Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Canada Government Privacy The Internet Your Rights Online

Canada To Mandate ISP Deep Packet Inspection 313

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the that's-not-cool-eh dept.
An anonymous reader writes "The Canadian government has proposed new legislation that would require ISPs to install deep-packet inspection capabilities. The proposal includes a laundry list of surveillance requirements, police review of ISP employees and technologies, and the mandated disclosure of a broad range of subscriber information without any court oversight."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Canada To Mandate ISP Deep Packet Inspection

Comments Filter:
  • ....that it fails.
    • by Monkeedude1212 (1560403) on Tuesday November 16, 2010 @01:33PM (#34244342) Journal

      It's very easy to look at the short story and go "The government wants to read my packets?!?!? Oh Noes this must be bad!" Usually that can get a +5 insightful.

      I opened the Article to find it was another one from Michael Geist. Now, normally he puts me off, it seems like there was a week or two there where he kept flooding the world with news about ACTA, and I was getting tired of hearing about it because it was the same old thing, bad bad bad. So I started reading the article and the bills that were being proposed - and he actually seems to be on the mark with this one. Basically what the whole thing boils down to is this:

      The Law Enforcement Agencies want to be able to read internet traffic, real time, and have access to the information the ISP has on whoever is in that conversation. While some of these details are already within the ISP's ability to give out voluntarily should the Police ask for it, basically they want it set in stone that they MUST. Makes me wonder if there was an issue where an ISP refused to hand over data recently, or if they simple said "We can't sniff their traffic".

      Now - I have a strong feeling that this will fail. Why? It seems that they want ISP's to foot the bill. An ISP isn't going to want to pay any more money than they have to. They won't be getting any kind of a kickback from the government - law enforcement isn't exactly a money making industry. So I see Telus and Shaw and Bell and whoever probably starting to grease some palms to make sure this thing doesn't pass.

      Unless there is some odd reason that ISP's would willingly want to comply with this (which would mean they're likely getting refunded somehow) then I would be a little more worried. If Geist can find evidence of that, well, that'd be quite a story!

      • by Barrinmw (1791848) on Tuesday November 16, 2010 @01:36PM (#34244380)
        The problem is, that when governments get an ability to do something, they have a bad habit of misusing that power.
        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by shoehornjob (1632387)
          Not to mention that no court oversight is an invitation to blatent misuse of power.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by blair1q (305137)

          The problem is that that is a false statement.

          It implies that any government with any power will misuse it.

          The evidence is that few governments misuse their power significantly. Abuse of power, especially in democracies, is hardly a habit and it's something most governments work hard to avoid.

          However, what is true is that all governments are susceptible to subversion by malefactors who are interested in personal power rather than government (such as the corporatists who are undermining the United States go

          • by microbox (704317) on Tuesday November 16, 2010 @05:49PM (#34248512)
            It implies that any government with any power will misuse it.

            There are checks and balances in our system for a reason. They are based on a model of human nature that brought us democracy in the first place. It is a thoroughly conservative model of human nature by modern standards.

            So... my question to you is, why should the government be circumventing judicial oversight? Why is the government all of a sudden so trustworthy, as do deny what we know about human nature? Is it because it is Harper, and you are a conservative yourself? That would be ironic.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by ShaunC (203807)

        law enforcement isn't exactly a money making industry

        Canada just needs to start up a War on Drugs. Law enforcement is quite a profitable industry in the US.

        • by gman003 (1693318)
          Law enforcement isn't. Supplying and training law enforcement is.
        • by h4rr4r (612664)

          The War on Some Drugs is a big money loser. We spend billions on it and on incarcerating non-violent offenders.

          • by ScrewMaster (602015) * on Tuesday November 16, 2010 @01:59PM (#34244744)

            The War on Some Drugs is a big money loser. We spend billions on it and on incarcerating non-violent offenders.

            Yes, but his point is that for the agencies and private-sector corporations who are maintaining and supporting that "War" ... it is extremely profitable. Those billions are going somewhere, and those groups have a vested interest in lobbying Congress to keep the "War" on for as long as possible. Corruption of the highest order, when you get right down to it.

            • by microbox (704317) on Tuesday November 16, 2010 @05:55PM (#34248602)
              Corruption of the highest order, when you get right down to it.

