Feb 182012
 

“There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment. How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork. It was even conceivable that they watched everybody all the time.” – George Orwell, 1984.

It’s often forgotten that, for Orwell, 1984 was far in the future — a distant and imaginary hell. Published 35 years earlier, in 1949, his book conjured up a surveillance state filled with chilling new concepts: “Big Brother,” “Thought Police” and “Newspeak.”

Today, 1984 has come and gone but Big Brother is real and present in ways Orwell never imagined. In China, the very names of imprisoned dissidents are banned from the internet. In Saudi Arabia, an unholy tweet can bring you a death sentence.

Here in Canada, though, freedom reigns. A sign of that may be that the government’s new plan for policing cyberspace is in big trouble.

Within 24 hours of its unsteady launch, the government pledged to send its new legislation straight to committee for amendments — some of which may come from the restive Conservative back benches. The bill is “too intrusive,” said New Brunswick Conservative MP John Williamson. Conservative voices across the land agreed — to say nothing of NDP and Liberal ones.

Conservative MPs don’t usually grumble about Conservative legislation — especially when one of their front-line cabinet ministers [Public Safety Minister Vic Toews] has declared that Canadians must “either stand with us or with the child pornographers.”

Read the whole story: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/02/16/pol-vp-terry-milewski-bill-c30.html

Cost of surveillance bill concerns providers, say customers may pay more
From the Canadian Press

The government’s online surveillance bill — already hitting snags over privacy — is raising concerns among Internet providers about who’ll pick up the tab.

The legislation would allow authorities access to Internet subscriber information — including name, address, telephone number and email address — without a warrant.

It would also require telecommunication service providers to have the technical capability to enable police and spies to intercept messages and conversations.

The price tag for carriers could be significant, and it’s unclear what kind of compensation will be offered, said Bernard Lord, president of the Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association.

“These new undertakings could generate significant costs, and the question remains whether the government will compensate those costs,” Lord said in an interview.

The association represents companies including Bell Canada, Rogers Communications and Telus, which provide wireless services to millions of Canadians.

“I don’t think we should ask law-abiding citizens that are using Internet services or wireless services to pay more on their bills because the government decides that the police needs extra tools to investigate,” Lord said.

Read the whole story: http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/cost-of-surveillance-bill-concerns-providers-say-customers-may-pay-more-139470623.html

Over 90,000 people to-date have signed a petition at http://www.StopSpying.ca to protest the online spying bill and a survey from Canada’s Privacy Commissioner show that 83 percent of Canadians oppose warrantless surveillance measures.

Share

  23 Responses to “Online surveillance bill (C-30) opens door for Big Brother”

  1. Lynn, thank you for another excellent article.  We suffered the worst of that under the Bush Regime and, although some protections have been put in place, we need far more.  I hope your country does not go down this road, becuse no good can come from it.

    • I hope so too.  They say copying is the greatest form of flattery.  Well I sure hope Harper doesn’t sucede in flattering Baby Bush!  Of course as I’ve said many times, Harper is a Baby Bush wannabe, an acolyte if you like.

  2. This just shows how menacing and Bush/Cheney-like the followers of Steven Harper truly are…Canada must rid itself of those beasts!

    • “In Saudi Arabia, an unholy tweet can bring you a death sentence.”

      I wouldn’t be safe there… smile 🙂

      • LMAO!  I wouldn’t get it for tweets, maybe e-mails, but I sure would be in hot water for not wearing the abaya and veil — it’s just too damn hot and being a middle age female, I’m already hot enough!

    • Amen Jack!  Since he has a majority, short of the Governor General dissolving Parliament and calling an election because of some major, major crime and corruption case, we’re stuck with Harper and his harlots for another 3.25 years.  Groan. . .

  3. Why it is true that we can be tracked much of the time by virtue of the technology we choose to use for various reasons, to have that tracking enshrined in law and automatic is not acceptable.  To have police with the ability to access information with out a judicial warrant is unacceptable.  If there is probable cause, let the police explain that to a Justice of the Peace (in Canada — my mother was a JP who regularly signed warrants day and night) or a judge.  There have been enough cases in both countries of police officers using various police systems to get information on people for personal reasons, nothing related to their policing duties — and those are the ones we know about.

