dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
19669
share rss forum feed
« BellAliantAcanac SMS Support and Sales »
page: 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 ... 7 · 8 · 9 · next

MaynardKrebs
Heave Steve, for the good of the country
Premium
join:2009-06-17
kudos:4

Lawful Access articles - collection

Just in the same way as we have a thread on articles revolving around CRTC matters, the whole issue of lawful access legislation, internet privacy, warrantless searches, etc... all have, or will have, an impact on all Canadian internet users.

I'd like this thread to contain links to articles revolving around these issues. It may help those of us who value privacy and freedom in our communications with MP's this fall come the introduction of the 'crime' bill.

-------------------------------------

Pushing the limits of state surveillance
»www.theglobeandmail.com/news/pol···2130692/

On the question of surveillance and reduced civil liberties, the latest Ottawa measure is what is termed “lawful access” legislation. This will compel Internet service providers to disclose customer information to authorities without a court order. In other words – blunter words – law enforcement agencies will have a freer hand in spying on the private lives of Canadians.

When he was public safety minister, Stockwell Day, now retired from politics, was opposed to going this route. When the question of handing police these powers arose, he stated that “we are not in any way, shape or form wanting extra powers for police to pursue [information online] without warrants.”

While having to get a court order might make some police investigations more difficult, Mr. Day correctly held to the view that the citizen’s right to privacy was paramount. That all changed, and now the expansion of intrusive state power is set for passage as part of the Conservatives’ omnibus law and order legislation.

MaynardKrebs
Heave Steve, for the good of the country
Premium
join:2009-06-17
kudos:4

Why faceless sniping deserves protection
»www.theglobeandmail.com/news/tec···2118151/

However, there was a larger point at play here: The ruling reinforces the idea that there should be a high bar for unmasking online commentators. Among other factors, courts are now considering whether these commentators have a reasonable expectation of anonymity, and whether the public interest in disclosing a commenter's identity outweighs the interests of free expression and the right to privacy. This is all the more true in the case of public officials, who on one hand wield power, and on the other should be better prepared than private citizens for criticism.

The fact that courts are thinking long and hard about whether privacy should be stripped from anonymous commenters should serve as a deterrent for piqued politicians who think they've found an easy way to unmask their critics. The ruling hardly guarantees online privacy in the future: The federal Conservatives are pondering “lawful access” legislation that would require Internet service providers to cough up identifying information to law-enforcement agencies without a court order. All the same, the Ontario Superior Court ruling is a step in the right direction.

MaynardKrebs
Heave Steve, for the good of the country
Premium
join:2009-06-17
kudos:4

Smarter sleuthing can save our online privacy
»www.theglobeandmail.com/news/tec···1348687/

Tories seek to widen police access online
»www.theglobeandmail.com/news/tec···1187507/



andyb
Premium
join:2003-05-29
SW Ontario
kudos:1
reply to MaynardKrebs

Internet privacy experts raise concerns over crime bill

»www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story···acy.html



andyb
Premium
join:2003-05-29
SW Ontario
kudos:1
reply to MaynardKrebs

"Experts" letter to harper

»www.documentcloud.org/documents/···ess.html



andyb
Premium
join:2003-05-29
SW Ontario
kudos:1
reply to MaynardKrebs

Analysis: Government wants to beef up digital surveillance powers
Why Canadians should pay attention to proposed changes to lawful access legislation

»www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story···ion.html



milnoc

join:2001-03-05
H3B
kudos:2
reply to MaynardKrebs

My ad campaign for OpenMedia.

»www.youtube.com/user/TheUBBDecep···EEE14B2F
--
Watch my future television channel's public test broadcast!
»thecanadianpublic.com/live


MaynardKrebs
Heave Steve, for the good of the country
Premium
join:2009-06-17
kudos:4
reply to MaynardKrebs

South Korea's "real names" debacle and the virtues of online anonymity
»arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news···mity.ars

Freedom House argues that prohibiting anonymity infringes free speech rights. UN free speech watchdog Frank La Rue agrees, and has called for the system to be abolished.

tyrmorr

join:2008-08-01
reply to MaynardKrebs

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states unequivocally...

8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.

Now just try getting these monkeys to admit that not only does this internet snooping bill go very hard against the above, as it constitutes an unreasonable search without reasonable articulable suspicion, but more importantly that the charter is above any and all acts or statutes. The bill is flat out unlawful, if wielded against those who do not consent. However this fact will be cheerfully ignored no matter how many people bring it up at whatever level. They will find weaselly ways to try to excuse their nonsense.