              Agreed. But don't forget that conservative do-gooders really believe that they are doing the right thing, and cannot see the ironic nature of what is going on. After-all, the unwashed masses need to be controlled for their own good. Moral authoritarianism is as much an ideology as it a business proposition for the private-sector profiting from the "war".

              For anybody conservative or liberal who smugly thinks that they are the one who has thought it through, consider this: when identical twins are separated at birth, and tested in adulthood, their political attitudes turn out to be similar with a correlation co-efficient of 0.62 (Bouchard et al. 1990; Eaves, Eysenck, & Martin, 1989; Holden, 1987; Martin et al. 1986; Plomin et al., 1997, p. 206; Scarr & Weinberg, 1981)

              So, the next time it seems a political argument is entrench -- consider that it may be far more entrenched then anyone realizes.
          • by EasyTarget (43516)

            It certainly costs the taxpayer a fortune. ... but believe me, it is very profitable for those who run the law enforcement and incarceration operations.

      • traffic analysis (Score:5, Insightful)

        by epine (68316) on Tuesday November 16, 2010 @02:08PM (#34244912)

        What don't you like about Geist? He's done great work at slowing down bad copyright legislation (though I'm a bit out of the loop recently).

        Surveillance is 99% traffic analysis (constructing the social network, and colouring certain nodes red) and only 1% about the particulars of the conversation. SSH won't raise any red flags, unless you SSH into a well known onion router. Suppose one person in a thousand does this. These people take a moderate hit on their spook agency credit rating, and a smaller stain spreads outward to their primary affiliates.

        I think you have to do a bunch of stuff to have your credit rating fall low enough to devote human resources to sussing you out. Too many sheep, not enough shepherds, who cost real money. Purchasing a holiday condo in Peshawar would really rack up the points if you're desperate to justify wearing a tinfoil hat.

        The big Canadian ISPs won't complain because this creates a barrier to entry for small ISPs who can't afford to staff an office of conformance.

        What sucks in this plan is the lack of judicial oversight. That's just plain wrong. Oversight is foundational to democracy. This is the same PM who is trying to gut Statistics Canada (on the bogus pretext there has ever been a privacy issue) because the data they produce is too credible, and can be used to justify social spending.

        I would like to think it would be practical to have all (judicially supervised) surveillance requests opened to the public 50 to 75 years after the fact, so that we can look back and form an accurate opinion about the past scope of abuse. Every democracy needs the occasional dental checkup.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Another problem in Canada is that there are 2-3 majors that control the last mile of communications, and regulated by the CRTC that generally hands them rulings that sustain their oligopolies. This would be a great way to kill off the little guys already forced to wholesale their last mile from the big ones. Rogers, Bell, and Telus might just be willing to bear the costs if it kills of the small guys.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by i_ate_god (899684)

        Bell, Shaw, Rogers, Videotron, Cogeco, they all deliver/produce media as well. That's an incentive right there, to stop piracy.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by vlm (69642)

        An ISP isn't going to want to pay any more money than they have to. They won't be getting any kind of a kickback from the government - law enforcement isn't exactly a money making industry.

        1) Out of touch with the prison industrial complex. Huge money maker.

        2) When I worked at a US telco we did in fact issue a bill along with the data. Its kind of like assuming a private 3rd party chemistry forensics lab could never do business with law enforcement. Their cell phone provider does not provide service free/gratis. Their mobile radios were not donated by Motorola for free. They do not get free weapons (well, civil forfeiture) Why people continually assume the telcos do not / will not / can

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        > Makes me wonder if there was an issue where an ISP refused to hand over data recently, or if they simple said "We can't sniff their traffic".

        I use to work for a small Canadian ISP about 7 years ago and the owner would never give out info to any one or any CDN gov agency unless they came in with a warrant. He was pretty firm about that. Man we had good times writing letters and answering phone calls from US law firms requesting that we must do so and so lol

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by lennier (44736)

        he kept flooding the world with news about ACTA, and I was getting tired of hearing about it because it was the same old thing, bad bad bad.

