Guilty as charged...or maybe not...In Canada

Laws for 21st century: A guide to Canada’s proposed cyber investigation bills

Kathryn Blaze Carlson Oct 22, 2011 – 10:35 AM ET | Last Updated: Oct 23, 2011 11:01 AM ET


Canadians spend more time online than anyone else in the world — an average of 44 hours per month — and nearly a third of the population owns a smartphone, spending more than 17 hours on the device each week. So when the Conservative government reintroduces three pieces of lawful access legislation aimed at giving police greater powers and more tools to conduct investigations using new technologies, Canadians should have a clear understanding of what is on the table. However, much of the rhetoric circulating online about the legislation is patently untrue, distracting from the meat of the bills and the very real privacy implications at stake. Although it is unclear whether the bills will appear exactly as they did when they were first tabled in the spring, Public Safety Minister Vic Toews said this month his government is committed to reintroducing the lawful access legislation. Post reporter Kathryn Blaze Carlson has studied the previous legislation and spoken to experts. Here, she offers up eight things it would do — and three it would not:

1. CREATING “BACK DOORS” FOR POLICE INTERCEPTION The Investigative Powers for the 21st Century Act would require telecommunications and Internet service providers to be capable of decrypting, decoding, and preserving historic and real-time online and telephone communications, essentially creating built-in “back doors” for police interception. Some providers already have this capability, but they preserve information on their servers for different lengths of time depending on company policy. Some smaller providers do not have this capability at all, particularly certain ones in northern Ontario and Quebec, said Christopher Parsons, a doctoral candidate at the University of Victoria studying digital surveillance. Tom Stamatakis, president of the Canadian Police Association, said it is “very frustrating from an investigative perspective” when police obtain a court order to intercept communications, only to learn the relevant Internet service provider is technically incapable of digging up the communications data. The act would also give the RCMP and CSIS the authority to conduct background security checks on any employees who are involved in intercepting communications. Mr. Parsons said it is unclear whether the legislation will target anything more than the “low-hanging fruit” because savvy criminals will be able to evade authorities by encrypting their messages and sending them through several network nodes.


2. OBTAINING BASIC CUSTOMER INFORMATION WITHOUT A WARRANT Police could demand that telecommunications and Internet service providers turn over a customer’s name, address, telephone number, email address, and Internet protocol address — and they could do so without a warrant under exceptional circumstances. “When Internet service providers hear ‘exceptional circumstances,’ they hear ‘whenever (police) want,’” Mr. Parsons said. Michael Geist, chair of Internet and E-commerce Law at the University of Ottawa, said that sort of customer information could be linked with other bits of information to build a detailed profile. It can also be used to “out” someone using a pseudonym in an online chat forum. “All of a sudden, you go from ‘HoneyBunny14’ or ‘BlackAnarchist’ to ‘John Smith’ living at a particular address with a particular phone number,” Mr. Parsons said, adding that social activists are concerned police will use the provision to monitor people organizing legal protests or expressing dissent online. Beyond that, the target is not necessarily the only person using a particular Internet protocol address, so others could be inadvertently monitored at a later stage in the investigation. Mr. Stamatakis said this sort of additional power would be exercised to investigate only the most serious crimes, including child pornography, organized crime and terrorism. “The legislation recognizes the technology criminals are using today,” he said, echoing Mr. Toews comments earlier this month that the Criminal Code contains out-of-date language such as the word “telegraph.”

3. CREATING NEW POLICE POWERS TO OBTAIN COMMUNICATIONS DATA Without a warrant, police could make a “preservation demand” requiring telecommunications and Internet service providers to single out a customer and preserve for 90 days what Dwayne Winseck, a Carleton University communications professor who has studied the Internet for two decades, called “meta data.” So-called meta data is communications information generated during the creation, transmission or reception of a communication including the type, time, duration, origin, and destination of the communication. Police would then have to ask a judge for a “production order” to actually obtain the preserved information. Once police get the court order, they could, for example, find out who a person called on their cell phone, the duration of the call, and when the call was placed. Importantly, the proposed legislation excludes the actual content of the conversation. Once police have a copy of what they want, the service providers must destroy the information. The warantless provision is a welcome one, Mr. Stamatakis said, because it acts as a stop-gap measure while police work to obtain a warrant — a lengthy, labour-intensive process at times.

4. CUSTOMERS MAY NEVER KNOW IF, OR WHY, THEY WERE TARGETED The proposed surveillance legislation says authorities could prohibit telecommunications and Internet service providers from telling a customer that he or she was the subject of information disclosures. The potential cumulative effect of all this legislation, said Mr. Geist, is self-censorship: “What we’re creating is nothing like the Chinese firewall … but I think it could have a chilling effect in terms of people’s willingness to express themselves online, even if they’re not doing anything illegal.”

