We interviewed Jake Daynes, a spokesperson for the Pirate Party of Canada recently and we had some interesting responses to our questions.

ZeroPaid: What is the Pirate Party and how has it grown since the launch?

Jake Daynes: The Pirate Party of Canada is the Canadian counterpart of the international Pirate Party movement, which has gained seats in Sweden and Germany. We are fighting for fair copyright, patent reform, net neutrality, and government transparency. Our goals can be found here.

ZeroPaid: We’ve heard about a Pirate Party distribution platform that is being launched. What is the distribution platform exactly? Has it been officially launched? Are there any partners involved in this project?

Jake Daynes: Right now I don’t want to say much, but I can say that it utilizes a very “pirate-y” distribution method. Right now it has been started up, though we have not made it live, and we have several partners in this, such as Musicians United Against Censorship, Electronica Artist/DJ: Frozen Ice Cube [Author's note: The latest music is currently here due to recent technical issues] , and Fading Ways Music.

ZeroPaid:What sort of artists are you looking for? Is it genre specific or location specific or can anyone around the world with any musical style join in? Is it moderated and if so, how long does it take for something to be posted?

Jake Daynes: No, we are not genre specific, we are looking for anybody and everybody! We do have a slight moderation system, which is mainly me going through every track, just to make sure it isn’t a copyright violation, but it shouldn’t take more than 24 hours to get something posted, once the project is live.

ZeroPaid: For artists, what kind of reach does this platform provide (like, how many people are accessing it)? Do you expect this number of people to grow?

Jake Daynes: This platform is access to a global stage, with Pirate Party support in the UK, Ireland, Australia, Sweden, Germany, and the US, we have access to millions of people that are all looking for new music to listen to!

ZeroPaid: I’ve noticed on your home page that you have a sufficient number of members, but you seem to have a second bar for people sending in forms. Are you able to officially register as a political party yet or do you have to have that number of forms handed in before that happens?

Jake Daynes: Right now we are asking everybody to send in their forms, as we need to have a minimum of 250 to register with Elections Canada, though those that sign up are still counted as full members, as membership is free!

ZeroPaid: It’s been talked about plenty of times that the Pirate Bay had a major influence on the success of the Swedish Pirate Party. The only big things like that happening around in Canada seem to have been copyright reform legislation which is already on the back burner because of the copyright consultations. Would you say that the Pirate Party’s growth is attributed to a reaction to major copyright related events or is it more of an ongoing growth for the Canadian Pirate Party?

Jake Daynes: Actually, few people know it, but Canada has it’s own Pirate Bay right here in Richmond, B.C.: isoHUNT, which is run by Gary Fung just south of Vancouver. Copyright is a global issue that is affecting everybody, and even though the copyright consultations are putting reform on the back burner as you put it, the PPoC is continuing to grow, with members and chapters all across the country.

ZeroPaid: There have been a number of countries that have Pirate Parties officially registered, but all these countries seem to be in Europe. Is it the goal of the Pirate Party of Canada to be the first non-European country to be an official political party?

Jake Daynes: Yes, currently the PPoC is looking to become the first non-European party to be officially registered.

ZeroPaid: There are rumours that there could, on a remote chance, be an election in the Fall. If that happens, is there a chance that the Pirate Party could be in that election?

Jake Daynes: Sadly no, because of current election legislation, the PPoC would have to have been a registered party 60 days before the writ of an election, though we will continue to push our issues, and hope that the voice of fair copyright is heard by current parties.

ZeroPaid: There are a number of people out there who might suggest that the party doesn’t stand much of a chance with the First Past the Post system along with the established parties. Having said that though, is it the goal for the party to win seats or is it more about sending a message to government that said Canadians are concerned with certain issues in the copyright, privacy and technology related fields of policy making?

Jake Daynes: Yes, it is in fact very difficult for a new party to break into the First Past the Post system, take, for example, the Green Party, garnering 13% of the popular vote last election and still not gaining a seat. Our goal is indeed to gain seats, though one important point is that our message is heard, because lets face it, we as a party prove that Canadians are concerned, and some even passionate about these issues.

ZeroPaid: Do you have anything further to add?

Jake Daynes: I, Jake Daynes, would just like to add that if anybody is interested in the Party, my personal email is JakeDaynes@PirateParty.ca, and I would be happy to discuss them with you. If you would like to debate the Party’s views, our forums are very lively.

ZeroPaid: Thank you very much for your time.

Jake Daynes: Thank you Drew

We would like to thank Jake Daynes for taking the time out of his busy schedule to talk to us.

The Pirate Party of Canada was started somewhere between the end of June and July 2nd. It’s been seeking membership since the launch and has grown to roughly 500 members in the span of two months. Pirate Party of Canada’s official website home page.

Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at drew@zeropaid.com.

