[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[crazy canuck]

Viper, here is what the VPD and the President of the Police Union have to say about it.  There are two issues.  First, ISP retention of info.  I know from first hand experience this can be spotty at best.  Second is ready access.  The ISP guy says never a problem. The police say differently.  Again that accords with my own experience of dealing with the frustation of even the police not being able to obtain info in cases where both criminal and civil issues are raised.

In short I think the ISP Fed guy isnt being entirely forthcoming or he is being misquoted.  I would like to see a link to what he has actually said.  If he is coming out pandering to the backlash who can blame him.  No ISP is going to risk any of their customers by coming out in favour of this.


I ask you to read the article and then tell me if you believe there is no problem to be addressed.


http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2012/02/20/bc-police-bill-c-30.html

[Neil]

If the police like it, it's probably bad.  Police state, and all that.

[Jacob]

I'm intrigued by Neil's recent displays of anti-authoritarian government and distrust for the Conservatives.

[Josephus]

Neil always keeps you guessing. 

[Neil]

I'm intrigued by Neil's recent displays of anti-authoritarian government and distrust for the Conservatives.

The Conservatives sometimes do things I disagree with, like getting tough on marijuana users, anything that crazycanuck might support, or mandatory minimums.

[Tonitrus]

I'm intrigued by Neil's recent displays of anti-authoritarian government and distrust for the Conservatives.

I just figured that Neil is against any government that is not him.  Or doesn't use dreadnoughts.

[Neil]

I'm intrigued by Neil's recent displays of anti-authoritarian government and distrust for the Conservatives.

I just figured that Neil is against any government that is not him.  Or doesn't use dreadnoughts.

The Empire did lose a lot of its moral authority when they scrapped Vanguard.

Still, a government can do things that are right (in accordance with Neilism), or things that are wrong.

[viper37]

Viper, here is what the VPD and the President of the Police Union have to say about it.  There are two issues.  First, ISP retention of info.  I know from first hand experience this can be spotty at best.  Second is ready access.  The ISP guy says never a problem. The police say differently.  Again that accords with my own experience of dealing with the frustation of even the police not being able to obtain info in cases where both criminal and civil issues are raised.

In short I think the ISP Fed guy isnt being entirely forthcoming or he is being misquoted.  I would like to see a link to what he has actually said.  If he is coming out pandering to the backlash who can blame him.  No ISP is going to risk any of their customers by coming out in favour of this.


I ask you to read the article and then tell me if you believe there is no problem to be addressed.


http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2012/02/20/bc-police-bill-c-30.html

the same people also said they needed a gun registry to do their work.  Why didn't we listen to them?

Also, the bill requires ISP to have the means to liste and decrypt all data sent/received from their customers, though it remains vague on what is actually required.

The article you gave doesn't indicate any good reason why they need to impose on us such costs, and such intrusion of our privacy.  We need to trust them with all that power?  Once there are backdoors in place, anyone can use them.  We're talking about police corps losing their undercover agents lists, yet, we should trust them with sensitive info?  If they can't protect their deepest secret, how are they gonna protect the common stuff?

As I told you, installing cameras everywhere in big cities will solve the crime problems there.  Should we want this?  Are we required to have our lock made for a master key in possession of the local police corps?  Why our computers?

[crazy canuck]

Viper, here is what the VPD and the President of the Police Union have to say about it.  There are two issues.  First, ISP retention of info.  I know from first hand experience this can be spotty at best.  Second is ready access.  The ISP guy says never a problem. The police say differently.  Again that accords with my own experience of dealing with the frustation of even the police not being able to obtain info in cases where both criminal and civil issues are raised.

In short I think the ISP Fed guy isnt being entirely forthcoming or he is being misquoted.  I would like to see a link to what he has actually said.  If he is coming out pandering to the backlash who can blame him.  No ISP is going to risk any of their customers by coming out in favour of this.


I ask you to read the article and then tell me if you believe there is no problem to be addressed.


http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2012/02/20/bc-police-bill-c-30.html

the same people also said they needed a gun registry to do their work.  Why didn't we listen to them?

Nope, in fact a lot of Chiefs of police said essentially what BB said.  It was of no assistance at all because the guns they needed to trace were not in the registry - ie the guns in the registry were bieng held by non criminals.

Also, the bill requires ISP to have the means to liste and decrypt all data sent/received from their customers, though it remains vague on what is actually required.

