The European Commission, which has been a staunch supporter of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, today announced that it is referring ACTA to the European Court of Justice to determine whether ACTA is incompatible – in any way – with the EU’s fundamental rights and freedoms. While the move may mean […]
News
Why Bill C-30 Gives the Govt the Power To Install Its Own Surveillance Equipment on ISP Networks
- to order an ISP or telecom provider to install surveillance capabilities “in a manner and within a time” specified by the government
- to order an ISP or telecom provider to install additional equipment to allow for more simultaneous interceptions than is otherwise specified in the law (the government sets a maximum and then can simply ignore its own guidelines)
- to order an ISP or telecom provider to comply with additional confidentiality requirements not otherwise specified in the law
- to order an ISP or telecom provider to meet additional operational requirements not otherwise specified in the law
Given these powers, Section 14 essentially gives the government the power to override the limits and guidelines it establishes in the bill (it must pay the provider an amount the government decides is reasonable for doing so). If that wasn’t enough, Section 14(4) goes even further. It provides:
The Minister may provide the telecommunications service provider with any equipment or other thing that the Minister considers the service provider needs to comply with an order made under this section.
The Devil is in the Details: How Bill C-30 Leaves Many Surveillance Questions Unanswered
At the top of the uncertainty list are cost questions. The cost of new surveillance equipment could run into the tens of millions of dollars, yet the government has not said who will pay for it. Surveillance mandates in other countries have typically come with government support. For example, when the U.S. passed the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) in 1995, $500 million was granted to cover provider costs. In addition to the surveillance equipment costs, there are fees and costs associated with surveillance “hook-ups” to law enforcement as well as fees for disclosing subscriber information. Bill C-30 leaves these issues for another day by opening the door to fees but leaving specifics to future, unspecified regulations that can be passed by the Governor-in-Council without gaining Parliamentary approval.
Surveillance capability specifics are also still largely unknown.
ACTA in Context: Copyright Enforcement on a Global Scale
Ars Technica features an article drawn from an interview I conducted with Tim Lee about how ACTA is part of a global effort to increase copyright enforcement on an international scale.
Recent Posts
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 237: A Conversation with Jason Woywada of BCFIPA on Political Party Privacy and Bill C-4 
Lawful Access on Steroids: Why Bill C-2’s Big Brother Tactics Combine Expansive Warrantless Disclosure with Unprecedented Secrecy 
Government Reverses on Privacy and the Charter: Department of Justice Analysis Concludes Political Party Privacy Bill Raises No Charter of Rights Effects 
“Big Brother Tactics”: Why Bill C-2’s New Warrantless Disclosure Demand Powers Extend Far Beyond Internet and Telecom Providers 
Government Seeks To Exempt Political Parties From Privacy Laws Even As CRTC Reports They Are Leading Source of Spam Complaints