The political momentum in Europe has favoured the Pirate Party throughout Europe. The question is, can the French Pirate Party become the third country to elect a pirate party member into office on a level of government. Already, the French Three Strikes law has caused significant political controversy, one flash point being that one man was fired from his day job for simply voicing his opinion about the law; a case that since sparked a lawsuit.

With the momentum from the German and Swedish counterparts mixed with the controversy of HADOPI, there is reason for optimism.

The French Pirate Party has issued a press release (Google translation) saying that “every vote counts”. From the press release:

On the occasion of the by-election of the 10th district of Yvelines, following the resignation of Christine Boutin from his post as Deputy, the Pirate Party presents its first candidate in a French election

23 years old, studying computer engineering specialty at the University of Orsay, a former adviser to the district centerville Rambouillet, supplemented by

33, Game Designer, member of the team coordinating the Pirate Party International commissioned by the Pirate Party in France.

Long awaited, this nomination is a strong signal across Europe in favor of free access to culture and information, respect the privacy of citizens and rewriting the code of intellectual property, patents and respond to copyright. This election takes place precisely in the period of voting in the web laws and precedes the opening of debate on the future law Loppsi: this application is the voice of citizens who wish to denounce the social choice account we require that the current government.

The LOPPSI 2 legislation was another major point of controversy. We reported on the new legislation back in May when it first hit French newspapers. The legislation basically would allow police to basically upload malware to a users computer.

There’s plenty of reasons to find the Pirate Party of France particularly appealing after HADOPI and LOPPSI 2. What we don’t know is his odds in actually winning that particular seat. Since it’s a new party, it’s difficult to tell whether or not the new rise in popularity for the party across Europe would boost his presence enough to contend with established parties. We will certainly know around the 20th whether or not 3 times is a charm.

Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at drew@zeropaid.com.

If the international movement of the Pirate Party wanted something to celebrate over today, consider the latest news out of Germany to be the news story to do it. Reports are surfacing (Google Translation) that during several municipal elections held across Germany, the Pirate Party have earned a sufficient number of votes to be on several city councils throughout Germany.

The victory followed up a strong campaign throughout Germany where users were encouraged to place Pirate Party posters and wave Pirate Party flags on the streets and (naturally) while on the water as well. We would visit the German Pirate Party website for more information, but the site seems to be either slow or timing out altogether as of this writing. Sweden was the first country to elect a Pirate Party member, now Germany has become the second country to have, through an election, elected members of the Pirate Party.

Currently, in many other parts of the world including numerous countries in Europe, the Pirate Party is trying to gain enough support to register their party so they can participate in elections as well. Membership in several countries can be attributed to the fact that the copyright industry has been pushing for a so-called “three strikes and your out” regime in spite of the fact that the European Parliament recognizes internet access as a fundamental right. Some countries have seen a push to use privacy invasive technology such as data retention to target alleged copyright infringement. Many responded by turning to the Pirate Party after politicians became more interested in listening to the copyright industry lobbyists instead of their own constituents.

Specific details on how successful the German Pirate Party has been in Germany hasn’t surfaced with the news yet, but there’s little doubt that things like the final percentage of the vote and exactly how many seats officially won will soon follow.

Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at drew@zeropaid.com.

It seems that the movement of the pirate party keeps sailing on. Less than a week ago, we reported on the Pirate Party becoming an officially registered party in the UK. Now, it seems that the Finnish Pirate Party has accomplished the same goal of becoming an officially recognized party.

According to the Finnish Pirate Party website, the Finnish Pirate Party managed to get the necessary 5000 signatures to become an official political party (Google translated)

More from the posting:

The party can now participate in the Finnish parliamentary and municipal as well as European parliamentary elections. Its current primary objective is to get representatives in the Finnish parliament in the 2011 election. Its current primary objective is to get representatives in the Finnish parliament in the 2011 election. Piraattipuolue is the 8th officially registered pirate party internationally. The Pirate Party is the 8th officially registered pirate party internationally.

The party seeks to strengthen the protection of privacy and freedom of speech, to reform the current copyright legislation by legalizing non-commercial file-sharing and drastically cutting the duration of copyright, and to abolish pharmaceutical and software patents. The party seeks to strengthen the protection of privacy and freedom of speech, to reform the current copyright legislation by legalizing non-commercial file-sharing and drastically cutting the duration of copyright, and to abolish pharmaceutical and software patents.

This is great news for the Pirate Party movement. With two more countries now having their own pirate party in less than a week, the momentum seems to be in party’s favour. The question is, how many more countries can the pirate party movement become officially registered?

Pirate Party Finland home page (Finnish)

Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at drew@zeropaid.com.

If one were to say that internet privacy and concerns for file-sharers rarely, if ever, cross paths, this latest development would only further disprove this myth. While the Australian government says that the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment Bill 2009 – Network Protection is merely about network maintenance, the Electronic Frontier Australia paints a very different and far grimmer picture on what is going on.