        I don't understand this sentiment. If an important fact is repeated long enough, it becomes unimportant? Does bad news cease to be bad once it's no longer novel? Does a truth go 'out of date' and cease to be true once people are bored of hearing about it? Must activists trying to alert the world to imminent danger keep constantly reframing their message in new terms or risk being ignored because they're, like, such a buzz-kill, man?

        There's an important insight here I think into how the 24-hour must-have-shi

  • by markatto (1893394)
    This sounds expensive. Who is going to pay for it? The ISPs? The government?
    • by h4rr4r (612664)

      Of course not. The consumer of course. They will have to pay a nice Internet Monitoring fee. It will be a fee so the ISPs can still advertise a price of $49.95. Nevermind that no one ever gets a bill less than $60.

      • by hedwards (940851)
        I've always wonder about that. While I can understand them not advertising the price inclusive of all taxes and fees, one would think that it's reasonable to at least include the ones that apply across all of the states or provinces that you're providing service to. Why the government allows that sort of deceptive trade practice is beyond me.
      • by Dalzhim (1588707)

        Even if there was no specific fee, you'd end up paying for it through your taxes.
        Bills are always payed by individuals indirectly. A government cannot have any money without individuals paying taxes. A company cannot have any money without customers buying products.

        Let's assume the bill is going to be OVER 9000! The government says: Hey, don't worry folks, you won't have to give in a penny, we'll assume the whole bill. In the end, they'll be paying with money that could have been spent on services you actua

    • This sounds expensive. Who is going to pay for it? The ISPs? The government?

      Um, the ISP's customers. Either in the form of a rate increase or a "Packet Inspection Tax".

    • The ISPs.

    • by Jaysyn (203771)

      Canadian citizens, ultimately.

    • by TheGratefulNet (143330) on Tuesday November 16, 2010 @01:27PM (#34244246)

      news: its not expensive. networks TAPS are commodity these days. dpi is something 'every box' does (or plans to do). no longer really a differentiator.

      I work in the networking field and over the last 10 yrs I've seen a burst of boxes that offer 'security' and other things but mostly they are there for LI and DPI. its the new fad in datacomm and all the governments are into spying on their people. its profitable to supply boxes to such governments and corporations.

      since everyone (vendors) are offering port monitoring, tapping and DPI triggering, it won't be too expensive.

      cost is not what we should care about, here. its the widespread use and 'well, everyone else is doing it' acceptance of DPI in our lives. that's what annoys and scares me the most; the fact that its so 'everywhere' now. and it seems only us techies really know this.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by GameboyRMH (1153867)

        There's even a company offering an HTTPS MITM appliance - info on it isn't publically available. Not groundbreaking, I know, but a company now sells a neat rackmount unit that makes it easy and convenient.

        What's funny is that when Wired magazine got their hands on a brochure with info on this thing that was handed out at a secret government intelligence convention, the company that builds it first asked "How did you find out about that!?" XD

        Ah here found the article on it:

        http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/20 [wired.com]

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by AK Marc (707885)
          There are piles of the MITM appliances. Look for network accelerators aimed for the corporate WAN. The only way to accelerate encrypted traffic is to decrypt it. And so many do just that, often with installing the certificate of the local accelerator and the encrypted traffic terminates there, is inspected, accelerated, and such, re-encrypted, sent to the central box (two-box acceleration) where it is decrypted from the point-to-point proprietary connection, then recorded, inspected, accelerated, and enc
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by BeanThere (28381)

        Sigh. It's not just the cost of the equipment, it's also the cost of the bureaucracies and enforcement that will have to go along with this. So yes, yes, it is expensive. Especially considering it's deficit spending, i.e. money the government doesn't even have, so there are further administrative costs relating to borrowing the money, and then worse, paying the interest on that money, and compound interest, for decades to come.

    • This sounds expensive. Who is going to pay for it? The ISPs? The government?

      If you're Canadian ... you are. In more than one sense of the phrase "pay for it".

      I'm truly sorry to see Canada heading down this garden path, for a long time I looked towards Canada and its central government as being, in many respects, far more trustworthy than mine. I sense a rising level of paranoia, and concomitant need to control, amongst your leadership, much has been happening with ours (yes, I'm an American.) That and the undue influence provided by the media companies, who no doubt are a big p

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by eddy the lip (20794)

        Our government (I'm Canadian) has become more and more dysfunctional in recent years. The Conservative party, now in power, has the support of somewhere around a third of Canadians. Despite this, they act as if they have a mandate to further their increasingly pro-business, pro-control policies. The moderate and left wing parties split the vote of the rest of the people, and rather than work together to accomplish anything, they're all fighting to get enough of the pie to form the next government.

