Canadian gov't: you have no expectation of privacy on the Internet

Discuss

74 Responses to “Canadian gov't: you have no expectation of privacy on the Internet”

  1. Takuan says:

    perhaps American companies can be barred from selling to Canada
    http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/06/deep-packet-inspection/

  2. Ugly Canuck says:

    Like the ‘greater international co-operation” bit mentioned by digitaljournal. Share the wealth, eh?
    No prizes for guessing which countries are pushing for this…

  3. Ugly Canuck says:

    In Canada, most firearm deaths in situations of domestic crises are commonplace: as they are in the USA.

    You want a gun? Do you have a girlfriend/wife against whom you may wish to use it?
    Are you or have you ever been treated for suicidal thoughts or depression?

    Guns are dangerous.
    To go about armed, in times of peace, is savage, barbarous, and is and ought to be, outlawed in all civilized counties, in populated areas – but not of course in that country, which has started by invasion two land wars in Asia in the past ten years, and has a proxy war now commencing in Pakistan.

  4. Ito Kagehisa says:

    Ugly Canuck quoth:

    And who but a mentally ill person or psycho would need a gun, in a 21st Century city?

    Who but a mentally ill person or psycho would live in a 21st Century city?

  5. boingaddict says:

    It’s really easy to drag dirty laundry from newspapers, same can be done with material about US and i somehow i get the feeling Canada would still come up on top with the amount or rights and liberties being retained.

  6. Ugly Canuck says:

    Bah. Most firearm deaths occur in a domestic context in Canada: by a partner, or by suicide. The Registry is to give responders an idea of what they may expect should they be called to a domestic disturbance. As in Britain, where knife control is well under way.
    Unlike others, I see no good reason why people should go about armed. Unless your “media” have convinced you that its “insane” to ban handguns, and has closed your ears to discussion. An Article of faith, as set out by the US Constitution. Nothing more, and actually harmful to civilized society in the 21st century.

    It’s an American issue, like abortion: sought to be brought into the Canadian context by 1980′s era right-wingers envious of American right-wing’s dominance in the American “noosphere”….

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noosphere

  7. Anonymous says:

    Apreche #1, what the hell are you talking about?

    I use SSH and HTTPS extensively, and I absolutely do have expectation of privacy. The technological problems are reasonably solved at this point. Haven’t you bothered to learn PKI? Would you drive a car without understanding refueling and oil changes?

    Any “lack of privacy” is caused by fascism and/or technical incompetence. It’s not a built-in, necessary part of the Intartubes.

  8. Takuan says:

    the same people who wasted $2,000,000,000.00 (so far) on a gun registry doesn’t work – beyond pissing off honest people – now want to start an internet registry. What? you think they won’t keep ALL the records?

  9. Ugly Canuck says:

    In fact, if this Government were serious about “tackling” the real crime they purport to be “tackling” – child abuse – instead of mandating the means of mass surveillance, and taxing us via our ISPs for it, and reducing any Judicial oversight of these searches to mere window-dressing, they ought to institute and fund a proper national day-care program.
    Together with the already-existing duties upon child-care providers to report any symptoms of child abuse, this would do more to prevent and to stop actual child abuse, than uncounted police man-hours spent surfing and catching pedos/pervs catching mostly, AFAIK, “second-order” offenders, – “consumers”, rarely “creators” – but still “distributors”, if they use torrents, and hence worthy targets of both investigation & punishment/treatment, a position of the Law with which I entirely agree. I am also aware of how such behavior may progress to worse offenses, if not interrupted in a timely way.
    Yet, they ask for too much: would not more Judicial Officers serve to speed the processing of the Warrants? Must the rights of the citizen be diminished and curtailed so? Is the evil, aimed at by this measure, so great and pressing that the present tools, properly applied, would not serve as well or better, with less impairment of our rights?
    Child abuse is a serious evil: but this casts the net too wide: and there are better ways, ie national subsidized child care for all Canadian children – which would achieve much better results as to the exposure and cessation of actual child abuse.
    I understand from the ladies that such a program would also be good for other reasons.
    But this Government would rather spend money to investigate & punish, than educate & enlighten.