EFA’s submission addresses our key concern that the proposed legislation provides a very broad exception to the prohibition on interception of network communications for the purposes of ensuring that a network is ‘appropriately used’. This is a very broad category that means that all network operators in Australia will be able to monitor the substance of communications that pass over their network for compliance with their Acceptable Use Policies – the terms of which could include nearly anything. The AGD suggests that this is necessary to increase security, but have not shown any convincing justification why the contents of communications need to be examined nor why the scheme should extend beyond corporate networks to all Australian networks – including consumer ISPs.

This proposed changed threatens to radically alter the ability of network operators to intercept, store, and disclose information passing over their networks. There are no safeguards to prevent disclosure to law enforcement agencies or third parties. It is entirely possible for these new provisions to be used to examine P2P filesharing data for copyright violations, for example, and to disclose any captured information to copyright owners.

In other words, these amendments could be used to get ISPs to do all the dirty work for the copyright industry.

In a submission during the very short consultation period, the EFA submitted their comments with regards to the proposed amendments, saying that the consultation was far too short for more critical analysis. They further comment with the following:

Section 5(1) effectively provides that ‘network protection duties’ includes monitoring the content of communications in order to ascertain whether the network is being ‘appropriately used’. Because of the broad undefined nature of the term ‘appropriately used’ and the fact that many AUPs may contain restrictions not on protocols or services that internet uses may use but upon the purpose for which those communications are being made, this provision opens the bulk of network communications to potential interception and continuing surveillance.

A common example can be found in AUPs that prohibit the use of peer-to-peer filesharing networks for the purposes of copyright infringement. In order to determine whether “the network is appropriately used”, a network operator would be required to intercept all peer-to-peer traffic and attempt a determination of whether any given traffic streams are being used to communicate copyright material without the licence of the copyright owner. Not only is such a task difficult or impossible due to the inherent complexity of copyright law and need to analyse the scope of any potential licences or fair dealing defences, it seriously imposes on the privacy of network users who are using legitimate file-sharing protocols for non-infringing activity.

EFA opposes the construction of ‘appropriately used’ in s 6AAA of the exposure draft. We submit that the definition in s 6AAA ought to be amended to reflect that operators are only entitled to intercept and monitor communications where those communications pose a threat to the security of the network itself. EFA notes that there are already laws in place which deal with the disclose of sensitive information, and that there are already civil and criminal procedures available to determine the origins and contents of communications that appear to contravene such laws. The proposed amendments have the dangerous effect of reversing the burden of proof for such monitoring, allowing network operators to monitor for compliance, rather than to seek disclosure once a prima facie case or reasonable suspicion of unlawful
activity exists. To the extent that operators of networks require the ability to monitor the activities of their users, there is no justification for allowing substantive examination of the contents of communication as opposed to the envelope information – numbers and types of packets and their destinations.

At best, this law should be a frightening prospect to all internet users, not just file-sharers as this is a huge infringement of personal privacy. While Canada is currently in the midst of mulling lawful access once again, at least the scope was far narrower than this. Even the US, home of the much despised DMCA didn’t go this far. Even the French three strikes law required some action from rights holders. To date, this appears to be the worst ISP law proposal we’ve ever seen followed closely by Austrian newspapers wanting to use data retention to enforce copyright.

Clearly, to the best of our knowledge, Australia is mulling the concept of boldly going where no other country has gone before in terms of mass communication interception. One wonders if the government has any idea what kind of task it would be to force ISPs to patrol their own networks on a packet-by-packet basis. Searching through headers on an entire major ISP is probably full time work for a team of internet specialists. That doesn’t even touch encrypted traffic. ISPs would probably have to pay money to a whole task force to people just to comply with this law which could have been spent on critical infrastructure upgrades, so Australian ISPs have a lot to lose, let alone Australian ISP customers who would have to worry about an ISP specialist covertly spying on every message or packet they send and receive online.

The law proposal will be debated in the Australian parliament in December, so there is still time to oppose this law.

Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at drew@zeropaid.com.

“Let it not be done in silence!” Said one Blog poster by the name of Henrik Alexandersson. He offered a list of what is currently at stake:

• Enhanced cooperation between the EU and USA “in the field of freedom, security and justice”.
• National anti-terrorist center in all EU states, who will report to Brussels.
• All EU states must share their intelligence with all other member states.
• More and more effective, “data-mining”.
• Real time access to data on, for example, citizens’ travel, banking, mobile positions, internet use, and to fingerprint and portraits.
• Streamlined monitoring by active collection of citizens’ electronic footprints.
• EU standards of supervision.
• EU harmonization to remove legal barriers to surveillance and interception.
• Analysis at European level of material from national surveillance and mass interception.
• An expanded EU bureaucracy for monitoring, interception and analysis, known as SITC.