About time we dumped these politico's.


MaynardKrebs
Heave Steve, for the good of the country
Premium
join:2009-06-17
kudos:4

Coalition Protests Government Lawful Access Plans
»www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/5968/196/

A coalition of advocacy groups and professors (myself included) have written a public letter expressing concern over the government's plans to reintroduce lawful access legislation. The letter generated coverage from the CBC »www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/201···?ref=rss and »www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story···.twitter


elwoodblues
Elwood Blues
Premium
join:2006-08-30
Somewhere in
kudos:2
Reviews:
·VMedia
reply to MaynardKrebs

The problem is the core constituency runs around saying if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.

The Goverment will ignore all this trust me, and it won't resonate with the majority of the public (who have the same mentality as above), not realizing their rights are being unsurped.

If this goes through it will make it's way to the SCC, but by then Harper may have appointed more "like minded" Justices.

Think of the children, those unscrupulous pedophiles leering at naked little children don't you want them and the websites off the net? (I do,but I'm sure they have less the "public" methods of obtaining their materials).

Or even terrorists, we to know when someone is looking a bomb making sites.

The spin machine with unlimited dollars (your tax dollars at work) will be bigger, bolder and more widespread then a few Youtube videos(sorry Milnoc) made for Openmedia.

Just this week alone, the opposition, in light of the problems in Europe wanted a economic update, and the government having the majority , shut down any independent depositions.
--
All Hail Harper, the Wannabe King of Canada


MaynardKrebs
Heave Steve, for the good of the country
Premium
join:2009-06-17
kudos:4
reply to MaynardKrebs

Openmedia petition
»stopspying.ca/

The government is trying to ram through an anti-Internet set of electronic surveillance laws that will invade your privacy and cost you money. The plan is to force every phone and Internet provider to surrender our personal information to "authorities" without a warrant.

This bizarre legislation will create Internet surveillance that is:

* Warrantless: A range of "authorities" will have the ability to invade the private lives of law-abiding Canadians and our families using wired Internet and mobile devices, without a warrant or any justification.
* Invasive and Dangerous: The laws leave our personal and financial information less secure and more susceptible to cybercrime.
* Costly: Internet services providers may be forced to install millions of dollars worth of spying technology and the cost will be passed down to YOU.

tyrmorr

join:2008-08-01
reply to elwoodblues

said by elwoodblues:

The problem is the core constituency runs around saying if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.

This is precisely the problem. The populace is incapable of critical thinking, and can't see a glaring and obvious fallacy.

We need people who are both willing and able to think for themselves and have the intellectual arms to be able to subject what they hear to real scrutiny.

“Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.” - Mark Twain

We need to take individual responsibility for our actions, and hold others accountable for their own.

Until we really start to seek our own remedy, show the way ahead to the sheep, this situation can only become steadily worse.

MaynardKrebs
Heave Steve, for the good of the country
Premium
join:2009-06-17
kudos:4

1 edit
reply to MaynardKrebs

Privacy Commissioner of Canada letter to Public Safety Canada
»www.priv.gc.ca/media/nr-c/2011/l···09_e.cfm

.....Read together, the provisions of Bills C-50, C-51, and C-52 (augmented by changes in Bills C-22 and C-29) would substantially diminish the privacy rights of Canadians. They do so by enhancing the capacity of the state to conduct surveillance and access private information while reducing the frequency and vigour of judicial scrutiny. In essence, they make it easier for the state to subject more individuals to surveillance and scrutiny.

While we understand the need for law enforcement and national security agencies to function effectively in the context of new information technologies, in our view, it would be misleading to suggest that these bills will simply maintain capacity. Taken together, the proposed changes and new powers add significant new capabilities for investigators to track and search and seize digital information about individuals.

It is also noteworthy that at no time have Canadian authorities provided the public with any evidence or reasoning to suggest that CSIS or any other Canadian law enforcement agencies have been frustrated in the performance of their duties as a result of shortcomings attributable to current law, TSPs or the manner in which they operate. .....