  10. Anonymous says:

    Many posters here, and the interviewed minister, are confusing what is meant by “privacy”. The issue is really *anonymity*, and that is what many people expect on the Internet.

    Anonymity on the Internet is important to protect, since it encourages freedom of speech, the voicing of opinions that would otherwise be suppressed if authorities had unfettered access to identity information.

  11. coffeemoon says:

    Are you guys still using the blink tag?

    Despicable.

  12. Takuan says:

    despicable for the despicable

  13. Ugly Canuck says:

    Just a last pop-in to say: Happy Canada Day!!

    As to this wiretap bill: it’s unconstitutional on its face.

  14. Apreche says:

    He’s exactly right. There is no expectation of privacy on the Internet. It’s not a matter of law, morals, or policy. It’s just a matter of reality. If you type information into a box and send it off to someone else’s computer, you have absolutely no control over who will see or spread that information elsewhere. Your privacy is entirely defendant on how much you can trust the technology, the network, and the party you are giving the information to.

    The fight for privacy is the same as the fight against p2p file sharing. There’s no way that copyright holders can stop sharing. They can fight it and slow it, but they can’t beat it. Likewise, the only thing that is private is what you keep in your mind. Anything else can or will be shared. What’s worse, eventually we’ll have mind-reading machines. Then there will be no privacy whatsoever.

    Don’t get me wrong, I would very much like for there to be privacy. I’ve just come to the realization that it’s a lost cause. I think we are better off trying to think of ways to live in a world without privacy than trying to fight against the inevitable.

  15. Ugly Canuck says:

    Yes: today we celebrate the birth of our Charter of Rights & Freedoms.
    Here’s a song for ya, eh?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTqKQR3VQI8

  16. Ugly Canuck says:

    I tell ya, they want what the GOP has set up stateside (and which the Dems – the same people – will continue) : perhaps the Americans who opined that Canadian civil liberties are “too strong” for the “War on Terror” to be fought “effectively” back in 2002 were correct.

    I point out that if there were no laws outlawing the mere possession of Child Porn, there would be no information, of any type, which the mere possession of would ground criminal charges! Far less the expense and trouble of widespread and indiscriminate State surveillance of the internet!

    I am convinced that that Law, outlawing the mere possession of child porn, was passed solely to gain police and government access to what otherwise would simply not be justifiably accessible to them, at all: what particular bits of information their citizens are viewing/sharing on the internet. The manufacture and distribution of these vile materials has ever been illegal: but the recent (1989) outlawing of its mere possession was and is a way to get the State’s (ie policeman’s)”foot in the door” – and the whole body is now following.

    So how many well-paid fully-pensioned taxpayer-funded police officers are we paying full police salaries to, to sit in the dark and troll the net for who may be viewing “dirty pictures”? And what else are they remarking and noting (all in secret) about people’s web surfing?
    Think their “political masters” could find any of that info useful in “governance”?

    Does the mere fact that child porn exists in this world justify the removal of (or the installation of the tech means to quickly remove such) ALL personal privacy on the internet?

    Removing the people’s expectation of privacy on the Net, by using people’s justified outrage at child pornography as its basis! – and were the mere possession of this material not illegal, you would not be subjected to regular press reports of people getting lengthy prison terms for looking at pictures and having dirty thoughts. That is, people would not be afraid of freely using the Internet. There is a chilling effect…

    Using the Internet exposes people now to the risk of losing their liberty (eg prison for possession of drawings of underage sex – or even prose describing such!).

    Prior to the outlawing of the possession of child porn – there was NO WAY TO BE IMPRISONED FOR THE MERE POSSESSION OF INFORMATION.

    It’s not about protecting children-it’s about treating their citizens as children: under full surveillance at all times in the information realm – to prevent/subvert political developments which could otherwise occur. (IMHO, that’s the Gov’s real aim here – if they wanted to protect children, there are more cost-effective ways, eh?)
    Shall this Governemnt-obtained info as to our internet use be open to the public? Will we all get to see what everyone else is viewing? Or is it only the neo-con “security” apparatus, now in full flower with the ongoing wars in Asia that the USA has started of late, which gets to “use” this data? To help to achieve their “aims”? How? For effective “targeting” of their “message”?

