ZeroPaid.com » surveillance

Clarifying the Possible Canadian Surveillance Legislation

Drew Wilson — Fri, 19 Aug 2011 18:22:05 +0000

A report has surfaced that has received a fair bit of attention. The report suggests that Canada is facing a piece of internet surveillance legislation that would pretty much eliminate all due process. Naturally, this is of concern to us because we are concerned about privacy related stories, so we took a look at the report. Now, we'd like to offer some clarification on the current situation in Canada on this matter.

We here at ZeroPaid read a lot of articles in any given day. We are always on the lookout for anything that might be of interest to our readers and we combine that with our own ability to write our own original content. Part of what can make a great journalist is the courage to step outside our own comfort zone and report on things we don't necessarily know every nuance and detail. For many, that's simply a matter of reporting on things that are going on outside our own country. In a sense, it's simply looking beyond what is going on in our own back yard to understand what the rest of the neighborhood is up to. That can go a long way in being able to take lessons learned from the neighbors and be able to bring it back home. That doesn't always mean that everyone is entirely successful. Sometimes, one can absorb every single detail on a story they can gather and try as much as possible to produce an accurate report only to find that there is the odd detail here and there that someone immersed in that countries culture would be able to pick out right away. That is always the difficulty of trying to report on issues happening in countries that are, simply, not the country you come from. I think that this leads to two ways a reporter can handle this, they can either focus exclusively on what is happening in their own country, or they can take the occasional intellectual thumping in order to gain a much more rounded exposure to issues happening "abroad" (in quotes due to nature of internet) That leads us to this report from Naked Security which says that Canada is considering a bill that would pretty much eliminate due process and bring in surveillance that would make US-style surveillance seem like a fair and open transparent process. As someone from Canada, you can predict what I thought when I first heard this. I thought, "Oh no. They are actually going ahead and tabling this again!" So I read the article and it pointed to Bill C-52. I wondered if they actually kept the naming scheme to the point where they used the same numbers to boot. Since the legislation was linked in the article, it didn't take long to discover that this was not current legislation, but rather, old legislation that died on the order paper after the last election. Just looking at the date of the first reading (November 1, 2010) kind of gave a good hint of that (and, if you're a Canadian political junky, the part that says "Fortieth Parliament" is also a giveaway as the government is currently in the 41st parliament). Of course, if you're not a Canadian and don't tend to follow Canadian politics as closely as some who do reside in Canada, that might not be that obvious. For the record, the surveillance legislation at the time (deceptively dubbed "Lawful Access") was actually three bills - bill C-50, bill C-51 and, of course, bill C-52. It was complex and dealt with a lot of issues. Reading bill C-52 would technically only give you a sense of one third of what was being proposed. As you might be able to guess, like bill C-52, bills C-50 and C-51 also died on the order paper when an election was called. As I've suggested in various articles over the years, Canadians were actually saved from very bad legislation that would undermine civil liberties in the country. The author of the article on Naked Security also defended himself by saying that this is what is being mulled in government right now. He didn't say that it was necessarily tabled. This is technically true, but it's also pushing it to say that the contents of Bill C-52 is precisely what is being mulled because that might suggest that it might be tabled separately. I, personally, wouldn't go so far as to assume that what was in Bill C-52 is exactly what the government is thinking of tabling next. This is partly because the speculation is that a lot of what was being considered in the Lawful Access legislation might be rolled in to an omnibus crime bill in the next session of parliament. The fear is that this crime bill will be pushed through quickly and in such a way that a lot of the inherent flaws of previous attempted legislation would wind up being muted. This kind of concern was raised by experts featured in our previous report. In the open letter, the government was generally urged not to do anything hasty and ram surveillance legislation through - after all, it is a heavily contested area to begin with that practically pits ordinary Canadians against their own government. We don't really know what the specifics are in the crime bill. That's what makes it difficult to argue on specifics. The best we can do is look at the previous legislation and beg the government not to destroy Canadian civil rights by reinserting the type of legislation found in the Lawful Access bills into the crime bill. Personally, I'm not holding my breath that Prime Minister Harper will respect basic civil rights and since Canada has a majority government, Harper pretty much rules with an iron fist for the next few years. It's actually quite hard to fault Naked Security because there's not a whole lot the author did wrong that I can see. He looked up the legislation directly, linked to it, quoted relevant sections and had decent commentary on what was wrong with the legislation. These are all really good things to do in an article. In fact, he even brought in other examples from around the world to support his arguments which I think is always a bonus. In addition, he did raise awareness of matters of importance (and I'm happy that it's on topics that are close to home in my neck of the woods). Of course, to draw from a science example, you could follow very solid methodology like the scientific method to the letter and wind up with results that are way out in left field. I think that the author of Naked Security should continue to monitor what goes on here in Canada and not get discouraged by the feedback he got from one particular article. Fine, you could say his article might not be totally accurate or maybe even a bit misleading, but I don't think it's necessarily his fault. Give the guy a chance, he's trying at least. Following international stuff isn't really easy - believe me, I know. [Via /.] 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.

