From: vic.toews.c1@parl.gc.ca
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 14:07:21 -0500
Subject: Stop Online Spying
To: vic.toews.c1@parl.gc.ca
Thank you for contacting my office regarding Bill C-30, the Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act.
Canada's laws currently do not adequately protect Canadians from online exploitation and we think there is widespread agreement that this is a problem.
We want to update our laws while striking the right balance between combating crime and protecting privacy.
Let me be very clear: the police will not be able to read emails or view web activity unless they obtain a warrant issued by a judge and we have constructed safeguards to protect the privacy of Canadians, including audits by privacy commissioners.
What's needed most is an open discussion about how to better protect Canadians from online crime. We will therefore send this legislation directly to Parliamentary Committee for a full examination of the best ways to protect Canadians while respecting their privacy.
For your information, I have included some myths and facts below regarding Bill C-30 in its current state.
Sincerely,
Vic Toews
Member of Parliament for Provencher
Myth: Lawful Access legislation infringes on the privacy of Canadians.
Fact: Our Government puts a high priority on protecting the privacy of law-abiding Canadians. Current practices of accessing the actual content of communications with a legal authorization will not change.
Myth: Having access to basic subscriber information means that authorities can monitor personal communications and activities.
Fact: This has nothing to do with monitoring emails or web browsing. Basic subscriber information would be limited to a customer’s name, address, telephone number, email address, Internet Protocol (IP) address, and the name of the telecommunications service provider. It absolutely does not include the content of emails, phones calls or online activities.
Myth: This legislation does not benefit average Canadians and only gives authorities more power.
Fact: As a result of technological innovations, criminals and terrorists have found ways to hide their illegal activities. This legislation will keep Canadians safer by putting police on the same footing as those who seek to harm us.
Myth: Basic subscriber information is way beyond “phone book information”.
Fact: The basic subscriber information described in the proposed legislation is the modern day equivalent of information that is in the phone book. Individuals frequently freely share this information online and in many cases it is searchable and quite public.
Myth: Police and telecommunications service providers will now be required to maintain databases with information collected on Canadians.
Fact: This proposed legislation will not require either police or telecommunications service providers to create databases with information collected on Canadians.
Myth: “Warrantless access” to customer information will give police and government unregulated access to our personal information.
Fact: Federal legislation already allows telecommunications service providers to voluntarily release basic subscriber information to authorities without a warrant. This Bill acts as a counterbalance by adding a number of checks and balances which do not exist today, and clearly lists which basic subscriber identifiers authorities can access.
My Reply:
Dear Mr. Toews,
Thank you for your reply. I would like to address some of the inaccurate talking points you seem to have provided me with:
"This has nothing to do with monitoring emails or web browsing. Basic subscriber information would be limited to a customer’s name, address, telephone number, email address, Internet Protocol (IP) address, and the name of the telecommunications service provider. It absolutely does not include the content of emails, phones calls or online activities. "
While the information provided to the authorities by the ISP in question would not contain email or content information, it would provide the authorities with the information needed to access such information. Your above statement is akin to saying that while the provider didn't give the house to the police, they did give them the keys to the front door. Further, you've left out some information that would be provided, such as the MAC address of communications devices within the household in question. This is a very important piece of information with regards to intercepting and monitoring internet traffic.
If the legislation did not provide this type of information than it would be of no assistance in combating illegal activities in the first place.
"As a result of technological innovations, criminals and terrorists have found ways to hide their illegal activities. This legislation will keep Canadians safer by putting police on the same footing as those who seek to harm us."
No, this legislation does not provide any safety measures to the Canadian public, and actually puts Canadians at risk of being victimized by any abuses of these new powers. It removes judicial oversight entirely when monitoring the private communications of Canadian citizens. It presumes that Canadian law enforcement officials are incapable of making errors. Saying that the activities will periodically be audited by the various civilian privacy commissions etc.. is absolutely not on par with judicial oversight. The government is free to abide by privacy commission findings as it sees fit. Judicial oversight is not so flexible and presents real oversight and monitoring for abuse of these new powers.
"The basic subscriber information described in the proposed legislation is the modern day equivalent of information that is in the phone book. Individuals frequently freely share this information online and in many cases it is searchable and quite public."
Again, you misrepresent the importance of the information that could be obtained. To liken it to phone book information is beyond inaccurate and is intellectually dishonest at best. While I believe there are a large percentage of Canadians who do not have a firm grasp of the technological aspect of this information or the ramifications of having this information collected by the government, please do not forget that there is a healthy portion of the population that understands the difference between how you are representing this information, and the truth.
"This proposed legislation will not require either police or telecommunications service providers to create databases with information collected on Canadians."
Nor will the legislation prevent or prohibit either of those parties from doing so. In fact, it would strike me as common sense that once that information has been retrieved, the police or whatever other law enforcement agency has requested it are not likely to destroy it once it has been obtained. This would involve keeping a record of that information, why it was requested, who it relates to etc.. in perpetuity whether that person has been convicted of a criminal offense or not. Sounds an awful like like a database of information collected on Canadians to me.
"Federal legislation already allows telecommunications service providers to voluntarily release basic subscriber information to authorities without a warrant. This Bill acts as a counterbalance by adding a number of checks and balances which do not exist today, and clearly lists which basic subscriber identifiers authorities can access."
Apologies for my bluntness Mr. Toews, but this statement is just out and out false. While the existing legislation is troubling with regards to the handling of our private information, the ISPs do currently have the right to refuse to hand over that information if they don't feel it's being requested in a legitimate investigation. This forces the authorities to seek a warrant from a court to obtain the information as it should. The proposed legislation would force the access providers not only to provide that information without cause, without warrant to ANY law enforcement official who requests it, but it would prevent the provider from even notifying the customer that the information has been requested. It provides a mechanism that enables Canadian law enforcement officials to commit what is essentially an illegal search and seizure with no court oversight at all. The potential for abuse in such a situation is clear.
While your vigorous rhetoric suggests that anyone who opposes this legislation is in league with child predators, I truly believe that one does not become elected to Parliament without having a basic understanding of reality. I believe that you know the difference between your inappropriate comments to detractors and the reality of their opposition to this bill. I believe that you understand exactly what they are questioning and further to that, I believe that you realize they are making very valid and important points. I think it's that realization on your part that has led you to make such comments as likening another honorable member of parliament to a child predator. You have no intellectual justification for supporting this bill so like a child on the schoolyard you've debased yourself and our system of government by resorting to name calling.
Mr. Toews, I don't doubt your sincerity in opposing child predators just as I don't doubt your desire to protect Canadians. What I doubt with all of my convictions is your openness and honesty with regards to a piece of legislation that belongs in a 1960s Soviet government and not in Canada's free and open government. Our right to question our leaders and elected officials as is being done with yourself is a sacred and fundamental part of our society. You've not only shamed yourself by your reaction to opposition recently, but you've held Canada up as a shining example that even the most free of societies can be dragged down to the gutters by ego and self worship.
Sincerely,
Andrew OMIT
A former lifelong Conservative.