    Welcome to Camp X-Ray, extended throughout the US/Canadian body politic. They want to know everything you do: you might have dirty thoughts!!
    And not just about children….

  17. Telecustard says:

    When they do finally have mind reading machines, a handy way to stymie them is to hum an original tune to yourself in your head. Then, when they present evidence in court of your thoughtcrimes, you can at least use the same evidence to sue them for copyright violation.

    The only problem is if your brain is stuck playing the theme to “Jeopardy” that day.

  18. Anonymous says:

    Could we please invent something similar to Godwin’s Law for any time a politician trots out “think of the children” to trample personal freedoms? I’m really tired of this.

  19. Ugly Canuck says:

    Apreche: This is about the Governemt, and what they can do. Just because you may not have privacy vi-a-vis your ISP and others, does not mean your Government can join in. Governments are directly bound by Bills and Charters of Rights.
    And the Gov here is directly creating the condition of “lack of privacy”, not responding to it. My guess is that with effort, one can make one’s web use impenetrable to all but those able to force your ISP to cough up your account logs – if they keep them. Otherwise, why the need for this proposed Law, at all?

    Without my ISP’s help, tracking my surfing may or may not be a trivial exercise – but that hardly removes my general expectation of privacy.

    Indeed, unlike the USA, where the anti-abortion people are dead set against the recognition of any right to privacy at all, in Canada the right to privacy is built-in to our right to the security of the person, in our Constitution.They can get around this if certain conditions are met – but they cannot meet them in this case. The child-porn possession law barely survived Court scrutiny…

    Summary: The Government can by its own action, laws and regulations make the internet a non-private space. But it is no part of their legitimate function to do so. And the child porn possession law is a legal ruse: otherwise, the Gov has zero right to shoulder surf ANYBODY – regardless of how private or otherwise that surfing may in reality be.

  20. Anonymous says:

    I guess the RCMP would never abuse the right to get a warrantless wiretap either. Only 200 times since 2004.
    http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/06/26/police-emergency-wiretaps.html

  21. Takuan says:

    people get the government they deserve.

  22. tarabrown says:

    As much as I love and miss Canada, our government has never been in tune with the needs of the people, its like they perpetually live like we are still ruled by a monarchy.

  23. Ugly Canuck says:

    Registry, shmegistry.
    This article ain’t about guns equaling freedom – what is it with you Americans?
    You want a firearm in Canada? Apply for and receive a Firearms Acquisition Certificate. The “Registry” was a miserable compromise: and has become a red-meat Tory red herring.
    Because nobody, but nobody, in Canadian public life is suggesting that the requirement that one apply for and obtain an FAC prior to being able to purchase a firearm legally be revoked.
    In fact, mandatory heavy minimum sentences for the use of guns in the commission of crime are the ONLY crimes for which Canadians support mandatory minimums. We see all too well how guns and their easy availability have ruined American civic life for so very many people. We shall learn from your mistakes…
    Gun control is here in Canada to stay, pardner…and it makes for a country in which little people breathe freer, and the cops need less deadly force to (mis)use to do their jobs.
    Gun control is simply good public policy: something Americans seem to have struggled with achieving of late.