Original signed by

Jennifer Stoddart,
Privacy Commissioner of Canada

Frank Work, Q.C.,
Information and Privacy Commissioner of Alberta

Elizabeth Denham,
Information and Privacy Commissioner for British Columbia

Irene Hamilton,
Ombudsman for Manitoba

Anne E. Bertrand, Q.C.,
Access to Information and Privacy Commissioner of New Brunswick

Ed Ring,
Information and Privacy Commissioner for Newfoundland and Labrador

Elaine Keenan Bengts,
Information and Privacy Commissioner for the Northwest Territories and Information and Privacy Commissioner for Nunavut

Dulcie McCallum,
Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Review Officer for the Province of
Nova Scotia

Ann Cavoukian, Ph.D,
Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario

Maria C. MacDonald,
Information and Privacy Commissioner of Prince Edward Island

Me Jean Chartier,
Président de la Commission d'accès à l'information du Québec

R. Gary Dickson, Q.C.,
Information and Privacy Commissioner of Saskatchewan

Tracy-Anne McPhee,
Ombudsman and Information and Privacy Commissioner of Yukon

MaynardKrebs
Heave Steve, for the good of the country
Premium
join:2009-06-17
kudos:4
reply to MaynardKrebs

Electronic snooping bill a 'data grab': privacy advocates
»www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story···acy.html

...Vonn said she was most concerned that the new legislation would allow the government to obtain personal information about internet subscribers from their internet service provider without a warrant.

Police have not provided a good reason why they need that power, Vonn said. "You have to show us that the warrant process is not working." ... Vonn argued that even without the new bill, the Criminal Code allows police to obtain the information without a warrant in emergencies.

"They already have ability to request it, to get a warrant or to demand it if they have exigent circumstances," she said. "They say this is not enough? We say that's a lie."

...

But Ian Kerr, a professor who holds a Canada Research Chair in Ethics Law and Technology at the University of Ottawa, said the personally identifiable information that would be obtainable without a warrant could be used to get far more.

"That information is the key to unlocking much of the very information that they would require a warrant for," he said.

Stooke noted that there are provisions in the bill to ensure that police use the information properly. They will have to make written requests explaining why they need the information, and those requests will be audited multiple times a year. The results will be reported to the federal and provincial privacy commissioner, and any concerns would be reported to the provincial attorney general.

Vonn said that system won't prevent police from violating people's privacy in the first place.

"We don't want the apology after the fact. We want the ability to protect privacy at the front end," she said.


andyb
Premium
join:2003-05-29
SW Ontario
kudos:1
reply to MaynardKrebs

Need a warrant to unmask Internet users? Not if Canada gets its way

»arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news···-way.ars


tyrmorr

join:2008-08-01
reply to MaynardKrebs

Calling this 'lawful access' is a real piece of Orwellian doubethink.

It is anything but.

As I posted further up this thread the Canadian Charter of Rights is superior to this nonsense and renders it completely null and void before its even debated.

Don't consent, notify your ISP, the local government and the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police that you do not consent to any search or seizure of your personal communication without your prior written and fully notarized consent. Throw in a copy of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in there, and a copy of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights for good measure.

Then when it does happen down the road, cos they will all just go ahead and do it anyway, you have cured notices in place and can sue both your ISP and the government.



elwoodblues
Elwood Blues
Premium
join:2006-08-30
Somewhere in
kudos:2
Reviews:
·VMedia

said by tyrmorr:

Calling this 'lawful access' is a real piece of Orwellian doubethink.

It is anything but.

As I posted further up this thread the Canadian Charter of Rights is superior to this nonsense and renders it completely null and void before its even debated.

You need to be charged and convicted, then make your way through the various court systems before making a charter challenge to the SCC. That could take years.
--
All Hail Harper, the Wannabe King of Canada

tyrmorr

join:2008-08-01

If they impinge upon your rights you don't have to go through all that.

There is far easier remedy if you have yourself prepared, you just need to seek it.

If you can show damage, you can can sue. An unlawful search is damage. If you have given these people prior notice, that's just gravy.


MaynardKrebs
Heave Steve, for the good of the country
Premium
join:2009-06-17
kudos:4
reply to MaynardKrebs

8 In 10 Oppose Internet Surveillance Without A Warrant
»www.huffingtonpost.ca/2011/08/25···rliament

More than eight in 10 Canadians oppose giving government the power to access Internet usage data without a warrant, a fact that may put a crimp in the Conservative government's plans to give police a much freer hand in monitoring the Internet.

A survey released Thursday by the office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada reported that 82 per cent of those polled "opposed giving police and intelligence agencies the power to access e-mail records and other Internet usage data without a warrant from the courts."


