Posts Tagged ‘Internet’
Canada’s Soon-To-Be Introduced “Lawful” Access Legislation
The first prong mandates the disclosure of Internet provider customer information without court oversight. Under current privacy laws, providers may voluntarily disclose customer information but are not required to do so.
The second prong requires Internet providers to dramatically re-work their networks to allow for real-time surveillance. (without court oversight)
The bill sets out detailed capability requirements that will eventually apply to all Canadian Internet providers. These include the power to intercept communications, to isolate the communications to a particular individual, and to engage in multiple simultaneous interceptions.
Moreover, the bill establishes a comprehensive regulatory structure for Internet providers that would mandate their assistance with testing their surveillance capabilities and disclosing the names of all employees who may be involved in interceptions (and who may then be subject to RCMP background checks).
Having obtained customer information without court oversight and mandated Internet surveillance capabilities, the third prong creates a several new police powers designed to obtain access to the surveillance data.
These include new transmission data warrants that would grant real-time access to all the information generated during the creation, transmission or reception of a communication including the type, direction, time, duration, origin, destination or termination of the communication.
Law enforcement could then obtain a preservation order to require providers to preserve subscriber information, including specific communication information, for 90 days. Finally, having obtained and preserved the data, production orders can be used to require the disclosure of specified communications or transmission data.
An OPENSOURCE film about copyright, teenagers & internet.
Director / Writer: Julio Secchin
Producer: Luiz Felipe ‘Moe’ Couto
Cinematographer: Daniel Venosa
Assistant Director: Rodrigo Vasconcellos
Art Directors: Maya Dikstein & Laura Shalders
Costume Designer: Maria Catarina Duncan
Editor: Felipe Peres & Vincent Zoidberg, A.C.E.
Original Titles Design: Níkolas Pereira
Art Property Producer: Gabriel Cabral
Art Director Assistants: Livia Travassos & Manoela Medeiros
Original Music & Sound Design: Bernardo Uzeda
Sound Recordist: Diogo Valentino
1st Camera Assistant: Guilherme Rezende
2nd Camera Assistant: Marcelo Pizzato
Still Photographer: Gabriel Secchin
Additional Photography & Camera Operation: João Atala, Diego Quinderé, Lourenço Monte-Mór, Gabriel Mariani, Guilherme Rezende & Marcelo Pizzato
Special Effects: Equipe M
Continuity: Manuelle Rosa
Make-up Artist: Isabela Arêde
Casting: Rodrigo Vasconcellos & Duda Gorter
Assist. Production: Emerson Mendes, Nathalia Melo & Leonardo Batista de Brito
Set Manager: Rafael ‘Torah’ Silva
Gaffer: Danilson Souza Costa
Additional Gaffer: Baianinho
Best Boy Electric: Bartô
Starring: Pedro Ramôa, Gustavo Berriel, Rafaella Buzzi & André Ramiro.
Featuring: Marcello Biju, Guilherme Bellem, André ‘Fofo’ Chaves & Gabriel Frazão
Special thanks to Andre Camara
India was rounding up opposition to the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) and that it wanted to stop the deal from being made outside of existing international institutions. This week, it made good on its promise to object.
The new standards envisioned by ACTA “could short-change legal process, impede legitimate competition and shift the escalated costs of enforcing private commercial rights to governments, consumers and taxpayers,“ said an Indian representative at the World Trade Organization. “They also represent a systemic threat to the rights of legitimate traders and producers of goods, and fundamental rights of due process of individuals.” (arstechnica)
Thank you India for finally revealing the true purpose of ACTA.
ACTA corporate and media participants will give up almost everything else wrong with ACTA if they can shift the burden of enforcement onto the shoulders of government (you). Not only do they want to completely control who does what at any given moment with their copyrighted material but they want the your government to enforce their copyrights using your tax dollars!
The Toronto Star: The push for new Internet surveillance capabilities – dubbed the “lawful access” initiative – dates back to 1999, when government officials began crafting proposals to institute new surveillance technologies within Canadian networks that would include additional legal powers to access surveillance and subscriber information. Over the past decade, lawful access has stalled despite public consultations, bills that have died on the order paper, and even a promise from former public safety minister Stockwell Day to avoid mandatory disclosure of personal information without court oversight.
