Sci-Tech -   

1
Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan speaks on CTV's Power Play in Ottawa, Thursday, June 18, 2009. Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan speaks on CTV's Power Play in Ottawa, Thursday, June 18, 2009. Vincent Gogolek, policy director of the BC Civil Liberties Association, appears on CTV News Channel on Thursday, June 18, 2009.

Government looks to increase web surveillance

Viewer

CTV News Video

CTV News: Roger Smith on the scope of the bill
The Conservative government has introduced legislation designed to modernize outdated laws, but the bill, which gives police to do online surveillance without a search warrant, may go too far.
CTV News Channel: Vincent Gogolek, Freedom on Information and Privacy Association, on the cyber crime crackdown
Vincent Gogolek said the harm in the proposed web access bills is that officials in several government departments will have access to seize Internet documents without a warrant from a judge.
Power Play: Peter Van Loan, Public Safety Minister and Chantal Bernier, deputy privacy commissioner
A new Conservative bill would compel ISPs to give all personal information to police without a warrant, allow tracking devices on cell phones and make using the internet for child exploitation a crime. But is this a balance between privacy and protection? It's hard to judge, but the Tories say it will bring more consistency.
CTV News Channel: Tom Clark on what was covered during a heated question period
Question period in the House of Commons Thursday was filled with heated exchanges between party leaders on topics ranging from the isotope shortage, to EI payment, and government access to web activity records.

A A |  Email ThisEmail  | PrintComments (142) Facebook   

Date: Thu. Jun. 18 2009 9:39 PM ET

New legislation proposed by the Tory government would give police increased powers to tap into Canadians' private online communications and allow officers to use cell phones as tracking devices.

Another major piece of the legislation would give law enforcement officials the ability to access personal information without a warrant -- powers that go too far, according to some privacy advocates.

Under two proposed bills presented Thursday, police would be able to:

  • Get an Internet user's name, address and email contact without a warrant
  • Charge someone for arranging sex exploitation with another person over the Net
  • Gain data about the origin and destination of an online discussion
  • Turn on tracking devices inside cell phones

The rules would also force:

  • Internet providers to keep data on their hard drives in case a user tries to delete information relevant to criminal investigations
  • Telecommunications companies to research ways in which they could intercept online conversations

Vincent Gogolek, policy director of the BC Civil Liberties Association, said the legislation bypasses due process and creates a legal shortcut where warrants were once required.

"There are going to be officials in a bunch of government departments, who are going to have the power to authorize seizure of electronic communication data. And that just shouldn't happen without a warrant from a judge."

While the government says the new rules are needed to update archaic laws which were drafted during the era of the rotary telephone, Gogolek questioned that explanation.

"They've been saying that since the last millennium," Gogolek told CTV News Channel from Vancouver Thursday.

"Every time this comes up, we keep asking them, 'tell us what your problems are, show us some examples where the current laws haven't worked,' and they always fall back on hypothetical" scenarios, he said.

"It's like a bad zombie movie, where every few years, this proposal -- which we think has been killed off -- keeps coming back."

Gogolek added that Canada's laws already recognize the principle of "hot pursuit," which allows police to expedite investigations.

The two bills were introduced Thursday by Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan and Justice Minister Rob Nicholson, who say Canada's laws need to be updated in order to fight high-tech criminals.

"Twenty-first century technology calls for 21st century tools for police to effectively investigate crime," said Nicholson in Ottawa.

Van Loan noted: "The legislation contains important tools to allow our law enforcement community and our intelligence officials to combat crime and terrorism in the face of rapidly evolving communications technologies."

Later in the day, Van Loan defended the legislation as a simple update of the current laws.

"There is nothing that allows the police to look at emails without a warrant," Van Loan told CTV's Power Play.

When asked about particular circumstances where the current laws have fallen short, Van Loan pointed to a recent kidnapping investigation in British Columbia, which was delayed by more than 36 hours as officers attempted to get a warrant to trace a suspect through cellular telephone.

"They want to intervene in those kinds of situations immediately," Van Loan said,

Still, the legislation doesn't respect the privacy of Canadians, critics say.

"I haven't seen the evidence that substantiates a relaxation of civil liberties in this area," said David Fewer, director of the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic at the University of Ottawa, in an interview with The Canadian Press.

"It just looks like a grab, under the name of modernization, just a grab of our civil liberties."


Comments are now closed for this story

Stephanie from Ontario
said
0 0

The only people who care are the people who have something to hide. I haven't done anything wrong so why should I care. If it's going to make our country safer (which it will) then go for it!!!


redbike in redmonton
said
0 0

It think that a requirement for a warrant is not too much of an imposition and provides some oversight of the police's powers, but I have no problem with the rest of it.


Jim
said
0 0

This is rubbish. Even basic human rights don't seem to stand for anything these days


American in Canada
said
0 0

My Canadians friends. I implore you to write your MP and opposition party leaders to defeat this Bill.

Please do not remain passive and as many Americans did when similar legislation was enacted in the US. Once a government takes away your rights and freedoms, history teaches us that those rights can never be restored using those same means. Such laws are always abused by law enforcement. These are not laws of a free country, but rather, laws more common to a dictatorship. To say it is in support of fighting terrorism only insults the intelligence of Canadians.

This should not be an argument between left and right, but rather wrong and right. Your liberties, and the liberties of your children are a stake.

The last item in that list is nothing but a political ploy, so that anyone who doesn’t vote for the Bill will be accused of not looking out for the best interest of our children. This is an old political trick, don’t fall for it. That last item should be a bill on its own without all the other right infringing powers.

Do everything you can to defeat this bill.


Who said we had the right to privacy online anyway
said
0 0

FIRST of all, why does everyone have it in their head that online activity is a private thing???
What a joke!
No one should have an expectation of privacy online.
Hackers can get to pretty much anything.
People need to stop thinking that emails are AT ALL private.
Sending an email has the privacy equivalent to you walking down a street having a conversation.
If you are walking and talking with a friend on a public street, chances are you are being video recorded and with cell phones and etc. you can quite possibly be voice recorded. So when you are online engaging socially or otherwise amidst the online community you have no real privacy as though you were out in your real life community.
This is an absolute fact.

As the article stated these new laws are simply a catch up to the vast chaos of crime etc. online.
And our governments would be (and have been up until now) neglectful to not update laws.
People who are so worried about privacy need to admit to themselves that being online is not private, it's a public community.
Who ever said it was our personal right to be anonymous online anyway?
I think children being exploited IS worth attention and sacrificing the notion that the internet is our giant lawless anonymous free for all community.
Without law and order we are left with anarchy.
Which is how I would describe the internet.
And sure enough with anarchy we have children being exploited and rampant fraud (identity theft and phishing)
Like a bunch of brats we will grumble about this and idiots will rant publicly but in the end it will happen.
So look out child predators, your haven will change! yay!





