Sometimes a political issue launches with such a resounding thud that a quick reset is all that can be done. And so it was with the Harper government's proposed Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act.
From the moment Public Safety Minister Vic Toews introduced the bill with the ludicrous statement that you're either with the government or the child pornographers, the issue struggled.
Despite opposition uniformly from both the left and right - some of it ratcheted to the level of paranoiac hysteria - some legal clarification of police information-gathering powers in the Internet age is important.
While police would still be required to obtain search warrants to see Internet, email or cellphone content, is it entirely unreasonable to require Internet service providers and cellphone companies to set up storage and access files to hold digital records for 90 days, accessible if the police get a warrant?
Less clear is the scope of so-called "indicator" information that police would be able to obtain without a warrant - details such as a subscriber's name, address, phone numbers, email and IP addresses and local service provider identifiers.
There is a valid debate on whether or how police should get any of this without a warrant.
One day after introducing the bill the government backed down, agreeing to have a parliamentary committee make major changes.
The people have spoken.
Original Article
Source: the star phoenix
Author: John Gormley
From the moment Public Safety Minister Vic Toews introduced the bill with the ludicrous statement that you're either with the government or the child pornographers, the issue struggled.
Despite opposition uniformly from both the left and right - some of it ratcheted to the level of paranoiac hysteria - some legal clarification of police information-gathering powers in the Internet age is important.
While police would still be required to obtain search warrants to see Internet, email or cellphone content, is it entirely unreasonable to require Internet service providers and cellphone companies to set up storage and access files to hold digital records for 90 days, accessible if the police get a warrant?
Less clear is the scope of so-called "indicator" information that police would be able to obtain without a warrant - details such as a subscriber's name, address, phone numbers, email and IP addresses and local service provider identifiers.
There is a valid debate on whether or how police should get any of this without a warrant.
One day after introducing the bill the government backed down, agreeing to have a parliamentary committee make major changes.
The people have spoken.
Original Article
Source: the star phoenix
Author: John Gormley
No comments:
Post a Comment