Online Surveillance Bill

[bitzz]

There's nothing wrong with warrantless searches? Really?

Warrantless searches?
Where do you get warrantless searches from bill C30?

It's not really debate if you're gonna make stuff up.

[OpenGambit]

Warrantless searches?
Where do you get warrantless searches from bill C30?

It's not really debate if you're gonna make stuff up.

You are right, its not really a debate if you're gonna make stuff up

"Bill C-30, which the Conservatives have named the Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act, would require telecommunications service providers to give police a person’s name, address, phone numbers, e-mail address and Internet Protocol address – which identifies a person on a computer – upon request and without a warrant."

feel free to explain how this is not a search.

[dr_sarcasm]

Warrantless searches?
Where do you get warrantless searches from bill C30?

It's not really debate if you're gonna make stuff up.

You're either trolling us, or you're that daft.

In the event it's the latter, go back and understand what you're attempting to debate (you can even have mom or dad help you read through the big parts before coming back here).

[lucky2]

.
.
.
.

[invictus43]

You are right, its not really a debate if you're gonna make stuff up

"Bill C-30, which the Conservatives have named the Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act, would require telecommunications service providers to give police a person’s name, address, phone numbers, e-mail address and Internet Protocol address – which identifies a person on a computer – upon request and without a warrant."

feel free to explain how this is not a search.

I suppose it's not technically much different than an officer stopping you on the street and asking you for ID. They then know who you are and can legally do this already. I suppose the problem is the magnitude of "stop and ID" they can do and the indiscriminate nature of the searching. Are they going to be snooping all IP's hitting a certain site then going back and getting ID's for those people and subsequently warrants? Is there anything illegal or immoral about that? Every person that browses porn (every male on this site in other words.. ) is going to be assumed to have child porn on their computer?? In order to get the warrant to seize data or records they'd have to show a reasonable likeliehood of a crime being committed you would think. They could compile stats or patterns of people's browsing habits but that's probably already being done by Google and everyone else on the web. Is it any different than the police going to a parking lot where they suspect illegal activity is going on, taking all the license plate numbers down and looking up who the owners of those vehicles are.

[OpenGambit]

I suppose it's not technically much different than an officer stopping you on the street and asking you for ID. They then know who you are and can legally do this already. I suppose the problem is the magnitude of "stop and ID" they can do and the indiscriminate nature of the searching. Are they going to be snooping all IP's hitting a certain site then going back and getting ID's for those people and subsequently warrants? Is there anything illegal or immoral about that? Every person that browses porn (every male on this site in other words.. ) is going to be assumed to have child porn on their computer?? In order to get the warrant to seize data or records they'd have to show a reasonable likeliehood of a crime being committed you would think. They could compile stats or patterns of people's browsing habits but that's probably already being done by Google and everyone else on the web. Is it any different than the police going to a parking lot where they suspect illegal activity is going on, taking all the license plate numbers down and looking up who the owners of those vehicles are.

1. it is extremely different from a cop asking you for your ID- you know why? because you can refuse,
2. They aren't searching you, they are searching 3rd parties. this is the same as goign to your cable company and asking them what shows you watch or asking your doctor what treatment you have had. Neither of which they can do without a warrant.
3.warrants are based on probable cause, not "reasonable likelihood". The point of it being "warrantless" is that they dont' need to meet the threshold of probable cause, meaning they can get information for no good reason.
4. Google isn't the police. What they are saying is that google has to give it to the cops.
5. I don't see how you can consider the databases of 3rd parties to be a "parking lot"

[invictus43]

1. it is extremely different from a cop asking you for your ID- you know why? because you can refuse,
2. They aren't searching you, they are searching 3rd parties. this is the same as goign to your cable company and asking them what shows you watch or asking your doctor what treatment you have had. Neither of which they can do without a warrant.
3.warrants are based on probable cause, not "reasonable likelihood". The point of it being "warrantless" is that they dont' need to meet the threshold of probable cause, meaning they can get information for no good reason.
4. Google isn't the police. What they are saying is that google has to give it to the cops.
5. I don't see how you can consider the databases of 3rd parties to be a "parking lot"

Point 1, I didn't know you could refuse to identify yourself to a police officer.

Regarding point 2, I don't believe they can actually ask the cable company in this case what you're watching. They can only see that you're connected to the cable and what ID your cable box has. They can't ask what content you've been looking at or what sites you've been looking at without a warrant, as I understand it.

Point 3 is moot if point 2 is true as I've stated. They would have to show probable cause in order to get anything other than who you are.

I understand Point 4..I was merely pointing out that private 3rd parties are already compiling huge amounts of data without any kind of legislation to control that. I'm not sure what stops the police from doing the same thing.

Point 5, the point I was making is that you can be identified via your vehicle registration while on private property. It's a similar situation. All they have to do is look and they can see your car was in a certain place at a certain time. That's not evidence of a crime, and they may need a warrant to get more info about what you were doing. But you're identifiable. Similarly, they are getting your information from a database, in this case your ISP rather than MTO.

