing, waste of time resources and energy, violation of privacy for everyone using the system, etc, so really I'm thinking you better still require a warrant, but requiring some of these companies to be a) responsive and b) capable, isn't such a bad idea.
quote:
ISPs must preserve data
For some ISP's this is mountains of data, not a trivial task.
quote:
The other bill, introduced by Nicholson, would:
Allow law enforcement officials to obtain transmission data (routing information) that is sent or received via telephone or internet if authorized by a production order or warrant.
Require telecommunications companies to keep data related to specific communications or subscribers if that information is needed in an investigation and requested via a preservation order.
Allow police to remotely activate existing tracking devices that are found in some cars and in devices such as cellphones.
The Blackhat hairs on the back of my neck just perked up just like they do anytime I hear 'remotely activate', so remotely activated tracking devices, eh, oh ya we already use those, so its just you whitehats that want to use those, whatever, your problem.
quote:
Make it a criminal offence for two or more people to agree to or arrange child sexual exploitation by means of telecommunications.
Or just let your neighborhood vigilante group know and considered it a problem handled.
quote:
Make it illegal to possess a computer virus for the purpose of committing an offence of mischief, even if the virus has not yet spread.
Now as a security researcher, this one bothers me a bit, in that it puts the onus on the researcher to prove the intent of the virus, not so hard if you are known as a whitehat, but if you are a 'new' researcher just getting into the game, that might be harder. Release that virus into the wild and you deserve to get chucked in the slammer.
quote:
Nicholson said the government believes the proposed legislation strikes an "appropriate balance" between law enforcement's investigative powers to protect public safety and the privacy and rights and freedoms of Canadians.
Law enforcement officials at the news conference praised the bill.
Calgary deputy chief of police Murray Stooke said police have been requesting the modernization of laws related to interception of communications for a decade. He added that the government consulted broadly with Canadians and interest groups before introducing the new legislation.
"We do understand that the privacy concerns of Canadians must be respected," he added, "but at the same time, we have a growing gap in terms of our capacity [to investigate crimes]."
However, University of Ottawa law professor Michael Geist wrote in his blog Thursday that the bills are "pretty much exactly what law enforcement has been demanding and privacy groups have been fearing. It represents a reneging of a commitment from the previous Public Safety Minister on court oversight and will embed broad new surveillance capabilities in the Canadian internet."
Now the sad part is in some ways I think the public are further out of touch then law enforcement, so balancing the two might not be the optimal solution, and I lean towards what the law enforcement guys are wanting, but only after due process (ie warrants etc).
quote:
Cost to ISPs
Tom Copeland, head of chair of the Canadian Association of Internet Providers (CAIP), which represents dozens of smaller Canadian ISPs, said Thursday he fears the bill requiring internet-tapping capability could put some of his members out of business.
Van Loan said the companies themselves will have to pay for new equipment to meet the requirements, although the government will provide "reasonable compensation" when retrofits to existing hardware are needed.
The companies will have 18 months to make the changes, but there will be a three-year exemption for those with less than 100,000 subscribers.
A year and a half, three years, crap technology will have changed by then, I'd push harder on this.
quote:
But even that may not be enough time for some small providers, as they usually buy used, older network equipment that wouldn't be tappable, he said. Buying that new equipment could cost $15,000, and even if the government covers half, the remainder would be a "significant burden," Copeland said.
I'm calling BS on this, lets see the government picks up half of $15,000 so you only have to pay $7,500 and then its a business cost so its a full write off.
quote:
"I know a lot of providers who couldn't come up with the other half – it's just not the margins we have."
Might be time to consider another line of business, or fewer management perks.
quote:
Larger internet service providers such as Bell also expressed concerns.
Spokeswoman Jacqueline Michelis said in an email that the company "has long been committed to working with law enforcement agencies to find effective and efficient solutions for their legitimate surveillance needs," but policing costs shouldn't be downloaded to one particular industry.
"Other funding mechanisms must be found," Michelis said.
Copeland said that with respect to providing subscriber information without a warrant, he is glad the bill brings some "clarity and consistency" to the issue. Previously, he said, ISPs were unsure whether providing that information would violate the Privacy Act and leave the companies vulnerable to a lawsuit.
I'm still not good with the 'without a warrant' and likely never will be. There are lots of places where speed could be improved without eliminating the 'warrant' step
quote:
He said the other bill introduced Thursday represents no real change to ISPs.
Rogers Communications participated in consultations during the drafting of the bills and now that they have been tabled, will study them and provide feedback to the government, said Nancy Cottenden, director of communications for the company, in an email.
--
Vendor: Author of Link Logger which is a traffic analysis and firewall logging tool | |
dean corso
join:2007-09-07
| reply to Its a Secret
This legislation, along with abominations like the Patriot Act, use "protection" as a facade to encroach on the privacy of citizens. This has nothing to do with catching criminals.
--
"If you want to remain slaves of the bankers and pay for the costs of your own slavery, let them continue to create money and control the nation’s credit." - Josiah Stamp | |
dandelion
Premium,MVM
join:2003-04-29
Germantown, TN
clubs:
·Comcast
| reply to Its a Secret
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four
"There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment. How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork. It was even conceivable that they watched everybody all the time. But at any rate they could plug in your wire whenever they wanted to. You had to live—did live, from habit that became instinct—in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and, except in darkness, every movement scrutinized." --
Spare computer cycles can help find answers
Find A Cure!
| |
KodiacZiller
join:2008-09-04
73368
| said by dandelion  :» en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four"There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment. How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork. It was even conceivable that they watched everybody all the time. But at any rate they could plug in your wire whenever they wanted to. You had to live—did live, from habit that became instinct—in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and, except in darkness, every movement scrutinized." Orwell was wrong about one thing in that paragraph! They can watch you in the darkness. It's called night-vision! | |
-
|
