Police seeking wider eavesdropping powers

[Praxius]

CTV.ca | Police seeking wider eavesdropping powers

Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair is calling on Ottawa to reform wire-tap legislation amid growing concern that modern technology is making it tougher to gather intelligence on criminals and terrorists. Blair is urging lawmakers to ease the job of investigators by forcing cellphone and Internet companies to co-operate with the authorities. **The Toronto chief stressed that authorities are asking for "lawful access" to communication devices and records rather than warrant-less eavesdropping.** "It becomes very challenging for the law enforcement community dealing with organized crime and national security threats to gather the evidence we need within that regime of judicial authorization in order to conduct our investigations," Blair told Canada AM on Wednesday. "What we're asking for is that people responsible for bringing these new technologies online would share some of that information to make it accessible to us with a judge's permission." Blair raised the issue Monday while testifying before the Air India inquiry. "Before the police community could intercept anybody's communication we have to get judicial authorization," Blair said. "There is a very strict regime that requires us to present evidence and to be able to demonstrate that we have tried every investigative means that is not likely to succeed or has failed before we get the authorization to intercept anyone's communications." The issue has pitted law enforcement against privacy advocates, who are fearful of Big Brother's powers, for years. John Lawford of the Public Interest Advocacy Centre told Canada AM on Wednesday that the lawful access debate has been going on since 2002. He said past consultations with law enforcement agencies have revealed a desire to lower the standards for obtaining a warrant to "something less than reasonable belief, something more like a suspicion." "Then it's going to invite things like profiling large groups and just running a large wire tap on all of them or an Internet tap and just seeing if something shakes out," Lawford said. The former Liberal government introduced legislation in 2005 that would have made it easier for law enforcement to eavesdrop on text messages and voice communications by removing technological impediments to the investigative process. The bill, which died in the Commons when Liberal prime minister Paul Martin's government was toppled, also would have forced Internet service providers to disclose intelligence deemed useful in tracking network users. The Harper government has been consulting industry groups about the issue, The Canadian Press reports. Blair estimates that if a similar bill is passed it will allow police to compete technologically with organized criminals and terrorist groups utilizing cutting-edge communications equipment. "Organized crime and terrorist groups quickly utilize these technologies and it takes months -- even years -- for us to catch up and keep up so we're asking for some help from the industry itself to make these new technologies more accessible to us so we can do the job that we're judicially authorized to do," he said.

Although they were careful to point out this is not the same "Warrentless Eavesdropping" as used in similar countries, It doesn't sound all that appealing regardless.

[Osborn F Enready]

All I can say Prax is fight it before the corrupt bastards get it voted in.

Once they vote it in, the job gets exponentially tougher to repeal. Learn from the mistakes in the U.S.

[Praxius]

Well the previous Liberal Government was going to basically pass something similar to what the US is currently using.... but they lost power and the Conservatives kinda broke that plan.

At this stage I see the Conservatives "have been consulting industry groups about the issue." ~ Which to me still isn't completely reassuring, but at least they are taking time to see what's all involved and making an informed decision....

At this point I have no real grounds to dispute the requests until I actually hear what the Conservatives are proposing. I acknowlege the police do require to be kept up to date with technology, so long as it does not interfeer with freedoms and liberties of the citizens.

I am personally sketchy on where this will be going based directly on what has occured in the US, but I require further details on how they plan on approaching this situation before I can say it's going to be sucky or not.

[Zeebadee]

I totally agree with Os. This is merely the camel trying to get his nose into the tent.

[Dieval]

Damn corrupt police trying to do their job and get "'lawful access' to communication devices and records" to do their job.....how dare they!

[Milton Bradley]

Well, this is not restricted to Canada, as this peice aired on Frontline last night.

FRONTLINE: home | PBS

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Praxius CTV.ca | Police seeking wider eavesdropping powers Although they were careful to point out this is not the same "Warrentless Eavesdropping" as used in similar countries, It doesn't sound all that appealing regardless.

I suspect that most Canadians, like most Americans, are stupid enough to fall for it!

Anytime government seeks to erode liberties even a little bit is cause for alarm.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Dieval Damn corrupt police trying to do their job and get "'lawful access' to communication devices and records" to do their job.....how dare they!

If you want to live in a police state where you have no liberties and the police can do whatever they want when they want, feel free to emigrate to Cuba or some similar country.

[Praxius]

Well regardless if most of us are stupid enough or not, Whatever the Conservatives do end up planning, the four other political parties in Parlament have to also approve it, as the Conservatives so not have a majority to pass any of their bills on their own.

And many of the other parties will find anything they can to shoot the conservatives down and pump themselves up, so if there is anything that infringes on our rights in this country, with any luck, they'll jump all over it, make it public and make anything that goes against our current freedoms and rights difficult to pass.