5. POSSIBLY INCREASED COSTS FOR CELL PHONE AND INTERNET SERVICE If telecommunications and Internet service providers are forced to upgrade their technology and train their staff to use it, then their capital and operating costs will inevitably climb. “Customers might end up paying the added cost for something that could be used against them at any time,” Mr. Parsons said, adding the requirement could also squeeze out smaller, cash-strapped providers.

6. TRACKING DIALED NUMBERS WITHOUT A WARRANT The proposed legislation would allow police to install and use number recorders without a warrant in “exigent circumstances.” A number recorder, which records the telephone numbers associated with outgoing and incoming calls, would be installed remotely by a telecommunications provider at their call centre hub. The installation can last up to 60 days, but it could be extended to one year if a warrant is obtained and if the investigation involves organized crime or terrorism.

7. COVERTLY ACTIVATING DEVICES TO TRACK CELL PHONES AND VEHICLES The proposed legislation brings police powers into the 21st century by tacitly acknowledging that vehicles and mobile phones — and therefore the people using them — can be tracked using GPS or cell towers. The Criminal Code currently says police can, with a warrant or without one in an emergency, “install, maintain and remove a tracking device in or on any thing, including a thing carried, used or worn by any person.” The proposed bill would extend that list to include the power to “activate” a device, “including covertly.” Mr. Parsons said this allows police to “take advantage of existing technologies,” and said he would not object to the provision if it ensured there would be court oversight.

8. OPENING THE DOOR TO “FISHING EXPEDITIONS” The legislation surrounding preservation and production orders would allow police to get information from telecommunications and Internet service providers based on “reasonable grounds to suspect” the information would “assist an investigation.” The existing Criminal Code does not offer a similarly vague suspicion, but rather stipulates “reasonable grounds to believe” an offence “has been or is suspected to have been committed” or that the information will “afford evidence respecting the commission of the offence.” Mr. Winseck said this opens the door for police to go on “fishing expeditions” and potentially “turns the relationship between the cops and (Internet Service Providers) into a routine one.”

… AND THREE MISCONCEPTIONS

1. HYPERLINKING TO HATE PROPAGANDA WILL BE CRIMINALIZED When the legislative summary of one of the bills surfaced saying “the offences of public incitement of hatred and willful promotion of hatred may be committed… by creating a hyperlink that directs web surfers to a website where hate material is posted,” onlookers criticized the bill as overly far-reaching. However, the actual bill makes no explicit reference to hyperlinking, instead expanding the definition of “communicating” hate material to include “making available.” It is true the vague definition of “communicating” could capture posting a link to another website, but a recent Supreme Court libel decision will likely quiet that fear: The judges decided unanimously this week that a person cannot be held responsible for what appears on a hyperlinked site.

2. POLICE WILL GET NEW POWERS TO LISTEN IN ON PRIVATE COMMUNICATIONS
The legislation does not extend police powers to intercept the actual content of private communications, for example what was said in a telephone call or written in an email. Mr. Toews has said those claims — put forward by online privacy activists — are a “complete fabrication.” Also, the Criminal Code already allows police to intercept private communications without a warrant, so long as the situation is urgent and the interception could prevent serious harm to a person or property.

3. INTERNET PROVIDERS WILL MONITOR ALL CANADIANS, ALL THE TIME
The government has been accused of embarking on warrantless online wiretapping where Canadians will be constantly monitored, but Mr. Geist said on his blog these charges amount to “political softball.” Yes, telecommunications and Internet service providers will need the capability to preserve information on all users, regardless of whether or not they are subject to an investigation. But those providers must only preserve and produce information relating to users who are actually targeted by police.

National Post kcarlson@nationalpost.com

Who here thinks YOU aren't being spied on ?

 Taken from WIRED
Which Telecoms Store Your Data the Longest? Secret Memo Tells All By David Kravets Email Author September 28, 2011 | 6:30 am |

________________________________________________________________

The nation’s major mobile-phone providers are keeping a treasure trove of sensitive data on their customers, according to newly-released Justice Department internal memo that for the first time reveals the data retention policies of America’s largest telecoms.

The single-page Department of Justice document, “Retention Periods of Major Cellular Service Providers,” is a guide for law enforcement agencies looking to get information — like customer IP addresses, call logs, text messages and web surfing habits – out of U.S. telecom companies, including AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile and Verizon.

The document, marked “Law Enforcement Use Only” and dated August 2010, illustrates there are some significant differences in how long carriers retain your data.