“As Emma raised through non-aligned Sweden,” Rick Falkvinge, founder of the Swedish Pirate Party commented on his blog, “it feels almost obscene to the Swedish capital city synonymous with a package whose purpose is to introduce a Bodström Samhälle beyond what was previously seen, and the elimination of legal civil rights protection for it.”

The Swedish Pirate Party website also notes that the protests will happen from July 15-17 at Humlegården, Stockholm.

While on the surface, it appears to just be “stopping the terrorists”, we should note that, in Europe, there’s been multiple attempts to use systems supposedly set in place to stop terrorism for the commercial interests of the copyright industry. Austrian newspapers wanted to use data retention to enforce copyright for one. For another, German publishers wanted to add RapidShare to the national blacklists. While it doesn’t appear that file-sharing related activities are even close to being in the Stockholm Program, it’s hard to deny that surveillance to enforce copyright is indirectly one step closer to becoming a reality thanks to this.

Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at drew@zeropaid.com.

The manifesto of the Pirate Party of Canada is in the works, the current members are trying to figure out how to bring awareness, and general internal organization is taking place, but all good things start somewhere. After a few years of discussions on the Pirate Party International website, there are signs that the Pirate Party of Canada is now forming. A website has been set up (including forums) and it’s not hard to see that they are in need of some helping hands.

In Sweden, the Pirate Party stands for privacy, a halt to online censorship, doing away with medical patents and legalizing file-sharing. No surprise that this movement has taken off elsewhere in the world.

We asked the Pirate Party of Canada what all was happening and were able to get a response.

“Your guess that there is some internal organizing going on is 100% accurate,” Daynes told ZeroPaid when asked if there was internal organization taking place, “at this moment in time that is one of our main concerns”

“however,” he added, “membership is still a pressing concern.”

There’s been plenty of issues happening in Canada that the Pirate Party could gain support from. The biggest reason one might join the Pirate Party is if Canadians are fed up with what has happened on the Copyright file. With the Liberals Bill C-60 and the Conservatives Bill C-61, it seems as though neither of the biggest parties haven’t, in practise, been too user friendly. Added to this is the recent comments by the current public safety minister Peter Van Loan during an episode of Search Engine. The minister suggested (direct link to MP3) said that users have no expectation of privacy online and that, in spite of the courts cited by Jesse Brown, suggested that real name, address and telephone number doesn’t count as personal information.

Added to this was recent comments made by the Liberal party which said that Canada needs to immediately reform copyright laws to “combat” the “scourge” of piracy and ratify WIPO. Those comments were followed up by follow-up comments which suggested that merely stating this merely marks interest on the copyright file.

While the Pirate Party of Canada is still a ways of from becoming an officially registered party, it won’t hurt the party to gain a few new interested individuals to help them out reach that goal of becoming an officially registered party in the future a little faster.

To help, you can join the Pirate Party of Canada forum.

Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at drew@zeropaid.com.

There’s an international movement afoot to get ISPs to more closely monitor their networks and the traffic that flows through it. On the international stage, questions are being raised over ISP or DNS blacklists, ISP level surveillance and data retention. Since no human is perfect, does these new expansions in powers around the world also increase the potential for abuse as well?

The editorial in the National Post comments on the repeated themes on how legislation like warrantless wiretapping was pushed forward in the past. In Canada, it’s the repeated themes of how this is suppose to help save the children from online predators. In North America, there’s also that theme of how it’s suppose to somehow help fight terrorism. The editorial article comments on how such arguments are weak while defending the broadening of surveillance in Canada.

Meanwhile, the Ottawa Citizen echoed those sentiments and also notes how in any given gathering, there are those who are present for less than ideal reasons. Not only this, but also puts forth the question, since when do judges block a police investigation on a regular basis and prevents them from getting a warrant in the first place? The editorial suggests that apologists for the surveillance legislation has yet to provide such evidence and concludes that given another Conservative member had issues with the Google van taking pictures around neighbourhoods for their Street View project (they were definitely questioned in committee over privacy concerns) and given that the Safety Minister is pushing for surveillance legislation that would diminish privacy much more severely than any fleet of vans with 360 degree cameras ever could, the party that argues for small government is sending mixed messages to the public.

There was another theme both editorials conveyed which has been an underlying issue ever since the legislation was tabled, the fact that the minister who tabled the legislation was the same minister who, in a different time, promised to not expand surveillance powers and have such surveillance laws forgo the need of a warrant. Was this part of the political deal when Canadians saw their election postponed to at least the Fall? Who knows. At the very least, though, a backtrack is a backtrack and for the months leading up to the tabling of the legislation, the Liberal party has continually pushed to have surveillance legislation tabled in the House of Commons (Just use Google to search through the Hansard for things like ‘modernization’, ‘2008′, ‘2009′ and ‘investigation techniques’) With support from both the Liberal party and the Conservative party, the legislation is pretty much guaranteed to pass save for another election.

