Michael Geist About Full CV Photos Contact Writing Blog Books Chapters Scholarship Reports Newsletters Columns Columns Archive Teaching Regulation of Internet Commerce Technology Law Internship Global Technology Law Speaking Video Podcasts/Audio News Interviews Conferences Government Committee Testimony Keynote Speaking Tech Law Topics ACTA CETA Copyright Internet Governance Jurisdiction Lawful Access Net Neutrality Privacy Spam Surveillance Telecom TPP Connect Join my Facebook page Follow @mgeist Join me on Google+ Subscribe to my RSS feed Email me Connect on LinkedIn Pinned Posts in Pinterest Wiertz Sebastien - Privacy by Sebastien Wiertz (CC BY 2.0) https://flic.kr/p/ahk6nh Columns Why Internet Privacy Should be a Key Election Issue September 18, 2015 Canada’s controversial anti-terrorism bill, Bill C-51, has emerged as a key talking point in the current election campaign. Pointing to its big implications for privacy and surveillance, the NDP sees political opportunity by emphasizing its opposition to the bill, while the Liberals have been forced to defend their decision to support it (but call for amendments if elected). The Conservatives unsurprisingly view the bill as evidence of their commitment to national security and have even floated the possibility of additional anti-terror measures. While Bill C-51 now represents a legislative shorthand for the parties positions on privacy and surveillance, a potentially bigger privacy issue merits closer attention. My weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) notes that last year, the government concluded more than a decade of debate over “lawful access” legislation by enacting a bill that provided new law enforcement powers for access to Internet and telecom data. The bill came just as reports revealed that telecom providers faced more than a million requests for such information each year and the Supreme Court of Canada issued its landmark Spencer decision, which ruled that Canadians have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their basic subscriber information, including name, address, and IP address. The upshot of the lawful access legislation and the court ruling is that Canada’s leading telecom and Internet companies reversed longstanding policies that granted warrantless access to basic subscriber information. Police can now rely on several new warrants to gain access to some information (including “metadata” that can reveal extensive information about the who, when and where of Internet and phone communications), but companies are typically refusing to disclose basic subscriber information without a warrant. Despite an internal RCMP survey that concluded that the new requirements have had “no significant negative effects”, the tougher privacy standards have been under steady threat. Some lower courts have sought to distinguish the Supreme Court ruling and allow for access to subscriber information without a warrant. Meanwhile, law enforcement officials and government policy makers have quietly been working on a proposal to allow for real-time access to basic subscriber information. The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police (CACP) revealed at its August annual conference that officials have partnered with the government to develop a “reasonable law” in response to the Spencer decision. The government has not commented on details on the proposed reforms, but the CACP document indicates that there are three possibilities currently under consideration. These include an administrative, non-judicial system that would allow for warrantless access without judicial oversight, a new judicial order that would ensure that courts oversee disclosure, or a combination of a new order that could be issued by an administrative body. The differences between the proposals sound technical, but at their heart raise the question of whether the government will support access to subscriber information without a warrant and court oversight. The CACP indicates that the next scheduled meeting to discuss the issue is planned for November 2015, weeks after the end of the election campaign. In other words, this election could determine the future path of Canadian law on access to subscriber information. None of the major political parties have yet taken a public position on the issue. In fact, the Conservatives steadfastly refused to disclose how the Department of Justice was responding to the Spencer decision, regularly claiming to be “studying” the ruling. The issue requires answers to two questions. First, do the parties support the Supreme Court’s Spencer decision and the notion of a reasonable expectation of privacy in subscriber information such that a warrant is required for its disclosure? Second, how, if at all, do the parties propose to amend the law to allow for enhanced access to subscriber information for law enforcement? The answers to those two questions will go a long way to determining the privacy