Pubdate: Mon, 29 Aug 2005
Source: Chronicle Herald (CN NS)
Copyright: 2005 The Halifax Herald Limited
Contact:  http://www.herald.ns.ca/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/180
Author: Dan Leger
Note: Dan Leger is assistant managing editor of The Chronicle Herald.

NEW SNOOPING LAW: BIG BROTHER ON THE RIDEAU

WHAT HAS politics done to Irwin Cotler? A renowned lawyer and human-rights 
activist, Cotler was recruited in 1999 as a star Liberal candidate for a 
byelection in Pierre Trudeau's old riding of Mount Royal, in Montreal. By 
2003, he was the federal justice minister and attorney general of Canada, a 
job which makes him both Ottawa's lawyer and the guardian of the public's 
legal interests.

Cotler's credentials were impeccable. He had represented prisoners of 
conscience such as Andrei Sakharov and Nelson Mandela. He had taken on 
cases touching every section of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, arguing 
for sometimes-unpopular positions on free speech, freedom of religion, 
women's and prisoners' rights. He had travelled the world as a human-rights 
campaigner and legal expert.

That's why it's so discouraging for anyone passionate about civil rights to 
see Minister Cotler propose legislation giving the state vast new powers to 
spy on citizens. The bill, expected this fall, will bring crime-fighting 
into the Internet age. But it also will hand police and government agents 
new tools that can be used to snoop, pry and potentially trample the 
privacy rights of Canadians.

Cotler argues that current laws on wiretapping and surveillance were 
designed in the 1970s, when the Internet, cellular phones and encrypted 
communication didn't exist. The new measures, he suggests, will do no more 
than bring Canadian law up to speed with the new environment.

But hard questions must be asked about whether police really need any new 
powers and whether what Cotler proposes represents an unwarranted threat to 
individual liberties. Let's not forget that the government already has 
sweeping powers to intercept communications, search private homes and 
computers and monitor people's behaviour. Warrants are required from a 
judge, but it's pretty unusual to have a warrant denied when there's any 
real evidence of a crime being contemplated or committed.

This so-called "lawful access" bill will give police and government 
agencies new powers to eavesdrop, monitor computer and Internet use, mine 
data from computer systems and tap into personal and business e-mails and 
other forms of electronic communications.

It will also require telecommunications and Internet providers to keep 
extensive records on their clients' online activities and set up what 
amounts to an open window on their clients' private communications. Most 
worrying of all, some of these new powers can be exercised without 
warrants, stripping away a vital safeguard of both personal privacy and a 
time-tested check on the powers of the state.

Michael Geist, a University of Ottawa law professor and expert on new media 
issues, wrote recently that this provision gives cause for concern.

For instance, one provision would require Internet service providers to 
disclose information on subscribers virtually on demand. Geist points out 
that law enforcement agencies could make that demand "with only a phone 
call under certain circumstances. No judicial oversight. No advance 
paperwork. No privacy."

Geist sees little to like in a law that could be used for much more than 
fighting terrorists.

"Not only does the proposal . . . create new surveillance powers, but it 
actually reduces the level of privacy protection and oversight associated 
with that surveillance," he wrote.

Canada's privacy commissioner, Jennifer Stoddart, also is deeply concerned 
about the new law and questions whether it is needed at all. While 
acknowledging that the government is proposing to build in some safeguards, 
she argues they are not enough.

"Given the significance of this proposal, we do not think that the proposed 
safeguards are adequate," she wrote in a submission to the justice 
department in May.

Stoddart argues that a specific justification should be given for each 
surveillance or interception request, and that only a limited number of 
senior police officials be allowed to snoop on private communications. 
Stoddart is not alone in her concerns about the proposed new bill. The 
privacy commissioners of Ontario and British Columbia have both called for 
measures to protect individual privacy and prevent abuses.

Everyone acknowledges that Canada's laws should keep pace with the times. 
Government must have the means to combat terrorists and international crime 
gangs. But that doesn't mean police agencies, tax collectors and federal 
agents should be given an electronic carte blanche to stomp on basic 
freedoms that every Canadian has the right to expect.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Elizabeth Wehrman