Post Tagged with: "c-13"

The Privacy Threats in Bill C-13, Part Two: The Low Threshold for Metadata

My first post on the privacy threats in Bill C-13 focused on the voluntary disclosure of personal information and the complete civil and criminal immunity granted to intermediaries such as ISPs and telecom companies that provide such disclosures. This post focuses on the low threshold the bill establishes for a new “transmission data” warrant and explains why this represents a serious privacy risk.

The bill defines transmission data as data that:

(a) relates to the telecommunication functions of dialling, routing, addressing or signalling;
(b) is transmitted to identify, activate or configure a device, including a computer program as defined in subsection 342.1(2), in order to establish or maintain access to a telecommunication service for the purpose of enabling a communication, or is generated during the creation, transmission or reception of a communication and identifies or purports â€¨to identify the type, direction, date, time, duration, size, origin, destination or termination of the communication;
(c) does not reveal the substance, meaning or purpose of the communication.

The bill creates a new warrant that allows a judge to order the disclosure of transmission data where there are reasonable grounds to suspect that an offence has been or will be committed, the identification of a device or person involved in the transmission will assist in an investigation, or will help identify a person. The government relies on the fact that this is a warrant with court oversight to support the claim that Canadians should not be concerned by this provision. Yet the reality is that there is reason for concern as the implications of treating metadata as having a low privacy value is enormously troubling.

December 11, 2013 — 4 comments — News

Justice Parliamentary Secretary Links Cable Theft to Terrorist Plots, Cyberbullying

Media coverage of the government’s introduction of Bill C-13, the lawful access/cyberbullying bill, quickly focused on the inclusion of provisions that seemingly had little to do with cyberbullying, including terrorism and theft of cable. While the government has tried to justify the omnibus approach on the grounds that it is modernizing investigative powers in the Criminal Code, it is striking that some MPs have claimed that there is an even more direct link.

Bob Dechert, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, said the following during debate on Bill C-13 in the House of Commons:

December 2, 2013 — 8 comments — News

MacKay Still Providing Inaccurate Information on Bill C-13’s Voluntary Disclosure Provision

Justice Minister Peter MacKay appeared last week before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and was asked once again about the inclusion in Bill C-13 of an immunity provision for intermediaries for the voluntary disclosure of personal information. MacKay again suggested that warrants would be required for disclosure, yet this is simply inaccurate. The exchange:

December 2, 2013 — 3 comments — News

Why Peter MacKay Is Wrong About Warrantless Access to Personal Information

The debate on Bill C-13 opened yesterday in the House of Commons with opposition MPs calling on the government to split the bill into two (cyberbullying and lawful access) and raising concerns about the voluntary disclosure provision that would give Internet providers complete criminal and civil immunity for voluntary retention and disclosure of subscriber information. When asked about the issue, Justice Minister Peter MacKay said the following:

The provision would clarify that the police officer can lawfully ask – and he points out – that individuals and groups voluntarily preserve data or provide documentation, but only when no prohibition exists against doing so. That is to suggest that organizations would still be bound by the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, something known as PIPEDA, which makes it clear that an organization is entitled to voluntarily disclose personal information to the police, without the consent of the person to have the information relayed.

However police have to have lawful authority to do so. They still have to obtain a warrant. They can ask that the information be preserved and temporarily put on hold so that it cannot be deleted, but in order for police to access that information that is frozen, they must still obtain a warrant. There is no warrantless access.

Unfortunately, MacKay is wrong.

November 28, 2013 — 5 comments — News

NDP Calls on Government To Split C-13 While Stoddart Surprisingly Supports Approach

The New Democrats have called on the government to split Bill C-13, arguing that the cyberbullying provisions should be examined separately from the return of lawful access provisions. Somewhat surprisingly, outgoing Privacy Commissioner Jennifer Stoddart has expressed support for the government’s decision to include lawful access powers in the bill.

November 28, 2013 — 1 comment — News