Canadian Conservatives commit to Internet surveillance.(michaelgeist.ca)
michaelgeist.ca
Canadian Conservatives commit to Internet surveillance.
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/5733/125/
7 comments
It seems unnecessarily close to turning each Canadian ISP into another branch of the Canadian government's surveillance agencies.
Only if you consider Bell Canada to be a branch of CSIS. None of the requirements being proposed for ISPs go beyond what is already required for telephone networks -- and unlike phone conversations, it's easy to encrypt your internet communications.
Only if you consider Bell Canada to be a branch of CSIS. None of the requirements being proposed for ISPs go beyond what is already required for telephone networks -- and unlike phone conversations, it's easy to encrypt your internet communications.
Honest question: does the RCMP require background checks for employees of civilian telephony providers?
Actually,
I think that's also a fine rhetorical question - in the sense of a question of who's answer is fairly obvious and which points to a large reality. ("Honest question" is fine way to say "this is not a rhetorical question". That's just to help clarity, rhetorical questions are fine tools of expression...)
Even in the unlikely event that the RCMP is filtering some civilian employees, the overall reality is that far more information flows across the Internet to far more people than one could assure accountability around.
So it is completely idiotic to up a surveillance network which looks so deeply into each person's communication that it would require serious accountability among the watchers. Since that accountability won't be there. Look airport security personnel, then imagine them going through your emails for bad stuff.
It is worth remembers that the abusiveness of a society of surveillance often doesn't come so much from a single dictator but rather from a vast array of unaccountable Apparatchiks abusing their petty but unchecked power.
I think that's also a fine rhetorical question - in the sense of a question of who's answer is fairly obvious and which points to a large reality. ("Honest question" is fine way to say "this is not a rhetorical question". That's just to help clarity, rhetorical questions are fine tools of expression...)
Even in the unlikely event that the RCMP is filtering some civilian employees, the overall reality is that far more information flows across the Internet to far more people than one could assure accountability around.
So it is completely idiotic to up a surveillance network which looks so deeply into each person's communication that it would require serious accountability among the watchers. Since that accountability won't be there. Look airport security personnel, then imagine them going through your emails for bad stuff.
It is worth remembers that the abusiveness of a society of surveillance often doesn't come so much from a single dictator but rather from a vast array of unaccountable Apparatchiks abusing their petty but unchecked power.
Employees of phone companies generally? No, of course not.
Employees who have access to the wire-tap systems? I'm sure they do.
Employees who have access to the wire-tap systems? I'm sure they do.
Can you back that up with anything other than your personal certainty.
I have reasons to believe this, but none I can present here.
unlike phone conversations, it's easy to encrypt your internet communications
Considering the bill's clear intention is to prevent Internet communication from being private, how long do you imagine encrypted communication would remain legal?
Considering the bill's clear intention is to prevent Internet communication from being private, how long do you imagine encrypted communication would remain legal?
Politicians can be incredibly dumb, but I don't think any of them are dumb enough to make it illegal to access facebook over SSL.
There's a standard that appears in the surveillance debate.
"X is OK because no would be dumb/provocative/bold enough to do Y".
But that arguments doesn't take into account that make X standard means that Y is no longer the stretch it would otherwise be.
And in practical terms, the state indeed would have a hard time if they had to stop each individual using SSL for various logins. But it would be simple matter to either prohibit SSL for various things or to demand the right/ability to snoop on every SSL connection (in fact, it sound like this is more or less what's being planned now - but of course, "no one would be so dumb as to do it" so we have nothing to worry about).
"X is OK because no would be dumb/provocative/bold enough to do Y".
But that arguments doesn't take into account that make X standard means that Y is no longer the stretch it would otherwise be.
And in practical terms, the state indeed would have a hard time if they had to stop each individual using SSL for various logins. But it would be simple matter to either prohibit SSL for various things or to demand the right/ability to snoop on every SSL connection (in fact, it sound like this is more or less what's being planned now - but of course, "no one would be so dumb as to do it" so we have nothing to worry about).
I agree politicians avoid upsetting the majority. Large SSL sites will simply get permission/transit after setting up similar surveillance infrastructure. Small companies that explicitly go out of their way (with custom software, even!) to avoid knowing what their customers are doing - well, who knows?
