Search Engine: "No Expectation of Privacy"

won't SOMEBODY think of the children??

Too bad I didn't think to set a stopwatch to see how long it would take the Minister to say he was proposing warrantless webtapping for the sake of the kids. Do the wheels of Canadian justice really grind so slowly that it would be impossible to get a court order through legal channels in time to act on his hypothetical kiddie peep-show scenario?

Good save on Iran. (OK, OK, so you're not a breaking-news guy! I get it!) To be fair, when I ragged on you a couple of weeks ago, it looked like the mainstream media was going to be asleep at the switch about the whole online aspect of it. They finally got there, even if it was largely a day late and a dollar short.

posted by Mark S. on 30 June 2009 at 11:55 AM

I disagree, this seems reasonable

If Bell installs a landline in your house, they give you a phone number. They own that phone number, and do with it what they please. That includes putting it in phone books, and selling it to telemarketers. You might not like this, but that's the way it is.

There is a long history of court rulings that state that since the telephone number is not your private property, and that the phone companies do with it what they want, then you don't have an expectation of privacy. The police have every right to look up your number from your name, or reverse that search and find your name from the number, without needing a warrant.

If Bell installs internet service at your house, they give you an IP address. They own that address, and do with it what they please. That includes changing it on you without prior warning to kill off any servers you're running. You might not like this, but that's the way it is.

So why should this be treated any different than your phone number? It is true that there is nothing analogous to a "white pages" for IP addresses, but it's not clear to me that that's what the expectation of privacy is based on.

I really do think this is being blown out of proportion.

posted by Maury Markowitz on 30 June 2009 at 5:37 PM

At least he isn't Jim Prentice

James Moore talking about copyright: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_OHx2PpsoQ

I'm glad that he gets it. I wouldn't vote for him. But I am glad he is working on the next copyright bill.

posted by elitest on 30 June 2009 at 6:20 PM

IP Address != Phone Number

It's not the case that an IP address is the same as a phone number or street address. Should someone get your address or phone number then all they can do is call you or locate where you live. Should the police want to know where you go or who you talk to on your phone number, they'd need a warrant.

Should someone connect your identity with your IP address, however, then they can map you to everything you do online. Leave an anonymous post? Your post IP address is now linked to you. Upload pictures of where you live/work/have visited? All those pictures are linked to the upload IP address ie you. Do your banking transactions online? You get the idea. This bill would allow the police to gather and tie a potentially staggering amount of information regarding a person's online activities to the specific person, all without any judicial oversight.

What can the police possibly be afraid of? Why are they afraid of oversight? If they have sufficient probable cause then they will get the warrant they ask for, if they don't then the won't (and shouldn't) get it. If the craziness in the States the last couple of years has shown anything, it is that police power without oversight leads to abuse of that power. The judicial review is there to protect Canadians from the abuse of police power. We shouldn't give it up without a far better justification than this.

posted by Lothaire on 30 June 2009 at 8:30 PM

Excellent Interview

Good job clarifying a complicated issue and sticking it to Peter Van Loan.

posted by Addy CH on 30 June 2009 at 8:37 PM

Good job Jesse.

Minister Van NAZI won't be getting my vote.

posted by ... on 30 June 2009 at 10:02 PM

More consultation required

As much as I love Search Engine, these one-on-one interviews with government officials are never really satisfying.

It's interesting how Van Loan relies so much on court case precedence--I thought conservatives were against judicial activism? I.e., since when do the courts make our laws? If the court decisions seem conflicted, that's because they're floundering due to a hole in the legislation. Rather than basing new legislation on those cases, shouldn't we legislate based on--oh, I don't know, the opinion of the electorate?

I'd be willing to agree with Van Loan and fellow commenter Maury Markowitz that we don't have any reasonable expectation to privacy. But I'd like to be asked. Maybe I'm in the minority, and most Canadians share Lothaire's opinion. Van Loan is quick to say that "Canadians" don't expect additional privacy, but the only evidence he offers are court cases--and most Canadians aren't lawyers, let alone judges. If we're updating legislation that's so badly out of date it doesn't reflect the current state of technology, we need to consult the public and not the courts.

posted by tachyondecay on 30 June 2009 at 11:18 PM

Internet != Phone Book

Maury Markowitz, you don't really understand the difference between these issues.

Lothaire you have a pretty good handle on the ramifications of this legislation.

This is essentially the ability to tap your phone without a court warrant. It's already possible to track the activities of any IP address online, but I feel it should require a court order to connect that with a person's name/address/phone number.

posted by Rick W. on 01 July 2009 at 4:03 PM

Reply to Maury Markowitz

Though you have valid issues, the police department still requires legal processess to tap your listen in on your phone conversations. Without a warrent there is nothing a law enforcement agency can do with your number. Even if they illegally do, nothing collected can be used against you in a court of law. What's being discussed here isn't who owns the IP, it's whether or not the Police require a warrent to tap and observe and listen in on what it is that you're doing with said computer/internet. THAT is the issue at hand. So though you are correct in your explination of who owns the service, you are still missing the point of Due Process and the legal steps law enforcement are required to take to protect the citizens privacy.

Just because Bell, Rogers, Shaw or Tellus own our IPs, doesn't mean they have a legal right to be giving it out willy nilly. There are TOS (Terms of Service) that all customers agree too. The companies also have their own ends to keep on this TOS. And preventing law enforcement from accessing our information without a warrent is one of those obligations to the customer.

posted by Steven Koshin on 12 July 2009 at 5:38 PM