But what of the fears that this opens the floodgates for abuse? The legislation does, indeed, call for the installation of surveillance technology on the ISPs in Canada. We’ve looked through Bill C-46 and Bill C-47 to find that out. While the editorials have pointed to evidence in Canada that police are actually prone to doing less than legal things (one pointed to unauthorized plate checking for one) However, we also know that, internationally speaking, when things like ISP level wiretapping occur, not only has it opened the floodgates for abuse in the legal and law enforcement sphere, but it also opened the floodgates for abuse in the commercial sphere as well.

We begin our look at the country that is geographically closest to Canada. The neighbours to the south. The United States where it has appeared that the debate on such things looks as though security trumps privacy, an ironic turn of events considering that famous quote from Benjamin Franklin that rings true today, which says “He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither”, actually comes from the United States in the first place. The NYTimes unearthed quite a lot recently about the Bush promoted AT&T wiretapping program recently. Among the evidence was commentary on how, probably millions of, Americans were wiretapped that went far beyond the legal restraints surrounding such activity. One of those Americans who was illegally wiretapped? Former president Bill Clinton. One can get the impression that the unauthorized wiretapping is starting to get out of control.

It is important to note the differences between the case in the United States. In Canada, the proposed legislation would grant eavesdropping to police without a warrant. In the United States, the eavesdropping permits a copy of the traffic flowing through ISPs like AT&T and connects that information directly to organizations such as the NSA. While an important difference, when it comes to privacy concerns for many, that is little more than a clerical difference rather than a significant difference. In the end, police obtained unfettered access to details of your activity online.

Of course, an increase in state powers have gained the interest of commercial entities as well. The most vivid also happening to be the most recent. Austria is a member of the European Union. In the European Union, there is a law that makes ISPs retain data of all of it’s users – also known as Data Retention. While there was a movement to stop the data retention directive, data retention ultimately became law. It appears that an organization of Austrian newspapers have been eyeing that data retention and have called upon the government to use data retention to enforce copyright. There was a stunning quote from the organization that seemed to cap off this attempt which says, “Privacy should not be used as a cover for rights abused.” Forget child abuse. Forget the terrorists. Forget identity thieves. The debate, judging by that development, has shifted to whether or not commercial entities should have access to that data retention for their commercial interests. The real question is, where do these surveillance demands end? What interests should be brought up to the level of access enjoyed by entities interested in, say, national security? As we’ve noticed, this kind of thing isn’t an isolated incident either in Europe.

Last year, in Germany, Deutsche Telekom was raided over spying allegations. In essence, the telecommunications company was worried that insiders were leaking information to reporters, so they monitored their employees – illegally. Since the Canadian case is about installing surveillance infrastructure, it’s important to note how installing such technology would open up potential abuse precisely like this. Legal or not, the potential is there.

Recently, Germany passed legislation that would bring in mandatory censorship legislation. While not wiretapping or surveillance, it does force ISPs to grant new powers over the internet – in this case, blocking a whole list of websites. Isn’t it interesting that just three months earlier, German book publishers wanted to add Rapidshare to that blacklist?

Even further back into January of this year, there were things that happened that forced the German government to say that data retention is for terrorists, not copyright infringers. In response, the IFPI said that it would be contradictory for the government to not hand over all the information over to them for copyright legal pursuits.

What about free speech? A government mandated blacklist in many countries is said to stop child pornography. Australians know all too well how web censorship like that can go too far after the ACMA blacklist leak showed perfectly legal sites on them. While the governing body denied the authenticity of the leaked list, there have been suggestions that the blacklist did come from an ISP in the first place and some of those sites have been added on there because of commercial reasons. Over in Britain, a similar incident happened where British ISPs blocked Wikipedia.

Going further, these aren’t the only cases where new surveillance or censorship measures were attempted to be used for reasons beyond what the legislation was promoted to be stopping in the first place. Already, the copyright industry, along with a few other companies, have tried multiple times to use surveillance or censorship for commercial gains or interests. Legal websites have been put on national blacklists in the past in other countries. The question many Canadians should be asking over top of other questions that have already been raised is where would these intrusions on internet users rights end? Is this legislation in Canada merely an update or modernization and that would be the end of it or would further demands be raised if the currently proposed legislation is passed? All this given multiple international examples.

It certainly, from this standpoint, that this surveillance legislation is not only bad for users privacy, but also the tip of the iceberg as well.

[Hat Tip: Michael Geist 1 and 2]

Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at drew@zeropaid.com.

This may be the case that shows how data retention can be abused for private and commercial gain – at least in the eyes of a privacy advocate. In a press release posted on the 20th, the Association of Austrian Newspapers have demanded the following (Google translated):

Essential is the legal standard of a clear commitment by the Internet provider for temporary storage of user data (assignment of IP addresses) and their handover to the wounded during infringing content usage. Data must not be used as a cover for rights are abused.

