Politicians worldwide are discovering the internet - what a great tool
for fascism, once you got the laws in place to solve that whole
'anonymity' thing. Also I notice this story shows the truth - the
Canadian government is really located in Washington, DC, Ottawa is just
a branch office. Come to think of it, the last story I posted about
Canada featured the head of its military, 'speaking to us from military
HQ  in Palm Beach, Florida.'
Owen
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
*Will Canada's ISPs become spies?*
By Declan McCullagh <mailto:declan.mccullagh@cnet.com>
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
August 27, 2002, 12:56 PM PT
http://news.com.com/2100-1023-955595.html
<http://news.com.com/2100-1023-955595.html?tag=prntfr>
*WASHINGTON--The Canadian government is considering a proposal that
would force Internet providers to rewire their networks for easy
surveillance by police and spy agencies.*
A discussion draft <http://www.canada.justice.gc.ca/en/cons/la_al/>
released Sunday also contemplates creating a national database of every
Canadian with an Internet account, a plan that could sharply curtail the
right to be anonymous online.
The Canadian government, including the Department of Justice
<http://canada.justice.gc.ca/> and Industry Canada
<http://www.ic.gc.ca/>, wrote the 21-page blueprint as a near-final step
in a process that seeks to give law enforcement agents more authority to
conduct electronic surveillance. A proposed law based on the discussion
draft is expected to be introduced in Parliament late this year or in
early 2003.
Arguing that more and more communications take place in electronic form,
Canadian officials say such laws are necessary to fight terrorism and
combat even run-of-the-mill crimes. They also claim that by enacting
these proposals, Canada will be following its obligations under the
Council of Europe's cybercrime treaty
<http://news.com.com/2100-1001-268894.html>, which the country is in the
process of considering.
If the discussion draft were to become law, it would outlaw the
possession of computer viruses, authorize police to order Internet
providers to retain logs of all Web browsing for up to six months, and
permit police to obtain a search warrant allowing them to find "hidden
electronic and digital devices" that a suspect might be concealing. In
most circumstances, a court order would be required for government
agents to conduct Internet monitoring.
Canada and the United States are nonvoting members of the Council of
Europe, and representatives from both countries' police agencies have
endorsed the controversial cybercrime treaty
<http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/EN/CadreListeTraites.htm>, which has
drawn protests from human rights activists and civil liberties groups.
Of nearly 50 participating nations, only Albania has formally adopted
<http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/EN/searchsig.asp?NT=185&CM=8&DF=27/08/02>,
or ratified, the treaty.
Michael Geist <http://aix1.uottawa.ca/%7Egeist/>, a professor at the
University of Ottawa who specializes in e-commerce law, says that the
justification for adopting such sweeping changes to Canadian law seems
weak.
"It seems to me that the main justification they've given for all the
changes is that we want to ratify the cybercrime treaty and we need to
make changes," Geist said. "To me that's not a particularly convincing
argument. If there are new powers needed for law enforcement authority,
make that case."
Geist added that "there's nothing in the document that indicates (new
powers) are needed. I don't know that there have been a significant
number of cases where police have run into problems."
Probably the most sweeping change the legal blueprint contemplates is
compelling Internet providers and telephone companies to reconfigure
their networks to facilitate government eavesdropping and data-retention
orders. The United States has a similar requirement, called the
Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act
<http://www.epic.org/privacy/wiretap/calea/calea_law.html>, but it
applies only to pre-Internet telecommunications companies.
"It is proposed that all service providers (wireless, wireline and
Internet) be required to ensure that their systems have the technical
capability to provide lawful access to law enforcement and national
security agencies," according to the proposal. Companies would be
responsible for paying the costs of buying new equipment.
Sarah Andrews, an analyst at the Electronic Privacy Information Center
<http://www.epic.org/> (EPIC) who specializes in international law, says
the proposal goes beyond what the cybercrime treaty specifies. "Their
proposal for intercept capability talks about all service providers, not
just Internet providers," Andrews said. "The cybercrime treaty deals
only with computer data." EPIC opposes
<http://www.privacyinternational.org/issues/cybercrime/coe/ngo_letter_601.htm>
the cybercrime treaty, saying it grants too much power to police and
does not adequately respect privacy rights.
Another section of the proposal says the Canadian Association of Chiefs
of Police recommends "the establishment of a national database" with
personal information about all Canadian Internet users. "The
implementation of such a database would presuppose that service
providers are compelled to provide accurate and current information,"
the draft says.
Gus Hosein, a visiting fellow at the London School of Economics and an
activist with Privacy International, calls the database "a dumb idea."
"Immediately you have to wonder if you're allowed to use anonymous
mobile phones or whether you're allowed to connect to the Internet
anonymously," Hosein said.
A representative for George Radwanski
<http://www.privcom.gc.ca/au_e.asp>, Canada's privacy commissioner, said
the office is reviewing the blueprint and does not "have any comments on
the paper as it stands."
Comments on the proposal can be sent to la-al@justice.gc.ca
<mailto:la-al@justice.gc.ca> no later than Nov. 15.