Mamad
said
0 0

This is a clear invasion of our privacy and they will eventually use it to arrest filesharers. We must tell all of our MPs to vote against this outrageous bill that gives unlimited powers to the police.


John Royle, Ontario
said
0 0

My Goodness people can you not see were this kind of legislation is heading! ..... Reflect on the musings of one George Satayanna "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."......... and then google this word!..... "Ermächtigungsgesetz" ...... and then Email your MP and bend his ear to put a stop to this stepping stone to "Big Brother"........


Terry S.
said
0 0

A couple points to ponder if you think "what possible harm could this do?"

Hitler didn't just show up one day and say "I'm gonna restrict your freedoms, put thugs in charge, and commit genocide! Who's with me?" It happened slowly bit by bit until most decent people either were so brainwashed they didn't see the wrong or were so powerless they could do little about it.

If that is in no way convincing, the one point you may understand is; This will cost ISP and communications companies A LOT of money that shows up on your bill. YOU WILL HAVE TO PAY MORE!!!!!! That should scare the bejezus out of the right wingers out there!


Josh in Ontario
said
0 0

I never thought I'd see the day.

I'm all for increasing police powers for the protection of society, but the police need to have SOME semblance of a process which verifies that the info they are going after is needed, and safeguards against abuse. The article doesn't explicitly say that they can "read your e-mail without a warrant", but I would like to see the details of the legislation before I make a judgement.

For now, it looks like they might be pushing it.


Jason, in Toronto
said
0 0

What about people that share their internet connection with two, three, five or more housemates and registered only under one name. I can see some innocent people being charged for crimes they did not commit.


muzo
said
0 0

Thats fine as long as we get free computers and free internet.If not,shove off!


Alain
said
0 0

Think of the Children!!!!


Rick Johnson
said
0 0

If you would like to register your displeasure with this bill to the people who wrote it, why not give them a call and leave a message?

Rob Nicholson (905) 353-9590 (905) 871-9991
Peter Van Loan (905) 898-1600


Vote NDP in the next federal/provincial election
said
0 0

Welcome to the new police state in Canada. What next, our fingerprints.


Matt
said
0 0

DCR,

Hopefully the representative and party you vote for represent you well.

That being said, I regularly mail my MP and MPP, and I'm getting more involved to help encourage them to do the right thing.

My opposition to this bill is the warrantless searches, and I'm letting the government know.


DCR-Toronto
said
0 0

I am a staunch Conservative voter. That being said, NOBODY should like EVERYTHING put forth by the party of their choice. This is one bill that had better fail, or I will vote Libertarian. The last thing we need is the RCMP having the freedom to just tap into whomever they want, whenever they want. This is not North Korea!!! Mr. Harper, you are treading on very thin ice with your own core. Careful now.


Ottawa Guy
said
0 0

The police need a court order to search your home, tap your phone, or intercept your ground mail. The same rules should apply before they start intercepting electronic mail, taping electronic conversations, and searching our electronic backyards. This sounds like a gross violation of privacy under the auspices of "public safety". That very reasoning worked real well in the US - let's hope this silliness won't migrate north and someone will block the Conservatives and this abuse of privacy...


dc in ottawa
said
0 0

This has been going on for years already with big ISPs. Read your acceptable use policy. States pretty much the same for all of them that the ISP will cooperate fully with law enforcement regarding any criminal investigation. Which essentially means no warrant? This law is all for show and simply to close any possible loop holes a defense lawyer may try to use. What's really scary is if this privilege were to start to be abused for things as simple as downloading songs. Don't fret people you have been living in a police state for a long time. Don't you know we always need new laws and cops as we will never be safe from our selves?


Chris Jones-Hansen
said
0 0

The whole "if you do no wrong then why would you worry about someone looking at you?" line of thought would be laughable if it weren't so sickening. Only the most naive have such faith in their government, whom they obviously regard as wise and flawless, uncorruptable protectors. Many of you oght to move to North Korea... you'd never notice the difference, aparently. I fear for the PAST of this country, not it's future: now that I know it's rife with such spineless and willing slaves, the past is most precious. Those that forget it are doomed to repeat it.

NO THANKS.




Brad G - Edmonton
said
0 0

It would be helpful if most of the people who leave comments actually bothered to read the article. The only warrantless power is for obtaining a name. Not for listening. These tech crimes are preying on young people. You're worried about 'big-brother', I'm more worried about pedophiles and organized crime. It's your society, go ahead and set your priorities and then your children can suffer for your naiveness.


PB_Toronto
said
0 0

I can certainly understand why so many people are upset by this. Its such a terribel thing that someone wants to keep those who would use the internet for nefarious reasons from doing just that. I mean its their right to be able to freely indulge in such behaviour that puts children and others at risk from criminal behaviour such as fraud and the such. Besides its probably more a mental illness anyway and we should be looking at ways to spend tax money on these poor individuals that would the internet in such a way. The last thing we need is the government sticking their nose in and catching these poor misunderstood individuals. Being a avid user of the internet myself I certainly dont want the governement to know I snuck a peak and juggs.com and come to my house and drag me off. It will no doubt happen according to civil liberties advocates.

While we are at it we should make our voices heard about the Tories being tougher on offenders and young offenders. We certainly dont want to look like we are tough on crime. Might hurt our worldly reputation and may actually reduce the number of frivulous lawsuits arising from all our civil rights abuses bestowed on the criminal element.

seriouisly, Canada is beginning to make me sick with its hug a thug attitude. This law hurts no one but those who would take part in criminal activities.



WB
said
0 0

Horrible! Appalling! Oppressive! Do I really need to say why?


Mike from Edmonton
said
0 0

Funny how all you liberals go on about this, but are all for the gun registry. Now that this invasion of privacy affects you, there is no end to the weeping and wailing. Get it through your thick skulls, Canada is a socialist country! It has been socialist for a very long time, and socialists are for big government and intrusion into all aspects of your life. I have two names for you so that the educated amoung you can know what to expect in the future ... The National Socialist German Workers Party and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The current Conservative party is just as socialist as the rest the rest of the national parties so this is no surprise.


Jack in Hamilton
said
0 0

The global police state is coming down right NOW! DW, Bev, Steve and their ilk are perfect slaves. This isn't about protecting children or anything of the sort; it's about tyranny - GLOBAL tyranny. Have you noticed how the same exact laws are being tried everywhere almost simultaneously? Central planning. In one to three years the global police state will be complete and then everyone, including children, will be crying and dying. RESIST!