This revelation may bring back some memories for some on the international front. Earlier this year, German book publishers wanted Rapidshare to be put on a national blacklist.

Already, the Austrian Pirate Party has denounced this (Google Translation):

O-Ton: “Privacy should not be used as a cover for rights abused.”
That this claim exactly one day after the (re-) introduction of censorship in Germany arises is probably no coincidence.
But that it just comes from one industry to the largest part of the reciprocal of uncritical copying or typing of reports and by the agency unbridled Raubzitieren from Wikipedia live, you can probably as well Viennese Chuzpe call.
The VÖZ has already at its joint meeting with the IFPI Austria-powered lobbying organization “platform Intellectual Property” for a similar asset has a clear rejection of the Minister of Justice Bandion-Ortner get, but obviously the Lord lernresistent sheep.

Very few people would agree that data retention, along with blacklisting, should be used to enforce copyright and other commercial interests. This is particularly true given that many countries have sold data retention as a means to stop terrorism. At the very least, further uses such as commercial gain on the government level shouldn’t be allowed to happen.

Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at drew@zeropaid.com.

As we’ve noted previously, we should also note that this review of the legislation is made by someone who is not a lawyer, expert of the law or someone giving away legal advice by any stretch of the imagination. What this review strictly is is an average Canadians interpretation of the law who is not specifically or formally trained to be a law expert.

You can read Bill C-46 here.

You can read Bill C-47 here.

Bill C-47 – Quotes and Comments

:

What one can notice right away when looking at this bill is that this particular bill, unlike Bill C-46, Bill C-47 is directed at Canadian telecoms specifically.

6. (1) For the purpose of enabling authorized persons to exercise their authority to intercept communications, every telecommunications service provider shall have the capa- bility to do the following:

(a) provide intercepted communications to authorized persons; and

(b) provide authorized persons with the prescribed information that is in the possession or control of the service provider respecting the location of equipment used in the transmission of communications.

Not off to a good start considering the act defines “authorized persons” with the following:

“authorized”, in relation to a person, means having authority, under the Criminal Code or the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act, to intercept communications.

“person” includes a partnership, an unincorporated organization, a government, a government agency and any other person or entity that acts in the name of or for the benefit of another.

It’s pretty safe to assume that, at the very least, this includes members of CSIS (Canada’s spy agency). It’s unclear who else that entails such as police officers (probably) for instance.

(3) If an intercepted communication is encoded, compressed, encrypted or otherwise treated by a telecommunications service provid- er, the service provider shall use the means in its control to provide the intercepted communication in the same form as it was before the communication was treated by the service provider.

“telecommunications service provider” means a person that, independently or as part of a group or association, provides telecommunications services.

So one could look at this in this light. Someone decides to use an encryption service in Canada (such as, say, a VPN-like service) and authorities have suspicion that you are doing something wrong. They can order the owner of the encryption service to decrypt that information and they would be legally obliged to do so. This defeats the reasoning behind encryption in the first place and Canadians would be forced to use a service in another country in order to secure their communications. This law only serves as an inconvenience to some and insecurity to others. There is an exception here:

(4) Despite subsection (3), a telecommunications service provider is not required to make the form of an intercepted communication the same as it was before the communication was treated if

(a) the service provider would be required to develop or acquire decryption techniques or decryption tools;

So really make sure the service has no means to decrypt that information in the first place before using it.

7. The operational requirements in respect of any transmission apparatus are that the telecommunications service provider operating the apparatus have the capability to do the following:

(a) enable the interception of communications generated by or transmitted through the apparatus to or from any temporary or permanent user of the service provider’s telecommunications services;

(b) isolate the communication that is authorized to be intercepted from other information, including

(i) isolating the communications of the person whose communications are authorized to be intercepted from those of other persons, and

(ii) isolating the telecommunications data of the person whose communications are authorized to be intercepted from the rest of the person’s communications;

(c) provide prescribed information that permits the accurate correlation of all elements of intercepted communications; and

(d) enable simultaneous interceptions by authorized persons from multiple national security and law enforcement agencies of communications of multiple users, including enabling

(i) at least the minimum number of those interceptions, and

(ii) any greater number of those interceptions — up to the maximum number — for the period that an agency requests.

These requirements may be confusing, but in short, ISPs must be able to figure out who you are, all the information in you communications and be able to share that information with any security or law enforcement people whether inside the country or from abroad. They may share all information they have on you with people in authority in other countries. If this still doesn’t seem like much, the next sections help spell out why this is important.

8. A telecommunications service provider that meets, in whole or in part, an operational requirement in respect of transmission apparatus that the service provider operates shall continue to so meet that operational requirement.