Opposition to Canada’s Impending Surveillance Legislation Grows

Drew Wilson — Sat, 13 Aug 2011 22:09:03 +0000

The Canadian governing party - the Conservatives - are planning an omnibus crime bill that would include surveillance legislation. While the bill is not yet tabled, opposition to this bill is mounting.

There has been suggestions that the Canadian surveillance legislation long promised, but never passes, may be bundled in to an omnibus crime bill and tabled soon. For those following this story closely, that isn't exactly news. What is news, however, is that experts, academics and organizations, among others, have stepped up to formally oppose such legislation. An open letter was recently sent to Prime Minister Stephen Harper expressing their concerns about such legislation. They cite previous bills that made up the surveillance legislation in the last government session and voiced their concerns about them. The letter (PDF) opens, "We are writing to you regarding your promise to introduce and pass within 100 days an omnibus bill incorporating a number of very different pieces of legislation." The letter continues, "We are particularly concerned that three of those bills will have serious negative implications for the privacy rights of Canadians, and that these aspects will not receive the scrutiny they deserve if rolled into an omnibus bill." "These pieces of legislation were former Bills C‐50, C‐51 and C‐52 from the last session of the previous Parliament, the ‘lawful access’ technical surveillance bills. We join Canada’s federal and provincial Privacy Commissioners in voicing our grave concerns regarding this invasive legislative mandate, as they collectively did in a letter to Deputy Minister of Public Safety dated March 9, 2011." Their main focus of concern:

The ease by which Canadians’ Internet service providers, social networks, and even their handsets and cars will be turned into tools to spy on their activities further to production and preservation orders in former Bill C‐51 – a form of spying that is bound to have serious chilling effects on online activity and communications, implicating fundamental rights and freedoms;
The minimal and inadequate amount of external oversight in place to ensure that the powers allotted in these bills are not abused;
Clause 16 of former Bill C‐52, which will allow law enforcement to force identification of anonymous online Internet users, even where there is no reason to suspect the information will be useful to any investigation and without adequate court oversight; and
The manner in which former Bill C‐52 paves the way to categorical secrecy orders that will further obscure how the sweeping powers granted in it are used and that are reminiscent of elements of the USA PATRIOT Act that were found unconstitutional.

The letter also contains a highly detailed list of concerns in the appendix section. The letter also warns that the costs of implementing such surveillance measures would ultimately be passed on to consumers since it is a new cost of doing business for ISPs. Indeed, this type of thing has precedent. In France, when the French government forced ISPs to adopt a three strikes law, the ISPs simply passed the costs of maintaining the warning system on to consumers. The letter was signed by the following:

Andrea Slane, University of Ontario Institute of Technology, Faculty of Social Science & Humanities Andrew Clement, University of Toronto, Faculty of Information British Columbia Freedom of Information and Privacy Association (BCFIPA) Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT) Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) Canadian Federation of Students (CFS) Christopher Parsons, University of Victoria, Department of Political Science Civil Liberties Association – National Capitol Region (CLA–NCR) Colin Bennett, University of Victoria, Department of Political Science David Lyon, FRSC, Queen’s University, Surveillance Studies Centre Ian Kerr, University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group (ICLMG) Kate Milberry, University of Toronto, Faculty of Information Leslie Shade, Concordia University, Department of Communications Studies Lisa Austin, University of Toronto, Faculty of Law Michael Geist, University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law Michael Markwick, Simon Fraser University, School of Communications OpenMedia.ca Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC) Samuelson‐Glushko Canadian Internet Policy & Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC) Sharon Polsky, President, AMINACorp.ca; National Chair, Canadian Association of Professional Access & Privacy Administrators (CAPAPA) Teresa Scassa, University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law Valerie Steeves, University of Ottawa, Department of Criminology

