Domestic Spying: I *Did* Tell You So, Didn't I?
That's right. And there you have it again, folks:
New laws would let police eavesdrop on InternetRemember what happened back in 2007?
The federal government is preparing legislation that could force Internet service providers to let police eavesdrop on emails and chats.
Under the proposed bill, police would first have to get court approval before they could listen in.
Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan told the House of Commons Public Safety and National Security Committee Wednesday that the legislation is needed because current laws are out-of-date.
"We have legislation covering wiretap and surveillance that was designed for the era of the rotary phone," Van Loan said.
(..)
"If you find a situation where a child is being exploited live online at that time - and that situation has arisen before - police services have had good co-operation with a lot of Internet service providers, but there are some that aren't so co-operative."
At least now, it will become mandatory for police to have court approval prior to their listening in (unlike what has been happening lately - one example here).
That, in itself, is a plus - unless there are loopholes in this bill which would allow police to begin wiretapping before getting court approval (as exemplified here).
Therefore, let us remain vigiliant that this bill does not turn out to be a "gutted FISA" law, Canadian style, eh?
vigilance would be wise indeed. I see this as an attempt to pass what could not be passed, so I expect loopholes and outright violations, things like coming up with some BS to get permission to spy on someone innocent, but someone they want to watch for political reasons.
ReplyDeleteIn the current government's hands, I can see them using it to shut us up by making our lives difficult. I mentioned this to you before, how they try to target some bloggers.
I don't buy that whole "cops want it" claim either. I recall them countering Day in 2007 saying no, they didn't need access loosened up because if they needed to get into someone's account, they could get permission through the courts, so Day back tracked and said it was for national security issues.
"so I expect loopholes and outright violations, things like coming up with some BS to get permission to spy on someone innocent, but someone they want to watch for political reasons."
ReplyDeleteExactly - same here.
IMHO, police *do* want it - if only because they espouse the same convenient rationale as security agencies to justify/rationalize spying indiscriminately on citizens ...
I'm sure you're right. My thoughts on police have changed these past few years, but I think that is partly due to them changing as well, creating more of a divide, becoming agents who watch us rather than watch out for us.
ReplyDelete"but I think that is partly due to them changing as well"
ReplyDeleteYup - exactly. They eagerly got on the jolly band wagon of paranoia-driven security worries as that of the security agencies ...