16-Bit Last Supper »« A traditional girl comic book pose, redrawn to make a point

Anonymous turns their attention to Canada’s internet snooping bill and Vic Toews (updated)

Ho-leeee shit. Anonymous is after Vic Toews now. They’ve released information about Vic Twenty’s mistress in retribution for bills C30 and C11.



Anyone see any corroborating info about this Stacey Meek character?

While I’m not a huge fan of fighting fire with fire, Anonymous has an excellent point — every scrap of outrage someone might have over strangers obtaining and disseminating personal information for their own personal gain should be turned inward, against the internet snooping bill and all it entails.

The Conservatives are most assuredly not the proper stewarts of information. They’ve eviscerated the census and scrapped the long gun registry not out of concerns for privacy, but because they’re afraid of more liberal parties getting their hands on them, and yet they see no problem with governmental warrantless instant real-time snooping of every packet of information being transmitted on the internet, including all personal information the ISP has on them. Via backdoors, so the ISPs probably won’t even need to be involved.

That Anonymous could do this research and discover his current mistress without this level of access is impressive. Imagine what the government will be able to do with the same level of effort. And don’t pretend they aren’t capable of getting this information with the current checks and balances that exist in the form of needing to obtain a warrant.

Hat tip to den1s from the last post.

Update:

Also relevant is this video:

Additionally, VeritasKnight emailed the government and got this form letter in reply.

From: [email protected]>
Date: Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 12:43 PM
Subject: RE: Bill C30
To: [VeritasKnight]

Dear [VeritasKnight],

Thank you for contacting our office regarding Bill C-30, the Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act. Minister Toews appreciates you would take the time to write him regarding this important issue. I have included recent communication in which he addresses those concerns:

Canada’s laws currently do not adequately protect Canadians from online exploitation and we think there is widespread agreement that this is a problem.

We want to update our laws while striking the right balance between combating crime and protecting privacy.

Let me be very clear: the police will not be able to read emails or view web activity unless they obtain a warrant issued by a judge and we have constructed safeguards to protect the privacy of Canadians, including audits by privacy commissioners.

What’s needed most is an open discussion about how to better protect Canadians from online crime. We will therefore send this legislation directly to Parliamentary Committee for a full examination of the best ways to protect Canadians while respecting their privacy.

For your information, I have included some myths and facts below regarding Bill C-30 in its current state.

Sincerely,

Cheri Elliott

Executive Assistant | adjointe exécutive Office of the Hon. Vic Toews, P.C., Q.C., M.P. | Bureau du L’Hon. Vic Toews, c.p., c.r., député M.P. for Provencher | député de Provencher Room 306 Justice Bldg. | Pièce 306 Édifice Justice Telephone | Téléphone (613) 992-3128 Facsimile | Télécopieur: (613) 995-1049 [email protected]

Myth: Lawful Access legislation infringes on the privacy of Canadians.

Fact: Our Government puts a high priority on protecting the privacy of law-abiding Canadians. Current practices of accessing the actual content of communications with a legal authorization will not change.

Myth: Having access to basic subscriber information means that authorities can monitor personal communications and activities.

Fact: This has nothing to do with monitoring emails or web browsing. Basic subscriber information would be limited to a customer’s name, address, telephone number, email address, Internet Protocol (IP) address, and the name of the telecommunications service provider. It absolutely does not include the content of emails, phones calls or online activities.

Myth: This legislation does not benefit average Canadians and only gives authorities more power.

Fact: As a result of technological innovations, criminals and terrorists have found ways to hide their illegal activities. This legislation will keep Canadians safer by putting police on the same footing as those who seek to harm us.

Myth: Basic subscriber information is way beyond “phone book information”.

Fact: The basic subscriber information described in the proposed legislation is the modern day equivalent of information that is in the phone book. Individuals frequently freely share this information online and in many cases it is searchable and quite public.

Myth: Police and telecommunications service providers will now be required to maintain databases with information collected on Canadians.

Fact: This proposed legislation will not require either police or telecommunications service providers to create databases with information collected on Canadians.

Myth: “Warrantless access” to customer information will give police and government unregulated access to our personal information.

Fact: Federal legislation already allows telecommunications service providers to voluntarily release basic subscriber information to authorities without a warrant. This Bill acts as a counterbalance by adding a number of checks and balances which do not exist today, and clearly lists which basic subscriber identifiers authorities can access.

