Coalition Protests Government Lawful Access Plans
6 Comments
Recent Posts
From Making Web Giants Pay to Paying Media Giants: Budget 2026 Replaces the Government’s Internet Platform Strategy With $1.5 Billion in Taxpayer Dollars for Culture and News 
Has the Government Read Its Own Bill? What Three Days of House Debate Revealed About Bill C-34 Before the Committee Hearings Begin 
Surveillance By Design: Government Officials Say Lawful Access Could Reach Gaming Platforms, Daycares and AI Services 
Canada’s First Digital Trade Agreement: Why the Canada-EU Deal Will Likely Follow Europe’s Template and What That Means for Canadian Digital Law 
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 281: Mikolaj Barczentewicz on Europe’s Digital Sovereignty Push, CADA, and the Implications for Canada
I hope it sways some descisions.
Thank you for fighting!
i doubt it
harper has a plan and he’s tunnel visioned on it. if his own party has complained about him not listening why would he listen to us?
Dan, the point is…
It’s not about telling Harper. Do you think that he have not fully researched all the pros and cons? Of course, no one can fully predict the scope of public interest, which is want we have to expand to balance law in favor of the informed public.
They want to introduce …
the “Long IP Address Registry”
@Dan G
Such powers have been requested by law enforcement and CSIS for many years; I remember hearing about calls to expand the lawful access regime back in the mid-90s.
One of the main issues that I have with the bills is the removal of the requirement to get a warrant in order to get access to the information. Frankly, I can’t see this surviving a Charter challenge.
I could see a requirement for an order to the provider to maintain the data for a period of say 24 hours… this would have to be signed off on by a designated official (say four or 4% of the strength of the force, whichever is larger), not just any beat cop. The rationale for this is so that, in an emergency situation such as an Amber Alert, data is not destroyed before the police have the chance to present a warrant for it. However, in order to hand over the data a warrant would have to be provided. Note that this is not retroactive beyond what logs the provider already has normally. Basically, it says that data related to a specifically named person or organization cannot be destroyed for the next 24 hours. If the police fail to provide a warrant in the proscribed period, the held data can then be destroyed.
Note as well that this is not a general retention requirement; it is not intended to impose a minimum length of time that logs for all customers must be provided, only that data for specified customers cannot be purged once such an order is received.
Now, what I wonder about, however, is the concern about a provider not indicating to the subject of warranted intercept that they are under such a warrant… I’d have thought that it would not be legal currently (interference with a police investigation).
To be fair to my adversaries ..
The process for tracking down a person to sue is far more onerous on the ‘net than in the world of atoms. York University had to go so far as to apply for two (actually three) Norwich orders, just to be able to identify a person in a suit (York > University v. Bell Canada Enterprises, [2009] O.J. No. 3689). This is an extraordinary amount of work to do, and discourages people from doing it save for very extreme circumstances. As far as I know, only one other Norwich or Anton Piller order was granted in all of Canada that year.
At the same time, I want a court to rule on the validity of an action that expose my personal information.
The trick is to find a reasonable balance.
–dave c-b