Of course not - that's not necessary, as long as there's at least one CA beholden to the jurisdiction of the Canadian government.
Canadians really need to be aware of what this election could mean for the internet. OpenMedia.ca is running a campaign of "Vote for Internet" which is interesting, but I don't think they are approaching it in a way that will have any real weight.
Canadians need to make sure that the internet is an election issue, and not just ridiculous stuff like this, we also have to worry about C32 (the copyright bill), internet billing, etc.
Canadians need to make sure that the internet is an election issue, and not just ridiculous stuff like this, we also have to worry about C32 (the copyright bill), internet billing, etc.
This part summarizes one thing I particularly noted. From Geist's description, the Conservatives appear to be trying to force this through with little or no debate -- and, presumably, if they can pull it off an equal lack of press:
There are several concerns with the Conservatives lawful access plans. First, it bears noting that these bills have never received extensive debate on the floor of the House of Commons and never been the subject of committee hearings. Police officers may support the legislation, but there has never been an opportunity to question them on the need for such legislation or on their ability to use lawful access powers if the bills become law. Federal and provincial privacy commissioners have expressed deep concerns about these bills, yet they have never had the opportunity to air those concerns before committee. Internet service providers, who face millions in additional costs - presumably passed along to consumers - have never appeared before committee. By making a commitment to passing lawful access within 100 days, the Conservatives are undertaking to pass legislation with enormous implications for the Internet that has never received parliamentary scrutiny and will receive limited attention.
There are several concerns with the Conservatives lawful access plans. First, it bears noting that these bills have never received extensive debate on the floor of the House of Commons and never been the subject of committee hearings. Police officers may support the legislation, but there has never been an opportunity to question them on the need for such legislation or on their ability to use lawful access powers if the bills become law. Federal and provincial privacy commissioners have expressed deep concerns about these bills, yet they have never had the opportunity to air those concerns before committee. Internet service providers, who face millions in additional costs - presumably passed along to consumers - have never appeared before committee. By making a commitment to passing lawful access within 100 days, the Conservatives are undertaking to pass legislation with enormous implications for the Internet that has never received parliamentary scrutiny and will receive limited attention.
Yes. See Privacy Commision of Canada's report:
http://www.priv.gc.ca/media/nr-c/2011/let_110309_e.cfm
http://www.priv.gc.ca/media/nr-c/2011/let_110309_e.cfm
> the Conservatives appear to be trying to force this through with little or no debate
That's why they want a majority of seats in the House of Commons: it gives them a de facto dictatorship for four years.
That's why they want a majority of seats in the House of Commons: it gives them a de facto dictatorship for four years.
From what I hear, the domination of the Bloc Quebecois in Quebec makes that a pretty hard target to reach.
We Canadians really are a passive bunch. I'm not sure why this is so, maybe because life is pretty good for a sufficiently large amount of people? Maybe because we're busy with NHL playoffs coming up? I don't know but if not for Professor Geist's continued efforts in this area, these issue would never see the light of day. His articles on thestar.com are the only ones of their kind that I can find on any major Canadian news site.
What would go wrong in society if the internet and phone system were totally un-tappable by government and people could easily communicate in complete secrecy?
Every government seems to want to intercept communications against the people's wishes. What do they understand that I don't?
Every government seems to want to intercept communications against the people's wishes. What do they understand that I don't?
> What would go wrong in society if the internet and phone system were totally un-tappable by government and people could easily communicate in complete secrecy?
Uhm, terrorism?
I'm not saying it's a good excuse, but it seems to have been the primary driver of, well, pretty much everything for the past decade.
> ... against the people's wishes.
Not so much, no. You'll be surprised/scared to learn how widespread the "if you haven't done anything wrong, you've got nothing to hide" line of thinking is outside our circles.
Uhm, terrorism?
I'm not saying it's a good excuse, but it seems to have been the primary driver of, well, pretty much everything for the past decade.
> ... against the people's wishes.
Not so much, no. You'll be surprised/scared to learn how widespread the "if you haven't done anything wrong, you've got nothing to hide" line of thinking is outside our circles.
