|
The government's
plans
to include lawful access provisions within its omnibus crime bill has
attracted mounting attention in recent days as many commentators
express concern that the legislation could create criminal liability
for linking to content that incites hatred and for using anonymous or
false names online. The concerns started at the Free
Dominion site and have since spread to Brian
Lilley at the Toronto Sun and Jesse
Brown's blog at Maclean's.
As I have argued
for a long time,
there are many reasons to be concerned with lawful access. The
government has never provided adequate evidence on the need for it, it
has never been subject to committee review, it would mandate disclosure
of some personal information without court oversight, it would
establish a massive ISP regulatory process (including employee
background checks), it would install broad new surveillance
technologies, and it would cost millions (without a sense of who
actually pays). Given these problems, it is not surprising to find that
every privacy commissioner in Canada has signed a joint
letter expressing their concerns.
Yet while lawful access raises many issues (such that it clearly does
not belong in an omnibus bill placed on the fast track), I do not
believe that creating criminal liability for linking or anonymous
speech are among them.
Slashdot, Digg, Del.icio.us, Newsfeeder, Reddit, StumbleUpon, TwitterTagsShareWednesday May 11, 2011 |
|
View
|
|
|