Now this is the kind of thing I was hoping for when I started the discussion.  What are the issues here? In order for the police to be able to use information once a warrant has been issued they have to be able to recieve it in a way they can read it.

I can see potential security issues there but I am not sure what they are.

[viper37]

Nope, in fact a lot of Chiefs of police said essentially what BB said.  It was of no assistance at all because the guns they needed to trace were not in the registry - ie the guns in the registry were bieng held by non criminals.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2010/08/25/long-gun-registry-report-rcmp.html

Now this is the kind of thing I was hoping for when I started the discussion.  What are the issues here? In order for the police to be able to use information once a warrant has been issued they have to be able to recieve it in a way they can read it.

The backdoor needs to be there.  The way it is phrased, it seems as it applies to both hardware and software.
There are costs to that.

Second, ISPs need to be able to monitor a user's data, encrypted or not.  The encryption part is fuzzy.  In one place it seems to force ISPs to decrypt the data themselves, in another they're suggesting they should do what they can...

In any case, there are costs.

Privacy issue: the moment there is a backdoor in our systems to allow easy monitoring, the only thing we have to trust is the honnesty of all people involved that they will do it only if a warrant is issued and there'd be no 'fishing' expedition.  Wich I don't trust.

Third, knowing there's a backdoor in all security software/hardware sold in Canada, hackers, foreign or domestic, could use this info to look for it and exploit it for themselves.  Recently, it was discovered that Nortel had been hacked for a long while by Chinese, the probe being so deep it wasn't discovered until years had passed.  You're only making it worst by allowing a back-door to be built into firewall products.  There's no way system administrator could be able to determine who's on the other end, cops or hackers.  Not without significant costs at least.

And I just don't see the need to increase our costs.

When dealing with child pornography, unless I have evidence to the contrary, 'live streams' are not a common thing.  Again, I'm not a lawyer, but I can remember only one case where this happenned in Canada and the cops had no problem quickly dismantling the network, once they knew it was happening.
Again, don't see where's the problem.

If we're talking traditional trading networks, then the crime has already happened, by the time it has been discovered.  8-12hrs to get a mandate doesn't make any differences.  IPs are stored for 6 months at the very least by ISPs.  and since these things tend to be international, any action needs to be coordinated with foreign authorities.

This bill won't make things more secure for kids, it won't prevent exploitation and it won't make the pedo chase more efficient either.
Yet, it gives broad power to cops and ISPs.  And there's no guarantees it can't be exploited by someone else.  Or dishonest cops.

[Grey Fox]

Viper, here is what the VPD and the President of the Police Union have to say about it.  There are two issues.  First, ISP retention of info.  I know from first hand experience this can be spotty at best.  Second is ready access.  The ISP guy says never a problem. The police say differently.  Again that accords with my own experience of dealing with the frustation of even the police not being able to obtain info in cases where both criminal and civil issues are raised.

In short I think the ISP Fed guy isnt being entirely forthcoming or he is being misquoted.  I would like to see a link to what he has actually said.  If he is coming out pandering to the backlash who can blame him.  No ISP is going to risk any of their customers by coming out in favour of this.


I ask you to read the article and then tell me if you believe there is no problem to be addressed.


http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2012/02/20/bc-police-bill-c-30.html

the same people also said they needed a gun registry to do their work.  Why didn't we listen to them?

Nope, in fact a lot of Chiefs of police said essentially what BB said.  It was of no assistance at all because the guns they needed to trace were not in the registry - ie the guns in the registry were bieng held by non criminals.

Also, the bill requires ISP to have the means to liste and decrypt all data sent/received from their customers, though it remains vague on what is actually required.

Now this is the kind of thing I was hoping for when I started the discussion.  What are the issues here? In order for the police to be able to use information once a warrant has been issued they have to be able to recieve it in a way they can read it.

I can see potential security issues there but I am not sure what they are.

Not the Chiefs around here.

[Barrister]

As I told you, installing cameras everywhere in big cities will solve the crime problems there.  Should we want this? 

Yes.

[Oexmelin]

No.

[Barrister]

No.

You have no expectation of privacy to things you do in a public place.

[HVC]

CCTV yes. CCTV with facial recognition no. My (probably flawed) reasoning is that if you're not doing anything wrong the cops don't need to know who you are