Verizon, for example, keeps a list of everyone you’ve exchanged text messages with for the past year, according to the document. But T-Mobile stores the same data up to five years. It’s 18 months for Sprint, and seven years for AT&T.

That makes Verizon appear to have the most privacy-friendly policy. Except that Verizon is alone in retaining the actual contents of text messages. It allegedly stores the messages for five days, while T-Mobile, AT&T, and Sprint don’t store them at all.

The document was unearthed by the American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina via a Freedom of Information Act claim. (After the group gave a copy to Wired.com, we also discovered it in two other places on the internet by searching its title.)

“People who are upset that Facebook is storing all their information should be really concerned that their cell phone is tracking them everywhere they’ve been,” said Catherine Crump, an ACLU staff attorney. “The government has this information because it wants to engage in surveillance.”

The biggest difference in retention surrounds so-called cell-site data.

That is information detailing a phone’s movement history via its connections to mobile phone towers while its traveling. Verizon keeps that data on a one-year rolling basis; T-Mobile for “a year or more;” Sprint up to two years, and AT&T indefinitely, from July 2008.

The document also includes retention policies for Nextel and Virgin Mobile. They have folded into the Sprint network.

The document release comes two months before the Supreme Court hears a case testing the government’s argument that it may use GPS devices to monitor a suspect’s every movement without a warrant. And the disclosure comes a month ahead of the 25th anniversary of the Electronic Privacy Communications Act, an outdated law that the government often invokes against targets to obtain, without a warrant, the data the Justice Department document describes.

“I don’t think there there is anything on this list the government would concede requires a warrant,” said Kevin Bankston, a staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation. “This brings cellular retention practices out of the shadows, so we can have a rational discussion about how the law needs to be changed when it comes to the privacy of our records.”

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) has proposed legislation to alter the Electronic Privacy Communications Act to protect Americans from warrantless intrusions. Debate on the issue is expected to heat up as the anniversary nears, and the Justice Department document likely will take center stage.

Give us your money AND we'll F@CK you over.....

Recently a man in the US tried to cash a cheque and for his troubles, he lost his freedom, his job and his car.

It seems that the IRS (the US taxman) had given this guy a home buyer rebate which these blood suckers (Chase Bank) then converted into a cashier's cheque.

Now unless you've been living on the dark side of the moon, you know that a cashier's cheque is as good as gold. Sure, you gotta show a ton of ID to prove you're the payee but once that's established, you get your funds. 

Well, that's exactly what this guy did. He handed over his drivers license and a credit card proving his identity, that the cheque was his, it was his money, being cashed in the bank that issued the cheque to him in the first place etc..etc..etc..

Well, for reasons still unfathomable to any rational person, he was charged with trying to pass a bad cheque and was thrown in jail. Now while in jail, he obviously couldn't go to work and so he got fired from his job. His car, which had been sitting in the bank's parking lot was seized by the bank, towed away and auctioned off (over a weekend it seems) so now he's got no car. To top it all off, the bank has yet to apologize for any of it's actions. 

But I bet that somewhere on an American TV there's an ad from this freakin' bank claiming that they love their customers and want you to deposit with them...

I hope that this man sues the living bejesus out of them. I mean for MILLIONS. I want to see his ordeal highlighted on CNN, FOX and MSNBC !!

This guy lost his freedom, his livelihood, his vehicle and these blood sucking parasitical cocksu@kers can't even muster up a "whoops, my bad..." ? Then again, his name is Ikenna Njoku which in the USA seems to be enough to suspect him of something...afterall, you just can't trust them........

SHAME !! 

(full story here)

Peter Tosh would've loved this......"Leagalize it....."

I'm not a pot smoker though I did inhale (a LOT !!) in high school and beyond. Nowadays I prefer to get stupid with a scotch on the rocks or a cold beer. That being said, it's "high" time that lawmakers begin to realize the idiocy of lengthy jail terms for simple marijuana possession. I'm not advocating wholesale pot distribution, in fact, I think it should be treated exactly like alcohol, sold in the same stores, taxed and subject to quality controls but...this is a step in the right direction when it comes to recognizing the evils of weed vs. say meth or crack.

After a lengthy debate, the state House of Representatives gave final legislative approval to a bill that decriminalizes the possession of small amounts of marijuana.

The vote was 90 to 57 in favor and came after a spirited discussion that stretched on for nearly five hours.

The bill now goes to Gov. Dannel P. Malloy, who immediately hailed its passage and pledged to sign it when it reaches his desk.