protection enjoyed by Canadian Internet users and the current election campaign may be the best time to get each party to put its position on the public record. Share this: More Related posts: What Now? Privacy and Surveillance in Canada After the Paris Attacks The Letters of the Law: 2015 in Technology Law and Policy The Canadian Privacy and Civil Liberties Punch in the Gut (or Why CSE/CSIS Oversight is Not Enough) Why the Liberal Party Defence of Its Support for Bill C-51 Falls Flat Tags: c-51 / election / lawful access / privacy / spencer 4 Comments Annie says: September 20, 2015 at 3:49 pm Libraries are banding together to support TOR (read theverge.com yesterday), and younger netizens all sport TOR buttons on their browsers and even demand it at Starbucks, so unless the next step is to backdoor encryption, and outlaw TOR and open wifi, then this capability is just for picking the low-hanging security failures. We sure aren’t waiting for government or big ad run business to step up and help. Michael And Ingrid Heroux says: September 22, 2015 at 5:40 am Canadian Intelligence is spoofing our internet and they are posting fake news stories to make us think some of our friends have been murdered and they have been doing that for a while now. Some of the web sites are so real you can’t tell the difference. We had a good friend of ours that helped us get some of our internet straighten out but they murdered him shortly after that and they are reporting it was an accident. He was Jake Brewer, Obama’s senior technical adviser in the white house. https://twitter.com/jakebrewer Canadian Intelligence are messing around with our children also through their Sony GTA5 video game online play. They befriended our children over the months of playing with them and they were trying to lure them out of the house to get at them. We reported it to the Vancouver Police but the police can’t do nothing about it. They have been threatening to murder our family again because they don’t want us to go to court against them over the fraudulent 30-08 warrants they took out on us. They have been trying to bribe us with large amounts of cash to forget about going to court against them. Annie says: September 25, 2015 at 12:53 pm Who would sign the Snowden Treaty? There. Election issue. Pingback: Privacy News Update – 11-8-15 Recent Posts The Trouble with the TPP, Day 20: Unenforceable Net Neutrality Rules January 29, 2016 The Trouble with the TPP, Day 19: No Canadian Side Agreements to Advance Tech Sector January 28, 2016 Why Canadian Telecom Companies Must Defend Your Right to Privacy January 28, 2016 Why Telecoms Must Defend Your Right to Privacy January 28, 2016 The Trouble with the TPP, Day 18: Failure to Protect Canadian Cultural Policy January 27, 2016 Recent Columns Why Canadian Telecom Companies Must Defend Your Right to Privacy January 28, 2016 The Battle Over the Future of Broadband in Canada: Mayors Tory & Watson v. Nenshi January 12, 2016 Tech Law in 2016: Previewing Some of the Tough Policy Choices January 5, 2016 The Letters of the Law: 2015 in Technology Law and Policy December 30, 2015 The Battle Over Uber: Mapping Out a Regulatory Compromise December 15, 2015 Recent Talks × × × The Trouble With the TPP Day 1: U.S. Blocks Balancing Objectives Day 2: Locking in Digital Locks Day 3: Copyright Term Extension Day 4: Copyright Notice and Takedown Rules Day 5: Rights Holders "Shall" vs. Users "May" Day 6: Price of Entry Day 7: Patent Term Extensions Day 8: Locking In Biologics Protection Day 9: Limits on Medical Devices & Pharma Data Collection Day 10: Criminalization of Trade Secret Law Day 11: Weak Privacy Standards Day 12: Restrictions on Data Localization Requirements Day 13: Ban on Data Transfer Restrictions Day 14: No U.S. Assurances to Canada on Privacy Day 15: Weak Anti-Spam Law Standards Day 16: Intervening in Internet Governance Day 17: Weak E-commerce Rules Day 18: Failure to Protect Canadian Cultural Policy Day 19: No Canadian Side Agreements to Advance Tech Sector Open Books Law, Privacy and Surveillance in Canada in the Post-Snowden Era (University of Ottawa Press, 2015) The Copyright Pentalogy: How the Supreme Court of Canada Shook the Foundations of Canadian Copyright Law (University of Ottawa Press, 2013) From "Radical Extremism" to "Balanced Copyright": Canadian Copyright and the Digital Agenda (Irwin Law, 2010) In the Public Interest: The Future of Canadian Copyright Law (Irwin Law, 2005) Get Postings via Email Like me on Facebook Archives September 2015 S M T W T F S « Aug Oct » 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Michael Geist firstname.lastname@example.org This web site is licensed under a Creative Commons License, although certain works referenced herein may be separately licensed. Send to Email Address Your Name Your Email Address Cancel Post was not sent - check your email addresses! Email check failed, please try again Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.