If not, well then there's always revolution.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Praxius Well regardless if most of us are stupid enough or not, Whatever the Conservatives do end up planning, the four other political parties in Parlament have to also approve it, as the Conservatives so not have a majority to pass any of their bills on their own. And many of the other parties will find anything they can to shoot the conservatives down and pump themselves up, so if there is anything that infringes on our rights in this country, with any luck, they'll jump all over it, make it public and make anything that goes against our current freedoms and rights difficult to pass. If not, well then there's always revolution.

A little revolution now and again can be a good thing.

[Arawn-ap-Hywel]

Quote by: Praxius If not, well then there's always revolution.

I very much doubt that anyone cares enough to be sufficiently revolting

[Dieval]

Quote by: Chancellor If you want to live in a police state where you have no liberties and the police can do whatever they want when they want, feel free to emigrate to Cuba or some similar country.

But that's not what we're talking about here. The police want "'lawful access' to communication devices and records" to do their job. The problem there is....??

[another day]

Quote by: Dieval But that's not what we're talking about here. The police want "'lawful access' to communication devices and records" to do their job. The problem there is....??

THE PROBLEM IS THEY WANT TO CHANGE THE LAWS TO MAKE IT LAWFUL...

[Osborn F Enready]

Dieval said: But that's not what we're talking about here. The police want "'lawful access' to communication devices and records" to do their job. The problem there is....??

PRIVACY OF THE INDIVIDUALS!!

Security does not take precedence over privacy, unless there is an IMMINENT THREAT.

[Dieval]

Quote by: another day THE PROBLEM IS THEY WANT TO CHANGE THE LAWS TO MAKE IT LAWFUL...

What they want is -

Quote by: article "What we're asking for is that people responsible for bringing these new technologies online would share some of that information to make it accessible to us with a judge's permission."

[Dieval]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready PRIVACY OF THE INDIVIDUALS!! Security does not take precedence over privacy, unless there is an IMMINENT THREAT.

And just how do you determine if there's an "IMMINENT THREAT" if you don't have access to how these people are communicating? I'm not saying they should have access to everything all the time, but when it's next to impossible to get access to information that can help them find people that want to do harm to their country...isn't that a bit anti-productive?

[Autolykos]

Quote by: Dieval What they want is - Quote by: article "What we're asking for is that people responsible for bringing these new technologies online would share some of that information to make it accessible to us with a judge's permission."

That is the description for:

Quote by: article Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair is calling on Ottawa to reform wire-tap legislation

As Another Day so bluntly yet eloquently stated, this amounts to changing the laws to make it "lawful".

In this day and age, "lawful" is defined however the State wants to define it. Do you see a problem with this?

- Rob

[Osborn F Enready]

Dieval said: And just how do you determine if there's an "IMMINENT THREAT" if you don't have access to how these people are communicating?

Hahahah.... nice...

The authorities don't need "access" unless there is otherwise PROOF of an imminent threat.

They have no right to monitor private calls, e-mails or any other private conversation except through BS Laws created through judicial activism.

This is Canada we are speaking of though, so, it's not like as a Canadian I would have much stance on individual rights in law.

Good thing I am not Canadian.

Dieval said: I'm not saying they should have access to everything all the time,

Really? It sure seems that way.

Dieval said: but when it's next to impossible to get access to information that can help them find people that want to do harm to their country...isn't that a bit anti-productive?

Depends on what you value more, the police state, or privacy.

Without privacy or individual rights, there isn't much to protect.

[Dieval]

Quote by: Autolykos In this day and age, "lawful" is defined however the State wants to define it. Do you see a problem with this? - Rob

So, what do you suggest? Continue to let technology out-pace the authorities? Let the criminals use the most advanced forms of communications because it's extremely hard for the police to catch them? Don't YOU see a problem with this?

[Dieval]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Hahahah.... nice... The authorities don't need "access" unless there is otherwise PROOF of an imminent threat.

How did you come up with "immient threat"? Is that in their laws or are you just making it up as you go along?

Quote by: Osborn F Enready They have no right to monitor private calls, e-mails or any other private conversation except through BS Laws created through judicial activism.

Um, you miss the point that calls and emails are NOT private to begin with.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Really? It sure seems that way.

No, it doesn't. It sounds like they want to go through a judge to be able vew records, emails, etc, similiar to how it works here.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Depends on what you value more, the police state, or privacy. Without privacy or individual rights, there isn't much to protect.

Your police state references are getting old. Canada and the US are not nearly the police states you imagine...

As for privacy, again, I realize that emails and phone calls already aren't private...you seem to have a misguided illusion of privacy..