New bill to force ISPs to grant police access

[chrisk]

What do you guys think about this:
Conservative bills would force ISPs to widen police access - The Globe and Mail

Here are a few key quotes from this article:

The proposed legislation would: – enable police to access information on an Internet subscriber, such as name, street address and email address, without having to get a search warrant.

• force Internet service providers to freeze data on their hard drives to prevent subscribers under investigation from deleting potentially important evidence.
• require Telecom companies to invest in technology that allows for the interception of Internet communications.
• allow police to remotely activate tracking devices already embedded in cellphones and certain cars, to help with investigations.
• allow police to obtain data about where Internet communications are coming from and going to.
• make it a crime to arrange with a second person over the Internet the sexual exploitation of a child.

I bolded the parts I have an issue with. Some parts (like the child exploitation measures) I can support, but obtaining information on me without a warrant is troublesome IMO.

One part that could be dodgy is the requirement to implement the interception technology; but if a judge issues a warrant, then I have no problems with the police following someone around cyberspace.

 

[FiXT]

I'm confused about this:

force Internet service providers to freeze data on their hard drives to prevent subscribers under investigation from deleting potentially important evidence.

Do they mean on the ISP's hard drives? Because the wording of the sentence sounds like they are attempting the get the ISP to freeze data on the subscriber's drives..... if so, some politician needs to take a grade school computer course :haha:, otherwise a simple English course should suffice.

 

[Perineum]

I think they should have a warrant for all of that. If they suspect someone for something they should have evidence of that. If they do, or it's probable, they'll get a warrant.

I can see the tracking one being abused. They'll do it cause the only people they have to answer to is themselves.

Police can't police themselves....

 

[chrisk]

I'm confused about this:

force Internet service providers to freeze data on their hard drives to prevent subscribers under investigation from deleting potentially important evidence.

Do they mean on the ISP's hard drives? Because the wording of the sentence sounds like they are attempting the get the ISP to freeze data on the subscriber's drives..... if so, some politician needs to take a grade school computer course :haha:, otherwise a simple English course should suffice.

I read it to mean the ISP's drives.

Would be pretty scary if the ISP could freeze our drives huh! Yes, poorly worded. I am also wondering if the 'no warrant' provision applies just to email, name, and address, or to all the provisions outlined in the article.

 

[SKYMTL]

I totally support it. A name, address and phone number can easily be seen in a telephone book anyways so granting police access to that informantion isn't really grounds for a warrant. Police would still need a warrant to enter your house but the informaiton they are talking about here is pretty much public knowledge anyways.

As for the tracking devices, that they would need a warrant for as stipulated within the bill itself.

 

[bojangles]

I'm not too worried. Obviously they will only look at people who are suspects. The normal public (hopefully all of us here at HWC) shouldn't worry about it.

 

[FiXT]

I read it to mean the ISP's drives.

Would be pretty scary if the ISP could freeze our drives huh! Yes, poorly worded. I am also wondering if the 'no warrant' provision applies just to email, name, and address, or to all the provisions outlined in the article.

Ya I think that was the intention, but I can't figure out how the ISP freezing their own drives would prevent subscribers from deleting evidence

 

[cwestwell]

Once again a shoddy bill comes forward that is 20% technology relevant and 80% law makers misunderstanding of basic technology and its uses. I support a lot of effort to tame the wild that is the internet in its criminal activities that danger human lives and effect human rights but that goes both ways you cannot allow protection of human rights by the destruction of other basic human rights. As far as I am concerned the same laws that apply to us in the real world should apply in the cyber world. That includes some of the grey areas that the internet takes for granted (stealing for one) but many of those same laws that apply in the real should also protect us in the electronic world. Personal tracking, entrapment and well lets be honest spying on individuals without a court order or warrant is illegal so should it be in the cyber world. I am confident this will be the case but my confidence does not make laws.

 

[El_Fiendo]

Taken from the comments of one of the news articles. And if I'm not mistaken he's right.

"The police already have the power under Part VI of the Criminal Code to intercept email and monitor your internet usage. This legislation now requires the ISP to have the technical capability to intercept when the police show up with a production order (AKA a warrant) or Part VI authorization issued by a judge of the superior court."

 

[Thund3rball]

Ya it's like looking up your license plate really. Plenty of info right there that the police already have access to. Tracing, tacking etc.... that would surely be warrant worthy. As long as that is clearly identified and practiced, I have no probs. I have nothing to hide anyways. :\