I'm playing devil's advocate here by the way.

[bitzz]

I don't understand?
I understand that through provisions of PIPEDA telecommunication companies are required to provide user information, that could include: Name of account holder, billing address, email address, telephone numbers of the account holder and IP address to the police when the police show need. TODAY, NOW, ALREADY DONE DEAL.
I understand that most ISPs supply this information without a problem.
I understand that one of the major players doesn't.
I understand that is the issue.
Do you understand?

For those that want to condemn those damned Stalinist Conservatives for Bill C30, I remind you of the LIberal version... way back in 2006.

[bitzz]

OH yeah,
If you fail to identify yourself to a Peace Officer you get charged with "Fail to Identify".
Imagine that.
So YES, you are required by law to identify yourself to a cop when asked.

[OpenGambit]

1. Its someone going to your doctor and asking "who are your paitents" or going to your lawyer "who are your clients". You might not think that is a lot of information, but it is. If your lawyer happens to be a criminal lawyer, or your doctor happens to specialize in prostate cancer. Well thats quite a bit of information isn't it?
2. Just because there isn't legislation to control something private parties do doesn't mean the cops should be allowed to do it. We live in a free society and by virtue of that fact alone there are many many unregulated things, Therefore or laws re: the public really just deal with what you CAN"T do. By contract. the laws regarding the police are the reverse, they say what they CAN do, and even those ( can do) things are limited by other things, such as the charter
3. the reasonable expectation of privacy is very different in an outdoor parking lot compared to inside your house on your computer.

[OpenGambit]

OH yeah,
If you fail to identify yourself to a Peace Officer you get charged with "Fail to Identify".
Imagine that.
So YES, you are required by law to identify yourself to a cop when asked.

Find me that law for a guy walking down the street doing nothing wrong. Show me the statute, section, offence and fine.

What country do you think you live in?

[invictus43]

1. Its someone going to your doctor and asking "who are your paitents" or going to your lawyer "who are your clients". You might not think that is a lot of information, but it is. If your lawyer happens to be a criminal lawyer, or your doctor happens to specialize in prostate cancer. Well thats quite a bit of information isn't it?
2. Just because there isn't legislation to control something private parties do doesn't mean the cops should be allowed to do it. We live in a free society and by virtue of that fact alone there are many many unregulated things, Therefore or laws re: the public really just deal with what you CAN"T do. By contract. the laws regarding the police are the reverse, they say what they CAN do, and even those ( can do) things are limited by other things, such as the charter
3. the reasonable expectation of privacy is very different in an outdoor parking lot compared to inside your house on your computer.

Well, I do totally agree that you can assemble a fair bit of info once you've identified someone's IP. The ease of access is what worries me. The data trail created by online activity is immense and easily searchable. You can do all kinds of data mining from that info. I worry that someone may get lumped into some type of "criminal investigation" simply because their cell phone was on in the wrong place at the wrong time. So they go fishing for G20-types and you get bagged for something else completely unrelated because they managed to get a warrant for you and it's so easy to follow the bread crumbs of your internet exploits.

It would be nice if the government would protect our rights with regards to data being gathered and stored online without our knowledge or permission. I think private e-mail should be treated with the same rules as snail mail. If anyone ever read an e-mail of mine without my permission, I would hope they would be prosecuted in the same way as someone opening my snail-mail.

The comparison between a parking lot and your own house is not quite accurate..the internet extends outside of your home. They would never know what was on your machine if not for you communicating with people outside your home. Can the police get a list of phone numbers dialed from your home phone without a warrant?

[invictus43]

Find me that law for a guy walking down the street doing nothing wrong. Show me the statute, section, offence and fine.

What country do you think you live in?

To be fair, the police can manufacture any number of excuses in order to determine who you are.

[dr_sarcasm]

I don't understand?
I understand that through provisions of PIPEDA telecommunication companies are required to provide user information, that could include: Name of account holder, billing address, email address, telephone numbers of the account holder and IP address to the police when the police show need. TODAY, NOW, ALREADY DONE DEAL.

Quote the section and subsection whereby PIPEDA "requires" this information without some law being broken.

Quote the section and subsection whereby PIPEDA "requires" that financial information be turned over EVER.

Go on, I have all night to review.

[bitzz]

Quote the section and subsection whereby PIPEDA "requires" this information without some law being broken.

Quote the section and subsection whereby PIPEDA "requires" that financial information be turned over EVER.

Go on, I have all night to review.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/a...age-3.html#h-6
Start at section 7(1) a,b,c,d,e then section 7(2) not a but b,c,d, then section 7(3)a,b,c,c1 ,c1a... and most of the rest of the page. This is tiresome.
Why don't YOU read the document so you can intelligently discuss it on the internet. I'm going to bed.

What finacial information?
Billing address? Some accounts have a "service address" which is where the modem is and a seperate address to send the bill to. No financial information.