Jay, Ottawa
said
0 0

Molly said, "Just watched Tom Clark and Van Loan. Police will still need a warrant for access to personal information. The only part they are changing is that your internet provider must give police your name, phone number and address without requiring a warrant, no other information. Just the same way police can call in your driver's licence and get your name, phone number and address."

There's still a nuance here that should be addressed. To get my driver's license they need to ask me for it. If an officer pulls me over they give me a reason for it and I'm the one to hand over that license. Not some private sector company. I can also ask the officer questions, and because most officers are good people they will explain what is going on.

In the case of the internet I wouldn't be involved in that process. Let's say Molly that someone in the government doesn't like what you said in the CTVNews.ca comments. I want you to be able to express yourself without the possibility of your MP refusing to help you one day because of something you posted online and they used channels to discover your identity.

The fundamental problem here as I see it is that they're trying to tack on the realities of new technology to archaic laws. Instead, maybe many of these laws should be written from the ground up to better balance the protection of society's most vulnerable AND strengthening democracies by recognising the internet as a medium for the free exchange of ideas with a reasonable expectation of personal privacy protected by safeguards.


dave
said
0 0

This bill would be okay if the police could be trusted not to abuse it. Cops are only human, and we have already witnessed police officers abusing their position to carry on a personal vendetta.



Independently Minded
said
0 0

Molly,

You are aware that your name, address and phone number IS your "private information" right?

If you disagree, then please feel free to post them all on this very board, right now...

If you are reluctant to do so, then your common sense is telling you that the information is "private".

Our police forces are very well trained and can quite efficiently "detect" criminal activity already. This is an Orwellian bill and it must be defeated.

I for one am not about to five up my civil liberties to any one. This government needs to be reminded, WE ARE THE BOSS OF THEM, not the other way round...


JP
said
0 0

So if you disagree with this bill, you'll automatically be labelled a wanna-be child molester, or a defender of child-molestation in general.

Big brother is already here people.


Jacquie
said
0 0

I have learned that democracy in Canada is dying, with a great loss in freedom of speech and opinion, but if you are living a moral life, than you have nothing to fear. We have more freedom than many other countries, and I say "no harm, no foul". Many are crying out for more justice and the web is where a lot if injustice occurs.


Pittsky
said
0 0

I disagree with this. But at the same time, the police already do this everyday in Canada.


LB from the burbs
said
0 0

Since they wouldn't need a warrant, what would prevent the police from intercepting electronic communications between an attorney and his client(s)?


Dan
said
0 0

Sure. And when your done, why don't you illegally tap my phone, come search my house without a warrent and detain me for a while without giving me a reason. Then go ahead and deport me because this is starting to sound like a country I dont want to have anything to do wiht. This is tyranny - plain and simple. This is rediculous! GET A WARRENT FIRST BEFORE YOU INVADE OUR PRIVACY - but I guess they would rather just go on a fishing expedition.


mudman1969
said
0 0

To the devil with you, Mr. Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan - your party has just lost a vote.

I suggest other Conservatives do the same - a message has to be sent to Parliament that Canada in 2009 is not Germany in the 1930s.

Since Mr. Harper and the party are teetering on the precipice of power, perhaps the prospect of losing power will change their minds.


An Ox In CowTown
said
0 0

Steve From Alberta

Everything you just stated was wrong. Try reading something before you spout off such simple minded drivel. You just re-enforce the stereotypes of this province.

So the Mounties lie, we know this, they murder people and get away with it. The ONLY, ONLY thing keeping them in check is the courts, and now the con's want to remove that..

jesus christ.. that's all I can say.. if this happens, that's it, I'm moving to another country.. I know it sounds like an over reaction but if Canadians are this stupid to allow this to happen I'm done trying to help this country or it's people..

shameful.. horrible.. dangerous..


Molly
said
0 0

Just watched Tom Clark and Van Loan. Police will still need a warrant for access to personal information. The only part they are changing is that your internet provider must give police your name, phone number and address without requiring a warrant, no other information. Just the same way police can call in your driver's licence and get your name, phone number and address. The legislation currently already applies to rotary phone providers, but the laws are archaic and don't apply to cell phones and internet providers. The Privacy Commissioner was on and stated that your name, phone number and address are not private information, but available to anyone. Public Information. Look in the phone book. Police will still need a warrant for all other information. So now you can all relax because the police can't get your personal information without a warrant.


Joshua
said
0 0

Sorry very flawed bill.Nice try though.Listen up govt.You need a warrant.Anyone including police can spend the time and energy to do good old fashioned detective work.We are already catching child molestors and terrorists.So no dice.No amount of arguement will convince me that the state can do a better job of surveillance than we the people.I voted for you Conservatives i can easily vote against you.We wont give up our freedoms to catch terrorists.Kapish?


Mario Tbay
said
0 0

Is this an eye opener for any of you sheeple out there?


Independently Minded
said
0 0

Umm, what happened to the less government mantra from the Conservatives?

This is one of the frustrating things I find about this government. They are bought and paid for by special interests. Groups who have no issues with privacy invasion or circumventing a citizen's rights so long as it isn't them...

This bill is inherently written to be abused by those who don't have the public safety at heart, namely the media industries hoping to sue individual citizens for downloading their content.

Kinda like the US war on drugs, fill the prisons with users, but let the producers remain free...

The first slice of our rights is the side stepping of judicial warrants. It's a slippery slope when that limitation is gone.

What's next? Wiretapping without a warrant?
These Cons have learned far too well from the Bush administration as well as the Chinese government!

Van Loan if you want anti-child exploitation legislation then write it, don't hide a backhanded surveillance bill and call it an anti-child porn bill!

How stupid do they think we are?

Concerned Canadians need to contact their MPs and voice their concern or this could become LAW!


JTD
said
0 0

"Enable police to access information on an Internet subscriber, such as name, street address and email address, without having to get a search warrant."

I don’t agree with this at all. Not all police officers are good people, and I wouldn’t want my personal information at those people’s finger tips. This is not safe, and I believe puts the public in danger.



Mike everywhere
said
0 0

Today pedophiles, tomorrow you get a bill in the mail for those downloaded songs.

Without a warrant someone could give your name to police anonymously, and you then become a pedophile until proven innocent.


MHR - Police can be crook
said
0 0

I like idea however without warrent is dangerous thing.

I will tell you this... Think about this.

There are over 50,000 polices in this country. Alot of them are crook and has a seriou connection with gang or criminals org. Imagine this kind of law will give them powers to bribe crook police to access information of people. OR their rival... Evedropping on their rivals as well...

Without WARRENT is dangerous. There are no safety net in this.. WE are allowing polices to do whatever they want to... That is going to lead us to somewhere dark... Polices can abuse it... That is FACT...

What are we doing to prevent that? It seem like Tories think police is 100% good.

They are out of touch with this law.....

