Majority governments rarely change course willingly and it’s doubtful that Stephen Harper is going along happily this time either. But the cyber law was too far off the course of public opinion. The wiser option now is to regroup.
The bill’s political problems literally start with its absurd name: the "Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act." It has a real name too, but whatever you call it, the bill set off alarms about government’s power to intrude in the private lives of Canadians.
As written, the law would make it much easier for police, security agents and bureaucrats to locate and identify people online, often without warrants. It would force Internet service providers to open a "back door" to government snoops.
Warrants could also be obtained to monitor private communications, track people’s online movements and spy on their online activities.
But the prime minister now appears to recognize that the legislation was too broad and open to abuse. The goal of strengthening police powers to catch bad guys had too much weight, protection of individual rights too little.
Before the bill was even introduced, privacy experts were providing detailed critiques of its deficiencies in protecting individual rights. Since similar legislation had been road-tested in a previous Parliament, opposing forces knew what to expect. They had their arguments ready. The government didn’t.
Then the politics got spun totally out of control by Public Safety Minister Vic Toews. He suggested in the Commons that anyone who objected to the bill stood with child pornographers, torching any hopes the Tories had to get the bill through without a fuss.
And there’s something plain weird about a Conservative government, which seems determined to reduce federal powers and reach, enacting new laws that will vastly expand both. The Tories are dumping the gun registry and fiddling with census forms in putative defence of privacy rights, yet tossed those same rights overboard with the new bill.
And the Harper government is opaque. It gives up information sparingly, preferring bafflegab and talking points. So we had a government very unwilling to accept public scrutiny itself, demanding powers to probe the private lives of citizens. It failed to explain that to Canadians and was left with child pornography as a central justification. That just came off as lame.
The government’s problem is that it has failed to make its case as to why the new law is required. The Internet has made it easier for some criminals to operate, but enforcement hasn’t exactly been left in the dust. Every day, smart and resourceful police officers use existing laws and powers to track down and arrest the cyber bad guys.
Last month, police in Ontario rounded up 60 or more alleged child pornographers in one day. Something about the current law must be working.
Although the government seems willing to discuss potential changes, it’s not clear what modifications might be deemed acceptable. One important change might be establishment of rigorous judicial oversight of the snoops. The problem with that is it would constitute supervision from the same courts the Tories seem so often to disdain.
These are troubled and scary times. Or so we’re told. We’re told security is paramount and we’re to accept that it outweighs civil rights and even the Constitution. But when we abandon things that are really important, what are we even defending anymore?
With any expansion of state powers, there is potential for abuse. That’s why strict oversight is required. The original bill did provide for some oversight, but it didn’t go nearly far enough. Politically, that left the government’s only argument as "trust us."
Canadians seems to be saying that if individual rights still matter, the government must prove that new police powers are needed and that it’s maintaining a balance between state security and civil rights. Failing that, Canadians will never buy in to a law that puts state security before everything and casts rights to the side.
Original Article
Source: the chronicle herald
Author: Dan Leger
No comments:
Post a Comment