Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Canada Privacy Your Rights Online

Canadian Internet Surveillance Bill Could Come Back In New Form 30

Posted by Soulskill
from the this-is-not-even-my-true-form dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Canadian Justice Minister Rob Nicholson announced yesterday that the government will not be proceeding with Bill C-30, the lawful access/Internet surveillance legislation. Yet despite the celebration of the Canadian Internet community, Michael Geist notes that the law could return. On the same day the government put the bill out its misery, it introduced Bill C-55 on warrantless wiretapping. Although the bill is ostensibly a response to last year's R v. Tse decision from the Supreme Court of Canada, much of the bill is lifted directly from Bill C-30. Moreover, there will be other ways to revive the more troublesome Internet surveillance provisions. Christopher Parsons points to lawful intercept requirements in the forthcoming spectrum auction, while many others have discussed Bill C-12, which includes provisions that encourage personal information disclosure without court oversight. Of course, cynics might also point to the 2007 pledge from then-Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day to not introduce mandatory disclosure of personal information without a warrant. That position was dropped soon after a new minister took over the portfolio."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Canadian Internet Surveillance Bill Could Come Back In New Form

Comments Filter:
  • they always do (Score:4, Interesting)

    by stenvar (2789879) on Tuesday February 12, 2013 @04:04PM (#42874805)

    A lot of these bad bills just keep coming back until they get passed in some form. And if they can't be passed domestically, its provisions may simply be included in some international agreement, trying to force Congress' hand. Or, alternatively, the president may try to get most provisions passed through executive order or regulatory powers.

    Of course, many people are rather inconsistent in how they feel about this. If this is about a cause they favor, they applaud such underhanded tactics; if it's about a cause they disfavor, they complain about "lobbyists" and "the end of democracy".

    • Re:they always do (Score:5, Informative)

      by Beardo the Bearded (321478) on Tuesday February 12, 2013 @05:41PM (#42875655)

      Well, first, we're talking about Canada.

      Second, and this is critical, they can pass any laws they want, but that doesn't mean they're legal. The fact is that warrantless wiretapping in Canada is unlawful NO MATTER WHAT NEW LAWS THEY PASS. The Supreme Court of Canada has struck down laws that aren't acceptable, and one notable ruling was a mandatory sentence which was ignored the same day the law was assented. The ink was literally still wet on the Governor General's signature. (I mean "literally" in the English Composition sense, not the Interweb vernacular)

      We have a Constitution, and ours is from 1982, so we can actually ask the asshole who got it signed. Highlights are that it says right in there that it's the highest law in the land, end of story. In there, you have the right to privacy. Frankly, anybody who gets convicted on something found by a warrantless wiretap will end up walking because it's just not lawful.

      Finally, our governments in the US and Canada think that anything that's not in the Constitution is free game, and that's totally wrong. The Constitution is the only document that allows the government to exist at all. If they don't follow the only laws that let them make choices for us, it's time to kill them all -- every last one of them -- and leave their corpses hanging from the legislature as a warning to others.

      Don't burn down the building and salt the land though, it's a heritage building and can't be replaced.

      • by stenvar (2789879)

        Well, first, we're talking about Canada.

        Yup. The same mechanisms operate in Canada and other nations.

        Second, and this is critical, they can pass any laws they want, but that doesn't mean they're legal. The fact is that warrantless wiretapping in Canada is unlawful NO MATTER WHAT NEW LAWS THEY PASS.

        Obama being judge, jury, and executioner of American citizens is illegal according to the Constitution. Bush's program of torture was illegal according to the Constitution. So, good luck with that argument.

  • by denis-The-menace (471988) on Tuesday February 12, 2013 @04:08PM (#42874837)

    Why else would you want no court oversight?

    After the G8/G20 secret laws being enforced, you have to wonder:

    What the fsck are they doing on parliament hill?

    • Giving Police more power will corrupt them further. Legislators must remember that there are bad police officers who will abuse any power they are given. There has to be some counterbalance to the police or justice will fail.
      • Actually what legislators should realize is that even good cops abuse their powers. Police have a very narrow focus, and often seem to view civil liberties as intrusions into their ability to do their job. Bad cops are the least of my worries.

  • by CanHasDIY (1672858) on Tuesday February 12, 2013 @04:14PM (#42874885) Homepage Journal

    Unlike here in Amerika, where Emperor Hirohi-, er, Obama, will be forcing CISPA down our throats Wednesday, via an executive order... [unitedliberty.org]

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      I am a "Canuck", and no, we don't get to vote on things like this. The majority government and King Harper can pretty much cram anything they want down our throats.

    • "sources" say, anyway.
    • Yeah, Canadian's don't vote on policy, we just have to pick the right jerk to represent us and hope for the best, and we can't even do that right.

      • Yeah, Canadian's don't vote on policy, we just have to pick the right jerk to represent us and hope for the best, and we can't even do that right.

        ... are you sure you're not Amerikan?

    • by Beerdood (1451859) on Tuesday February 12, 2013 @05:29PM (#42875543)
      What? We don't get to vote on this - this isn't a referendum. Harper and the conservatives have a majority government, they can vote whatever they want in.

      Or do you mean the MPs will vote on this? Sure they will. But the end result is really no different than an "executive order from harper". Canadian MPs virtually never vote against their own party [theglobeandmail.com]. They vote against their own party less than 0.5% of the time, if EVER.

      The only reason Bill C-30 didn't go through was because Harper and his crew didn't like the negative press that was received by the bill (Facebook posts, Michael Geist blogs, etc..); the conservatives COULD have passed it but ultimately they'd like to win another election again. So they can this bill due to public outcry (damage control), but simply try to sneak in the same provisions in Bill C-55. On the same day no less.
      • The only reason Bill C-30 didn't go through was because Harper and his crew didn't like the negative press that was received by the bill (Facebook posts, Michael Geist blogs, etc..); the conservatives COULD have passed it but ultimately they'd like to win another election again. So they can this bill due to public outcry (damage control), but simply try to sneak in the same provisions in Bill C-55. On the same day no less.

        "Negative press"? Hardly. Harper couldn't give any less a damn to any of that.

        What did happen was that Minister Toews stirred up a hornet's nest within the Conservative party itself and their major supporters. Oddly enough, when many on the right opposed the bill along with left, they didn't appreciate being labeled by Toews as supporters of child pornographers.

        At that point C-30 was poisoned and could not pass under that name, and they had to transplant most of the provisions into a new one.

  • That law is stopped, but more are coming. What must be stopped is the source of that laws, who are the people promoting them, their lobbyist or their advisors. What if a slavery law is promoted in such language that the ones that could wish to oppose aren't just aware of its full meaning and let it pass? There is no consequences of trying and trying again till it passes for the promoters of such laws?
  • If it didn't pass for the telephone, why should it exist for Internet?
    • think of the children.

    • by Mashiki (184564)

      If it didn't pass for the telephone, why should it exist for Internet?

      That's the thing though, it did pass for the telephone. In fact it was on the books for nearly 60 years via cc 184.4 , but required exigent circumstances. The SCC struck it down as over-reaching though.

    • by RussR42 (779993)
      smbc [smbc-comics.com] about it.

Logic is the chastity belt of the mind!

Working...