        Most of t

  • Strong encryption, it's not just for financial/health/etc. transactions anymore!

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      Yeah, and get ready to be flogged with a wet noodle until you give up your passwords... And if that doesn't work, just expect an outright ban on "unauthorized" encryption... unreadable packets will be dropped

    • >>>Strong encryption

      Tell me how to implement it on Firefox and Utorrent. Please and thank you.

      • by h4rr4r (612664)

        Firefox supports https, not sure on utorrent, but most of them support talking to only encrypted peers.

        • Firefox supports https, not sure on utorrent, but most of them support talking to only encrypted peers.

          Ah, but the majority of Web sites do not. Although it is nice that Google supports it now, it only matters until you click on a link that takes you to a site that does not.

          Yes, I think all the major torrent clients support required encryption, with different levels of encryption in some cases.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by GameboyRMH (1153867)

        Firefox - Install Perspectives and HTTPSeverywhere plugins

        uTorrent - there is a setting somewhere in the control panel to allow only encrypted connections. Set that, and install PeerGuardian/moblock.

  • I hope the Pirate Party of Canada runs in my riding this year. Digital privacy is obviously not a priority for the current government.

    • (I mean in the next election. Lately they've been nearly annual so it's easy to confuse)

    • by doconnor (134648)

      There is one way to guarantee that: Run as a Pirate Party candidate yourself.

    • by rwa2 (4391) *

      runs in my riding this year.

      Was that English? Or does that have some kind of association with "mountie" that I'm unfamiliar with?

      --
      Please help a poor, intellectually destitute US American by donating to a knowledge bank this year.

    • I hope the Pirate Party of Canada runs in my riding this year. Digital privacy is obviously not a priority for the current government.

      Oh ... it's a priority all right. It would be okay if it weren't a priority (that's how I look at government anymore, as an American. I prefer our Elected Representatives to spend time arguing over stupid things like "flag burning measures" and other such tripe. We the People are usually better off they don't get too focused) but in this case I'd say your government is making your lack of privacy a major priority. That ought to concern all of you, as it concerns me, because every time some other country (th

  • by Viol8 (599362) on Tuesday November 16, 2010 @01:20PM (#34244110)

    And use ssh or equivalent for everything else. The criminals/terrorist will already be doing this , its only ordinary Joe Public who the authorities will be snooping on. As usual.

    • HTTPS is too computationally expensive for the average Pentium 133mhz shared server from 1995 to perform on every connection.

      If the websites are to all use SSL, we'll have to upgrade all of... oh, wait.

  • it won't do them much good without my PGP key. Packet inspection will just trample the rights of those with nothing to hide in the first place. Those with something to hide will just use encryption and/or other concealment methods like steganography.

    • by SmallFurryCreature (593017) on Tuesday November 16, 2010 @01:36PM (#34244394) Journal

      So basically, you are sending them a red flag that you got something to hide? SMART!

      PGP-nerd: "Gosh, I got a 4096 key, nobody is ever going to break this, I am safe"

      Agent A to Agent B: "We can't break his key, break his knees."

      Freedom is NOT won by finding loopholes around laws but by fighting bad laws.

      • by ajlitt (19055)

        Mr. Munroe echoes your sentiment. [xkcd.com]

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by cpghost (719344)

        Freedom is NOT won by finding loopholes around laws but by fighting bad laws.

        Freedom is won by being rich enough to afford buying legislators left and right, and having them make custom laws, tailored to your needs. That's real freedom.

      • by Sloppy (14984) on Tuesday November 16, 2010 @02:44PM (#34245504) Homepage Journal

        Agent A and B's supervisor: "You spent 2 days finding this guy based on seeing a PGP header in some packet, brought him in for questioning, he turned over the key the first time you threatened him, and now you have his LolCat pictures? And then since you didn't secretly execute him, he told the press what happened and now they're talking about me on the TV news? I've had it with you two. You're fired."

