The Harper government is trying to sneak through a dangerous and costly set
of online spying bills. If passed, these bills will create a mandatory
new registry of your private electronic data and force you to pay for
*Most people don't know about the invasive online spying bills that
will be rammed through Parliament this fall*, so Canadians are
stepping up to the plate, using social media and online videos to
educate their fellow citizens.
The Stop Online Spying national public education campaign launches
today with the release of three citizen-produced videos at
Those lobbying in favour of this scheme have even asked for the power
to dictate how mobile devices are made and how online services work,
so that they can force providers to hand over information from text
messages, email, cellphones, and online activity. *This scheme will
hinder Internet choice, hurt small businesses, and hit the wallets of
ordinary Canadians. *
If we don't act now to spread the word, it will become nearly
impossible to stop online spying.
*Check out the videos today, and share them with everyone you know.*
This is no joke guys so please support this campaign!
The bill is expected to mirror Bill C-32, the previous copyright package that died with the election in the spring.
Here's some more background:
The HARPER government is trying to push through an anti-Internet set of electronic surveillance laws that will invade your privacy and cost you money. They’re calling it "Lawful" Access - we're calling it warrantless, invasive, costly, and poorly thought out. This bill will force every big phone and cable company to track what everyone does on the Internet every hour of every day, and surrender that data to "authorities" without a warrant.
These laws will be introduced as part of a package of crime bills in the fall, to be fast-tracked without proper examination or debate.This bizarre Harper Government bill will create Internet surveillance that is:
- Warrantless: If these bills pass, we're looking at a future where government watches all citizens in real time using wired Internet and mobile devices, without court oversight.
- Invasive: This is a radical break from existing privacy safeguards, and leaves our personal and financial information less secure. The bill requires every Internet service provider to monitor the personal activity of every user, leading to terabytes of private user data stored by ISPs. Who will ensure that information is not misused or stolen?
- Costly: Internet services providers will be forced to install millions of dollars of spying technology and the cost will be passed down to YOU.
Besides all this, the bills are simply poorly written, using vague terms and providing dangerously unchecked powers to government. In fact, every single provincial privacy commissioner has stepped up to criticize it.
This also might help:Wikileaks Docs Show Canadian Minister Offered To Leak Copyright Bill to U.S.
Wild fear mongering!
There is no pending legislation at the moment. There was a bill that died with the last election on the matter of Internet monitoring. It was the fourth attempt at passing similar legislation with the FIRST attempt going back to the Liberal era.
There will likely be another attempt but there is nothing underhanded or sneaky about it. It is even likely that the Canadian officials will give due consideration to ensuring Canadian legislation is not as odds with US legislation - something that is again normal and expected and done by all governments. It is in the interests of both Canadians and Americans to ensure compatible law in areas of mutual concern.
Generally (intelligent) Canadians do not create conflicting legislation with the US just in order to poke American governments in the eye. The old Chretien Liberals would do that type of idiot thing (remember "I hate all Americans") but it didn't make for good relations.
No one said anything about being "underhand or sneaky" but all intelligent Canadians can recognise political double speak - from ALL parties. Yes they appear to be backing off a little but not abandoning this outrageous assault on our privacy.
I take it that Redo and Kathleen, in the spirit of partisanship, are happy to have their email correspondence and other internet activity open for all to peruse, as on this site!
'Lawful Access' Legislation Missing From Omnibus Crime Bill, But Online Spying Fight Isn't Over.
The government introduced its omnibus crime this week and it appears that the lawful access provisions will not be a part of it. The Department of Justice release includes no reference to the lawful access bills. While there is every reason to believe lawful access will be introduced some time in the future, excluding them from the crime bill will provide more time for review and committee hearings.
The online rights group OpenMedia declared that the bills disappeared “under the intense pressure of a 70,000+ signature petition.” OpenMedia was behind the petition in question, which was dubbed “Stop Online Spying.”
But don't rejoice too much as the Copyright Reform Bill is probably the real reason for the exclusion - it may now be tabled in conjunction with the copyright bill, a double whammy just for effect!
Canadians, we have power together. Let's use it to fight online spying, stop usage-based billing, push for net neutrality, and generally make the Internet more open and affordable for all Canadians.
Kathleen my comment was obviously facetious, I can't imagine the most fevent Harper admirer being happy to be spied upon. But you don't deny partisanship eh? LOL
Petitions can't have any affect unless actually implemented, and some do succeed.
The petition was about trying to prevent the pending legislation - it's too late to start worrying after it's happened!
You know full well what I mean - so don't pretend otherwise - you must be a lawyer!
Any bill that this Government introduces will be legislation - "debates" about it have virtually no affect, unless it stirs the general populace into vocal opposition and even then this government might well ram it through.
Most majority governments, here and elsewhere are the same - that's what's wrong with our so called democratic system - it needs a compete revamp!
As for the "online spying" part the Government have clearly said that it WILL be introduced at some point (probably as part of a new copyright bill) - so that's why I say it is pending.
