My weekly Law Bytes column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) focuses on last week’s controversy involving Bell Sympatico and a change to its user agreement. The Bell clause, which took effect on June 15th, advised subscribers that the company retains the right to "monitor or investigate content or your use of your service provider’s networks and to disclose any information necessary to satisfy any laws, regulations or other governmental request."
A widely circulated Canadian Press story (which featured several of my comments), noted that the Conservative government is expected to reintroduce lawful access legislation this fall and speculated that the change might have been in anticipation of that statutory reform. Many online pundits also chimed in, pointing to the battle over network neutrality in the United States, expressing fears that the Bell change might be designed to pave the way for a two-tier Internet in Canada under which ISPs levy fees on websites to deliver their content.
For its part, Bell swiftly issued a statement emphatically denying that the amendments were linked to lawful access, maintaining that the company had a "a long and established history of protecting the privacy of its customers."
The gist of the column is that regardless of the motivations for the change – whether harmless drafting amendments, lawful access, or network neutrality – the public and media reaction demonstrates how increased Internet surveillance is a political and business minefield that invariably stirs up vociferous opposition. From a political perspective, last week’s incident is only the latest example of significant public outcry when the lawful access proposals attract attention from the mainstream media. Over the past year, there have been a growing number of editorials cautioning against legislation that would increase Internet surveillance yet decrease judicial oversight.
If lawful access legislation reemerges, the fallout is likely to extend beyond the political arena to the network providers themselves. As Canadians react to the lawful access proposals, many will want to see network providers supporting their privacy interests. To date that has not occurred, since those same providers have been perceived to be more concerned with the financial costs associated with lawful access (the Ottawa rumour mill suggests that the Conservative government will commit tens of millions of dollars to the lawful access program to address those cost concerns).
The need for Canada’s network providers to stand behind their customers’ privacy interests extends beyond lawful access. With a review of Canada’s federal privacy legislation set for later this year, Canadians may also begin to ask why some network providers disclose subscriber information to law enforcement without a court order, relying instead on an exception found within the federal privacy law.
Internet use has become an integral part of daily life, serving as the foundation for daily communication, commerce, education, and entertainment for millions of Canadians. Internet service providers stand as the gatekeepers of the enormous amount of personal information that is a by-product of that activity. Experience suggests that Canadians want their ISPs not only to protect that data, but to actively support their privacy interests as well.