In other words, they cannot degrade or otherwise change the service that would prevent interception from taking place. In addition to this:

9. A telecommunications service provider that meets, in whole or in part, an operational requirement in respect of transmission apparatus that the service provider operates in connection with any of the service provider’s telecommunications services shall meet that operational requirement to the same extent in respect of any new service that the service provider begins to provide using that apparatus.

So they can’t offer a new encryption method that has no master key. So an act of good will to protect their users would become illegal.

Considerations

(3) In deciding whether to make an order, the Minister shall take into account the public interest in national security and law enforcement and the commercial interests of the telecommunications service provider as well as any other matter that the Minister considers relevant.

It’s nice to know that our rights will be “considered” at the very least. Somehow, some might not feel so reassured.

14. (1) The Minister may, at the request of the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police or the Director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and if in the Minister’s opinion it is necessary to do so, order a telecommunications service provider

(a) to comply with any obligation under subsections 6(1) and (2) in a manner or within a time that the Minister specifies;

(b) to enable, in a manner or within a time that the Minister specifies, a number of simultaneous interceptions greater than any maximum or limit that would otherwise apply;

(c) to comply, in a manner or within a time that the Minister specifies, with any confidentiality or security measures respecting interceptions that the Minister specifies in addition to those referred to in subsection 6(2);

(d) to meet an operational requirement in respect of transmission apparatus operated by the service provider that the service provider would not otherwise be required to meet; or

(e) to meet an operational requirement in respect of transmission apparatus operated by the service provider in a manner or within a time that the Minister specifies.

So in other words, any member of the police or Canadian secret service can authorize surveillance measures. No need for a court order (unless they want to know the contents of the communications of course, though by the time they get that order, they can do those kinds of things covertly)

(3) The Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police or the Director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, as the case may be, shall pay the telecommunications service provider an amount that the Minister considers reasonable towards the expenses that the Minister considers are necessary for the service provider to incur initially to comply with an order made under this section.

This provision has some history to it. During Canada’s only file-sharing trial against a number of Jon Does, one of the concerns that came up during that trial was that ISPs would be required to use a certain number of man hours – thus costing the company money. What we see here is that tax-payers money would be used to carry out this activity of surveillance. The idea of using tax-payers money to sacrifice basic civil rights is not one that tends to go over very well in Canada.

(4) The Minister may provide the telecommunications service provider with any equipment or other thing that the Minister considers the service provider needs to comply with an order made under this section.

This may be the provision, if anything else, makes the surveillance legislation sound like, as others put it, a surveillance bailout. Our tax money, after reading this, appears to be going to fund surveillance technology which would then be forced onto Internet Service Providers and, at the very least, the providers would be pressured (probably forced) to use such technology. This only thing positive about this is the fact that some private tech companies will automatically receive a major windfall of extra cash as a result. This is at the expense of pretty much everything else related to this.

16. (1) Every telecommunications service provider shall provide a person designated under subsection (3), on his or her written request, with any information in the service provider’s possession or control respecting the name, address, telephone number and electronic mail address of any subscriber to any of the service provider’s telecommunications services and the Internet protocol address, mobile identification number, electronic serial number, local service provider identifier, international mobile equipment identity number, international mobile subscriber identity number and subscrib- er identity module card number that are associated with the subscriber’s service and equipment.

This was probably the provision touted by the government press releases which we touched on yesterday. This is what must be forfeited at the request without a court order. Content, on the other hand, requires a court order. The question is, what circumstances would satisfy a court to allow a search warrant that would allow officials to force content data over? Would it be little more than accessing, say, a German or a Russian website? Of course, such things aren’t really that clear.

Also in this section:

(2) A designated person shall ensure that he or she makes a request under subsection (1) only in performing, as the case may be, a duty or function

(a) of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service under the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act;

(b) of a police service, including any related to the enforcement of any laws of Canada, of a province or of a foreign jurisdiction; or

(c) of the Commissioner of Competition under the Competition Act.

So, by law, we’ll happily hand the mentioned information over to, say, the United States without court oversight. Apparently, Canadian sovereignty is becoming a thing of the past and we are more likely to bow to foreign interests with this kind of legislation. Sounds very scary.

17. (1) A police officer may request a telecommunications service provider to provide the officer with the information referred to in subsection 16(1) in the following circumstances:

(a) the officer believes on reasonable grounds that the urgency of the situation is such that the request cannot, with reasonable diligence, be made under that subsection;

(b) the officer believes on reasonable grounds that the information requested is immediately necessary to prevent an unlawful act that would cause serious harm to any person or to property; and

(c) the information directly concerns either the person who would perform the act that is likely to cause the harm or is the victim, or intended victim, of the harm.

The police officer shall inform the telecommunications service provider of his or her name, rank, badge number and the agency in which he or she is employed and state that the request is being made in exceptional circumstances and under the authority of this subsection.