This is like my interpreter at high school picking up my notes in trash bin and I made a bad joke and I got caught because of that interpreter. This is similar and we can see polices overstep their authority.

Mark my word on this. I think I will start deleting all of my emails and disconnect internet from my computer.


Mo - Regina
said
0 0

I wonder, what's next?

This governoment is sick. It looks to me that our country is ruled by some control freaks.

I can't believe that this is happening in Canada. How can we have the guts to critsize Iran or china then for doing the same thing that we look forward to here at home?




Lauren
said
0 0

To Sandy:

Selecting jurors from a pool is legal in both the States and Canada. Lawyers are entitled to peremptory challenges as well as dismissals for cause for a number of potential jurors. Screening jurors has been going on for years.... why do you think that the wealthy who can hire jury consultants to screen the jury in their favour tend to win more cases?

This has nothing to do with internet surveillance or warrants.


lakesidetrader
said
0 0

Yes they spin it in such a way that they only would use it to catch potental child molesters and crooks. Ha, once in place we are all suspects and another small bit of freeddom has been lost forever.
It's the thin edge of the wedge my friends.


Mike from Saskatoon
said
0 0

If they were trying to listen in on peoples phone calls or look in the mail and packages everyone sends this would immediatly be dropped for being totalitarian...

Why is it that when Iran or the USSR do this it is a violation of civil rights and when we do it it is all about our protection.


Reese
said
0 0

They should be able to do all that but a search waarrent must be obtained first


Arthur Tiztik
said
0 0

Although a conservative, this legislation will have me giving serious consideration to the liberals. It is seriously flawed policy.


ZAPHOD
said
0 0

Uh didn't we just go through all of this BS down south with the "Patriot Act"???

So much for privacy.

And don't even start with the "if you have nothing to hide you shouldn't care" stupidity...


Will James
said
0 0

I must admit, I am somewhat DISGUSTED at the comments of people on here. I understand that each person is entitled to Privacy, but if you are doing something wrong or illegal, why should you be protected by a process of a warrant? They wont be able to do anything to you if you aren’t breaking the law, so what does it matter?

As a victim of a crime, where was MY RIGHTS and MY PRIVACY when I was being violated. Oh, lets remember, in a socialist and liberal state the collectively and betterment of the criminal is paramount….Victims come SECOND!

Just goes to show you how selfish and uncaring some people are. But when the victim becomes you, I am sure you would change your tone.



Dave - Halifax
said
0 0

My comment to the supporters of this bill:

I for one, agree with your statement "if you're not breaking the law, then..."

However, let's look a bit deeper than that.

Let's say, for example, this bill passes, and I live next door to you - and we don't like eachother (so anyone you don't like...take note)

I simply login to your network (easy and LEGAL), I then do outrageous things under your account, like talk about death, bombs, porn, etc. Than I logoff, walk back home, and wait for the 5.0 to roll up to your house.

Thank about how many people would abuse this? Heck, I'd be tempted to login to the Conservative Parties' network and start spreading false information. The sky is the limit!


Off that topic, this is by definition a "Police State"...not quite sure why we'd want to roll the clocks back to let's say the 14th century, but it seems that's the case. I for one, have already written my MP, and opposition parties, as well as had my neighbors and family do the same...

Don't let Canada turn into Iranada please!



Dave in Ontario
said
0 0

I voted for a Conservative Goverment , NOT A Communist party . yes the internet should be policed some , but waving Warrants is wrong . I know the Liberal's will bring up the old "Charter of right's & Freedoms" on this issue. This may not go over well with voters .


Ed in Ontario
said
0 0

Only the last point is welcome. You need a warrant to access private information; I thought that was a cornerstone of the legal system? If this bill goes through, it will be overturned by the Supreme Court, and child molesters won't be prosecuted because the Tories were overzealous. And forcing companies to pay for the government's stupid laws? I think Trudeau was more conservative than this. Oops, I'd better not say that; Rob Nicholson might come after me.


Jason
said
0 0

This is unbelievable...I'm fighting this one...


Chief Small Shadow
said
0 0

Nice to have a big brother stand up and protect his little brothers and sisters.


Hunter Mars
said
0 0

As a tool for catching pedophiles and cyber stalkers this is a sledgehammer of a law.
How widely will they cast the net ?
Cops already monitor thousands of IP's without permission .
This smacks of fascism .
How many 'key' words will become suspect ?
Will the cops tell someone their IP is being monitored before or after the fact ?
IP's can be cloned .
What about proxy addies ?
As per usual the con-bots have fashioned a law that stands no chance of passing a SCOC review . Typical .


Jared in Courtenay
said
0 0

Man - just one more proposed law from Harper that is traditionally in the dictator's tool box for taking supreme control of a once democratic nation.

This man truly frightens me.

This is the kind of law you put into place to begin gathering information on your political rivals to eliminate or control them.

the only thing Harper has odne I like is strengthen the military but the rest is not good news for Canadians in general.


Kevin R
said
0 0

Good thing I don't live in Iran. What, what? This article is about Canada?


Greg
said
0 0

"Twenty-first century technology calls for 1984 tools for police to effectively investigate crime."

Be vigilant, citizen!


Paul J Graham, Saskatoon
said
0 0

The first group this legislation should be used on is the Conservative party itself. Will they submit to having ALL their emails and cyber activity evaluated?

There is a another way to counteract this legislation...turn off the computer, write letters and go to the library for your info.


Matt
said
0 0

Dan,

You might be perfect, without a single embarrassing detail, or an innocent act that may be misinterpreted, but most of us aren't. If there is a good reason to suspect that useful information exists, the police should go get that information. However they have to have a reason to believe the information is there, they shouldn't just wander through our lives as they please.

Once they suspect child luring, go ahead get a warrant and investigate them. But if there is no reason to suspect someone, the police should leave them alone.


Ian in N.B.
said
0 0

Let's think about this, let say a person who has a grudge against you has the authority to do your search of your Internet history and content.

Everyone has their own private things they want to do on the Internet. Your sexual prefernces, your plans, your bank statements, where your child is going. They can even spy on your child as well.

Now say that whoever has a grudge got a hold of this information. I'll let you take it from there. This bill has nothing but "BAD IDEA" written all over it.


Jim in the West
said
0 0

The process of obtaining a warrant is the only "check and balance" point to unrestricted surveilance. I agree with everything here but that. The police must obtain a warrant before obtaining private information.


Molly
said
0 0

If terrorists were plotting to attack Parliament Hill (which has already happened with a group from Toronto, who were arrested because someone overheard a conversation) I would sure hope their communications were intercepted by an elite police task force and that police would not have to wait for a judge to be found to issue the warrant so they can listen in. The article didn't say all police officers would have access to all media. It said "a select number of law enforcement officials". I have no problem with a Cyber-Swat Team if they can shut down a robbery, kidnapping, or school shooting before it happens. You'd all be yelling at the government if something serious happened while police were sitting around waiting for a warrant instead of listening in for details of a crime being planned. They could care less about what you did Saturday night, really.


