|reply to MaynardKrebs |
Bill C-30 - Vic "Babysitter Banger" Toews is at it aga
The controversial online surveillance Bill C-30 would help police catch criminal suspects such as Luka Rocco Magnotta more quickly, according to briefing notes for Public Safety Minister Vic Toews prepared in the aftermath of the gruesome killing of Jun Lin.
The documents drawing a link with the Magnotta case and Bill C-30 were drafted and circulated by senior officials June 4 the same day the suspect was arrested in Berlin and more than a week after the crime occurred.
Under the heading: "Could Bill C-30 have helped locate [suspect] Luka Rocco Magnotta earlier?" two memorandums decline to comment on specifics of the investigation because it is continuing, but go on to say the bill "would provide police with tools that could prove useful in similar cases."
"Bill C-30 would give authorities quicker, more reliable access to electronic information that can help catch criminals faster, which would be especially useful in cases where the suspect intends to flee or seriously harm another individual," it reads.
The document package also includes an email circulated to government officials containing a blog posting by internet specialist Michael Geist, a law professor at the University of Ottawa.
At the time the story was developing, Toews said C-30 would be useful and relevant in such cases, but declined to comment specifically on the potential merits of the bill for the Magnotta case.
But Geist disputes the proposed internet surveillance legislation would have anything to do with a case like Magnotta's.
"By the time the evidence began to accumulate, he was already in Europe," Geist told CBC News. "The claim that C-30 would have made a difference is simply false there is no evidence that law enforcement ran into problems tracking down his location to Europe and ultimately making the arrest."
As for the specific four claims made in the documents, Geist says there is "far less than meets the eye." He notes:
ISPs already disclose subscriber information 94 per cent of the time without a court order. For the remainder, there is no evidence that obtaining a warrant for this kind of case poses a problem.
A preservation order still requires a warrant it is not immediate as suggested in the Q&A documents.
There is no evidence that there are delays in obtaining warrants.