  24. Ugly Canuck says:

    It’ll be a cold day in hell before the “Reformed Reform” Party forms a majority government in this country. But the right-wing media (particularly the print media) are working on the thermostat…
    Of course, the “born in the 80s” right-wing Liberals are doing all they can to make the Reformers look like an cedible “alternative”: starting with the removal of Jean Chretien, as part of the “War on Terror”….and now just going along with this present Gov, in everything they do: gee, the Liberals would not want them out of power, now, would they? [They say that (horrors!!) we would have to have an election! Heaven forbid!!]. Of course, the departing leader Martin decreed that no Leadership contest would take place, until the Conservatives had been in Office at least a year – would not want to harm the neo-cons’ interests, eh, Paul?
    Just look at the manner of the right-wing Libs appointment of a pro-war pro-torture American even before the Party members had a vote!! Just to prevent their Party from comiong to power!! Kinda like Obama: another “Liberal” who just happened to pop up AFTER the neo-cons had got their War on, and got their surveillance started….and who wasn’t anywhere on the radar before say 2001.
    But our “mass media” , after leading us off to war, then led us to Obama and Ignatieff.
    I guess those right-wing Libs thought that there were no Canadians from the Liberal Party of the eighties/nineties suitable for their plans available, so they brought in an neo-American and a much-hated neo-Liberal ex-Socialist (who by his policies paved the way for the neo-con Ontario government of Mike Harris – who used to enjoy his canoeing trips with GW Bush Senior! While the latter was just an “ex-President”…), who just happened to be the neo-American’s college room-mate! Kinda like Kerry & Bush both being Skull & Bones…what a co-incidence!!), apparently passing over an entire generation of Liberal politicians, to move to the right: particularly when it comes to “security policy”…

    Bah. Our political parties are and have become mere window-dressing: America wants to war with the Muslims of Central Asia , and want our diplomatic cover, and our troops in that battle: and our freedoms have gotta go.

  25. Takuan says:

    are you being deliberately obtuse to evade the point?

  26. Takuan says:

    lessee.. what are they burying lately..
    http://olympicresistance.net/

  27. Ugly Canuck says:

    Firearms have nothing to do with liberty or freedom. They have to do with power: taking others’ freedoms & liberties AWAY. A pure negative.
    Odd that those who would boast of their freedom need to be so well-armed to do so…
    Historically, the individual right to bear arms or guns has played zero role in preserving Americans’ “freedoms” – except in Big media created myths & lies.

    And Tak: the internet (which after all is the topic here, not Canuckian gun control nor the tenets of American national/state faith & worship) is harmless, and guns are not. Does that not make a difference?

    Getting back off-topic, I for my part see no advantage to the exercise of my liberties and freedoms in the grant to people with psychological disorders the free right to firearms. I see much the contrary….because you know, I am my government, at some level…And who but a mentally ill person or psycho would need a gun, in a 21st Century city? And note well: if I can be assured that most of them are not armed because of the difficulty of getting such arms, I do not feel the need to arm myself.

    What the hell? Cars are licensed: so too with firearms. What’s the problem?

  28. Moriarty says:

    “Your privacy is entirely defendant on how much you can trust the technology, the network, and the party you are giving the information to.”

    It’s not that your wrong, per se, but isn’t that a bit like saying your privacy in your own home is entirely dependent on how much you trust the thickness of your walls, the opacity of your drapes, etc.? As in, it might be impossible to completely guarantee privacy, but it doesn’t follow that we have to make it ok to intentionally violate it. The concept of a search warrant for a private home seems directly analogous.

  29. Takuan says:

    knowing what is leaking as it is leaking is a bureaucrats dream
    http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/2009/06/30/federalcourt-almrei.html

  30. entropyred says:

    I have to sign a disclosure form to allow my former high school to see my university grades, but anyone in the RCMP should be allowed to look up my name, address, and telephone number whenever they feel like harassing a young female? Canada’s privacy laws exist for a reason.

  31. Takuan says:

    and what do they do when they actually already HAVE information?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_India_Flight_182

  32. JT Montreal says:

    Hmm, while I consider myself an anglo, and am generally a die-hard federalist, the longer the Conservative Reform Alliance Party stays in power, the more of a separatist I become.

    Maybe just convince everyone east of Winnipeg to join us.

  33. Thebes says:

    And yet, if you see a COP doing something you don’t like, IN PUBLIC, and you video tape them… in some nation’s you are now a “terrorist” and in most others you are “suspected of terrorism”.

    If you have done nothing wrong you have nothing to fear- unless you are one of the privileged leaders then you get all the damned privacy you want~!

  34. Anonymous says:

    There’s no privacy on the Internet because that’s how it was designed. It is not, as comment #1 suggests, a fundamental property of reality. It is possible to overlay truly private networks on top of the Internet.

  35. Ugly Canuck says:

    Well Tak at least this stuff makes the papers up here!!

