The first prong mandates the disclosure of Internet provider customer information without court oversight. Under current privacy laws, providers may voluntarily disclose customer information but are not required to do so. The new system would require the disclosure of customer name, address, phone number, email address, Internet protocol address, and a series of device identification numbers.
Wow. The key phrase "without court oversight" is indicative of, at every conceivable level, a massive, gaping hole for trucks of corruption to be driven through. Ridiculous abuses.
The second prong requires Internet providers to dramatically re-work their networks to allow for real-time surveillance. The bill sets out detailed capability requirements that will eventually apply to all Canadian Internet providers. These include the power to intercept communications, to isolate the communications to a particular individual, and to engage in multiple simultaneous interceptions. Moreover, the bill establishes a comprehensive regulatory structure for Internet providers that would mandate their assistance with testing their surveillance capabilities and disclosing the names of all employees who may be involved in interceptions (and who may then be subject to RCMP background checks).
Double wow. It seems unnecessarily close to turning each Canadian ISP into another branch of the Canadian government's surveillance agencies. These politicians want to force providers into restructuring their networks and systems so that they can be used as a tool for the Government's every covert whim... AND subject the employees of these providers to background checks so that they can be trusted with this unnecessary, malevolent work shoved in their laps?
It seems unnecessarily close to turning each Canadian ISP into another branch of the Canadian government's surveillance agencies.
Only if you consider Bell Canada to be a branch of CSIS. None of the requirements being proposed for ISPs go beyond what is already required for telephone networks -- and unlike phone conversations, it's easy to encrypt your internet communications.
I think that's also a fine rhetorical question - in the sense of a question of who's answer is fairly obvious and which points to a large reality. ("Honest question" is fine way to say "this is not a rhetorical question". That's just to help clarity, rhetorical questions are fine tools of expression...)
Even in the unlikely event that the RCMP is filtering some civilian employees, the overall reality is that far more information flows across the Internet to far more people than one could assure accountability around.
So it is completely idiotic to up a surveillance network which looks so deeply into each person's communication that it would require serious accountability among the watchers. Since that accountability won't be there. Look airport security personnel, then imagine them going through your emails for bad stuff.
It is worth remembers that the abusiveness of a society of surveillance often doesn't come so much from a single dictator but rather from a vast array of unaccountable Apparatchiks abusing their petty but unchecked power.
unlike phone conversations, it's easy to encrypt your internet communications
Considering the bill's clear intention is to prevent Internet communication from being private, how long do you imagine encrypted communication would remain legal?
There's a standard that appears in the surveillance debate.
"X is OK because no would be dumb/provocative/bold enough to do Y".
But that arguments doesn't take into account that make X standard means that Y is no longer the stretch it would otherwise be.
And in practical terms, the state indeed would have a hard time if they had to stop each individual using SSL for various logins. But it would be simple matter to either prohibit SSL for various things or to demand the right/ability to snoop on every SSL connection (in fact, it sound like this is more or less what's being planned now - but of course, "no one would be so dumb as to do it" so we have nothing to worry about).
I agree politicians avoid upsetting the majority. Large SSL sites will simply get permission/transit after setting up similar surveillance infrastructure. Small companies that explicitly go out of their way (with custom software, even!) to avoid knowing what their customers are doing - well, who knows?
Wow. The key phrase "without court oversight" is indicative of, at every conceivable level, a massive, gaping hole for trucks of corruption to be driven through. Ridiculous abuses.
The second prong requires Internet providers to dramatically re-work their networks to allow for real-time surveillance. The bill sets out detailed capability requirements that will eventually apply to all Canadian Internet providers. These include the power to intercept communications, to isolate the communications to a particular individual, and to engage in multiple simultaneous interceptions. Moreover, the bill establishes a comprehensive regulatory structure for Internet providers that would mandate their assistance with testing their surveillance capabilities and disclosing the names of all employees who may be involved in interceptions (and who may then be subject to RCMP background checks).
Double wow. It seems unnecessarily close to turning each Canadian ISP into another branch of the Canadian government's surveillance agencies. These politicians want to force providers into restructuring their networks and systems so that they can be used as a tool for the Government's every covert whim... AND subject the employees of these providers to background checks so that they can be trusted with this unnecessary, malevolent work shoved in their laps?
Insane.