    In the article, Vic Toews, our Minister of Public Safety, says that ‘Canadians must “either stand with us or with the child pornographers.”’  But that is black and white thinking.  With over 32 million people in Canada, he is proposing to subject them all to “spying” to monitor a comparative few.  Please don’t get me wrong, I am in no way condoning child pornography, but there are ways to go about finding, charging and convicting these criminals without trespassing on the rights of all people.  Toews, a neo-con like PM Harper, is using hot-button topics to lull people to sleep.

    And make no doubt about it, Harper is a Baby Bush wannabe, but probably more cunning and with more intelligence.  I am currently reading a short book about Harper called “Rogue in Power” by Christian Nadeau.  If you get the chance to peruse it, tell me you don’t recognise Baby Bush in it.

    I hope everybody was able to sign the petition at the end of the article.  It should be available to Canadians and Americans.  To other countries I’m sorry, I don’t know.  But this is something that should concern everyone because once it is law here, it will be come law elsewhere.  The dominoes will fall.

  4. Censorship, & cyber spying is wrong no matter who does it.

  5. Thanks Lynn. I signed the petition even though Big Brother is most likely watching.

    • Thanks Patty.  Likely, but look at it this way, you’ll have company!  I’m 5’6″, stocky and my hair is shorter than TC’s so look for me.

  6. Petition Signed Lynn,  Good Luck!

  7. Big Brother should be blinded. Use of cybersurveillance should require a warrant and should only be allowed for investigation and prevention of real felony crime, not for enforcing dubious religious decrees, social engineering, or oppression. Minitrue, Minipax, and Miniplenty should be abolished!

  8. Thanks again Lynn.  For once I finally agree with Fred about something. 🙂

    That’s why it’s so important to get the right wing out of power in both our nations.

    • Thanks TC for allowing me this opportunity to do something for my country in getting these things more public to a broad audience.  Stay turned for the next one!

      Amen to the extinction of the right wing! . . . well at least from control of our countries!

  9. EXPECT MORE GOVERNMENT / POLICE CORRUPTION WITH NO-WARRANT SEARCHES

    The Canadian (Commons Bill C-30) that would among other electronic invasions—give any Canadian police officer without a warrant—the power to request Internet service providers turn over customer information (see section 17 of C-30) will cause the same loss of electronic privacy and civil liberties the British Government recently proposed—to monitor the electronic activity and communications of Brits. Is it coincidence the British and Canadian proposals mirror legislation the U.S. Government said it wanted passed in 2011 to spy on U.S. Citizens? Overlooked by mainstream media is that Britain and Canada signed with the U.S Government an array of (Asset Forfeiture Sharing Agreements) to share with Canadian and British Police/Governments assets seized from Brits and Canadians resulting from evidence or information gleaned from wiretapping and other electronic surveillance of Citizens’ communications, e.g., emails, faxes, Internet activity, Internet actively, phone records including GPS tracking.

    Compare U.S. Government’s proposal to electronically monitor Americans without a warrant—with Canada’s recent Commons’ eavesdropping (Bill C-30) and British Government’s plan to spy on its Citizens’ private communications.

     The U.S. Government wants the power to (introduce as evidence) in criminal prosecutions and government civil trials, any phone call record, email or Internet activity. That would open the door for Police to take out of context any innocent—hastily written email, fax or phone call record to allege a crime or violation was committed to cause a person’s arrest, fines and or civil asset forfeiture of their property. There are more than 350 laws and violations that can subject property to government asset forfeiture. Government civil asset forfeiture requires only a civil preponderance of evidence for police to forfeit property, little more than hearsay.

     If the U.S. Justice Department has its way, any information the FBI derives from circumventing the Fourth Amendment, i.e. (no warrant searches) of Web Server Records; a Citizen’s Internet Activity, personal emails; fax / phone calls may be used by the FBI for (fishing expeditions) to issue subpoenas in hopes of finding evidence or to prosecute Citizens for any alleged crime or violation. Consider that neither Congress nor the courts—determined what Bush II NSA electronic surveillance, perhaps illegal could be used by police or introduced into court by government to prosecute Americans criminally or civilly. If U.S. Justice Department is permitted (No-Warrant) surveillance of all electronic communications, it is problematic state and local law enforcement agencies and private government contractors will want access to prior Bush II NSA and other government illegally obtained electronic records not limited to—Americans’ Internet activity; private emails, faxes and phone calls to secure evidence to arrest Americans, assess fines and or civilly forfeit their homes, businesses and other assets under Title 18USC and other laws. Of obvious concern, what happens to fair justice in America if police become dependent on “Asset Forfeiture” to help pay their salaries and budget operating costs?