    But the Reform Party has American neo-cons as their inspiration (as did their previous incarnation as “The National Citizen’s Coalition”, formed to defend private ownership of Canada’s energy (particularly oil) resources: and perhaps something more, considering Harper’s visits with VP Cheney, while Harper was a mere opposition leader.

    Had he been meeting at the time with the VP of China, I bet there would have been more discomfort and suspicion as to the role of foreign influence on this particular Party. I mean, they installed a Republican Party operative in the Office situatued between our Ambassador and our security liasons in our washington Embassy, for Christ’s sake!! That looks like being close to treason to me: or super-sloppy “security”. Although the Americans like it, no doubt!
    The USA is yet a foreign power to us. But not, it would appear, in the eyes of our present Gov.

  36. Ugly Canuck says:

    But Tak, in contrast to the USA, we do have a explicit constitutional right to privacy: and our aboriginals and women are also explicitly guaranteed equality,( and in addition for aboriginals, inequality if it is for their benefit: the Constitution has much to say in their regard!) – again, in contrast with the USA. I remember how the ERA went in the USA….but we’ve got one!!
    In Canada, those “Indians” are members of the First Nations: and that makes them special. Does the US Gov recognize the sovereignity of its Native American tribes?
    We also in contrast to the USA legally forbid hate speech – which makes war a tougher sell hereabouts. In the US, hate speech is honored, it seems.

  37. Anonymous says:

    Van Loan is WRONG. Dead wrong. The laws we have on the books in Canada clearly delimit as personal information ALL of the information he describes as not being personal information. This man has no idea what laws exist to protect citizens, despite a post in public safety. It’s unreal. Van Loan, do your homework; you are utterly wrong, out to lunch on this. Look at the law of the land. Respect it and back away from this absurd proposal.

  38. Ugly Canuck says:

    Oops, I meant “protected”: it’s too valuable to let die, eh?

  39. Takuan says:

    these are the people Canadians want looking over their shoulders?
    http://www.rcmpwatch.com/

  40. mshow says:

    Anyone catch the name of the Canadian case the host mentions? Sounds like Vasek or Vasik…

  41. Ugly Canuck says:

    Indeed, was it not a Conservative/Reform ex-Justice Minister, or ex-Justice critic, an ex-RCMP “law & order” type, who was subsequently disgraced & forced to withdraw from public life , for having used his position while yet a cop to sexually harass a fourteen-year-old aboriginal girl?

    I tells ya, this particular Government is not the Government to trust with expanding police powers in any way: especially when they use emotionally-charged sexually-hysterical “reasons” for such, while operating in a tech sphere (regulation of the Net) which the vast majority of Canadians don’t understand. And IIRC not taken any comments or hearings before coughing this Bill up!

    Their heart’s not in the right place, to put it simply.

    Suspicion is a rotten rotten basis to issue Search Warrants – as there is no reasonable way for a Judge to refuse one! For how can a suspicion, a mere suspicion, be held to be either unreasonable or reasonable? The Judge is reduced to rubber-stamping the police assertion: “We suspect”. There’s nothing else to determine before these “Net Warrants” must be issued or granted, it seems.
    These “warrants” they propose are not real warrants – they are “New Order Tory Warrants”, not given upon the traditional standard of reasonable belief, but upon the mere assertion of the existence of police suspicion.
    They call this “modernizing the Law for the Internet”, rather than “emasculating the protections against despotism in the Constitution for political convenience”….

    OTOH suspicion, though a rotten basis to mandate the issue of search warrants, is an excellent reason for voting for another political party!

  42. Takuan says:

    humphh. Listened to a bit, what these nazis are saying is that they will catch any criminals that are so clever they use their real names and talk openly about their crimes – at the expense of the privacy of every single other Canadian.

    Mark my words: this is about suppression of political dissent.

  43. Takuan says:

    @22
    I suspect:
    http://thetyee.ca/Views/2009/06/30/CampbellWatergate/

    This case entails the crooks on top selling a public railroad to friends for a song, framing some flunkies and then deleting four years of emails to hide their tracks. Quite the commentary on the simpletons that live in that province that they just gave the goniff another term. Yes, there are Canadians stupid enough to have voted for Bush three times.