I don't mean to sound overly pessimistic, but I think that there is one key difference between when Canadians fought very dangerous bills in the past and now. That key difference is the fact that the Conservatives have a majority government. That means that they can pass whatever bills they want without any fear of opposition. So, it wouldn't matter how much evidence or reason you present the government, Harper will simply legislate how he likes. If it drives the country in to the dark ages, it wouldn't matter because he has the power to stop any opposing voice on different debates as far as passing legislation is concerned. That's just the government Canada is stuck with. My personal hope is that Canada will have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms before Harper's term is up - or, at least a few shreds of it still intact. 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.

Anti-Surveillance Petition Strikes a Chord with Canadians

Drew Wilson — Sun, 26 Jun 2011 11:00:23 +0000

The Canadian government has gone through a 58 hour filibuster with regards to the Canada Post lockout. With this out of the way, some are fearing what the Canadian Conservative government will do next. One of the things that could be in the pipe-line is the much feared warrantless wiretapping legislation. It sparked one group to put together a petition that is already garnering huge success.

Canadians have been down this road before. In 2008, the Liberals were proposing what is still known to this day as "Lawful Access". The debate which was debated back in 2008 and even further back into 2005 when it took the iteration of Bill C-74 back then. In both the 2005 and 2007-2008 instances, the Liberal party were the ones pushing the legislation. Now today, roughly 6 years later, very little has changed save for the possibility that the Conservative party is now pushing for Lawful Access legislation. The arguments against Lawful Access should be very familiar for those, like me, who sat through the debates over whether or not Lawful Access should be passed in the first place. It's too expensive for various companies to implement, it uses resources that authorities don't have, it's too expensive for companies to maintain, it'll never be 100% effective given the existence of technology such as VPN and TOR, it's an infringement on people's rights, there is no court oversight, it can easily be abused, it does little to nothing at solving crime in the first place and it could make tihngs worse for authorities as it would encourage anyone they could be after to adopt more effective ways of avoiding surveillance, making it harder for authorities to keep track of the very people they want to keep track of. One can already get that Groundhog Day feeling just listing off the reasons why Lawful Access is bad. Regardless, Open Media has launched a petition website called Stop Online Spying (stopspying.ca) to encourage users to get involved early in opposing any such legislation. The petition makes the following arguments:

The government is trying to ram through an anti-Internet set of electronic surveillance laws that will invade your privacy and cost you money. The plan is to force every phone and Internet provider to surrender our personal information to "authorities" without a warrant. This bizarre legislation will create Internet surveillance that is: * Warrantless: A range of "authorities" will have the ability to invade the private lives of law-abiding Canadians and our families using wired Internet and mobile devices, without a warrant or any justification. * Invasive and Dangerous: The laws leave our personal and financial information less secure and more susceptible to cybercrime. * Costly: Internet services providers may be forced to install millions of dollars worth of spying technology and the cost will be passed down to YOU.

Michael Geist notes that the online petition received thousands of signatures on it's first day. As of this writing, the petition has collected a grand total of 36,677 signatures. It's a number that only stands to grow given how Canadians reacted to previous iterations of Lawful Access. The CBC adds:

The petition is backed by the Canadian and B.C. civil liberties associations, the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic at the University of Ottawa and the Tyee, a B.C.-based news and culture website. Several unions and independent media outlets are also supporting the campaign.

What will be interesting this time is seeing how opposition toward this legislation fares against a Conservative majority government. 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.

Canada’s Election: A Review of the Liberal Platform on Digital Issues

Drew Wilson — Sun, 17 Apr 2011 07:31:45 +0000

We've already reviewed the Conservative Party's platform on digital issues. Now we are reviewing the Liberal Party of Canada's platform on digital issues.

Canada is in the midst of an election. The question is, do different political parties stand for what you stand for when it comes to political issues? We went digging to find out and now, it's the Liberals turn. The Liberal Party's platform is available on the Liberal Party's website. We'll be taking notes from the Full PDF located on the right column of the web page. The Liberal Platform We begin on Page 21. The PDF viewer says it's page 21, but the pagination on the bottom right corner says it's actually page 19. The page number difference is due to the two cover pages at the beginning of the PDF counting in the PDF viewer, but not in the pagination.

