Oh boy more restricted rights and freedoms in the name of fighting terrorist. Maybe we could have a daily feature called "guess what freedom you lost today in the semi-democratic police state of (insert country name here)". They say that the possession of viruses will now be illegal. It's my computer and if I want to load tons of viruses on it thatís what Iím going to do. Policing isnít suppose to be easy and thatís why industrial countries have such great police systems because actually put a little work into justifying there actions. Hopefully by 2003 the anti-terrorist zeal will have worn off and this bill wouldnít get passed.
The link:
http://news.com.com/2100-1023-955595.html

By Declan McCullagh
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
August 27, 2002, 12:56 PM PT

WASHINGTON--The Canadian government is considering a proposal that would force Internet providers to rewire their networks for easy surveillance by police and spy agencies.

A discussion draft released Sunday also contemplates creating a national database of every Canadian with an Internet account, a plan that could sharply curtail the right to be anonymous online.

The Canadian government, including the Department of Justice and Industry Canada, wrote the 21-page blueprint as a near-final step in a process that seeks to give law enforcement agents more authority to conduct electronic surveillance. A proposed law based on the discussion draft is expected to be introduced in Parliament late this year or in early 2003.

Arguing that more and more communications take place in electronic form, Canadian officials say such laws are necessary to fight terrorism and combat even run-of-the-mill crimes. They also claim that by enacting these proposals, Canada will be following its obligations under the Council of Europe's cybercrime treaty, which the country is in the process of considering.

If the discussion draft were to become law, it would outlaw the possession of computer viruses, authorize police to order Internet providers to retain logs of all Web browsing for up to six months, and permit police to obtain a search warrant allowing them to find "hidden electronic and digital devices" that a suspect might be concealing. In most circumstances, a court order would be required for government agents to conduct Internet monitoring.

Canada and the United States are nonvoting members of the Council of Europe, and representatives from both countries' police agencies have endorsed the controversial cybercrime treaty, which has drawn protests from human rights activists and civil liberties groups. Of nearly 50 participating nations, only Albania has formally adopted, or ratified, the treaty.

Michael Geist, a professor at the University of Ottawa who specializes in e-commerce law, says that the justification for adopting such sweeping changes to Canadian law seems weak.

"It seems to me that the main justification they've given for all the changes is that we want to ratify the cybercrime treaty and we need to make changes," Geist said. "To me that's not a particularly convincing argument. If there are new powers needed for law enforcement authority, make that case."

Geist added that "there's nothing in the document that indicates (new powers) are needed. I don't know that there have been a significant number of cases where police have run into problems."

Probably the most sweeping change the legal blueprint contemplates is compelling Internet providers and telephone companies to reconfigure their networks to facilitate government eavesdropping and data-retention orders. The United States has a similar requirement, called the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, but it applies only to pre-Internet telecommunications companies.

"It is proposed that all service providers (wireless, wireline and Internet) be required to ensure that their systems have the technical capability to provide lawful access to law enforcement and national security agencies," according to the proposal. Companies would be responsible for paying the costs of buying new equipment.

Sarah Andrews, an analyst at the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) who specializes in international law, says the proposal goes beyond what the cybercrime treaty specifies. "Their proposal for intercept capability talks about all service providers, not just Internet providers," Andrews said. "The cybercrime treaty deals only with computer data." EPIC opposes the cybercrime treaty, saying it grants too much power to police and does not adequately respect privacy rights.

Another section of the proposal says the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police recommends "the establishment of a national database" with personal information about all Canadian Internet users. "The implementation of such a database would presuppose that service providers are compelled to provide accurate and current information," the draft says.

Gus Hosein, a visiting fellow at the London School of Economics and an activist with Privacy International, calls the database "a dumb idea."

"Immediately you have to wonder if you're allowed to use anonymous mobile phones or whether you're allowed to connect to the Internet anonymously," Hosein said.

A representative for George Radwanski, Canada's privacy commissioner, said the office is reviewing the blueprint and does not "have any comments on the paper as it stands."