So, in other words, an “offence” doesn’t even have to occur in order for an officer to simply demand an ISP hand over all information about a given subscriber. Can simply anyone be subject to a seizure of personal information?

20. (1) The Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, the Commissioner of Competition and any chief or head of a police service constituted under the laws of a province who makes a designation under subsection 16(3) shall cause internal audits to be regularly conducted of the practices of his or her agency to ensure compliance with sections 16 to 19 and the regulations made for the purposes of those sections and of the internal management and information systems and controls concerning requests made under sections 16 and 17.

Apparently, the Canadian government thinks that accountability is achieved merely by allowing ones own organization to investigate themselves. Canadians know full well how accountable police can be when they investigate themselves – especially when it comes to things like proper use of a taser at certain undisclosed Vancouver airports.

(4) The Privacy Commissioner may, on reasonable notice, conduct an audit of the practices of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police or the Commissioner of Competition to ensure compliance with sections 16 to 19 and the regulations made for the purposes of those sections and of the internal management and information systems and controls concerning requests made under sections 16 and 17. The provisions of the Privacy Act apply, with any necessary modifications, in respect of the audit as if it were an investigation under that Act.

Miraculously, this bill isn’t entirely bad after all. There’s a shred of accountability apparently embedded in this, but not by much considering that section 16 has to do with demanding private information in the first place, is this provision really enough?

21. (1) A telecommunications service pro- vider that provides information to a person under section 16 or 17 is entitled to be paid the prescribed fee for providing the information.

(2) If the information is requested by a designated person under section 16, the fee is to be paid by the designating authority.

(3) If the information is requested by a police officer under section 17, the fee is to be paid by the chief or head of the police service that employs the police officer.

This provision seems to cover the same thing an earlier provision covers. Again, tax payers money will be used to erode privacy rights under this legislation.

All of section 24 seems to reinforce what the police are demanding (customer information such as addresses, etc.)

25. A telecommunications service provider shall, on the request of a police officer or of an employee of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police or the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, provide all reasonable assistance to permit the police officer or employee to assess or to test the service provider’s telecommunications facilities that may be used to intercept communications.

This seems to simply reinforce the fact that an ISP is forced to hand over the information. They have to comply with police demands without the need (in many instances) of a court order.

27. A telecommunications service provider shall notify the Minister when

(a) in respect of any particular transmission apparatus, the increased number of simultaneous interceptions that the service provider is required, as a result of a request referred to in subparagraph 7(d)(ii), to be capable of enabling is 75% or more of the maximum number that is applicable under that subparagraph; or

(b) the number of simultaneous interceptions that the service provider is required, under sections 8 to 11, to be capable of enabling is 75% or more of the global limit that is applicable under section 12.

We’re not entirely sure what a “global limit” means, but if that means up to 75% of all traffic going through the ISP, does that mean that this could be a general dragnet of intercepted data?

Section 28 suggests that if the information about the customer changes, then it’s required that RCMP be notified of any changes. Isn’t that like tracking people without a warrant?

36. (1) For the purpose of gaining entry to a place referred to in subsection 34(1), a designated person may enter private property and pass through it, and is not liable for doing so. For greater certainty, no person has a right to object to that use of the property and no warrant is required for entry onto the property unless the property is a dwelling-house.

(2) A person may, at the designated person’s request, accompany the designated person to assist them to gain entry to the place referred to in subsection 34(1) and is not liable for doing so.

So after the obtain all the information on where you live, you can hear a knock on the door by police and they’ll be allowed to enter your private property if you run a telecommunications service. This is with a warrant from the looks of things.

37. In executing a warrant to enter a dwelling-house, a designated person shall not use force unless they are accompanied by a peace officer and the use of force has been specifically authorized in the warrant.

So you cannot resist them and section 38 appears to suggest that you cannot mislead any authority during the situation in question.

Sections 56 and 57 suggest that if an ISP resists any of this, they can be liable for a maximum fine of anywhere between $15,000 to $500,000.

Conclusions

After reading this huge piece of legislation, one can only wonder, where did our liberties go? Is this little more than thought police given that an offence doesn’t even have to occur before a certain amount of surveillance can be issued on you. Things, of course, get worse when a warrant is issued, but what can be allowed to happen without a warrant is disturbing in and of itself. What about proxies or anonymous services being offered in Canada? Are they legally rendered useless thanks this this legislation? Clearly, this legislation is aimed at getting everyone on the business end of a telecommunication to rat you out on merely suspicion. Meanwhile, provisions in the Charter will only be a “consideration” rather than, say, the law.

Combined with Bill C-46, the packaged legislation is little more than a cocktail for a disaster in civil rights given the unprecedented amount of powers police will be getting with this. All-in-all, after you read this eye burning package, it’s not hard to realize what a horrible idea a number of these provisions really are.

Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at drew@zeropaid.com.