Bill C-30
Are people familiar with this Bill? I don't think Toews did us any favour when he used false dichotomy recently. I won't quote it here but it was kind of like "You either support the President or you're a freedom hater."
Here's the most interesting article I've now seen. There's lots out there:
Bill C-30: Private information
Here's the most interesting article I've now seen. There's lots out there:
Bill C-30: Private information
Comments
The lack of awareness by politicians continually astounds me. Did no one think about the reaction of legislation that gives Police more authority to investigate its citizens ?
In regards to the legislation, there is so much misinformation out there, its hard to know what it really said. Everyone has put their own spin on it. From all accounts, its too vague and leaves too much room for interpretation. Which is exactly what governments do, they draft legislation and leave it up to the courts to figure out what they intended. UIEGA, anyone ?
Mark
And then they go and introduce this highly invasive surveillance bill?
Hello, McFly! Anybody in there, McFly?
Please quote me the section of the legislation that is "highly invasive" or is for surveillance.
Seriously? Ok, well read this article. A link to the actual bill and relevant sections is below the quotes.
Online surveillance bill opens door for Big Brother - Politics - CBC News
C-30
Section 34 states that the inspector is there to make sure the ISP is complying with the act. Meaning, having the means to make sure it can provide the necessary information if requested.
However, it is not worded well. And I am not sure why he would need to take anything with him to prove they are not in compliance.
Having said all that, I have always been of the belief that surfing the internet does not give you a reasonable expectation of privacy anyway. There are too many ways to track your movement online.
Be that as it may, there is a marked difference between an individual deciding to surrepticiously monitor your on-line activities, and the State doing it (or ordering the collection of same).
This is taking a sledgehammer to a gnat type legislation that, in it's own way, is WORSE than the long-gun registry was.
Vic Toews responds to Matt Gurney's call for his resignation over Bill C-30 | Full Comment | National Post
Whatever your position....it is true that the current government thinks that the police do not have the right to know if you have a gun......but that they DO have the right to know your email address. Pretty messed.
The fact that there are ways to track you does not mean companies should be compelled to use these methods to keep records, and then provide that information to authorities without so much as seeing a warrant.
The only information they have to give without a warrant is name and address info, which has long been considered "not private" anyways. Why? Because it is hard to get a warrant for "IP Address XX.XX.XX.XX". THEN they have to go and get the warrant for the rest of the information.
This bill would not only compel the ISP to give up subscriber info without a warrant, but also collect and store info on your online activity for a period of time and give that up to anyone appointed by the minister. That inspector doesn't even have to be police. This would require the installation of new equipment at the ISP, the cost of which would be borne by the subscribers.
Yes - as I said, they would be able to get the customer name and address info THEN they have to get a warrant to get the rest of the info.
Actually, truth be known, the ISP already has access to all that info, it's just that currently here in Ontario, it requires a court order for them to legitimately release it...
agreed....