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

Lawful Access

Why Peter MacKay Is Wrong About Warrantless Access to Personal Information

The debate on Bill C-13 opened yesterday in the House of Commons with opposition MPs calling on the government to split the bill into two (cyberbullying and lawful access) and raising concerns about the voluntary disclosure provision that would give Internet providers complete criminal and civil immunity for voluntary retention and disclosure of subscriber information. When asked about the issue, Justice Minister Peter MacKay said the following:

The provision would clarify that the police officer can lawfully ask – and he points out – that individuals and groups voluntarily preserve data or provide documentation, but only when no prohibition exists against doing so. That is to suggest that organizations would still be bound by the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, something known as PIPEDA, which makes it clear that an organization is entitled to voluntarily disclose personal information to the police, without the consent of the person to have the information relayed.

However police have to have lawful authority to do so. They still have to obtain a warrant. They can ask that the information be preserved and temporarily put on hold so that it cannot be deleted, but in order for police to access that information that is frozen, they must still obtain a warrant. There is no warrantless access.

Unfortunately, MacKay is wrong.

November 28, 2013 — 5 comments — News

NDP Calls on Government To Split C-13 While Stoddart Surprisingly Supports Approach

The New Democrats have called on the government to split Bill C-13, arguing that the cyberbullying provisions should be examined separately from the return of lawful access provisions. Somewhat surprisingly, outgoing Privacy Commissioner Jennifer Stoddart has expressed support for the government’s decision to include lawful access powers in the bill.

November 28, 2013 — 1 comment — News

Lawful Access Returns Under the Cover of Cyber-Bullying Bill

In February 2012, then-Public Safety Minister Vic Toews introduced Internet surveillance legislation that sparked widespread criticism from across the political spectrum. The overwhelming negative publicity pressured the government to quickly backtrack by placing Bill C-30 on hold. Earlier this year, then-Justice Minister Rob Nicholson announced that the bill was dead, confirming “we will not be proceeding with Bill C-30 and any attempts that we will continue to have to modernize the Criminal Code will not contain the measures contained in C-30.”

My weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) notes that Nicholson’s commitment lasted less than a year. Last week, Peter MacKay, the new federal justice minister, unveiled Bill C-13, which is being marketed as an effort to crack down on cyber-bullying. Yet the vast majority of the bill simply brings back many (though not all) lawful access provisions found in Bill C-30.

November 27, 2013 — 2 comments — Columns

Lawful Access Returns Under the Cover of Cyberbullying Bill

Appeared in the Toronto Star on November 22, 2013 as Lawful Access Returns Under the Cover of Cyber-Bullying Bill In February 2012, then-Public Safety Minister Vic Toews introduced Internet surveillance legislation that sparked widespread criticism from across the political spectrum. The overwhelming negative publicity pressured the government to quickly backtrack […]

November 27, 2013 — Comments are Disabled — Columns Archive

The Privacy Threats in Bill C-13, Part One: Immunity for Personal Info Disclosures Without a Warrant

The introduction of Bill C-13 – the “cyberbullying bill” with extensive lawful access provisions – has generated considerable discussion on its privacy implications. While many have noted that Justice Minister Peter MacKay took less than a year to retreat from the government’s commitment that “any attempts that we will continue to have to modernize the Criminal Code will not contain the measures contained in C-30”, the question will soon focus on whether the new bill contains any privacy threats in need of reform.

It is certainly true that the government has removed two of the most controversial C-30 provisions by excluding warrantless mandatory disclosure of basic subscriber information and the requirement for telecommunications service providers to build intercept capability within their systems. However, several provisions still featured in the bill are cause for concern. This post focuses on the new safe harbour protections for voluntary disclosure of personal information without a warrant. Posts to follow later this week will examine the lower thresholds for access to metadata and location information.

November 25, 2013 — 8 comments — News