Fair balance Between Creators and Consumers. Digital technology offers many new opportunities, but enjoying content without compensating its creators shouldn’t be among them. At the same time, consumers should have freedom for personal use of digital content they rightfully possess. Liberals have worked to pass effective copyright legislation, including a private copying compensation fund instead of any new tax on consumers.

This is a rather loaded paragraph. On the one hand, you have that eerie similarity between propaganda pushed by foreign record labels (CRIA) and the line about not allowing consumers to not pay for creators work. On the other hand, you have the more optimistic line about allowing creators to actually use something they legally paid for. The first part of the last sentence where they say they are working to pass effective copyright legislation is actually vague. Is the Liberal Party referring to Conservative legislation where they may have offered contributions or Bill C-60 back when they were last in power? The last part is interesting, but vague. If the Liberals aren't going to expand on the private copying levy as seen on CDs and DVDs and find a different way of compensating some artists (all artists would be far too hopeful as not all creators get compensated for the current private copying levy - namely smaller independent creators like myself) for private copying, what exactly is in the cards? I have a hard time picturing how more money can be found if it's not tacked on to the price of blank media. So, after some unpacking of the paragraph, it's actually hard to really pin an exact place where the Liberal Party stands on these issues based on this paragraph. Finding any reference to surveillance was a challenge. There is, however, the following paragraph:

Protection from Digital Threats. Just as openness and transparency are the sources of boundless innovation and creativity on the Internet, these same features are too often exploited for criminal purposes causing significant personal and economic disruption, harm to children, and even threats to national security. A Liberal government will make security a priority in Digital Canada, working to advance it with the private sector and other governments at home and abroad.

It's really hard to gauge from this paragraph exactly what is meant. Is this referring to Lawful Access or something else? One could dig and find meaning for Lawful Access, but it's so vague, one can't exactly say for certain that this is referencing Lawful Access or something else. Overall Impression The platform does have its cryptic moments to say the least. The copyright issues seem to point both directions. The Liberal Party might push copyright laws that is balanced and keeps consumers in mind or they might just copy the wish list of foreign record labels that don't have Canadians interest in mind and paste it in the next copyright reform bill. It's hard to say for certain which direction they intend on going. So, it's probably best to look at the Liberal Party's track record on this issue. When the Liberals were last in power, they introduced a copyright reform bill known as Bill C-60. Bill C-60 was blasted by its critics as being the Canadian DMCA. In fact, the idea of a Canadian DMCA first emerged from Bill C-60 and carried on through to the Conservatives Bill C-61. Many pointed to the flaws of the Canadian DMCA and noted how those flaws are being imported to Canada without public consultation. In a rather famous scene during the elections at the time, Sam Bulte, the Liberal heritage minister, remarked that she wouldn't listen to Michael Geist, the EFF and his "pro-user zealots". That led to bumper stickers of people being proud of being a "pro-user zealot". Ultimately, she lost her seat. Many people cite her track record on copyright and the famous incident as contributors to her downfall - sometimes going so far as to say that she lost her seat because her stance on copyright. In short, the Liberal track record on copyright when they were in power is pretty brutal. Still, after they lost power, Liberal MPs have been known to voice concerns over the Conservatives copyright reform bill. One key issue not mentioned in their platform, but mentioned in parliament in the past was the concerns over the digital locks provisions. They picked up on the concerns of DRM overriding consumer freedoms and raised the issue on a couple of occasions. Why that's not more directly in the platform is a mystery to me. Overall, I think the Liberals have a long way to go to redeem themselves over the mess they created with Bill C-60. The platform says that it's on the Liberals mind, but the direction is a little vague. On the front of privacy related issues, the platform really doesn't say a whole lot about surveillance or Lawful Access laws. So, we do have to turn to the track record of the Liberals. In 2005, the Liberals introduced Bill C-74. For those having a hard time remembering anything about this, CIPPIC discusses Lawful Access at length while referencing Bill C-74. Let's just say that the bill, in the views of privacy experts, was a train wreck and sparked major concerns for privacy. Unlike the issues with copyright, the Liberals lobbied hard for the Conservatives to re-introduce the legislation. Lawful Access in it's more recent iteration, would remove court oversight and give near wholesale access to private communications for the RCMP. As I've discussed in my previous review, this could very easily open the doors for abuse. So, in short, the Liberals track record on this issue is abysmal. Judging by the platform, it's really hard to say that the Liberals really turned a new leaf on this issue and listened to Canadians. In my personal opinion, when it comes to issues like copyright and privacy, it's hard to trust that the party will get the balance right. Their track record - particularly when they were last in power - really undermines a lot of the progress they've made in actually considering what Canadians concerns are. If the election was based on these issues, I can't say I'd be prepared to vote Liberal at this time. 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.