     The “Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000” (effectively eliminated) the “five year statue of limitations” for Government Civil Asset Forfeiture: the statute now runs five years (from the date) police allege they “learned” an asset became subject to forfeiture. It is foreseeable should (no warrant) government electronic surveillance be approved; police will relentlessly sift through business and Citizen’s (government retained Internet data), emails and phone communications to discover possible crimes or civil violations. A corrupt despot U.S. Government can too easily use no-warrant—(seized emails, Internet data and phone call information) to blackmail Americans, corporations and others in the same manner Hitler utilized his police state passed laws to extort support for the Nazi fascist government, including getting parliament to pass Hitler’s 1933 Discriminatory Decrees that suspended the Constitutional Freedoms of German Citizens. A Nazi Government threat of “Property Seizure” Asset Forfeiture of an individual or corporation’s assets was usually sufficient to ensure Nazi support.

     Under U.S. federal civil forfeiture laws, a person or business need not be charged with a crime for government to forfeit their property. Most U.S. Citizens, property and business owners that defend their assets against Government Civil Asset Forfeiture claim an “innocent owner defense.” This defense can become a “Catch 22” a criminal prosecution trap for both guilty and innocent property owners. Any fresh denial of guilt made to government when questioned about committing a crime “even when you did not do the crime” may (involuntarily waive) a defendant’s right to assert in their defense—the “Criminal Statute of Limitations” past for prosecution; any fresh denial of guilt even 30 years after a crime was committed may allow Government prosecutors to use old and new evidence, including information discovered during a Civil Asset Forfeiture Proceeding to launch a criminal prosecution. For that reason many innocent Americans, property and business owners are reluctant to defend their property and businesses against Government Civil Asset Forfeiture.

    Re: waiving Criminal Statute of Limitations: see USC18, Sec.1001, James Brogan V. United States. N0.96-1579. U.S. See paragraph (6) at:

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/96-1579.ZC1.html

  10. UPDATE: The following is an update e-mail I received today.  I hope that more will sign the petition and tell your friends about it  The response from Toews is typical of the Harper government, and in particular Mr Harper himself.  He uses any tactics that he thinks will get people to buckle down.  But we have to push back with the typical “Hell NO, we won’t go!!!”  As Christian Nadeau, a professor at l’Université de Montréal and author of Rogue in Power says, Harper is remaking Canada by stealth, and this is how!  Please SIGN THE PETITION, Canadians and Americans alike, at the end of the original article on Politics Plus.  Thanks

    “Over 106,000 of you have spoken out against online spying1, but Public Safety Minister Vic Toews still isn’t getting the message. Toews recently suggested that anyone opposed to his legislation (that’s you) is standing with child pornographers. Those critics include 8 in 10 Canadians2 (again, you) and all thirteen of Canada’s Privacy Commissioners and Ombudspersons3—everyone who is against warrantless access to our private information.

    Toews is using disgusting tactics and misleading Canadians4. We need to scale up our public pressure campaign to stop him and his online spying plan.

    Toews’ comments appear to be part of a coordinated effort to use the safety of children as political cover5, and we need to scale up our efforts to stop it. Instead of apologizing or committing to meaningful changes to the bill, Vic Toews is unleashing a PR storm with the same old talking points.

    With your help, we can tell Toews:

    – It’s not okay use our fears against us. We’ll fight back with local actions in key ridings across the country.
    – It’s not okay to mislead Canadians. We’ll push for meaningful changes to this bill with targeted online ads.
    – It’s not okay to invade our personal privacy. We’ll launch a sophisticated online video to ensure Canadians know what Vic Toews is doing.

    P.S. We can’t let this truly offensive charade go unchallenged. It’s disgusting, and quite frankly immoral and un-Canadian.

    Footnotes
    [1] Over 106K Canadians have added their names to the petition at http://StopSpying.ca

    [2] A survey from the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada indicates that vast majority of Canadians oppose warrantless online spying.

    [3] See this letter to Public Safety Canada from Canada’s Privacy Commissioners and Ombudspersons

    [4] See the CBC article, Online surveillance bill opens door for Big Brother

    [5] See the Postmedia article, Can you spot the difference on “lawful access” bill?”

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.