ISPs must help police snoop on internet under new bill

Warrentless wiretaps are not the way to go this is a horrible bill as it undermines the legal process and the very validity of a court ordered warrent.

But, it's for the Children Scape! And against the Terrorists! Why do you hate children?

As usual, the criminals will adapt. Using uncrackable encrypted transmissions and proxies in Antigua by example.

Scape,

There's nothing in the new bill which gives the police any additional powers they don't already have. Part VI of the Criminal Code is currently a horribly old part that doesn't adequately cover today's technologies. What this bill does is clarify to the police and judges just what Parliament expects.

Currently, there are no provisions specifying internet communications at a house. So, if the police have a warrant to intercept your communications, what governs the internet? What about VOIP phones routed through the United States? What about if a Canadian goes to the United States to call other Americans, but his call is being routed through Rogers HQ in Toronto? Can the police legally intercept that call?

This isn't the beginning of a police state Scape, it's the beginning of the end for the police and judges making up laws Parliament never bothered to write. This is a good thing.

VoIP can be intercept like an analog line. Just more complicated since you have to sniff the packets and put them together.

But, I know that the technology to encrypt voip exists, it is just not implemented yet everywhere so it can't be used. But let's say you have one company with 1 office in LA and another in new york (and there's no VPN) and they are using the same equipment, you can encrypt it.

Dayseed,

Can you clairify the role of the warrent and how it has changed in this? I don't mind ISP tracking, as long as that tracking is adherant to the privacy laws. What I am concerned about is the weakening of the warrents that are issued cueently. If I understand this correctly this would effectivly make warrents not required. A fundamental tenate to the rule of law. Did not a warrent before this still require the ISP to release records?

I think it falls in a kind of "loophole" between the public and the private conversation. Internet is not like two persons talking privately in a room. It passes on the internet which is "public".

A warrant is required under various circumstances as not all searches violate one's Section 8 rights. However, a warrantless search is generally held to be unconstitutional with the onus to rebut on the state.

I haven't read the bill, but I've read Part VI of the Criminal Code. The internet isn't mentioned once. Part VI is the part that governs use of wiretaps. What this bill will do will be to clarify the onus of the state in presenting an application for a wiretap (or rather, an Interception of Private Communications Authorization) of the internet and limitations a judge can impose.

As above, not all searches violate S.8 Some do. Some don't. The difference lies in whether or not, inter alia the search would tend to reveal intimate lifestyle details that a person would rather not disclose to the state.

Does it reveal anything about you to know your ISP address? Can I find out that Scape, the real person on the other side of the monitor, has a shitty credit rating, a fantastic rating or an average one, from knowing his ISP address? Some Judges say yes, I could find out your street address and go loook at your house. Others say no, ISP addresses are no different than a telephone book of numbers and addresses.

Where a wiretap (or whatever the bill will purport internet interceptions to be) is needed is if I want to know WHAT you're doing with your ISP address, not simply if you have one. Where you go on the internet IS private; there's no doubt.

This law would clarify the first part: If the police learned that ISP address blankity-blank was trafficking child porn, they can go to Bell without a warrant and ask, who is this? It's really no different than seeing a car parked somewhere and the cop runs your licence plate details.

As a protection to the public citizenry though, the Supreme Court is not bashful about curtailing abuses of police power. If the cops run amok with this, checking people out for cruising an al-Qaeda recruitment page, perhaps the Court would rightfully step in and start imposing warrant-like restrictions on the use of this bill, or nullify the law and tell Parliament to get making a warrant provision pronto.

I'm not worried about this one bit.

Dayseed, you are sure the Internet is "private" ? Your computer is private but when you send information on a chat room, it's public. But when you send an IM to someone, I think that's where the gray zone is. It can be intercepted by a lot of people while a telephone call can only be intercepted by the carrier.

Send me the equipment free. Pay to train me to use it. Pay me for my time. Show me a warrant when you want the info.
Otherwise I will not comply.
Better start writing a minimum sentence law to deal with me now.

What I mean is, let's say I ask here: "Is there anyone that wants to share child porn with me ? I have a lot to share!"

It passes through my router, through bell, through the backbones, through CKA.

Does Trev have to comply and give the IP ? I say yes. After that, an IP is like a home address. I think the police can ask the the ISP for the person behind that address without a warrant since it's a home location.

This is a forum, not an ISP. The ISP that hosts it will have the IPs of people accessing it in it's logs.
I'm not worrying over child porn, the right RCMP dept. contacts me and I'll turn the perv in, that's right in our users TOS clause. Nailed one last winter.
This WILL be used to eventually hunt down downloaders and file sharers, to go on fishing expeditions, etc.

Distributing/downloading copyrighted material isn't child porn but it's still illegal. A crime is a crime. The sentence isn't the same tho.

That's EXACTLY what I fear as well. I can appreciate Dayseeds' Readers Digest version too, but I think it's just another facade to enforce the same old outdated business model.

I'd like to think it's to hunt down the kiddie porn factories, but hiding them is easier than finding them. Same for 'Terrorists'. But, Pirates? That's the cake!

And Dayseed, it's "IP Address" (Internet Protocol), not "ISP Address" (Internet Service Provider). I know your a lawyer not a geek like me, but it's an important distinction that may one day get you in trouble. If someone showed up at my door with a warrant to search my 'ISP' address, I'd tell them to get lost because Shaw Cable has it's head office in Calgary and to try there.