Canada To Mandate ISP Deep Packet Inspection 313
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."
Re:Just goes to show... (Score:5, Informative)
Nope. I cant access youtube at the moment, but there's a video of Canadian Ezra Levant being interrogated by his own government. His crime: He published a cartoon with a Muslim.
So much for free speech. Looks like Canada is becoming even more tyrannical than Australia.
Re:Just goes to show... (Score:5, Informative)
Please be aware that we don't have 'Free Speech' laws in Canada like those protected by the First Amendment in the USA.
What we have instead is a freedom of expression (Section 2b of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms). The Freedom of Expression is very similar, but not quite as wide reaching as those rights protected by the 1st Amendment in the US Constitution.
One of the subtle differences is that you are free to express anything you like, as long as neither the message, nor the means of conveying that message, is considered illegal under another law. There aren't many cases where another law infringes on the freedom of expression, but one notable example is the Canadian Hate Crimes laws, which prohibit the proliferation of hate material based on ethnicity, religion, sexual preference, etc.
Winnipeg North by election and Pirate Party (Score:2, Informative)
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.
Re:Why... (Score:2, Informative)
>>>Maybe they have a good reason
"The U.S. needs to protect against terrorists and drug dealers, and anyone with that much cash should be arrested." I then commented that I have over $4000 because I just visited the bank and withdrew it. "Well then you're dumb to travel with that much money, and dumb people should be in jail."
Please note this is a woman.
French.
I didn't used to think that sex or nationality mattered, but now I'm not so sure.
Re:Let's Just Hope... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:One more reason to insist on end-to-end encrypt (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Eh what? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Who foots the bill? (Score:3, Informative)
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 the people up here don't like what's going on much (when they're aware of it), but the opposition parties are more interested in bickering than finding common ground and bringing us back to sanity.
It's rather depressing how ashamed I've become of our country's policies.
Re:Just goes to show... (Score:3, Informative)
Our freedom of expression right is in some ways more far reaching, and in some ways less far reaching than the US version.
Remember, the US bill of rights only prevents the federal government from making laws that infringe citizen's rights. The Canadian bill of rights directs the government to make sure that no one infringes those rights.
So if your freedom of speech is infringing on someone else's right to freedom of religion, life, security, whatever, the government is obligated to stop you.
Re:Let's Just Hope... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Just goes to show... (Score:4, Informative)
we define "hate" pretty specifically. [media-awareness.ca]
It's too long to write out in full but basically you need to publicly call for or advocate violence against a minority group with intent of people listening to you and going through with it.