Graeme
said
0 0

Ridiculous. While police should have the tools to do their jobs, allowing getting personal information from ISPs on their customers without so much as a warrant isn't what a free country should stand for. We have the courts to prevent abuse and Harper wants to take them out of the system.

I hope Ignatief can defeat Harper as soon as possible: bring on a summer election if needed.


Nick in Gatineau
said
0 0

Pre-Harper government = Innocent until proven guilty.

Harper government = Guilty until proven innocent.

We are at a point where an accusation is enough to destroy a person's life. So guilty or not, Harper is allowing the accusation to set the pace. Again, what happens to the falsely accused ?




MAL
said
0 0

Oh this is good... let's make sure that anyone in opposing political parties is checked thoroughly for illegal activities daily, and just in case the feds find out some stuff that could help in the election it will NEVER see the light of day. Of Course. Coff::Coff

We can even set up the waterboarding camp on Baffin Island and help with Northern employment. Win-Win!

This is total SARCASM of course, it's a stupid idea that WILL be abused in the name of safety, right George W.


Adam in Ottawa
said
0 0

I'm all for making things easier to fight child pornography, but this goes way too far! Neither the Conservative Government nor the RCMP fill me with confidence that information gathered in this way would be used properly. Might as well move to China or Iran!


david in Ottawa
said
0 0

Hands off my privacy George Bush... Oh, wait a minute, that's Steven Harper isn't it?

The government needs to learn to govern the country and keep its long curious fingers out of citizen's private lives.

Don't we have enough to worry about without Big Brother snooping through our internet browsing preferences... which incidentally might contain sensitive financial and personal details....

Gimme and election!


an accepted LAW = a broader law in the future
said
0 0

Remember people everytime they pass a new law and we get used to it they go one step furture. so this is just the beginning. In a few years they will be sending police to our doors to walk through your house just to take a look. OH yeh they already do that when the city sends an appraiser to up the value of your property so they can get more property tax.( work more, build more, pay more)Where's the Freedom?

Wake up people its already a police state. They control how much money you have in your pocket with taxes and interest rates, etc. If ever they take to much and we the people take to the streets they will just consider us an enemy of the state and lock us up with out a lawyer or charges exactly like they do in Gitmo. If you think this couldn't happen get your head out of the sand.

Besides If Criminals know that the Police are watching the internet don't you think they will Stop using it and use something else. We have ever lived without the internet before and a smart criminal will go back to meeting in the back alles. so Realize people Its just an excuse to watch average tax paying citizens to be able to monitor when they have to be scared that we the people might rise up and rebel against our own government like history has shown and demand more of our hard earned money back !!!!!



A. Bica
said
0 0

No search warrant?

Isn't one a requirement for presumption of innocence?


Dani - Red Deer
said
0 0

This isn't the government trying to exert more control over society, this is responsible government protecting innocent Canadians. It's not like any police officer can access this information, as long as there is a regulatory system in place you should only be upset if you are doing something you shouldn't be.


Patrick LeavingToronto
said
0 0

Why do the Police get irked when they have to get a warrant? Why is this a problem? If they have a reasonable need, the judge grants the warrant. If it is baseless, and they shouldn't be pursuing a search, then they wouldn't get one.

Oh, right, that's the problem. Its easier to fish than to build a proper case.

Gee, I wonder if they're going to grab everyone's data from commenting on this article, and then harrass us?


Dan in Ontario
said
0 0

I think Scott Brison pretty much summed it up when he said that the Canadian public doesn't trust the NDP with the economy and they don't trust the PCs with public rights. This brings home this point.


Alex (Toronto)
said
0 0

The medium makes no difference. Police should have the same right to IP addresses as they have right now to walk into a post office and read the address information on people's mail. They should have the same right to the content of communication that they have now to open someone's mail and read it.

The question is, who will have access to people's personal communications? How easy will it be for, say, a divorce lawyer to get information about someone's phone texts or email?

The other question is how much it's going to cost service providers to maintain all this extra hardware the law is demanding? Because of course consumers will end up paying the bill for this.

Worse-case scenario here is potential employers or creditors getting information about one's shopping habits, who one's friends are, about one's religion, politics, health conditions, sexual orientation, etc. All this at the click of a button, without the bother of having a judge decide if any crime is involved or if the person looking for the information has any legitimate use for it.

If child porn or organized crime are justification for reading someone's personal information, show some evidence of an actual crime. That's what a search warrant is for. Don't just hand information to the bureaucracy with no restrictions.


C. Morris
said
0 0

The only real problem I have with the measures is that police would not need a warrant. Why, so they can choose to snoop on whomever they want? Why should my police-officer neighbour have the right to look at my personal emails? Why would anyone ever date any member of a police department? Would these measures be used for good? In some cases, of course; just don't fool yourself into thinking there won't be officers who seriously abuse this privilege. Police should not have open access to ANY of my information unless they have proven that they need it. Once providing the very little proof needed for a warrant, have at it.


Concerned Canadian
said
0 0

Infringement of our civil liberties is often sold to us through appeals to fear: to protect us from terrorists, pedophiles etc.

But as Ben Franklin once said, those who give up their freedom for security end up with neither.

The government defends their position on the grounds that they are hunting for pedophiles. Now no one can defend pedophiles, but these laws will take away everyone's right to privacy, not just the perverts'.

And that's why civil liberty groups are upset. It is unfair to argue that they are "defending perverts" by attacking this law. All they are calling for is for the regular safeguards, ones that have worked well for several hundred years, to remain in place.

If the police have good evidence that someone is producing or using child porn, then they should be able to get a warrant. If not, then why should they be allowed to invade not just the perverts' privacy, but everyone else's as well?

Because that's where this is going. In the wrong hands, this becomes a tool to suppress anyone, investigate anyone, invade anyone's privacy.

And the argument that "if you've got nothing to hide, why should you worry?" just doesn't cut it. I do not have to justify my right to privacy; it is up to the state to defend their decision to take it away. The onus is on them, not me.

The notion that the rights of the citizen really belong to the state, by the way, is pure communism. In democratic countries, we treat our rights and freedoms as inalienable, not to be taken away without overwhleming reason.

And yet this Bill is being introduced by a supposedly Conservative government. Now what other right-wing states violated their citizens' right to privacy on the grounds of state security?

Oh yeah.

The Nazis.

And the U.S. under Bush.


Lauren
said
0 0

If you're not doing anything illegal on the internet.... why would it be an issue?


