by Sarah Allan
Last night, I had intended to go to the premiere and panel discussion down at W2 titled “(Un)Lawful Access” and watch the video by the same name and hear an impressive panel of speakers give their opinions on the Conservative Government’s latest ‘Lawful Access’ Bill which threatens to rob Canadians of their privacy online, but unfortunately life got in the way and I couldn’t attend… SO instead I watched the event via livestream online! And I’m glad I did, because what I learned is important in ways I hope you’ll be able to articulate and tell your friends about after reading (and watching) this…
During the last election, the Federal Conservatives vowed to pass ‘cyber-surveillance’ legislation within 100 days of coming to power. They argue that the police and intelligence agencies require expanded powers in order to surveil and access people’s personal information online in order to keep pace with criminals utilizing new technologies. The impacts of this legislation would be substantial and far-reaching, and would change the relationship Canadians have with the internet in potentially irreversible ways.
This legislation:
- would allow police AND intelligence agencies on-demand access to your personal subscriber data when investigating crime or when otherwise carrying out their police duties and functions;
- does not require agents to obtain a warrant or any judicial approval to gain access to this information;
- does not require agents to report on what information is collected or what it is used for; and
- requires Internet Service Providers (ISP’s) to install surveillance technology within their network in order to collect and provide that data when requested.
To sum it up, the police or intelligence agencies would be able to decide they want to know what you’re doing online, and wouldn’t need to ask anyone for permission to get it, nor tell anyone what they are doing with it, and your ISP will have to give it up.
The panel discussion consisted of 4 experts on issues of privacy, civil liberties, and surveillance issues and represented a range of interests, all speaking out against the Lawful Access legislation.
Elizabeth Denham, British Columbia’s Privacy Commissioner, opened the floor by stating that the changes proposed by this legislation represent “THE most challenging issue facing Canadians and their privacy today.” She expressed 3 main concerns that are shared by Privacy Commissioner’s across the country:
1) Lack of evidence – The Conservative’s have provided no evidence to support their claim that police are ill-equipped to combat crime in this country;
2) Absence of limits – the legislation does not restrict obtaining subscriber data to the investigation of certain severe crimes, so it can be used for any infraction on the basis of “reasonable suspicion”; and
3) Warrantless access – the permission of a judge, dependent on police making a case for why they want to access your personal data, is not required
Micheal Vonn, Policy Director of British Columbia Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA), introduced the BCCLA’s new report – “Moving Toward a Surveillance Society: Proposals to Expand ‘Lawful Access’”, and identified several themes that run through the legislation that we should pay attention to. She noted a general lowering of the evidentiary standard required to justify an invasion of someone’s privacy; greatly expanded purposes for which information can justifiably be accessed; and a lack of provisions to ensure accountability.
Ms. Vonn raised (and answered) two other important questions: 1) who are the potential targets of this legislation; and 2) where does all this information go? As the legislation not only gives police expanded powers but also intelligence agencies, the targets of internet surveillance will likely include Environmentalists, demonstrators, those who question or criticize the government, First Nations people, Muslims, Students and anyone who associates or sympathizes with them. Remember the G20? And where the information ends up should come as no surprise, of courses, the United States, who, due to our countries signing of the Perimeter Security Agreement, will be free to do with it as they please.
Chris Parsons, PhD. Student, authour of the blog ‘Technology, Thoughts, and Trinkets’ and participant in the Transparency Project, explained that the information this legislation will allow access to includes anything that identifies the communication, excluding the words (the who, when, how). This data can then be tracked and compiled with other surveillance to come up with a detailed profile of you, who you associate with, when you do and where you go and what you do on the internet. Now I’m not that techno-proficient, but if I understand all that correctly, I’m a bit scared.
Dr. Kate Milberry, the producer of ‘(Un)Lawful Access’ with a doctorate in Communications from SFU and writer of the blog ‘Geeks & Global Justice‘ closed by noting that a lot of people think that privacy is dead in this digital age with blogs, facebook, pages of photographs online, check-ins and so forth, but in reality, these things make us value our privacy even more and give us more reason to protect it, and I agree.
So what do these experts recommend? Greater consultation and research before forcing this legislation through, evidence-based decision-making and justifications for infringement on our right to privacy and built-in reporting requirements for police and intelligence agencies to force them to demonstrate what data they used, for what purposes and how often these investigations lead to convictions. Let’s see if the government listens!
The less privacy we have, the more we need to protect what’s left.
Similar events are coming up in other cities in Canada so keep an eye out and be there! (or watch the livestream 
OTTAWA February 8, 2012 —> https://www.facebook.com/events/273497419366894/
Find out more and do something to protect all of our privacy, because once it’s gone, it could be gone forever:
Sign this petition:
Watch this panel discussion here:
http://www.livestream.com/w2media