  44. urbanspaceman says:

    Apreche – As frightening as the mind-reading devices now in the works machines might be, it’s the possibility of ones that would use the same technology to pump thoughts into peoples’ brains that scare the fecal matter outta me.

  45. Ugly Canuck says:

    The fact is the cops need work, to justify their ballooning budgets (up 50% during the past 5 years, in the face of a drop in crime).

    Hence: new fiercer marijuana laws, more web time for the cops looking for “child molesters” (good luck with that – more like looking for people looking at dirty pictures), new offenses to go after people for (got a Operator’s Permit for that canoe?), harsher penalties all around (they seize your car on the spot if you go 50km/hr over the speed limit – no Court required anymore! If you grow any marijuana, they seize your house! In effect, a $200,000 fine, for growing plants! Just for fun, try to find cases other than pot growing where such a level of fine has otherwise been exacted – not even major corporate crimes get close! And they are now proposing six months mandatory prison time, to boot!)

    Gee will police budgets ever decrease? Or slow in the rate of growth? Or are they just aping the military guys stateside? Because my tax bill keeps growing too.

    Did the USA abandon the gold standard in 1972 because in was convenient for your military spending to do so? As your GDP shrinks, how quickly is the Mil Spend part of your budget growing? If such spending is steady, a 10% drop in GDP = a 10% increase in milspending, relative to the rest of the economy. So military spending is in fact growing faster now than ever….no wonder the US economy has been tanking for thirty years. Oh right: just for the average Joe – the very rich have had a great time. How “democratic” is that?

    This dove-tails with their “let’s make-work for our cousins and contributors – let’s privatize prisons so we have a new source of private funding for pro-prohibition groups”: prisons which will be owned by their political contributors…and who love (and will lobby for) ever-tougher mandatory minimum sentencing laws, for ever-more easy tax-payers’ money. Like in the USA.

    Tax dollars supporting useless and socially harmful imprisonment, rather than the citizenry’s health, liberty & happiness. What good governance!!

    Of course, to be effective “governors”, they require the ability to pinpoint anyone who complains on the internet about them or their policies…

  46. Takuan says:

    once again: two billion bucks flushed down the toilet for something that doesn’t work is an example of why the Canadian government (excuse me, MINORITY government) shouldn’t be trusted with sharp things or a Government Critic Internet Registry. The long gun registry is a FAILURE. A good indicative EXAMPLE. It would matter if were a hippy freak registry, it’s a flop and like anything else they do, a miserable, expensive flop.

  47. Ugly Canuck says:

    I do not understand how big media can depict horrific crime in sickening gory detail in order to make money “entertaining” people with the depiction of such crimes – and yet the mere possession (never mind creation and distribution for profit) of the depiction of this particular crime not only grounds severe penalties, but is used to justify massive and extensive violations of people’s right to privacy. Which in turn may be used by big media to “protect” the use of its depictions of horrific crime…crimes much more severe and horrible in their real-world effects than mere child molestation, never mind just looking at pictures of crimes.

    I say ban all ‘recreated depictions” of crime, or ban none. If it records the actual crime (as child porn usually – but not always – does) it is evidence – but the mere possession of pictorial evidence is not a crime in any other instance, now is it? It always requires something more.

    What can I say? The effects of a law outlawing the possession of child porn appears to be worse than the evil complained of. Kinda like harsh marijuana laws.

    But not from the policeman’s/despot’s point of view.

  48. Capissen says:

    Cory, your use of the blink tag is masterfully appropriate.

  49. Ugly Canuck says:

    Remember that in Canada, adult women porno stars who look like they are under 18, can ground a charge of possession of child porn! You know, young ladies playing ‘baby-doll’….is this the evil they are aiming at?
    Or indeed: 17-year-olds may legally pose for Dutch Playboy – but the possession of that magazine in Canada gets you on the Sex Offender Registry.
    How just is that?
    Oh well this Gov does not want people to be comfortable with their attraction to other people, until they have first checked the ID card for a date of birth. People will just have to modify their natures, in response to the Goverment’s decree, that not just child molestation, but that pedophilia (ie being sexually attracted to pre-pubescent children) in itself, is a criminal offense: and the slightest evidence of such will get you prison time, and registered as a sex offender, and barred from the internet for life.

