Can you spot the difference on “lawful access” bill?

So the Conservative government sends off a contentious bill for printing and provides copies to House of Commons staff to distribute and table in Parliament — then withdraws it an hour later and replaces it with a new version?

That’s what happened Tuesday when Public Safety Minister Vic Toews, through the Speaker of the House, tabled the Investigating and Preventing Criminal Electronic Communications Act just after 10:00 am. The short title is listed as “Lawful Access Act.” An hour later, House of Commons staff withdraw it and replace it with the identical bill, save a new short title. It’s now the “Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act.”

Check out the last-minute name change to the government’s contentious “lawful access” bill

I think it’s safe to say bureaucrats in the departments of Public Safety and Justice didn’t dream up this last-minute change. In fact, the Tory partisans who did aren’t the first ones to come up with such an ominous-sounding (but noble!) name. A U.S. Congressman (in 1997) can lay claim to this.

The reaction to the last-minute name change has been pretty damning — given that the warrantless access provision in the bill means law-abiding citizens can be the target of police snooping into their online activities by obtaining basic subscriber information without a warrant. (Public Safety officials privately said warrantless access to BSI was needed to capture non-criminal matters).

Check out what Ann Cavoukian, Ontario’s Privacy Commissioner, has to say about the new name:

“They’re calling the bill ‘Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act.’ Give me a break. The warrantless access does not just apply to cases of child pornography or child predators. It can apply to something that’s not even a criminal activity. It’s ridiculous to go to these lengths. And why are they doing it? They’re doing it because they want to instill fear on the part of the public and say, ‘Well, if you don’t give us this bill, then all child pornographers, those predators, that’s going to be on your head.’ And that’s what they want the public to fear. That’s why they’re accusing privacy commissioners of being on the side of child predators. It’s such an outrageous statement,” Cavoukian told Postmedia News.

The last bit? That’s a reference to a comment Toews made in the House of Common Monday, when he said an opponent of the bill he “can either stand with us or with the child pornographers.” Alas, Toews denied again on Wednesday saying such a thing, after a denial on Tuesday — despite the video evidence playing over and over on newscasts.

Original Article
Source: canada.com 
Author: Sarah Schmidt