A Message From Vic Toews Re: Stop Online Spying

Photo Credits Courtesy of CTV News Online.

The following letter below is a email received today from the Minister of Public Safety Vic Towes in regards to Bill C-30 concerns. 

Thank you for contacting my office regarding Bill C-30, the Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act.

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,

Vic Toews

Member of Parliament for Provencher

 

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.

One thought on “A Message From Vic Toews Re: Stop Online Spying

  1. Clearly Toews doesn’t know his own bill:
    184.4 A peace officer may intercept, by means of any electro-magnetic,
    acoustic, mechanical or other device, a private communication if the
    peace officer has reasonable grounds to believe that

    (a) the urgency of the situation is such that an authorization could
    not, with reasonable diligence, be obtained under any other provision
    of this Part;

    A report shall be made each year reporting:

    (c) the number of persons who were not parties to an intercepted
    private communication but whose commission or alleged commission of an
    offence became known to a peace officer as a result of the
    interception of a private communication, and against whom proceedings
    were commenced in respect of the offence that the peace officer sought
    to prevent in intercepting the private communication or in respect of
    any other offence that was detected as a result of the interception

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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