Dave, Ottawa
said
0 0

Ah yes... if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear... didn't Stalin say that, or was it Chairman Mao?

Think about this for a minute... Let's say the RCMP set up a "teaser" site, designed to entice pedophiles to go to it, with the intent of gathering information. Now lets say, as either a bad joke or a hack, that someone sets up a link on a website labeled as "Free DVD Offer", which actually routes you to the RCMP teaser site. You click the link. Now, the RCMP have your IP. Next, they pass the list of IPs to the corresponding service providers, no warrant or probable cause required, and say "Give me all ya got on these creeps". Now they have your name and identity, and there is no telling what police database you'll end up in next.


Doug
said
0 0

My God it is George Bush all over again.


Dan Dan
said
0 0

Another ridiculous policy from the Conservative "government".

Why can't I actually find someone who supports this group of "politicians"? Nobody wants to admit it. And yet the polls say they have a lot of support.

Is it all in Toronto?


annie, ontario
said
0 0

This will be the downfall of the conservatives, unless the liberals agree.

I could never again vote for a party that thinks this is a good idea.

What the heck is up with these guys?


Inkmont
said
0 0

I like zwinky's idea of making it easier for police to get a warrant and I hope that will happen but the truth is criminals are already doing all the things the police are asking for permission to do. The criminals are always one step ahead of the police and I feel the police should have the tools to fight crime. I'd rather have the police reading my emails than the thieves and scam artists who are doing it now.


Abdula
said
0 0

DW in Vancouver BC said: "Why do so many complain if you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to be afraid of, it is that simple."

I have nothing to hide but lets examine how this sort of info could be abused. You can vote by proxy and if your computer is monitored your vote is no longer private (voting is not criminal) Your sexual preference might make you a target of abuse, do you trust the government with this info? (this is not criminal either) You plan to market a product and don't want your competitors to know about it or how to make it, do you trust the government with this info they would likely leave a recording of it in a BATHROOM. In our society to expect that the government would do something detrimental to you on purpose is paranoia but to trust the government not to screw up is also naive.


Jason Daniel Baker, Toronto
said
0 0

Didn't George Bush put Americans through years of this with no results.

It is like the gun registry. The truly malevolent people will find a way around it and the only people punished will be law abiding citizens.


DM in NB
said
0 0

"...Give us a worst-case scenarios of how a law abiding citizen could be done wrong by this and then I'll judge if it's worth it or not...."

OK, Mattman, try this one on for size. Do you live in an apartment? Do you know anyone that does? Let's say that the person that lives in the apartment next door to you wants to download some child pron. Instead of doing it on their system, they use YOUR wireless connection. The police bust down your door a week later and arrest you, you get your name all over the media, and your life is now ruined.

Is that cool with you?

You be the judge.



Jay, Ottawa
said
0 0

Mattman in Ottawa said, "...Give us a worst-case scenarios of how a law abiding citizen could be done wrong by this and then I'll judge if it's worth it or not"

Here's a worst case scenario: A sitting government uses connections in the police force to obtain the names and addresses of people expressing views online that are contrary to government's in an effort to use intimidation to control dissent.


NMC in Cal gary
said
0 0

The police does not need a warrant to get information about me when I drive by them in my car ie running my plates. So what is the difference if they get my details from my IP address, it is like a license plate?


DM in NB
said
0 0

"...its not as if they will be entering yoru house and arresting you for no reason..."

Not yet. But I'm sure they're thinking about it.


Sandy
said
0 0

For those of you who say this is a good law since “I have nothing to hide”.

It has come to light in Ontario that the police and crown attorneys have secretly run background checks on prospective jurors, thus stacking the jury pool in their favour. If you don't think the police are going to "use" this new law for anything they wish then you need your head examined.

As a Conservative supporter I think this is despicable. My family members fought in wars for freedom, not for ANY government to take away! If you want to know my Internet activity, GET A WARRANT!



Mark
said
0 0

Im all for catching and putting criminals/predators in jail, but no search warrants or due process? No way, this has to be defeated, as it has big brother written all over it


Robert White
said
0 0

better to make it easier to get a warrant, perhaps an eWarrant. although the rest of the stuff sounds reasonable.


Trent in Ontario
said
0 0

I am in total agreement with the 'Fred Flintstone' comment but would like to add one more thing.
It isn't the job of technology to raise and protect our children; that is the job of parents.

Parenting is quickly becoming a lost art if you will. Parents need to be parents and take an active role in their children's activities on and off the internet rather than using technology as a baby-sitter.
Since when did parents come to the realization that children are born with dicipline rather than it being a learned behaviour?

Maybe if parents did a little more parenting and educated their children instead of letting the Internet and their peers do the job for them things would be better!

What ever happened to family values?


Dan
said
0 0

I don't see why everyone is complaining about this. I mean, unless you have something to hide... what's the problem? This will only PROTECT innocent children, etc. from Internet crime.

You have to remember, this will SAVE, PREVENT, and SOLVE many Internet crimes that are very serious and relevant to Canadian society - child porn, child luring, etc.. So common, I think I can give up a tad of freedom to help fight pedophiles, etc.!

Unless you have a lot to hide, I can't understand why people are so vocal against this.


St Eve
said
0 0

I do agree with all that were said about a warrant. Is the next step to give police more power to search your home anytime, or examine your bank/investment account? I would only consent to a "no reason" strip search if it were done by a female officer.


John Smith
said
0 0

So who is going to regulate the Police, Hey officer I will give you a thousand bucks for some info on so and so, Police are notorious for exploiting the power they already have and in some cases to the extreme that it violates civil liberty


Terry S.
said
0 0

To all of you who say "hey it's not like they are going into your house without a warrant." In essence they are going through your mail, your garbage, your car, your office. They need NO EVIDENCE to do such a search and the results will be admissible in court. The first step to an Orwellian police state.

Mattman in Ottawa
said
0 0

I'd like to hear some of the real world implications that Civil Liberties groups are concerned about.

Right now I don't see anything in there that scares me.

I'm usually a bit gun-shy about anything that compromises my privacy, but I find this less offensive than some of the tracking of my surfing activities that private companies already do.

How could this be a civil liberties abuse? That's what I'd like to know.

Give us a worst-case scenarios of how a law abiding citizen could be done wrong by this and then I'll judge if it's worth it or not.

This doesn't sound as bad a some comments here seem to make it out.


ADM Saskatchewan
said
0 0

Here is what I am getting from this. If you are just a normal internet user you have nothing to fear, but if you dabble in child porn or are a part of a suspected terrorist group, possibly already under investigation or in a law enforcement radar then getting this information could save lives. yes to a normal law abiding citizen it would be an invasion of privacy or "big brother watching" . Here is the main point--IF YOU AREN'T DOING ANYTHING WRONG YOU WOULD NOT BE SUBJECTED TO THIS NEW LAW -- if it is approved


mcgil
said
0 0

Uh, uh! Johanne.normand has it wrong : Big Brother IS already here...