Canada’s Election: A Review of the Conservative Platform on Digital Issues

Drew Wilson — Sun, 17 Apr 2011 05:43:26 +0000

Recently, Canada was called in to an election. Now that all the political parties are on the campaign trail, what are they promising to those who watch the copyright and privacy file? Well, we went digging to find out.

A Brief Introduction When an election is called in Canada, it means all of the bills that have not been passed has died on the order paper. That means Bill C-32, Canada's copyright bill, and Bill C-50, C-51 and C-52, the lawful access bills, is no more. Whichever party wins the election may decide to re-introduce whatever legislation was previously introduced in the last session of parliament. Now that we are in an election, the different political parties are publishing their party platforms - effectively, promises they are issuing to the public should they get elected. Granted, political promises are generally cheap during an election because, as many Canadians know, countless promises have been broken before after the elections are over. Still, it is interesting to see what is being promised right now. We begin with one of the two largest parties in Canada and the party that was elected in the previous election, the Conservative Party of Canada. The Conservative Party platform is available via their official website. The Conservative Platform The issues we are covering start on page 15 under the title "Digital Economy Strategy" What is interesting is the following:

A Stephen Harper-led majority Government will also reintroduce and pass the Copyright Modernization Act, a key pillar in our commitment to make Canada a leader in the global digital economy. This balanced, commonsense legislation recognizes the practical priorities of teachers, students, artists, families, and technology companies, among others, while aligning Canada with international standards. It respects both the rights of creators and the interests of consumers. It will ensure that Canada’s copyright law will be responsive in a fast changing digital world, while protecting and creating jobs, promoting innovation, and attracting investment to Canada.

This is clearly a reference to Bill C-32. This is a bill that we reviewed thouroughly in the past. The major flaw in this particular bill is the provisions surrounding digital locks. If you want to remix or innovate in any way or even do some time-shifting or media shifting, a digital lock will legally trump all of that and make you legally a copyright scofflaw. DVD's with their CSS, for example, will prohibit many of the activities that would benefit consumers or even creators for that matter. BluRay with its BD or BD+ copy protection is in the same boat as well. In short, it's a DMCA-style provision that has contributed to the stunting of innovation in the US for years. Innovation legally stops at a digital lock in this case. Another point is found on pag 50 under the title "Reintroduction of Law-and-Order Legislation". The point is a little buried in a mix of other points, but it is there:

give law enforcement and national security agencies up-to-date tools to fight crime in today's high-tech telecommunications environment;