        Agent C: "Boss, I have no problems with secretly executing everyone we find."

        Supervisor: "Great, I'm sure no one will ever find out about that, thereby getting me into any kind of trouble. That sounds like a perfect plan!! No wait, I just realized, that's totally batshit insane, isn't it? You're fired too, Agent C. Agent D, we need to reserve the secret executions for the important stuff."

        Agent D: "But how do we know what's the important stuff, until after we threaten people?"

        Supervisor: "We don't. I guess this is the end of trawling the whole fucking internet looking for random things that might turn out to be interesting."

        Citizens: "Yay, we won."

  • are so many governments so assholish?

    • by wmbetts (1306001)

      Because they can be.

    • are so many governments so assholish?

      Because their people allow it and doing otherwise generally takes strong will and sacrifice.

      • Because their people allow it and doing otherwise generally takes strong will and sacrifice.

        Sure, but where does the basic inclination come from? I.e., why are they so much less interested in civil liberties than conscientious citizens are?

        • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

          The million-dollar question.

          I got caught-up in a conversation with two "friends" who believe TSA patdowns of breasts and groins, or interrogating a passenger "Why are you carrying 4000 in cash?", is necessary and proper and the officers are doing a good job! I tried to explain this violates their 4th amendment rights (no search w/o warrant or articulable suspicion.). I cannot fathom why these people so willingly give-away their constitutional legal protections.

          • by h4rr4r (612664)

            I would suggest you ask them to explain it. Maybe they have a good reason, or they are are dangerously stupid and you should stay away from them.

        • why are they so much less interested in civil liberties than conscientious citizens are?

          I don't believe that's the case, but standing up for what is right - or "your rights" - can be hard.

          The last time I flew was the summer of 2005. I was hassled by a TSA agent who, when I (politely) asked him a few questions, asked me "Do you want to fly today?" I was with my wife and simply shut up so as not to get detained. Ya, I wimped out, so I guess I'm part of the problem. Now it's just me - my wife died in 2

    • by hedwards (940851)
      I can't speak for the other ones, but in the US typically the people who complain about it the most vote for the politicians that are the most assholish. I really do think that there's something to the theory that America votes sarcastically.
    • Re:Why... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ShaunC (203807) on Tuesday November 16, 2010 @01:32PM (#34244322)

      Power corrupts. Absolute power...

    • Re:Why... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Wonko the Sane (25252) * on Tuesday November 16, 2010 @01:42PM (#34244476) Journal

      Because assholes are attracted to the levers of power, almost by definition.

      • And it takes being an asshole to ascend through the ranks for ballot placement come next election. Who the hell is surprised by that? Not me.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Dunbal (464142) *

        This was true when Plato wrote about it in ancient times, and it's true today. The human creature has not changed that much, despite the fact that we like to think that we "progress" and "learn".

    • by cpghost (719344)
      Because they are governments. Tell me one government which isn't, and I'll move to that country instantly.
  • I am starting to wonder when VPS companies will start taking off, stock-wise. With the screws tightening all around the globe, it is only a matter of time before the average person starts using a VPN for all their Internet traffic, most likely in another country.

    Canada forcing this is stupid -- as of now, the crooks are fairly easy to catch (as few use encrypted services). However, if countries keep pushing, everyone (including the bad guys) will start moving their traffic offshore. Result, police work w

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by tinkerghost (944862)

      Of course, the next step is trying to actively block VPNs, but that changes the game from passive eavesdropping to active censorship, and escalates the cat and mouse game.

      More importantly, it affects the way companies make money. No VPN & places like IBM have to run hard lines between offices rather than a VPN.

  • The second prong requires Internet providers to dramatically re-work their networks to allow for real-time surveillance. The bill sets out detailed capability requirements that will eventually apply to all Canadian Internet providers. These include the power to intercept communications, to isolate the communications to a particular individual, and to engage in multiple simultaneous interceptions.

    OUCH!
    So who is Big Brother NOW? And what's the difference between this and tapping your phone and interc
  • And open every letter and package in the postal system? Nobody would consider eavesdropping on every phone call acceptable, so why do sheeple accept the idea of eavesdropping every single internet connection?
    • by mlts (1038732) *

      It is a heck of a lot easier to store indexes of people's communications via the Internet than it is to do physical objects. If someone wants to dig up dirt on a target (say to find charges to put them in jail as revenge for them dating an ex), it isn't hard to do. Disk is cheap, and it is easy to filter out chaff and store the juicy stuff indefinitely.

