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

Comments

  • This issue has been mishandled very badly by the government. It plays right into the hands of the opposition, who portray Stephen Harper has a secretive, power hungry dictator.

    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 ?
  • Oddly appropriate...

    a-dar-story-35.jpg?w=500&h=494

    Mark
  • It's not possible coming from the Conservatives. They're all about smaller, more effective and less intrusive government.
  • One of the reasons they gave for scrapping the long gun registry, and the long form census for that matter, was that it was invasive of privacy.

    And then they go and introduce this highly invasive surveillance bill?

    Hello, McFly! Anybody in there, McFly?
  • kwsteve wrote: »
    One of the reasons they gave for scrapping the long gun registry, and the long form census for that matter, was that it was invasive of privacy.

    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.
  • djgolfcan wrote: »
    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
    Among other things, the bill requires ISPs to install surveillance technology and software to enable monitoring of phone and internet traffic. Section 34 is there to make sure ISPs comply. So what, exactly, does it say?
    First, Section 33 tells us that, "The Minister may designate persons or classes of persons as inspectors for the purposes of the administration and enforcement of this Act."
    Next, Section 34 spells out the sweeping powers of these "inspectors." And, if they sound Orwellian, welcome to the world of Section 34.

    The inspectors may "enter any place owned by, or under the control of, any telecommunications service provider in which the inspector has reasonable grounds to believe there is any document, information, transmission apparatus, telecommunications facility or any other thing to which this Act applies."

    And, once he or she is in, anything goes.

    The inspector, says the bill, may "examine any document, information or thing found in the place and open or cause to be opened any container or other thing." He or she may also "use, or cause to be used, any computer system in the place to search and examine any information contained in or available to the system."
    C-30
  • kwsteve wrote: »
    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.
  • djgolfcan wrote: »
    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.
  • djgolfcan wrote: »
    Please quote me the section of the legislation that is "highly invasive" or is for surveillance.

    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.
  • They would like to know MORE than that. I have a simple rule . . . If the Chief of Police Association is for it, then I am probably against it.
  • djgolfcan wrote: »
    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.

    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 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.
  • That's not the way I understand it. Right now they can see your IP address. What they can't do is match that IP with a customer name and address. As it is now they need a warrant to go to the ISP and compel them to give up that info.

    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.
  • kwsteve wrote: »
    That's not the way I understand it. Right now they can see your IP address. What they can't do is match that IP with a customer name and address. As it is now they need a warrant to go to the ISP and compel them to give up that info.
    That's also the way I understand it currently.
  • kwsteve wrote: »
    That's not the way I understand it. Right now they can see your IP address. What they can't do is match that IP with a customer name and address. As it is now they need a warrant to go to the ISP and compel them to give up that info.

    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.
  • Al, the mountains of personal information that needs to be stored under this legislation would be a very juicy target for unscrupulous types with mad computer skills. You know, sort of younger versions of comp.
  • Milo wrote: »
    Al, the mountains of personal information that needs to be stored under this legislation would be a very juicy target for unscrupulous types with mad computer skills. You know, sort of younger versions of comp.

    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...
  • They may have all the info. but that is a far cry from being OBLIGATED BY STATUTE to store it, and turn it over without a warrant to anyone the government designates (Competition Bureau? WTF?!?)
  • Milo wrote: »
    They may have all the info. but that is a far cry from being OBLIGATED BY STATUTE to store it, and turn it over without a warrant to anyone the government designates (Competition Bureau? WTF?!?)

    agreed....
Sign In or Register to comment.