stuffy
February 16th, 2003, 05:28 PM
A F F I L I A T E S
Personal finance
For Canadian entrepreneurs
Subscribe to our FREE Newsletter
The nation’s trusted news source
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DAWN CALLEJA September 30, 2002
technology
Security complex
A federal proposal to tap Internet accounts is dangerous
--------------------------------------------------------------------
What better way to mark the anniversary of Sept. 11 than with another attempt to clamp down on our right to privacy? Late last month, the Department of Justice, Industry Canada and the Solicitor General released a consultation document aimed at increasing the government’s access to Internet logs. “Modern telecommunication and computer networks such as the Internet are a great source of economic and social benefits,” the Lawful Access report states, “but they can also be used in the planning, co-ordination, financing and perpetration of crimes and threats to public safety and the national security of Canada.”
The proposal—modeled on a British law dating back to 2000—would compel service providers to give law-enforcement and national security agencies “interception capability,” making it possible to tap and trace communications over their networks. Providers could also be forced to hand over customer information.
That’s not the scariest part of the document, says Jay Thomson, head of the Canadian Association of Internet Providers. Police have always been able to access Internet logs, provided they have reasonable grounds to believe an offence has been or will be committed and have obtained a warrant. But the report (canada.justice.gc.ca/en) seems to endorse making it a lot easier to obtain “information in relation to which there is a lower expectation of privacy”—even at the early stages of an investigation. That’s what really worries Thomson, though he says it’s too early to tell whether the proposals constitute an infringement on privacy because the document is so vague. “There’s not a lot of substance to it, and until we get that, we’re guessing as much as anyone else,” he says. “But it’s a real fear—one we’ll be looking at quite closely.”
Canada isn’t the only country with the security bug. Privacy and Human Rights 2002—a report released on Sept. 3 by the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) of Washington, DC, and Privacy International, based in the UK—tracks changes in privacy law in 50 countries. There have been many lately. In June, the European Union voted to adopt a directive that allows member states to retain the traffic and location data of people communicating via mobile phones, text messaging, land-lines, fax, e-mail, chat rooms, the Internet or any other device. Since last September, the US, Canada, the UK, Singapore, Denmark, France, Germany, India, Sweden, Australia and Austria have instituted new anti-terrorist legislation, whose measures include increased communications surveillance, data sharing, profiling and identification, and weakening of data protection. Many of these laws were in the works before Sept. 11; the attacks just made it a whole lot easier to ram them through with little or no debate.
Will these brave new measures protect us? Look at the US. Several years ago, the FBI developed an electronic “sniffer” called Carnivore to intercept e-mail, as well as a device that records keystrokes on a keyboard to capture passwords and even deleted information. Did these sophisticated technologies stop bin Laden? Of course not. After all, if you don’t know what—or whom—you’re looking for, increased powers of surveillance don’t make a damn bit of difference.
Earlier this month, George Radwanski, Canada’s privacy commissioner, spoke at a conference in London hosted by EPIC and Privacy International. About a month after the attacks, Radwanski said, Osama bin Laden predicted that “freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The US government will lead the American people—and the West in general—into an unbearable hell and a choking life.” Instead of infringing on citizens’ privacy, Western governments should be working to prove bin Laden wrong.
Personal finance
For Canadian entrepreneurs
Subscribe to our FREE Newsletter
The nation’s trusted news source
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DAWN CALLEJA September 30, 2002
technology
Security complex
A federal proposal to tap Internet accounts is dangerous
--------------------------------------------------------------------
What better way to mark the anniversary of Sept. 11 than with another attempt to clamp down on our right to privacy? Late last month, the Department of Justice, Industry Canada and the Solicitor General released a consultation document aimed at increasing the government’s access to Internet logs. “Modern telecommunication and computer networks such as the Internet are a great source of economic and social benefits,” the Lawful Access report states, “but they can also be used in the planning, co-ordination, financing and perpetration of crimes and threats to public safety and the national security of Canada.”
The proposal—modeled on a British law dating back to 2000—would compel service providers to give law-enforcement and national security agencies “interception capability,” making it possible to tap and trace communications over their networks. Providers could also be forced to hand over customer information.
That’s not the scariest part of the document, says Jay Thomson, head of the Canadian Association of Internet Providers. Police have always been able to access Internet logs, provided they have reasonable grounds to believe an offence has been or will be committed and have obtained a warrant. But the report (canada.justice.gc.ca/en) seems to endorse making it a lot easier to obtain “information in relation to which there is a lower expectation of privacy”—even at the early stages of an investigation. That’s what really worries Thomson, though he says it’s too early to tell whether the proposals constitute an infringement on privacy because the document is so vague. “There’s not a lot of substance to it, and until we get that, we’re guessing as much as anyone else,” he says. “But it’s a real fear—one we’ll be looking at quite closely.”
Canada isn’t the only country with the security bug. Privacy and Human Rights 2002—a report released on Sept. 3 by the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) of Washington, DC, and Privacy International, based in the UK—tracks changes in privacy law in 50 countries. There have been many lately. In June, the European Union voted to adopt a directive that allows member states to retain the traffic and location data of people communicating via mobile phones, text messaging, land-lines, fax, e-mail, chat rooms, the Internet or any other device. Since last September, the US, Canada, the UK, Singapore, Denmark, France, Germany, India, Sweden, Australia and Austria have instituted new anti-terrorist legislation, whose measures include increased communications surveillance, data sharing, profiling and identification, and weakening of data protection. Many of these laws were in the works before Sept. 11; the attacks just made it a whole lot easier to ram them through with little or no debate.
Will these brave new measures protect us? Look at the US. Several years ago, the FBI developed an electronic “sniffer” called Carnivore to intercept e-mail, as well as a device that records keystrokes on a keyboard to capture passwords and even deleted information. Did these sophisticated technologies stop bin Laden? Of course not. After all, if you don’t know what—or whom—you’re looking for, increased powers of surveillance don’t make a damn bit of difference.
Earlier this month, George Radwanski, Canada’s privacy commissioner, spoke at a conference in London hosted by EPIC and Privacy International. About a month after the attacks, Radwanski said, Osama bin Laden predicted that “freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The US government will lead the American people—and the West in general—into an unbearable hell and a choking life.” Instead of infringing on citizens’ privacy, Western governments should be working to prove bin Laden wrong.