      To boot, the information also has a lot of secondary value to marketers and advertisers.

      • by mlts (1038732) *

        Bleah, hate to reply to my own post, but the reason why people don't care about DPI as a whole is because they don't know or don't care. They are also used to "well, SOMEONE knows what I do on the Internet at all times", and being watched constantly online, either by LEOs, or private companies looking to slurp knowledge about someone to sell for a buck.

  • Congrats! Canada is now even more like the US. You guys must feel proud.

  • by DigiShaman (671371) on Tuesday November 16, 2010 @02:01PM (#34244774) Homepage

    Gamers in Canada are fucked! That's right, filtering hardware will be over-subscribed for their network. At least at first. Then, your monthly bill is going to go up to pay for all that hardware and bureaucracy.

    And the best part. American politicians are CRYING because they do not have that kind of POWER....yet. That's right, they're jealous of what Canada now has.

  • There is currently a by election in Winnipeg North, Dauphin-Swan River-Marquette and Vaughan.

    The Pirate Party is present in Winnipeg North, and will stand against the spying on everyone mentality of the Conservatives and Liberals.

    http://www.pirateparty.ca

    The only way to get rid of bad politicians is to elect new ones.

  • Eh what? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Mashiki (184564) <mashiki@gmailCURIE.com minus physicist> on Tuesday November 16, 2010 @02:26PM (#34245218) Homepage

    C50: Modifies existing wiretap laws so that instead of having to rely only on mechanical interception it allows the use of actual monitoring tools on internet connections. But you still have to have a warrant for it. And extends the existing tap law to cover internet related crime such as: "if there's mention of another crime, or purpose of trying to commit another offence, or planning to commit another offence, or is working as part of a conspiracy, or commissioning an offence", and the AG must be a party to the understanding of the warrant, and extentions to the warrant my only be extended by a SC judge, or AG, and my not exceed 3 years.(useful to know that the average long-term investigation in canada is ~4yrs), blahblabhblah, 1yr major criminal issue(terorrism, criminal enterprises aka organized crime) warrants may be allowed, exigent circumstances and so on. Usual stuff, if you need the warrant modified you must go back and have a judge authorize it.

    C51: I'm not seeing anything earth shattering. Except that if someone commits a criminal offence to which has been modified, the ISP isn't to delete the offending content which wasn't admissible before, but rather they must preserve all information to ensure that there's a continuity of evidence. And it modifies existing mischief, and impersonation of a person(aka written/published/print/etc) to cover electronic communications.

    C52: Again nothing earth shattering, but rather it requires ISP's to be able to allow CSIS, the RCMP and other police services the ability to monitor communications with a warrant, and as such be able to it within a reasonable period of time. This includes that the ISP must have up to date information on their subscribers, including their home address and IP address, but this can only be disclosed by warrant. However if exigent circumstances exist and an officer has reasonable and probable grounds to believe a person is in immediate harm, they must be able to disclose this information. Even then the officer must still within 24hrs, submit a request and a full explanation of why they used exigent circumstances for the information. And like all 3 of these bills, the officer must maintain a chain of evidence, and have it submitted on a regular basis. It can not be done without permission, all requests will be audited on a regular basis, and will be tracked. And police services that request any of this will pay a fee for such information. Oh and earlier on it covered that any form of interception must not impede the networks in any shape or form, or violate the telecommunications act.

    To me it looks like Giest is going off on a tangent, I don't see anything covering deep packet inspection or to mandate it. Rather that ISP's must be able to have the tools, and allow police to use the tools with a warrant provided by a superior court judge, or via the AG of the province--who will have to explain to the court why he gave permission for the warrant, the ability to track, copy, and find information. Again with a warrant.

    Now the interesting thing in Canada is, warrants are very hard to get. When I say very hard, I mean very hard. They're not that common place.

Whatever is not nailed down is mine. Whatever I can pry up is not nailed down. -- Collis P. Huntingdon, railroad tycoon

Working...