[dr_sarcasm]

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/a...age-3.html#h-6
Start at section 7(1) a,b,c,d,e then section 7(2) not a but b,c,d, then section 7(3)a,b,c,c1 ,c1a... and most of the rest of the page. This is tiresome.
Why don't YOU read the document so you can intelligently discuss it on the internet. I'm going to bed.

What finacial information?
Billing address? Some accounts have a "service address" which is where the modem is and a seperate address to send the bill to. No financial information.

Lol.

I get it now, you're trolling.

See, if you knew you were in any way serious about this, then you'd know that the proposed new legislation allows "authorities" to get as much information on you as they want, including F-I-N-A-N-C-I-A-L information (stated several times in this thread, for your benefit, which you seem strangely too thick to understand). Now, let's look at that famed section 7 (I've even highlighted the really, really, really important points for you, muffin):

Collection without knowledge or consent

• 7. (1) For the purpose of clause 4.3 of Schedule 1, and despite the note that accompanies that clause, an organization may collect personal information without the knowledge or consent of the individual only if
  
  • (a) the collection is clearly in the interests of the individual and consent cannot be obtained in a timely way;
  • (b) it is reasonable to expect that the collection with the knowledge or consent of the individual would compromise the availability or the accuracy of the information and the collection is reasonable for purposes related to investigating a breach of an agreement or a contravention of the laws of Canada or a province;
  • (c) the collection is solely for journalistic, artistic or literary purposes;
  • (d) the information is publicly available and is specified by the regulations; or
  • (e) the collection is made for the purpose of making a disclosure
    
    • (i) under subparagraph (3)(c.1)(i) or (d)(ii), or
    • (ii) that is required by law.
      
      
      (3) For the purpose of clause 4.3 of Schedule 1, and despite the note that accompanies that clause, an organization may disclose personal information without the knowledge or consent of the individual only if the disclosure is
      
      • (a) made to, in the Province of Quebec, an advocate or notary or, in any other province, a barrister or solicitor who is representing the organization;
      • (b) for the purpose of collecting a debt owed by the individual to the organization;
      • (c) required to comply with a subpoena or warrant issued or an order made by a court, person or body with jurisdiction to compel the production of information, or to comply with rules of court relating to the production of records;
      • (c.1) made to a government institution or part of a government institution that has made a request for the information, identified its lawful authority to obtain the information and indicated that
        
        • (i) it suspects that the information relates to national security, the defence of Canada or the conduct of international affairs,
        • (ii) the disclosure is requested for the purpose of enforcing any law of Canada, a province or a foreign jurisdiction, carrying out an investigation relating to the enforcement of any such law or gathering intelligence for the purpose of enforcing any such law, or
        • (iii) the disclosure is requested for the purpose of administering any law of Canada or a province;

See, cupcake, NONE of the things YOU asked me to read states that

a) F-I-N-A-N-C-I-A-L information is to be disclosed (as per what the NEW legislation will allow for; do I need to speak m-o-r-e s-l-o-w-l-y f-o-r y-o-u and repeat myself yet another time on this matter),
b) NOR can information be freely disclosed in most cases unless some crime has been committed or the security of the nation is at stake (oh, and looksie, in those cases the authorities need a warrant/subpeona), not as you suggest that PIPEDA allows personal information to be freely gathered/disclosed just because they show "need".

No really, do you get it yet?

Looking forward to what pearls of wisdom you'll delight us with tomorrow (oh, and by the way, please answer Open and Rob's questions in the thread, I'm sure you'll have a gem of an answer for both of those two gents).

[short stop]

OH yeah,
If you fail to identify yourself to a Peace Officer you get charged with "Fail to Identify".
Imagine that.
So YES, you are required by law to identify yourself to a cop when asked.

Haven't heard of this one. Is it a Criminal Code charge? What's the section?

I know that there's a provision for this in the HTA for drivers.

As to carrying licences and surrender on demand
33. (1) Every driver of a motor vehicle or street car shall carry his or her licence with him or her at all times while he or she is in charge of a motor vehicle or street car and shall surrender the licence for reasonable inspection upon the demand of a police officer or officer appointed for carrying out the provisions of this Act. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 33 (1).

[CruisnGrrl]

you do not have to provide your ID to a cop (driving is an exception), hopefully I never have to hear "papers please" from an officer in canada.

[Rob MacLennan]

OH yeah,
If you fail to identify yourself to a Peace Officer you get charged with "Fail to Identify".
Imagine that.
So YES, you are required by law to identify yourself to a cop when asked.

If that's what you think, then I strongly suggest that you review the judgment in R. v. Linton, 2007.

you do not have to provide your ID to a cop (driving is an exception), hopefully I never have to hear "papers please" from an officer in canada.

And even then you aren't providing identification, but rather showing proof that you are licensed to operate the vehicle.

[jay-d]

If that's what you think, then I strongly suggest that you review the judgment in R. v. Linton, 2007.

http://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc...07oncj255.html