Proposals like this can win votes from law-enforcement circles. After all, warrantless disclosures and always-ready surveillance equipment would allow cops to gain information about a person with just one phone call. They hate having to follow procedure, especially if that procedure involves waiting for a judge to issue an order.
There's also the more dramatic explanation about how this all boils down to a power struggle between the haves and the have-nots, but I prefer the making-cops-happier explanation. There are plenty of good cops in every country, but law enforcement has a lot of solidarity built into its ranks, so police-related groups can sway many votes. Harper would do anything for a few thousand extra votes.
There's also the more dramatic explanation about how this all boils down to a power struggle between the haves and the have-nots, but I prefer the making-cops-happier explanation. There are plenty of good cops in every country, but law enforcement has a lot of solidarity built into its ranks, so police-related groups can sway many votes. Harper would do anything for a few thousand extra votes.
It's also an issue of costs. If the government can hold up device/protocol X and say your equipment must interact with X, then it makes legal surveillance cheaper.
Well, those into the more dramatic explanation might well observe that the cops are the haves' hired muscle...
...just sayin' ;)
...just sayin' ;)
I don't really understand why so many politicians are writing laws that make invasions of privacy possible "without a warrant". Why don't they just require a warrant? Then there are checks and balances, and everyone's happy.
Warrants are issued by judges. There are few things that a politician hates more than having to answer to a judge.
All of the Internet surveillance and censorship policies proposed and implemented around the world attempt to bypass judges. USA (Patriot Act), Australia (mandatory filtering), and now Canada. The usual excuse, of course, is that things on the the Internet move too quickly to wait for due process to take its course.
All of the Internet surveillance and censorship policies proposed and implemented around the world attempt to bypass judges. USA (Patriot Act), Australia (mandatory filtering), and now Canada. The usual excuse, of course, is that things on the the Internet move too quickly to wait for due process to take its course.
Aren't judges politicians?
In Canada judges aren't elected so technically I wouldn't call them politicians.
[deleted]
Get out there and vote, people. The Conservatives have been far too dangerous with a minority, a majority would be even worse.
And one aspect that no one is touching on is unsecured wireless hotspots. What is the implications of this for Safeway, or any other company that runs a customer friendly wifi access network?
Say goodbye to those conviences as well. ISP's will need waivers for customers running unsecured networks, not to mention potential liability when your supplying wireless devices to your customers.
Like gun control the only people this will punish is law abiding citizens.
Say goodbye to those conviences as well. ISP's will need waivers for customers running unsecured networks, not to mention potential liability when your supplying wireless devices to your customers.
Like gun control the only people this will punish is law abiding citizens.
I don't have time to work on this, but am willing to do my bit as a citizen. What, besides emailing candidates, would help?
I wish I knew. The liberals aren't a whole lot better at this point, having had their fingers in a similar pie some years back.
I guess at this point, try and oust the Conservatives and hope for the best.
I guess at this point, try and oust the Conservatives and hope for the best.
Aside from voting you can start using bitcoin, freenet, public key encryption, tor, and anything else that will let you stay anonymous/safe from prying eyes :-/
Wow. The key phrase "without court oversight" is indicative of, at every conceivable level, a massive, gaping hole for trucks of corruption to be driven through. Ridiculous abuses.
The second prong requires Internet providers to dramatically re-work their networks to allow for real-time surveillance. The bill sets out detailed capability requirements that will eventually apply to all Canadian Internet providers. These include the power to intercept communications, to isolate the communications to a particular individual, and to engage in multiple simultaneous interceptions. Moreover, the bill establishes a comprehensive regulatory structure for Internet providers that would mandate their assistance with testing their surveillance capabilities and disclosing the names of all employees who may be involved in interceptions (and who may then be subject to RCMP background checks).
Double wow. It seems unnecessarily close to turning each Canadian ISP into another branch of the Canadian government's surveillance agencies. These politicians want to force providers into restructuring their networks and systems so that they can be used as a tool for the Government's every covert whim... AND subject the employees of these providers to background checks so that they can be trusted with this unnecessary, malevolent work shoved in their laps?
Insane.