Well if you read any of the "sun" papers/sites that explains it! LOL
Correct though the petition was about the bill which was being proposed - but as I said just hang on and you'll see it surface again soon.
Most people I'm sure have little sympathy for real, hardened criminals, but most do not fall into that category by any measure; and prison as an answer to every infraction of our ludicroulsy extensive laws does not work - look at the States! And then what about the cost - a crazy idea even if the economy was rockin'.
I have posted a couple of blogs on this subject, perhaps they could be helpful:
I doubt if this can be stopped, Harper is planning a tightly controlled regime and regards an open internet as the enemy. The only way to preserve free speech (especially if that speech countered Harper Government ideology) would be to establish "pirate" ISPs outside of Canadian law like they did to BBC radio in the 60s.
Thanks Kathlene for that piece of turgid rubbish attempting to silence the discussion! It is not clear if it's your own words or copied from somewhere without any acknowledgement.
Here's an update on this issue from OpenMedia.ca
Also Ontario's Information and Privacy Commissioner Ann Cavoukian wrote an open letter to Minister of Public Safety Vic Toews and Minister of Justice Robert Nicholson, in which she voiced concerns about the Federal
Government's proposed online spying bills ("Lawful Access").
And this national Post article, http://openmedia.ca/blog/ontarios-privacy-commissioner-online-spyin...
in which Ann Cavoukian says, "we must be extremely careful not to allow the admitted investigative needs of police forces to interfere with or violate our constitutional right to be secure from unreasonable state surveillance. The proposed surveillance powers come at the expense of the necessary privacy safeguards guaranteed under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms."
That last word especially is something Kathlene needs to educate herself on. Strange, this conservative concept of gun-toting freedom in a police state!
More smoke and mirrors from the Conservatives! Taken aback by the opposition from so many quarters they have postponed the "warrantless surveillance" provisions for now, but as I suggested earlier it is likely to be part of a new copyright bill in preparation. And remember it is too late to shut the door once the horse has bolted; however Ann Cavoukian the Information Privacy Commissioner of Ontario can express this in a more educated fashion than me.
She wrote the following in National Post, Oct 31, 2011:
I must add my voice to the growing dismay regarding the impact of impending “lawful access” legislation in this country. In my view, it is highly misleading to call it “lawful.” Let’s call it what it is — a system of expanded surveillance.
At issue is the anticipated re-introduction of a trio of federal bills that will provide police with much greater ability to access and track information, via the communications technologies we use every day, such as the Internet, smart phones and other mobile devices. I have no doubt that, collectively, the legislation will substantially diminish the privacy rights of Ontarians and Canadians as a whole.
Let’s take a brief look at the surveillance bills, which were introduced prior to the last election:
Bill C-50 would make it easier for the police to obtain judicial approval of multiple intercept and tracking warrants and production orders, to access and track e-communications.
Bill C-51 would give the police new powers to obtain court orders for remote live tracking, as well as suspicion-based orders requiring telecommunication service providers and other companies to preserve and turn over data of interest to the police.
Bill C-52 would require telecommunication service providers to build and maintain intercept capability into their networks for use by law enforcement, and gives the police warrantless power to access subscriber information.
I well understand the attraction for law enforcement officials — the increased ability to access and track our e-communications, with reduced judicial scrutiny, would put a treasure trove of new information at their fingertips.
However, we must be extremely careful not to allow the admitted investigative needs of police forces to interfere with or violate our constitutional right to be secure from unreasonable state surveillance. The proposed surveillance powers come at the expense of the necessary privacy safeguards guaranteed under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The federal government must be persuaded to acknowledge the sensitivity of traffic data, stored data and tracking data, and strongly urged to re-draft the bills. For a start, the proposal for warrantless access to subscriber information is untenable and should be withdrawn. If special access to subscriber information is considered to be absolutely necessary, it must take place under a court-supervised regime.
The government needs to step back and consider all of these implications. A comprehensive cost-benefit analysis should precede the entrenchment of so many significant public policy decisions. Public Parliamentary hearings must also be scheduled to ensure that civil society, as well as the telecom industry, has a full opportunity to provide input.
Canadians must press the federal government to publicly commit to enacting much-needed oversight legislation in tandem with any expansive surveillance measures. Intrusive proposals require, at the very least, matching legislative safeguards. The courts, affected individuals, future Parliaments and the public must be well informed about the scope, effectiveness and damaging negative effects of such intrusive powers.
We can, and must, have both greater security and privacy, in unison. It cannot be one at the expense of the other. The true value of privacy must be recognized in any effort to modernize law enforcement powers. Imposing a mandatory surveillance regime on the public and its telecom service providers must not go forward without strong safeguards to protect the future of our fundamental freedoms.
The full text of her letter to Minister Toews can be read here http://www.ipc.on.ca/images/WhatsNew/2011-10-31-Letter-to-Ministers...
I'm sure Kathlene is well aware of the above, and so I wonder why she hasn't referenced it or the similar concerns voiced by Canada's other privacy commissioners and echoed by legal and academic experts.