GP
said
0 0

I am all from crushing child predators and pornographers. I also have nothing to hide...but that does not mean I am willing to give up my fundamental liberties. This is also “door opening” legislation.

As a senior IT professional I can tell you with complete certainty that the amount and type of information that can be collected on each of us through this source is frightening. Which begs the questions, how do they propose to store it, maintain it, present it, what is the governance, how do we find out about the information they have on us, etc ???

A warrant ensures due process is followed...no warrant, no access, period.


I thought this was Canada...
said
0 0

Our privacy and civil liberties are worth protecting. This legislation will not protect the innocent.

Just ask those who come from states that do this kind of thing. Believe me you don't want Big Brother watching your every move.


Derailed
said
0 0

This would give me more reason to vote liberal than anything the liberals have done.


Fred Flintstone
said
0 0

I am an IT professional with over 22 years in the industry and this will set a precedent that will quickly become abused and cause irreparable harm to individuals and the industry alike.

The government and police have a well documented history of abuse of privileges obtained through the law. Furthermore, upon being caught of such abuse, the taxpayer must also bear the cost of the courts and lawyers who argue these cases. Are we trying to create more opportunities for the courts and lawyers or are we trying to protect citizens.

For example, the police continually set speed traps and such to indirectly tax citizens driving to and fro when the real problem isn't speed but poor and aggressive driving. I commute everyday and very, very, very rarely ever see a police car (unmarked or not) traveling with traffic to identify these dangerous individuals. Everyday, like most, I come across several drivers that should be pulled off the road and ticketed or even have their driving privileges removed. No, instead our police who's policy is to 'serve and protect' would rather use covert methods to TAX citizens further through fines and methods that DO NOTHING to prevent this type of activity from happening again. Maybe they should change their slogan ... 'To serve and collect' would be more appropriate!

The real worry here is most citizens have no idea of the breadth of electronic information that lies on servers (some in government agency basements) and that is readily accessible.

Profiling is a very dangerous game and shouldn't be left in the hands of those unqualified to manage it. Just because you are a police officer or a government offical doesn't make you qualified to handle, represent, use or dictate the use of this kind of information.


Doug
said
0 0

I am a law abiding citizen and usually support measures that help but little by little all our privacy is being eaten away by our government. We are slowly losing all our rights and becoming what we feared and fought against.


James in Ottawa
said
0 0

IP addresses are public record anyway. They can trace the IP address to the service provider controlling that address. If they have enough reason to need to do so, they'll have enough reason to contact that service provider and tell them to turn over the information of the person(s) who were at that time using that IP address. So let them get a warrant and do so.


Paul from Pickering
said
0 0

As long as we're quoting Americans, here's another relevant one.

"It is the duty of every patriot to protect his country from its government"
Thomas Paine




Rene
said
0 0

As much as many of us would want these powers used against criminals, we, in our short sightedness, fail to realize that it only takes a small fundamental change in society to make that which is acceptable today a crime tomorrow.

What would people say if fundamentalists, either Christian or Islamic, or for that matter self serving individuals, took over our society? Just drinking which is acceptable today, could be a crime tomorrow. Remember the 1920s?

Let's not be in such a hurry to sign off on any motion put through by the ruling party of the land in order to give police more power. We are only one decision away from being a police state.




Repulsed in Kent
said
0 0

To all Conservative/Harper supporters: Is this what you really want from your government? Harper wants to change Canada from "glorious and free" into the police state that the UK has become and the US is already on the road to becoming.

The good part: "- make it a crime to arrange with a second person over the Internet the sexual exploitation of a child"

Everything else is utterly horrible and if they end up going down that road, I'm leaving this country.


DavidexToryinToronto
said
0 0

Get a warrant. If you have a case it won't be that hard, otherwise leave the rest of us alone. I dont want some bored civil servant deciding to snoop just because he would now have the power to do so.


Jay, Ottawa
said
0 0

The most problematic response I usually see to items like this "I have nothing to hide so I'm in favour". It's not a case of whether you have something to hide, it's a matter of whether the state should be allowed into every aspect of your life on a whim. The answer of course is no. If one's personal information is required there should be a process with proper oversight to guard against abuse. I'm not saying that this information should be completely off limits and everyone should be invincible. Access to personal information without a warrant though is downright scary.

Do Canadians want their internet to be controlled and censored like Iran or China? If not, we need to speak up. As we're seeing through the use of the internet to get information out of Iran, it's a powerful tool.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin


DW in Vancouver BC
said
0 0

Why do so many complain if you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to be afraid of, it is that simple.



BMIA
said
0 0

Bad idea!

And the basic tennant that advocates preach is "if you do no wrong then why would you worry about someone looking at you?"

That is a "power-over-the-people" mentality and not a "power from the people."

The tennant should be "I am doing nothing wrong so why do you want to look at me?"

The police serve us we do not serve them - that, above all, must be the basic premise of a free society.

If our police system is so archaic and bogged down that it doesn't know how or can't cope or adequately perform the duties of "to serve and protect" then it is a system that has to be updated or replaced. You don't keep a system that doesn't work by breaking down our covenants so that it can be dictated to and controlled by said broken system.




Tipping Point in kamloops
said
0 0

This is completely unreasonable. We have the right to private communications.

Current governments have overstepped the bounds of responsible governing.

Unacceptable.

Your only choice fro a private conversation these days is face to face - just like terrorist cells do.


Dennis in Edmonton
said
0 0

Did we not learn anything from the Patriot Act in the US?

How about protecting our Rights and Freedoms?

Enough with all the policing agencies in Canada!


Bev
said
0 0

I think this is a big step forward. Police are not able to access IP addresses even though nobody sees anything wrong with them having access to our car license etc. And for those who are unaware of what is happening to our children via the internet, this will enable our police to better protect them from abuse. Those who are opposed to this law, might need to think more clearly about what it is about.




Larry I Ontario
said
0 0

This must be stopped! Dictator Harper!! This is a violation of our civil libertes!! Every Canadian must call their MP's to stop this communist plan! They must be stopped now!


DANIEL H
said
0 0

POLICE STATE!
I'm all for catching the bad guys, but doing this is the same as tapping a phone. The bad guys will just go to where they can get a free wireless connection or do other such things that they can't be tracked. Does this mean anyone with a voice over internet phone can have there conversations recorded?


chad
said
0 0

This is how frredom dies... freedom of speech, our rights, all mean nothing. The terrorists have changed our way of life, wasn't that their goal in the first place? does that mean they win? i hope not...... This shold be thrown out


KMC (ON)
said
0 0

I support the Conservatives, but this is a dumb move.

