This is typical of our government attitude. We are quickly becoming a country where we elect our dictatiors. It is really quite disgusting.

Read on to see what Peter Hilier has to say about this issue.

Dan White

OPINION: What you don’t know about lawful access By:  Peter J. Hillier  On: 01 Oct 2009 For: Network World Canada Creator

The Investigative Powers for the 21st Century Act creates too much opportunity for abuse by intelligence and security organizations.

Why telecom carriers are naïve about the Technical Assisatnce for Law Enformcent in the 21st Century Act

The Government of Canada has gone down the lawful access road on two previous occasions, prior to the introduction in June of Bills C46 and C47. The previous Liberal bills did not get past first reading due to impending elections and changes of government.

The crafters of the previous submissions had a tremendously difficult time getting the telecommunications providers on board given the investment they would be forced to make in order to provide the backbone for Big Brother without some compensation.

Bill C-46, the Investigative Powers for the 21st Century Act (IP21C) and Bill C-47, the Technical Assistance for Law Enforcement in the 21st Century Act (TALEA) aim to give Canadian law enforcement, national security agencies and other “authorities” broader powers to acquire digital evidence to support their investigations. This includes provisions to allow police access, without a warrant, to the personal information of users including names, addresses, telephone numbers, email addresses and internet protocol addresses. Bill C-46 ensures police can obtain warrants for current and historical transmission data, but also allows police to remotely activate existing tracking devices on cellphones and cars. It also included requirements for the telecommunications providers to decrypt date for production of evidence if they have the ability to do so.

In its current form, the legislation is not balanced. It creates too much opportunity for abuse by intelligence and security organizations, let alone law enforcement agencies. Where is the evidence that expanded surveillance powers they contain are essential and that each of the new investigative powers is justified?

To this end, the Bill is more reflective of an intelligence gathering legislation than it is a piece of law enforcement law. The federal Privacy Commissioner, in conjunction with her provincial counterparts, has warned the crafters of the legislation to be cautious in moving forward with the legislation as is.

Now that the appropriation bill C-47 has been split from the legislative piece, C-46, the telecommunications providers see the opportunity for the federal government to foot the bill for the implementation of technology, as well as a per request fee to respond to requests from law enforcement agencies, etc. The telecommunications providers have seemingly acquiesced to the Crown and have the attitude that it will be introduced into law sooner or later; we may as well be prepared. Ironically, they are not.

They have not yet thought through the impacts past the routine requests by law enforcement agencies to gather evidence on child exploitation, because that, after all, is the basis for the entire legislation. With that, the telecommunications providers assume if they apply a fee to each request, the municipalities and Crown will not over burden them with requests for fear of cost overruns. Given the expanded powers of this legislation, this is a terribly naïve mindset.