Post Tagged with: "c-30"

How Canada’s Telecom Companies Have Secretly Supported Internet Surveillance Legislation

Canada’s proposed Internet surveillance was back in the news last week after speculation grew that government intends to keep the bill in legislative limbo until it dies on the order paper. Public Safety Minister Vic Toews denied the reports, maintaining that Bill C-30 will still be sent to committee for further study.

Since its introduction in mid-February, the privacy and law enforcement communities have continued to express their views on the bill, but Canada’s telecom service providers, which include the major telecom carriers and Internet service providers, have remained strangely silent. The silence is surprising given the enormous implications of the bill for the privacy of their customers and the possibility of millions of dollars in new surveillance equipment costs, active cooperation with law enforcement, and employee background checks.

While some attribute the Internet surveillance silence to an attempt to avoid picking sides in the high stakes privacy and security battle, documents obtained under the Access to Information Act offer a different, more troubling explanation. My weekly technology law column notes (Toronto Star version, homepage version) in the months leading up to the introduction Bill C-30, Canada’s telecom companies worked actively with government officials to identify key issues and to develop a secret Industry – Government Collaborative Forum on Lawful Access.

Read more ›

May 22, 2012 31 comments Columns

How Canada’s Telecom Companies Have Secretly Supported Internet Surveillance Legislation

lawfulaccesscolmay12 Appeared in the Toronto Star on May 22, 2012 as How Canada’s Telecoms Quietly Backed Internet Surveillance Bill Canada’s proposed Internet surveillance was back in the news last week after speculation grew that government intends to keep the bill in legislative limbo until it dies on the order paper. […]

Read more ›

May 21, 2012 Comments are Disabled Columns Archive

Bill C-30 Isn’t Dead Yet: Public Safety Allocates Millions for Lawful Access

The Public Safety Report on Plans and Priorities for the coming year include a commitment to advance lawful access legislation and an allocation of $2.1 million specifically earmarked for the issue.

Read more ›

May 9, 2012 5 comments News

Public Safety Links Telecom Foreign Investment with Lawful Access

Last week, I posted on the Public Safety Canada seeming attempt to circumvent the government’s spectrum consultation by submitting dual letters – a public letter expressing mild concern with foreign ownership and a secret letter warning of “considerable risks”. While that approach raises serious concerns that undermine public confidence in the consultation process, Public Safety’s detailed response (which is available on the Industry Canada site) anticipates the fight over Bill C-30 by specifically claiming that opening the Canadian telecom sector to foreign competition increases the necessity of lawful access legislation:

Read more ›

April 23, 2012 1 comment News

Supreme Court of Canada Wiretap Decision Signals Need for Changes to C-30

The Supreme Court of Canada issued an important decision last week on the wiretap provisions in the Criminal Code that should have an impact on the lawful access/online surveillance bill currently before Parliament. In R. v. Tse, a unanimous court ruled that the current emergency wiretap provision that allows for surveillance without a court order is unconstitutional. The court’s analysis is important because it speaks to one of the major criticisms of Bill C-30 – the lack of accountability. In this particular case, the court rules that warrantless wiretap may be permissible in emergency situations, but that such circumstances make an accountability particularly important:

The jurisprudence is clear that an important objective of the prior authorization requirement is to prevent unreasonable searches. In those exceptional cases in which prior authorization is not essential to a reasonable search, additional safeguards may be necessary, in order to help ensure that the extraordinary power is not being abused. Challenges to the authorizations at trial provide some safeguards, but are not adequate as they will only address instances in which charges are laid and pursued to trial. Thus, the notice requirement, which is practical in these circumstances, provides some additional transparency and serves as a further check that the extraordinary power is not being abused. In our view, Parliament has failed to provide adequate safeguards to address the issue of accountability in relation to s. 184.4. Unless a criminal prosecution results, the targets of the wiretapping may never learn of the interceptions and will be unable to challenge police use of this power.

Read more ›

April 16, 2012 9 comments News