MaynardKrebs
Heave Steve, for the good of the country
Premium
join:2009-06-17
kudos:4
reply to MaynardKrebs

Canadians Not Doing Enough To Protect Privacy On Phones, Devices: Report
»www.huffingtonpost.ca/2011/08/25···339.html

Canada's privacy commissioner says Canadians aren't doing enough to protect their mobile communication devices, such as cellphones and tablet computers.

"We encourage people to use passwords, encryption, privacy settings and every other available measure to safeguard their personal information, because the meaningful protection of privacy has to start with the individual," Commissioner Jennifer Stoddart said.


jfmezei
Premium
join:2007-01-03
Pointe-Claire, QC
kudos:23
reply to MaynardKrebs

Does anyone know when Parliament reconvenes ? When will Haroper present that omnibus bill ? Will it go to committee for hearings ?


funny0

join:2010-12-22
reply to MaynardKrebs

People should start suing the Harper Conservative party for bringing such retarded laws with lawsuits , they are the cause of it all, maybe 10000 , 25000 dollar small claims actions might be a good start.


MaynardKrebs
Heave Steve, for the good of the country
Premium
join:2009-06-17
kudos:4
reply to jfmezei

said by jfmezei:

Does anyone know when Parliament reconvenes ? When will Haroper present that omnibus bill ? Will it go to committee for hearings ?

With the committees now stacked with Cons, any hearings there will be a matter of hauling out the rubber stamp. The hearings will be over before lunch.

jfmezei
Premium
join:2007-01-03
Pointe-Claire, QC
kudos:23

There has to be large amount of publish backlash and then the hearings will be more "open".



pjhillier

@mdmanagement.ca
reply to funny0

Odd that no one was barking about suits when the liberals introduced the same bills on three different occasions!


MaynardKrebs
Heave Steve, for the good of the country
Premium
join:2009-06-17
kudos:4


Collectively we are are wiser and more vocal now.

Past performance is not indicative of future results. YMMV


MaynardKrebs
Heave Steve, for the good of the country
Premium
join:2009-06-17
kudos:4
reply to MaynardKrebs

Law Enforcement Appliance Subverts SSL
»www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/0···rensics/

The company in question is known as Packet Forensics, which advertised its new man-in-the-middle capabilities in a brochure handed out at the Intelligent Support Systems (ISS) conference, a Washington, D.C., wiretapping convention that typically bans the press.


MaynardKrebs
Heave Steve, for the good of the country
Premium
join:2009-06-17
kudos:4
reply to MaynardKrebs

Certi ed Lies: Detecting and Defeating Government Interception Attacks Against SSL
»files.cloudprivacy.net/ssl-mitm.pdf

This paper introduces the compelled certi cate creation attack, in which government agencies may compel a certi cate authority to
issue false SSL certi cates that can be used by intelligence agencies to covertly intercept and hijack individuals' secure Web-based communications. Although we do not have direct evidence that this form of active surveillance is taking place in the wild, we show how products already on the market are geared and marketed towards this kind of use|suggesting such attacks may occur in the future, if they are not already occurring. Finally, we introduce a lightweight browser add-on that detects and thwarts such attacks.


MaynardKrebs
Heave Steve, for the good of the country
Premium
join:2009-06-17
kudos:4
reply to MaynardKrebs

Too Much Power
»www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/20···orcement

Though the article is in reference the the US Patriot Act, the author raises interesting points for us to ponder as we approach similar crossroads.

For the past 10 years, the Patriot Act’s critics have also made clear that their objections could be cured by amendments that limited its extraordinary surveillance powers to terrorism rather than ordinary criminal investigations. For example, when the act came up for re-authorization this year, Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, introduced a bill that would narrow the most controversial provision of the act, Section 215, which allows the government to seize “any tangible thing” without a warrant, from e-mails to browsing histories to library records. Wyden’s amendment would have required law enforcement officials to demonstrate that the records were connected to terrorism before seizing them.

....Of course, we can’t know precisely how the Patriot Act is being used and misused: Senator Wyden has warned that a secret law allowing the White House to keep its internal interpretations of the act classified means that it is now being used to justify surveillance that goes beyond what the public believes the law allows. But as long as the Patriot Act remains focused on ordinary Americans rather than suspected terrorists, the terrorists -- if you’ll forgive the truism -- have indeed have won.


Too Many Needless Provisions
»www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/20···riot-act

Be wary of 'scope creep'.
Less freedom doesn’t mean more safety.