Post Tagged with: "privacy"

Increased OPP Enforcement by Ryan Steele (CC BY-SA 2.0) https://flic.kr/p/dk2xn

Why Does the Ontario Provincial Police Still Not Know What is in the Lawful Access Bill?

Earlier this week, I posted on Ontario Provincial Police comments at the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs hearing on Bill C-13 that were sharply critical of online anonymity. The same hearing was notable for additional comments from the OPP on the lawful access bill. The comments, which came in the opening statement, suggest that one of Canada’s largest police forces is simply unaware of the contents of the proposed legislation.

Scott Naylor of the OPP’s opening remarks included:

There is no question that some of the legislation involving technology and communication in Canada is out of date. Under the current legislation, police can only access the very basic subscriber information – i.e., name, address, telephone number – on a totally ad hoc basis, by production order from service providers. This means that there is an inconsistent response, which impedes investigations and, in extreme cases, may prolong victimization. Under the proposed legislation, Internet service providers would be compelled to provide this information in a timely fashion and on a consistent basis. Access to this information would be strictly controlled and limited to law enforcement officials, who would be fully trained in these procedures and subject to auditing and report oversight. I will repeat – auditing and report oversight.

Here is the problem: Naylor appears to think that Bill C-13 has not changed from Vic Toews’ Bill C-30. Under the lawful access bill, ISPs would not be compelled to disclose subscriber information. Indeed, the mandatory disclosure of subscriber information without a warrant was removed from the bill altogether. The bill does include incentives for voluntary disclosure, but there are no mandatory disclosure requirements. If the OPP think the bill guarantees consistent disclosure of subscriber information, it is wrong. In fact, the Supreme Court’s Spencer decision means that subscriber information now only comes (except in emergency circumstances) through a court order.

November 13, 2014 — 3 comments — News

Anonymity; and the Internet. by Stian Eikeland (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0) https://flic.kr/p/6CCWXH

Ontario Provincial Police Recommend Ending Anonymity on the Internet

The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs began its hearings on Bill C-13, the lawful access/cyberbullying bill last week with an appearance from several law enforcement representatives. The Ontario Provincial Police was part of the law enforcement panel and was asked by Senator Tom McInnis, a Conservative Senator from Nova Scotia, about what other laws are needed to address cyberbullying. Scott Naylor of the OPP responded (official transcript not yet posted online):

If the bag was open and I could do anything, the biggest problem that I see in the world of child sexual exploitation is anonymity on the Internet. When we get our driver’s licence we’re required to get our picture taken for identification. When you get a mortgage you have to sign and provide identification. When you sign up for the Internet, there is absolutely no requirement for any kind of non-anonymity qualifier. There are a lot of people who are hiding behind the Internet to do all kinds of crime, including cybercrime, fraud, sexual exploitation and things along those lines.

The Internet is moving so quickly that law enforcement cannot keep up. If there were one thing that I would ask for discussion on is that there has to be some mechanism of accountability for you to sign on to an Internet account that makes it like a digital fingerprint that identifies it to you sitting behind the computer or something at that time. There are mechanisms to do it, but the Internet is so big and so vast at this point, and it’s worldwide, I’m not sure how that could happen, but that would certainly assist everybody. In that way I can make a digital qualification that that’s the person that I’m talking to. If I had one choice, that’s what I would ask for.

November 10, 2014 — 39 comments — News

DSC_0110 Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages James Moore by Heather (CC BY 2.0) https://flic.kr/p/6BbzwP

Why the Digital Privacy Act Will Expand Personal Information Disclosure Without Court Oversight

My column this week on warrantless access to personal information under Canadian law noted that Bill S-4, the Digital Privacy Act, will expand the likelihood warrantless disclosures between private organizations. As I posted recently:

Bill S-4 proposes that:

“an organization may disclose personal information without the knowledge or consent of the individual… if the disclosure is made to another organization and is reasonable for the purposes of investigating a breach of an agreement or a contravention of the laws of Canada or a province that has been, is being or is about to be committed and it is reasonable to expect that disclosure with the knowledge or consent of the individual would compromise the investigation;

Unpack the legalese and you find that organizations will be permitted to disclose personal information without consent (and without a court order) to any organization that is investigating a contractual breach or possible violation of any law. This applies both past breaches or violations as well as potential future violations. Moreover, the disclosure occurs in secret without the knowledge of the affected person (who therefore cannot challenge the disclosure since they are not aware it is happening).

November 4, 2014 — 6 comments — News

Come back with a warrant by Rosalyn Davis (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0) https://flic.kr/p/aoPzWb

Warrantless Access to Subscriber Information: Has the Tide Turned on Canada’s Privacy Embarrassment?

In a year in which privacy issues have captured near weekly headlines, one concern stands out: warrantless access to Internet and telecom subscriber information. From revelations that telecom companies receive over a million requests each year to the Supreme Court of Canada’s landmark decision affirming that there is a reasonable expectation of privacy in subscriber information, longstanding law enforcement and telecom company practices have been placed under the microscope for the first time.

Last week, the Privacy Commissioner of Canada released a report that shed further light on the law enforcement side of warrantless disclosure requests, raising disturbing questions about the lack of record keeping and politically motivated efforts to drum up data on the issue.

My weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) notes that the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada notified the Royal Canadian Mounted Police last October that it was planning to conduct preliminary investigative work on the collection of warrantless subscriber information from telecom companies. The plan was to assess RCMP policies and to determine the frequency and justification for warrantless requests.

November 3, 2014 — 5 comments — Columns

The Fifth Eye by Dustin Ginetz (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0) https://flic.kr/p/id9KHn

Canada’s New “Anti-Terrorism” Bill: Responding to the Courts, Not the Attacks

The government yesterday introduced Bill C-44, the Protection of Canada from Terrorists Act. While some were expecting significant new surveillance, decreased warrant thresholds, and detention measures, this bill is a response to several court decisions, not to the attacks last week in Ottawa and Quebec. A second bill – which might use the U.K. legislative response to terror attacks as a model – is a future possibility, but policy decisions, cabinet approval, legal drafting, and constitutional reviews take time.

Bill C-44, which was to have been tabled on the day of the Ottawa attack, responds to two key issues involving CSIS, Canada’s domestic intelligence agency. The first involves a federal court case from late last year in which Justice Richard Mosley, a federal court judge, issued a stinging rebuke to Canada’s intelligence agencies (CSEC and CSIS) and the Justice Department, ruling that they misled the court when they applied for warrants to permit the interception of electronic communications. Mosley’s concern stemmed from warrants involving two individuals that were issued in 2009 permitting the interception of communications both in Canada and abroad using Canadian equipment. At the time, the Canadian intelligence agencies did not disclose that they might ask their foreign counterparts (namely the “five eyes” partners in the U.S., U.K., Australia, and New Zealand) to intercept the foreign communications.

October 28, 2014 — 7 comments — News