Last June, current Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan tabled the latest lawful access legislative package. Much like its predecessors, the bill establishes new surveillance requirements for Internet service providers. In an about-face from the Day commitment however, it also features mandatory disclosure of customer information, including name, address, IP address, and email address upon request and without court oversight.
Lawful access has long faced at least two significant barriers. The first involves ISP costs associated with installing new equipment and responding to disclosure requests. The government has attempted to address those concerns by promising to help pay the bills. It plans to provide some funding for new equipment and, in a little noticed provision, has opened the door to paying ISPs for providing customer name and address information to law enforcement authorities.
The second barrier involves lingering questions about the need for lawful access. Critics have pointed to the fact that Canadian law enforcement has successfully used the Internet in hundreds of investigations, including a high-profile Toronto terrorism case. Moreover, the law already grants ISPs the options to disclose customer’s names and address information.
I do not understand how the government seems to think that individual connections to the Internet which are made in our homes and well behind the long standing and legally accepted demarcation barrier with other telecommunications providers are not PRIVATE connections. We have to push back hard on this absolutely bizarre Tory notion that incorrectly promoted the idea that Canadians accept no privacy while using the Internet.
There is a huge difference between a lower expectation of privacy while suing the Internet and allowing the government to track and record your movement on the Internet WITHOUT a court order.
And it’s NOT about terrorism folks. Recent revelations from a US Senate subcommittee clearly demonstrate the the sneek and peak provisions in the US Patriot Act were virtually NEVER used in terrorism cases but rather drug enforcement cases.
The Justice Department made 763 requests for “sneak-and-peek” warrants in 2008, but only three of those had to with terrorism investigations, Sen. Russ Feingold told a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Wednesday.
And law enforcement legislation that does not require court oversight is unconstitutional and WILL ALWAYS be abused by a sitting government. History continues to prove this fact time and time again!
Toronto Star: As the commission weighs the various claims, it would do well to consider testimony it heard a few months ago during the February new media hearings. The issue in those hearings was whether Internet service providers should face a levy to fund new media or be required to prioritize Canadian content. (The CRTC declined to do both in its decision released last month.)
Interestingly, the same telecom and cable companies that will now argue that managing their networks is essential offered a somewhat different take when confronted with the prospect of doing so in the name of supporting Canadian content.
For example, Shaw Communications Inc.’s network-management submission states “traffic management is necessary to ensure that Shaw’s customers continue to have access to fast, reliable and affordable service.” It adds the “traffic shaping process uses deep packet inspection (DPI) technology to identify packets that are associated with P2P file-sharing applications and to slow those packets down, limiting the amount of available capacity P2P traffic consumes.”
Yet, when CEO Jim Shaw was asked about the prospect of identifying traffic during the new media hearings, he told the commission, “we can only tell you how many bits are coming in or out. We don’t know what kind of bit it is. It could be anything from an email to a porno. We don’t know that. We spend no time trying to figure out what bits are going to your house. We just don’t know.” (Unless it’s P2P traffic then they throttle it down)
So what’s the story morning glory? (:
The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just round the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power.”
– George Orwell, 1984
Michael Geist: The (Canadian) Government has taken another shot at lawful access legislation today, introducing a legislative package called the Investigative Powers for the 21st Century (IP21C) Act that would require mandated surveillance capabilities at Canadian ISPs, force ISPs to disclose subscriber information such as name and address, and grant the police broad new powers to obtain transmission data and force ISPs to preserve data. It is pretty much exactly what law enforcement has been demanding and privacy groups have been fearing. It represents a reneging of a commitment from the previous Public Safety Minister on court oversight and will embed broad new surveillance capabilities in the Canadian Internet.
This proposed legislation is so far over the top it almost defies description. To suggest that any government needs this level of unfettered access to private information WITHOUT court oversight is absolutely ubsurd. Further, to suggest that it will ONLY be used when required and ONLY for the purposes stated is just plain BULLSHIT! This legislation MUST NOT PASS!