Elbows deep!

Yeah, the so-called “lawful access” parts of Bill C-2 are especially bad. Here’s constitutional law professor Michael Geist’s take on it:

Privacy At Risk: Government Buries Lawful Access Provisions in New Border Bill - Michael Geist

The government yesterday introduced the Strong Border Act (Bill C-2), legislation that was promoted as establishing new border measure provisions presumably designed to address U.S. concerns regarding the border. Yet buried toward the end of the bill are lawful access provisions that have nothing to do with the border. Those provisions, which raise the prospect of warrantless access to information about Internet subscribers, establish new global production orders of subscriber information, and envision new levels of access to data held by electronic service providers, mark the latest attempt in a longstanding campaign by Canadian law enforcement for lawful access legislation. Stymied by the Supreme Court of Canada (which has ruled that there is a reasonable expectation of privacy in subscriber data) and by repeated failures to present a compelling evidentiary case for warrantless access, law enforcement has instead tried to frame lawful access as essential to address everything from organized crime to cyber-bullying to (now) border safety. Much like the government’s overreach last year on online harms, Bill C-2 overreaches by including measures on Internet subscriber data that have nothing to do with border safety or security but raise privacy and civil liberties concerns that are bound to spark opposition. This post provides the background on lawful access and an overview of some Bill C-2’s provisions with more details on key elements to come.

Michael Geist (www.michaelgeist.ca)

“the bill creates a new “information demand” for law enforcement that does not require court oversight.”

In other words, if Bill C-2 passes, the police are allowed to demand information from an ISP about someone without a warrant, and it’s illegal for the ISP to refuse that demand. There’s no oversight mechanism of any kind, and the only requirement is that the cop has a hunch that maybe a crime might be committed. What crime? Any crime.

Know what’s a crime? Lying to a cop. So, if a cop has a reasonable suspicion that you lied to them, or will lie to them in the future, that’s legal grounds for them to get access to this data from a service provider. You know that every cop going through a divorce will be using this to get info on their spouses. Why not? It’s perfectly legal.

Why are these so-called “lawful access” provisions being considered? It’s a sore spot with the US that Canadians have a bit more privacy than Americans. And, for some reason, despite the US being incredibly hostile, the government still wants to work on that relationship by giving away Canadians’ rights.

So-called “lawful access” is a terrible idea. The supreme court already decided that Canadians have a right to privacy and that giving away this data violates that privacy. These rights shouldn’t be given away for any reason, but especially not to curry favour with the US, given that the US is already violating their treaties with Canada. But, even if someone might disagree and think “lawful access” is necessary, give it its own bill. Don’t tack it onto a bill about the border. This has nothing to do with the border, and it’s an important enough discussion that it shouldn’t be hidden in a border bill.

@merc @recursive_recursion Damn I hope #Europe cuta the data link across the ocean.

Well, if people in the government really don’t understand the data collection is warrantless, then there’s a chance they’d change that, given appropriate pushback of course.

Use these laws to collect data from politicians publicly and watch how fast this law will disappear

I can’t understand why politicians propose any of this. Constituents want this?