Monday, February 20, 2012

Bill C-30 - What is it actually?

Let me make this clear from the outset: I do not support Bill C-30, officially entitled the "Investigating and Preventing Criminal Electronic Communications Act," because I feel it is a horrible piece of legislation that allows ISPs to charge us more for no real reason except that the cops want a more clear cut legal provision to monitor internet activity. It's unnecessary, and it is, literally, consumers paying ISPs more to allow cops to spy on us.

What Bill C-30 changes in law is that ISPs must upon police request hand over pertinent information about suspected criminals utilizing their internet connection for committing crimes (think pedophiles), and/or being used as a communication tool in the process of committing crimes (think money launderers chatting online), without requiring a warrant. The Vancouver Police deputy chief said this, which shows how far down the rabbit hole we already are with past technology:
However, under "exigent circumstances," police can, for example, tap someone's phone line immediately without a warrant, and report it to a judge later, said  [VP Depity Chief] Lemcke.
So there is the fact that this sort of law already exists with past mass-communication technology, such as phone lines. Think about that.

Here's an important part to remember as well: police already have the ability to request this information without a warrant. The difference is that ISPs do not have to give it to them if they do not want to, and can ask for a warrant. But the likelihood is that most ISPs freely give police the information anyways, because there isn't a real reason for them to withhold it.

In other words, this bill simply takes away the voluntary aspect of ISPs doling out information about you.

What Bill C-30 does not do is give police the ability to monitor our activities online without a warrant. In no way, whatsoever, does the bill allow this. That is a fact. So get over it.

Instead the bill will force ISPs to update all their infrastructure and technology so when the police come a-knockin', they can give the info to them faster.

Know what that means? It means higher costs to us, the consumers. Fantastic

And therein lies the problem. While it may streamline things a bit, it isn't really needed. We're already spied on, my concern is why I need to pay for it.

6 comments:

  1. actually, section 17 of that bill clearly allows spying on our internet activity without a warrant.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Section 17 refers back to Section 16(1), which states CK:

    16. (1) On written request by a person designated under subsection (3) that includes prescribed identifying information, every telecommunications service provider must provide the person with identifying information in the service provider’s possession or control respecting the name, address, telephone number and electronic mail address of any subscriber to any of the service provider’s telecommunications services and the Internet protocol address and local service provider identifier that are associated with the subscriber’s service and equipment.

    That's identifying information, not active, real-time spying of the IP's whereabouts in cyberspace at any given moment, or in the past, in fact.

    ReplyDelete
  3. There is a big difference between police, more or less, wiretapping your IP, and the police requesting identifying information.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Volkov you should be ashamed!!! Don't stand with the Child Pornographers and Pedos! Stand with C-30!!!

    Vic even said himself that he was not sorry for saying that, only that he could see how Canadians thought it was wrong. Clearly he still means it!

    Then Vic goes and says he is opposed to his own bill! Stand with Vic and C-30 and against Vic and the Pedos!!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Yes, yes you're right - I will stand with Vic Toews against Vic Toews!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Volkov you should be ashamed!!! Don't stand with the Child Pornographers and Pedos! Stand with C-30!!!


    Actually that quote by Toews has been widely misreported. He was challenging a Liberal MP to stand with the bill or with child pornographers; the news media has been making it sound like he was saying *everyone* against the bill (ie: average Canadians) stood for kiddy porn. Whatever. The bill will still be changed, and rightly so.

    And yes, it's true: this bill is almost a carbon-copy of Paul Martin's Bill C-74, which died on the order table in 2005 along with his government. Perhaps the same civil-service lawyers drafted it?

    ReplyDelete