From: [VeritasKnight]
Sent: February 21, 2012 10:26 PM
To: Toews, Vic – M.P.
Cc: Harper, Stephen – P.M.; Rae, Bob – M.P.; Angus, Charlie – M.P.; Andrews, Scott – M.P.; Cotler, Irwin – M.P.; Sandhu, Jasbir – M.P.; Turmel, Nycole – Députée; MacKay, Peter – M.P.
Subject: Re: Bill C30

Dear Minister Toews,

I’d like to voice my concern about the Government’s intent to pass Bill C30, or as it is known, the Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act. As a Canadian citizen who uses the Internet, I am supremely concerned that the Conservative government is interested in co-opting my Charter rights for the ease of prosecution. While titled to be defending children from Internet predators, the actual bill’s language refers only to general situations. We have no assurances that the rights co-opted by your government shall be used only in the situations suggested in the rationale. Perhaps there is only the greatest of intentions with this bill, but you are surely aware of what the proverbial road to Hell is paved with.

My Charter rights are very simple. They state that “Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.” This has meant, historically, that in order to obtain my personal records and documentation, the Government of Canada must prove to a judge that they have a legitimate merit in doing so: aka, you have to get a warrant. This has also been extended to corporations; once again, the Government of Canada must prove they have a legitimate merit in obtaining property or information from a company, such as an Internet service provider. The McLaughlin Court has consistently ruled in favour of the individual against the Government in these situations, and it is certainly not outside the realm of reason to suggest that Bill C30 is blatantly unconstitutional.

Canadians do not have a long tradition of Constitutional rights like our southern neighbours, but we do have a long tradition of avoiding government interference. You claimed this moral high ground when dismembering the long gun registry earlier in your administration, but you ignore it now when it comes to the Internet. Minister Toews, the Internet is speech, and speech must be free. It is no business of yours, Mr. Harper, Ms. Turmel, Mr. Rae, or any other politician what happens on someone’s computer or over the Internet, unless a Canadian law enforcement agency can make a compelling case to a judge that it should be. I must insist that you remove Bill C30 from consideration.

I have CC’d Messrs. Harper, Rae, Angus, Andrews, Cotler and Sandhu, Mrs. Turmel, as well as my local MP, Mr. MacKay, as I feel this matter is of great import and should be addressed by all parties.

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,
[VeritasKnight]

Does anyone else see the Myths/Facts as “Myth: bad things! Fact: rainbows and puppies!”? Check out Michael Geist’s summary and see who’s wrong.

Comments

  1. F says

    Fact: This proposed legislation will not require either police or telecommunications service providers to create databases with information collected on Canadians.

    No, they’ll just do it anyway. It isn’t stated that police or telecoms are required not to keep databases. And databases are candy for criminals.

  2. Arain says

    I go this form-letter response when I emailed him. It is of course total bullshit propaganda. That this particular bill is supposedly not directed at more detailed information is essentially irrelevant. There were the I think 3 different bills, c-50,51, 52, and c-30 is the reincarnation of only one of them. Plus in any case privacy invasion like this quickly avalanches as they can then read all your forum posts, facebook information etc knowing exactly who really posted them etc. etc. plus they will use this as a stepping stone to even more invasive mass surveillance. It gives them an excuse to start building the infrastructure etc. which is easily repurposed later.

    The only reasonably reliable and solid thing that holds the government back from engaging in even more mass surveillance is the economics. The cost per person of surveilling needs to be and remain high, higher than it is. No labor saving devices like less warrants etc. should be tolerated unless explicitly justified, and then not until we have a more democratic government.

  3. Fionnabhair says

    Well, yay on Anonymous for fighting against this horrible bill, but I think that releasing the name and other information about Ms. Meek crossed a line. That was a gross violation of her privacy, along with the privacy of others named in the video. You can go after Toews and this bill without sinking to their level.

  4. mikelaing says

    Fact: The basic subscriber information described in the proposed legislation is the modern day equivalent of information that is in the phone book. Individuals frequently freely share this information online and in many cases it is searchable and quite public.
    So, because individuals ‘frequently’(whatever that means) choose to do something, and sometimes do it publicly, this is a basis for treating all internet presence as intent to be publicly accessible?

    Talk about your non-sequitors! Next thing the CPC will claim is that because some people view themselves in the mirror in their bathrooms, it means everyone is entitled to view them in the bathroom.
    I would like to see Anonymous target John Baird just to see him blow a fuse in Question Period, KMAO!

  5. says

    I’d like to know what “freely share their details” means in this context. I’d suggest it’s just by knowing that web servers log IP addresses — therefore, by going somewhere online, you’re freely sharing your personal information, because the ISP knows how to connect your personal “phone book” information to your IP and therefore where you’ve been on the internet.

    In other words, you’re freely sharing your personal information by using a service that requires you wear a tracking bug everywhere you go.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>