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

Lawful Access

Bell Controversy Puts Spotlight on Net Surveillance

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.

July 3, 2006 — 4 comments — Columns

Internet Monitoring Leads to Terror Arrests

This weekend’s arrest of 17 people in Toronto on terrorism-related arrests have generated significant worldwide attention. Not to be overlooked are the reports that Internet monitoring played a key role in the investigation. According to the Toronto Star "when CSIS began monitoring the sites allegedly used by some of the […]

June 4, 2006 — 5 comments — News

Canada to Launch Cybersecurity Task Force?

My weekly Law Bytes column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) reports that the the Conservative government is preparing to launch a Cyber-Security Task Force. Although the Ministry of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness does not list any information about the task force on its site, GEDS, the government’s electronic directory service, was recently updated to include a Cybersecurity Task Force Secretariat. The Secretariat apparently at least includes an Assistant Deputy Minister and a senior policy analyst.

While the move to address shortcomings in Canada’s cyber-security framework is welcome, the creation of this task force raises three important issues.

May 29, 2006 — 1 comment — Columns

Canada to Launch Cybersecurity Task Force?

In April 2004, the Liberal government released a report on Canada’s National Security Policy that included plans to establish a public-private cybersecurity task force. More than two years later, it appears that the Conservative government is preparing to follow through on that commitment by launching its own task force. Although […]

May 24, 2006 — Comments are Disabled — News

The Legal Limits of Government Tinkering With Technology

My weekly Law Bytes column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) uses the recent French Parliament law involving interoperability and Apple's DRM as the basis for a discussion of governments that tinker with technology through regulation. The law should be understood as a logical reaction to mounting consumer frustration with technological limitations on their purchases and a desire for balance in copyright.

Although the French law may appear to be unique, many governments regularly tinker with technology through regulation. For example, the Liberal government last year introduced "lawful access" legislation that would have required Internet service providers to dramatically overhaul their networks by inserting new surveillance technologies. Similarly, the U.S. established "broadcast flag" requirements that would have mandated the inclusion of copy-controls within a wide range of electronic devices (a court struck the requirements down as unconstitutional).

Moreover, experience demonstrates that the private sector may not respond to consumer demands to offer compatible products. The satellite radio market provides a recent example, with the two major providers – XM and Sirius – steadfastly refusing to offer a device that supports both services despite the fact that they have jointly developed just such a product.

With government intervention looming as a possibility and the private market unlikely to resolve compatibility concerns, what principles should regulators adopt to provide all stakeholders with greater certainty about the appropriate circumstances for lawmakers to tinker with technology?

April 18, 2006 — 3 comments — Columns