It will be very unpopular.

We can, already see the responses..."big brother", "police state", etc., etc.

Why not just require that police go before a judge, explain why they need a warrant and, if it seems justified, go ahead and "eavesdrop".

Allowing police the check up, on people, without any restraints, is a formula for abuse.




Nick in Gatineau
said
0 0

If it targets pedophiles, hackers, Identity theft... I'm all for it.

But if this is simply a tool for Harper's war room to get names of anti-conservatives commenting on his government - I'm against it.

Keeping files on people is wrong. Every country has had this issue and every time, it sparked lawsuits, radical movements and yes even created terrorist groups. So ask yourself...



Frank - Ontario
said
0 0

Don't have an issue with using this type of technology for law enforcement, but NOT WITHOUT A SEARCH WARRANT. Also, what about the privacy act, would obtaining this information without a search warrant be in violation of the privacy act?


Blackbird, Toronto
said
0 0

I see no problem with this IF they get a warrant BEFORE demanding the info. Otherwise, I think this fairly falls within illegal search and seizure. Personal information (which this is) is covered here.

This law cannot stand the Constitutional Test...it will fail without needing a warrant.




meerkat
said
0 0

Big Brother indeed. These Tories are reminding me more and more of cold war era Communists.


Mark from Brampton
said
0 0

I have nothing hide. Sounds like a good idea to me.


zwinky
said
0 0

I think we would be better served by making it easier for Police to obtain a warrant when they can prove sufficient reason to access this sort of information.

Allowing them to pursue anyone anytime without a warrant and therefore possibly without grounds just seems wrong.


Lalura Langstaff
said
0 0

Oh yeah babee! WE already know we can trust neither the Conservatives OR the RCMP with such information. What is the definition of organized crime anyway.......
seems to me that the Conservatives AND the RCMP have done things ordinary citizens would have been charged for. How about strenthening citizen access to counter-surveillance of both the Conservatives AND the RCMP. oh never mind, the grass roots are organized enough and we have plenty of raw data!!!


John Hillier
said
0 0

This is the best news I have heard in a long time!
Finally the good guys will have some sharp tools in their tool box to help cut through the nonsense that prevents our kids from being targeted by predators.


Jeremy
said
0 0

I agree that internet child pornography is becoming an epidemic, but this is a complete invasion of privacy no matter how you spin it.

Stephen Harper is the worst Prime Minister I have ever seen. I would actually take Bush Sr. and Jr. before him.

No Joke


Steve From Alberta
said
0 0

for all of you that are going on about not needing a warrent its not as if they will be entering yoru house and arresting you for no reason, its simply a tool to gather information about the suspect so that they can better go through with their investigation and make headway on people that are using the internet for criminal activities, i am happy to learn that they can use the internet to do this, they are getting with the times. Nice job Harper, your still doing a fantastic job!!


Catwoman 37
said
0 0

It might catch the crooks who are doing crimes. But it should only be used to catch criminals and not to invade a person personal conversation or privacy.


Ahmed Best
said
0 0

Something like this would certainly help Iran during these times.


James
said
0 0

Yet another intrusion into our private lives by the party of "less government".


Ivan
said
0 0

And no need for a search warrant? Don't buy into the 'protecting children' or 'I've got nothing to hide' smokescreens. This is scarry, 'Big Brother' legislation


Mike in TO
said
0 0

Police should be allowed to do all these things ONLY IF THEY HAVE A WARRANT. Allowing any kind of search without a warrant is an infringement on our liberties. Period. It's the same as letting them search our homes or listen to our phone calls without a warrant. Oh wait, they can already listen to our phone calls... never mind.


DW in Vancouver BC
said
0 0

The question is why as stated in the article "Privacy and civil liberties advocates have raised alarms over the changes, particularly the measure to remove the obligation of police to obtain a warrant before getting personal information about a Canadian Internet user". These people are all upset about this plan but they do not seem to care about the ones that this new policy will help only the ones that it will stop. Is it the purpose of the Privacy and Civil Liberties advocates to protect the pedophiles, cyber criminals. If this is their purpose in life then I think they should re-think why they are here. They should be protecting the innocent not the guilty. After all if you do no wrong then why would you worry about someone looking at you?


Sean Webb
said
0 0

Let me get this straight. The government is way behind the times in regulating new media. So to compensate they want the private sector to pay all of the costs to enable them to monitor the internet. And they want to suspend the normal process for search warrants and such for law enforcement. Don't we look down at the Iranian and Chinese governments when they implement these practices?


Paul in Regina
said
0 0

Outrageous. This bill must go down to defeat. Did not the current government learn from the mistakes of the U.S. in this "no warrant" issue.


robert
said
0 0

Harperites are sure busy making sure Canadians don't talk about the economy but hey, police state??? Seems to suit Harper but no thanks.


Jon
said
0 0

Did you ever think you would see a law so insidious it would make the Gun Registy look good?


Steve_in_Ontario
said
0 0

Steven Harper and Dalton McGuinty seem determined to rush this country's descent into tyranny as quickly as possible. Everything these governments have done has increased government regulation of our daily lives and reduced our rights of freedom and privacy. The chattering classes, which are now more interested in "aint it awful" and "there ought to be a law" than civil rights, have done little to check this rush.

We may well be past the tipping point already. I hope not.


Steve From Alberta
said
0 0

As long as it puts the bad guys behind bars I'm all for it, and no its not an invasion of privacy anyone can access anything on the net...and you might be saying no but believe me they can.


johanne.normand
said
0 0

here comes big brother!!!


Share with your social Network:

Facebook DIGG Newsvine Delicious Twitter StumbeUpon Reddit Yahoo! Buzz

 

Advertisement

Contest

Today's Sci-Tech Stories

A view of an X1 solar flare in a new active region on the sun, region 1429. It has let loose two M-class flares and one X-class so far. The M-class flares erupted on March 2 and on March 4. The third flare, rated an X1, peaked at 10:30 ET on March 4. A CME accompanied each flare, though due to the fact that this active region is still off to the side of the sun, they will likely have a weak effect on Earth's magnetosphere. (NASA)

Venus to crawl across the face of the sun in 2117

More

The inside of the tsunami-crippled No. 4 reactor building is seen during a press tour at Tokyo Electric Power Co.'s (TEPCO) Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant in Okuma, Fukushima Prefecture, Japan, Saturday, May 26, 2012.(AP Photo/ Toshiaki Shimizu, Japan Pool)

Japan's plan to make more plutonium raises red flag

More

breaking news; North America; breaking north america

Sea Launch AG conducts satellite launch in Pacific

More