“Final approval of this legislation accepts the reality that the current law does more harm than good — both in the impact it has on people’s lives and the burden it places on police, prosecutors and probation officers of the criminal justice system,” Malloy said in a statement emailed to reporters moments after the vote was tallied.

“Let me make it clear — we are not legalizing the use of marijuana. In modifying this law, we are recognizing that the punishment should fit the crime, and acknowledging the effects of its application. There is no question that the state’s criminal justice resources could be more effectively utilized for convicting, incarcerating and supervising violent and more serious offenders,” Malloy said.

Read more in the Hartford Courant

The asylum is being run by the lunatics...(Canadian Law Review)

Here in Canada we recently had an election where the incumbent party (insert Darth Vader theme) won but this time with enough votes to form a majority government. Now I'm not going to bore you with my usual diatribe about politics or the evils of putting pinheads in office. By now you're either in full agreement with me OR you're numb to my rantings.

BUT......One of the platform centerpieces of our new majority Conservative party is to start spending more on our prisons. Now crime rates have actually been dropping but the grand pubah in Ottawa is convinced that we need to lock more people up in order to make our streets safer. Forget the fact that his solution is expensive, unnecessary, unneeded, unwanted etc...He's convinced that we need more of our population behind bars for whatever offences exist on the books. Soooo....let's have a look at some of those offences that will result in either a fine or possibly incarceration here in our glorious Canada.

National Law

• Every fifth song on Canadian radio must be by a Canadian born citizen.

• You may not pay for a fifty-cent item with only pennies.

• Citizens may not publicly remove bandages.

• No one in Canada may watch or listen to an encrypted broadcast which is not licensed by the Canadian government. This means using US satellite systems such as "DirecTV" is illegal.

• It is illegal for clear or non-dark sodas to contain caffeine.

• It is illegal to kill a sick person by frightening them.

• It is illegal to pretend to practice witchcraft.

Alberta

• Wooden logs may not be painted.

• You may never use dice to play craps.

• Businesses must provide rails for tying up horses.

• If you are released from prison, it is required that you are given a handgun with bullets and a horse, so you can ride out of town.

• In Calgary, it is unlawful to throw snowballs or set off firecrackers within the city, without the authorization of the mayor or City Council.

• All bicycle riders must signal with the arm before making a turn, and a bicycle rider must keep both hands on the handlebars at all times" in Edmonton.

British Columbia

• It is illegal to kill a Sasquatch.

• A law requires jailers to bring convicted debtors a pint of beer on demand.

• Anyone interrupting a meeting of the British Columbia Grasshopper Control Committee can be arrested.

• In Burnaby all dogs must be under control by 10 pm or the owners will be penalized.

• You are not allowed to wear a bathing suit while "loitering, playing or indulging in a sunbath" in any park or on the beach in Victoria.

Manitoba

• A by-law forbids anyone from striking the sidewalk with a metal object in Winnipeg.

• In Winnipeg, it is against the law to go naked in your own home if you leave the blinds up.

New Brunswick

• Driving on the roads is not allowed.

Nova Scotia

• When raining, a person may not water his/her lawn.

• In Halifax, no citizen is allowed to chop wood on the sidewalk.

Ontario

• It is illegal for children to eat ice-cream cones on the streets on the Sabbath in Ottawa.

• Theater owners are forbidden to start a movie that will end after 2 am in Toronto.

• You are not allowed to saw wood on the streets, or wash your automobile in Toronto.

• The speed limit is 80 kph for cars, but bicyclists have the right of way.

• Bylaw states that no more than 3.5 inches of water is allowed in a bathtub.

• If you have a water trough in your front yard it must be filled by 5:00 a.m

• The color of house and garage doors is regulated by city bylaws (a purple door get you a fine).

• It is also illegal to have a clothes line in your backyard.

• You can't work on your car in the street.

• It's illegal to climb trees.

• You can't drag a dead horse down Yonge Street in Toronto on a Sunday.

• You are not allowed to play a musical instrument in a park in Windsor, Ontario.

Quebec

• It is illegal to turn right on a red light at any time.

• All business signs in the province of Quebec must be in French. If the business operator wishes to have English on the sign, the French must be at least twice as large as the English is.

• It is considered an offense to have more than two colors of paint on your house.

• You may not own a log cabin.

• "For Sale" signs are not permitted in the windows of moving vehicles.

• One's rear license plate may not be protected by glass or plastic.

• You may not swear in French.

• Citizens may not relieve themselves or spit on the street.

• In Canada, It is illegal for a teen to walk down main street for Fort Qu'Appelle with their shoes untied.

Saskatchewan

• It is illegal to try and catch fish with your hands in Saskatoon.