This is quite cleverly worded because if you do a word search for "Lawful Access", you will find nothing. Interestingly enough, "privacy" doesn't show up either. Still, this is very likely a reference to the Lawful Access bills C-50, C-51 and C-52. These bills would have allowed RCMP to conduct an investigation into someones internet activity without a court order. They would have access to, among other things, e-mails, text messaging, instant messaging and a whole lot more under the proposed laws. In short, it will completely strip away expectations of privacy from the prying eyes of the unchecked government. One of the big concerns with this is the potential for abuse. Say someone in the force suspects someone else of, say, cheating on them. They can simply go to the ISP and demand all the information about that particular person and pry in to their private lives. It's not hard to imagine a court rejecting such a thing, but without court oversight, who is going to stop such activity? I'm not saying that the RCMP have no right to do investigations on someone if they are merely on the internet, but I think many Canadians would feel a little better knowing that there is some sort of court oversight preventing any sign of abuse. Without checks and balances in place, I think such a thing is a very hard sell for those who have any concern for privacy in Canada. Overall Impression Copyright issues has had an interesting journey over the past few years. There were town hall meetings and an online consultation to at least give the impression that the government is listening. There were issues of those who were trying to push for more strict copyright laws shutting out those who disagree part way through, but at least the consultation existed in the first place. The Conservative government does have a mixed past when it comes to copyright. Last session was Bill C-32 where DRM stifled innovation, but it did have some interesting ideas in the bill as well (i.e. the YouTube provision), but the presence of DRM would cancel all the legal exceptions anyway. In the session before, the Conservative party introduced Bill C-61 which was essentially a wish-list of a few foreign record labels that really would have decimated Canadian innovation in all areas, not just in technology, but also music and freedom of expression. It's not hard to argue that if it wasn't for public outcry over the years on this issue, Bill C-32 would have likely been a carbon copy of its predecessor. Ultimately, though, the DRM issue is still there through both bills. Quite frankly, the Conservatives need to permit the exceptions even in the presence of DRM. Otherwise, the bill risks missing the point of copyright as being a tool to help creativity by simply hampering it. The situation with the Lawful Access bills is far worse. It's essentially what the Liberals wanted to pass when they were in power and the Conservatives merely copied it over into their version of the legislation. It was very unpopular when the Liberals were in power and such legislation won't exactly be getting any praise from those who are concerned about their privacy online. So, in general, I think the Conservative party are way off the mark when it comes to digital issues. The plans for copyright are still quite flawed in that they are still too strict and the Lawful Access plans are abysmal when it comes to addressing privacy. If the Conservatives are hoping to win over voters who are of a similar mind-set to me (values privacy and wants to be allowed to be innovative in creative works rather than be worried about being hampered by DRM), they need to seriously revamp their strategy quick. If things stay the way they are for the Conservatives position and the election were decided merely on these issues alone, the Conservatives lose my vote. 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.

French Minister Uses Non-Existent Benefits to Sell LOPPSI 2 Legislation

Drew Wilson — Wed, 05 Jan 2011 03:05:04 +0000

LOPPSI 2, the surveillance legislation in France, has been making headlines recently given that the legislation has re-entered political debate in recent weeks. The Interior Minister reportedly was out in the media telling everyone that one of the benefits of LOPPSI 2 is that it would stop cell phone theft in its tracks. Critics point to one tiny little problem with that sales-pitch - it doesn't exist in the legislation in its current form and blocking stolen phones is already possible.

LOPPSI 2 is a piece of French legislation that would make it legal for police to upload malware to suspected criminals and file-sharers alike without a court order without the users knowledge. When the story broke in 2009, it, at minimum, raised a few eyebrows. Many were quick to blast the legislation, saying that the legislation goes way too far. More recently, the legislation was back in the public spotlight in France and the Interior Minister Brice Hortefeux recently went in to the media to sell the benefits of LOPPSI 2 (Google Translation):

"Given that, I decided to take several measures," he announced. Among them, a measure "very important is that in the context of Loppsi 2, to be finally adopted at the end of the year, we change the system phones. Until now, when there had a phone stolen, they could block the SIM card. Now we can lock the phone. " "That means it will be much less attractive, naturally, to steal a phone. That's what happened 20 years ago with the radios. There were thefts of car radios, and we found ways techniques to discourage. "

