The proposed "lawful access" bill bound for Parliament imposes worrisome limits on civil rights, and enormous financial costs on consumers.
Canadian privacy online is about to be put at serious risk. As if internet malefactors and unruly privacy settings on major applications weren’t enough to dissuade Canadians from exercising their online liberties, a trio of invasive bills centred on “information disclosure, mandated surveillance technologies, and new police powers” is set to be fast-tracked through Parliament. Under the euphemism “lawful access,” Bills C-50, C-51, and C-52 aim to “modernize” the Criminal Code and the Competition Act and push the limits of state surveillance.
Having been postponed twice before this year’s federal election, the “lawful access” bills have continued to haunt privacy and public-interest groups concerned about the lack of related scrutiny coming from the House and mainstream media. Now, with the current session of Parliament and a majority government, the bills may be propelled into law without a much-needed examination of their scope or their general necessity.
Worried about the “lawful access” legislation? Read more about it here.
Under current laws, internet service providers (ISPs) can voluntarily disclose customer information to the authorities, but they are only required to do so if served a warrant. Bill C-52, Section 16 (1), would supersede this liberty, and force providers to disclose consumer information to the authorities without a court order. Making matters worse, Bill C-50 would enable the police to intercept “communications” – as vaguely defined by Bill C-51 – without a warrant as long as they deem the intervention necessary. This shift toward warrantless investigations removes court oversight from the monitoring of wired and mobile internet, and allows law-enforcement authorities, without justification, to have a free hand in spying on the private lives of law-abiding Canadians.
The internet-surveillance bills present some key problems for users. Even giving them a cursory glance, it is clear that they represent a fundamental break from the current safeguards that protect our privacy. Federal and provincial privacy commissioners have expressed concerns about these bills, calling them “problematic,” with “insufficient justification” for the new powers, and advising that there are “less intrusive” ways of combating crime.
Likewise, from a financial standpoint, Canadians should be concerned because of the costs that such legislation presents. Bill C-52, Section 7, may require ISPs to perform a costly overhaul of their networks in order to allow real-time surveillance to take place. As per usual, big telecommunications companies would likely pass the exorbitant costs of installing these new surveillance systems down to the user. This means an even larger gap between those who can and cannot afford to participate in online cultural and democratic discourse, and a further dissipation of the diversity of Canadian voices.
Ultimately, “lawful access” legislation transforms the open internet into a precarious arena where people are reluctant to participate and speak freely. While Canadians need to ensure that law enforcement has the necessary tools to address crime, it is questionable whether “lawful access” legislation is actually necessary or effective. Indeed, these proposed bills come with enormous financial costs and limits on civil rights with no evidence that the current framework for online criminal investigations has ever hindered police.
OpenMedia's Steve Anderson discusses how to fix Canada's internet here.
As advocates of an open internet and healthy digital future, we hold that there must be serious debate and reconsideration concerning “lawful access” legislation. Any law that expands telecommunications’ surveillance powers should be based on evidence of a need to do so. Furthermore, there must be clear and comprehensive controls, oversight, and a system of enforcement for any extension of surveillance capacity. Finally, any new costs that Canadians will bear as a result of such legislation must be clearly detailed and minimized to the greatest extent possible.
While these bills are set to be pushed through Parliament, we know that the government will change course in response to citizens presenting a united front. Canadians are matching the efforts of the civil-society groups, independent publications, and public-interest organizations that are joining forces to stop “lawful access” legislation by adding their names to the petition at http://www.StopSpying.ca.
Origin
Source: the Mark
No comments:
Post a Comment