    Convenient that this crime is capable of falsification, like drug crime, by the planting of evidence. Oh well, that’s “crimes of possession” for you: they require very little indeed in the way of a “guilty mind” or “vicious will”, to get your ass kicked into jail by those in authority.

    As an aside, what is it with these right-wing authoritarians and their pre-occupation with sex, almost a type of sexual hysteria?

  50. Takuan says:

    OFFENCES AND PUNISHMENT

    INFRACTIONS ET PEINES

    Misleading statements and information

    54. No person shall do any of the following things in performing any obligation under this Act or in any application, declaration or report made under it:

    (a) knowingly make a false or misleading statement or knowingly provide false or misleading information; or

    (b) knowingly omit to state a material fact or to provide material information.

    54. Il est interdit, dans le cadre de l’exécution d’une obligation prévue par la présente loi ou dans une demande, un rapport ou une déclaration faits sous son régime :

    Fausses déclarations

    a) de faire sciemment une déclaration fausse ou trompeuse ou de fournir sciemment des renseignements faux ou trompeurs;

    b) d’omettre sciemment de mentionner un fait important ou de fournir des renseignements importants.

    Offence

    55. Every person who wilfully contravenes subsection 6(1) or (2), any of sections 8 to 11, an order made under subsection 14(1) or any regulations made under paragraph 64(1)(a) commits an offence and is liable on prosecution by summary conviction

    (a) in the case of an individual, to a fine not exceeding $100,000; or

    (b) in any other case, to a fine not exceeding $500,000.

  51. Takuan says:

    cripes , READ this thing (#8 above), it really IS Bill C-47, Registration and Control of Government Critics and Other Traitors to the Crown.

  52. Ugly Canuck says:

    No Anonymous, not anonymity: we expect privacy.
    The internet is in no way a public space: it is machine-to-machine: hence, always private. One must take positive actions to see ANY content: unlike shop windows, you cannot just “wander by”: and the cops have to ‘break-in’ to take alook-see what’s passing between intended-recipient-machine-to-intended-recipient-machine…Thus, as it is private, the interference and monitoring which the State may undertake needs to comport with this private nature: or it’s a violation of justice, of the security of private communications, in every instance.
    They must need have a proper search warrant, based upon the reasonable belief that a crime or crimes are being, have been, or will be committed.
    The same privacy I expect with mails, library reading lists, pharmacy lists, credit card spending, I expect with my internet habits: for there is no valid justification for the powers being sought.
    The “cyber-space” metaphor now leads to the natural , but false, extension: “cops patrolling cyber-space”. Perhaps people ought to be more careful with their metaphors.
    And as to “no expectation of privacy on the Net”: is that what Amazon, the Banks, and all the commercial ventures on the Net, especially the credit card cos., say? Is that how the ISP’s sell their e-mail systems, or software designers their collaborative bizness wares?
    That there are predators, and those trolling for access to info that they ought not to have, on the internet goes without saying: that my Government should seek to join these predators and criminals in intercepting and perusing private information is nothing less than shocking.
    As to protecting children, if that’s what punishing people who possess downloaded “child porn” does, it would appear that the present laws suffice quite well, judging from the steady media reports of people being arrested for possessing and distributing (hi bittorrent!) child porn.
    The proposed changes – particularly the relaxation of the Warrant requirements – would be IMHO an unreasonable infringement of our right to security: as the speculated gain for law enforcement does not commensurate to the scale of the rights which would actually be infringed.
    Presently, IIRC, the internet = telecoms, as far as getting wiretaps go: that’s how it is, and that’s how it should remain.

    “Cops patrolling cyberspace”! Where’s the “idiot-metaphor-extension-prevention squad” when ya need them? Cops ought to be investigating crimes, not surfing the net…grumble grumble grumble…

  53. Takuan says:

    easiest way to neutralize a political enemy is a sex charge.

Leave a Reply