In short, if LOPPSI 2 is passed, it would make stealing cell-phones/smart phones/iPhones less attractive because companies can then block the SIM cards and lock down the phone. Numerama, a French news site covering the story, points out that there is one problem with this comment, LOPPSI 2, in its current form, doesn't even discuss the theft of portable phones. Instead, there would have to be an amendment put in to make this purported benefit true. Another critic of the legislation pointed out (Google translation) that the blocking of SIM cards on stolen phones is already possible in the first place. So even if an amendment was introduced in to LOPPSI 2, there wouldn't be any added benefit on this front in the first place. Whether or not you are a fan of such intrusive surveillance laws, it's very hard to defend such a style of selling a law to the public. Trying to tell people of non-existent benefits of a proposed law is, at best, showing a sense of general ignorance to laws you helped to create in the first place and, at worse, is pushing a direct lie out in to the public. If you're going to sell the law to the public based on benefits, you'd think it is best to sell it on benefits that are actually in the legislation. We know all about what happens when lawmakers try and sell legislation they appear to know little about. Jim Prentice, when he was trying to sell Bill C-61, Canada's copyright legislation that ultimately died on the order-paper, kept telling Search Engine that a lot of what was being asked was "very technical" and wound up hanging up in the middle of the interview. Experts suggested that this was the result of the then minister not understanding the very bill he was in charge of. One thing is for sure, it didn't help him ease tensions amongst Canadians over the contentious "digital locks" or anti-circumvention law controversy. While the countries and political situations are more than likely different between Canada's Bill C-61 and France's current LOPPSI 2, it's not a stretch to suggest that the benefits of not knowing what is in the very legislation you are selling to local voters are similarly absent in both cases. Given that the French government has already forced the issue on the passage of the three strikes law (AKA HADOPI), I would say that the situation in France with regards to LOPPSI 2 is more distressing given that Canada is currently in a minority government situation - meaning that if the opposition isn't happy with what is being tabled, it can be voted down because there are more representatives in opposition than in the governing party. It remains to be seen what effect this will have on the overall privacy and surveillance debate in France though. It's unlikely that this revelation will quiet criticism towards the government though. 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.

French Surveillance Legislation LOPPSI 2 Debated in Senate

Drew Wilson — Wed, 08 Sep 2010 05:40:40 +0000

Is it right that police upload malware to users merely suspected of a crime without their consent, knowledge, or a court order? That might be what supporters of this controversial piece of legislation might think. The surveillance legislation known as LOPPSI 2 has made its way to the senate.

A little over a year ago, we broke the news in English that France was gearing up for a rather unprecedented piece of surveillance legislation. The legislation would allow police to upload malware including tracking cookies, Trojan horses and keyloggers to unsuspecting users without any need to explain why they did this for a period of four months. The intended target is basically people who are suspected of a general crime, although this would include file-sharers as well. A month later, the matter was being heavily debated and a cyber expert in France discussed the proposed law. Since then, things more or less died down thanks to HADOPI soaking up all of the attention as it precariously moved through the legal process enough times to finally be permitted to pass. Implementation, to this day, is still being worked out. All that has changed because the LOPPSI 2 legislation is back in the headlines once again. The legislation has, according to 01net, has moved to the senate where it is currently being debated. The translated headline pretty much said it all with "Loppsi filtering, cookies and CCTV in Senate debate" The crazy thing about the timing of this is the fact that it was just the other day, we were reporting how internet filtering in Australia has effectively died thanks, in part, due to all the human rights and free speech concerns. My question is, when it comes to technology related law at all, why does it seem like politicians around the world are racing to come up and pass the worst laws around? 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.

For Your Eyes Only… Or Not – ACTA Leaks Again

Drew Wilson — Thu, 15 Jul 2010 05:46:20 +0000

The ultra secret Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) may be one of the worst kept secrets in the international community. The updated version of the infamous text has leaked online.

ACTA recently came back in to headlines over major differences that could spell trouble for making the agreement negotiations quick. The full text updated to the first of July was leaked online. It's currently available at La Quadrature Du Net - all 34 pages of it. Currently, the concerns are that there would be tighter border controls to the point that people's iPods would be searched for pirated material. Another concern is that the text would bring in a "graduated response" or three strikes law to many other countries as well as bring in a global DMCA. While we have the text in our possession, we have yet to look through it at this point to confirm or deny anything at this point, still, this document might make for some very interesting reading to say the least. Huge props to the people with the guts and courage to keep leaking this material. Update: Special thanks to a Slashdot member for pointing out a transcribed non-PDF Wiki-format version of the text. 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.

Australian Law Proposal to Turn ISPs Into Copyright Cops

Drew Wilson — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 04:51:23 +0000

There’s a disturbing new development in Australia. A law proposal was disclosed to the public that would get ISPs to spy on the contents of all communications to monitor for compliance. Presumably, the amendments would get Australian ISPs to monitor their networks for p2p activity and hand all their information to copyright holders.

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.

Pirate Party of Canada Currently Seeking Membership

Drew Wilson — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 20:21:53 +0000

It may have taken a while, but the Pirate Party of Canada is finally on the road to forming. When asked about what’s currently happening, Jake Daynes of the Pirate Party of Canada said that the party is currently seeking membership to help give it some traction.

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.