Pubdate: Mon, 10 Jul 2006
Source: Vancouver Sun (CN BC)
Copyright: 2006 The Vancouver Sun
Contact:  http://www.canada.com/vancouver/vancouversun/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/477
Author: Ian Mulgrew

BELL'S MOVE TO MONITOR US AN OMINOUS PORTENT

Fears Of Corporate Information Fishing Arise As Internet Providers 
Take Steps To Monitor Users' Online Activity

We should be concerned about the erosion of our civil liberties in 
the post-9/11 world and the very real Big Brother-style monitoring of 
our Internet activities.

The Canadian Bar Association has long argued lawmakers went too far 
in the wake of the World Trade Centre strikes and did not build in 
enough checks when they gave law-enforcement agencies greater powers 
ostensibly to combat terrorism.

Still, when Canada's largest Internet service provider, Bell 
Sympatico, amends its service agreement with customers to create an 
environment of institutionalized cyberspying on behalf of the 
government, we're entering a whole other realm.

Bell three weeks ago told its customers it's reserving the right to 
monitor, collect and on request provide to police a list of every 
site you visit and every keystroke you type while connected.

Other ISPs have or are expected to follow suit.

Civil rights and privacy activists are concerned because they see 
this as a signal Ottawa is planning to introduce legislation that 
goes even further than the offensive Liberal bill, the Modernization 
of Investigative Techniques Act, which died with the old government.

Brian Tabor, president of the Canadian Bar Association, last week 
wrote to cabinet decrying Bell's move as an ominous portent.

The association, which represents about 36,000 members of the 
country's academic and professional legal community, is especially 
concerned about lawyer-client communications that move over the Net.

Solicitor-client privilege is considered a cornerstone of our legal 
system and is obviously at risk.

"This seems to be introducing a corporate or industry content 
monitoring scheme, without the necessity of prior authorization or 
oversight," Tabor wrote.

"The current initiative by ISPs appears significantly more intrusive 
than the previous legislative proposal."

The Halifax lawyer said the bar wants assurance from Ottawa this kind 
of information-fishing won't be done without a court order.

That's one of the nuances here -- private companies can often do 
things without being subjected to scrutiny and public oversight the 
government can't.

That's why the Bush administration uses civilian contractors for work 
it doesn't want subjected to accountability laws that apply to the 
military or government agencies.

I have always agreed with the bar association that Ottawa delegated 
too much power to law-enforcement and national security agencies 
without enough oversight in the name of keeping us safe.

Forget about the constitutional abuses of Dubya and Co. south of the 
border -- our own agencies are using these badly drafted laws to 
avoid scrutiny, trample on citizens' rights and cover up misconduct.

Even Shirley Heafey, former head of the RCMP Commission for Public 
Complaints, has beaten the drum since stepping down last October that 
we're headed down a very nasty road.

We've got police and their agents blithely breaking laws with impunity.

We've got people who have been held in jail in Canada for years 
without trial or disclosure.

We've got more secret proceedings under way in this country than you 
can count. In most cases, there is no way for reporters to even learn 
what is happening save by accident.

When pressed on misbehaviour, the regular official stance is to 
stonewall and deny, deny, deny.

Or better yet, as they do down in Washington, D.C., officialdom 
self-righteously insinuates the media are being disloyal and giving 
succor to the enemy by raising such issues.

In this particular case, during discussions about the new cyber-space 
law, officials characterized the proposals as simply updating current 
investigative powers to recognize technological realities.

Instead, we are seeing signs that the measures will have much broader 
scope and potentially much more profound impact on Canadians' privacy.

Like the bar association, I do not believe these measures are necessary.

Worse, they mock accountability and obscure what should be in a 
democracy transparent -- the working of justice and government.

After watching Prime Minister Stephen Harper cozy up with the 
president, however, I suspect such concerns will get short shrift.

After all, as the law-and-order set likes to say, if you have nothing 
to hide, you have nothing to worry about.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Beth Wehrman