{"id":13638,"date":"2012-02-19T11:36:05","date_gmt":"2012-02-19T16:36:05","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/?p=13638"},"modified":"2012-02-19T11:36:05","modified_gmt":"2012-02-19T16:36:05","slug":"toews-didnt-even-know-what-was-in-his-own-proposed-legislation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/2012\/02\/19\/toews-didnt-even-know-what-was-in-his-own-proposed-legislation\/","title":{"rendered":"Toews didn&#8217;t even know what was in his own proposed legislation"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>In an <a href=\"http:\/\/www.cbc.ca\/news\/canada\/story\/2012\/02\/18\/pol-thehouse-vic-toews.html\" target=\"_blank\">interview with the CBC<\/a>, Public Safety Minister Vic Toews reveals that he hasn&#8217;t actually read or understood his own bill:<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>In an interview airing Saturday on CBC Radio&#8217;s <em>The House<\/em>, Toews said his understanding of the bill is that police can only request information from the ISPs where they are conducting &#8220;a specific criminal investigation.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>But Section 17 of the &#8216;Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act&#8217; outlines &#8220;exceptional circumstances&#8221; under which &#8220;any police officer&#8221; can ask an ISP to turn over personal client information.<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;I&#8217;d certainly like to see an explanation of that,&#8221; Toews told host Evan Solomon after a week of public backlash against Bill C-30, which would require internet service providers to turn over client information without a warrant.<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;This is the first time that I&#8217;m hearing this somehow extends ordinary police emergency powers [to telecommunications]. In my opinion, it doesn&#8217;t. And it shouldn&#8217;t.&#8221;<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p>As was detailed in a recent post on the <a href=\"http:\/\/blog.privacylawyer.ca\/2012\/02\/hidden-gag-order-in-bill-c-30-aka.html\" target=\"_blank\">Canadian Privacy Law Blog<\/a>, Bill C-30 is riddled with nasty little booby traps, including a provision that prevents your ISP from telling you that your information has been given to the police (or other &#8220;inspectors&#8221; as designated by the minister) even after the investigation is complete. For that matter, there doesn&#8217;t even have to be a criminal investigation underway: if someone is given the role of &#8220;inspector&#8221; under this bill, they have the right to demand this information under any circumstances at all.<\/p>\n<p>An update to that blog post since last time I linked to it:<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Update (18 February 2012): It is really worth noting that this gag order is <strong>not new<\/strong>. It has existed in PIPEDA for quite some time. What is new is extending it to cover &#8220;lawful access&#8221; requests.<\/p>\n<p>People should be aware that &mdash; I am told &mdash; in the vast majority of cases, internet service providers will willingly hand over customer information without a warrant when the police tell them that it is connected with a child exploitation investigation (using something cynically called a &#8220;PIPEDA Request&#8221;, which I&#8217;ve blogged about before). If your internet service provider hands over your information voluntarily, that&#8217;s also subject to the gag order in Section 9 of PIPEDA.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>In an interview with the CBC, Public Safety Minister Vic Toews reveals that he hasn&#8217;t actually read or understood his own bill: In an interview airing Saturday on CBC Radio&#8217;s The House, Toews said his understanding of the bill is that police can only request information from the ISPs where they are conducting &#8220;a specific [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[6,9,10,28,15],"tags":[186,58,98,154],"class_list":["post-13638","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-cancon","category-law","category-liberty","category-media","category-technology","tag-freedomofspeech","tag-internet","tag-police","tag-privacy"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p2hpV6-3xY","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13638","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=13638"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13638\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":13639,"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13638\/revisions\/13639"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=13638"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=13638"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=13638"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}